Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6120-P Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -6120-P NAME: Governor's Manor Revised PD -R LOCATION: Located at Rushmore Avenue and Capitol Hills Boulevard DEVELOPER: Accountable Property Management Corp c/o Ted Upshaw 11523 Kanis Road, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 9.120 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 45 PD -R Single-family P D -R FT, NEW STREET: 0 LF PROPOSED USE: Single-family — Modify previous specifics of the PD -R which include roof pitch, fencing materials, reduce the minimum square footage of the homes, remove the perimeter fencing requirement VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a proposed preliminary plat application for the site at their April 22, 2004, Public Hearing. The Commission made a recommendation of approval of the proposed preliminary plat, which was then forwarded to the Little Rock Board of Directors for final action on September 7, 2004. The Little Rock Board of Directors denied the requested variances for the proposed preliminary plat and suggested the applicant refile the request as a PD -R through the planned development process. FILE NO.: Z -6120-P Cont.l Ordinance No. 19,261 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 4, 2005, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to PD -R and established Governors Manor Long -form PD -R. The approval allowed the subdivision of the 9.12 -acre site into 45 single-family lots. The request resulted in a density of 4.9 units per acre. There were several variances from the Subdivision Ordinance approved as a part of the development which included reduced front building lines, reduced lot depths, reduced lot widths on several of the proposed lots and reduced minimum lot square footage$. The subdivision was designed as a gated community but the gates would not be installed at the time of development. The development was approved with the average size of the lots as 50 -feet by 90 -feet. The lots were designed to accommodate "patio" or "garden style" homes with smaller yards. Buildable areas on the lots ranged from approximately 4,600 to 2,150 square feet with the smallest allowable residence to be 1,600 square feet. The lots were approved with a 12.5 -foot front building line, 5 -foot side yard setbacks and 10 -foot rear yard setbacks. Each lot would have a minimum of 1,600 square feet of private open space. The improvement plan indicated the location of the improvements on the lots, along with any driveways or sidewalks, to ensure adequate views and privacy within the subdivision. Only one detached single-family residence not to exceed two and one-half stories in height would be placed on any lot. All residences less than 3,000 square feet would have a minimum roof pitch of 10/12 and those greater than 3,000 square feet would have a minimum roof pitch of 8/12. All roofs were to have architectural shingles. All exteriors were to be 100 percent brick, dryvit or rock to the facia, with siding being permitted above the facia. Each lot would be allowed one accessory structure. The accessory structure would be of an architectural design and exterior finish in harmony with the residence and general surroundings. The accessory structures were not to exceed the height or floor area of the principal dwelling. No prefabricated structures or metal buildings would be permitted as accessory structures. The owner was to install a six foot tall wrought iron fence along all lot lines which abutted Capitol Hills Boulevard and the Oasis Renewal Center, specifically the side lot line of Lots 1, 45, 37, 36, 29, and 28; which were adjacent to Capitol Hills Boulevard, and the rear lot line of Lots 9 through 28; which were adjacent to the Oasis Renewal Center. Lot owners would not be allowed to remove or install any other fencing along these lot lines where the Developer installed the wrought iron fencing. All privacy fences installed by the lot owner were to be six feet in height and 100 percent cedar wood. No chain link or similar fence would be used under any circumstances. Any retaining walls were to be constructed of 100 percent brick, brick or stucco material. The Property Owners Association would be responsible for maintaining the wrought iron fencing installed by the Developer. The areas designated on the plat as Pennsylvania Court, Governors Cove, Pennsylvania Avenue, the entrance and exit gates to the property, all related landscaping islands and related structures and all improvements 2 FILE NO.: Z -6120-P (Cont - were Cont. were to be maintained by the Property Owners Association. The open space and Lake Governor were to be maintained by the owners of lots in the proposed subdivision in conjunction with the owners of lots in Phase 1 B, Capitol Lakes Estates Addition. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved PD -R and Bill of Assurance for the subdivision. The modifications proposed include a revision to the roof pitch, a change to the minimum square footage of the homes, removal of the requirement for the developer to build a six foot wrought iron fence and removal of the requirement that all interior fencing be constructed of cedar. The developer is requesting to reduce the required roof pitch from a 10/12 for homes less than 3,000 square feet and 8/12 for homes greater than 3,000 square feet to an 8/12 regardless of the home size. The request also includes a reduction in the minimum square footage of the homes from 1,500 square feet to 1,400 square feet of heated and cooled space. The current approval does not define the minimum square footage of the homes as heated and cooled; only specifies the minimum square footage. The previous approval requires all interior fences to be constructed of one hundred percent cedar materials. The developer desires to remove this requirement and require all fences to be constructed of a wood material with no specific species of wood material identified. The final modification to the PD -R is to remove the requirement for construction of a wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the site. A six foot tall wrought iron fence along all lot lines which abutted Capitol Hills Boulevard and the Oasis Renewal Center was required with the original approval. The developer wishes to remove this requirement and allow individual lot owners to place fencing along their property lines as desired. The developer has indicated the allowed fences would be six foot high constructed of wood, brick or brick and wrought iron. As was previously approved the six foot fencing may be located within the building setback. All the issues raised for modification are in conflict with the Bill of Assurance for the Subdivision. If the modifications are approved for the PD -R the owner will then pursue a modification to the Bill of Assurance through the mechanism identified in the Bill of Assurance for modifications. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Street construction has been completed within the subdivision and the lots have been final platted. The entire subdivision was cleared at the time of infrastructure construction. Ten to twelve new homes have been constructed and several new homes are in various stages of completion. Capitol Hills Boulevard has been constructed to Master Street Plan standard adjacent to the site. The interior W FILE NO.: Z -6120-P Cont. streets were constructed as private streets. Gates have been installed at the entrances to the subdivision and Capitol Hill Boulevard. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from the area property owners. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Enter : No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment. County Planninq: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PD -R. This revision is to allow a reduction in the required roof pitch, minimum square footage of the homes, modifications to the allowed interior fencing and the removal of the required perimeter fencing for previously approved PD -R and is not proposing a change in use. The proposed land uses in the Planned Development are consistent with the Residential Low Density Category. Il FILE NO.: Z -6120-P Cont. Master Street Plan: Capitol Hills Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic on pedestrians. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Rushmore Avenue is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. Nei hborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 12, 2009) Mr. Ted Upshaw was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the PD -R amendment request to the Committee members. Staff stated there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Commissioner Yates questioned if the existing homeowners were on board with the request. Staff stated notification was sent to all property owners of the subdivision via certified mail as well as staff's post card notification. Staff stated at this point there had not been any calls concerning the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing raised at the November 12, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting, The applicant is proposing to amend the PD -R for the Governor's Manor Subdivision eliminating the requirement for a perimeter fence and that all interior fences be constructed of cedar, to modify the minimum roof pitch and change the minimum square footage of the homes. The amendment is to reduce the required roof pitch from a 10/12 for homes less than 3,000 square feet and 8/12 for homes greater than 3,000 square feet to an 8/12 roof pitch regardless of the home size. The amendment also includes a reduction in the minimum square footage of the homes from 1,600 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The developer has indicated the 1,400 square feet will be heated and cooled space. The homes typically have a two (2) car garage which is not included in the minimum square footage of the home. The current approval does not define the minimum square footage 5 FILE NO.: Z -6120-P (Cont. of the homes as heated and cooled; only specifies the minimum square footage of home construction. The previous approval required all interior fences to be constructed of one hundred percent cedar materials. If approved, the amendment will remove the requirement of cedar material construction and allow all fences to be constructed of a wood material with no specific species of wood material identified. The final modification to the PD -R is to remove the requirement for construction of a wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the site. A six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence along all lot lines, which abutted Capitol Hills Boulevard and the Oasis Renewal Center was required with the original approval. The request is to remove this requirement and allow individual lot owners to place fencing along their property line as they desire. The proposed fencing to be allowed by the individual lot owners is six (6) foot high fence constructed of wood, brick or brick and wrought iron. As was previously approved the six (6) foot fencing may be located within the building setback. Staff is supportive of the request. The original subdivision was started by a different developer and has since been taken over by the applicant. Through the Planned Development process all aspects of a development may be reviewed but the roof pitches of homes is not typically an item specified in the PD -R and is typically handled through the Bill of Assurance. Minimum square footages of homes, construction materials, fencing height and fencing construction materials are items typically reviewed. Since the previous approval did not specify heated and cooled verses total square footage staff does not feel this is a significant change. The construction materials are not proposed to change. The modification to the perimeter fencing allows for individuals to place fencing on their property line constructed of a material of their choosing. To staff's knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues in need of addressing related to this issue. The modification to the Bill of Assurance will have to be taken care of by the developer through the proper mechanism outlined in the Bill of Assurance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Ted Upshaw and Mr. Cliff McKinney were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request. R FILE NO.: Z -0120-P Cont. Mr. McKinney stated the development had started in 2005 and ended in foreclosure. He stated the developer was trying to bring back the neighborhood from a zombie neighborhood to a viable subdivision. Mr. Robert Angell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he bought his home at auction and had put a substantial amount of money in the home to finish out the residences. He stated he had visited with three appraiser and they had stated if lesser square footage homes were constructed the value of his home would be reduced. He stated the roof pitch was a concern. He stated variations in roof pitches and heights added value to a neighborhood. He stated the developer was responsible for placement of a perimeter fence around the subdivision. He stated Mr. Upshaw had bought the remaining lots, he was the developer and therefore he was responsible for construction of the perimeter fence. Ms. Sheila Colclasure addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she had also bought her home at auction. She stated the interior finish out had been completed by herself and family members. She stated she could not afford a home of this nature without the sweat equity on her part. She stated with the reduced square footage of the homes this would decrease property values within the area. She stated she had bought her home thinking the development was a gated community and felt the developer should provide the fence as was previously approved. Mr. Wesley White addressed the Commission in apposition of the request. He stated he did not buy his home at auCtteas r the smallest on the block. He statedhis builderhad indicated f he developerwasallowed to construct homes with lesser square footages then the existing property values would be decreased. He stated once the residents heard the lots had been sold there was a feeling that things would get better. He stated this was not the case. He stated the current developer had not worked with the neighborhood and had not meet with them as a group to discuss the best solutions for the neighborhood. He stated he and his wife bought their home in a gated community. He stated the developer had indicated the residences would be required to pay for the fence through an assessment. He stated the Bill of Assurance indicated the developer was responsible for the perimeter fence. Mr. McKinney stated the subdivision as previously presented did not work. He stated Mr. Upshaw had purchased the subdivision in foreclosure. He stated the Bill of Assurance indicated each of the homes would be assessed a $1,000 fee to pay for construction of the perimeter fence. He stated since the homes were bought at auction the homes had not paid these fees which were still owed. He stated the desire of the develop was to allow individuals to place fences as they wished. Mr. Ted Upshaw addressed the Commission providing appraisal and comparable pricing of new and proposed structures for the neighborhood. He stated homes 1,400 square feet would command a higher price per square foot than the larger homes. He stated with a 1,400 square foot He me stat d he cnoew homesprovide sales inhome the to tCit Mestess thane Littln Rock market less than $200,000 $200,040 were continuing to move. He stated over $200,000 the sales were stagnant. KA FILE NO.: Z -6120-P (Cont. He stated the market had changed. He stated there was a 67 percent decrease in the number of building permits issued from the start of the project to current day. Mr. Randy Sumbles stated he was the realtor that would market and sell the homes once completed. He stated the market for homes over $200,000 was very difficult. He stated it was true smaller square footages of homes did command a higher sales price. He stated the sales price proposed was $120 to $125 per square foot for the 1,400 square foot homes. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the development and the impacts of the request on the existing homes in the area. The Commission indicated they felt sympathetic to the residences. A few Commissioners indicated homes even if smaller homes were better than vacant lots. Commissioner Rector stated his neighborhood was very diverse and he never thought a smaller home decreased property values. The Commission questioned Mr. Upshaw as to the smallest box he would build. He stated heated and cooled space with a garage the smallest box would be 1,850 square feet. A motion was made to approve the request as recommended by staff. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 4 noes, 0 absent, 1 recusal (Commissioner Ferstl) and 2 open positions. 9 December 3, 2009 ITEM NO.: 11 F NAME: Governor's Manor Revised PD -R LOCATION: Located at Rushmore Avenue and Capitol Hills Boulevard DEVELOPER: Accountable Property Management Corp c/o Ted Upshaw 11523 Kanis Road, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72211 FNr,INFFR - White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 9.120 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 45 PD -R Single-family PD -R NO.. Z -6120-P FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF PROPOSED USE: Single-family — Modify previous specifics of the PD -R which include roof pitch, fencing materials, reduce the minimum square footage of the homes, remove the perimeter fencing requirement VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a proposed preliminary plat application for the site at their April 22, 2004, Public Hearing. The Commission made a recommendation of approval of the proposed preliminary plat, which was then forwarded to the Little Rock Board of Directors for final action on September 7, 2004. The Little Rock Board of Directors denied the requested variances for the proposed preliminary plat and suggested the applicant refile the request as a PD -R through the planned development process. December 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6120-P Ordinance No. 19,261 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 4, 2005, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to PD -R and established Governors Manor Long -form PD -R. The approval allowed the subdivision of the 9.12 -acre site into 45 single-family lots. The request resulted in a density of 4.9 units per acre. There were several variances from the Subdivision Ordinance approved as a part of the development which included reduced front building lines, reduced lot depths, reduced lot widths on several of the proposed lots and reduced minimum lot square footages. The subdivision was designed as a gated community but the gates would not be installed at the time of development. The development was approved with the average size of the lots as 50 -feet by 90 -feet. The lots were designed to accommodate "patio" or "garden style" homes with smaller yards. Buildable areas on the lots ranged from approximately 4,600 to 2,150 square feet with the smallest allowable residence to be 1,600 square feet. The lots were approved with a 12.5 -foot front building line, 5 -foot side yard setbacks and 10 -foot rear yard setbacks. Each lot would have a minimum of 1,600 square feet of private open space. The improvement plan indicated the location of the improvements on the lots, along with any driveways or sidewalks, to ensure adequate views and privacy within the subdivision. Only one detached single-family residence not to exceed two and one-half stories in height would be placed on any lot. All residences less than 3,000 square feet would have a minimum roof pitch of 10/12 and those greater than 3,000 square feet would have a minimum roof pitch of 8/12. All roofs were to have architectural shingles. All exteriors were to be 100 percent brick, dryvit or rock to the facia, with siding being permitted above the facia. Each lot would be allowed one accessory structure. The accessory structure would be of an architectural design and exterior finish in harmony with the residence and general surroundings. The accessory structures were not to exceed the height or floor area of the principal dwelling. No prefabricated structures or metal buildings would be permitted as accessory structures. The owner was to install a six foot tall wrought iron fence along all lot lines which abutted Capitol Hills Boulevard and the Oasis Renewal Center, specifically the side lot line of Lots 1, 45, 37, 36, 29, and 28; which were adjacent to Capitol Hills Boulevard, and the rear lot line of Lots 9 through 28; which were adjacent to the Oasis Renewal Center. Lot owners would not be allowed to remove or install any other fencing along these lot lines where the Developer installed the wrought iron fencing. All privacy fences installed by the lot owner were to be six feet in height and 100 percent cedar wood. No chain link or similar fence would be used under any circumstances. Any retaining walls were to be constructed of 100 percent brick, brick or stucco material. 2 December 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6120-P The Property Owners Association would be responsible for maintaining the wrought iron fencing installed by the Developer. The areas designated on the plat as Pennsylvania Court, Governors Cove, Pennsylvania Avenue, the entrance and exit gates to the property, all related landscaping islands and related structures and all improvements were to be maintained by the Property Owners Association. The open space and Lake Governor were to be maintained by the owners of lots in the proposed subdivision in conjunction with the owners of lots in Phase 1 B, Capitol Lakes Estates Addition. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved PD -R and Bill of Assurance for the subdivision. The modifications proposed include a revision to the roof pitch, a change to the minimum square footage of the homes, removal of the requirement for the developer to build a six foot wrought iron fence and removal of the requirement that all interior fencing be constructed of cedar. The developer is requesting to reduce the required roof pitch from a 10/12 for homes less than 3,000 square feet and 8/12 for homes greater than 3,000 square feet to an 8/12 regardless of the home size. The request also includes a reduction in the minimum square footage of the homes from 1,600 square feet to 1,400 square feet of heated and cooled space. The current approval does not define the minimum square footage of the homes as heated and cooled; only specifies the minimum square footage. The previous approval requires all interior fences to be constructed of one hundred percent cedar materials. The developer desires to remove this requirement and require all fences to be constructed of a wood material with no specific species of wood material identified. The final modification to the PD -R is to remove the requirement for construction of a wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the site. A six foot tall wrought iron fence along all lot lines which abutted Capitol Hills Boulevard and the Oasis Renewal Center was required with the original approval. The developer wishes to remove this requirement and allow individual lot owners to place fencing along their property lines as desired. The developer has indicated the allowed fences would be six foot high constructed of wood, brick or brick and wrought iron. As was previously approved the six foot fencing may be located within the building setback. All the issues raised for modification are in conflict with the Bill of Assurance for the Subdivision. If the modifications are approved for the PD -R the owner will then pursue a modification to the Bill of Assurance through the mechanism identified in the Bill of Assurance for modifications. 3 December 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 Cont. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: FILE NO.: Z -6120-P Street construction has been completed within the subdivision and the lots have been final platted. The entire subdivision was cleared at the time of infrastructure construction. Ten to twelve new homes have been constructed and several new homes are in various stages of completion. Capitol Hills Boulevard has been constructed to Master Street Plan standard adjacent to the site. The interior streets were constructed as private streets. Gates have been installed at the entrances to the subdivision and Capitol Hill Boulevard. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from the area property owners. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING. Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Enter : No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. n December 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont. F. W H ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN- FILE NO.: Z -6120-P Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PD -R. This revision is to allow a reduction in the required roof pitch, minimum square footage of the homes, modifications to the allowed interior fencing and the removal of the required perimeter fencing for previously approved PD -R and is not proposing a change in use. The proposed land uses in the Planned Development are consistent with the Residential Low Density Category. Master Street Plan: Capitol Hills Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic on pedestrians. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Rushmore Avenue is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: No comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 12, 2009) Mr. Ted Upshaw was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the PD -R amendment request to the Committee members. Staff stated there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Commissioner Yates questioned if the existing homeowners were on board with the request. Staff stated notification was sent to all property owners of the subdivision via certified mail as well as staff's post card notification. Staff stated at this point there had not been any calls concerning the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. AMAI Y.I.q• There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing raised at the November 12, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. 5 December 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -6120-P The applicant is proposing to amend the PD -R for the Governor's Manor Subdivision eliminating the requirement for a perimeter fence and that all interior fences be constructed of cedar, to modify the minimum roof pitch and change the minimum square footage of the homes. The amendment is to reduce the required roof pitch from a 10/12 for homes less than 3,000 square feet and 8/12 for homes greater than 3,000 square feet to an 8/12 roof pitch regardless of the home size. The amendment also includes a reduction in the minimum square footage of the homes from 1,600 square feet to 1,400 square feet. The developer has indicated the 1,400 square feet will be heated and cooled space. The homes typically have a two (2) car garage which is not included in the minimum square footage of the home. The current approval does not define the minimum square footage of the homes as heated and cooled; only specifies the minimum square footage of home construction. The previous approval required all interior fences to be constructed of one hundred percent cedar materials. If approved, the amendment will remove the requirement of cedar material construction and allow all fences to be constructed of a wood material with no specific species of wood material identified. The final modification to the PD -R is to remove the requirement for construction of a wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the site. A six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence along all lot lines, which abutted Capitol Hills Boulevard and the Oasis Renewal Center was required with the original approval. The request is to remove this requirement and allow individual lot owners to place fencing along their property line as they desire. The proposed fencing to be allowed by the individual lot owners is six (6) foot high fence constructed of wood, brick or brick and wrought iron. As was previously approved the six (6) foot fencing may be located within the building setback. Staff is supportive of the request. The original subdivision was started by a different developer and has since been taken over by the applicant. Through the Planned Development process all aspects of a development may be reviewed but the roof pitches of homes is not typically an item specified in the PD -R and is typically handled through the Bill of Assurance. Minimum square footages of homes, construction materials, fencing height and fencing construction materials are items typically reviewed. Since the previous approval did not specify heated and cooled verses total square footage staff does not feel this is a significant change. The construction materials are not proposed to change. The modification to the perimeter fencing allows for individuals to place fencing on their property line constructed of a material of their choosing. To staff's knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues in need of 0 December 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z -6120-P addressing related to this issue. The modification to the Bill of Assurance will have to be taken care of by the developer through the proper mechanism outlined in the Bill of Assurance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 3, 2009) Mr. Ted Upshaw and Mr. Cliff McKinney were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request. Mr. McKinney stated the development had started in 2005 and ended in foreclosure. He stated the developer was trying to bring back the neighborhood from a zombie neighborhood to a viable subdivision. Mr. Robert Angell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he bought his home at auction and had put a substantial amount of money in the home to finish out the residences. He stated he had visited with three appraiser and they had stated if lesser square footage homes were constructed the value of his home would be reduced. He stated the roof pitch was a concern. He stated variations in roof pitches and heights added value to a neighborhood. He stated the developer was responsible for placement of a perimeter fence around the subdivision. He stated Mr. Upshaw had bought the remaining lots, he was the developer and therefore he was responsible for construction of the perimeter fence. Ms. Sheila Colclasure addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she had also bought her home at auction. She stated the interior finish out had been completed by herself and family members. She stated she could not afford a home of this nature without the sweat equity on her part. She stated with the reduced square footage of the homes this would decrease property values within the area. She stated she had bought her home thinking the development was a gated community and felt the developer should provide the fence as was previously approved. Mr. Wesley White addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he did not buy his home at auction. He stated his home was not the largest or the smallest on the block. He stated his builder had indicated if the developer was allowed to construct homes with lesser square footages then the existing property values would be decreased. He stated once the residents heard the lots had been sold there was a 7 December 3, 2009 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6120-P feeling that things would get better. He stated this was not the case. He stated the current developer had not worked with the neighborhood and had not meet with them as a group to discuss the best solutions for the neighborhood. He stated he and his wife bought their home in a gated community. He stated the developer had indicated the residences would be required to pay for the fence through an assessment. He stated the Bill of Assurance indicated the developer was responsible for the perimeter fence. il Mr. McKinney stated the subdivision as previously presented did not work. He stated Mr. Upshaw had purchased the subdivision in foreclosure. He stated the Bill of Assurance indicated each of the homes would be assessed a $1,000 fee to pay for construction of the perimeter fence. He stated since the homes were bought at auction the homes had not paid these fees which were still owed. He stated the desire of the develop was to allow individuals to place fences as they wished. Mr. Ted Upshaw addressed the Commission providing appraisal and comparable pricing of new and proposed structures for the neighborhood. He stated homes 1,400 square feet would command a higher price per square foot than the larger homes. He stated with a 1,400 square foot home he could provide a home to the West Little Rock market less than $200,000. He stated new homes sales in the City less than $200,000 were continuing to move. He stated over $200,000 the sales were stagnant. He stated the market had changed. He stated there was a 67 percent decrease in the number of building permits issued from the start of the project to current day. Mr. Randy Sumbles stated he was the realtor that would market and sell the homes once completed. He stated the market for homes over $200,000 was very difficult. He stated it was true smaller square footages of homes did command a higher sales price. He stated the sales price proposed was $120 to $125 per square foot for the 1,400 square foot homes. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the development and the impacts of the request on the existing homes in the area. The Commission indicated they felt sympathetic to the residences. A few Commissioners indicated homes even if smaller homes were better than vacant lots. Commissioner Rector stated his neighborhood was very diverse and he never thought a smaller home decreased property values. The Commission questioned Mr. Upshaw as to the smallest box he would build. He stated heated and cooled space with a garage the smallest box would be 1,850 square feet. A motion was made to approve the request as recommended by staff. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes, 1 recusal (Commissioner Ferstl) and 2 open positions. H; ITEM NO.: 11. Z -6120-P NAME: Governor's Manor Revised PD -R LOCATION: located at Rushmore Avenue and Capitol Hills Boulevard Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of all property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than November 19, 2009. The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than November 25, 2009. Variance[Waivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: No comment. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: no comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: No comment. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PD -R. This revision is to allow a reduction in the required roof pitch, modifications to the allowed interior fencing and the removal of the required perimeter fencing for previously approved PD -R and is not proposing a change in use. The proposed land uses in the Planned Development are consistent with the Residential Low Density Category. Item # 11. Master Street Plan: Capitol Hills Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic on pedestrians. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Rushmore Avenue is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: No comment. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat/plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, November 19, 2009. Item # 11.