Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-18 Minutes• • • A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting was held of the Planning Commission at 5:00 P.M., Monday, August 18, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Elizabeth Windell Cullers, Martin Redfern, Keith Newhouse, Larry Wood. MEMBERS ABSENT: Morton Gitelman. Crocker, Newton Hailey, Don Hunnicutt, Peg Anderson, OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Vizzier, Chad Kumpe, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Charles Pope, Danny Wright, Wayne Jarvis, Lois Frye, Dr. George Abney. The first item for discussion was the PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing for the approval of the concept GARLAND COURT plat of Garland Court, a Planned Unit Development, GARLAND AND SYCAMORE STS. to be located at the Northeast corner of Garland and Sycamore Streets; Fayetteville Housing Authority, Developer. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Jim Vizzier and Chad Kumpe were present to represent. The Chairman stated that due to the public interest in this meeting, he would like to announce that the decision of the Planning Commission tonight may be appealed to the Board of Directors. If any person or group of persons would like to appeal tonight's decision, and the appeal is filed before 3.00 P.M. Tuesday, August 19, 1980, the matter will be taken up at tomorrows Board of Directors meeting which will commence at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room. The Chairman further stated that Newton Hailey, having interest in these projects as architect, would be abstaining from casting a vote and was sitting on the Commission for informational purposes. Ernest Jacks stated that the PUD in R-1 is not a conditional use, it is a use by right, if it is approved by the Planning Commission and complies with four provisions: 1) It must make more efficient use of land; 2) It must make more efficient use of public facilities; 3) It must provide more usable open space, through structure grouping and other design techniques; 4) The PUD must achieve preservation of appropriate natural and/or physical features of the land itself. He stated that those are the primary purposes behind the development of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. He said that the Planning Commission must determine that the PUD meets those four provisions. The Chairman said the Commission would address the first item on the Agenda; he said that this is a concept plat, and its purpose is to show the general outline and intention of the project. Jim Vizzier addressed the Commission in favor of the PUD, Garland Court. He stated that he would like to make a few general comments that could be applied to both projects being discussed this evening. He said that this was not the normal kind of public housing that has been developed in Fayetteville. He said that, in the past, public housing had concentrated persons into high density groups or projects. These PUD's are a new approach to public housing called "scattered site housing". Scattered site housing takes a few units and puts them into existing areas, that are already developed with streets and utilities. This type of housing will try to blend the persons into the surrounding neighborhoods at the same density as the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission • August 18, 1980 Page 2 • neighborhood in which they are placed. Vizzier said that the public housing was trying to get away from creating large institutional complexes. The Housing Authority thinks this is a good idea, and has looked at 150 sites and cut those down to 30 or 40 sites that would be closer to shopping, schools, transportation, work etc. These sites have been presented to the Housing Authority and, also, the HUD Office in Little Rock. The number of sites has been reduced further. Mr. Vizzier said that they had further problems with adjusting the thinking of the HUD people to accept the scattered site housing. Vizzier said that due to the size of the tracts in these two locations, the developers felt that a PUD approach would be the best way to develop the housing at the Garland and Sycamore Street location and at Happy Hollow. Regarding the site on Garland Court, he stated that this location is zoned R-1, and the zoning would not be changed. He said that if any buildings are constructed, other than single family dwellings, they will have to be set back an additional amount from the property lines. Parking areas will be broken up, and there will be lawns and trees. Vizzier said that the unit count on this project would be about 7.7 units per acre, which is slightly over the density requirements for R-1, which is 7 units per acre. Vizzier presented a replat of Garland Court to the Commission and the audience. He said the justification of going to 7.7 units per acre instead of 7 units per acre is due to the open space. He said there is nearly 70% open space. With this plan, two story structures had been eliminated, also, the parking areas had been broken up and made smaller, and trees had been protected. Vizzier said this plan would be more in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The bedroom count will be 8 - one bedroom units, and four - two bedroom units, which might allow for children. Chad Kumpe, Director of the Housing Authority, addressed the Commission. Mr. Kumpe stated that the Housing Authority was trying to distribute the poor in the Community, poor being a person who makes $8,000.00 or less per year. They are trying to distribute poor into the community „in public housing, at as near a ratio. that they appear in the community according to census count. Kumpe stated that 20 percent of the poor make about $2,000.00 per year or less, 26.5% of the poor make between 2 o and 4,000.00 per year, 38.5 percent of the poor make 4 to 6,000.00 per year and 12.5% of the poor make 6-8,000.00 per year. Public Housing also houses elderly persons who have either social security incomes or SSI incomes. Kumpe said that 2/3 of the elderly persons in the community, being 65 years of age or over subsist on either social security or SSI. The other third of the elderly have some type of retirement income or supplement to their social security or SSI. Kumpe stated that out of 136 one bedroom units 133 of them are occupied by elderly persons. He said that out of the 136 one bedroom units, 6 are occupied by men. He said that this means that out of the 8 one bedroom units at Garland Court, they would probably be occupied by single women subsisting on Social Security or SSI. Kumpe said, regarding the two bedroom units, in some cases they are occupied by a husband and wife with a child. He said in most cases the two bedroom units are occupied by a working woman with children. Kumpe said that in most cases it would be one child, as the Housing Authority does not permit children over five years of age and of opposite sex to share a,ibedroom. Kumpe stated that about 80 percent of public housing consists of "female - head of household". Martin Redfern asked Mr. Kumpe if there was a provision whereby university students could live in these PUD's. Kumpe stated it is feasible that university A Special Meeting of the Planning Commission 411 August 18, 1980 Page 3 • • students could live in the PUD's, but they would have to meet the income criteria, and, also, be a family (related by blood or marriage). Cullers asked why a university student working his way through college would not be allowed to live in the PUD's. Kumpe said it would have to be a family, both working, and still meet the income criteria. Kumpe said that in the case of the one bedroom units, the elderly would get priority simply by virtue of who they are, and that there is presently a waiting list of elderly. Kumpe stated that priority also falls to residents of Washington County. The Chairman asked for comments in opposition to the PUD at Garland and Sycamore. Danny Wright addressed the Commission and the audience. Mr. Wright stated that he appreciated the Commission's decision at the Planning Commission meeting where the PUD's were first brought up in not waiving the notification requirements for the public hearing. Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Kumpe had said the likely persons to occupy the PUD would be the elderly in the one bedroom units and female head of household in the two bedroom units. Mr. Wright stated he did not think these two groups were necessarily compatible. Wright stated he did not feel the location was ideal, in that the elderly would not be close to services provided for them and also would be removed from transportation. Also, he was against it in that the likelihood of students being housed in this PUD, he felt, would be a problem. He said he sees no particular advantage to this site over another site. He said that the density of the PUD, by Mr. Vizzier's own statement was not within the zoning requirements of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Vizzier stated that the higher density was allowed under the PUD Ordinance. Mr. Wright stated that the Developers of this project were asking the Commission to allow the Federal Government to come in and put in public housing that a regular citizen would not be able to develop without rezoning the property. The Chairman stated that was not true, that under the PUD Ordinance a private citizen could develop the property in the same manner. Ernest Jacks explained the PUD Ordinance to Mr. Wright briefly. Mr. Wright stated that there were several persons in the audience who had been to Planning Commission meetings before trying to prevent rezoning of property in the neighborhood. He stated that there were several reasons for wanting the neighborhood to remain single family: 1) the streets in the area are inadequate to support multi -family residences; 2) drainage is a big problem; 3) property values will go down; 4) children, who are unsupervised, because the mother is working, might destroy the peace of the neighborhood; 5) the area might not be kept up very well, he wanted to know who would be responsible for cutting the grass, and maintaining the area. Wright stated that he was doubtful that the Housing Authority would adequately check to see who is living in these units . He stated he represents some of these people who live in the public housing who actually live or have persons living with them who are not supposed to be. Mr. Wright stated that his biggest objection is that the neighborhood has opposed rezoning of this neighborhood, he felt that this PUD would change the character of the neighborhood. In closing, Mr. Wright stated that the public hearing was, in his opinion, held to adequately weigh the public's opinion of what is going on. He said the neighbors are in opposition to this project, that they have a pecuniary interest in their property and want it preserved. • • Special Meeting of the Planning Commission August 18, 1980 Page 4 The Chairman asked if there was anyone else in the audience appearing in opposition to the PUD. Wayne Jarvis, Pastor of the Trinity Methodist Church addressed the Commission and the audience. He stated he was not speaking for the Church as the Church has no official stance on this matter. He stated he was representing persons who are in his congregation, who live within a block and one-half of the proposed site. The Church is not against the people who would be living in this PUD, the Church actually ministers to these people. He stated that what these persons are opposed to is changing the nature of the neighborhood, and the devaluation of their property Mr. Jarvis further stated there is a problem with enforcement of codes within the neighborhood. There are houses in the neighborhood that are developing into junk yard car lots. He said there are also houses with more than the legal number of persons living in them. The Church had been burglarized. Jarvis said he just wanted to voice the concerns of persons living in the neighborhood. These persons want to preserve their neighborhood. Jim Vizzier stated that if someone came in and purchased this land and developed it in single family or a PUD, they would do approximately the same type of development that the Housing Authority is doing. He stated the PUD would have no additional affect on the traffic, drainage, etc. than any other development that might go on this piece of.prpperty. Lois Frye, who lives on Wedington Drive, addressed the Commission in favor of the PUD. She stated that she lives about a mile from the area. She said that she has lived in Australia and New Zealand and that this type of scattered site housing works well. She stated that the small groups of housing are tucked away in a neighborhood and one would hardly know it is there. She stated that she has delivered meals to people living in this type of housing. She felt this housing is much more desirable in a community than a project type of housing. Dr. George Abney, 427 North Maxwell, addressed the Commission and the audience in opposition to the PUD. He stated that Mrs. Frye had once owned a house in this neighborhood which now houses undesirable people. Mrs. Frye stated that this particular house had changed hands several times since she had owned it. Abney said these undesirable people are pests in the neighborhood, and that they are dirty, they don't keep their grass cut. He further stated they have four or five old automobiles. They have no respect for Sunday. They have loud stereos. He said there is a family in the neighborhood, the mother of the family is oriental of some sort, the father must have been a service man. They are working on cars out in the street. Dr. Abney stated he had called the police several times regarding this family. He said they drain their oil out on the black top. Dr. Abney went on to state last • fourth of July these foreign youngsters were setting off bottle rockets at a neighbor, Mr. January. Mr. Abney said that as a result, Mr. January is selling his home. Abney said he hates to see the neighborhood lose fine people. Mr. Wright addressed the Commission again. He said that any type of development that goes into ;;this neighborhood should be required to improve the drainage and, also, make some kind of improvements to the streets. Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Vizzier if there would be a way that the Federal Government could add more units to a PUD like this once it is built. Mr. Kumpe stated that this project would be the property of the Housing Authority, and would be governed by the Housing Authority, and City Regulations. There is no way the Federal Government can make the Housing Authority add density to these projects. Peg Anderson stated that higher density is not allowed by the City Ordinance and that the Commission could not approve higher density. Special Meeting of the Planning Commission • August 18, 1980 Page 5 • • Danny Wright once again addressed the Commission. He asked how much the Housing Authority was paying for this property. Jim Vizzier stated $34,000.00. The Chairman closed the public hearing on this item, and opened:it for'ldiscussion by the Planning Commission. Martin Redfern asked if the income ceiling for a person living at Hillcrest Towers is $7900.00 per year. Chad Kumpe stated that is correct. Redfern asked what the maximum was on the amount of assets a person could have. Chad Kumpe said that a person could have a maximum of recordable assets of $10,000.00 Redfern said that by some standards these persons would be considered well off. Mr. Kumpe stated that some of them were not devastatingly poor. He said that provisions were also made for the handicapped. Some of these persons do have a little money, but they are at an age where their medical bills can devastate them. Redfern stated that Mr. Wright had shown some concern that this housing would be used by students. Mr. Kumpe stated that there are over 200 units at Carlson Terrace set aside specifically for university students, where they could be housed in their own community. 45 of these units are subsidized by the Housing Authority. • Hunnicutt asked if there are students in any of the other housing complexes. Kumpe stated that there are. He said there are two students living in the Willow Heights project, who wanted to live in their own community. He stated that there is another woman who has teenage children and is well into her fifties who is also a student and lives in public housing. Hunnicutt asked how many units were in this housing and Mr. Kumpe replied 40. Redfern asked why this housing could not be earmarked for dlderly on the waiting list for Hillcrest Towers. Kumpe stated in a sence they would be, but that the PUD would not be specifically for the elderly. Peg Anderson stated that according to the PUD Ordinance, this is a good plan whether it is publicly or privately developed. She stated that in her opinion, the opposition has been mainly against having this area developed. She did not see where she was in a position to deny this PUD. She said the Commission has consistently turned down proposals to develop this property multi -family. This plan is more effective and more suited to the neighborhood, that it would be kept R-1, and set back at least fifty feet from any other residence. She could see no reason to turn this down and moved to approve the Concept Plat for the PUD of Garland Court Don Hunnicutt seconded Peg Anderson's motion to approve. Redfern asked if there was any possibility that the duplexes could be converted to single bedroom duplexes. Mr. Kumpe replied that it is no better to segregate the elderly persons from the community than it is to segregate black persons from the community. The Housing Authority had been given a certain amount of one bedroom units, these one bedroom units have been placed in two areas. Kumpe stated that he would like the elderly representation in both areas. The Planning Commission voted on Peg Anderson's motion to approve and it passed (5-2-1) with Peg Anderson, Ernest Jacks, Keith Newhouse, Elizabeth Crocker and Don Hunnicutt voting "Aye", Windell Cullers, and Martin Redfern voting "Nay" and Newton Hailey abstaining. Special Meeting of the PlanningCCommission August 18, 1980 Page 6 The next item of discussion PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT was approval of the Concept Plat HAPPY HOLLOW COURT of Happy Hollow Court, a Planned WEST SIDE HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD Unit Development, to be located on the West side of Happy Hollow Road and North of 4th Street; Fayetteville Housing Authority, Developer. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. This is a Public Hearing. Jim Vizzier and Chad Kumpe were present to represent. Jim Vizzier stated that the principle differences between this PUD and the Garland Court PUD are location and the units. He said this PUD is located West. of Happy Hollow School between Happy Hollow School and the East Gate Shopping Center. Regarding units, there will be two four-bedroom units; four three-bedroom units; one two-bedroom unit. The site is three acres and a little steeper. This PUD will accomodate more families. He said that the reason for more families was partly because of the school situated near the PUD. He said these were the principle differences in the two PUD's. The densities are approximately the same. The surrounding area is not as developed as the Sycamore/Garland site. Ernest Jacks asked if the Commission should believe that this location is likely to have no elderly. Jim Vizzier stated that it was likely. Chad Kumpe stated that the family break -downs would be roughly the same. 50% of the persons living at this site would be in the income bracket of 2,000.00 to 6,000.00. The difference in this site and the other site is that there will be a full time employee of the Fayetteville Housing Authority living on the site, for maintenance and other reasons. He also stated that the families that move into these new units will be screened. Charles Pope, 1632 E. Fifth Street addressed the Commission and the audience. He stated that he did not like the way this project was being presented to the neighborhood. He said at the last meeting the Developers had stated they wanted the public hearing waived because they did not have enough time to properly notify the adjoining property owners. He said now, three weeks later they are going through the procedures. He said that it seemed, at the last meeting, that some of the Commission members hacl wanted to approve the PUD's just so that the funds would not be lost. Also, Mr. Pope stated concern over the three acre site, and the maintenance of all the open space. He said he was concerned about the Housing Authority coming in at some future date and wanting more units added to the Happy Hollow PUD. Mr. Pope said that several months ago the Planning Commission had turned down a request to rezone this property to R-1. He said in his mind, this PUD would be similar to rezoning the property. He stated South of Huntsville Road, the property is already zoned for multi -family. Pope stated this land is very hilly and at a steep slope. He said it would be more expensive excavating this site than a more level site. He said that the steepness and narrowness of the road would be a hazard. The site is not close to a shopping center, that East Gate does not really have much to offer in the way of a shopping center. Pope also wanted to know how many people living on welfare would be living in this PUD. Mr. Pope asked that the Commission also consider Darlene Tobin!G letter. Chad Kumpe stated there is no such thing as welfare. He said the term is Special Meeting of the Planning Commission • August 18, 1980 Page 7 aid to families with dependent children. Chad said that about 20 percent of the persons living in this PUD would be receiving this type of aid. Chad Kumpe further stated that the Housing Authority is not allowed to further impact an already impacted neighborhood. He said for that reason, the Housing Authority would not be allowed to add to the density of the PUD at Happy Hollow. He said this is the law. The Chairman referred to Mrs. Tobin's letter and stated in it she brings up the problems in the neighborhood which the PUD might compound such as vehicular and pedestrian accesses, off site drainage, and the impact on the established character of the neighborhood. Peg Anderson stated that private industry does not build any kind of housing for the poor. She stated this type of housing has to be provided and asked Mr. Pope if he had a better idea. Jimmy Longwith, 1737 East Fifth Street, addressed the Commission. He stated that the neighbors like to see the land surrounding the neighborhood developed. He said it was his understanding that there will be some two story units in this PUD. Mr. Vizzier stated that there would be one two-story unit. Mr. Longwith said that there are elderly persons and children playing and walking on the streets, and felt that this added density might create an unsafe condition on the street, and that it would be noisy.. Tom Mathias, 5080 E. Huntsville Road, addressed the Commission. He stated that he owns 7 acres immediately across from this PUD. He said that he had been approached about selling this land„ but had decided not to due to the animosity • of his neighbors. He said there is a considerable amount of undeveloped land all around the site, and he sees this action as a defacto rezoning. Guy Barnes, 325 Happy Hollow Road, addressed the Commission. He stated that it appears that the entrance to this PUD is directly across from the area where drainage goes under the Highway. He asked how this entrance would affect the drainage for the rest of the area. Newton Hailey stated that they do not plan to affect the drainage in the area at all, however, he does not have any topographical information at this time. Mr. Hailey stated that when the development is put in, the side of the street on which the development will occur will be curbed and guttered and sidewalks will be installed. Ed Connell, who lives between Happy Hollow and Ray Avenue, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 37 years. He stated that he and his neighbors had built the road where Happy Hollow is. There is a tremendous drainage problem. The land wouldhave to be drained across Mr. Mathias' land and his own. He said he objects to this type of development going in his neighborhood. He stated, however, he is sympathetic to the cause. Dick Seddon, who lives at the end of Happy Hollow Road, addressed the Commission. He stated he had not been given any notification of this development. He stated that he did not believe there is any room at Happy Hollow School. He has a daughter who attends there and that each year the school requests his permission to send his daughter to another school because there is no room. He said he has been a property owner in the neighborhood for nearly 10 years. Persons in the neighborhood had taken time and money and tried to improve their homes and propertges. This neighborhood is single family and that he did not look at this PUD as being single family. Happy Hollow is a dead end road, and • — there is only one entrance/exit. He said the road is easily blocked. He said that Happy Hollow Road is hazardous in the winter time as ice accumulates on it and it takes a long time to melt. He said that he would hate to see any increase in traffic in this area because there are so many children playing near the road. • Special Meeting of the Planning Commission August 18, 1980 Page 8 Don Johnson, 570 Happy.Hollow Road stated that children had been turned away from Happy Hollow School today. Jim Vizzier stated that in reply to Mr. Seddon's statement that he had based the statement about the schools on what information he had received from Mr. Vandergriff, that he would like to see the children attend school at Asbel or Happy Hollow. He stated that Mr. Vandergriff may have based this statement on future planning. The Chairman closed the public hearing on the Happy Hollow PUD. Mr. Newhouse stated that he would like to clarify that just because the dwelling units will be clustered together, there will not be any more dwellings built, than would normally be built if the property was developed as single family. Nor was the number of people that could live in that area being increased. He said that the PUD Ordinance had in part been adopted to preserve the natural beauty of the area. He felt that the Developers on this particular project had done alot to adhere to this ordinance. Mr. Newhouse stated that he could appreciate the people not wanting the neighborhood changed. He said he was sorry, but there is an absolute need in Fayetteville for housing, and that, as a Commission, they are required to keep Development orderly. Newhouse stated that he knows of plans to enlarge Happy Hollow School. Peg Anderson stated that according to ordinance, there could be as many as twelve houses put on this tract. Cullers stated that one of the main differences in this site and the Garland/ Sycamore site is that this site is completely surrounded by R-1. He said the Commission had turned down some duplexes in this area. He was aware that a PUD is not a duplex, a PUD , he felt would change the nature of the neighborhood to an extent. He stated it would be changing it from an ownership situation to a rental situation. Cullers stated that he felt the Commission was shooting holes in an R-1 area. There was some discussion about the pros and cons of rental neighborhoods. Windell Cullers said his main concern was that R-1 areas be protected. Windell asked why there was not a site proposed East of 71 and North of Hwy. 45. Chad Kumpe stated that area is already impacted with a development that will go in the Zion Road area. Martin Redfern stated he felt the neighborhood is very nice. He said he would not be surprised to see some private construction go on in this area. Mr. Seddon stated that he is not opposed to the development in particular, but that he feels that the facilities; streets, drainage, schools, etc, will not be able to handle the development. Until the facilities are such that they can support this type of development, this will be placing a burden on the neighborhood. Cullers asked if the street would be improved. Mr. Newhouse stated that under the PUD Ordinance, the street would have to be improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk. (for the same reasons=Peg.Anderson moved to -approve Garland/Sycamore) Keith Newhouse moved to approve the Happy Hollow PUD/ Beth Crocker seconded. The Commission voted on Keith.Newhouse's. motion to approve. The motion passed (5-2-1) with Peg Anderson, Ernest Jacks, Keith Newhouse, Beth Crocker and Don Hunnicutt voting "Aye", Windell Cullers and Martin Redfern voting "Nay" and Newton Hailey abstaining. •The Chairman stated that there had been a recommendation that the Community - Development group allocate funding of $20,000.00 next OTHER BUSINESS • • • Special Meeting of the Planning Commission August 18, 1980 Page 9 year for the upgrading of the comprehensive plan. He said he had a note from the City Manager requesting the Commission to request that the City Attorney draft a resolution to this effect, if they are in accord. Peg Anderson moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Community Development Committee that$20,000.00 be set aside for a restudy of the comprehensive plan. Beth Crocker seconded. Newton Hailey asked if this would be done by Regional Planning. Ernest Jacks stated either privately or by North West Arkansas Regional Planning. The Commission voted on Peg Anderson's motion and it passed (8-0). The Chairman asked that Bobbie Jones get with the City Attorney and discuss the drafting of the resolution. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M.