Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7875-B Staff AnalysisITEM NO.: 7 NAME: Lot 11, Block 4 Taylor Park Subdivision Revised Short -form POD LOCATION: located at 2 Chapman Lane Planninq Staff Comments: 1. Notification has been provided. 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. Z -7875-B Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located near a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. 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 Planned Office Development to allow a newly constructed fence and deck to remain on this lot. The deck and fence were constructed across a platted building line and within an existing utility easement. Item # 7. The request is a minor revision of the previously approved Planned Office Development and the use is residential which is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Chapman Lane is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets, which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes, are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. Bicycle Pian: 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, February 10, 2010. Item # 7. February 25, 2010 ITFM NO_- 7 FILE NO.: Z -7875-B NAME: Lot 11, Block 4 Taylor Park Subdivision Revised Short -form POD LOCATION: Located at 2 Chapman Lane DEVELOPER: Phil Taylor 2 Chapman Lane Little Rock, AR I IR\/FYnR White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 0.25 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 -m FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Office and Single-family — Attached and Detached Units PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD PROPOSED USE: Office and Single-family, Attached and Detached Units - Allow deck and fence across a platted building line VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED.: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed a request and recommended approval for Taylor Park Long -form POD at their July 7, 2005 public hearing. The site plan included the development of 22.9 acres containing a mixed-use development including office and residential uses. The property fronting along Kanis Road would allow quiet office uses with the remainder of the site being developed with attached and detached single-family residences. Ordinance No. 19,388 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on August 30, 2005, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to POD establishing Taylor Park Long -form POD. February 25, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7875-B Ordinance No. 19,635 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 21, 2006, allowed a revision to the POD by allowing the height and area of the subdivision identification sign to be increased. The sign was approved with a maximum height of eight (8) feet and a maximum sign area of twenty-eight (28) feet. The sign was approved with brick columns two -foot eight -inch (2'8") wide and six (6) feet high with a two (2) foot precast sphere and cap. The construction material of the sign wall was running bond brick. A. PRO POSAUREQUEST/AP PLICANT'S STATEMENT: The property owner located at 2 Chapman Lane has constructed a wood deck and a pergola surrounded with a six-foot wood fence. The construction was initiated without a building permit and is currently under enforcement and a stop work order has been issued. The additions have been constructed across a 15 -foot platted building line and within a 10 -foot utility easement. The applicant is requesting to amend the previously approved POD to allow the deck, fencing and pergola to remain. The Bill of Assurance for Taylor Park Subdivision states no buildings or structures shall be located on any lot, nearer to the side street line, than the minimum building setback lines as shown on the recorded plat. For the purposes of this covenant, eaves and steps shall not be considered as part of the building. No lot shall be subdivided and no more than one dwelling shall be permitted on any one lot. The Bill of Assurance also states no dwelling or structure shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure, including landscaping, have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with existing structures, and as to location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation, and intended objectives of the Architectural Control Committee to achieve a subdivision that accomplishes the desired architectural design in the structure and subdivision ascetics. No fence or wall shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot nearer than the setbacks as shown on the plat. The term structure is defined to include any and all types fences, antennas, decks, permanent basket ball goals, swimming pools and television satellite dishes, which in no event shall be placed in front of dwellings. Each property owner requesting approval shall submit to the Architectural Control Committee at least two weeks prior to the time approval is needed, a complete set of house plans and complete material and specifications list. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The subdivision has developed with single-family homes both attached and detached. It appears all the attached units have been constructed and only three P February 25, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7875-B lots remain for the detached single-family homes. The office portion of the development has not been initiated. The developer does occupy a structure along Kanis Road as his construction and sales office. The area around White Road has not changed much since the original approval. The area remains single-family with homes located on large lots. The area to the south is developing as the Woodlands Edge Subdivision. A new street, Woodlands Edge Trail, has been constructed from Kanis Road to the south accessing the Woodlands Edge Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls, a few calls in support and a number of calls in opposition of the request from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Woodlands Edge Community Association were notified of the public hearing. 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 Enerc v: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. 3 February 25, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7875-B CATA: The site is not located near a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: G H 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 Planned Office Development to allow a newly constructed fence and deck to remain on this lot. The deck and fence were constructed across a platted building line and within an existing utility easement. The request is a minor revision of the previously approved Planned Office Development and the use is residential which is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Chapman Lane is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets, which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes, are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. 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: (February 4, 2010) Mr. Phil Taylor was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Mr. Taylor stated he had constructed a deck and fence not knowing there were issues related to the building setbacks. He stated his fence was located the same distance from the curb as other fences in the neighborhood. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. ANALYSIS: There were no technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is to allow the applicant to maintain a deck, fence and pergola. These items were 0 February 25, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont. FILE NO. Z -7875-B constructed without a permit, across a platted building line and within a utility easement. Taylor Park was approved as a Planned Office Development to allow an office/retail development along Kanis Road and Single-family homes, both attached and detached, within a patio home development. The development contains 119 homes with a majority of the homes constructed. The office portion of the development has not taken off yet. A single-acces from Kanis Road was approved to serve the development. The term patio home tends to imply a suburban setting and a unit of several houses attached to each other, typically with shared walls between units, and with exterior maintenance and landscaping provided through an association fee. Not all of these elements are present in all buildings called patio homes, as the term is used somewhat generically. An attached patio home development tends to not have strucutres (fences, decks) located within the rear yard area. Staff is not supportive of the request to allow the items as constructed to remain. The fence, pergola and deck as constructed are out of character with the neighborhood. Taylor Park is a new development which has been very successful. There are few remaining homes or lots for sale within the neighborhood. At the time of approval of the POD building setbacks and easements were established to limit structures and not overbuild a site. The approval allowed for consistency within the development. The developers established a Bill of Assurance for the Subdivision which the applicant has violated with the construction of the deck and fence by crossing the platted building line as identified on the plat. Staff feels to break the mold and allow the encroachments of the improvments is incosistent with the overall development plan of the Taylor Park POD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 25, 2010) Mr. Phil Taylor was present representing the application. There were a number of registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request. Mr. Taylor spoke on the merits of his request. He stated the fence was not dissimilar to fences in the neighborhood. He stated the deck was constructed as it was because the dick could not be built on an angle. He stated he was unaware he needed a permit to 5 February 25, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7875-B construct the deck and fence. He stated his desire was to work with the neighbors to reach a compromise to allow the deck to remain. He stated he was willing to remove a portion of the pergola and to install planter beds to allow the height to be visually masked. Mr. David Hutchison addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated there were a number of fences within the neighborhood the same height as Mr. Taylor's. He stated Mr. Taylor was given permission by the builder to construct the fence and did not understand why the approval had been rescinded. He stated he felt the construction looked nice and did not understand why the residents did not approve of the construction. Mr. Anthony "Tony" Nobile addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his residence was located at 62 Taylor Park Loop. He stated his concern was more for sight distance of motorist exiting the alley. He stated with the construction there was limited visibility for motorist exiting the alley which could impact a child riding a bicycle or a walker. He stated he was concerned with the height and overall appearance of the structure. He stated he felt the structure should be removed entirely or at a minimum cut back to comply with the building line. He stated the community paid a great deal in property taxes including taxes on an improvement district and for lawn maintenance. He stated there were only three lots left for development within the subdivision. Mr. Donald H Lee addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was located at 112 Taylor Park Loop. He stated he as against the rezoning request. He stated he felt if the request was approved it would destroy the character of the neighborhood. He stated he felt if he had done the construction without a permit and the necessary approvals he would be required to remove the construction. He stated Mr. Taylor should also have to comply with the rules and remove the structure. Ms. Grace Ellen Rice addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. Ms. Rice stated she was opposed to the request for a number of reasons. She requested the Commission to deny the request to allow the building to remain. She stated she had heard Mr. Taylor was a builder and should have knowledge of the permitting process. She stated all the homeowners were provided with a copy of the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision at closing. She stated Mr. Taylor should have been aware of the requirements of the Bill of Assurance. She stated her three primary concerns were the violation of the Bill of Assurance, setting of precedent and property values. She stated the Bill of Assurance was not just a legal provision but why most bought homes in the Taylor Park Subdivision. She stated the residents wanted smaller homes and smaller lots. She stated by the very nature of a patio home development the lots could not support structures that were to large for the lot especially when there were in violation of the restrictions for the subdivision. She stated not only was there a breach of the horizontal setback but there was also a vertical concern as well. She stated the six foot C February 25, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7875-B fence had been placed on top of a deck which raised the top of the fence of near eight feet. She stated other fences in the subdivision were constructed on the ground which was consistent and appropriate in appearance, proportion and architectural integrity of the overall development. She stated Mr. Taylor had received approval from the Architectural Review Committee. She stated the Committee consisted of the developer and homebuilders of the subdivision. She stated there were no residents on the committee. She stated she realized the violation of the Bill of Assurance was not the issue before the Commission but felt it important to advise the Commission of the violation. She requested the Commission to deny the request and require the structure to be removed. Mr. Taylor requested Mr. Graham Smith address the Commission on his behalf. Mr. Graham Smith addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated he was one of the developers of the Taylor Park Subdivision. He stated he was a member of the architectural review committee and the committee had approved Mr. Taylor's request. He stated the Committee had been provided photos of the proposed construction. He stated the committee had not given Mr. Taylor permission to construct the deck within the easement or across the platted building line. He stated he nor the committee had the authority to allow any encroachments into these two areas. Mr. Taylor addressed the Commission in response to comments raised. He stated he had worked with the builder prior to construction to ensure he was aware of what would be built. He stated he had not done development with the City of Little Rock so he was unaware of the permitting process. He stated he had built and remodeled homes in Heber Springs and they did not require permits to be issued for construction. He stated he was willing to modify the structure to remove the pergola on the east, west and south sides. He stated he would construct planter boxes around the base of the deck to visually scale back the overall height of the fence and to allow the fence to blend with the community. He stated he measured fences within the neighborhood and placed his fence at the same distance from the curb. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the modifications to the request and due process. Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated the Commission could defer the request if that was their desire but she did not feel the deferral was necessary to meet due process requirements. She stated the applicant had the right of modify their application request any time during the process. She stated the Commission did not have the authority to amend the application request, only the applicant. The Commission questioned Mr. Smith as to the Bill of Assurance and the enforcement of the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Smith stated within the Bill of Assurance measures were established to allow for continuity and uniformity within the subdivision. He stated the architectural review committee looked at resident's request to ensure these items were 7 February 25, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7875-B not violated. He stated the committee felt the deck and fence were in keeping with the Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Rouse questioned if the committee was provided a survey at the time of the review and approval process. Mr. Smith stated they were not. Mr. Smith stated since the development was near completion the duties of the review committee and the administration of the subdivision would soon be turned over to the property owners. He stated the intent was to do this within the next six months. The opposition was poled on the amended request. There were ten persons who still did not support the request and felt the construction should be removed. There were two (2) in support of the request. Chairman Yates commented it did not appear the modifications had changed the opposition's position. Commissioner Laha questioned the triangular sight line visibility requirements at the intersection of the alley and the street. Staff stated a 50 -foot triangle was required to allow for proper sight distance. Staff stated none of the homes complied with the typical ordinance standard but the development was approved as a Planned Development. A motion was made to defer the request to allow the residents and Mr. Taylor to meet and discuss any compromises. Commissioner Devine stated he felt the deferral would allow the applicant time to furnish staff with the appropriate documentation concerning the amended application request. The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes, 6 noes and 2 absent. There was a general discussion by the Commission with Mr. Taylor concerning the amended application request. Mr. Taylor stated he felt with the removal of the pergola and the placement of the landscape beds the overall appearance would be softened. He stated the fence was new wood which also contributed to the appearance. The Commission questioned staff as to what constituted a structure. Staff stated anything twelve inches above grade was considered a structure. Staff stated the placement of planter beds would not constitute a grade change. Staff stated if the deck was kept at twelve inches above grade and the fencing located across the platted building line was four feet high then Mr. Taylor would not be in violation of City ordinances. A motion was made to approve the request as amended to include the removal of the pergola on the east, west and south sides and the placement of planter beds around the deck structure. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. E