HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4494 ORDINANCE NO. 4494
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 03-03 .00 LOCATED AT 313 E.
LAFAYETTE, 321 E. LAFAYETTE, 346 N. WILLOW, 354 N. WILLOW,
AND 310 SUTTON, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2. 15 ACRES;
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is
hereby changed as follows:
From R- 1 , Low Density Residential to R-PZD 03-03 .00 as shown in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved
development plan and development standards as shown on the Planned Zoning District plans
for Lafayette Loft Apartments as approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2003,
and as amended by the City Council to reduce the maximum allowable number of units to 37.
Section 3 . That this ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until all
conditions of approval for the development have been met.
Section 4. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section I above.
T�DPASSED AND APPROVED this the 17th day of June, 2003 .
APPROV
By:
COODY, Ma r
y6� A1 C �V�`+f r
By: a. IIII
City Clerk Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Doc ID : 006115430002 Tvoe . REL
Recorded : 07/09/2003 at 11 : 30 :09 AMS
Fee Amt : $11 . 00 Pace 1 of 2
Washington County . AR
Bette Stamps circuit clerk
Fi1e2003-00036027
EXHIBIT "A"
ALL OF LOT I , 25 5 AND 6 AND PART OF LOT 3 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC
ADDITION IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING AT THE NE
CORNER OF SAID LOT 6, THENCE SOUTH 224. 16 FEET, THENCE N8904913111W
191 .57 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 112.42 FEET, THENCE WEST 60.00 FEET, THENCE
NORTH 109.22 FEET, THENCE N89020120"W 67.50 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1 .00
FEET, THENCE WEST 67.50 FEET, THENCE NORTH 227.00 FEET, THENCE EAST
386.57 FEET TO THE P.O.B. ; CONTAINING 2. 15 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT
TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD.
Was
0' co
en�f�OarOn
.Pile o0 3� 1nsty q q/
e N 1 e o o en/
byee�e &t4q 2p0 00 F44f s f/eaOo
V0 rC3/e02j
er.
0 0
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No, 4494
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date Document
1 05/06/03 Staff Review Form vv/attachments
draft ordinance
memo to Mayor/City Council
memo to Planning Commission
copy of PC minutes for R-PZD 03-3.00
Close up View
One MileWiew
Jorgensen & Associates map
Fennell, Purifoy, Hammock Architects map
Fennell, Purifoy, Hammock Architects map
2 06/20/03 memo to Dawn Warrick
3 06/26/03 memo from David Whitaker to Sondra Smith
4 07/19/03 lAffidavit of Publication
NOTES :
7/9/2003 filed with Washington County Circuit Clerk
STAFF MW FORM - NON-FINANCIAL O1NATION ,"
x AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: June 3 , 2003
FROM:
Dawn Warrick Planning CP&E
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance Approval
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
R-PZD 03-3.00 submitted by Richard Alexander of North College Development Company for property located
at 313 E. Lafayette Street. The property is zoned R- 1 , Low Density Residential, and contains approximately
2. 15 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District for the conversion of the St. Joseph
Catholic Church buildings into 39 residential units (63 bedrooms) with 64 parking spaces. The use of the
existing duplex on Willow and the use of the existing single-family home on Sutton Street are proposed to
remain unchanged.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
/0Received in Mayor's Office
Div sion Head D�te / Date
zE,fid�
City Attorne ate
543 - o3 Cross Reference:
D partment Director Date
Previous Ord/Res#:
F nance & Intemal Services Dir. Date Orig. Contract Date:
!!g4� IJ&Gopj�t �� o✓? Orig. Contract Number:
Chief A�ative Officer Date
New Item: Yes No
E'k, i ���r v3
Mayor Date
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT
TITLED R-PZD 03-03.00 LOCATED AT 313 E. LAFAYETTE, 321 E. LAFAYETTE, 346
N. WILLOW, 354 N. WILLOW, AND 310 SUTTON, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY
2. 15 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following d scribed property is
hereby changed as follows: r i
From R-1, Low Density Residential to C=PZD 03-03.00 as shown inVExhibit A
4
attached hereto and made a part hereof. `; 4_
s
Section 2. That the ch ng gin zoning classification is based upon the
approved development plan and developin standardi� --- hown on the Planned
Zoning District plans for Lafayette Loft Apartments and _ 'approved by the Planning
Commission on May 12, 2003.
4 � �
i�
Section 3. A at this ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until
all conditions of approval for the developmen are met.
SectiorFA'mThat the official=zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,
is here amended tolreflect the zoning changeprovided in Section 1 above.
`PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 12003,
APPROVED:
u�µ
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
ALL OF LOT 1 , 29 5 AND 6 AND PART OF LOT 3 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC
ADDITION IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING AT THE NE
CORNER OF SAID LOT 6, THENCE SOUTH 224. 16 FEET, THENCE N8904913111W
191 .57 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 112.42 FEET, THENCE WEST 60.00 FEET, THENCE
NORTH 109.22 FEET, THENCE N89020120"W 67.50 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1 .00
FEET, THENCE WEST 67.50 FEET, THENCE NORTH 227.00 FEET, THENCE EAST
386.57 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 2. 15 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT
TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD. <
! � 1
r
n
� .
AN {
Y 1';
J
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CC Meeting of June 3, 2003
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville City Council
FROM: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
THRU: Tim Conklin, AICP, Director of Community, Planning & Engineering Svcs.
DATE: May 21, 2003
R-PZD 03-3.00: Planned Zoning District (North College Development Company, pp485) was
submitted by Richard Alexander on behalf of North College Development Company for property
located at 313 E. Lafayette Street. The property is zoned R- 1 , Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 2. 15 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District for the conversion
of the St. Joseph' s Catholic Church buildings into 39 residential units (63 bedrooms) with 64 parking
spaces. The existing uses of the duplex on Willow Street and the existing single- family home on
Sutton Street are proposed to remain unchanged.
BACKGROUND
Property description: The subject property is located on the south side of Lafayette Street between
Willow Ave. and Walnut Ave. in the Washington Willow Historic District. A small portion of the
overall property adjoins Sutton Street to the south. The property contains a total of approximately
2. 18 acres and is currently owned by the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock. Until recently and since
1872, the site was used as a school, church, administrative offices and as residential living space.
The subject property and all adjoining lots are zoned R- 1 , low density residential. There are several
existing structures and use areas on the property.
Proposal: The proposal is for an infill project designed to utilize the existing structures and
infrastructure and to convert the school, church and administrative uses on this site into multi-
family dwellings. The existing single family home and duplex are proposed to be renovated and
to remain. There are currently several lots or parts of lots combined under common ownership
which contain five structures and associated parking and access areas. Those tracts are proposed
to be reconfigured with this process to provide individual lots for each structure and to create a
new lot for dedication of 0. 18 acres to the City as parkland.
The existing 64 parking spaces on the site are proposed to be improved with additional landscaping
(approx. 24 trees are proposed to be added). No changes are proposed to the structures beyond the
existing walls of the buildings. Windows will likely be added to provide light and air to the new
residential [nits.
K.1Reports120031CC REPORrSltune MeetingA06031RPZD 03-03.00.ST AES.dm
CURRENT STATUS
On May 12, 2003 , the Planning Commission voted 5-4-0, with Commissioners Estes; Hoover, Ostner
and Bunch voting no, to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval
of the R-PZD zoning contingent upon the approved development plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-PZD.
K:IReporut20031CC REPOR7SUune Meeiinga106031RPZD 03-03.00.ST..OE'S.do
FAYETTEVI PLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Dawn Warrick
Planning Division
From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearmanv
City Clerk's Division
Date: June 20, 2003
Re: Ordinance 4494
Attached hereto is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, June 17, 2003,
establishing R-RZD 03-03,00, located at 313 E. LaFayette, 321 E. LaFayette, 346 N. Willow, 354
N.Willow and 310 Sutton, as a Residential Planned Zoning District; and approving the project as
approved by the Planning Commission.
The original ordinance will be microfilmed, filed in the city clerk's office and published in a
newspaper of general circulation per Arkansas statutes. If anything else is needed please let the
city clerk's office know.
/cbp
Attachment(s)
cc: John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering
NORTHV*ST ARKANSAS %DITION
AAansas amomt 700axeW
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, do solemnly swear that I am
Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas
Times newspaper, printed and published in Lowell , Arkansas, and that
from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said
publication , that advertisement of:
difiaOW � Mvl� was inserted in the regular editions on
Po# 03 - CYM19 ON
" Publication Charge: $ g
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of 2003.
Notary Public
�rttccttrccaccu curcrcccuc tcrtcc ,C
Catherine Sall
State of Arkansas ,
My Commission Expir. wtay"u"' , County
WU,vno ices 5y27105i
S`i My Commission AXP
cctt<ttccccccccccccttccccccaccccc2
" Please do not pay from Affidavit.
An invoice will be sent. jW
C FF2 V
RMS 0���
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
ORDINANCE NO. 4494
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICT MLED R-PZD 03-03.00 LOCATED AT 313
E. LAFAYETTE, 321 E. LAFAYETTE, 346 N. WILLOW, 354 N.
WILLOW, AND 310 SUTTON, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY'
2.15 ACRES; AMENDINGTHE OPRCIAL ZONING MAP OF THE OCATEDM �/ c
CITY DEVELOPMENTPROJECTPROJECTN APP ROVED BY THING THE E PLANN NG Y• r 1e
COMMISSION.
BE R ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE.CIN OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKAN&kS:
Section 1: Thai Ma zone dessifeshen of the fcaVMng desalbed Vale" is hereby changed SS idlo :
From R-1. Low Density Residential to R-PZD 03-03.00 SS shown in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and
made a pert hereof. .
Section 2. That the change in zoning dasdfioeten is based upon the approved development plan and
dvd
eopmem standards as shown on the Planned Zoning DisMd plans for Lafayette Loft Apartments as
appnNad by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2003,and as amended by the City Council to reduce
the maximum dlowade number of units to 37.
Section 3. That this ordinance shall not take effect and be in full farce until all conditions of approval for
Me development have been met.
Section 4. That me fomcdzzoning Semap of the City above. of Fayetteblle. Atksneaa, Is hemby emended to reflect
the zoning change
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 170 clay of June, 2003.
APPROVED: _
D COODV, Mayor r -
ATTEST:
Sondm Smith. City Clerk
EXHIBIT •A• -
ALL OF LOT 1 , 2, 5 AND 6 AND PART OF LOT 3 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC ADDITION N THE
CfTY OF FAVETTENLLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNI AT THE NE CORNER OF SAIDTHENCE
SOUTH 224.16 FEET, THENCE N89°49'31-W 191 .57 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 112.42 FEET, THENCE
WEST 60.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 109. FEET, THENCE N89°20
'20-W 67.50 FEET, THENCE
SOUTH 1,00 FEET, THENCE WEST 67.50 FE THENCE NORTH 227.00 FEET. THENCE EAST 386'{31
FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 2.15 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT 10 EASEMENTS AND
RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD.
FAYETTEVI?LE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDEN
TO: Sondra Smith, City Clerk
cc: Dawn Warrick, Zoning & Development Administrator
FROM: David Whitaker, Assistant City Attorney ✓Q ,
DATE: June 26, 2003
RE: St. Joseph's PZD ordinance
I have reviewed the facts surrounding the typographical error in
St. Joseph's PZD ordinance, and have concluded that it is nothing more
than scrivener's error. Planning will be sending a corrected copy to be
filed and published. Please include a copy of this Memorandum in
your file on the matter. Thanks.
RECEIVED
JUN 262003
CITY OF FAYEUEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT
TITLED R-PZD 03-03.00 LOCATED AT 313 E. LAFAYETTE, 321 E. LAFAYETTE, 346
N. WILLOW, 354 N. WILLOW, AND 310 SUTTON, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY
2.15 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is
hereby changed as follows:
From R-1, Low Density Residential to R-PZD 03-03.00
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the change in zoning classifi
approved development plan and development standards
Zoning District plans for Lafayette Loft Apartments and
Commission on May 12, 2003.
as shown in Exhibit "A"
cation is based upon the
as shown on the Planned
approved by the Planning
Section 3. That this ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until
all conditions of approval for the development are met.
Section 4. That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,
is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
By:
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2003.
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
I;11W;Z1P/%IT
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
EXHIBIT "A"
ALL OF LOT 1, 2, 5 AND 6 AND PART OF LOT 3 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC
ADDITION IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING AT THE NE
CORNER OF SAID LOT 6, THENCE SOUTH 224.16 FEET, THENCE N89°49'31"W
191.57 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 112.42 FEET, THENCE WEST 60.00 FEET, THENCE
NORTH 109.22 FEET, THENCE N89°20'20"W 67.50 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1.00
FEET, THENCE WEST 67.50 FEET, THENCE NORTH 227.00 FEET, THENCE EAST
386.57 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 2.15 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT
TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD.
pY
'
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 4494
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDE) TIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD3-03.00
LOCATED AT 313 E. LAFAYETTE, 321 E. LAFAYE E, 346 N.
WILLOW, 354 N. WILLOW, AND 310 SUTTON, 9ONTA1NING
APPROXIMATELY 2.15 ACRES; AMENDING E OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYE EVILLE; AND
ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AS\APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the\ne classification of the following described property is
hereby changed as follows:
From R-1, Low Density Residential o C-PZD 03-03.00 as shown in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved
development plan and development standards'as shown on the Planned Zoning District plans
for Lafayette Loft Apartments as approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2003,
and as amended by the City Council to reduce the maximum allowable number of units to 37.
Section 3. / That this ordinance shall not take
conditions of approval for the development have been me
Section 4. That the official zoning map of the
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 17`h day of June,
Sondra Smith, City Clerk
and be in full force until all
above.
Arkansas, is
C1
EXHIBIT "A„
ALL OF LOT 1, 2, 5 AND 6 AND PART OF LOT 3 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC
ADDITION IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING AT THE NE
CORNER OF SAID LOT 6, THENCE SOUTH 224.16 FEET, THENCE N89°49'31 "W
191.57 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 112.42 FEET, THENCE WEST 60.00 FEET, THENCE
NORTH 109.22 FEET, THENCE N89°20'20"W 67.50 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1.00
FEET, THENCE WEST 67.50 FEET, THENCE NORTH 227.00 FEET, THENCE EAST
386.57 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 2.15 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT
TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY OF RECORD.
IiR-PZD 03-3.00
Page I
PC Meeting of May 12, 2003
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission Members
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Matt Casey P.E. Staff Engineer
DATE: May 07, 2003
North College Dev Co R-PZD
Project: R-PZD 03-3.00: Planned Zoning District (North College Development Company,
pp485) was submitted by Richard Alexander on behalf of North College Development Company
for property located at 313 E. Lafayette Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and contains approximately 2.0 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned
Zoning District for the conversion of the St. Joseph Catholic Church buildings into 39 residential
units (63 bedrooms) with 64 parking spaces. The existing duplex on Willow Street and the
existing single family home on Sutton Street are proposed to remain.
BACKGROUND
Property description: The subject property is located on the south side of Lafayette Street
between Willow Ave. and Walnut Ave. in the Washington Willow Historic District. A small
portion of the overall property adjoins Sutton Street to the south. The property contains a total of
approximately 2.18 acres and is currently owned by the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock. Until
recently and since 1872, the site was used as a school, church, administrative offices and as
residential living space. The subject property and all adjoining lots are zoned R-1, low density
residential. There are several existing structures and use areas on the property. The current
(most recent) and proposed uses are shown in the table below:
Size
Building! Area
Tract
(Acreage)
Former / Current Use
Proposed Use
Units
Bedrooms
Administrative / Support
Multi -family
Old Church
Tract 1
0.35
services
dwellings
9
15
Multi -family
School
Tract 2
0.77
Elementary School
dwellings
20
28
Multi -family
New Church
Tract 3
0.53
Church
dwellings
10
20
Willow Ave.
duplex
Tract 4
0.17
Duplex
Duplex
2
2
Sutton St.
Single family
house
Tract 5
0.18
Single family home
home
1
Playground / overflow
Parkland
Playground
Tract 6
0.18
parking
dedication
Totals
2.18
42
65
Note: Total units shown above includes the existing duplex and single family home on the property.
Note: Total bedrooms shown above includes the two bedrooms in the existing duplex on the
property.
K. IReportsl20031PC REPOR7S105-12tR-PZD 03-3.00 (North College Dev Ca).doc
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 2
Proposal: The proposal is for an infill project designed to utilize the existing structures and
infrastructure and to convert the school, church and administrative uses on this site into multi-
family dwellings. The existing single family home and duplex are proposed to be renovated and
to remain. There are currently several lots or parts of lots combined under common ownership
which contain five structures and associated parking and access areas. Those tracts are proposed
to be reconfigured with this process to provide individual lots for each structure and to create a
_new lot for dedication of 0.18 acres to the City as parkland.
The existing 64 parking spaces on the site are proposed to be improved with additional
landscaping (approx. 24 trees are proposed to be added). No changes are proposed to the
structures beyond the existing walls of the buildings. Windows will likely be added to provide
light and air to the new residential units.
The applicant has submitted a written description of this project which is included with this staff
report.
Request: The request is for Planning Commission and City Council approval of the R-PZD for
Lafayette Loft Apartments as proposed by the North College Development Co.
FINDINGS
Surrounding Land Use And Zoning
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Residential
R- 1, Low density residential
South
Residential
R- 1, Low density residential
East
Residential
R-1, Low density residential
West
Residential
R-1, Low density residential
Infrastructure: Access to the property is served by Lafayette St., Willow Ave., Walnut Ave., and
Sutton St. Adequate right of way for these streets is existing or proposed with the exception of
Sutton Street. Lafayette St. is designated an historic collector on the City's adopted Master
Street Plan. Water and sewer are both available to the site.
Parking Requirements: The applicant proposes to utilize existing on -site parking for the new
multi -family dwellings. There are approximately 16 on -street parking spaces adjacent to the site
along Lafayette St. which will accommodate guest and intermittent overflow parking needs. The
existing single family home on Sutton Street uses on -street parking currently. No changes to this
lot are proposed.
Use
Required
Proposed
Multi -family dwellings
1 per bedroom (63)
64
Duplex
4
4
Single family home
2
on -street
Totals
69
68 (includes
duplex & sfr)
K: Reportr120031PC REPOR7S105-1218-PZD 03-3.00 (North College Dev Co).doc
N
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 3
Tree Preservation: No changes are proposed.
Lot Coverages / Density:
Building to Land Calculations
Tract
Built Area (sf)
Land Area(s.f.)
% Coverage
1
3,035
15,150
20.03%
-2-
12,320
33,469
36.81%
3
8,502
23,074
36.85%
4
1,364
7,382
18.48%
5
1,909
7,763
24.59%
6
0
7,687
0.00%
Totals
27,130
94,525
N/A
Note: This information reflects structures located on the property and not the total
amount of impervious surface.
Parkland Dedication /Requirements: This project is subject to parkland dedication or fees in lieu
of a land dedication pursuant to § 166.03(K). The applicant has agreed to dedicate tract 6
containing 0.18 acres. This dedication does not meet the required amount of dedication for the
project. The Parks & Rec. Advisory Board has recommended that the balance of the amount
assessed be paid as a fee in lieu in the amount of $11,331.25. The developer appealed this
assessment to the PRAB under the provision of the ordinance regarding . At a meeting of the
PRAB on 5/5/03, the board affirmed it's recommendation for a combination of land dedication
and fees in lieu. When there is a differing recommendation from the applicant an the PRAB, the
Planning Commission must decide the issue and place afinal requirement on the project.
Public Comment: Staff has included with this report minutes from several public hearings at
which this project was discussed. Also included is a petition in opposition to the project which
was circulated by a neighbor on Walnut Ave. Staff has been told that a representative of the
neighborhood association will be providing a statement to the Planning Commission. As soon as
that information is made available to staff, it will be provided to the Commission.
K. IReports110031PC REPOR7S105-1118-PZD 03-3.00 (North College Dev Ca).doc
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
Forward to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the requested
rezoning.
Planning Commission approval of the proposed development subject to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions to address/discuss:
Planning Commission determination of waiver request regarding the PRAB
recommendation for a combination of parkland dedication and money in lieu to satisfy
the requirements of:
§ I 66.03(K)(c): The developer and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board shall
make a joint recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the land
dedication or contribution in lieu of dedication. In the event the they are unable
to agree, the developer and advisory board shall make separate recommendations
to the Planning Commission who shall determine the issue.
2. Planning Commission determination of waiver of required landscaping adjacent to
existing parking lot adjacent to the Walnut Ave. right of way. The requirement is for a
15' landscaped setback for the parking lot. With a dedication to accommodate the master
street plan and the existing configuration of this parking, provision of this landscaped
area would require the removal of 3 existing parking spaces.
Planning Commission consideration of a lesser dedication of right of way along Sutton
Ave. The property adjoins Sutton Ave. for a distance of 60.00 feet. The existing right of
way is 21.99' from centerline. The requirement is for 25' from centerline for a residential
street. The request is to reduce the amount of dedication by 3.01' to allow the existing
right of way to remain. Staff is in support of this request — City Council must approve a
lesser dedication of right of way.
4. Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of the
subject property to the unique district for R-PZD 03-3.00 with all conditions of approval
as determined by the Planning Commission.
5. Bollards or a similar vehicular barricade shall be installed to prevent uncontrolled
vehicular access to tract 6 (parkland dedication) through the existing curb cut and
driveway from Willow Ave.
6. Any additional utility meters or equipment will be required to be screened from the street.
7. An ordinance creating this R-PZD shall be approved by City Council.
8. Covenants shall be filed which provide for maintenance of parking areas and greenspace.
9. A shared access and parking easement shall be shown on the concurrent plat document to
K: IReports12003tPC REPORTSI05-1218-PZD 03-3.00 (North College Dev Co).doc
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 5
be filed which allows for access and parking throughout the site for each building.
10. A masonry screen wall shall be installed along the south side of the property as indicated
on the development plan.
11. All signage proposed on
site
shall
comply with
Chapter 174, Signs of the Unified
Development Ordinance
and
shall
be permitted
accordingly.
12. The development plan shall be shown with the lot split survey, to be titled concurrent plat
in order to have a final plat document reflecting the project as well as the lot
configurations. This document shall contain the necessary legal descriptions and required
signature blocks for filing.
13. Parks fees shall be paid and parks land dedicated (as determined by the Planning
Commission) prior to building permit.
14. Required access and parking easements and covenants shall be filed with concurrent plat
15. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
16. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements.
17. Sidewalk construction to include the repair or replacement of any broken or damaged
sidewalks around the site.
Findings associated with R-PZD 03-3.00
Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD).
(B) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines
(1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the purpose
and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development standards
and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and
enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree preservation,
water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the protection of watercourses
from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that specific
development features, including project density, building locations, common usable open
K: IReports120031PC REPORTSI05-1218-PZD 03-3.00 (North College Dev Co).doc
V J
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 6
space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and
perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity
and welfare of the community. To these ends, all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance
shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those utilized for
zoning and subdivision applications.
FINDING: The proposal for multi -family residential is compatible with adjacent residential
properties. The buildings are already constructed with the majority of the development
occurring on the interior of the structures. Natural features which currently exist on the site
will not be disturbed as a result of this project.
(2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the
development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning
Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and
landscaping shall be provided as set forth in § 166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part of
the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and quality
(size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of fences, berms
and plant material to be used.
FINDING: Due to surrounding residential uses no screening has been proposed.
(3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply:
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in
light of the projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local
collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in
appropriate relationship with one another.
(c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such
considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different
land uses.
(d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system,
providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development.
(e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the
planned zoning development and to adjacent areas.
(f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and
interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code.
K:IReportsi20031PC REPORT5105-1218-PZD 03-3.00 (North College Dew Co).doc
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 7
FINDING: There are no additional streets, nor street improvements proposed. The result of
the conversion of this property will result in fewer vehicle trips being made to the site. Staff
has run traffic generations for the change of use and has found the result to be 36 fewer vehicle
trips per day during the week and 64 fewer vehicle trips on Sundays. There will also be fewer
trips during the peak hour from 7 to 9 a.m.
(4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172
Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the
respective use areas.
FINDING: The minimum parking standards are being met. There are 64 off-street parking
spaces required. The proposal is for 64 off-street parking stalls (plus the existing 4 spaces
dedicated to the duplex on Willow Street). Additional on -street parking around the site is
available for overflow and guest parking.
(5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district, all
uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of this
chapter of this code.
FINDING: Buffers and screening are not required between residential developments.
(6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Sidewalks are existing. There has been a requirement made in the conditions of
approval which require damaged sidewalks to be replaced.
(7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Street lights are existing.
(8) Water. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Water is existing.
(9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Sewer is existing.
(10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or
private.
(a) -- Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards
of the City.
(b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to
K:IReportr120031PC REPOR7SI05-1218-PZD 03-3.00 (North College Dev Co).doc
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 8
the following conditions:
(i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul-de-
sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to existing
City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street.
(ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public
streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below.
(iii) All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site
drainage and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading
(Physical Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances.
Open drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer.
(iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density
served by a loop street shall be 80 units.
(v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private
street."
(vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or
of a neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the
responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall
be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the
City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce
the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the
other parties to the covenants.
(vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained as
required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to
maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property owners within the
PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad valorem tax purposes
and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for such cost. The protective
covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private streets for purposes of
providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and any other of the municipal
functions. The protective covenants shall provide that such covenants shall not be
amended and shall not terminate without approval of the City Council.
(viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served. The following
standard shall be used:
Paving Width
(No On -Street Parking)
Dwelling I One -Way Two -Way
K. IRepor&120031PC REPORTS105-12W-PZD 03-3.00 (Norm College Dev Co).doc
ft
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 9
Units
1-20
14
22'
21+
14'
24'
*Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added toeach side where parking is intended.
(ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private
streets within a PZD.
(x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street.
(xi)The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign, not
exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which
shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic.
FINDING: No new streets are required.
(11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight building
permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be constructed. In
the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential
facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into a contract with
the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities.
FINDING: There are no non-residential facilities proposed.
(12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for tree
preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The location of
trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings,
underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade
levels.
FINDING: There are no plans for any tree removal.
(13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or
commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in
§ 166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for
Commercial Structures.
FINDING: There are no office or commercial structures proposed.
(14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish
special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall
K:IReports11003IPC REPOR7S105-12IR-PZD 03-3.00 (Norte College Dev Co).doc
ft
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 10
have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant
restrictions.
FINDING: N/A
(E) Revocation.
(1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to
the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be
voided under the following circumstances:
(a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed.
(b) Phased development
schedule.
If the applicant does not
adhere to the phased
development schedule
as stated
in the approved development
plan.
(c) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common
open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are
proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components.
Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of
each quarter, so that the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development
accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission
finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial
structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public
recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the Planning Commission
may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any additional final plans if preceding
phases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue
issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke those previously issued.
(2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent
to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to
appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to
totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be
forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is
revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city clerk's office and the
public zoning record duly noted.
(3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those
portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and
effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the
City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued
issuance of building permits.
(F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations.
K. tRepora110031PC REPORTSI05-1218-PZD 03-3.00 (Norm College Dev Co).doc
ft
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page II
(1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake and
be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private roads,
parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building,
lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The city
encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other
nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts
and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and
maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally -owned facilities shall be
approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Planning Commission
as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. The aforementioned legal
instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission together with the filing of the
final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the preliminary plan or at least in a
preliminary form.
(2) Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the
developer shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Guarantee
that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval. The provisions
shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
(a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are
granted.
(b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer.
(c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years.
(d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other
common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes
and other public assessments.
(e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance assessment
levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the property.
FINDING: Covenants are being proposed to provide for maintenance of driveways and
parking lots in the event that the lots are sold. An access easement is proposed to guarantee
each lot perpetual accesss.
Sec. 161.25 Planned Zoning District
(A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage
comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic
development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned
development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a
simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD maybe deemed appropriate if the
development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals.
K:IReporrs120031PC REPORTS105-l2tR-PZD 03-3.00 (Norte College Dev Co).doc
00
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 12
(1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of
development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts.
(2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
(3) Harmony. Providing for an orderlyand creative arrangement of land uses that are
harmonious and beneficial to the community.
(4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or
commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration
of economic and redevelopment opportunities.
(5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the
area;
(6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and
cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the
renewal of existing deteriorating areas.
(7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas
and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land
development regulations.
(8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural
features and amenities.
(9) General Plan. Comprehensive
and
innovative planning
and design of mixed use yet
harmonious developments consistent
with
the guiding policies
of the General Plan.
(10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic
location, topography, size or shape.
FINDING: The proposal is for a single use residential development. The rezoning of the
property to a planned zoning district may be deemed appropriate due the compatibility of the
proposal with adjacent properties.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan 2020 in which it meets the guiding policies for
residential areas which are:
9.8.e Utilize more intense development patterns downtown, where appropriate, and
encourage mixed uses in new developments to promote better community design,
maintain human scale, and enhance pedestrian activity.
9.8.f Site new residential areas accessible to
roadways,
alternative transportation
modes, community amenities,
infrastructure,
and retail
and commercial goods and
K. Vteports120031PC REPOR7S105-I21R-PZD 03-3.00 (Norh College Dev Co).doc
a
NR-PZD 03-3.00
Page 13
services.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan 2020 in which it meets the guiding policy for
recreation and open space which is:
9.17.m Provide neighborhood parks within one mile of all residential areas.
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan 2020 in which it meets the guiding policy for
community character which is:
9.19.g Encourage new residential development to incorporate varying lot sizes, home
prices, and types of dwelling units.
(B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council in
accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each rezoning
parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific design and
development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label, along with the
designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development
plan and development standards.
FINDING: Staff has reviewed the proposed development with regard to findings necessary
for rezoning requests. Those findings are attached to this report. An ordinance will be drafted
in order to create this Planned Zoning District which will incorporate all conditions placed on
the project by the Planning Commission. Covenants provided by the developer will be
included in the PZD ordinance. This ordinance will be forwarded to the City Council for
approval.*
(C) R - PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District.
(1) Purpose and intent. The R-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use or clustered
residential developments and to accommodate single -use residential developments that are
determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general residential rezone. The
legislative purposes, intent, and application of this district include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) To encourage a variety and flexibility in land development and land use for
predominately residential areas, consistent with the city's General Plan and the orderly
development of the city.
(b) To provide a framework within which an effective relationship of different land uses and
activities within a single development, or when considered with abutting parcels of land, can be
planned on a total basis.
(c) To provide a harmonious relationship with the surrounding development, minimizing
such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion, and excessive
demands on planned and existing public facilities.
K)Repora120031PC REPOR7S10S-1218-PZD 03-3.00 (North College Dev Co).doc
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 14
(d) To provide a means of developing areas with special physical features to enhance natural
beauty and other attributes.
(e) To encourage the efficient use of those public facilities required in connection with new
residential development.
FINDING: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. The developer has considered the
needs of adjacent properties through neighborhood meetings and taken steps to accommodate
neighbor requests. The redevelopment of this property from institutional to residential is
providing for the efficient use of public facilities.
(2) Permitted uses.
Unit
I
City-wide uses by right
Unit
2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit
3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit
4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit
5
Government facilities
Unit
8
Single-family dwellings
Unit
9
Two-family dwellings
Unit
10
Three-family dwellings
Unit
12
Offices, studios and related services
Unit
13
Eating places
Unit
15
Neighborhood shopping
Unit
19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit
24
Home occupations
Unit
25
Professional offices
Unit
26
Multi -family dwellings
FINDING: The proposal is for Use Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings, which is a permitted use in
an R-PZD.
(3)
Condition.
In no
instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent
(51%)
of the gross
floor
area within the development.
FINDING: The proposed development meets this requirement with 100% of the gross floor
area to be used for residential purposes.
K:1Reports110031PC REPORM05-12W-PZD 03-3.00 (Norio College Dev Co).doc
a
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 15
*Required Findings for Rezoning Request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as
part of this report.
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property
to R-PZD03-1 .00 is consistent with the land use plan and compatible with surrounding land uses
in the area.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with land use planning objectives,
principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. This proposal
addresses several guiding policies within the General Plan 2020 which relate
to residential development. Providing a mix of dwelling types and densities
within residential areas, providing a small neighborhood park area,
redeveloping historically significant structures and providing residential
development within walking distance from community commercial resources
are all principles which can be identified in this design concept.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: In order to reuse the existing school and church for multi -family residential
purposes a rezoning is required. The site is currently zoned for single family
homes (R-1) which would require the existing structures to be removed.
A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning will decrease the overall trip per day generated by the
subject property, this improvement will be most noticeable during the peak
a.m. hour an on Sunday mornings.
4. A determination as to whether the proposed.zoning would alter the population density
and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and
sewer facilities.
Finding: Population density will be altered by this proposal. This change should not
create an undesirable load on public services.
K:IReporrs120031PC REPORTSI05-12tR-PZD 03-3.00 (Worth College Dev Coj.doc
R-PZD 03-3.00
Page 16
5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted
under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning
even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why
the proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: N/A
K. IReportr120031PC REPOR7S105-I2R-PZD 03-3.00 (Worth College Dev Co).doc
NORTH COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT CO., L.L.C.
11 N. WEST AVENUE
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701
PHONE, (501) 521-4260
FAX: (501) 521-3009
April 23, 2003
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 313 E. LAFAYETTE ST.,
FAYETTEVILLE, AR, ALSO KNOWN AS ST. JOE'S CATHOLIC CHURCH,
CONTAINING 2.17 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 5 AND 6, BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
The above site is improved with five buildings containing approximately 38,000 square
feet of heated and cooled space.
Applicant proposes to remodel the old St. Joe's school building into 20 one and two
bedroom residential apartment units.
Applicant proposes to remodel the old St. Joe's Church on the comer of Willow and
Lafayette into nine one and two bedroom residential apartment units.
Applicant proposes to remodel the sanctuary located on the comer of Walnut and
Lafayette into ten two bedroom units.
Applicant proposes a total of 39 new residential units with 63 bedrooms.
Applicant originally proposed remodeling the sanctuary located on the comer of
Lafayette and Willow to be used as a performance area and/or meeting space. It was Applicant's
intent to donate that space to the neighborhood association and/or other non -profits on a regular
basis provided Applicant could lease the same space to other potential users for enough money to
pay for utilities, maintenance, taxes, insurance, management and landscaping. Subsequently,
after meeting with the neighborhood association on at least two occasions, together with one-on-
one meetings with neighbors in person and by phone, it became clear to Applicant that the traffic
and parking problems associated with the use of the facility as a performance or meeting hall
outweighed the benefits. As a practical matter, many of the neighbors expressed concern about
ft
traffic and parking problems related with such proposed use. That together with the fact that the
Applicant could not generate any interest vis-a-vis other potential users to rent the space on a
commercial basis sufficient to pay for utilities, maintenance, taxes, insurance, management and
landscaping led Applicant to amend its proposal to convert the sanctuary into ten two bedroom
residential apartment units. It became clear to the Applicant that the parking and density
associated with the residential use of the structure was the least burdensome to the site in that
Applicant has sufficient onsite parking to accommodate all of the proposed residential units.
Subsequently, Applicant discussed with planning staff amending its proposal to include
development of the sanctuary as residential apartment units. That amended proposal was then
duly submitted to the Subdivision Committee at its regular meeting on April 3, 2003. It was the
amended proposal which was forwarded by the Subdivision Committee to the Planning
Commission on April 3, 2003. The amended proposal was also presented at the next
neighborhood association meeting held on April 7, 2003 at which members of the Parks and
Recreation Board were also present. That amended proposal has also been presented to
individual neighbors in one-on-one meetings and via telephone calls.
The site currently has 64 onsite parking spaces. There are also 16 street side parking
spaces available for visitor parking on the south side of Lafayette Street adjoining the property.
Applicant proposes to remodel the existing duplex located on Willow Street as a duplex
consisting of two one bedroom residential units. The Willow Street duplex is located on a
separate lot and is presently zoned R-1. The Willow Street duplex has sufficient onsite parking
for a duplex
Applicant proposes to remodel the single family dwelling on Sutton Street as a single
family dwelling. Applicant is not requesting the rezoning of the Sutton Street property. The
•Sutton Street Property is on a separate lot and is presently zoned R-1. The Sutton Street property
has sufficient onsite parking for a single-family residence.
At the neighbors' request, Applicant proposes to screen the single-family residential
houses on the south side of the property with a six-foot high masonry sound wall.
Applicant does not propose to exceed the envelope of the existing buildings in the
remodeling process.
Applicant does not propose to cut any existing mature trees on the site.
Applicant does not propose any additional curb cuts or drainage.
Applicant proposes to maintain and enhance existing green space and/or open areas.
Applicant proposes to landscape added green space adjacent to the parking areas.
Applicant proposes to furnish easements, satisfactory to planning staff, for ingress and
egress and parking with covenants for the maintenance of the parking areas.
The property is currently owned by the Catholic Archdiocese of Little Rock. The
property has been used since 1872 as a school, church, administrative offices and as residential
living space. Applicant has tried for several months but was unable to entice potential tenants for
alternative uses of the property consistent with a redevelopment plan as a school, church,
performance area or similar use. The property is currently zoned R-1.
Applicant believes that the rezoning of the property for primarily moderate density
residential use is consistent with the surrounding properties in terms of land use, traffic,
appearance and signage. Applicant's proposed density with regard to occupancy and traffic is
significantly less than the previous uses of church, school and administrative offices.
Applicant does not believe there will be any problem with the availability of water or
sewer for the proposed use. Applicant believes that there is ample water and sewer capacity to
the existing building for the proposed use.
Applicant has had multiple meetings with the local Washington/Willow Neighborhood
Association and individual neighbors regarding this proposal. Applicant believes that the
neighborhood, for the most part, is supportive of this proposal.
Applicant proposes to place the old St. Joe's Catholic Church building on the corner of
Lafayette and Willow on the National Register of Historic Places and plans to maintain the
exterior facade of the building as a historic property consistent with the U.S. Department of
Interior guidelines for rehabilitation of historic buildings.
Applicant would not be making this request but for the fact that this site is existing and
already contains 38,000 square feet of basically abandoned institutional space in the heart of the
City. Applicant proposes to spend substantial monies on the renovation and rehabilitation of this
property (estimated to be between $3.5 and $4 million). Applicant believes that the expenditure
of that kind of funds at that site will have the effect of transforming currently vacant and
deteriorating buildings into commercially viable, attractive additions to a vibrant and diverse
downtown.
Applicant feels that this is an appropriate infill project. Given the fact that the property
and the structures are presently existing and located in the City center, the tax on existing City
services will be minimal, while traffic and parking will be decreased compared to the former use.
Also, and as a practical matter, the historic district, while technically zoned R-1, is and always
has been mixed use in terms of density and commercial activity in that there are and historically
have been many multi -family, residential and other commercial buildings throughout the district.
And even though the proposed density is greater than would be allowed a new project in an R-1
zone (4-7 families per acre) it is less than would be allowed in an R-2 zone (4-24 families per
acre).
46
Your kind consideration of this request is appreciated. Please contact me at the above
should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Alexander
1T •1 I
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 33
R-PZD 03-3.00: Planned Zoning District (North College Development Company, pp
485) was submitted by Richard Alexander on behalf of North College Development
Company for property located at 313 E. Lafayette, 321 E. Lafayette, 346 N. Willow, 354
N. Willow, and 310 Sutton. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 2.15 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning
District for the conversion of the St. Joseph's Catholic Church buildings into 39
residential units (63 bedrooms) with 64 parking spaces. The uses of the existing duplex
on Willow Street and the existing single family home on Sutton Street are proposed to
remain unchanged.
Hoover: Item number six is the Planned Zoning District for the St. Joseph's
Catholic Church buildings, R-PZD 03-3.00. Dawn, are you presenting
this?
Warrick: The subject property is located on the south side of Lafayette Street
between Willow and Walnut Avenue in the Washington Willow Historic
District. A small portion of the overall property does adjoin Sutton Street
to the south. The property contains a total of 2.15 acres and is currently
owned by the Catholic Diesis of Little Rock. Until recently, and since
1872, the site was used as a school, church, administrative offices, and for
residential living spaces. The subject property, and all adjoining lots, are
zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. There are several existing structures
and uses on the property. The most recent uses of the property included
administrative and support services, an elementary school, a church, a
duplex, and a single-family home. Accessory to the school is an overflow
parking lot and playground area. This proposal is for an infill project
designed to utilize the existing structures and infrastructure and to convert
the school, church, and administrative uses on the site into multi -family
dwellings. The existing single-family home and duplex are proposed to be
renovated and to remain. There are currently several lots, or parts of lots
combined, that make up the overall property. Those tracts are proposed to
be reconfigured in this process to provide individual lots for each structure
and to create a new lot containing approximately 0.18 acres to be
dedicated to the city for parkland requirements. The existing 64 parking
spaces on the site are proposed to be improved with additional landscaping
approximately 24 trees are proposed to be added in this area. No changes
are proposed to the structures beyond the existing walls of the buildings.
However, some windows are likely to be incorporated to provide light and
air for the proposed residential units. In your packet there is a detailed
description of the project provided by the applicant. The request is for
Planning Commission and City Council approval of a R-PZD, a
Residential Planned Zoning District, for this project, which the applicant is
calling the Lafayette Loft Apartments. As I mentioned previously, the
surrounding land use and zoning is single-family residential in a R-1
district. With regard to infrastructure, access to the property is served by
Lafayette Street and Willow with a one way drive between Willow and
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 34
Walnut. Sutton Street adjoins the property to the south and that is adjacent
to the single-family home lot. Lafayette Street is designated as a historic
collector on the city's adopted Master Street Plan. Water and sewer are
both available and currently serve the site. The applicant proposes to
utilize existing on site parking for the new multi -family dwellings. As I
mentioned, that parking lot contains 64 parking spaces. . There are
proposed 63 bedrooms for this development. The city's ordinance
requirement for parking for multi -family is one space per bedroom.
Therefore, it does comply with that. With regard to tree preservation, no
changes to the existing canopy on the site are proposed. As I mentioned
before, additional trees will be added. With regard to density, under this
proposal the total site density would be 19.27 units per acre. As the
Planning Commission requested, a calculation with regard to the multi-
family lots only taking out the park land area and the single-family and
duplex structures, that density for multi -family lots only would be 23.64
units per acre. With regard specifically to the parkland dedication
requirements, the project is subject to parkland dedication or fees in lieu of
a land dedication pursuant to §166.03. The applicant has agreed to
dedicate tract 6, which contains 0.18 acres. This dedication does not meet
the required amount of dedication for the project. The Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board has recommended that the balance of the
amount be paid as a fee in lieu in the amount of $11,331.25. The
developer did appeal this assessment to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board under the provision of the ordinance at a meeting of the Parks and
Rec. Board on May 5`s. The Board affirmed its recommendation for a
combination of land dedication and fees in lieu. When there is a
difference in opinion with regard to a recommendation coming from the
Parks Board and a request coming from the applicant it is the Planning
Commission's responsibility to determine the appropriate resolution to
this. The Planning Commission is asked to decide whether or not the
applicant's proposal is adequate to serve this development or whether the
Parks and Rec. Advisory Board's recommendation for a combination of
land and fees is desired. With regard to public comments, some additional
information was distributed this evening and should be at your places.
Staff has included with this report minutes from several public hearings at
which the item was discussed. Also included is a petition in opposition to
the project, which was circulated by a neighbor on Walnut Street. We
have not, staff has requested but has not received, any comments from the
neighborhood association with regard to this request. Our
recommendation is to forward to the City Council with a recommendation
for approval of the requested rezoning and for Planning Commission
approval of the proposed development subject to the following conditions.
Staff has recommended seventeen conditions. I will read those for you.
1) Planning Commission determination of waiver request regarding the
PRAB recommendation for a combination of parkland dedication and
money in lieu to satisfy the requirements of §166.03(K)(c). 2) Planning
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 35
Commission determination of waiver of required landscaping adjacent to
existing parking lot adjacent to the Walnut Ave. right of way. The
requirement is for a 15' landscaped setback for the parking lot. With a
dedication to accommodate the master street plan and the existing
configuration of this parking, provision of this landscaped area would
require the removal of 3 existing parking spaces. 3) Planning Commission
consideration of a lesser dedication of right of way along Sutton Ave. The
property .adjoins Sutton Ave. for -a distance of 60.00 feet. The existing
right of way is 21.99' from centerline. The requirement is for 25' from
centerline for a residential street. The request is to reduce the amount of
dedication by 3.01' to allow the existing right of way to remain. Staff is in
support of this request — City Council must approve a lesser dedication of
right of way. 4) Planning Commission recommendation to the City
Council regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique
district for R-PZD 03-3.00 with all conditions of approval as determined
by the Planning Commission. 5) Bollards or a similar vehicular barricade
shall be installed to prevent uncontrolled vehicular access to tract 6
(parkland dedication) through the existing curb cut and driveway from
Willow Ave. 6) Any additional utility meters or equipment will be
required to be screened from the street. 7) An ordinance creating this R-
PZD shall be approved by City Council. 8) Covenants shall be filed
which provide for maintenance of parking areas and greenspace. 9) A
shared access and parking easement shall be shown on the concurrent plat
document to be filed which allows for access and parking throughout the
site for each building. 10) A masonry screen wall shall be installed along
the south side of the property as indicated on the development plan. 11)
All signage proposed on site shall comply with Chapter 174, Signs of the
• Unified Development Ordinance and shall be permitted accordingly. 12)
The development plan shall be shown with the lot split survey, to be titled
concurrent plat in order to have a final plat document reflecting the project
as well as the lot configurations. This document shall contain the
necessary legal descriptions and required signature blocks for filing. 13)
Parks fees shall be paid and parks land dedicated (as determined by the
Planning Commission) prior to building permit. 14) Required access and
parking easements and covenants shall be filed with concurrent plat. 15)
Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments
provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from
utility representatives. 16) Staff approval of final detailed plans,
specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage,
water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the
_plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public
improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All
improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 17)
Sidewalk construction to include the repair or replacement of any broken
or damaged sidewalks around the site. I think I will stop there and address
Planning Commission •
May 12, 2003
Page 36
questions as you have them. There are several findings included in your
staff report with regard to the Planned Zoning District as well as
specifically the rezoning that would go along with this.
Hoover: Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant come forward and share a
presentation?
Alexander: I am Rick Alexander with North College Development, we are the
applicants. This is a difficult project. I live in the neighborhood, I am
concerned about what happens in the neighborhood. We own several
properties there. We have spent a lot of money and time developing those
into what we believe are nice properties. I can understand that there is
going to be some resistance to this kind of a project in that type of
neighborhood. We started with that proposition when we first
contemplated this development. We approached City staff to get their
input and determine whether or not they would be in favor of this. I
believe their staff reports indicate that they are for a variety of reasons.
We support the staff report. We agree with it. We agree with the
recommendations. Basically, this is 38,000 sq.ft. of abandoned
institutional space in the heart of the historic district. When we originally
approached this project we looked for alternative uses, mixed uses,
commercial uses, performance, artistic, university, Walton Arts Center.
We interviewed potential tenants from each of those institutions as well as
schools, churches, and other organizations and commercial interests. We
could find no support for an alternative use for this property. That being
the case, and after several meetings with the neighborhood association and
neighbors one on one in telephone calls and in meetings, came to the
conclusion that the best use of this property was as residential. It is the
most benign, in my opinion, it will have the most benign affect on terms of
traffic and density. It is the most consistent with the neighborhood. This
is an established neighborhood. While it is zoned R-1, it has traditionally
been multi -family. There are many multi -family residences and structures
in this neighborhood, and have been so as far as I can tell, since the
University came into existence. The property in question is in fact, a block
and a half from the IGA, from the commercial interests that are College
Avenue. It is a little over two blocks from the public library and the
courthouse. There are institutional uses in this neighborhood. There are
commercial uses in this neighborhood. There are single-family uses in
this neighborhood. Again, I live in this neighborhood and I have a single-
family residence next to the library. It think it is problematic as a city in
terms of what do we do when institutional space like this, located in these
areas, is abandoned. It was our determination that this type of project
would have the least impact on city services in that there are existing
roads, parking, utilities, water, sewer, electric to this site that had
supported far greater density in the past than we are proposing. I think
this is an appropriate infill project. Again, I think it is problematic that if
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 37
that is not an appropriate use what do we do with these type of projects as
they come up in the future? One that is going to come up is the public
library that is located in this neighborhood. The same questions will be
asked and answered by this Commission and the city then. What is an
appropriate use of that space? An example of an inappropriate use would
be the Mountain Inn. That is a dilapidated project located in the heart of
our city. It is home to vagrants, a lot of criminal activity. The police
reports are longer than my arm. I think that is one of the things that you
have to be concerned with when these type of properties become vacant.
It was a few years ago, I couldn't believe that the Campbell Bell building
on the square would sit vacant for seven years. It did, it was boarded up.
It can happen fast and again, as a neighbor in this particular neighborhood,
as a resident, I am concerned as to what happens with these properties.
The project that we are proposing is upscale. I know that there is a lot of
concern that there will be a bunch of students and parties happening on
this property. It has been my experience that the rents that we charge are
not conducive to student occupation. We have several properties
downtown. None of them are inappropriate in my opinion. We have not
had complaints about the look of them or the use of them for the most part.
I think that if we develop this property we will develop it into something
that the neighborhood and the city can be proud of. We have done a lot of
them in town. Again, we always try to do something that is mixed use. I
would've preferred to do a mixed use project here but we simply couldn't
come up with any potential users. This is our project, it is infill. We
wouldn't be making this request but for the fact that the buildings are
there. It is 38,000 sq.ft. The parking is there, the building is there. We
are not proposing to exceed the envelop of the buildings, we are not
proposing to cut any trees, we are proposing to maintain all of the
greenspaces. We are proposing to dedicate parkland. We are proposing to
enhance the parking that is there and to enhance the landscaping. We are
proposing to put up masonry sound walls and otherwise be as good of a
neighbor as we can be. That is our proposal. I think Dawn set it out in
detail and frankly, we agree with it. I frankly agree with the
recommendation. Thank you.
Hoover: Thank you Richard. At this time I would like to take public comment. I
would just like to remind everybody to sign in at the podium and also to
let you know that with public comment you get to speak once only and if
you would be sure to address the issues of compatibility with the
neighborhood, which would include issues such as parking density, open
space, traffic, and things such as that and only specifically address the
project and not anything else. Thank you. Can we have the neighborhood
association representative speak first, I think that would be a good idea.
Thompson: Hello, my name is Kathy Thompson. I am president of the Washington -
Willow Neighborhood Association. First of all I would like to apologize
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 38
to you for not having a resolution to you. I have been out of town or
dealing with family illness for almost two weeks and our vice president
has been out of town also. We were surprised with the amount of
opposition. We are a little bit caught unaware. I can assure you that the
neighborhood association is in favor of Richard and Rob and their project.
One of the reasons that we started the neighborhood association four years
ago was because we knew that St. Joseph's school and the library were
going to be vacant and we were worried about it. We have been trying for
I would say the last two years or three years, talking with Paul Warren at
the church and trying to get something happening at St. Jo's. We have
talked to numerous people. I have worked with Don Man. We have
worked with Richard, we have talked to the Walton Arts Center. We have
had ideas. We have tried to get the Montessori in there. We have tried to
get Suzuki school. We have gone here and there and everywhere and
• talked about this and tried to get something in there besides residential. I
can tell you over the last two years of trying to get people interested in
helping and trying to get people interested in buying or trying to get
people interested in something different, something vital, something that
the community can use as well as 'the neighborhood, nothing has
happened. We feel, as a neighborhood association, that we, in some ways
are very lucky to have Richard as a possible landlord because he has done
such a great job in the past with other residences. We trust him, we feel
like that we can come with him with problems that we have and we also.
are aware that there are people waiting in line behind Richard that might
not be as good of landlord as we will have with Richard. I think that
people need to really think about that before they become upset and they
should know that the catholic church is going to sell this property so we
better be very careful about how we approach this issue. We have been
very aware of it for the last few years and we have been working on it and
while we would have liked to have something else happen there, I can tell
you that at least we feel like Richard and Rob will be the best that we can
find in a residential landlord. We are approaching this in a positive way
and not a negative way. We are very happy with the fact that we are going
to have a small park in our neighborhood, which we have been sorely
wanting for a long time. We are lacking greenspace in our neighborhood
and we are very happy with what the Parks and Rec. people have agreed to
do. While I would say once again, we are unhappy that something else
could not have happened there, we are also very happy with Rob and
Richard's proposals. Do you have any questions of me about the
neighborhood association?
Allen: I would like to ask, you said the neighborhood association was in favor of
the project, if that was done by a vote at a meeting or emails or how you
made the determination.
Thompson: It has been done both ways. We have had meetings. We have met with
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 39
Richard. We have been sending out fliers, we have 600 people that are in
the boundaries, excuse me, households inside the boundaries of our
neighborhood association and for four years we have met until recently,
the last few months, we have met every Thursday night of every month for
the last four years, since 1999. This has been one of our, hot topics. We
have had fliers, we walk fliers three to four times a year. We announce
our agendas. St. Joseph's has been on our agenda. We have had ,Paul
Warren, who is with the church, come and speak to us. We have had
Richard come and speak to us and the people that come are the people that
come. The people that come are the people that are interested and they are
the people that have voted. We have a membership, paying members, I
would say of around 150 to 200 people. Then we consider the households
in the neighborhood, part of the neighborhood association, whether they
are members or not. We have got out information for three to four years
on this issue and the people who have come are the people who have been
interested and who have worked on committees and who have tried to
make something else happen there. Does that answer your question?
Allen: I wondered if there was actually a vote among the membership.
Thompson: There was, I would imagine at one of our meetings. I am not sure that we
have actually said, we have said that we were in agreement with Richard
doing this. I don't know, we don't have a very strict neighborhood
association. We are not very parliamentary so I am not sure. All of the
people that have been there, I have had many people tell me that they are
in favor of Richard. I have had only two calls opposing it and I have
stopped and talked to many, many, many people on the street. I have
talked to a lot of people by telephone and we could get a definite number
for you and we can get a resolution for you. I am just sorry that we
haven't done it before because I just didn't realize that we had all of the
opposition and I have been gone frankly, my father has been sick. I have
been kind of out of sink and out of touch. I can get that to you as quickly
as possibly the next three or four days.
Allen: Thank you.
Hoover: Are there any other questions?
Bunch: Has there been a meeting since the latest edition of this project has been
submitted primarily when it was changed from a mixed use to totally
residential, has the neighborhood association met on that?
Thompson: No, we haven't. We are not meeting now every month. We have this year
only decided, I think March was our first meeting for this year. We
adopted in December to have only three meetings a year, annually now
instead of meeting every single, we have met every single month for four
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 40
years and now we are not doing that. In that time this has changed. To
address what I think that you are probably talking about, what our
neighborhood association, if you can say there has been any opposition to
what Richard is doing, I think it wouldn't be called opposition as much as
it would be called disappointment that the new sanctuary, we thought that
the new sanctuary was going to be used for community concerts, chamber
concerts, jazz concerts, weddings, anything that you needed a rental space
for and possibly some community space. When we discovered that that
was not possible, that the numbers wouldn't crunch and they had to make
apartments in the new sanctuary then people were disappointed. One of
the things that we really wanted to have happen in that space was to have
some community space for not just our neighborhood, but for everyone in
the community to be able to use. I would say that that is the thing that
people would be disappointed about. On the other side of the coin they
are just as excited and just as happy about having some greenspace in our
neighborhood, even though it is just a small area. In our neighborhood
that represents a lot because we don't have any parks or anything like that
in the neighborhood.
Bunch: The bottom line here is that the neighborhood association has not
reviewed it as an all residential facility. Therefore, any recommendation
that you have does not reflect all residential?
Thompson: No, I don't think that is true. I think people are going along with that. We
haven't had a meeting, do you want me to call a special meeting and get
the numbers for it?
Bunch: This is one of the things that we have been requesting for quite some time
in Subdivision Committee and it was tabled at one time because we
wanted to know whether or not the neighborhood association had, in fact,
seen the plan where it had shifted from mixed use to all residential. This
is a question that has been paramount in our minds. That is the reason I
am asking it now, just to nail it down and make sure that there has been a
consensus saying this is the project as it stands now, is this acceptable.
Thompson: We haven't had a meeting since then.
We do have email
and since I have
been gone for almost a week and a half
I have not checked my
email so I
don't know what kind of feedback we
are getting on the
email
but I have
not had any phone calls. My phone number has been on
every
single one
of those fliers for four years. We have
not had a meeting
because our next
meeting is in June. We will be glad to
get that for you. I
didn't
know that
wasrequested.
Bunch: Did the applicant approach you from that specific standpoint because that
is one of the requests that we made.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 41
Thompson: Yes. Richard has been very, Richard and I have been in discussion with
this since January or December.
Bunch: Specifically since the time that it was submitted as an all residential and at
that time the request was made to get information from the neighborhood
association.
Thompson: We have not had a meeting since then. We just have not gathered as a
neighborhood association, no. Are there any other questions? Thank you
very much.
Hoover: Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this
PZD?
Hamilton: My name is Craig Hamilton and I live in the house on the comer of Sutton
and Willow. My main concern is mostly with traffic and particularly
parking. With the increasing amount of people there with 10 new
apartments in the church, existing church building, it increases the amount
of cars that would be in that area. With that, there is no longer two
parking spots for basically every person that is there. It is more like one to
one and a half The kind of people that we will have living in these
apartments will end up being mostly couples and non -children but they
will have usually two vehicles. A lot of times they will have two large
vehicles like SUV's and what have you so it causes significant parking
issues. That is mostly what Jam concerned with. I was actually quite for
the project up until yesterday when I first found out about the addition of
the ten apartments. What I would like to see is there could be a lot of
traffic issues dealt with that haven't been resolved; like possibly looking at
making some of these streets one way or making parking just on one side
of the street that have not been addressed. I would like to see those
addressed before this moves on.
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Hamilton.
Wright: I am Wyatt Wright. I live at 346 N. Walnut Avenue, on the corner of
Walnut and Sutton. Those three of you who were at the Subdivision
Committee saw the first iteration of this particular document that is in
front of you. I had heard that there wasn't much opposition to this project.
At the Subdivision Committee meeting, just before it, I went and talked to
my neighbors all the way from my house up to Lafayette and I was
surprised to find that all of them were opposed to it. I came back and I
wrote down the reasons that they were opposed to it and I went back to
them and said would you sign this so I could turn it in and in addition to
those there were a few other neighbors who heard about it and they signed
it. I think I had seven signatures on that first go around in about the space
of an hour and a half. Since that time we are all relatively busy, yesterday
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 42
myself and two volunteers tried a little bit more of the neighborhood. In
front of you you have I believe 31 but I have 9 additional ones that came
to me after I Xeroxed it this afternoon. We have exactly 40 signatures on
this petition from our neighborhood. These are from all around. We
concentrated primarily on the adjacent streets of the neighborhood but in
some cases, people called from as far away as Washington and things like
that. Most of these people that we talked to were primarily right around
the church because we felt like they would be most affected and also we
didn't have much man power to really get out and canvas everyone. The
reasons we are opposed to this, they are itemized here pretty clearly. The
inappropriateness for the area. I thought in Fayetteville traditionally we
were opposed to spot zoning and that we try to sort of have a master plan
and go with it. This seems to us to be just that, spot zoning. Something
that is inappropriate happening in a neighborhood where something like
this has never happened. It is true that there.are some duplexes and things
of that nature in our neighborhood but there are no apartment complexes
anywhere near this size or in a location such as this. The traffic, none of
us liked the St. Joseph's traffic, but the advantage to the St. Joseph's
traffic to a degree at least, was that it ran counter to our patterns. They
were all out of there by 3:30 in the afternoon, typically, the school at least.
Whereas, we are coming and going around 5:00 or 5:30 or so when we are
coming home. These people would be just like us. They would leave at
the same time in the morning, they would come home at the same time at
night. We would see them on the streets. My street, which is Walnut
Street, is 20' wide. If there is a car parked on Walnut it becomes a one
lane street. That is true for all of these streets. They are typically 20' to
24' wide streets. Generally there is not enough off street parking so that
there are always cars on those streets. If you go by in the evening when
people are home you will see that they are parked on both sides in many
cases and it really does become one lane streets. That is just with what we
have now. That is not with anyone living in the houses that are part of this
deal, which we aren't opposing one way or the other. We already have a
very fragile parking environment and this would just push it over the edge.
There is no question that there aren't enough parking places here. These
guys will fill them up and then when their guests show up they are going
to park on our streets and it is just going to be gridlock. We have seen it,
we have lived through it and we don't want to go there again. That is one
of our strongest reasons for opposing this thing, that it is going to just lock
up our neighborhood. The property values, no one, no one will argue I
don't think, that this is going to enhance anyone's property values. Going
from a R-1 neighborhood, living next to an apartment complex doesn't
help ever. We have worked long and hard. Our neighborhood was once
viewed as sort of the jewel of Fayetteville. People are proud of our
neighborhood, we are very proud of our neighborhood. We have a lot of
money invested in it. If you add up the value of the homes that are going
.to be impacted it far exceeds anything that this project would have
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 43
considered. Those values are going to be damaged and we are the ones
that are going to take the hit for it. The parking lot waiver just strikes all
of us as incredibly unfair. Not only do we have a 20' wide street but they
don't even want to adhere to the normal rule of having some setback. If
you look at it not only is Bob Savage's house right here and you have got
a 20' street, they are going to park right there immediately next to the
sidewalk, immediately next to the sidewalk, there is a little lump there and
-then they park and then the house south of that, it is the same situation.
The people are essentially parking in their yard, there is no buffer zone at
all. It is an insult that these people would get some kind of waiver. The
parking, we have already talked about. The streets, it is just not an
appropriate situation to go from a situation where if it were the normal
neighborhood pattern, you have like six or seven houses there with that
number of people to suddenly go to a situation in which you have that
many more people, that greater much more people. It would just be totally
out of keeping with the neighborhood. There has been some discussion
here about appropriate uses for St. Joseph's. I for one, think that the free
market is always the way to determine appropriate use. I don't think it is
up to the neighborhood to go out and find someone to buy St. Joseph's. I
think the value of St. Joseph's, it may be at this price level 1.2 million that
it is too high for some little church to go in there, or some little school to
go in there or those kinds of uses. It may be at that level that it is too high
but that just means that it is too much. That doesn't mean that we should
give up our property values to endorse a project that allows that to happen.
It will find a use. It is not going to be the Mountain Inn. We have
neighborhood associations, it is a major street, it is a residential
• neighborhood, it is not even analogous to the Mountain Inn. The idea that
it is abandoned and is going to be filled with vagrants is highly unlikely. I
don't see that happening. What will happen is the market will determine
the best use and value and then that will come before you guys and that
will seem a reasonable thing. The best use and value would probably be
some kind of daytime use like it used to have so that we don't have this
enormous traffic flux at the same time that we are trying to do our thing.
Again, I don't think that this Commission's job or our neighborhood's job
is to find a buyer for this place. I think that the free market will do that
just fine for us. They haven't showed up and they probably haven't
showed up because they were asking 1.5 million, I don't know the original
asking price but I know 1.5 million was kicked around, I believe it is 1.2
million that this contract is written for. It is just too much maybe for some
churches but that is not our fault. The neighborhood association, I think it
was pretty well determined that a lot of what went on there went on before
some of these developments. I think in some ways it is that they are not
particularly an indicator. I think it is a better indicator that people write
down on a piece of paper that they support these proposals and they put
their address on it and they stand behind it. I think those are the people
who are really invested in this. I have a vote, it is right in front of you.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 44
Forty people signed it and said we don't want this. That is what we are
asking you to do, say no to this. Thank you very much. Do you have any
questions for me?
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Wright. Do we have any other member of the public that
would like to speak to this?
McKinney: My name is -Rick McKinney, I had to take a moment to look at some of
the faces that I perhaps don't recognize in this crowd. I live on Olive
Street. I have been an active member of the neighborhood association
since it's origin. As you know, neighborhood associations can be very
different animals in very different neighborhoods. Some of them are very
proactive, you have a lot of the neighborhood members that attend.
Perhaps I have missed a couple of meetings but folks, I see a lot offaces
out here I haven't seen at these meetings. If you are looking for
something from the neighborhood association in the means of a
proclamation perhaps, I would suggest that you give the neighborhood
association and the people who live in that neighborhood that should
attend, where have you guys been? Let them come to this meeting that
can be set and set up a proclamation to bring to you. Obviously there is
disagreement with developments no matter where they are and what is
best put to a piece of property that is perhaps not abandoned, but having
been left up for sale for sake of someone who could come in and do
something really nice for the community with it. I think there have been a
lot of alternatives discussed, not only with the neighborhood association
but with a lot of individuals. I think this property could come upon a lot
worse fate than what Richard Alexander is talking about. I would like a
definite resolution to come from the neighborhood association, that is part
of the reason it is in existence. I would ask these folks out here in the
audience to come and attend that meeting like they should have been for
many years now, to voice through the neighborhood association. That is
part of the reason it is there guys, it really is. If you have objections then
come to the meeting and object to this proposal. I ask that you would table
this until that can be done.
Demuth: My name is Shannon Demuth and I live at the comer of Lafayette and
Walnut at 322 E. Lafayette. I went to a meeting that Richard and Rob first
put forth to the neighborhood explaining what they wanted to do, the
initial meeting. I think I voiced a lot of opinions about the parking
initially and probably was more vocal there than anyone else. One of the
things that was specifically pointed out to me was that the parking zoning
is already there for us. I am bordered by not one, but two streets. One of
them is Lafayette, which is a main thoroughfare and one of them is
Walnut, which is a little bitty street. When the church was there I got
blocked into my house several times. I couldn't get out of my driveway.
People were parking kind of up in my yard, that sort of thing. One of the
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 45
things that was pointed out at that meeting was that it would no longer be
a church and the police would more than likely enforce it a little bit better.
I am not sure whether they would or not but I would like to see that
enforced. My understanding, and there was some discussion about it, is
that because it was a church there was a tasked agreement with the police
department that it would not be enforced with not only St. Joseph's but
any church. Since it is no longer a church I would like that to be enforced.
To feel like, if something else, I don't care what goes in there, I want it
enforced. On Walnut Street, one of my neighbors has tow signs in front of
her house, and they actually work pretty well, but I don't. I am not aware
of anyone else that does. I think Richard and Rob and their previous
projects have shown some real upscale potential.. There was some
discussion that I've heard people say about apartments verses condos and
that may be a dialogue that needs to happen so that everyone is happy.
The parking situation, on some level, whether it is enforcement or some of
the other alternatives that have been discussed, probably needs to go on.
Because I have attended at least one previous meeting I feel kind of like
Mr. McKinney that suddenly everyone is upset when this dialogue
should've been going on for a long time. Thank you very much.
Hoover: Thank you. Mr. Butt, I know you have been trying to speak.
Butt: I am Jack Butt, I live at 526 E. Lafayette Street, which is at the corner of
Mission and Lafayette. I have lived in that neighborhood since 1981.
First of all, if somebody is going to develop that property I am pleased it is
Rick Alexander. He and his various partners have done a great job of
redeveloping and infilling throughout the town. I think they have brought
a lot of architectural significance and good neighborhoods and high
quality to what they have done so I am pleased to see that Rick is doing it.
I was invited to come to a neighborhood association meeting two or three
years ago to discuss this and I very much wanted to. I couldn't make it, I
told the person to call me to make sure I was on the list. I was invited
again two or three weeks later, again, I had a conflict and said keep me on
the list. That was the last I heard of it. I have been in those things and it is
like pushing rope to make them happen. Everybody has got something
better to do than to come to the neighborhood so thank you to those people•
who have organized it and held the meetings and come but frankly, for the
last two or three years I didn't know we had a neighborhood association
meeting and I am easy enough to find in the phone book and I see people
around. I am not faulting anybody but myself except for not finding out
better but I would --suggest that whatever mandate the neighborhood
association purports to bring, I agree perhaps with Rick McKinney, there
wasn't a very good .due process notice to let everybody in the
neighborhood know there was a meeting, you could vote, this is the final
plan. I think it has kind of been an ad hoc thing and it might not be a bad
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 46
idea if you really wanted the neighborhood to know what they think to
make sure that there is a meeting with proper notice and everybody that
really has a dog in the fight shows up to cast their vote. As far as my dog
in the fight, this first showed up on my screen two or three weeks ago, and
I don't remember where I read it, it was somewhere that may have been
credible like the newspaper or TV that said there were going to be about
19 units. I am sitting looking across my street at two ragged rent houses
that are going to be prohibitive to replace. The owners are stuck with
them. They are in horrible condition, they look ugly, they are devaluing
my house and I just wish Rick would come by those and redevelop them.
I have proper concern that that can happen to St. Joseph's. When I read or
heard that I think it was 19 units in St. Jo's with a little bit of public
access. I thought that is a good deal. That is a good deal for the
neighborhood, it is infill, we can handle that kind of parking. We are used
to it with the church, that will be an improvement for everybody. Then
two or three days ago I got a call from a concerned neighbor and they
were saying do you know we are going to have 38 units, what do you
think about that. I am indefinite. I think 38 is just a little too much. It is
presumptuous I guess for me to tell Rick who is going to borrow the
money and put his risk and his money on the line to do it. I sure wish you
could go back down to 20 and raise the prices, the condos over Campbell
Bell, I don't know what they sold for, $10,000 or $20,000 a square foot or
something. If that could be turned into a little bit higher class bigger unit,
fewer units, I personally would very much like to see Rick do that there.
At 39 units, I don't know where you cross the line, but that is too many for
me. I think it changes the nature of the neighborhood. I am just hopeful
that either the church will come down on its price or Rick will find a way
to price it or something where we can get fewer units. I would go along
with Rick that if you are waiting to get a vote from the neighborhood, I
don't think the neighborhood is represented necessarily by these people
here. I don't think they are represented by the neighborhood because I am
not sure that everybody knows exactly what the plan is or if they have got
a chance to make a vote. I would ask that perhaps you table this so you
can get a neighborhood vote and at the same time, I would be very eager
for Rick to go back to the drawing board and see if he could reduce this to
something consistent with like an R-1.5, which is 12 families per acre and
when you adjust all of that come back in with 18 or 20 units in that area
instead of 39, which I think really will change the character of the area
right there and around it. Thanks very much.
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Butt. Are there any other members of the audience?
Wilson: I am Carrie Wilson, I live on Lafayette Street and I have lived there for 17
years. I am a consultant for cultural resources dealing with the national
historic preservation act with Osage Tribes. I do have an idea. It was
Planning Commission ' •
May 12, 2003
Page 47
originally Osage tree land, we could give it back to the tribe. I don't think
that will happen. The Washington Willow Historic District was given that
designation because of its cultural significance under the national historic
preservation act. Many homes in this district were at one time apartments,
my house included. However, over the years people have invested their
time and monies in restoring and returning these homes into single-family
dwellings. The Washington Willow Historic District is a cohesive rooted
community. I cannot support the effort to insert transient apartment
dwellers in this neighborhood. It whittles away at the integrity and the
character of the historic district. Many of the buildings that the developers
are going to convert to apartments are less than 50 years old and are not
eligible as historic properties. I would rather see homes built in their stead
keeping with the integrity of the historic district. Also, I have never
spoken to Kathy Thompson with regards to this project. I do hand out the
fliers for the neighborhood project. However, I have not had the times
appropriate for me to attend these meetings. As far as the greenspace is
concerned, that currently is a concrete lot. I don't see it to be very green.
The equipment that is there now for children and things is going to be
removed is my understanding because of the liabilities. As far as
apartments are concerned, and as a parent, I would be concerned about my
child playing in an area where there are transient dwellings. Thank you.
There again, let me put this for the record, I ask the Planning Commission
not to approve the request and to keep the property consistent with single-
family residential zoning. Thank you.
Hoover: Thank you.
Nichols: My name is Amanda Ann Hilton Nichols. I am a member of the Stone
family. Our family home was the first building in the Masonic Addition,
at 306 E. Lafayette. My great grandfather, Steven Robert Stone, built the
home. His son, my grandfather, Steven Kiplinger Stone, lived there. My
mother, Amanda Stone Hilton, lived there. Now my sister and I are
custodians of this historic home. We had no phone calls, no meeting
notices, etc. I would like for you to know that I am very opposed to this. I
cannot see in any way how this will add to the historic neighborhood in
Fayetteville. As a youngster I watched College Avenue, a beautiful
historic neighborhood, disappear. I am afraid this would be the beginning
of the end for us. I ask you please, do not do this. I am not for it. I called
Kathy and left a message, I told her I was not for this. I asked for a call
back and I got none. I would like for you to know that too. Think about
it, would you like to have 36 apartments go up across from your home?
Thank you.
•Hoover: Thank you Amanda. Are there any other members of the public?
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 48
Woods: I am Elizabeth Woods, I live at 419 N. Walnut Street, around the comer
from the church. Shannon already mentioned me. When the church met
on Sunday mornings I was a physician working at Washington Regional.
I had to have the city come out and put up tow signs over my driveway
because they consistently parked right across the driveway. My neighbor
and my driveways are almost adjacent to each other. Even with the tow
sign there people still park in the driveway. I went out frequently to write
please do not park across my driveway. We still have that because the
driveways are close together. The street is very narrow. They have put a
only park on one side. This morning on the way to work two cars had to
pull over so I could drive down the street. I watched the garbage truck
come this afternoon as I was coming back from my lunch. It could barely
get between the parked cars there. All of the houses there have really
parking for one car. I have two children, they have cars. I cannot imagine
what apartments with extra cars will do to our area. It will make it very
difficult for people who live there. I also think it will decrease my
property value. I think it will decrease the neighborhood value and I am
very much opposed to it. I belong to the neighborhood association. I
work, often times, in the evening. I could not go. I mentioned to Kathy
this Saturday that I was against the project. I would like to tell you how
much I am also against the project.
Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member of the public?
Gessler: Hello, I am Susan Gessler, I live at 318 E. Lafayette, right in front of St.
• Joseph's Catholic Church. I would like to say after listening to all of the
comments tonight, I wish St. Joseph's was a tree because if it was a tree it
would not be made into apartment complexes like it is getting ready to be.
I have a major problem with this. I agree with Elizabeth, my neighbor on
Walnut Street, about all of the traffic. I have been very patient. I have
lived across the street from St. Joseph's, I have rarely complained. I have
put little signs on people's cars saying please let me out of my driveway.
At that time I had a child who was prone to grandma seizures and it was
necessary at times to get an ambulance in and out of my residence. A lot
of times on Sunday morning I could not get out to go to church or I could
not get out at different times during the day. I am definitely opposed to
this project. My husband and I purchased our home in 1989. We have
sunk a lot of money into that old house. A lot of people have come to the
neighborhood and followed the example. I am against 39 apartments
going across the street from 318 E. Lafayette. I am against it. My
—husband is -against it, and I will fight it as long as I can. I want you to
think about 63 bedrooms of people living across the street. I would like to
propose to Richard if he would like to build an apartment complex, why
doesn't he purchase the Fayetteville Library and then it would be right
next door to his home and he could put 39 apartments there. Thank you.
Planning Commission •
May 12, 2003
Page 49
Jones: My name is David Jones. I live at 341 N. Willow. I have for about 8
years now. My wife has lived there longer than I have. We were patient
with St. Jo's because when my wife bought that house it was there. The
neighborhood is great and we love it. I don't go to neighborhood meetings
because I just don't like meetings. I don't like having to stand up here and
ask you to do your job. It was pointed out to me that this Commission's
job is not to make exceptions to building ordinances and such. What I
would like to say is please leave the neighborhood as it is. It was
mentioned earlier that the Campbell Bell building sat for seven years.
That is true, it did and it looked kind of dirty. The windows were dirty
and nobody took care of it, but look what happened to it. The market took
care of it. The right tenant came in and turned it into a wonderful place. It
has rejuvenated the downtown area. Maybe this isn't going to happen in a
year. Maybe somebody from the church should be here to explain why
they didn't plan on doing something with it. For the ten years that I have
been here they had this plan on building their church for years and years
and years. They had no contingency plan on what to do with it, there isn't
another church that could use this space? As a matter of fact, I think I
heard something about a church needing some more parking spaces for
their children already. There has got to be somebody in the market out
there when the price gets right that can take it. I would like to address also
the issue of traffic. It is a mess. At 3:30 it turned into a one way street.
Policemen weren't around there, never giving tickets to anybody. They
parked on a street that said no parking on Sutton. If you did come down
the wrong street, even though you lived there, you were treated like an
alien. I had my car banged into, no notes left. We try to be good
neighbors and a church is a great neighbor to have and everybody is for
educating children. Nobody would want to live across the street from an
apartment complex. Our home is 105 years old. You guys are more
concerned about trees, like it was already said, than the nature of a
neighborhood or the human beings that actually live there. Please
consider those human beings, and some of them are children that like to
cross streets at inappropriate times and places. Please consider that. That
is all I have to say.
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Jones. Are there any other members?
Warren: My name is Paul Warren, I am the representative from the church. Sorry I
didn't get up here earlier. It seems to me that most of the comments seem
to be against the things that people don't want. The things that people
don't want is a church, a school, and at this point in time, 39 apartments. I
think what I would like to do is just give kind of a question about the
traffic issues Wyatt mentioned. There are traffic issues. They have been
there for a while and I don't think they are going to go away with the sell
Planning Commission •
May 12, 2003
Page 50
or the non sell of this property. The question becomes what use could you
put on that property at 313 E. Lafayette, 321 E. Lafayette, 346 N. Willow,
354 N. Willow, and 310 Sutton, that's not going to impact the traffic.
Property values, I wonder what use would enhance property values. We
have talked about apartments tend to decrease property values and I would
say I would like to see the evidence. I am sure that there are some
apartments that would decrease property values. I understand Mr.
Alexander is considering putting 3.5 million dollars of investment into this
property. I can't believe he is going to waste that kind of money to
decrease everyone else's property values. As far as the parking lot, 64
parking spaces for 63 bedrooms. One of the reason St. Jo's chose to
move, and I think it was a very well thought out decision, is because we
looked around and said if we expand, and we know that the City of
Fayetteville has specific ordinances about parking per pew, I think it is
one to four, parking per square foot. We asked ourselves what block on
this historic district will we buy out to level to create a parking space. We
chose not to renovate our sanctuary, expand it to seat the number of people
that we currently have who have moved into Fayetteville, and we
relocated. It has been a good thing. We have been applauded for that
decision rather than the decision that you see going on across College,
which is to buy up the houses, historic in nature, and remove them for
good blacktop. As far as the free market value of the property goes, we
have had three offers, all of them over a million dollars. I would say that
is the market value for the property. The question becomes what more
will the market bear as far as renovations to this property. One of the
questions was let's just let it decrease to the point where a church could
buy us out. I would love that opportunity. I would like to see another
church go in there if they could get a parking space big enough. Just for
raw numbers, there was a church here earlier today, I think they were
number one on the agenda, they have 2,300 square feet. in their church, I
think they had 154 parking spaces. We have 7,700 square feet. in our
sanctuary and 64 parking spaces. They were requesting a variance for
additional parking spaces to cover the kind of sanctuary we have, if we
used their numbers we would be a little over 300 parking spaces on
Lafayette Street. I don't think a church would buy us out to be able to do
that. Furthermore, if the property value went down to the point where a
church could buy us out, your other city codes would kick in. It is an
amazing thing in 1967 when we built our new sanctuary, and in the 1950's
when we built the school, that you didn't have the current codes you have
now. It might amaze some of the people sitting here to know that we have
—one-commode for males and one commode for females in that structure.
That wouldn't suffice, we would have to renovate. Furthermore, we don't
meet code in the school with bathrooms, with fire, with exits, with any of
the codes that you currently have. Whoever buys us out would have to
have the funds to renovate. Probably in the neighborhood of where Mr.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 51
Alexander is, at least a million, maybe two, maybe three just to bring it up
to current city code. The question becomes who can do it. Finally, I
would like to say that St. Jo's has had the property up for sale since the
middle of 2000. We knew we were going to relocate. We bought the land
that we bought in May of 1997 and we had plans to relocate. At that point
in time we began soliciting buyers for sale by owner because most of the
real estate agents who came to us, we had four different ones, said you
will be lucky to find a buyer for this property. It is very unique, it is very
isolated, it is very land locked, it has problems and it has 38,000 square
feet. of space that somebody has to do something with or leave it vacant.
They all recommended that instead of listing the property we do a for sale
by owner. We did that for 12 months. We solicited churches, which,
unfortunately, at this point in time I am afraid if one of them would've
come forward and we would've really encouraged them they probably
would've been shot down based on the parking requirements by the City
of Fayetteville. We solicited the Montessori School, the University of
Arkansas, the Arts Culture in Fayetteville, which we thought would be a
wonderful opportunity for a museum or an art studio or some other kind of
use in that realm. Unfortunately, there is no money out there at this point
in time with this economy for that kind of a venture. There is money out
there for the use as an apartment complex. Albeit, I think right now we
are talking the difference between the number of units. That may be an
amenable kind of thing, to the point where the only real use for this is
residential. Furthermore, it meets some of the city recommendations for
infill for urban sprawl, not sending everybody out to the outskirts and
trying to keep people closer to the center of Fayetteville so that there can
be viable businesses, especially down on our square, which has been a
• wonderful thing to have renovated. I think in closing I just want to say, it
is your responsibility I understand as the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation, staff has recommended that this be moved forward to
the City Council. I understand at City Council we are going to have an
ordinance written, that if I'm not mistaken, gets three readings before it
can get passed into law?
Whitaker: State law usually for ordinances is that an ordinance has to be read on
three occasions unless by a 2/3 vote or better the Council suspends the
rules and goes to another reading.
Warren: So there is going to be, at least I'm assuming every two weeks if we have
one reading at the maximum, we would be six weeks out on that project.
That will give ample opportunity for us to have a meeting with the
neighborhood association, to have the vote that many of you have
requested. I recommend presenting this to move forward to the City
Council while at the same time having the neighborhood association, the
neighbors who are currently here, and by the way, I might mention, St.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 52
Joseph's, I've attended almost everyone of the neighborhood association
meetings and actually the last meeting that the neighborhood association
had at the library was very poorly attended even though they had stated
that they had sent out a flier asking people to come to talk about the
library and St. Joseph's project specifically. Ms. Schaeffer, the librarian
for the Fayetteville Public Library, was there and did a good job
presenting what the possibilities are for the Fayetteville Public Library. I
think -you guys have something really hot on your hands since I understand
you own part of that building. I think there are going to be even more
issues with it than there are with us. We presented, I think there were
three or four people at that meeting. After that meeting we got word that
maybe some people were concerned about what we were doing. St.
Joseph's the church, took the opportunity to invite by using the U.S. Postal
Service, which I assume does get most people's mail to their houses, to
come to a meeting we called on Tuesday, March 25`s at 6:30 and we had a
meeting in the sanctuary of St. Jo's. There are some people here that did
attend that and I think there were approximately 40 or 45 people that
attended that meeting. It was from that meeting where it was presented 31
apartments on that complex, and the use of the sanctuary, 7,700 square
feet. for community use. Mr. Alexander was going to donate or allow to
be used this space for issues such as concerts or art exhibits perhaps a
wedding so he could lease it out to cover at least the cost of keeping this
building available and then for the neighborhood association meetings
assuming that the public library might sell they would not be able to use
that facility, they could go back and use St. Joseph's. At that meeting, that
is when we found out in a pretty strong way that people didn't like the
parking caused by 400 people showing up for an event on Lafayette Street.
At that point in time Mr. Alexander amended his proposal to include all
residential. It is true, as Mr. Bunch indicated, that the proposal has not
been presented in front of the whole neighborhood association as totally
residential but it was presented on March 25`s as 31 units residential and
then a large 400 seat auditorium to be used as needed by the community. I
think that there is at least the venue that residential is a proponent for this
property and again, I would like to just once more state that I think it
would be important to move this property forward. The longer it sits there
the more problems that are happening with it. Currently people are
beginning to drop trash in the back parking lot to include such things as
refrigerant air conditioners, bricks, construction debris. You probably
drove through and saw that. We did have one vagrant living in the church.
Apparently he jimmied the lock but did not cause any problems so god
-bless-him for having a good night's sleep. I would say once more that we
would like to sell this property. We have a buyer, we have a buyer who is
well respected in the community who is willing to put another 3 million
dollars into this project and who I would say would do a dad gum good
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 53
job of making it a viable project to the neighborhood. Short of selling to
Richard Alexander I would like to talk to the lady from the Osage Tribe.
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Warren. I would like to just emphasize that we need to
really be talking about the compatibility between this proposed
development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and enhance the
neighborhood. That is our charge with the PZD. As time is wearing on if
you would be sure to address those issues.
Porter: My name is Susan Porter, I live on the edge of the historic district. I do
not have the same issues with traffic that most of the people here do.
However, I have an issue with the development as a whole. I see the city
looking at College Avenue and at 6`h Street saying let's put some money in
and beautify it. If we put a high density apartment building into this
property I fear that the people in the Victorian houses who have sunk a lot
of money into them will leave and they will also become apartments and
our whole historic neighborhood will be lost. If you look at other cities I
think you will see this. Kansas City, Little Rock, even around the
governor's mansion, they are having a real hard time reclaiming those old
neighborhoods. I am against this and I am against spot zoning in the
historic district basically.
Hoover: Thank you Ms. Porter. Are there any other members of the audience?
Buxten: My name is Christina Buxten, I live at 312 N. Willow. That is four houses
south of the church. I am opposed to this project as it is right now. I think
we all understand that infill is a good thing. It does help with urban
sprawl and everything but in order for infill to be successful it has to fit
the neighborhood. This is the Washington Willow Historic. District, it is
predominantly single-family homes and I don't feel that dropping in 39
apartments fits the neighborhood. When we went to the public meeting it
was 29 units, that included the duplex. I was kind of ok with that but 39 is
just too many. That is just too many cars. Traffic can only go three ways
from this complex, Lafayette, Walnut, or Willow. My block of Willow, I
went out and measured the street before I came here. It is 20' wide. Cars
park down one side, that leaves 12 %2' to drive in. Cars can only. go one
lane of cars. I think that if you approve something like this it has to
include the traffic pattern. As two way streets Willow and Walnut it is not
going to work. I think it has to be part of the plan before it happens. The
other thing that I am really concerned about is the bungalow, which is
referred to as the single-family structure that is on Sutton Street right now.
It is a historically important structure. From what I am hearing and
reading, what I'm hearing is the single-family structure will remain. What
I am not hearing is the single-family structure will remain a single-family
structure. I would really hate to see this beautiful house chopped into a
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 54
four plex. I just want to make sure that everyone is on the same page
about that particular building. It is a single-family structure now. It is a
beautiful house. •Maybe you could leave it out of this Planned Zoning and
leave it the zoning that it is right now so that it will remain as it is. I am
not a member of the neighborhood association but I still think I have a
valid opinion, I am just not a joiner. I thank you for your time.
Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other member?
Bell: My name is Dianne Bell, my family home is at 306 E. Lafayette. I am
opposed to this. I have spoken against it once and I would like to let
everybody know that I am still opposed to this. There is too much traffic,
no parking places, there will be more crime and why destroy our historical
district? Many, many cities like Savanna and Charleston all try to save
their historical district. Why can't we try to save ours? Thank you.
Hoover: Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public?
Lloyd: My name is Richard Lloyd, I live at 315 N. Willow, which is
approximately one block south of the church property. I too am opposed
to this project. I don't want to repeat a lot of the arguments against it that
you have already heard. I concur with what many of these people have
already said. I would like to underline one point about the parking. Most
of the houses in this area, especially on the street where we live, were built
before cars as numerous as they are now and as large as they are now.
The houses were not built to accommodate parking for the number of cars
that are there. For example, our house shares a driveway with the house
next door and we share a garage with the house next door. The driveway
is very narrow and it is a real challenge to get a modem size car up that
driveway and the garage spaces are very possible. It would be possible to
get a car into the garage but it is not really practical to park cars in that
garage. We really depend on the on street parking. We need those spaces
in front of the house. At times when things get crowded in• that
neighborhood and people are parked on the streets, sometimes we can't
park in front of our own house or even close to the house along that block.
For example, during masses at St. Jo's when the crowds were heavy in
that area and cars were parked on that street sometimes we had to park a
long way away. I appreciated having the church there. I am a parishioner
at St. Jo's and I was happy. to have the church in the neighborhood but it
seems to me that an apartment building with 39 units and the parking that
would be required and the people visiting if there was overflow of parking
from that area that is going to congest our street even further. As you have
heard, it is a two way street but when cars are parked on the street traffic
can really only go in one direction at a time. If that parking gets further
congested it is going to be even more difficult for us to have the adequate
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 55
parking we need just for the houses that are there. I would urge you to
reject this proposal. If you are considering passing the proposal I think it
is very clear that there has not been adequate input to the neighborhood
association from the neighborhood and I would at least ask you to defer a
decision until there has been an opportunity for a meeting that neighbors
can attend and at least you can get a good idea of what the overall
neighborhood is feeling about the project.
Hoover: Thank you Mr. Lloyd.
Lloyd: Thank you.
Hoover: Is there any other member of the public that would like to address this
Planned Zoning Development? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the
Commission and to the applicant, you can come forward. I would first
like to get a summary from Subdivision Committee, a recap, a short recap
of what was discussed at Subdivision and where the project is now.
Bunch: Basically we had two Subdivision Committee meetings on this and
primarily we took public comment and tried to revise the submission
package to get it in shape to reflect the various changes that have been
made so that it would be a clear and concise package so that people could
understand it. Particularly to outline the densities and to determine if the
revised project had been presented as such to the neighborhoods and to the
neighborhood association and to the neighbors so that they could comment
and respond since the densities had been increased.
Hoover: Are there any other comments from Alan, I know you were on
Subdivision that day.
Ostner: Not really. Mr. Wright was there and what he said tonight he shared with
us at Subdivision, his list.
Hoover: Thank you. Nancy, were you at Subdivision during•this?
Allen: Yes I was. I can't think of anything else. I wasn't clear about how
definite we were about trying to get a meeting and a consensus from the
neighborhood but I thought we were relatively clear.
Hoover: Thank you. Richard, would you mind responding to that? If you would
-start with responding to that issue about the neighborhood in general.
Alexander: I think that is problematic. I have been to three neighborhood association
meetings, one of them which took place with the Parks Board. Some of
those meetings were attended quite well, some of them quite sparsely.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 56
Part of going to the neighborhood meetings is listening to what the
neighbors said. The main complaint that I got from the meetings was that
the traffic involved in using the facility as a performance space would've
been problematic and no better than the church parking. I don't think
there is anybody in the room that liked the church parking situation. Our
proposal was amended both in response to the information we got from the
neighborhood association that parking was problematic with any other use,
any use, and that taken together with the fact that I couldn't generate any
support for the proposition that we would donate the building on a part
time basis to 501C corporations or neighborhood associations to the extent
that we could lease the buildings at other times sufficient enough to pay
maintenance, insurance, taxes, utilities, landscaping, and management,
which are significant. The minute this building gets bought it is my
understanding it needs a new roof. That is $20,000. or $30,000. Any
proposed use of the sanctuary would have to take into consideration
immediate maintenance needs as well as long term maintenance needs.
Our original proposal as we said was to figure a mixed use with some
residential and some on going use that took advantage of the structure that
was there, the sanctuary as a performance area. I could not interest• the
university, I could not interest the Fayetteville Public Schools, I could not
interest the Walton Arts Center, I could not interest the City of
Fayetteville, I could not interest various schools and churches or other
potential users. In looking at the project, and I appreciate Jack's
comments with the numbers. We in fact did work the numbers. We
started with what will it take to buy this property and spend the
appropriate amount of money to put in a development that the
neighborhood and the city will be pleased with and what kind of use can
you rent that for sufficient to pay taxes, insurance, principal, interest,
maintenance, and management. We start backwards, start with the total
sum. 39 units, we didn't pull that out of the air. That was derived from
the fact that number one, we are talking about 38,000 to 40,000 square feet
of existing space. What is the right mix of unit, in other words can you
lease a 2,000 square foot unit at $100 a foot for $2,000 or $3,000 in that
neighborhood, I personally tend to think you could. I thought the
appropriate mix was approximately a thousand square feet, on the average,
per apartment at $1.00 a foot or $12.00 a foot a year, which by the way, is
high rent. This isn't the low end of the market. This would not be a low
end market product. One of the neighbors, and by the way, these are all
good people. I don't have any particular beef with these, I like them. I
know most of them. They have legitimate concerns, I don't blame them.
It. is still problematic. -What do you do with the property? No is easy. No
is easy. Let's not do it. This is the Planning Commission, then we got to
start planning. What will you do with it? What are you going to do with
the library? I am going to come back and propose at the appropriate time
that they do residential at the library. Why? Because there are no other
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 57
takers. There are no other takers. If somebody comes along and they
want to propose something appropriate there, great. I live next to it. I
agree with the gentleman that said he wished the school would stay, the
church. I loved St. Jo's in my neighborhood. I like the library in my
neighborhood. They are not staying, they are not staying. Campbell Bell
didn't stay on the square. The hardware store didn't stay. All of the
businesses didn't stay. What do we do with these properties?
Gessler: Don't put 63 different bedrooms up in them.
Alexander: Well then maybe you can come up with a proposal where you spend 3.5
million and you figure out what you do with them. That is great, I wish
somebody else would step forward.
Hoover: Let's speak to the Commission and not get out of order here if you don't
mind.
Alexander: I apologize. Again, one of the neighbors was concerned about the historic
quality of the development. This is a historic development. Our proposal
is to place the church on the corner of Lafayette and Willow on the
national register of historic places and to renovate it consistent with the
Department of Interior guidelines for historic renovation and
rehabilitation. Our proposal is to leave the existing structures as you see
them. A Warren C. Graves building built in the 1960's doesn't quite
qualify for national historical renovation status but . it is a significant
structure by virtue of the architect's legacy in the neighborhood. Our
proposal is to leave the existing structure as you see it from the street and
to reconvert and to readapt the interior use of the structure consistent with
its present condition, only enhanced in terms of maintenance and
landscaping. Part of the school is historic. It has been there since 1947 as
I understand it and many people have graduated from this school. It is not
the prettiest structure on the planet I will admit. Again, people that moved
into that neighborhood moved into that neighborhood knowing that those
structures were there. That is what they look like. Our proposal is that is
what they will look like when we're done with it. It will look like what
you see. Parking and traffic is problematic. •It is, in my opinion, not
debatable that 39 residential units will be less traffic than Paul can give
you the numbers on how many people went to parish services and the
school and several hundred students. Traffic will be less with residential.
I guess I've got to also ask the question, why is residential so odious?
-This is a -college town.- -We don't. propose -to •rent to college students
because I don't frankly think they can afford our rent, but this is a college
town. Professors rent from us. Administrative support people rent from
• us. Wal-Mart professionals rent from us, JB Hunt. If there is any place in
town that is appropriate for multi -family it is the center of the city. Again,
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 58
this particular property is a block and a half from the IGA. It is ,two
blocks from College Avenue. To me the question isn't do we renovate
these properties, do we renovate them and add value. Do you renovate
them into something that is going to be an attractive addition to the center
of the city. Again, no is easy. It would be easy to say no but if you say no
then you have to determine what is yes. A church is problematic as Paul
pointed out. Frankly, as a member of the neighborhood I thank god that
St. Jo's chose not to solve its parking problems by buying up all of the
little neighborhood houses and bulldozing them for parking. If that's what
they would've done as other churches have, you wouldn't have a historic
neighborhood. You would have St. Jo's church and parking. Instead they
chose to relocate. Which brings us back to what do we do with the
buildings now that they have done that. They should be applauded for not
having tore down the houses and made for parking. Again, it is
problematic as to what you do with the existing structures. We tried to
find other alternatives. I couldn't, I am in the business. I would love
some. If anybody has got any ideas my phone number is published. With
respect to neighborhood meetings, I have been to three of them but I
would also suggest to the Commission that the Subdivision Committee
meetings are neighborhood meetings. This committee meeting is a
neighborhood meeting. The neighbors have had ample opportunity to
meet. I don't mind meeting again but you can, as Jack said, that is like
pushing rope up hill. You can do that at infinitum and on the day that
some people can't come then they didn't get represented. This is the
neighborhood meeting with all due respect and so will the City Council
be. We have had neighborhood meetings, this is the neighborhood
meeting. That is the best proposal I can come up with. It is in your hands,
thank you.
Hoover: Thank you Richard. We need to bring the discussion back to the
Commission. Staff, I have a couple of questions you might address. On
• trip generations the church verses the 39 units, would you just explain that
• a little bit? I know you have a finding in here. Would you elaborate a
little bit on that?
Warrick: In your packet on pages 6.35, 6.36, and 6.37 we have provided some trip
generation reports. This information, staff used a software package that is
designed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers called Trip
Generation. With that software package you are given the ability to enter
various uses and criteria to determine the average weekday volume
generated by. a_particular type of use. Using that program we entered 8,000
gross square feet of church space. The average weekday volume of two
way traffic was 73 vehicles per day.. Saturday was 78 and Sunday 293.
With regard to the use of the property for an elementary school with 289
students, the average weekday volume generated 295 vehicle trips. We
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 59
also entered the proposed development with 39 dwelling units of
apartments on the same property with an average weekday volume of 259
trips per day, average Saturday volume of 249 and Sunday of 229.. The
comparison on an average weekday with the school generating
approximately 44 more trips per day than the proposed units and on a
Sunday with the church generating approximately 40 more trips per day
than the proposed, actually about 60 trips more per day, than the proposed
apartment development.
Hoover: Thank you. I guess
I would like
to open
the discussion about should we
talk about traffic first
while we are
on this
subject?
Estes: That is just a good place to start as any because I think that is one of the
issues that we need to discuss although it is not one of the findings of fact
that we need to make. One of the findings of fact that we need to make is
that this proposal achieves compatibility between the proposed
development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and enhance the
neighborhood. That is what I am struggling with. The microtrans trip
generation for 39 units, as we just heard Dawn explain, is less than the
school but I think we need to talk about the parking. There are 16 on
street parking spaces adjacent, is that correct?
Warrick: Approximately, yes. That is on Lafayette Street.
Estes: I am struggling with how those 16 on street parking spaces are going to
accommodate guests and intermittent overflow. Can you help me out? It
seems to me it is just not going to be possible.
Warrick: The 16 spaces are not calculated into those provided by the applicant for
the requirements. City ordinances requires one space per bedroom and
beyond that there is a provision for the applicant to provide up to 30% in
addition to that number or 30% less. In this particular case the applicant is
providing 64 parking spaces for 63 bedrooms. The note with regard to the
provision of on street parking as a means of providing guest parking or
overflow parking is really not part of the requirement. It is a note so there
is information about available additional parking that may provide that.
Like I said, it is not an ordinance requirement that those provisions be
made.
Estes: I understand and appreciate that trying to find the highest and best use for
this property is difficult Richard and personally, I don't find particularly
obnoxious or edacious about residential. With regard to density, we have
other projects in the city that have higher density but they are not infill. I
guess that is what I am struggling with. I just sort of did the numbers with
a pencil and I can see that with 19 units I came up with a debt service of
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 60
about $1,842 per unit and that doesn't include maintenance, management,
landscaping, utilities or taxes so I can see the issue there. I don't know
what the market is out there. I wish that we could bring this density down.
I wish that we could do something such as what Mr. Butt suggested and go
with an R-1.5. There is a finding that we have to make that this project is
compatible between the proposed development's surrounding areas so as
to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. My issue on traffic Madam
Chair is the parking. If you have got one tenant per bedroom you are
going to be maxxed out. You can't put in your lease, I suppose you could
•put in your lease that folks can't have guests, but you might not find too
many takers on that one.
Alexander: Can I say something?
Estes: That is up to Madam Chair.
Hoover: Let's let the Commissioner finish.
Alexander: Ok, I was going to address his concerns.
Estes: I don't know where your guest and your overflow parking is going except
for on the street and then I don't know how your emergency vehicles are
going to get in and out, I don't know how your neighborhood residents are
going to be able to function and I don't see that that enhances the
neighborhood. That is all that I have to say on parking.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Estes. I would like to ask staff in new
developments, I know we have been asking for guest parking on site.
Usually in the past how many have we been asking for?
Warrick: I can recall that being an issue on two developments and I don't know the
numbers for you on that.
Hoover: I am wondering if any of the Commissioners remember. I know we have
had this discussion on new apartment complexes too.
Bunch: I think we were running at a ration somewhere around 1.3 or 1.4 parking
spaces per bedroom. I think that was what was proposed on some of the
other multi -family developments, in fact, some not too far from this. It
averaged around 1.4 I believe.
Hoover: Thank you. Is there some other discussion about parking while we are on
that topic?
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 61
Ostner: Parking downtown is a big problem. I live downtown. There is no room
to park on my street and I live in front of the new library, the construction
project library. There never will be in my neighborhood. To me infill
downtown development is when things get messy. We get lots of
developments in here that are in CMN out in hay fields and we can
demand that they park every single possible person that would ever come
visit their establishment. Downtown is different. There has got to be
shared parking, there has got to be street parking. I would bet most people
here in the room if they have a party the whole block is filled with their
friends on the street. There is no room for their friends to park either.of
course because their driveway might hold one or two cars. I think
residential is a good use for this project. In a perfect world I would love a
community center, just like everyone has tried to get this thing to do,
partly community center, a few apartments. If that doesn't work my
second would be residential. I don't think commercial is a good use. I
don't think other possible uses are. My druthers are a few lesser units to
minimize the density and to free the parking problems in essence. Instead
of 39 units if it were 32 units and the parking stayed almost the same, as a
side bar, I personally am not in favor of the waiver. I think that little part
of Walnut should be pushed back instead of parking right up to the street.
That would for me solve my density issue. I think this is a little bit too
dense for this neighborhood and it would solve the parking issue for me. I
am only one of this entire Commission. I started out talking about parking
but it is all bound up together. I don't know how to separate them. Those
are my points.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Ostner.
Anthes: I have a question for staff. Page 6.19 a letter from the applicant indicates
that the proposed density is greater than would be allowed in a new project
in an R-1 zone and is less than would be allowed in an R-2 zone. I only
have the new code but I requested somebody look that up for me and it
appears that actually the units per acre figure and the mid range of an R-2
and in fact are inclusive in R-3, is that correct?
Warrick: The R-2
zoning district
permits 24 units per acre maximum. The R-3
district permits 40 units maximum. This proposal if you
consider the
entire lot
area, the entire
2.18 acres the density calculates at
19.27. If you
take out
the park land
dedication site, the single-family home and the
duplex
the density
calculates at 23.64 units
per acre.
Anthes: Am I correct then in stating that the R-3 density starts at 16 units per acre?
Warrick: Yes it does.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 62
Anthes: It appears to me that a lot of the commentary tonight deals more with
density problems than it does with whether or not this is a residential use.
I struggle along with Commissioner Estes to figure out what that means. I
know when you tie things to rental rates it is very difficult to rent
properties that are over a certain number of square footage. I think if you
try to rent an 1,800 square foot unit in order to get smaller units on this
site you probably will have very few takers in this community because it is
too easy to own your home. To that end I believe that some people have
suggested that it might be a good compromise to mix condominium units
that would be owned with the rental or have it an entire ownership
situation, which might make a lot of the neighbors really happy that there
would be people living in that site that were committed to staying there
and maintaining the quality of that site. I know that is not what is before
us tonight. I am new to this so I don't know if that is appropriate for me to
ask if the applicants have even questioned that.
Hoover: I guess let's keep on the topic of density and compatibility with the
neighborhood.
Anthes: Well
it is compatibility.
I
believe that the issue of renter verses ownership
does
tie very strictly to
the
compatibility of the
neighborhood.
Alexander: I would be glad to respond to that.
Hoover: Let's finish with the Commissioners first and then we will let Richard
respond to everything.
Anthes: I guess what I would like to stay is it is a struggle because I also agree that
we have a good applicant that wants to do quality development, we have
got a building in the neighborhood that we would like to see used and used
well. It is obvious that the density is creating a lot of problems for a lot of
the people around and we know it has to cash flow. I would just say that I
am concerned that the units per acre do land us within an R-3 zoning in an
R-1 district.
Shackelford: I would like to start my comments first of all, this is a unique situation.
We are talking a lot about protecting the integrity and the nature of the
neighborhood and not changing the integrity and nature of the
neighborhood. In my opinion the integrity and nature of the neighborhood
has changed simply by the fact that the church has relocated. You have a
38,000 square foot special use building that is either going to be
redeveloped or sit vacant in the middle of your neighborhood. I
understand the concerns and would like to try to see that we work towards
an area in which this property is redeveloped to the least detriment to the
remaining neighborhood as possible. With that being said, we are
Planning Commission • •
May.12, 2003
Page 63
speaking towards density at this point. I looked at this project, as
Commissioner Estes did. Earlier today I kind of put pen to paper,
approached it as a bank would as far as cash flow, what sort of rent would
have to be required for this project to work. That is something I have
some experience in doing. One thing that Mr. Alexander mentioned, the
number of $12.00 per square foot is where I came down with what it is
going to take to make this property economically viable as far as
-redevelopment in a residential space. Basically what that means is 1,000
square foot apartment is going to rent for $1,000 a month. That is on the
upper end but that is what it is going to take to make a project of this size
cash flow to the standards that a bank is going to be willing to make a loan
on the property. Sure the density numbers would be better for everybody
involved if we had 29 units instead of 39 units but to do that all of the
sudden you are talking about 1,800 to 2,300 square foot apartments at
$1,800 to $2,300 per month. There is no market, trust me, for that size of
apartment as far as rent in this town. We are kind of at a catch 22 in this
situation. The density is obviously what some of the concerns are but
without the density the project is not economically viable. I know we
have heard a lot of developers say that fees that we put on them would kill
a project and that sort of thing, in this situation I am in concurrence with
it. We need to consider the other alternatives of this property. There is
very few other uses that I see this property being used for if we don't look
at it as residential. As residential unfortunately it is going to take some
degree of density to make the numbers work in a situation where it can be
redeveloped as residential. With that being said, that is basically my
thoughts on the density. Sure it would be a greater project if you limited it
to 32 or even a smaller number. However, from a cash flow analysis, I am
not sure that that is going to be an economically viable project for this
developer or any other developer that is going to look at this property.
Thank you.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Shackelford. Commissioner Bunch?
Bunch: One thing we need to reiterate is there has been some question about
residential. This is already zoned residential. It is R-1 right now and by
right he could put maybe 8 buildings, 8 occupants on it. What we are
looking at is a rezoning request basically done through a Planned Zoning
District from an R-1 density to somewhere in an R-2 to R-3 density. We
have had other projects in this neighborhood that were already zoned R-2
for which there was considerable resistance and they were at a much lesser
density. What we are looking at is changing a density to a greater density
than has already been told to us in no uncertain terms was not compatible
with the neighborhood. What we are looking at here is a compatibility
issue, not just on Lafayette with Willow and Walnut Street and Sutton, but
we are also looking at other parts of Olive, other parts of Fletcher in
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 64
general in the downtown area people are saying infill is acceptable but
they are concerned about the densities and also traffic and parking. What I
am not seeing in the comments that we have had from the public and from
the neighborhood associations, is that we are not seeing consistency. We
are seeing people opposed to some projects and in favor of others and vice
versa. It is quite a decision on our part to separate out and see just what
the neighborhoods actually want. One project is oh no, that is too dense.
Another project oh this is wonderful. At this point in time I would like to
see less density on this particular location but at the same time how does
that less density equate in being able to be paid for. That is a tough
question. We are looking at something greater here. We have already the
aforementioned developments in this same area and we are looking at the
library. My concern here is that we are setting some considerable
precedence. Each of these developments is unique, it has its own set of
circumstances. They will be different, it will come down to something
more than just densities. Densities aren't everything, you have to look at
traffic and all of that but still, in order to keep peace in the family so to
speak, and to be able to provide good infill projects in Fayetteville so that
we can avoid core decay we need to look at some consistencies and also to
find what is different and what is similar in these various projects.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. I think you are exactly on the mark,
what is different and what is similar with these other projects to be
consistent. Commissioner Church, would you like to weigh in?
Church: I just had a comment. I really like the idea of the community center and I
understand that you looked at a facility that would seat approximately 400.
I am just wondering and I know that the developer isn't talking or
addressing the issues at this point but I guess I would like to know if any
consideration was given to a smaller facility and maybe cutting back on
the number of residential units.
Alexander: I would be happy to answer that.
Hoover: Let's get, I would like to get everybody's weigh in on density and then we
will have Richard come and address density specifically so we can stay on
topic. Is there anything else?
Church: That's it.
Hoover: Commissioner Allen?
Allen: I guess I agree a good bit with what Commissioner Ostner said. It is just
such a unique situation if we could just come up with a few smaller units I
think everybody could feel better about this situation. I also wondered
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 65
about whether or not anyone had looked into the possibility of making one
way streets with Sutton and Willow, were those the two streets? Also, I
wanted to know more about what was proposed for the single-family
residence. I am really struggling with this one.
Hoover: Ok. Commissioner Vaught on density please?
Vaught: -I-think that a lot of the problems with the traffic, the nature of a church
and a residential are so different that a number of the comments made
about parking had to do with the peak hours of a church. That is when
they were lined up. I live in the neighborhood so I know what it is like
driving down those streets at those times. With this residential you are
never going to have all 400 trips of the day there at the same time. I think
that that is a big difference between the uses. Like so many people have
said, I think the idea of infill is tough because we are looking at taking
something right now that generates no trips and talking about converting
that use in the middle of an R-1 neighborhood so there are lots of
concerns with that. Especially I think that to say that if building an
apartment complex here would bring down property values is a bit of a
blanket statement. I think that the quality of the development could tie
into that. As we head toward where that was multi -family and single-
family residential next to each other and the property values were
increasing in fact because of the development. I think if the residents wait
until the market value of this property comes down to a point where a
church can afford it that would affect the property values more than
anything the longer this sits vacant. The idea of residential I think is the
best use. The idea of a commercial business in the middle of a
neighborhood, I don't know if that is the best use for it. The community
center, like was stated, I think would cause the same kind of parking
problems we have now that everyone has spoken against. The idea of
density and making a project work, I don't even know if we would have to
come down as low as Commissioner Ostner had said to make it more
compatible. What are our other options with this property? I think its
proximity in the community would facilitate creating more walking trips
necessarily than driving trips given its close to the grocery store and a
number of other businesses. Even school students who live there could
very easily commute by bike or by walking to the University. It is a tough
call but I guess my question would be to the developer if you cut back
even to 35 or 34 units would it be possible to eliminate some of the
smaller one bedroom units and create maybe possibly a little bit bigger
two bedroom units to get rid of just a few, could that possibly be a viable
solution or the idea of possibly creating condominiums in one of the
buildings and selling .them off to help mitigate the cost. I don't know. I
am sure those options have been looked at and I would just like to hear
what kind of ideas were generated from that.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 66
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Estes, did you have anything
to add on density or did you already complete your density expose?
Estes: Madam Chair, you of course know I have something to say after sitting
here listening to my fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Bunch
correctly stated that this is zoned R- I and what we are being asked to do is
increase the density. Richard challenged us as a Commission that if we
vote no to at least offer some alternatives. It is not our business Richard,
as you know, to micro -manage your project but there are many
alternatives. You, as a developer, do not necessarily have to own this in
fee simple. In other parts of the country 99 year leases are done on infill
projects and then you build out eight units with a shared common area and
you sell those units in fee simple subject to the ground lease. That is
common in other parts of the country. You said if you vote no give me
something. I just gave you something Richard.
Alexander: May I speak to that?
Estes: That is up to the chair.
Hoover: Are you finished Commissioner Estes?
Estes: I am finished on the density issue.
Hoover: Ok. Yes Richard, please come speak to density.
Alexander: We have contemplated doing condominiums. In fact, if we do this project
we will offer some of them for condominiums. I have to say, having done
two recent condominium projects downtown, there is a limited market for
it. To think that we can do the whole project as a condominium
development I don't think is feasible. We intend to offer some of them as
condominiums. They will frankly be quite nice and will exceed $100 to
$120 to $140 a foot in terms of what we will have invested in them. They
will be fairly expensive homes by the time that we get done with them. It
was my understanding that that wasn't part of this application process that
we had to spell out how we were going to do that. Commissioner
Shackelford did the same math that I did. We didn't share our math but it
is the same. I started from the gross proposition of what we would have to
spend to do a quality project. I can spend less and have less units and
have less..quality. That is exactly the type of apartment building that my
neighbors will not like. That is always the dilemma. All I can say in
defense of that is drive around town and look at what I have done. We
haven't done cheap stuff anywhere. With respect to parking, I wanted to
address that. You had a good point Commissioner Estes. The most I
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 67
could add additional without a variance is 30%, that is 19 spaces. The
least I could have without a variance is 30% less. As a practical matter for
instance, we developed the triplex across the street from my home in this
neighborhood, a three bedroom unit, a two bedroom unit and a one
bedroom unit. They are all occupied by single professional women with
one car each. The truth is the parking density, while you have two
bedrooms, is not going to be one for one. In practical speaking, it will be
-about 1.5. There will be -overflow parking. I think if 30% is the maximum
or the minimum we are well within that. I have to stress when you are
talking about density on other projects this is not a new project. I started
this proposition from day one with Planning staff. I would not be standing
here before you asking for this project but for the fact that 38,000 square
feet is existing in that neighborhood, it looks like it looks, all of the
parking is in place, I am not proposing to add parking, take away parking.
I am trying to make this fit. In terms of redeveloping this, in terms of the
money spent, somebody made the point anybody that does this project is
going to have to bring it up to code. That will limit your uses because you
will have to spend a certain amount of money to sprinkle the buildings,
bring the electric up, bring the plumbing up, all of that kind of stuff. To
do less, you could have lesser density but again, a lesser project. The
Sutton Street house, I just want to address one lady's comment, we are
proposing to leave the Sutton Street house single-family. We are not
asking to rezone that property. The Willow Street house is an existing
duplex, we are proposing to leave that as a duplex and are not asking to
rezone that. Just so that there is no confusion. We are not asking to
rezone the Sutton Street property or to do anything other than to keep that
as a single-family dwelling: I hope that answered some of your questions.
Hoover: Can you address if you proposed with the city if it would be possible to
make any of these streets one way to accommodate better traffic
circulation and parking?
Alexander: I didn't raise that. I kind of felt that would be more, somebody asked me
what we were going to do with the park, I am not going to do anything
with the park. Parks is going to tell me what they are going to do with it.
We are proposing one way in and one way out. We are proposing one
way in off of Willow and one way out off of Walnut. It would be
appropriate to do the streets one way but we didn't make that part of our
proposal. We would certainly be glad to listen. With respect to density,
39 is the number we came up with trying to do the math. I want to make it
absolutely clear, this isn't a homerun. Nobody's kids are going to college
on this project. This will cash flow itself probably. 39, 38, 37 sure, 20, it
won't be my proposal before you. It will have to be somebody else. We
start with the number of dollars it takes to do it and then work backwards.
Thank you.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 68
Hoover: Thank you Richard
Anthes: Richard, before you sit down. I know this is off of exactly what we are
doing but I am doing it for a neighborhood feeling here. I just see a lot of
people here that are more comfortable with knowing there would be
ownership on that property and you stated in your statements a minute ago
that you intend to offer some. How does that work in your formula and
how you arrived at your density levels?
Alexander: What we did with the UARK Bowl is we offered them all for sale or lease
and sold the ones that people wanted to buy and leased the ones that
people wanted to lease. From my perspective there is really no magic to
it. We will offer them for sale or lease. If somebody wants to by one
great! To me the problem will take care of itself because you will sell a
certain amount of them and that will create a POA and association. I am
personally in favor of it. We have only done a few of them. I mean a few
years ago condominium sales, you were ahead of your time. There were
guys that went broke doing that. That is a new thing that is becoming
.accepted. We are struggling with that. I personally like it. It is more who
comes. There is no way to really predict that. I could tell you that if we
had 39 units and we offered some of them for sale some of them will sale.
Anthes: So the answer is that you have to run your performa based on the fact that
100% of this could be rental and that the unit sizes have to be based on
whether or not it is rental property whether or not it sold.
Alexander: That is the only way I know how to do it. Mr. Shackelford's point was
that if you are coming to the bank, and he is with a bank, you have got to
make that work in order to get the 3.5 million. Otherwise they won't loan
you the money. It is very little wiggle room. I do it for a living and this is
the best I could come up with. Can you reconfigure 39 or 37, a couple of
units, sure. 20%, 30%, 40%, I don't think so. That is the way I did it.
Hoover: Would everyone be ok if I moved onto another topic that we haven't
discussed? The parkland dedication and the fee in lieu of. The Parks and
Rec. Advisory Board has recommended that the balance of the amount be
paid as a fee in lieu in the amount of $11,331.25. They are donating park
land and I believe the applicant would like not to have to pay this fee, is
that correct Richard?
Alexander: That is correct
Hoover: I would like to have some discussion about that. Commissioner Estes?
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 69
Estes: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is just that, it is an advisory
board to this Commission. They have met, they have studied, they have
done their job and they have made their recommendation and I am
inclined to follow their recommendation.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Commissioner Ostner?
Ostner: I tend to agree with Commissioner Estes. I understand the hardship that
this land is much more valuable and the irony that if you all were not to
give it away you would be required to pay less than the appraised value. It
is quite odd but I am in agreement with the Parks Board.
Hoover: Commissioner Shackelford?
Shackelford: It is ironic, as Commissioner Ostner said, exactly how the math works out
and that sort of thing. You know, there is a cost of doing business and
quite honestly in my projections I just work that into the cost whether it is
right or wrong. That is what our city staff, our chosen people have
recommended and I don't feel that I am in a position without hearing
justifiable argument from the developer beyond what is in the packet to go
any other direction with it.
Hoover: Thank you. Are there any other Commissioners that would like to weigh
in on this issue? Richard, would you like to address us on this -issue?
Alexander: To me it was real simple. The price of the land, we had an appraisal done
by St. Jo's church, it is $225 an acre and that is what they are basically
asking us to pay for it. We didn't mind making the dedication of park land
if it made the neighborhood happy. It is a chunk right out of the middle of
the project, a significant chunk. The value of that land according to the
appraisal not done for me but done for the church by Tom Reed is
anywhere from $225 a foot to $425 a foot. If we were to pay parks fees in
lieu of land dedication we would be required to pay $15,000. What I
understand that the Parks Board has voted is for us to pay $17,000 to
$32,000 for the land, give it to the Parks Board and then pay another
$10,000 in fees. Just at the price we will have to buy it is $17,000 I think.
$17,000 plus another $11,000 roughly is $30,000 so almost double the
• amount of money I would have to pay if I just paid the fees. It just doesn't
seem fair. The city's formula for figuring this is .66 acres anywhere in the
city. I have done projects downtown that the whole project was .66 acres.
-If I was required to donate the whole .66 acres there would be no project.
In addition, land down on Dickson Street is anywhere from $13 to $20 a
foot. To equate a dedication of land on Dickson Street that you would
have to buy for parks land to do a project and then to require the developer
to pay additional fees because you could only give, the land is smaller and
Planning Commission •
May 12, 2003
Page 70
by definition worth more, then to have to pay more on top of that just
seems unfair. We don't mind giving the park. We don't mind at all. If
that makes the neighborhood happy that is fine. We were proposing to
keep the land as greenspace anyway. Our proposal is not to develop any
of the space not occupied by buildings anyway. It will cost us $17,000, in
addition to that Parks wants us to pay roughly another $11,000, that is
roughly $30,000 or $29,000 when the fees are $15,000.
Anthes: I have a question for Mr. Whitaker. Will you define what is allowed under
hardship? Will you also speak to how•the formula, if what land costs
actually can be applied to our formula.
Whitaker: This has come up many number of times. I find myself, at least at the rate
it is going, we are averaging about three times a year that one or another
committee or commission will ask for a definition of hardship or as the
Arkansas Code says, an undue hardship. I will continue to repeat that
there is no precise definition. It is a fact based inquiry which you have to
make each time. I guess that I ran across, when I was doing this the first
time a year or so ago, there was a whole lot of work done and effort
expended looking at the possibility of an outdoor lighting ordinance and
the whole question arose about what constitutes a hardship and I dug and I
dug and I dug. I have to tell you that I discovered that almost anyone that
has ever looked at it ran into the same problem. There was never a precise
definition. However, I did run across one treatise where the commentator
said that probably the best way to understand what it is is to understand
what it is not. I will read that briefly to you. It is not mere hardship,
inconvenience, interference with convenience or economic advantage.
Disappointment in learning that land is not available for business uses,
financial or pecuniary hardship or disadvantage, loss of perspective
profits, prevention of an increase of profits or prohibition of the most
profitable use of the property. I think that is probably the best definition
that you are going to get in the land use setting. It kind of says things that
are not a problem. What I have heard, what I have read in the packet and
what I have heard from Mr. Alexander, sound like very strong arguments
for legislative change. At the time this parkland was adopted or perhaps a
suggested amendment to the underlying ordinance that perhaps this
formula isn't fair but the fact is, and I believe the record will bear my
memory out on this, this discussion of having one fee for the entire town
from the folks that congregated it and the Council when it was brought
forward had some heartburn. On the other side of the coin when we are
dealing with property owners in the outlying areas where property values
are low one could argue saying we are not getting our due. It was decided,
and we believe reasonably so, that an average and a formula be put
together for the whole city. Yes, sometimes it is going to be unfair but
again, I hesitate to tell you one way or the other whether it is a hardship or
Planning Commission •
May 12, 2003
Page 71
not because that is a fact based judgment you have to make. I can only tell
you what some of the findings are leading you and you are left with the
facts and you have to wrestle with them.
Anthes: Thank you Mr. Whitaker. On the basis of your definition, I have to say
that I would be in favor of letting the Parks Department ruling stand.
Thank you.
Hoover: I would like to move onto the next waiver we are being asked to address,
which is a determination for the waiver of required landscaping adjacent
to existing parking lot adjacent to existing Walnut Avenue right of way.
The requirement is for a 15' landscaped setback for the parking lot with
the dedication to accommodate the Master Street Plan the existing
configuration of this parking provision and this landscaped area would
require the removal of three existing parking spaces. Commissioner
Ostner, did you have a comment about that one? I think you already did
comment about it at one point.
Ostner: I did. I think that we should not grant the waiver. I think he does need to
bring the parking lot into compliance at least, which means moving the
landscape buffer inward and it will remove three parking spaces. I think
the neighborhood is going through enough, I think there are enough issues
on the table that this does not need to be one.
Vaught: I have a question for staff. It is my understanding that if we don't allow
this waiver and require them to remove three parking spaces, he will still
comply with the code and not have to seek a waiver for his parking is that
correct?
Warrick: That is correct.
Vaught: It is hard for me because most of the complaints we have heard deal with
parking and here we are removing parking spaces when no matter which
way we go to keep these existing parking spaces on site requires a waiver
which would help very little with the parking on the streets, but would
help some I would think. It is three spaces. It is just hard for me to decide
either way but really I guess if we approve the overall project this point is
not the most important. Either way we go he is in compliance with the
parking ordinance. Do we want these three spaces on site or off site, I
don't know.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner.
Shackelford: I would agree
with
the
last comments.
As I looked
at this
and listened to
the
comments
from
the
public I see that
we are very
much
concerned with
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 72
the on street parking and the affect that it has on the neighborhood. Based
on that, my initial reading I was in support of the waiver to allow the three
existing parking places to stay on location simply because it will reduce
the affect or the need for some offsite location as well. I do have a
question for staff. Dawn, the requirement is for a 15' landscaped setback,
do you know approximately what the existing setback is in this area? Are
we looking at 5' or 10', how much are we looking at giving up in that
area? I couldn't tell from the drawing.
Warrick: It is different on the north side of the drive than the south. The existing
landscaped area on the north is probably 3' or 4' and on the south maybe
10'.
Shackelford: I could visually think of the south side of it where it was larger but I
couldn't remember how much smaller it got on the other end of it. With
that being said, I would speak in favor of the waiver simply because I
would rather have the parking on location rather than off location and as
Commissioner Vaught has pointed out, even if we reduce these three
parking spaces, the developer still would be within our perimeters for
parking for this development. Thank you.
Hoover: Thanks. Are there any other Commissioners that would like to address
this waiver? I am going to move onto the next item that we need to
address, which is on Sutton Avenue reducing the amount of right of way
dedication by 3' to allow the existing right of way to remain. Does
anyone have any problem with this? Apparently we have an existing
condition with the building. There are no problems with this. I guess I
would like to ask staff on the covenants. I read further in here, do they
need to be submitted to Council when this goes to Council? I am confused
on when the covenants are actually included wit this PZD ordinance.
Warrick: The requirement for covenants is typically that they include any
information that is required by the Planning Commission and that they be
submitted and filed with the final document at the time that it is filed
creating the project. That would be in this case, the concurrent plat
document would be filed of record with the Circuit Clerk of Washington
County making this Planned Zoning District, creating this Planned Zoning
District and the lots that are designated.
Hoover: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions on the covenants, on that
-issue? Then let me throw it out for any other discussion on any issue we
have not discussed.
Whitaker: Madam Chair, I don't want to be out of order. I would ask your
permission if I may inquire of Planning staff. Condition number four
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 73
refers to regarding the rezoning of the subject property to the unique
district for R-PZD, etc., etc. I believe that I heard the applicant say that he
wasn't seeking rezoning for the entire subject property. It seems a little
imprecise to rezone the whole thing
Warrick: I will be happy to address that. The reason that we encouraged the
applicant to maintain the duplex lot and the single-family lot in this R-
PZD Planned Zoning District is because both of those lots are non-
conforming lots within the R -I zoning district. They do not meet the
minimum lot size or frontage requirements and therefore, providing them
the special zoning designation of R-PZD they can become compliant lots.
Another issue is that the current lot lines that define all of the various lots
within this parcel of land are being shifted. Therefore, this does become a
subdivision realigning the existing lots to provide one lot for each of the
structures and one lot for the park land dedication. Because we are
shifting lot lines and because we are trying to accommodate existing
conditions for the single-family home and the duplex staff has
recommended that they remain part of the R-PZD. I think it would be
appropriate based on the comments and based on the uses proposed for the
single-family home and the duplex that conditions be stated that they
retain their current usage and that they not be increased in density for
those two structures.
Whitaker: Thank you. That cleared it up.
Hoover: Is there any other discussion?
Ostner: I don't want to belabor a point but I shall. Very quickly, on the density
issue I wanted to make it clear to myself how I was justifying an R-2 or R-
3 in an R -I zone besides the buildings are already there. I thought about
R-1 and the density in R-2 as an adjoining acceptable zone because we
have often adjoined R-2 and R-1 or R -O with R-1 as a buffer, as we talked
about hours ago. The density, what we have done is we have basically
• doubled the density every time we hopscotch. R-1 is roughly four units
per acre. We currently have RSF-6, RSF-7, which are more compact
single-family zones. Then R -O and R-2 are more of the zoning names we
have. We have multi -family. If Washington Willow is in fact, not R-1, it
is R-1 on paper. We know it is not actually R-1, the lots are smaller, there
are some multi -family uses there. I would guess, and I would love to
really know if someone were to take the maps and drive around and figure
what the density really is. I think that would help a lot for us to look at
what we are really adjoining, not what a fictitious map says Washington
Willow is. If Washington Willow is six units per acre or seven, which I
think it could be, maybe I'm wrong. Doubling that for this project seems
feasible. It seems like something we have always done. We double the
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 74
density as we hopscotch towards commercial or away from it. 7x2 is 14
units per acre. That is not what they are proposing. 18 units per acre is 32
units. That is how I justified it. I know that is confusing but since we are
dealing with Mt. Sequoyah, we are dealing with all of these PZDs where
we are having to pull these densities out of the air without our usual
sequence of R-1, R -O, Commercial, that seemed feasible to me. That is
why in a perfect world, without the money problems I understand, that is
why I can justify what I call RMF-18, which is 32 units. RMF-18 is our
third most dense zone. R -O and all of those things don't exist technically
anymore. I wanted to go on record and explain that just to make things
very clear.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Ostner. Are there any other comments? Are
there any motions?
Shackelford: I would like to start by I think Commissioner Ostner did a very good job
of defining his position and kind of reiterating his position. It kind of lead
me to feel compelled to do the same. Obviously I have spoke in favor of
this and the reason that I have gotten to that point is first of all let me say
that I would not support 38 or 39 units to be built if this was a two acre
vacant lot in the middle of this neighborhood. This is a very unique
situation in we had 38,000 square feet of abandoned building that is going
to be redeveloped, redesigned into something. Basically what I have had
to do as a Planning Commissioner is look at this project, see if it is
something that could feasibly survive in this neighborhood and what
impact it is going to have on the neighborhood. It is going to have some
impact on the neighborhood, there is no question about that but the
neighborhood was impacted the day that this property was abandoned and
the church moved out. With that being said, I can get to the point. I
understand we have some concerns about density. I understand we have
some other concerns but I would like to encourage this Commission to
make a recommendation. Again, I know we have had conversations about
neighborhood associations, we have heard from the officers of the
neighborhood association. We have heard from several members of the
neighborhood who have disagreements with that association. We have had
several public meetings in this issue and please remember this is a
recommendation to City Council. This is not final action so there will be
even more opportunity in the future for further conversation in that area.
Based on that, I do not want to see this at this point die for lack of a
motion. I think that we owe the developer due process. I think that this is
a situation in which you know, it is feasible that this can go in this
neighborhood and survive in this neighborhood. I think it is better than a
lot of the alternatives that we are going to see in this. I quite frankly think,
it is better than seeing this building sit vacant with boards on the windows
and that sort of thing. With that being said, with all of the comments that
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 75
we have made regarding the different waivers, I am going to make a
motion that we approve R-PZD 03-3.00 subject to all staff comments and
all conditions of approval:
Hoover: Commissioner Shackelford, on condition of approval number one, I think
that we have to explain our determination.
Shackelford: My determination there was based on the definition I asked Mr. Whitaker
basically the same question that Ms. Anthes did last meeting when we
talked about the underground cables and exactly what is the definition of
undue hardship. While I'm in agreement with this applicant that this is not
fair in this situation, I agree with our City Attorney that this is more of a
grounds for legislative change instead of a hardship at this point. While I
do have sympathy with the developer I feel that based on our definition of
undue hardship we have to find in favor of what the Parks and Recreation
Committee is advising, which is the land plus the fee.
Hoover: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford, do I have a
second?
Vaught: I will second.
Hoover: There is a second by Commissioner Vaught. Is there any other
discussion?
Estes: Because one of the findings of fact that we must make is that the proposal
preserves and enhances the neighborhood and I cannot make that finding I
will vote against the motion.
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Estes. I would like to say that this has been one
of the most unique projects we have had come forward in a long time to
have this much discussion about it. It has just about every difficult
situation you could have that we need to look at. One is that the Planned
Zoning District is a new device here that we are all excited about because
it produces a lot of opportunities for different types of developments but
we are still learning how to deal with it and cope. We also have a
situation where we have existing buildings. We are not starting from
scratch with a new development so we have the issues of whether we
weigh this, what would we suggest in a new development what would be
our recommendation. Here we have existing buildings and yet we're not
-technically supposed to be looking at the financial burden. We can't not
look at it because it is right there sitting in our face and we don't want a
building just to be vacant all the time. Then on top of those issues we are
in a historic district, which has very small lots, spaces, a particular
neighborhood characteristic that we are trying to maintain and enhance
Planning Commission •
May 12, 2003
Page 76
and our charge is to decide if this type of development is compatible with
the existing neighborhood.
Shackelford: If I could make one more point. Commissioner Estes made a point about
findings of fact. I also struggled with the findings of fact of how this
development would preserve and enhance the integrity of this
neighborhood. The way that I got to a positive finding of that fact quite
simply is I am thinking of where the project is now, where it is going
forward. Obviously, it is not an enhancement to the neighborhood if it
was still operating as a church, if it was operating as a museum, if it was a
property of the University of Arkansas. In my mind it is an abandoned
building that will only deteriorate over time. Based on that finding I do
feel that a redevelopment and infill in this area will preserve and enhance
the overall neighborhood over the basis of where the property will be if it
sits vacant. I think if we rule out multi -family development I think this
property will sit vacant for a long time. Thank you.
Anthes: Condition of approval number two, don't we have to state a determination
there as well?
Shackelford: I would like to state in
favor of the waiver requiring
landscaping
adjacent
to the existing parking
lot adjacent to Walnut Avenue.
Hoover: Commissioner Vaught, is that ok with the second?
Vaught: Yes.
Anthes: Item three is the same question?
Shackelford: Yes, I am in favor with staff findings on that as well.
Anthes: One other question. Since the PZD is a new thing to us and we have to,
then send this up to City Council there has been talk about the fact that
this number of units is a little mushy at this time, not to any great degree
perhaps but slightly mushy. A question to staff is, when this is approved
as a PZD you can't vary from it correct?
Warrick: That is correct. The zoning approval would be tied to the development
proposal.
Anthes: If this passes at this number of units there is no room for moving?
Warrick: The City Council does have latitude and this is a policy decision that they
will make the final determination on. You are making a recommendation
to the City Council with regard to the development and zoning
Planning Commission •
May 12, 2003
Page 77
combination
for
this particular site.
They will
be able
to
review that and
they do have
the
authority to modify
that if they
see that
as
their choice.
Anthes: Is there a way to send this to Council with a reservation attached?
Hoover: Three hours of minutes.
—Warrick: -I think that is probably true. We have got on the record many different
discussions, conversations, reservations, and other. It will all go forward.
The minutes of this will certainly accompany the item if you choose to
send it forward.
Anthes: Thank you.
Ostner: On this issue of neighborhood integrity, I should've mentioned this earlier.
Architectural historic integrity in downtown urban areas is I know a little
bit about it, I'm not a professional. Usually the first goal, believe it or not,
is preserve the look. If the building has to be torn down and replaced
preserve the look, we will talk about the other things second. If the
building has to change uses, preserve the look. That is tantamount in
historic preservation. It could be a shell, it could be a 1' wall and air
behind it and preserve the look. Beal Street, Savanna, Georgia, very
successful historic areas have followed this rule. This is just the first of it.
Use is of course very important that follows into that but this preserves the
look. The use does change but as we have all talked about and hashed out
thoroughly I think the use is moving towards something semi -acceptable.
Since the look is staying the same I think it is very important and I think
the neighborhood is getting the best of a somewhat dire situation. I do
think this is going to work good for the neighborhood though it doesn't
seem it now.
Hoover: Thank you. Is there any other discussion?
Bunch: Looking at the numbers, this equates basically to an RMF-24. At the level
of an RMF- 18 the 1.65 acres that are dedicated to the three structures to be
turned into multi -family would come out to RMF-18 would be 30, right at
a fraction, and RMF-12 would be 19.8 or more or less 20 units just to get
• the numbers out front. Generally I am in favor of infill developments and
definitely reusing existing structures and preserving historical looks. On
this particular one I am torn. I understand the economics of the situation
--but at the same time. for consistency with other developments in the area I
cannot support it at this time at this density level. Other than that, I think
it is a good project, I think it has a lot going for it. The applicant has done
some very wonderful infill projects that I support but I cannot support the
density on this particular project at this point in time.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 78
Hoover: Thank you Commissioner Bunch. Is there anymore discussion?
Ostner: A question for staff on procedure. If this fails in this form how long
before he could resubmit in a different form?
Warrick: The same
request could not come back for one
calendar year. A different
request, a
materially different
request, could be
resubmitted.
Ostner: Ok.
Hoover: Does density count as materially different?
Warrick: I believe so. The applicant would have the opportunity should the
Planning Commission vote to deny the request, the applicant does have the
opportunity to appeal through due process to the City Council.
Hoover: Is.that clear?
Ostner: Yes.
Anthes: Is the appeal to the City Council in the same schedule as if we send it to
the City Council?
Warrick: It depends on the applicant's time frame with regard to how quickly they
submit information to the City Clerk's office. There is typically a three
week delay in items being forwarded from this level to the City Council
through a staff review form and I believe that the applicant would be on
the same processing schedule. This coming Friday is a deadline to start
processing for I believe the June 3rd City Council meeting.
Vaught:
Could we change this R-PZD to
say
a maximum of 39 units
instead of 39
units to give the developer some
lead
way in reconfiguring on
his own?
Warrick: You have the ability to do that.
Hoover: Right now we have a motion that we need to vote on.
Vaught: Can we amend the motion?
Hoover: Yes.
Shackelford: I would be willing to amend the motion to word a maximum of 39 units.
Vaught: I would concur.
Planning Commission • •
May 12, 2003
Page 79
Hoover: Would you reiterate your motion because it has been a little while
Shackelford: I make a motion that we approve R-PZD 03-3.00 with the changes that it
says that we are recommending for approval to the City Council a
maximum of 39 residential units with 64 parking spaces. I am finding on
condition number one regarding in favor of the Parks Board that land plus
fee be dedicated. I am finding in favor of waiver number two that there be
a lesser amount of landscape setback to allow the three parking spaces to
remain on site. I am finding in favor of the waiver in condition number
three that would reduce the setback from centerline by 3.01'. I believe
that is all the specific findings that I have to make.
Hoover: Commissioner Vaught, do you still second?
Vaught: Yes, I still second.
Hoover: Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. I appreciate the public
involvement tonight and everyone staying late and the Planning
Commission's good discussion. Now can we vote?
Shackelford: Let's vote.
Hoover: Renee, please call the roll.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward R-PZD 03-3.00 to
the City Council was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners
Ostner, Estes, Bunch and Hoover voting no.
Thomas: The motion passes five to four.
Hoover: Thank you Richard. We are adjourned.
so
do
R-PZD03-3.00 NORTH COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT CO1
Close Up View
e • eeeeeeee+R-}
'J 0
�w - ' _ ��_ Eli
l . _ _ ❑
x•+
nQ
Overview
I-.
..... s ....ufa0f�?f s4........
U
e.eeee 000►e17�Ra0@ifi."Sre eese
SUBJECT PROPERTY
.:f.;c.:/
i
I I I I I I I I .I• �
I
I I
1 Qc 0 �I
I I I I 7 1 IRZ
i I I .�.! - R
Legend
Subject Property Boundary
•'_. Planning Area Master Street Plan
R-PZD013.00 &000%Freeway/Expressway
0 o Overlay District
000000
— — t tag Principal Arterial
Streets L _ I City Limits
Existing Outside Ciry fie► Minor Arterial
Planned 'S i Collector
• eee Historic Collector
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
III Ca,
I I
_ J •iVnn.� F-. qf,G.
l ♦ ra• 1• I • n'e.'..p n5.
1I wssrssrrrrA all i —a-'
1
x
i is 1
L
1 m
�
Y te' J
11 I/`V
•
r..x E
I / I
^11
■ is::_ j _.✓
\ I
'1V I I -4
JI4 •
�ro
_-
2 '
Y
III IN -
I \
r 1... J.. J • I
.
A .. /• �. ti r �.. • I I
WEST 6t50' .. H89°20'20^W 67.50'
P.O■B. I SOUTH
(SW CORNER 1.00'
LOT 2)
TRACT 4
• i�
(PART OF LOT 3) -
•
' 67.50'_ _ I 67.50' _
f
°20•2O"W SIDEWALK
a
1.50, A EXISTING WOOD FENCE
SUTTON STREET _
DRIVEWAY (POSSIBLE E
P.A.B.
(SE CORNER
LOTS)___ _ _ _
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60 120
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 30 ft.
ITOWER
SIDEWALK
PARKING LOT
195.00'
1
103.00'
P.O.B./
(NE CORNER
LOT #6)
ORIGINAL TRACTS
TRACT 3
cc
r
2,.70'
LEGENn
Q. FOUND IRON PIPE
• FOUND IRON PIN
X SET CHISELED X"
O SET IRON PIN
CENTERLINE STREET
WOOD FENCE
D — O - O - 0 -
CHAIN LINK FENCE
- - -0-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (ORIGINAL TRACT)
WE
ALL OF LOT 1, 2, 5 AND 6 AND PART OF LOT 3 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE
MASONIC ADDITION IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING
AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID LOT 6, THENCE SOUTH 224.17 FEET, THENCE
N89°49'31"W 195.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 112.42 FEET, THENCE WEST
60.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 109.22 FEET, THENCE N89°20'20W 67.50
FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1.00 FEET, THENCE WEST 67.50 FEET, THENCE
NORTH 227.00 FEET, THENCE EAST 390.00 FEET TO THE P.O.B.;
CONTAINING 2.17 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT
OF WAY OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (TRACT I)
PART OF LOT 1 8 2 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC ADDITION IN THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID
LOT 1, THENCE EAST 76.08 FEET, THENCE S00°20'36E 114.78 FEET,
THENCE N76°39'55E 17.12 FEET, THENCE S89°33'48'E 17.57 FEET,
THENCE SOUTH 60.52 FEET, THENCE N89°53'16W 111.00 FEET, THENCE
NORTH 171.27 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 0.35 ACRES.
LEGAC DESCRIPTIONr (TRACT 2)
PART
OF
LOT 1, 2, 5 AND
6 OF
BLOCK 9 OF THE
MASONIC
ADDITION IN
THE
CITY
OF
FAYETTEVILLE AS
PER
PLAT COMMENCING
AT THE
NW CORNER
OF
SAID LOT!, THENCE EAST'144.67 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE EAST 142.32
FEET, THENCE SOUTH 223.86 FEET, THENCE N89°49'3l"W 92.00 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 14.77 FEET, THENCE WEST 61.50 FEET, THENCE NORTH 37.28
FEET, THENCE N89°53'16"W 22.50 FEET, THENCE NORTH 60.52 FEET, THENCE
S89°33'48"E 34.49 FEET, THENCE N00°25'14"W 111.23 FEET TO THE P.O. B.;
CONTAINING 0.77 ACRES.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (TRACT 3)
PART OF LOT 5 8 6 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC ADDITION IN THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING AT THE NE CORNER OF LOT 6,
THENCE SOUTH 224.17 FEET, THENCE N89°49'31W 103.00 FEET, THENCE
NORTH 223.86 FEET, THENCE EAST 103.00 FEET TO THE P.O.B.;
CONTAINING 0.53 ACRES.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (TRACT
PART OF LOT 2 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC ADDITION IN THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING AT THE SW CORNER OF LOT 2,
THENCE NORTH 55.73 FEET, THENCE S89°53'16E 133.50 FEET, THENCE
SOUTH 55.23 FEET, THENCE N89°20'20"W 66.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH
1.00 FEET, THENCE WEST 67.50 FEET TO THE P.0.8.; CONTAINING 0.17
ACRES.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (TRACT 5)
___ e_ r_• 1 PART OF LOT 2 & 3 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE MASONIC ADDITION IN THE CITY
•^I; OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF LOT 3,
THENCE WEST 60.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 109.22 FEET, THENCE
N89°20'20"W 1.50 FEET, THENCE NORTH 17.95 FEET, THENCE EAST 61.50
FEET, THENCE SOUTH 127.19 FEET TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 0.18 ACRES.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (TRACT 6)
PART
OF LOT I & 2 OF BLOCK 9 OF THE
MASONIC ADDITION IN THE
CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE AS PER PLAT COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID
LOT I
FEET,
THENCE EAST 76.08 FEET TO THE
THENCE S00°25'14"E 111.23 FEET,
P.O.B., THENCE EAST 68.59
THENCE N89°33'48"W 52.07
FEET,
THENCE S76 °39'55"W 17.12 FEET,
THENCE N00°20'36"W 114.78
FEET
TO THE P.O.B.; CONTAINING 0.18 ACRES.
•
•
r
VO
U7
a
GEI
°
z
WII
W
Wz
Is.
O
7
V
•
- �y
1 ..yt AF ". 'b §b j' R i✓i Y'4N= t' 3.. nn ti'"„ ` ..T^'.'I` .. p p �. �r�^ie�
rmu ¢
oan+I -' • -' 111
� `11
y
m o
0 z 8
m
/ u
Q � G
PLAY GROUND
576°39'55Wj
- - 17.12'
N 89°33'48" W 52.07'
S89°3
'5'E -
17712.11'
RETAINING WALL S89°33'48E
17.57'
N �
E----- PARKING LOT
0
SIDEWALK
RETAINING WALL _N8'9°53'I6'W
/ 22.50'
S 89°5316" E
HANDICAP RAMP
O
- O
tACT 4
GRAVEL
AREA
a
RETAINING WALL
NORTH
17.95'
61.50'
r
HANDICAP
RAMP
{I
NORT
14.77'
07962
Gary M. Karnes
503 W. Lakeview Drive
Springdale, AR 727b4
08001
Sarah Mann Lindsey
225 E. Lafayette
Fayetteville, AR 72701
07998
Daniel W. Adams
PC Box 280
Rogers, AR 72756
07997
David O. and Elizabeth
2720 Centerwood
Fayetteville, AR 72703
07996
Lucy McNair
341 N. Willow
Fayetteville, AR 72701
EXIS)1r
SIDEN,
DRI V
APR h
'c i
O
J
If
�I 1
EXIS IP
SIDEffY,
DRI V
OF
API
PR(
&C
to
SIC
DR
AP
CSI
III I 1
,.a, . � {.. L f • uapc�,avw neuc, d �... Ph \^�' 1
08007 08005 (PART OF LOT 3) 08006 -77 r oBOIa oaoo9 08009 08018 ...�a.
Catholic Diocese of Little R41 Donna M. Ramey Katherine C. Gay Irma L. Boyer ( Wylt D. and Lillian B. Wright
Eve J. Wiseman James R. and Diana L. Parker :�' i 1
1 Bishop ). Peter Sartain 0 P 314 Sutton Street 324 Sutton Street 1923 E. Joyce I J 346 N, Walnut
441 S N. Lookout 1036Mon Bowser Rd.
PO Box 7239 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Fa etteville, AR 72701 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Fayetteville, AR 72701
Little Rock, AR 72205 Monticello, AR 71655 Y Ra
67.50' 67.50' Little R ck,AR 72202 cH IN
_
W
H14" -GAL IroFATERL�iYE _—_ _____ EB SCALE: 1" ?2EN
1F
G€1TTGN Th'ET -_,
�. _ ,_ ,� _ ___,�,._ �,�. _. _._,�. _ __.� . _.._ ,_._ �_��_ _ --_ - ICI
—__ — _ _ _ — _ _ �__ n_ —___ n__� __ �_�._ I__ _
a02" GAL WATERLINE
I I I aI 40
_
—
—e— -. + e e 8 inch = 20 ft
a