Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7730 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: S - NAME: Hefley Short -form PD -R LOCATION: Located at 5100 Studer Road DEVELOPER: Lisa Hefley 5100 Studer Road Little Rock, AR ENGINEER: 011en Dee Wilson P.O. Box 604 North Little Rock, AR 72115-0604 AREA: 8.74 acres CURRENT ZONING PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-2, Single-family 30 — Buzzard Mountain 42.02 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIAN CESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant filed a request for a Subdivision Site Plan review at the instruction of staff. Staff later determined the request should be amended to a Planned Residential Development request to allow the placement of a single -wide manufactured home on the site currently zoned AF — Agriculture and Forestry. Prior to being forwarded to the Board of Directors, if approved by the Commission, this request will be amended to a zoning request (File No. Z-7730). In 2002, as a part of the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction the applicant's property was zoned AF with a CUP to allow for training and boarding of horses. The applicant indicated at the time of rezoning they wanted to ensure they could run cattle and horses on their farm. The applicant raises Quarter Horses on the property and plans would involve completing the fence and to join two properties FILE NO.: S-1455 (Cont. owned by the applicant in order to run cattle. The property currently has a cattle barn. A manufactured home was moved to the property located at 5300 Studer Road by the applicant earlier this year without prior zoning approval. The applicant placed the home in a location where two manufactured homes were previously located. The applicant located the home in this area because the meter loops, septic tank and well were already in this area. The applicant has indicated the home will be used by an employee as housing and a part of his compensation package. The applicant is requesting to be allowed uses as are allowed in AF — Agriculture and Forestry in addition to the placement of the home on the site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in the western portion of the planning jurisdiction in a very rural setting. There are several residences located in the area mostly located on acreage. The area has a mixture of housing types, both site built and manufactured homes. Studer Road is an unimproved county road with open ditches for drainage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents expressing concern with the proposed development. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Provide an approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed means of wastewater disposal. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. 4 FILE NO.: S-1455 (Cont. F G H. Central Arkansas Water: No water service is available from Central Arkansas Water. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Outside the service area. Provide a letter of approval from the area volunteer fire department concerning the ability to serve the structure. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. ISSUES/TECHN ICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant had originally filed a site plan review request to allow the placement of a manufactured home on the site. Staff stated after further review it was determined there was also a use issue and a PRD application should be filed for the proposed request. Staff noted there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the dimensions from all property lines for the home placement. Staff also questioned if there were any decks porches or patios proposed with the new home. The applicant stated the home was located approximately ten feet from the rear property line and several hundred feet from the front property line. The applicant stated the home was located in this area to limit the visibility from the roadway and from adjoining properties. The applicant stated the home was a new home and was purchased to allow their farmhand a place to live. She stated the home was not a rental unit nor would the home ever become a rental unit. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. ANALYSIS - The applicant has indicated the dimensions from property lines as requested at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the home sits approximately ten feet from the rear property line and 3 FILE NO.: S-1455 (Cont. several hundred feet from the front property line. The applicant has also located the existing septic system and the existing well on the site plan. There are two other structures located on the property; a dairy barn and a cattle barn. There is a single drive to access the site from Studer Road. The typical ordinance rear yard setback for a single-family home is twenty-five feet. The applicant has indicated the home was placed within ten feet of the rear property line. The applicant indicated the home was located in this area since there were previously two manufactured homes located in this area. The applicant has stated the location was chosen not only to limit visibility from the roadway of the home but to also take advantage of the existing well and septic system. Staff supports the placement of the home in this location. With the exception of a small percentage of the site, the site is currently zoned AF — Agriculture and Forestry. The zoning allows for agriculture and forestry operations, to include the raising of livestock and poultry. The applicant has indicated cattle and horses will utilize the site for grazing. The site also contains two barns, one an old dairy barn and the second a cattle barn. The applicant is requesting to utilize the allowable uses in AF — Agriculture and Forestry for the site, once rezoned to PD -R. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant has indicated all transport elements will be removed and a permanent foundation and underpinning with permanent materials will be put in place on the home if approved. The applicant has also indicated off-street parking per single-family dwelling standards will be provided. Screening is not proposed as a part of the development. Staff would recommend the applicant provide a year around screening device along the rear of the property around the home to aid in screening of the adjoining properties. This screening could be accomplished through evergreen plantings, a fence or wall. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning request. To Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff recommends the dwelling only be occupied by an employee of the applicant. Staff recommends compliance with the following siting criteria established in Section 36-262(d)(1): a. Removal of all transport elements. FILE NO.: S-1455 (Cont. b. Permanent foundation. c. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. d. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. e. Underpinning with permanent materials. f. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. Staff recommends the applicant provide a year around screening device along the rear of the property located near the home to aid in screening of the adjoining properties. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Mr. Randy Frazier was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff introduced the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the development was originally filed as a site plan review based on staffs instruction. Staff stated they later determined a site plan review application was not the appropriate application and if the Commission recommended approval the application would be modified prior to being forwarded to the Board of Directors. Staff stated the notification mailed by the applicant to area property owners was the correct notification form. Staff noted if the development were approved staff would recommend screening be placed along the rear of the new home to screen the adjacent homes. Mr. Frazier addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the owners had moved in the single -wide manufactured home on the 8.7 acre tract recently purchased to provide housing for an employee. He stated the home was not a rental unit directly but was a part of the employee's compensation package. Mr. Frazier provided a presentation indicating the area as a rural area. He stated the area was clearly a rural area and the proposed home was not out of character with the area. He stated the home was placed in the chosen location because there were previously two manufactured homes located on the site. He stated the home was located 13 feet from the rear property line not 10 as staff had indicated. He stated the home was a new home and not out of character with the area. Mr. Frazier presented the Commission with a petition of support from area residents. Ms. Nina Orsini addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the indicated structures in the presentation were not representative of the homes in the area. Mr. Beau Glenn addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated there were a number of objectors present who had lived in the area for a number of years. He stated most of the persons in attendance had lived in the area 10 plus years. He stated the Hefley's had moved to the area three years ago. He stated the Commission had received a petition with a large number of the homes located on Studer Road opposed to the proposed manufactured home being located on the site. 5 FILE NO.: 5-1455 (Cont. Mr. Glenn stated the new homes being constructed in the area were sizable homes. He stated the placement of a manufactured home on the site was in violation of a number of city ordinances and codes. He stated with the placement of a manufactured home near the existing homes would have an adverse impact on property values in the area. He stated if the home concerned existing homeowners potential homebuyers would be concerned as well. Mr. Glenn stated in a meeting with the Hefley's they had indicated a willingness to relocate the home on land behind their home. He stated the Hefley's indicated the cost to move the home would be $6000 and if the residents were willing to share in the expense they would be willing to move the home. He stated the Hefley's had invested 1.8 million dollars in 135 acres. He questioned the placing of a manufactured home on the site by the Hefley's based on their investment in the area. Commissioner Lowry questioned the objection being raised by residents. Mr. Glenn stated the location and the decrease in property values. Commissioner Lowry questioned if the home was relocated what effect this would have on property values. Mr. Glenn stated the home was located on a tract which had a creek separating the home from the Hefley's property. He stated the tract appeared to be a independent home and not a part of the Heafley's property. Clint Aguiar addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the manufactured home was located adjacent to his rear property line. He stated his family moved to the area because of the scenic beauty, the rural area and the new home construction. He stated Studer Road was 2 Y2 miles long and there were 60 homes with 2 manufactured homes. He stated he felt the placement of a manufactured home on the parcel would affect future homebuyers in the area. He stated the manufactured home was clearly visible from the roadway with foliage. He stated five months out of the year there was no foliage and the home would be even more visible. Mr. Aguiar stated the manufactured home was located very close to his rear property line. He stated currently this portion of his property was not being maintained in the same manner as the remainder of his property but his families future plans included the cleaning of all area and utilization of this entire acreage as yard area. Mr. Aguiar stated there were manufactured homes located on this site several years previously. He stated the manufactured homes were moved more than six years ago. He stated the manufactured homes were put in place for the previous property owners grandchildren. He stated once the children "got back on their feet" they would move and the homes would be removed. He stated he felt allowing the home to remain was going down a slippery slope. He stated with 85 percent of the property owners who received letters opposing the request this should be a clear indication of how the area residents felt of the placement of the home on the site. He stated the home should be relocated to an area with limited to no impact on adjoining properties. D FILE NO.: S-1455 (Cont. Commissioner Lowry questioned if a limits were placed on the occupancy and/or the number of years the home could remain on the site would the neighbors be willing to accept the location. Mr. Aguiar stated they would not due to the diminished property values. There was a general discussion concerning the request and potential uses of the site. It was noted there were numerous noxious uses that could locate on the site. It was determined in the Commission's opinion the negative impacts could be mitigated by screening the home from the adjoining properties and the roadway. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 7 October 7, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: S-1455 NAME: Hefley Short -form PD -R LOCATION: Located at 5100 Studer Road DEVELOPER: Lisa Hefley 5100 Studer Road Little Rock, AR ENGINEER: 011en Dee Wilson P.O. Box 604 North Little Rock, AR 72115-0604 AREA: 8.74 acres CURRENT ZONING: PLANNING DISTRICT CENSUS TRACT: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-2, Single-family 30 — Buzzard Mountain 42.02 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant filed a request for a Subdivision Site Plan review at the instruction of staff. Staff later determined the request should be amended to a Planned Residential Development request to allow the placement of a single -wide manufactured home on the site currently zoned AF — Agriculture and Forestry. Prior to being forwarded to the Board of Directors, if approved by the Commission, this request will be amended to a zoning request (File No. Z-7730). In 2002, as a part of the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction the applicant's property was zoned AF with a CUP to allow for training and boarding of horses. The applicant indicated at the time of rezoning they wanted to ensure they could run cattle and horses on their farm. The applicant raises Quarter Horses on the October 7, 2004 .qI IRnwminN ITEM NO.: S Cont. FILE NO.: S-1455 property and plans would involve completing the fence and to join two properties owned by the applicant in order to run cattle. The property currently has a cattle barn. A manufactured home was moved to the property located at 5300 Studer Road by the applicant earlier this year without prior zoning approval. The applicant placed the home in a location where two manufactured homes were previously located. The applicant located the home in this area because the meter loops, septic tank and well were already in this area. The applicant has indicated the home will be used by an employee as housing and a part of his compensation package. The applicant is requesting to be allowed uses as are allowed in AF — Agriculture and Forestry in addition to the placement of the home on the site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in the western portion of the planning jurisdiction in a very rural setting. There are several residences located in the area mostly located on acreage. The area has a mixture of housing types, both site built and manufactured homes. Studer Road is an unimproved county road with open ditches for drainage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents expressing concern with the proposed development. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Provide an approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed means of wastewater disposal. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. 2 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont. F. SBC: No comment received. FILE NO.: S-1455 Central Arkansas Water: No water service is available from Central Arkansas Water. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Outside the service area. Provide a letter of approval from the area volunteer fire department concerning the ability to serve the structure. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannina Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant had originally filed a site plan review request to allow the placement of a manufactured home on the site. Staff stated after further review it was determined there was also a use issue and a PRD application should be filed for the proposed request. Staff noted there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the dimensions from all property lines for the home placement. Staff also questioned if there were any decks porches or patios proposed with the new home. The applicant stated the home was located approximately ten feet from the rear property line and several hundred feet from the front property line. The applicant stated the home was located in this area to limit the visibility from the roadway and from adjoining properties. The applicant stated the home was a new home and was purchased to allow their farmhand a place to live. She stated the home was not a rental unit nor would the home ever become a rental unit. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 3 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1455 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant has indicated the dimensions from property lines as requested at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the home sits approximately ten feet from the rear property line and several hundred feet from the front property line. The applicant has also located the existing septic system and the existing well on the site plan. There are two other structures located on the property; a dairy barn and a cattle barn. There is a single drive to access the site from Studer Road. The typical ordinance rear yard setback for a single-family home is twenty-five feet. The applicant has indicated the home was placed within ten feet of the rear property line. The applicant indicated the home was located in this area since there were previously two manufactured homes located in this area. The applicant has stated the location was chosen not only to limit visibility from the roadway of the home but to also take advantage of the existing well and septic system. Staff supports the placement of the home in this location. With the exception of a small percentage of the site, the site is currently zoned AF — Agriculture and Forestry. The zoning allows for agriculture and forestry operations, to include the raising of livestock and poultry. The applicant has indicated cattle and horses will utilize the site for grazing. The site also contains two barns, one an old dairy barn and the second a cattle barn. The applicant is requesting to utilize the allowable uses in AF — Agriculture and Forestry for the site, once rezoned to PD -R. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant has indicated all transport elements will be removed and a permanent foundation and underpinning with permanent materials will be put in place on the home if approved. The applicant has also indicated off-street parking per single-family dwelling standards will be provided. Screening is not proposed as a part of the development. Staff would recommend the applicant provide a year around screening device along the rear of the property around the home to aid in screening of the adjoining properties. This screening could be accomplished through evergreen plantings, a fence or wall. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning request. To Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. C! October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9(Cont.)FILE NO.: S-1455 Staff recommends the dwelling only be occupied by an employee of the applicant. Staff recommends compliance with the following siting criteria established in Section 36-262(d)(1): a. Removal of all transport elements. b. Permanent foundation. c. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. d. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. e. Underpinning with permanent materials. f. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. Staff recommends the applicant provide a year around screening device along the rear of the property located near the home to aid in screening of the adjoining properties. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Mr. Randy Frazier was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff introduced the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the development was originally filed as a site plan review based on staffs instruction. Staff stated they later determined a site plan review application was not the appropriate application and if the Commission recommended approval the application would be modified prior to being forwarded to the Board of Directors. Staff stated the notification mailed by the applicant to area property owners was the correct notification form. Staff noted if the development were approved staff would recommend screening be placed along the rear of the new home to screen the adjacent homes. Mr. Frazier addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the owners had moved in the single -wide manufactured home on the 8.7 acre tract recently purchased to provide housing for an employee. He stated the home was not a rental unit directly but was a part of the employee's compensation package. Mr. Frazier provided a presentation indicating the area as a rural area. He stated the area was clearly a rural area and the proposed home was not out of character with the area. He stated the home was placed in the chosen location because there were previously two manufactured homes located on the site. He stated the home was located 13 feet from the rear property line not 10 as staff had indicated. He stated the home was a new home and not out of character with the area. Mr. Frazier presented the Commission with a petition of support from area residents. 61 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1455 Ms. Nina Orsini addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the indicated structures in the presentation were not representative of the homes in the area. Mr. Beau Glenn addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated there were a number of objectors present who had lived in the area for a number of years. He stated most of the persons in attendance had lived in the area 10 plus years. He stated the Hefley's had moved to the area three years ago. He stated the Commission had received a petition with a large number of the homes located on Studer Road opposed to the proposed manufactured home being located on the site. Mr. Glenn stated the new homes being constructed in the area were sizable homes. He stated the placement of a manufactured home on the site was in violation of a number of city ordinances and codes. He stated with the placement of a manufactured home near the existing homes would have an adverse impact on property values in the area. He stated if the home concerned existing homeowners potential homebuyers would be concerned as well. Mr. Glenn stated in a meeting with the Hefley's they had indicated a willingness to relocate the home on land behind their home. He stated the Hefley's indicated the cost to move the home would be $6000 and if the residents were willing to share in the expense they would be willing to move the home. He stated the Hefley's had invested 1.8 million dollars in 135 acres. He questioned the placing of a manufactured home on the site by the Hefley's based on their investment in the area. Commissioner Lowry questioned the objection being raised by residents. Mr. Glenn stated the location and the decrease in property values. Commissioner Lowry questioned if the home was relocated what effect this would have on property values. Mr. Glenn stated the home was located on a tract which had a creek separating the home from the Hefley's property. He stated the tract appeared to be a independent home and not a part of the Heafley's property. Clint Aguiar addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the manufactured home was located adjacent to his rear property line. He stated his family moved to the area because of the scenic beauty, the rural area and the new home construction. He stated Studer Road was 2 Y2 miles long and there were 60 homes with 2 manufactured homes. He stated he felt the placement of a manufactured home on the parcel would affect future homebuyers in the area. He stated the manufactured home was clearly visible from the roadway with foliage. He stated five months out of the year there was no foliage and the home would be even more visible. Mr. Aguiar stated the manufactured home was located very close to his rear property line. He stated currently this portion of his property was not being maintained in the C-9 October 7, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S-1455 same manner as the remainder of his property but his families future plans included the cleaning of all area and utilization of this entire acreage as yard area. Mr. Aguiar stated there were manufactured homes located on this site several years previously. He stated the manufactured homes were moved more than six years ago. He stated the manufactured homes were put in place for the previous property owners grandchildren. He stated once the children "got back on their feet" they would move and the homes would be removed. He stated he felt allowing the home to remain was going down a slippery slope. He stated with 85 percent of the property owners who received letters opposing the request this should be a clear indication of how the area residents felt of the placement of the home on the site. He stated the home should be relocated to an area with limited to no impact on adjoining properties. Commissioner Lowry questioned if a limits were placed on the occupancy and/or the number of years the home could remain on the site would the neighbors be willing to accept the location. Mr. Aguiar stated they would not due to the diminished property values. There was a general discussion concerning the request and potential uses of the site. It was noted there were numerous noxious uses that could locate on the site. It was determined in the Commission's opinion the negative impacts could be mitigated by screening the home from the adjoining properties and the roadway. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. rl ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: S-1455 NAME: Hefley Site Plan Review LOCATION: located at 5100 Studer Road Plannina Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. The request should be amended to a PD -R request. The proposed use of the site is not an allowable use under R-2 zoning. 3. Provide a legal description of the proposed area in which the home is to be located to allow for the rezoning of this area only. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works: No comment. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Provide an approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed means of wastewater disposal. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No water service is available from Central Arkansas Water. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2434 for additional information. Fire Department: Outside the service area. Provide a letter of approval from the area volunteer fire department concerning the ability to serve the structure. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. Plannina Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, September 22, 2004.