Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-16 - Agendas - FinalPAGE "D.. MARCH 16, 1982 ANNEXATION: An ordinance calling for a referendum on the question of annexing certain territory into the city. For something over a year the City Board has considered, at various meetings, the concept of annexing seven different areas into the city. (A map showing the general locations is on the next page; more detailed maps are in the City Clerk's Office.) At the last meeting the Directors decided to refer areas 2-6 Let es sikori falJ 011 to the voters at the May 25 primary election; further considera- tion of areas 1 and 7 will be given at the April 20 meeting. lir 117.114r j7 - PUD APPEAL: An appeal ofa decision by the Planning Commission regarding a request 3 for a waiver from the 250' minimum perimeter setback requirements of "Sequoyah South", a Planned Unit Development located west of Eherman Avenue and north of , East Huntsville Road, on and abutting property zoned R-1 "Low DensityResid ni lightim0 ra 0-"Othe.a.- -II '-' . , ' ,a, lei eraji .44;27L4_444C te ie e p 1982 Community Development Block A CD HEARING: A public hearing on Grant Budget. 7-O This is the last in a series of three meetings on the subject. On February 16 the members of the Community Development and Housing Committee and the general public presented various requests and suggestions for the use of some $500,000 in CD funds. At that time the Directors "weeded out" those requests that were clearly ineligible for CD funding, or which has so little City Board support that they would not be further considered. At the last meeting the Directors reviewed the remaining items and decided on the ones listed below: Installation of sidewalks in low - and -moderate -income areas Installation of a sidewalk along 15th Street, from Walker Park to Campbell Soup Construction of a building for "Head Start" Street construction Hospital Washington Mountain ment ECA weatherization funds Floor covering for Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence Smoke detectors for low -and -moderate income families around City Park develop - 40,000 125,000 ---continued--- 40,000 50,000 3,500 2,500 4,000 1/4 S&JCo. N of Huntsville Rd. Sherman Ave. & E of Heights Subdivision Planning Commission To rezone from: R-1, Low Density Residential District, To: R-2, Medium Density Residential District ._ - R82-7 ,.Wof Southern 431 tit E,;.: 4 S: • K t. iir a Crcf S & J Company, Inc. 318 Ila Fayetteville, Arkansas Ms. Bobbie Jones Planning Administrator City of Fayetteville Dear Ms. Jones: Rea .. 43q - 1 MICROFILMED MICROFILMED This letter is a formal request to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission on February 22, 1982, concerning the minimum setback requirement for Sequoyah South P.U.D. We would like this appeal to be heard before the Board of Directors, City of Fayetteville, at the earliest possible time. We have a concept plat that has been approved by the Planning Commission. However, it is not workable with the present setback requirements. We will be requesting relief from the minimum perimeter setback requirement at this meeting. Also, several issues were clouded during the Planning Commission meeting and we, as developers, would like the opportunity to make things easier to understand. FIL D IN MY OFFICE THIS 4'D4YOF 192 City Clerk Sincerel Jim Stephens Cie al 3-16 - 8a A.5 e"d q SSSS e2_ 48/9 / S & J CO318 IlaMPANY, INC. tft8cYsicsemedvacitttx Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Jim Stephens, President C. S. Stephens, Secretary Ms. Bobbie Jones Planning Administrator City of Fayetteville Dear Ms. Jones: MICzori_'vita) The petitions by S & J Company Inc. to rezone over thirty-five acres on the south side of Mt. Sequoyah was denied by the Planning Commission January 25, 1982. Therefore, we are exercising the right to appeal that decision to the Board Of Directors, City of Fayetteville. However, I would like the Board to delay our appeal date, until a concept plat for the area has been presented before the Planning Commission. S & J Company will be requesting in the Concept Plat an R-1 PUD zoning, a reduction of the 250 ft. minimum setback, plus a bill of assurances that density levels for the acreage in question will not exceed present zoning laws. FILED IN MY OFFICE THIS c4 41 -DAY OF> • Fe-�L,c 6tAq 19 t oZ t� l 6,40.(7. (� c cue City Clerk 0 Sincere aou 1 .mm� � _ � X07W4P ► im Stephens\ & J Co.,Inc. • • • MICROFILMED If 1-44) rBoard ��nd • 3- kr ei;.. tho ftwotoftti i Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1982 Page 3 3. Screening will be required as per the ordinance, at such time as adjacent property is developed for residential purposes. Morton Gitelman seconded the motion to approve. The motion passed (7-0). Th'e next item for consideration SEQUOYAH SOUTH PUD was the public hearing to consider a waiver S F, J COMPANY of the 250 ft. perimeter setback required RODGERS DRIVE for multi -family units within a PUD located in an R-1 Zoning District where it abuts R-1 zoned property outside the PUD. Developer requests the setback be reduced to 100 ft. Also, that the setback not be increased for structures containing more than two dwelling units and being more than one story in height. Also includes a waiver of the sidewalk requirement. Property lies North of Huntsville Road, West of the end of Fifth Street, South and East of the end of Rodgers Drive, South of Western Methodist Assembly Addition. PUD is called Sequoyah South. S 8 J Company - Developer. Planning Commission to consider overall concept for approval. Dennis Becker and Rick Cowdrey were present to represent. The Chairman stated this is a request for reduction of the 250 ft. setback to 100 ft. for structures other than single family within this PUD as required by ordinance, and a waiver of the sidewalk requirement. He stated this property was requested to be rezoned to R-2, which was recommended to the Board of Directors for denial. This is a request for approval for a concept plat of a PUD. Bobbie Jones stated she had some input from the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the possible location of a public park within this PUD. Dennis Becker addressed the Commission. He stated the site consists of 34 acres plus. The tract is presently Zoned R-1. If the tract was developed as a traditional R-1 subdivision, it would allow 137 units. The developer proposes 124 units. The PUD concept is being requested for development purposes to make more efficient use of the land and to provide facilities. The tract is long and narrow with a width of 577 ft. If the 250 ft. setback is required, it will leave a buildable area of only 77 ft. for anything other than a duplex. The developers are asking for relief from this restriction. Also, the developer is requesting relief for the additional setback for buildings over 10 ft. in height. The open space requirement for a PUD is 30%, in this case, that would amount to 10 acres. The developer proposes to leave 17 acres open space. The developer does not want to remove existing vegetation. This tract has South slope exposure, the units will be orientated to face South, this may. encourage some solar development of the units. There is an existing tree line across the top of the development and down the side. This will be kept intact except where building occurs, and where Rodgers Drive and the private drives proposed are constructed. Jacks asked if the connection with 5th Street is assured. Becker stated the City has already obtained the right-of-way and it exists on the Master Street Plan. Becker stated the grade on Sherman Avenue is 13% and the grade on 5th Street is 7%. He felt that with the relatively easy access and the Southern orientation, that access would be adequate. Planning Commission Meeting • February 22, 1982 Page 4 • Jacks asked the steepest grade that will occur within the PUD. Rick Cowdrey stated it will be 15% for a short distance. Becker.stated he had worked with the Planning Consultant's suggestion about increased density along the Southern portion of the PUD. There were no questions from the audience or the Planning Commission, so the Chairman asked for comments in opposition to the PUD. Dawn Dunnuck, 835 Rodgers Drive, addressed the Commission. (Ms. Dunnuck is not an adjoining property owner). She asked if the developer plans on using Rodgers Drive for primary access. She stated that Rodgers ties into Fletcher, Dickson and LaFayette. Rodgers is a narrow street, it is curving, it is wider in some places and narrower in others, there is no curb or gutter on the South side of Rodgers. She stated that drainage has been flowing South. She said there are no intersections on Rodgers and it is presently being used as a race course. She could not see using this narrow street as primary access for so many dwelling units. Dennis Becker stated primary access would not be on Rodgers Drive where it abuts Ms. Dunnuck's property.for this phase. That portion of Rodgers Drive will be used for the access to the single family development of Southern Heights, north of this development. The primary access for Sequoyah South PUD will be the Southern portion of Rodgers, out Fifth Street to Sherman Avenue. He felt that exiting out the North part of Rodgers would be much more difficult than exiting out to Huntsville Road. Becker stated that at the Rezoning Hearing there was mention of wild parties being held on this property and that people were parking on Sherman and Fifth. He stated the persons having these parties do not live on this property and this development has no control over those parties. Dick Seddon, Happy Hollow Road, addressed the Commission. (Mr. Seddon is not an adjoining property owner). He stated he was a member of the committee that formulated the 250 ft. setback for R-1 PUDS adjacent to R-1 property, which the developer is requesting a waiver from. He said a lot of time and discussion occurred in formulating this ordinance. Seddon stated he realized the lay of the land of this tract was difficult, however, the 250 ft. setback:.was set up to avoid controversy in PUD situations. He did not feel that exceptions should be made because of land or the people involved. He did not feel a PUD should be developed without a 250 ft. setback. He stated he was opposed to the PUD on those grounds. He felt the PUD makes R-1 .something other than R-1. Also, he stated he objects to the requested waiver of sidewalks, and the proposed private roads.11 He felt that taking into account what the developers had to work with he felt they had done a good job, but this concept goes along with what has been objected to in the past. He felt the added density would crowd Happy Hollow School. Jacks stated the Board of Directors and the Planning Commission had gone along with a waiver of the 250 ft. setback in certain cases. Charles Pope, 1632 East Fifth Street addressed the Commission. (Mr. Pope is not an adjoining property owner). He stated that most people make the biggest investment in their lives in their homes. He stated when he moved into this area it was R-1. He stated the bottom line of R-1 is single family homes or duplexes. He moved into this neighborhood with the assumption that it would remain single family. This is the third time he has been before the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for basically the same thing. He did not feel the developers would take care of his property. He stated it scares him that the whole South side of the hill is open space. He felt if this developer develops his property that the whole South side of the mountain will be developed. He felt the Commission ought to have some way to protect home owners. lq A Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1982 • Page S c= Barbara Crook asked if the 250 ft. setback was maintained, if Mr. Pope would b have the same objections. Pope said he was attracted to this area because of the South slope and the trees. He said he would object to any change in the area. CBetty Bidwell, 506 Sherman, addressed the Commission (Ms. Bidwell is not an cs adjoining property owner.) She stated she lives on the corner of Fifth and Sherman. She asked why the development has to exit through Sherman and Fifth and not directly to Highway 16 East. Jacks stated because this developer does not own the property between his development and Highway 16 East. She stated that someone's truck has been stuck for days in the ditch near her house. She stated it scares © her that that many people will be coming at her front door. 2; Mike Bidwell, 506 Sherman, addressed the Commission. (Mr. Bidwell is not an adjoining property owner.) He stated that he works in construction. He said that Sherman is a steep street. He said he owns a four wheel drive Vehicle, and that it is difficult for him to get up the hill in icy weather. He stated it is true that very seldom are the streets ice covered, but it does happen. He thought this matter was over with at the last meeting, and asked why the matter was being brought up again. Jacks stated the Planning Commission recommended the rezoning be denied. He said this is not a rezoning, it is a concept for a PUD. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was interested in purchasing property near this development and Mr. Charles Pope had told him that a.low rent housing project was being considered for this property. Jacks stated that is not correct, this is a private development. Dennis Becker stated it has nothing to do with rental at all. Becker further stated that this will be a duplex development basically, and the only townhouse or row house development will occur at the very Southern portion of the tract as suggested by Larry Wood, the Planning Consultant. Dick Seddon stated that the people in the area are scared about the tremendous influx of people and buildings that will occur with this development. This proposal could increase the density three to four hundred per cent. This area is relatively sparsely populated, and he didn't blame people for being scared. Becker stated with the R-1 zoning, the developer would have no problem dividing the property into single family lots and removing every tree. This developer is trying to do something of an environmental nature. The developer wants to leave a barrier of vegetation to screen this development from some of the existing houses around it. This developer has market values to protect. NanLawler,. 1023. East Skyline Drive, addressed the Commission. Ms. Lawler is an adjoining property owner. She stated she lives directly East of the proposed PUD. She stated she can understand people in the area being afraid of the change in the area. She stated when she heard of the development she did not want it to change either. She did not think she could stem development. She said she sees people stopping development, even developments that are well thought out. The thing is, you can't stop development, if people who are trying to do something good are stopped, people will come in and develop something that she would care for a great deal less than this planned unit development. She stated she felt the developers of this PUD are showing considerable care for the surrounding area. Redfern asked if the developers had considered a street layout similar to Sunset Woods PUD where there are no through streets. Cowdrey stated that at the preliminary plat level, it was requested with the development of Southern Heights, Phase I, that Rodgers Drive be extended.with the development of future phases. fett5E GDo 4Ratat 4D A • Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1982 Page 6 Becker felt that with the development of dead end streets:: in this PUD, there would be considerable traffic problems. Sunset Woods PUD has a much more limited density than this PUD. The accesses in this PUD are limited, there are only so many penetration points to work with. Melanie Stockdell said she had concerns about the steepness of the streets, she wondered what kind of stress would be put on the land 10 years from now. She stated she was against reducing the PUD requirements. She realized the setbacks are heavy, but did not think she could vote to reduce them. Newton Hailey stated he could not go along with the PUD as proposed. He felt at the southern part of the PUD, there is too much density for the cul-de-sac. He said he would be approachable on the PUD if: 1) the setback for the perimeter of the PUD was increased to 150 ft.; 2) before the South part of the PUD is developed, another entrance point is provided. Rick Cowdrey stated this was discussed at the preliminary plat level. At that time, no additional accesses were requested. Redfern stated he would prefer to see access directly to 16 East. Cowdrey stated he discussed this matter with the Planning Consultant and that the site distance is not good. Also, there is a 20% grade coming down.onto Highway 16 East, by ordinance there can only be a 4% grade for 100 ft. into an intersection. Morton Gitelman stated he felt boxed in. He liked the concept for this PUD and felt it was a good one. However, he felt the 250 ft. setback was something that was imposed on the PUD ordinance by the Board of Directors, and he felt bound to it. If the waiver was requested for a small portion of the PUD, because of a problem, that might be different, however, the developer has requested the waiver for the whole perimeter of the PUD. The Board specifically adopted the 250 ft. setback. Gitelman stated when it was imposed on the PUD he was opposed to it, but the Board wants the 250 ft. setback. He stated the waiver for the entire perimeter of the PUD was the only problem he has with the concept. He stated he was not against the housing proposed. Gitelman moved that the waiver of the 250 ft. setback be denied. Melanie Stockdell seconded. Cowdrey stated it was his understanding that the 250 ft. setback would be considered on an individual basis. The motion to deny the waiver of the 250 ft. setback passed (5-2) with Jacks and Hailey voting "Nay". Jacks stated he was voting "Nay" in protest of the 250 ft. setback imposed on PUD's. Morton Gitelman moved the approval of the Concept Plat for Sequoyah South and the waiver of the sidewalks be tabled. Melanie Stockdell seconded. The motion passed (7-0). Morton Gitelman left the proceedings at 6:21 P.M. The next item of business was AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C a public hearing to consider SUBDIVISION WAIVERS an amendment to Appendix C to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to authorize the transfer of large parcels of land without processing a subdivision plat. Ernest Jacks asked for a report from the Planning Administrator. Bobbie Jones gave the report. She stated this proposed ordinance has already been prepared by the City Attorney prior to the publication of the.public hearing. The ordinance arises from some litigation between the City and a property owner who violated the ordinance by subdividing property without a subdivision plat. 9,