Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-10 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 5:00 P.M., Monday, March 10, 1980, in the Directors' Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS OTHERS ABSENT: PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Don Hunnicutt, Elizabeth Crocker, Keith Newhouse, P eg Anderson, Martin Redfern, Windell Cullers. N ewton Hailey, Jr. City Attorney Jim Mc Wood, Planning Admin Lindsey, Gary Carnah J ean Keown, John Wil Douglas, Bobby Docke Dr. J. B. Hays, John and other unidentifi Cord, Planning Consultant Larry istrator Bobbie Jones, James E. an, Don Scott, Ray Alford, liams, Mark Holmes, Mrs. Hal ry, George Dockery, Alvin Adams, McDonnell, members of the press, ed personsr; Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. Peg Anderson requested that the minutes of the February 25, 1980, Planning Commission Meeting be amended on Page 6 by deleting, "She added it was 6 paying children." in the first paragraph. Mrs. Anderson said that this statement was wrong. Following the above correction, the minutes were approved as corrected. MINUTES Chairman Jacks stated that he had requested City Attorney Jim GARY McCord's presence at this meeting to discuss the sixth item Right-of-way on the prepared agenda, a letter from Gary J. Deckert opposing for the requirement for dedication of right-of-way sufficient to meet J. DECKERT Requirement Lot Splits Master Street Plan as a condition of approval of a lot split. Chairman Jacks informed the Commission that Mr. McCord could not remain for the full duration of the meeting. Therefore, Chairman Jacks asked that the Commission discuss this matter with the City Attorney at this time. There was no one present either to represent Mr. Deckert or as an interested party. Mr. McCord stated that the ordinance authorizes the Planning Administrator to waive the requirement that a plat be filed in connection with a subdivision under certain conditions. Mr. McCord said that the ordinance provides that no such approval shall be granted unless the developer dedicates sufficient right-of-way to bring those streets which the Master Street Plan show to abut or intersect the proposed development up to the width prescribed by the Master Street Plan. The ordinance does provide, however, that the Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication than would otherwise be required in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulty. Mr. McCord called the Commission's attention to a memo which he had prepared in August, 1976, when the City Board of Directors was considering imposing the requirement for dedication of right-of-way in connection with lot splits. In that memo Mr. McCord had pointed out that the Arkansas Supreme Court has addressed a similar issue in the case of Newton v. American Security Co., 148 SW2d 311 (Ark. 1941), and held that right-of-way dedication was a permissible condition of subdivision plat approval. Mr. McCord said that to him it seemed that that case is controlling and that this is a similar situation. He said Mr. Deckert is subdividing his land; it is not a large subdivision since it is only one or two lots. It is a subdivision of land for which the filing of a plat could be required. Mr. McCord said that the Arkansas Supreme Court has indicated that the right-of-way dedication is a valid condition preceeding subdivision plat approval. Mr. McCord pointed out that the case cited Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 2 was prior to the present Municipal Planning Act which does require the filing of a plat for subdivision of land. Mr. McCord stated that in his opinion the Supreme Court would take a similar position under the existing law in that nobody is required to "subdivide" his land if they don't want to do so. However, if they choose to subdivide their land and choose to file a subdivision plat, reasonable requirements can be imposed for approval. Mr. McCord stated that based on the only existing Arkansas case anywhere in point on the question, it is his opinion that the exactation is a permissible principle constitutionally. Mr. McCord advised the Commission that it did not have the Jurisdiction to decide legal questions (as raised by Mr. Deckert's letter). The Commission's statutory obligation is to administer the regulations as they are written; therefore the question before the Commission is whether the applicant demonstrates undue hardship or practical difficulty which would be a basis for a lesser dedication. Mr. McCord further informed the Commission that should it grant the appeal for a lesser dedication, it would require Board of Directors approval. Windell Cullers asked Mr. McCord how the City would obtain the additional right- of-way needed if Mr. Deckert chose not to divide the property. Mr. McCord said that if the City is unable to negotiate the acquisition of the easement, the City would have to file condemnation proceedings when the right-of-way is needed. Mr. McCord again advised the Commission that he thought the ordinances is clear, and that the Planning Commission should exact the dedication unless the Commission saw undue hardship or practical difficulty. There was still no one present to represent Mr. Deckert. The Commission decided to delay action on the question until later in the meeting. The next item for discussion was the approval of the Concurrent Plat to replat a Planned Unit Development, being a Replat of Block 3, Sweetbriar Addition, located on the North side of Sweetbriar Drive and East of Greenbriar, REPLAT OF PUD IN BLOCK 3, SWEETBRIAR ADD. Concurrent Plat A Planned Unit Development. Developers are James E. & Nita V. Lindsey. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Present to represent were James E. ( Jim) Lindsey and Gary Carnahan. Keith Newhouse reported that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this proposal and recommended approval of the replatting with: (1). Waiver of required 100 ft. setback from the North property line to permit a 25 ft. setback, which is well within the needs on this plat. (2) The proposed 10 ft. setback on the West is in accordance with the requirements in that they have a PUD on their West. (3) The 52 ft. setback on the East was approved on condition that the developer would acquire more green space to the East, another 271.6 ft. by 150 ft. (4) Driveway on the East end of Sweetbriar to be made satisfactory to the Street Superintendent. At the request of Chairman Jacks, Bobbie Jones explained the subdivision history of the subject property. The original Sweetbriar plat approved in 1974 had 7 lots platted in the Block 3. In 1978 Ellis Bogan had replatted those 7 lots, together with 150 ft. wide strip between those lots and the Greenbriar PUD and another 100 ft. to the East of the 7 lots, and proposed to construct 20 units. Mr. Bogan's replat was a PUD. Mrs. Anderson questioned whether or not there would be any green space abutting lots on the West end of the PUD. Mr. Newhouse stated that the golf course adjoins this to the North and there is a City park South of the East end of the PUD. It was pointed out that this is a public hearing under the recent PUD amendments because of the size of the PUD. Jim Lindsey said the property is zoned R-2 and under the R-2 density he could put 56 two-bedroom units on the property; or, by going townhouse development, he could put 38 units on the property. Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 3 Don Scott (2541 Sweetbriar) stated he lives across Sweetbriar Drive from the common space and is opposed to the development plans. He stated there were people present who live not only on Sweetbriar, but also on Elaine, who have an interest in the matter. He stated he thought the R-2 density was limited to 20 units. Bobbie Jones advised the Commission that 21 two-bedroom units per acre are permitted in the R-2. Mr. Scott noted that Mr. Lindsey was requesting 34 units and only had 32 units shown on the plan Mr. Scott had received. Mr. Scott said he was not against Mr. Lindsey making money, but hoped it would not be done in a way that would hurt the owners on Sweetbriar Drive. He stated that he had bought his house from one of Mr. Lindsey's associates and that it had been implied that there would be some building across the street, but that it was implied that they would be similar to the buildings in Greenbriar. Mr. Scott said he did not think what Mr. Lindsey was proposing was in any way similar to the homes on Greenbriar. Mr. Scott pointed out that the average square foot (lot size) per residence on the South side of Sweetbriar Drive is approximately 12,500 sq. ft., or .287 acres per residence. Mr. Scott said this is a relatively new area of the City and has many of the conveniences of living in the City with some of the same openness of living in the country. He said the street has only moderate traffic on it and there is a nice park at the end of the street which the City has supported. Mr. Scott said that Mr. Lindsey's request to construct 8 condominium buildings, with each building having 4 units in it, will average out to 1,100 sq. ft. per condominium unit; this is only about 2/3 the square footage of the smallest house on Sweetbriar Drive. Mr. Scott said that the 16 units proposed in the area West of the existing condominium would be on 43,560 square feet of land area, or 2,850 sq. ft. of land area per unit. East of the existing condominium there would be 16 units on 63,063 sq. ft. which comes out to 3,940 sq. ft. per unit. He questioned if this is medium density, saying the density would be 4 or 5 times as high on the North side of the street as it is on the South side. Mr Scott pointed out that there are 72 parking spaces shown and that none of the proposed units will have a garage. He said there would be cars in the street and cars in the parking spaces. He said they show 5 driveways. There will be a large increase in the amount of traffic in the area which will all have to go to Old Missouri Road and by Butterfield School. Mr. Scott said the residents had only been shown 2 designs for the condominiums to be built, so there would be at least 4 duplications. He said no house on his street has another on the street which looks like it does at this time. He asked who would make sure that the people in the condominiums paid to have the grounds taken care of. He called attention to the fact that part of the common property was located over a sewer easement and another part of it was around the creek. He said that although Mr. Lindsey is calling these condominiums, the neighbors are calling them apartments. Mr. Scott said this will affect the rate of appreciation in value for the homes already on the street. Mr. Scott said Mr. Lindsey could just build 20 nice condominiums and help both the City and the neighbors. Mr. Scott asked that if the Commission approves the replat that Mr. Lindsey be forced to furnish the required 30% open space in the area of development and not across the creek. He repeated that he did not think the units Mr. Lindsey proposes to construct are comparable to those in Greenbriar. Ray Alford (4 Greenbriar) objected for 4 reasons: (1) Normally the perimeter area of a golf course attracts luxury type housing. Mr. Alford said that Greenbriar is a luxury standard and that the proposed housing would be below that standard.and would create an adverse effect on property values. (2) The density of the proposed housing would increase traffic so that dangerous conditions would exist, especially for children in the immediate area. (3) It is possible these proposed units could develop into rental units. (4) Most important, this proposal represents a second exception to the persons who bought property at the time of the original Sweetbriar plat. Jean Keown (2417 Sweetbriar) presented a petition bearing 58 signatures of people in the area who were opposed to the replat for the following reasons: Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 4 "(1) The construction of these units will lower property values for owners of property located on the above named streets, and in the general area. "(2) The owners purchased their property with the understanding that the North side of Sweetbriar was to be developed into expensive duplex units. Mrs. Keown said that she understood from those people who purchased early were guaranteed that there would be nothing but single family homes along the golf course. "(3) The roads and services into this area are not adequate for present requirements in that Old Missouri Road is overloaded and the area suffered power shortages in the winter of 1978. "(4) This spot zoning is contrary to public interest and zoning techniques. "(5) The character of the neighborhood does not support the change. "(6) The change is contrary to the basic notion of large -area zoning. "(7) There has not been adequate physical planning and the zone change would be detrimental to the neighborhood. "(8) Apartment complexes result in economically and socially less stable neighborhoods "(9) The same financial investment could be used to improve some less well- developed neighborhood with a benefit to the community as a whole." Mrs. Keown said that she and her husband are within 6 years of retirement and cannot afford to buy another home. She called attention to the current inflation rates and said they have just completed the education costs of a son-in-law and 2 daughters. She said they and the neighbors feel the proposal is an infringement on their rights and on the things they were promised when they bought property there. John Williams (2445 Sweetbriar) said he had lived there since 1976. He said he had attended the meetings when Mr. Bogan was seeking approval of the first PUD out there. He said he was promised that there would be beautiful homes across the street from him, that there would be a park at the end of the street, and that the price of the lot was $20,000 and no one could afford to purchase that property unless it would be for an expensive dwelling. He noted that Mr. Lindsey's proposal showed 72 parking spaces. He said if you count the houses from the corner of Greenbriar down the hill, there are 8 houses with a possible 16 cars. He said he thought the Commission might be taking for granted the open space which the neighbors feel is important. He said he thought eliminating the open space between the units detracts from the beauty. He asked that the Commission not waive the required minimum 30% open space. He acknowledged that it would probably be difficult to change the R-2 zoning back to R-1, but asked if they must put as many units in as they are suggesting. He said he thought 20 condominium units would be more appropriate. Mark Holmes (2533 Sweetbriar) asked who now owns the land on which this development is proposed. Jim Lindsey said that he has entered into a contract to buy this land from Ellis Bogan, the present owner. Mr. Lindsey said that he did not own the property when Don Scott purchased his house and had no thoughts of buying it at that time. Mr: Lindsey said that Mr. Bogan is very ill and had called him and offered to sell the property to him. Mr. Lindsey said he accepted it at the price Mr. Bogan asked which is a factor to him. He said the 2 other lots which Mr. Scott asked about are for open space. Mr. Lindsey said that the square footage cost of a townhouse is usually in excess of the square footage cost of a single family home. Mr. Lindsey offered to "step aside" if a group of the people who are objecting would relieve Mr. Bogan of the personal problem which he now has. Peg Anderson asked when the property was zoned R-2. The date was not known but it was determined to be sometime after the filing of the original Sweetbriar plat. Mrs. Hal Douglas (5 Greenbirar) asked Mr. Lindsey to clarify his statement about the square footage cost of townhouses. Mr. Lindsey said the townhouses in this area would be up to or in excess of any single family residence in Fayetteville per square foot cost. He advised Mr. Holmes that he expected to sell these units in the mid 40's. Mr. Holmes said that he thought the average price house on the South side of the street is in the 70's. Mr. Holmes said the residents had been told these would be • • Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 5 constructed for sale and not for rental. He asked if this precluded the possibility of them being rented by the owner. Chairman Jacks stated that this was not within the province of the Commission. Keith Newhouse repeated the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee. Morton Gitelman said that he did not consider this a "zoning" case because there really isn't anything to be waived. Elizabeth Crocker said the only waiver is the perimeter setback from the property to the North which is zoned R-1. Mrs. Hal Douglas said that the property which Mr. Lindsey spoke of acquiring across the creek is a "hump" which is inaccessible except by wading the creek or by coming through the golf course. Mr. Lindsey said he thought of putting a footbridge across the creek. Mr. Don Scott said the land near the creek is very susceptible to flooding. Jim Lindsey said that he is proposing 34% of total open space, 27% of it will be out of the 10 -year flood plain and 7% will be within the 10 -year flood plain. Gary Carnahan said Mr. Lindsey would increase the open space by 3 times what was in the original PUD. Keith Newhouse moved that the Concurrent Plat to replat a Planned Unit Development in Block 3, Sweetbriar Addition be approved upon the following conditions: (1) The additional .94 acre of property to the East of the PUD be obtained (measuring 271.6 ft. by 150 ft.) and be added as part of the common open space. This would negate any need for a waiver on the percentage of open space. (2) A waiver of setbacks from the property to the West is not required under the regulations and a waiver of the setback from the East will no longer be required with the purchase of the additional property to the East (3) The driveway on the East end of Sweetbriar Drive be made satisfactory to the Street Superintendent. (4) The required 100 ft. setback from the North property line be varied to permit a setback of 25 ft. from the North property line. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion. Windell Cullers asked Mr. Lindsey to again explain the density of units he could get on the property without replatting it as a PUD. Mr. Lindsey said that the R-2 zoning would permit 56 two-bedroom units. Mr. Cullers informed the audience that the Commission could not lower the density of the R-2 zone. He said he felt the audience wanted the Commission to "rezone" the property and the Commission could not do this. The vote was taken on the motion to approve the proposed plat. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Cullers, Anderson, Newhouse, Crocker, Hunnicutt, Gitelman and Jacks voting, "Aye"; and Redfern abstaining because he had some reservations about the common areas. The next item on the agenda was the Concurrent Plat of a Townhouse Development Replat of Lots 2, 3, 4 $ 5, Block 3, Kantz Place. Developers are James E. $ Nita V. Lindsey. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. The Board of Adjustment TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT REPLAT OF LOTS 2,3,4, $ 5, BLOCK 3, KANTZ PLACE - Concurrent Plat James E. $ Nita V. Lindsey granted a variance on March 3, 1980, to permit a minimum individual lot width of 18 ft. rather than the required 24 ft. lot width for a townhouse on 8 of the lots as shown on the proposed plat. Gary Carnahan and Jim Lindsey were present to represent the proposed plat. Keith Newhouse reported for the Subdivision Committee and moved that the replat be approved as proposed. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion. In answer to Martin Redfern's question, Bobbie Jones explained that the Board of Adjustment has the authority to vary minimum lot widths, lot areas and setbacks. She informed the Commission that this replat is not a Planned Unit Development. The motion to approve the replat as proposed was approved 8-0. The next item of business was a conditional use inquest submitted by Baldwin Church of Christ to construct a new auditorium at 4399 East Huntsville Rd. BALDWIN CHURCH OF CHRIST 4399 East Huntsville Rd. Conditional Use Request Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 6 The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. The Subdivision Committee had reviewed a large scale development plan in their earlier meeting. Present to represent the proposal were Bobby Dockery, George Dockery and Alvin Adams. Bobby Dockery stated that the Church could "live with" the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee that the Church enter into a Contract to construct a sidewalk across the front of their property at some future date when other sidewalks are constructed in the neighborhood. Keith Newhouse moved that the conditional use request be approved and that the Planning Commission waive the screening requirements for the East and West property lines because there are enough neighbors who requested that it be waived, and that the Commission set aside the immediacy of sidewalks but require that when sidewalks are put in out there that the Church will put them in across its property. Bobbie Jones read from Ordinance No. 2576, passed October 16, 1979, the provision for delayed improvements. That ordinance stipulates that rather than entering into a contract for delayed improvements, the. property owner would make a cash deposit equivalent to the estimated cost of installing the sidewalks. That ordinance also authorizes the Commission to waive the sidewalk requirement upon determination that the topography of the proposed "subdivision" where it abuts a State Highway is such that installation of a sidewalk is not practical. Keith Newhouse said it is 41 miles to the nearest sidewalk and the Highway elevation is above the property. He then amended his motion to read that the Commission waive the sidewalk requirement. Don Hunnicutt seconded the amended motion. Bobby Dockery stated that the Church was willing to sign a contract on sidewalks if they are constructed within 5 years in the neighborhood. Ernest Jacks asked if there was an ordinance requirement for landscaping in lieu of screening when the screening is waived. Bobby Dockery said that any screening or landscaping would work to the disadvantage of the City Sanitation Department because they are now using the Church's circular drive as an access to the property behind the Church's property. Peg Anderson stated she is disturbed that the Commission has waived almost anything for churches. She stated that she thought the question of having churches in R-1 should be seriously considered as a use. The motion to approve the conditional use with a waiver of the screening requirements and a waiver of the requirement for sidewalks along Highway 16 was approved unanimously, 8-0. The next item was a public hearing on Rezoning Petition REZONING PETITION R80-5 R80-5, Dr. J. B. Hays to rezone property located North of DR. J. B. HAYS Davidson Street, South of Rebecca Street, and East of College F, Rebecca North College Avenue from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, that portion of the property not already zoned C-2. Dr. J. B. Hays was present to represent the petition. Planning Consultant Larry Wood reviewed his report. He informed the Commission that the map which they had before them shows the petition to cover all of the West 300 ft. of the block from Davidson to Rebecca. The Planning Office has been given a corrected description and only the North 292 feet of the property is actually under consideration ---300 ft. of frontage on Rebecca and 292 ft. of frontage on College Avenue. Mr. Wood recommended that the property be rezoned so that the West 160 ft. is zoned C-2 and the East 140 ft. is zoned R-0, Residential Office District. He said he thought this would then place the zoning boundary somewhere between the two existing buildings on the property. Dr. Hays responded to this recommendation by saying that presently the West 200 ft. is zoned C-2 and he did not want that changed. Peg Anderson asked how the property to the South is zoned and was informed that the West 200 ft. is C-2 and the East 100 ft. is zoned R-0. Mr. Wood said the basis for his recommendation of 160 ft. C-2 is to get the zoning line between the buildings. Jct r • • Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 7 Dr. Hays said that he had thought the property was all zoned C-2 when he purchased it and did not find out until Later_tbat-the-East•1.00 ft. is zoned R-1. He said parts of the building in which CEMS is now located have been used as a body shop and automobile repair in the past. He said he did not want to have to request a change of non -conforming use in the future. Dr. Hays thought it would be better if the property all had the same zoning. Peg Anderson said that she had received a phone call from Betty Lighton, who was not able to attend the meeting, supporting the recommendation of Mr. Wood and saying the C-2 was an impingement on the R-1 area. Several other Commissioners said they had also received phone calls. Don Hunnicutt asked how much land Dr. Hays had behind the buildings. Dr. Hays did not know. He said he would have no objection to the Commission zoning both buildings C-2 and zone the land behind the buildings R-0, but he did object to decreasing the amount of C-2. Bobbie Jones said that she did not know if the Commission had the authority to decrease the amount of existing C-2 because of the wording in the advertising notice. She stated that she has the authority to extend the provisions for the C-2 zoning district up to 50 ft. into the R-1 District, but she did not know whether this would take care of any future change of use in the back building, because she thought the back building was all in the R-1. Peg Anderson stated she felt the zoning boundary should be the same as the one to the South even though it might go through the back building. She said she thought this is a good buffer zone area. Windell Cullers said the phone calls he had had were from people who did not want the C-2 to encroach into the R-1 area. If you zone this C-2 all the way back, then the next logical place for an R-0 district would be on the property to the East of Dr. Hays, according to Mr. Cullers. Peg Anderson moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the existing R-1 portion of Petition R80-5 be rezoned R-0, Residential Office District. Windell Cullers seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. The Commission returned to a discussion of the letter from GARY J. DECKERT Gary J. Deckery, 827 Township Road, opposing a requirement Right-of-way Requirements for dedication of right-of-way sufficient to meet the Master For Lot Splits Street Plan as a condition of approval of lot splits. Mr. Deckert was still not present. Elizabeth Crocker moved that Mr. Deckert's request for a waiver of the dedication of right-of-way requirement in connection with lot splits be denied. Morton Gitelman seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, 8-0. The next item on the agenda was a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by John McDonnell for property one-quarter mile South of Highway 16 West and approximately three-fourths mile West of the Fayetteville City Limits. Mr. McDonnell was present and stated that he has three acres he wants to divide into two 111 acre tracts. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the request; Don The motion was approved 7-1 with Gitelman, Hunnicutt, Newhouse, Redfern and Cullers voting, "Aye"; and Crocker voting, "Nay." The last item of business was a committee report from Windell Cullers and Martin Redfern on a study of driveway improvement standards. Mr. Redfern stated that they had met with Claude Prewitt and discussed the matter with him. He said they would have a written outline report to submit for the next meeting. which JOHN McDONNELL Planning Area West of City Waiver of Lot Size On Lot Split Hunnicutt seconded the motion. Jacks, Anderson, COMMITTEE REPORT Driveway Standards 3 • • Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 8 Mr. Redfern said the gist of the recommendation will be that residences have durable and dustless surfaces, but that the Planning Commission have the authority to waive that in unusual cases, such as on a large lot where it might not be necessary to have asphalt or concrete all the way out to the street. Mrs. Anderson asked if they were talking about on all streets or only on those with curb and gutter. Mr. Cullers said it is difficult to tell where to draw the line. He said most of the new houses built now have paved driveways; however, in a few cases they don't because the driveways are so long. He asked how else the City gets around the problem of having gravel driveways wash out into a street. Elizabeth Crocker asked if the Committee had considered requiring paving for just a certain distance back from the street. Mr. Cullers said the terrain would dictate how far back it would have to be if it were not required for the full distance. The matter will be placed on the agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting of March 24, 1980. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 P.M.