Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4969-A Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: September 21, 1993 2. Case No.: Z-4969 3. Request: Establishment of the SPRINGTREE VILLAGE AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD. 4. Location: 11701 and 11711 Springtree Drive 5. owner/Applicant: Robert A. & M. Sue Purifoy 6. Existing Status: The request involves two homesites owned by the applicant in a Planned Residential Development developed by Winrock Development in 1988. The applicant requested from Winrock Development, as provided for in the Bill of Assurance, permission to erect metal patio covers over the concrete patios at the two residences. When Winrock did not reply within the time limit stipulated in the Bill of Assurance, the Purifoy's proceeded with the erection of the coverings. The Purifoy's were, they report, unaware that approval of an amendment to the PRD site plan is required for any modifications to the approved plan. Zoning enforcement officers were notified of the violation and began enforcement proceedings, so the Purifoy's are seeking approval for the metal canopies already installed. The Purifoy's also requested approval for fencing of the back yards of the two residences, and for the placing of a portable storage building at the rear lot line of the lot where they reside. Since there is a dedicated open space along the rear of the property, and since Winrock Development was unwilling to approve these two additional requests, the applicant withdrew these two requests until further negations with Winrock Development could take place. 7. Proposed Use: Single-family residential 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval 10. Conditions or issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 10 ayes, 1 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions 13. Objectors: None 14. Neighborhood Plan: Geyer Springs - West (15) FILE NO • Z-4 69--A NAME: SPRINGTREE VILLAGE - AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD LOCATION: 11701 and 11711 Springtree Drive DEVELOPER: ROBERT A. AND M. SUE PURIFOY 11701 Springtree Drive Little Rock, AR 562-1896 BRA : .165 and .118 ACRES NUMBER OF LLT : 2 fT, NEW STREE : 0 ZONING: PRD PROP SED OSE2: Residential PLANNING DI TRI T: 15 CENSOS _TRACT: 41.06 VARIANQE RE E TED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amendment to the existing PRD in order to make the following modifications to properties the applicant has purchased: 1. At 11701 Springtree Drive, install a metal patio cover over the existing concrete patio, fence the rear yard, move the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the rear open space and utility easement, and construct a metal storage building 3 feet off the rear and south property lines. 2. At 11711 Springtree Drive, install a metal patio cover over the existing concrete patio and fence the rear yard. A. PROPOSAWREQUES_T: Review by the Planning Commission and a favorable recommendation to the Board of Directors for an amendment to the existing PRD is requested. The applicant requests approval to cover existing concrete patio slabs with metal patio covers at the two residences, to fence the back yards at both residences, and to relocate the rear building line and construct a storage building at the rear of the property on one of the residences. FILE NO • Z -4969-A' (Con inu d) B. LXISTINQ CQND 5-1—Q- S: Both sites are developed, with a single family residence located on each. The sites are located within the Springtree village PRD. This PRD was established in 1988, but only a few residences have been constructed in the area. This applicant has purchased two of the existing residences, one being the model home/sales office and has constructed metal patio covers over the existing concrete patios. Zoning Enforcement noted the illegal work and the applicant is attempting to gain approval for the work anticipated as well as the work already done. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering made no comment on the request. The Fire Department approved the request as submitted. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company approved the plats as submitted. D. ISSUE /LEGALITECHNICAL/DESIGN: On the site of 11701 Springtree Drive, the applicant requests relocating the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the rear 30 foot open space and utility easement. At the same time, the applicant requests to be able to construct a storage building 3 feet off the rear and south property lines, this within the 30 foot easement. Either the storage building must be located outside the 30 foot easement or the easement will have to be abandoned at that location. E. ANALY I : When a PUD site plan is approved, the features shown make up the scope of what is allowed to be constructed or placed on the site. Any modifications must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and an amendment to the PUD must be approved by the Board of Directors. The applicant requests approval of a modification to the existing PRD. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested modifications to the existing PRD, except to the placing of the storage building in the open space and utility easement. Modifying of or abandoning this easement is not recommended. 0a FILE Z -4969-A: (Continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 13, 1993) The applicant nor a representative was present at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented the request and outlined the desired modifications to the approved site plan. The Committee noted that a 13.4 foot side yard on 11711 Springtree Drive and with the "zero" lot line configuration of the PRD (meaning that the house next door would be located just 10.3 feet from the north side of this residence), the patio cover would be only 3.4 feet from the next house. No recommendation was proposed, and the Committee referred the item to the full Commission for resolution. It was suggested, however, that a less cumbersome means of allowing buyers to make minor changes to the existing PRD should be implemented by the developer: possibly amending the Bill of Assurance to that effect. PLMINING COMMISSION ACTIO : (JUNE 1, 1993) Mrs. Sue Purifoy, the applicant, and Mr. Scot Goldsholl, her attorney, were present to present the proposed amendments to the PRD. Staff outlined the proposal and indicated that a letter had been received from the developer, Winrock Development, indicating their concerns in the application; specifically, that they objected to any encroachment into the designated open space, but did not object to covering the concrete patios with metal patio covers. Mr. Goldsholl presented the explanation that the Burifoys had bought two homes in Springtree village PRD approximately one year ago: 11701 Springtree Drive where the Purifoys reside, and 11711 which they lease to a tenant. Mrs. Purifoy explained that right after they had purchased the residences, they began what they perceived to be the appropriate means of gaining approval to make the modifications they wished to make. They contacted Winrock and talked with Rick Rogers of Winrock who came to their home and reviewed with them their - requested changes. They made numerous attempts to follow up with Winrock on their request, Mrs. Puriofy reported, but to date, nearly ten (10) months later, Winrock still has not responded. According to the Bill of Assurance, Mrs. Purifoy explained, if the developer does not respond within thirty (30) days, the requested changes are deemed to be approved and the property owner may proceed. Therefore, the Purifoys added the metal covers at the patios in November of 1992. zoning Enforcement personnel, however, noted the additions and have under taken enforcement proceedings against the Purifoys. Gaining approval of the modifications which have already been constructed, as well as the additional modifications which are desired is the request presented. 3 F Z-4969-A' n Mr. Goldsholl explained that at 11701 Springtree Drive, the Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio cover; be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the two side property lines and from the residence out to the north property line; be allowed to move the rear building line east to coincide with the open space and utility easement line at the rear of their property; and, additionally, gain approval for the placing of a metal storage building at the rear of the property (within the open space and utility easement) three (3) feet off the rear and south property lines. At 11711 Springtree Drive, Mr. Goldsholl explained that the Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio cover; and, be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the two side lot lines and from the side of the house to the north to the side lot line. Mrs. Purifoy added that the request to move the rear building line back to the easement line was in order to provide the space needed for a planned future expansion of their residence. Chairman walker made the observation that he wondered if this item was being thought about properly: should the Bill of Assurance be the proper recourse for the Purifoys, or should the PRD be amended? He cautioned Mrs. Purifoy, though, that simply relocating the building line would not provide the clearance needed to make the planned addition to the residence; that further site plan review would be required when plans are completed. Staff commented that the concept of the Springtree village PRD was for small lot affordable housing with designated open space and no outbuildings and carports. If changes are made and the open space is encroached upon, there is a difference "picture" created. Staff stated that the established and approved PRD site plan is the controlling instrument as to what is permitted in the PRD. Mrs. Purifoy added that that of the thirty-three lots in the subdivision, there are approximately ten (10) which are developed; that the residents are predominantly low income people who cannot afford to go through the process which they are undertaking to gain approval of modifications, but that a number of other people in the subdivision want to make similar modifications; that the next door neighbor to their home at 11701 Springtree Drive will be going 1150-50" on the cost of the fence between them; that the neighbor to the east in the adjacent subdivision has already erected the fence at the rear, at the east edge of the open space -utility easement; that vandalism and thefts have made adding the fences an important request; and, that the builder who had originally built the houses in the subdivision had erected fences and patio covers, and had placed a storage building in the open space easement when he built at least one other house. The Purifoys, then, felt that what the builder had done himself, they and others in the PRD ought to be able to do, as well. 4 FIL Z-4969-4& n jn Thoughts from various Commission Members and from Staff followed. It was suggested that there might be a possibility of property owners forming a Property Owners Association to present a comprehensive application to modify the PRD. It was questioned whether there ought to be enforcement on this level of detail. It was reiterated that maintaining the open space concept was paramount in this PRD to keep the "look" of the basic concept. Mrs. Purifoy responded that the rest of the property owner - residents of the PRD want similar changes, but cannot afford to pursue the required process. As the same time, she added, she and her husband should not bear the costs for legal and filing fees for the entire subdivision and the other residents. From comments from most of the Commissioners, the consensus emerged that the Commission is unwilling to deal with an application from an individual property owner within a PRD on specific items for modification on that property owner's individual lot; that the Commissioners want to look at a combined comprehensive request; and, that the Commissioners would prefer to defer consideration of the request to allow further thought and study, and to allow the applicant to bring in a group request from the neighborhood. Mrs. Purifoy recounted that she and her husband were being required to bear the burden of the costs for the comprehensive request. A motion was made by the Commission, however, to defer, with the applicants concurrence, consideration of the matter until the June 15, 1993, hearing date; that in the interim, the Staff help the Purifoys and their neighbors formulate an appropriate and comprehensive application for the Commission's review. The motion carried with 9 ayes and 0 nays. TAFF PDATE: There has been no resolution of the impasse which as arisen. winrock has not agreed to amend its requirements and the Hill of Assurance and staff is not amenable to a recommendation that the open space designation be changed to permit encroachment into that area. (AUGUST 24, 1993) The applicant, Mrs. Sue Purifoy and her attorney, Mr. Scot Goldsholl, were present. Staff outlined the request, but deferred to Mr. Goldsholl who had indicated that the applicant wished to amend her request. Mr. Goldsholl reported that the applicant wished to limit her request to approval of the metal patio covers only, and to delete from her request for approval of R NO.; 75-4.9.69-A _ (Gond the fencing and portable storage building. Mr. Goldsholl reported that Winrock had agreed to amend the Bill of Assurance to permit the metal patio covers if approved by the City. Winrock, however, was unwilling to permit the fencing and storage buildings in the PRD, Mr. Goldsholl indicated. Mr. Goldsholl related that the metal patio covers had been installed in 1992, and that approval was being sought to allow the two covers to remain in place; that the two covers were the subject of enforcement action which was pending. The Commission discussed at length the merits of considering this application as an individual application as opposed to one which would be on behalf of the entire PRD. There was a desire on the part of the Commission to keep from hearing similar requests by each owner of a lot in the PRD, and, instead, recommend approval of patio covers for each lot. The City Attorney indicated that, if the entire PRD were being amended, the applicant would have to be or include Winrock. At this time, only the two lots owned by the applicants could be considered. Staff reported that the PRD was established to control development on the small lots and to retain open space. If a blanket approval for coverings were granted, without review, it would not be long before there would be no side yards. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval to the Board of Directors of the applicant's request for an amendment to the PRD for the two lots owned by the applicant to permit to permit the metal coverings previously installed over the concrete patios to remain. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes and 1 nay. 6 August 24, 1993 ITEM D FILE NO.; Z-4 -A DAME: SPRINGTREE VILLAGE - AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD LOCATION: 11701 and 11711 Springtree Drive DEVELOPER : ROBERT A. AND M. SUE PURIFOY 11701 Springtree Drive Little Rock, AR 562-1896 AREA: .165 and .118 ACRES NUMBER OF L T : 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 41.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None The applicant proposes an amendment to the existing PRD in order to make the following modifications to properties the applicant has purchased: 1. At 11701 Springtree Drive, install a metal patio cover over the existing concrete patio, fence the rear yard, move the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the rear open space and utility easement, and construct a metal storage building 3 feet off the rear and south property lines. 2. At 11711 Springtree Drive, install a metal patio cover over the existing concrete patio and fence the rear yard. A. PRQPOSALIREQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a favorable recommendation to the Board of Directors for an amendment to the existing PRD is requested. The applicant requests approval to cover existing concrete patio slabs with metal patio covers at the two residences, to fence the back yards at both residences, and to relocate the rear building line and construct a storage building at the rear of the property on one of the residences. August 24, 1993 SDIVI I ITEM NQ,. D (Continued) FILE NO,: Z-4 --A B. EXISTING ITT Both sites are developed, with a single family residence located on each. The sites are located within the Springtree Village PRD. This PRD was established in 1988, but only a few residences have been constructed in the area. This applicant has purchased two of the existing residences, one being the model home/sales office and has constructed metal patio covers over the existing concrete patios. Zoning Enforcement noted the illegal work and the applicant is attempting to gain approval for the work anticipated as well as the work already done. C. F,NGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering made no comment on the request. The Fire Department approved the request as submitted. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company approved the plats as submitted. D. ISSUES /LEGAL /TECHNIQAL /DES IGN: On the site of 11701 Springtree Drive, the applicant requests relocating the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the rear 30 foot open space and utility easement. At the same time, the applicant requests to be able to construct a storage building 3 feet off the rear and south property lines, this within the 30 foot easement. Either the storage building must be located outside the 30 foot easement or the easement will have to be abandoned at that location. E. ANALYSIS• when a PUD site plan is approved, the features shown make up the scope of what is allowed to be constructed or placed on the site. Any modifications must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and an amendment to the PUD must be approved by the Board of Directors. The applicant requests approval of a modification to the existing PRD. F. TAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested modifications to the existing PRD, except to the placing of the storage building in the open space and utility easement. Modifying of or abandoning this easement is not recommended. 2 August 24, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM 190, D (Contin FILE Z-4 -A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 13, 1993) The applicant nor a representative was present at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented the request and outlined the desired modifications to the approved site plan. The Committee noted that a 13.4 foot side yard on 11711 Springtree Drive and with the "zero" lot line configuration of the PRD (meaning that the house next door would be located just 10.3 feet from the north side of this residence), the patio cover would be only 3.4 feet from the next house. No recommendation was proposed, and the Committee referred the item to the full Commission for resolution. It was suggested, however, that a less cumbersome means of allowing buyers to make minor changes to the existing PRD should be implemented by the developer: possibly amending the Bill of Assurance to that effect. WIFF21AIRM" ii of 11 Mrs. Sue Purifoy, the applicant, and Mr. Scot Goldsholl, her attorney, were present to present the proposed amendments to the PRD. Staff outlined the proposal and indicated that a letter had been received from the developer, Winrock Development, indicating their concerns in the application; specifically, that they, objected to any encroachment into the designated open space, but did not object to covering the concrete patios with metal patio covers. Mr. Goldsholl presented the explanation that the Purifoys had bought two homes in Springtree Village PRD approximately one year ago: 11701 Springtree Drive where the Purifoys reside, and 11711 which they lease to a tenant. Mrs. Purifoy explained that right after they had purchased the residences, they began what they perceived to be the appropriate means of gaining approval to make the modifications they wished to make. They contacted Winrock and talked with Rick Rogers of Winrock who came to their home and reviewed with them their requested changes. They made numerous attempts to follow up with Winrock on their request, Mrs. Puriofy reported, but to date, nearly ten (10) months later, Winrock still has not responded. According to the Bill of Assurance, Mrs. Purifoy explained, if the developer does not respond within thirty (30) days, the requested changes are deemed to be approved and the property owner may proceed. Therefore, the Purifoys added the metal covers at the patios in November of 1992. Zoning Enforcement personnel, however, noted the additions and have under taken enforcement proceedings against the Purifoys. Gaining approval of the modifications which have already been constructed, as well as the additional modifications which are desired is the request presented. K August 24, 1993 1: 0• ITEM D n in d FILE • Z-4962- Mr. Goldsholl explained that at 11701 Springtree Drive, the Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio cover; be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the two side property lines and from the residence out to the north property line; be allowed to move the rear building line east to coincide with the open space and utility easement line at the rear of their property; and, additionally, gain approval for the placing of a metal storage building at the rear of the property (within the open space and utility easement) three (3) feet off the rear and south property lines. At 11711 Springtree Drive, Mr. Goldsholl explained that the Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio cover; and, be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the two side lot lines and from the side of the house to the north to the side lot line. Mrs. Purifoy added that the request to move the rear building line back to the easement line was in order to provide the space needed for a planned future expansion of their residence. Chairman Walker made the observation that he wondered if this item was being thought about properly: should the Hill of Assurance be the proper recourse for the Purifoys, or should the PRD be amended? He cautioned Mrs. Purifoy, though, that simply relocating the building line would not provide the clearance needed to make the planned addition to the residence; that further site plan review would be required when plans are completed. Staff commented that the concept of the Springtree village PRD was for small lot affordable housing with designated open space and no outbuildings and carports. If changes are made and the open space is encroached upon, there is a difference "picture"_ created. Staff stated that the established and approved PRD site plan is the controlling instrument as to what is permitted in the PRD. Mrs. Purifoy added that that of the thirty-three lots in the subdivision, there are approximately ten (10) which are developed; that the residents are predominantly low income people who cannot afford to go through the process which they are undertaking to gain approval of modifications, but that a number of other people in the subdivision want to make similar modifications; that the next door neighbor to their home at 11701 Springtree Drive will be going 1150-50" on the cost of the fence between them; that the neighbor to the east in the adjacent subdivision has already erected the fence at the rear, at the east edge of the open space -utility easement; that vandalism and thefts have made adding the fences an important request; and, that the builder who had originally built the houses in the subdivision had erected fences and patio covers, and had placed a 4 August 24, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEMD n in FILE NO,; Z-4 -A storage building in the open space easement when he built at least one other house. The Purifoys, then, felt that what the builder had done himself, they and others in the PRD ought to be able to do, as well. Thoughts from various Commission Members and from Staff followed. It was suggested that there might be a possibility of property owners forming a Property owners Association to present a comprehensive application to modify the PRD. It was questioned whether there ought to be enforcement on this level of detail. It was reiterated that maintaining the open space concept was paramount in this PRD to keep the "look" of the basic concept. Mrs. Purifoy responded that the rest of the property owner - residents of the PRD want similar changes, but cannot afford to pursue the required process. As the same time, she added, she and her husband should not bear the costs for legal and filing fees for the entire subdivision and the other residents. From comments from most of the Commissioners, the consensus emerged that the Commission is unwilling to deal with an application from an individual property owner within a PRD on specific items for modification on that property owner's individual lot; that the Commissioners want to look at a combined comprehensive request; and, that the Commissioners would prefer to defer consideration of the request to allow further thought and study, and to allow the applicant to bring in a group request from the neighborhood. Mrs. Purifoy recounted that she and her husband were being required to bear the burden of the costs for the comprehensive request. A motion was made by the Commission, however, to defer, with the applicants concurrence, consideration of the matter until the .Tune 15, 1993, hearing date; that in the interim, the Staff help the Purifoys and their neighbors formulate an appropriate and comprehensive application for the Commission's review. The motion carried with 9 ayes and 0 nays. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no resolution of the Winrock has not agreed to amend its Assurance and staff is not amenable open space designation be changed to that area. 5 impasse which as arisen. requirements and the Bill of to a recommendation that the permit encroachment into August 24, 1993 R�iric- &&Wi !Ei ARI ITEM NO.: D (Conti=ed) FILE NO.: Z --4969-A PLMMING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 24, 1993) The applicant, Mrs. Sue Purifoy and her attorney, Mr. Scot Goldsholl, were present. Staff outlined the request, but deferred to Mr. Goldsholl who had indicated that the applicant wished to amend her request. Mr. Goldsholl reported that the applicant wished to limit her request to approval of the metal patio covers only, and to delete from her request for approval of the fencing and portable storage building. Mr. Goldsholl reported that Winrock had agreed to amend the Bill of Assurance to permit the metal patio covers if approved by the City. Winrock, however, was unwilling to permit the fencing and storage buildings in the PRD, Mr. Goldsholl indicated. Mr. Goldsholl related that the metal patio covers had been installed in 1992, and that approval was being sought to allow the two covers to remain in place; that the two covers were the subject of enforcement action which was pending. The Commission discussed at length the merits of considering this application as an individual application as opposed to one which would be on behalf of the entire PRD. There was a desire on the part of the Commission to keep from hearing similar requests by each owner of a lot in the PRD, and, instead, recommend approval of patio covers for each lot. The City Attorney indicated that, if the entire PRD were being amended, the applicant would have to be or include Winrock. At this time, only the two lots owned by the applicants could be considered. Staff reported that the PRD was established to control development on the small lots and to retain open space. If a blanket approval for coverings were granted, without review, it would not be long before there would be no side yards. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval to the Board of Directors of the applicant's request for an amendment to the PRD for the two lots owned by the applicant to permit to permit the metal coverings previously installed over the concrete patios to remain. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes and 1 nay. 6 June 1, 1993 ITEM N 54 FILE NO. - Z-10550-8 DAME: SPRINGTREE VILLAGE - AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD LOCATION: 11701 and 11711 Springtree Drive DEVELOPER: ROBERT A. AND M. SUE PURIFOY 11701 Springtree Drive Little Rock, AR 562-1896 AREA: .165 and .118 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD PROPOSED ❑SES: Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 41.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amendment to the existing PRD in order to make the following modifications to properties the applicant has purchased: 1. At 11701 Springtree Drive, install a metal patio cover over the existing concrete patio, fence the rear yard, move the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the rear open space and utility easement, and construct a metal storage building 3 feet off the rear and south property lines. 2. At 11711 Springtree Drive, install a metal patio cover over the existing concrete patio and fence the rear yard. A. PROPOSAL RE VEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a favorable recommendation to the Board of Directors for an amendment to the existing PRD is requested. The applicant requests approval to cover existing concrete patio slabs with metal patio covers at the two residences, to fence the back yards at both residences, and to relocate the rear building line and construct a storage building at the rear of the property on one of the residences. June 1, 1993 SUBDI VI S I ON ITEM NO,: 4 ( Continued) FILE NO.- Z -4959-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Both sites are developed, with a single family residence located on each. The sites are located within the Springtree Village PRD. This PRD was established in 1988, but only a few residences have been constructed in the area. This applicant has purchased two of the existing residences, one being the model home/sales office and has constructed metal patio covers over the existing concrete patios. Zoning Enforcement noted the illegal work and the applicant is attempting to gain approval for the work anticipated as well as the work already done. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering made no comment on the request. The Fire Department approved the request as submitted. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company approved the plats as submitted. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: On the site of 11701 Springtree Drive, the applicant requests relocating the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the rear 30 foot open space and utility easement. At the same time, the applicant requests to be able to construct a storage building 3 feet off the rear and south property lines, this within the 30 foot easement. Either the storage building must be located outside the 30 foot easement or the easement will have to be abandoned at that location. E. ANALYSIS: when a PUD site plan is approved, the features shown make up the scope of what is allowed to be constructed or placed on the site. Any modifications must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and an amendment to the PUD must be approved by the Board of Directors. The applicant requests approval of a modification to the existing PRD. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested modifications to the existing PRD, except to the placing of the storage building in the open space and utility easement. Modifying of or abandoning this easement is not recommended. 2 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4969-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 13, 1993) The applicant nor a representative was present at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented the request and outlined the desired modifications to the approved site plan. The Committee noted that a 13.4 foot side yard on 11711 Springtree Drive and with the "zero" lot line configuration of the PRD (meaning that the house next door would be located just 10.3 feet from the north side of this residence), the patio cover would be only 3.4 feet from the next house. No recommendation was proposed, and the Committee referred the item to the full Commission for resolution. It was suggested, however, that a less cumbersome means of allowing buyers to make minor changes to the existing PRD should be implemented by the developer:' possibly amending the Bill of Assurance to that effect. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 1, 1993) Mrs. Sue Purifoy, the applicant, and Mr. Scot Goldsholl, her attorney, were present to present the proposed amendments to the PRD. Staff outlined the proposal and indicated that a letter had been received from the developer, Winrock Development, indicating their concerns in the application; specifically, that they objected to any encroachment into the designated open space, but did not object to covering the concrete patios with metal patio covers. Mr. Goldsholl presented the explanation that the Purifoys had bought two homes in Springtree Village PRD approximately one year ago: 11701 Springtree Drive where the Purifoys reside, and 11711 which they lease to a tenant. Mrs. Purifoy explained that right after they had purchased the residences, they began what they perceived to be the appropriate means of gaining approval to make the modifications they wished to make. They contacted Winrock and talked with Rick Rogers of Winrock who came to their home and reviewed with them their requested changes. They made numerous attempts to follow up with Winrock on their request, Mrs. Puriofy reported, but to date, nearly ten (1Q) months later, Winrock still has not responded. According to the Bill of Assurance, Mrs. Purifoy explained, if the developer does not respond within thirty (30) days, the requested changes are deemed to be approved and the property owner may proceed. Therefore, the Purifoys added the metal covers at the patios in November of 1992. zoning Enforcement personnel, however, noted the additions and have under taken enforcement proceedings against the Purifoys. Gaining approval of the modifications which have already been constructed, as well as the additional modifications which are desired is the request presented. June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM No._: 4 (Continued) FILE NO_._;_ Z -4969-A Mr. Goldsholl explained that at 11701 Springtree Drive, the Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio cover; be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the two side property lines and from the residence out to the north property line; be allowed to move the rear building line east to coincide with the open space and utility easement line at the rear of their property; and, additionally, gain approval for the placing of a metal storage building at the rear of the property (within the open space and utility easement) three (3) feet off the rear and south property lines. At 11711 Springtree Drive, Mr. Goldsholl explained that the Purifoys wish to gain approval for the now existing metal patio cover; and, be allowed to fence the rear yard with fences along the two side lot lines and from the side of the house to the north to the side lot line. Mrs. Purifoy added that the request to move the rear building line back to the easement line was in order to provide the space needed for a planned future expansion of their residence. Chairman Walker made the observation that he wondered if this item was being thought about properly: should the Bill of Assurance be the proper recourse for the Purifoys, or should the PRD be amended? He cautioned Mrs. Purifoy, though, that simply relocating the building line would not provide the clearance needed to make the planned addition to the residence; that further site plan review would be required when plans are completed. Staff commented that the concept of the Springtree Village PRD was for small lot affordable housing with designated open space and no outbuildings and carports. If changes are made and the open space is encroached upon, there is a difference "picture" created. Staff stated that the established and approved PRD site plan is the controlling instrument as to what is permitted in the PRD. Mrs. Purifoy added that that of the thirty-three lots in the subdivision, there are approximately ten (10) which are developed; that the residents are predominantly low income people who cannot afford to go through the process which they are undertaking to gain approval of modifications, but that a number of other people in the subdivision want to make similar modifications; that the next door neighbor to their home at 11701 Springtree Drive will be going 1150-50" on the cost of the fence between them; that the neighbor to the east in the adjacent subdivision has already erected the fence at the rear, at the east edge of the open space -utility easement; that vandalism and thefts have made adding the fences an important request; and, that the builder who had originally built the houses in the subdivision had erected fences and patio covers, and had placed a 4 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.; Z -4.9.5.9-A storage building in the open space easement when he built at least one other house. The Purifoys, then, felt that what the builder had done himself, they and others in the PRD ought to be able to do, as well. Thoughts from various Commission Members and from Staff followed. It was suggested that there might be a possibility of property owners forming a Property Owners Association to present a comprehensive application to modify the PRD. It was questioned whether there ought to be enforcement on this level of detail. It was reiterated that maintaining the open space concept was paramount in this PRD to keep the "look" of the basic concept. Mrs. Purifoy responded that the rest of the property owner - residents of the PRD want similar changes, but cannot afford to pursue the required process. As the same time, she added, she and her husband should not bear the costs for legal and filing fees for the entire subdivision and the other residents. From comments from most of the Commissioners, the consensus emerged that the Commission is unwilling to deal with an application from an individual property owner within a PRD on specific items for modification on that property owner's individual lot; that the Commissioners want to look at a combined comprehensive request; and, that the Commissioners would prefer to defer consideration of the request to allow further thought and study, and to allow the applicant to bring in a group request from the neighborhood. Mrs. Purifoy recounted that she and her husband were being required to bear the burden of the costs for the comprehensive request. A motion was made by the Commission, however, to defer, with the applicants concurrence, consideration of the matter until the June 15, 1993, hearing date; that in the interim, the Staff help the Purifoys and their neighbors formulate an appropriate and comprehensive application for the Commission's review. The motion carried with 9 ayes and 0 nays. 5