Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0181-E Staff AnalysisITEM NO.: 1, S-181-E NAME: Pleasant Valley Manor Revised Final Plat LOCATION: located at 38 Rocky Valley Cove Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of abutting property owners including the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than February 1, 2012. The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than February 10, 2012. 2. From the existing grade, provide the total height to the top of the deck and the total height from the top of the deck to the top of the enclosure/fence. Variance/Waivers: Fence height — deck railings Public Works Conditions: No comment. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. Entergy: Easements are required. A 15-foot easement is required along the eastern perimeter. Contact Entergy for additional information. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water is additional fire protection or metered water service is required. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water Item # 1. 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: Maintain access. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: Approved as submitted. The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. Planning Division: No comment. 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 1, 2012. Item # 1. February 16, 2012 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-181-E NAME: Pleasant Valley Manor Revised Final Plat LOCATION: Located at 38 Rocky Valley Cove DEVELOPER: Josh Daniels 38 Rocky Valley Cove Little Rock, AR 72212 SURVEYOR: Brooks Surveying, Inc. 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.16 acres CURRENT ZONING: PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-2, Single-family 2 — Rodney Parham 22.04 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the approved handrail allowance. BACKGROUND: On June 11, 1985, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a revision to a final plat for Lots 1 — 44 of the Pleasant Valley Manor Subdivision. The approval of the revision allowed the side yard setback on selected lots be reduced to one foot along one side of the lot extending from ten feet beyond the front yard setback to thirty feet from the rear lot line. The remainder of the side yard setback lines would be the normal ten percent of the lot width. The request allowed the construction of a raised patio deck only to within one foot of the lot line. The patio or deck was allowed to extend from the ground line, at the lot line, to the surface of deck or patio to a height of four feet. A note on the plat indicates patios or decks may not be covered in the area of the side yard intrusion. A second note indicates handrails are permitted. The approval applied to all lots except Lots 5, 6, 9, 20, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 42 and 44 which had side yard easements that prohibited the concept. February 16, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont) FILE NO.: S-181-E A. PROPOSAUREQUESTIAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The request is a revision to the final plat for Lot 33 Pleasant Valley Manor. The applicant has begun construction of a replacement deck and fence located on the western property line. The original deck was constructed at 3.1 feet from the property line and a six foot (6') fence was placed on the deck along the south and western sides. The applicant purchased the home in 2008 and the deck and. fence were in place. According to the applicant the structure was beginning to deteriorate due to age and was in need of replacing for both safety and structural reasons. The applicant decided to extend the deck to within one foot (1') of the property line and extend the fence along the side yard from the rear property line toward the deck allowing an increase in the decks square footage. The request is to amend the plat to allow for an increase in the allowed height of the "handrails" by allowing the deck to be enclosed with the six foot (6') fence and to extend the deck to the rear property line and allow the deck to be located in an easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area is single-family. The home abuts an office complex to the north. South of the site is property owned by Central Arkansas Water. Most of the lots on Rocky Valley Cove are developed. Rocky Valley Cove has been constructed as a residential street. There are no sidewalks in place on Rocky Valley Cove. The homeowner has placed a wood deck along the western property line to within one foot of the property line. On top of the deck the homeowner has placed a six (6) foot solid board fence. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. The Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association was notified of the proposed plat request. A stop work notice was given to the applicant for construction without proper permits. An anonymous complaint prompted the stop work order. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this project. K February 16, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-181-E Enter : Easements are required. A 15-foot easement is required along the eastern perimeter. Contact Entergy for additional information. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water service is required. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. 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: Maintain access. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: Approved as submitted. The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. 4 February 16, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-181-E G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 25, 2012) Mr. Josh Daniels was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the item stating there were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant provide the total height of the deck and the total height of the fence. Mr. Daniels stated to the top of the deck the height was four (4) feet and the fence was a six (6) foot fence. Mr. Daniels stated he had two (2) small children and the deck was their outdoor play area. He stated typical deck railing was a concern due to the height of the deck and that the adjacent property was significantly lower than his property. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant has provided responses to comments raised at the January 25, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the height of the deck at four (4) feet and the fence located on top of the deck is six (6) feet. The fence has been constructed as a solid board fence. The revision to the final plat is necessary due to the previous action by the Commission. The previous action allowed the side yard setback on a number of lots to be reduced to one foot along one side of the lot extending from ten feet beyond the front yard setback to thirty feet from the rear lot line. The remainder of the side yard setback lines were to conform to the normal ten percent of the lot width. The request allowed the construction of a raised patio deck only to within one foot of the lot line. The maximum deck height allowed was four feet and handrails were allowed to extend above the deck. No specific height of the handrails was provided in the previous approval. Typical building codes allow for handrail heights to range from 36-inches to 42-inches. The spacing between balusters is typically 3.5-inches. This owner is reconstructing and extending a deck which was put in place by a previous owner. The previous owner constructed the original deck at 3.1 feet from the property line and a six foot fence was placed on the deck along the south and western sides. The fence on top of the deck was not in compliance with the approval since the approval allowed the deck and handrails, not fencing. Since the approved plat allowed the deck to be placed within one foot of the property line the applicant decided to extend the deck to the property line as allowed. The applicant also decided to replace the solid fence on the deck. The fence is a six foot solid board fence which encloses the deck on the western and southern sides. 4 February 16, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont. FILE NO.: S-181-E The original approval established limits on the front and rear setbacks for the decks. The deck was allowed to be located from ten feet beyond the front yard setback to thirty feet from the rear lot line. It appears the deck has been constructed extending along the western property line to the rear property line. The rear portion of the deck has been constructed in a 15-foot easement. This too is not in compliance with the originally approved plat. The request before the Commission is to amend the plat to allow for a modification of the handrails which does not allow the deck to be enclosed with a six foot fence. The applicant has not requested to maintain the portion of the deck constructed in the rear yard out of compliance with the original approval but, it must be included in this request or be removed. To allow the deck to be located within the easement the applicant must provide approval from the various utility companies. Staff is not supportive of the request. Staff feels the structure as currently constructed is intrusive and negatively impacts the adjacent property. Staff feels the fencing should be removed and a better alternative for the handrails should be put in place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2012) Mr. Josh Daniels was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had begun construction of a replacement deck and fence located on the western side of his home. Staff stated the original deck was constructed at 3.1 feet from the property line and a six foot (6) fence was placed on the deck along the south and western sides. Staff stated while replacing the deck the owner decided to extend the deck to within one foot (1') of the property line and extend the fence along the side yard from' the rear property line in a similar manner as was originally constructed. Staff stated in the write-up provided to the Commission they were not supportive of the request. Staff stated since the original write-up was published the applicant had met with the adjoining property owner and had amended his request to allow the placement of the deck and fence as was constructed by the previous owner or within 3.1 feet from the property line. Staff stated they felt this more appropriate and less intrusive on the adjoining property. 61 February 16, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-181-E Staff stated the request was a two-part request. One was to amend the plat and bill of assurance to allow the six foot (6') high fence to be placed along the top of the deck on the western and southern sides and the second was to allow the deck to extend into the rear yard area to the property line and within an easement. Staff stated the applicant had contacted the five utility companies and all had indicated there were no existing utilities within the easement and none had a concern with the deck remaining as was constructed in the rear yard area. Staff stated they were supportive of the current request. Staff stated although the previous fence construction was not in compliance with the original approval there did not appear to be any negative impact on the adjoining lot. Staff stated they were also supportive of allowing the deck as currently constructed to remain in the rear yard area. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff presented a recommendation of 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. Mr. Josh Daniels addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he had begun replacement of the deck in December. He stated he had met with his neighbor and thought there was an agreement on the deck construction and the placement of the fencing onto of the deck. He stated during construction the City issue a stop work order and he was told the fence could not be placed on the deck. He stated he later found the complaint was filed by his neighbor. He stated he had since met with the neighbor and they had reached an agreement if Mr. Daniels moved the deck back to the original location she would not oppose the fence placement on the deck. Mr. Daniels stated he would move the deck back to 3.1 feet from the property line, which was the location when he purchased his home and when his neighbor purchased her home. Ms. Betty Carol Clark addressed the Commission stating she was the neighbor who had filed the compliant. She stated once the construction began she felt she was imprisoned. She stated she was in agreement with Mr. Daniels to allow the fence to remain on the deck if the deck was moved back to the location constructed by the previous homeowner. She stated she understood this was in place when Mr. Daniels bought his home and was in place when she purchased her home. She stated she wished the fence was lower but understood Mr. Daniels position. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. N