Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission June 8, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Arkansas was held at 5:00, P.M., Monday, Administration Building, Fayetteville, MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Don Hunnicutt, Elizabeth Crocker, David Williams, Joe Wilson, Newton Hailey, Morton Gitelman, Windell Cullers. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Martin Redfern Johnny Quinn, Gary Carnahan, Gail Mainard, Norma Osburn, Dick Seddon, Frank Farrish, Ervan Wimberly, Roy Clinton, George Knight, Bruce Armstrong, Ann Halligan, Porter Stone, Tish Jones, Mary Stuart -Townes, Dr. Cecil Cogburn, Wade Bishop, Francis Langham, and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the May 26, 1981 meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The next item of business was approval of the Large Scale Development Plan for Marshalltown Tools, Inc. to be located South of Pump Station Road, West of Armstrong Avenue and East of City Lake Road. Marshalltown Tools, Inc., Owner and Developer. Zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial District. Johnny Quinn was present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman, stated that the Subdivision Committee was recommending the approval of the Large Scale Development with the following conditions: MINUTES LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MARSHALLTOWN TOOLS PUMP STATION ROAD 1. Recommend the side setback on the South property line be waived so that future development may abut the railroad easement, conditioned upon approval by the railroad. 2. Recommend that a waiver be granted for the maximum width of a drive. 3. Contingent upon all Plat Review Committee comments being complied with. Hunnicutt moved that the Large Scale Development Plan be approved with those conditions. Hunnicutt stated that the waiver of the side setback was recommended so that this development may abut the railroad for service in future stages of development. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (8-0). • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 1981 Page 2 The next item for consideration was the approval of the Concurrent Plat for Lots 11-13, Block 3, Kantz Place, located North of Highway 45 East and West of Highway 265; Lindsey Land and Construction Company, Inc., Kirk Elsass, and Frank Hungerford, Owners and Developer. Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District and R-1, Low Density Residential District. Gary Carnahan was present to represent. The Chairman of the Subdivision Committee gave his report. He stated the Subdivision Committee recommends this item be approved as the Preliminary Plat has already been approved, and no waivers have been requested. The replat is being performed for the purpose of locating lot lines which will be situated down common walls, so that these units may be sold individually. Hunnicutt moved that the Concurrent Plat be approved. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (8-0). CONCURRENT PLAT LOTS 11-13, BLOCK 3, KANTZ PLACE- LINDSEY, ELSASS, HUNGERFORD The next item of business was the PRELIMINARY PLAT approval of the preliminary plat of MEADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION jL Meadowridge Subdivision, Phase II, located I. B. I. INC. South of Zion Road, West of Old Missouri Road; I.B. I., Ind., Owner and Developer. Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Gail Mainard was present to represent. Hunnicutt moved that this Preliminary Plat be approved. No waivers are being requested, street lights and sidewalks were installed with Phase I of the development. This portion of the Subdivision will require no off-site improvements, and utilities are already in place to serve this phase of development. Mort Gitelman seconded the motion to approve. The motion passed (8-0). The next item of business was consideration REZONING PETITION R81-9 of Rezoning Petition R81-9, Norma Osburn, to NORMA OSBURN rezone property located West of Happy HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD Hollow Road and North of Fifth Street from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to A-1, Agricultural District. In the absence of the Planning Consultant, the Chairman read the Consultant's report. Larry Wood stated in his report that in 1977, Zoning Case R77-51, this same property was under application for the same zoning for the same purpose. The recommendation in 1977 was: 1. This area is on the edge of development and has been slow in developing because of the lack of public facilities. With the new elementary school just down the street, this area is expected to begin development trend and the A-1 District is not consistent with that type of a residential development pattern. 2. If the City feels it is desirable to place mobile homes in scattered locations on a temporary basis, then a more appropriate way should be found than • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 1981 Page 3 rezoning. However, the Planning Consultant felt that this person's individual request should be considered. Norma Osburn was present to represent. She stated that she had nothing further to add to the information enclosed in the agenda, but would answer any questions. The Chairman asked for comments in opposition to the request. Dick Seddon, Happy Hollow Road, addressed the Commission. He stated he lives at the North end of Happy Hollow Road. He said that between the time of the first petition and this petition there have been at least three new single family dwellings constructed within one block, and that much improvement has taken place in the neighborhood. As a resident of the general area, he was in opposition to the request because it would change the nature of the area. He stated residents had been opposed to a Planned Unit Development recently submitted for approval for the same reason. He said this is an R-1, Residential area with permanent homes, and that it should be left strictly R-1. He did not feel that trailer homes should be put in this area. Windell Cullers stated he was sympathetic to Mrs. Osburn's needing a place to put her trailer. He thought that another method, other than rezoning should be used for trailer homes. Cullers felt that rezoning this area back to A-1 would be a step backwards For these reasons, Cullers moved that the rezoning petition be denied. Morton Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (7-1) with Newton Hailey casting the "Nay" vote. The next item of business REZONING PETITION R81-10 was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition FRANK FARRISH R81-10, Frank Farrish to rezone property HWY. 45 EAST AND HWY. 265 located South of Highway 45 East and West of Highway 265 from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Frank Farrish and Ervan Wimberly were present to represent The Chairman read the Planning Consultant's report: The requested R-2 District is not recommended for the following reasons: 1. R-2 District permits a greater density than the General Plan recommendation. 2. R-2 District at the location requested could commit a much greater land area to medium density residential than the current plan envisioned. 3. The PUD Ordinance will allow the type of development intended without changing the, zoning. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked for comments in favor of the request. Frank Farrish and Ervan Wimberly presented two plats, one of the developers proposal, and the other, a plat of a typical R-1 subdivision. Farrish stated that he would rather have the R-2 zoning developed as the proposed plan suggests rather than a PUD. His proposal would allow for less density than could be allowed with the present R-1 zoning. The property consists of about 110 acres. Farrish stated he had already obtained preliminary approval for a Ivo Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 1981 Page 4 portion of this property which is zoned R-2, since the approval of the preliminary plat, he had acquired the balance of the property. This plan incorporates a park for the private use of residents within the proposed development which will be maintained by a Property Owners Association. The park will have a lake built within it, and some recreational facilities. The Plan proposes multi -family, townhouse style, units concentrated around the park area with single family for the balance of the property. The developer proposes to restrict the density of the development by Bill of Assurance. He said that the property, if rezoned R-2, will never be developed to its maximum density. Under the ordinance, R-2 allows up to 24 units per acre, Farrish proposed a Bill of Assurance restricting the development to no more than 8 units per acre. Ervan Wimberly stated that the proposed park would be about 6.9 acres and the lake will be about 2.5 acres. Jacks stated that since this park or green space was a private facility, reserved for residents of the subdivision, this developer would not be exempt from the Green Space Ordinance, and would still be required to contribute the required fees. There followed some discussion about the difference between a condominium and a townhouse. Farrish stated that these units would be owned individually, and that the owner of an individual unit would also own a small lot on which the unit sits. The grounds will be maintained by a Property Owners Association. Bruce Armstrong, 1205 Crossover Road, asked what the final population will be in this proposed development. Ervan Wimberly stated that as the property is now zoned, 390 single family units could be constructed and 90 multi -family units for a total of 480 units. This developer proposes 415 units. Wimberly further stated that the average density for the entire 110 acre tract will be 3.8 units per acre. Ann Halligan, #4 Lovers Lane, asked what kind of square footage would be in the single family homes. Frank Farrish stated that a minimum of 2000 square feet is proposed. However, there will be no minimum square footage requirement for the multi -family portion of the plan. Williams asked why the Developers did not incorporate this property into a PUD. Farrish stated that lately, the PUD Ordinance seemed to be ina state of flux, but that a PUD is a consideration if the rezoning is denied. He said that if the PUD is used, there will be 250 ft. setbacks for multi -family and the property within those confines could be developed to maximum density. Roy Clinton stated there are presently condominiums or townhouse developments in town and that the developers had trouble selling the units, they are now being rented as apartments. Clinton felt that the line for any higher density than R-1, South of Highway 45 on the West side of Crossover Road should be drawn at the church. He said the neighbors in the area have considerable investments in their property and most of the homes are built on one acre lots. He felt these investments made the property in the area attractive. Further, he felt that the narrow two lane highway (265) could not carry the density that would go along with an R-2 zoning. Wimberly stated that the R-2 zoning would be surrounded by R-1 single family homes. Mrs. Halligan stated she would like to speak in opposition to the request. She stated she purchased her home a little over two years ago with the understanding that the neighborhood was and would continue to be single family. The proposed 101 , Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 1981 Page 5 zoning would allow for apartments and duplexes. She felt that there had been enough encroachment into the R-1. She agreed with Mr. Clinton in that 265 was crowded enough. Porter Stone, 2939 Inwood Lane, addressed the Commission in opposition to the request. He felt that the neighbors were getting an "or else" proposition. He wondered what the Commission's feelings were on this. He felt that they were being asked to go along with the rezoning, or else something undesirable would be developed on the tract Windell Cullers asked the Developer to comment. Farrish stated he was merely illustrating what could happen with R-1 zoning, and trying to point out that it could be developed in an undesirable manner. He said his proposal would not allow the property to be developed to its maximum density. Someone else could come in and develop a typical grid type subdivision, which he felt would not be as desirable as his proposal. Tish Jones, 2825 Inwood Lane, addressed the Commission. She asked what would happen if the property were rezoned and sold. Farrish replied that the restriction by Bill of Assurance would go with the land and the future owner (if the:,property was ever sold) would also be restricted. Ernest Jacks stated that is correct. Clinton stated that if a PUD is developed, that the property would be developed with no more than 7 units per acre and would be for single ownership. Beth Crocker stated that a PUD does not preclude the units from being rented. Farrish wanted the persons in opposition to understand that the density proposed with this plan would be quite a bit less than is permitted under the current zoning. Mrs. Halligan stated that she is a licensed real estate person, and to her knowledge, the townhouses that have been constructed, such as in East Oaks, have not been selling. She wondered why this tract could not be developed single family. There followed some discussion on the pros and cons of townhouse or condominium living versus single family. Wimberly pointed out that the majority of the proposed property would be developed single family. Mr. Stone addressed the Commission again. He stated that even if the developers restrict the density to 4.1 families per acre, the surrounding neighborhood is developed with less than one family per acre. He felt the Planning Commission should consider what is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The Chairman closed the public hearing and opened the request to comments from the Planning Commission. Windell Cullers asked what the present zoning is on the corner of 265 and 45. Don Hunnicutt stated from the corner south to the Church the present zoning is C-2 and C-1. Morton Gitelman asked if the two property owners to the North had been notified of this rezoning. He stated they did not seem to be in opposition to the request. Gitelman moved to approve the R-2 zoning for that portion on the presented plan designated in yellow only, with a Bill of Assurance limiting the density in that portion of the plan to 12 units per acre. David Williams seconded. Gitelman stated that if only the portions of the plan designated in yellow are developed R-2 with restrictions, there would be a buffer of R-1 to protect those property owners appearing in opposition to the request. He stated that Highway 265 would be a barrier to protect the property owners East of Highway 265, Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 1981 Page 6 the Church and commercially zoned property would bound the development on the North and the property owners to the West and North had no objections to the rezoning request. Joe Wilson stated he would not be in favor of this proposal. He felt there were alternatives in the realm of the R-1 zoning such as duplexes or a PUD. He did not feel it should be rezoned against the wishes of the neighbors. Hunnicutt stated he had a problem with the motion. He felt that the PUD concept should be explored for this tract The 250 ft.. setback in a PUD is for structures other than single family homes. The single family homes could be constructed on the perimeter of the PUD with the multi -family structures at the core. Crocker stated that she likes the plan incorporating the green space. However, if the property should sell, this plan would not necessarily apply. Farrish asked what the Planning Commission's feelings would be if this plan were submitted as a PUD. Crocker stated she would be in favor of a PUD. The developer would be locked in on the 30% green space, and a density of 7 units per acre The property would remain R-1 should it be sold. Windell Cullers said he would be in favor of the same plan submitted as a PUD. The Commission voted on Morton Gitelman's motion to approve the rezoning request for the areas designated on the plan in yellow. The motion failed to pass (2-6) with Morton Gitelman and David Williams voting "Aye" and Beth Crocker, Don Hunnicutt, Ernest Jacks, Joe Wilson, Windell Cullers and Newton Hailey voting "Nay". The next item of business was consideration of a letter from adjoining property owners concerning drainage on a Large Scale Development plan for property located on Stone Street for Northwest Financial Services, approved by the Planning Commission May 26, 1981. The Chairman stated that due to an error, the paper had not published the correct time and place of the Planning Commission meeting at which this Large Scale Development had been reviewed. Subsequently, the Board of Directors had referred this item back to the Planning Commission. Mary Stuart -Townes addressed the Commission as representative of the property owners. She stated she is a property owner in the affected area. She said that there currently exists a severe flooding problem. Water drains down the hill, under the concrete street to a drain located underneath her drive. She felt that the development of the wooded area proposed for this development would create more water drainingpon to these properties. As far as she knows, this plan does not incorporate any more drainage structures. She said that this past weekend, her yard was under 12-15 inches of water. Also, she asked the Commission to consider a memo from Don Bunn, City Engineer, stating that there is presently a problem with the existing sewer lines that would serve this development. She said that two weeks ago she had raw sewage coming up in her back yard. PROTEST FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS DUE TO DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN RELATION TO AN APPROVED LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 1o3 Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 1981 Page 7 Ernest Jacks stated he had discussed this with the City Engineer, and he had stated that this problem was no worse than anywhere else in town. Ms. Townes stated that she felt 25 more units wouldladd'. tocm_compoun4 ;the problem. She stated the property owners protesting the Large Scale Development would probably go along with the plan if some drainage and sewer structures would be constructed with this development. Another argument the property owners have with this development plan is the added traffic burden to the existing steep streets. The neighbors in the area are of the opinion that a dangerous traffic condition will be compounded. From the top of the hill there is a 30 ft. drop. The two drives as proposed will pose a serious problem coming over the hill. Ms. Townes wondered if perhaps the development plan could be turned around so that the parking would be adjacent to Delaware Avenue. To sum up, Ms. Townes stated the property owners in the area are opposed to the proposed Large Scale Development for the following reasons: 1. The Large Scale Development would compound an existing problem with sanitary sewer. 2. It would compound problems with inefficient storm drainage. 3. It would compound a dangerous traffic condition. Ms. Townes wondered if the Planning Commission could require a privacy fence as a condition for development of the site. David Williams moved that the closing of Delaware Avenue be reheard. Windell Cullers seconded. Gary Carnahan, representative of the developer, stated he is in opposition to the motion. He said he is sorry that these people did not get a chance to express their views when the Large Scale Development was before the Commission for review. The developer did not try to slide this proposal through. He stated that those persons that are required to be notified by ordinance of the street closing were notified. As far as the Large Scale Development is concerned, it is permitted in this zoning, and there was no requirement that persons in the neighborhood be notified, only those with a different zoning designation. Carnahan stated he felt that all legal requirements had been met. The plan was presented to the Plat Review (Technical) Committee where this development plan was reviewed by the City Sanitation, City Fire, City Street, City Engineer, City Police and City Planning Offices, all utility companies and none of them objected to the development plan. Clayton Powell commented on drainage problems at that time, but did not seem to feel that this development would be a significant contribution to those problems. The City Engineer never even mentioned any sewer problems. The sewer problems are directly related to the drainage problems. Carnahan stated these drainage problems have existed for 20 years. These people have asked the City for help and as yet have received none. Carnahan felt that if these people could get some kind of assurance from the City that something would be done to alleviate their problems, they probably would not have such an objection to this development. , Carnahan stated he is a civil engineer, that he has studied the area and there are 43 acres that drain to the point right in front of Mary Stuart -Townes' house. /oy� J • • • Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 1981 Page 8 Carnahan said the developer has flattened the slopes down and that there will be no greater than a 6% slope within the development. He stated that in order to place the parking area adjacent to Delaware would require a lot of fill as there is a very steep drop off. Also, as proposed in this plan, the actual buildings will be 73 ft. from the adjacent property owner, if the development is turned around as suggested by Ms. Townes, only an eight ft. setback is required for buildings from the property line, and the neighbors will be looking out their window at a three story townhouse. Addressing objections by the neighbors to traffic and noise, Carnahan felt that any time you move into a neighborhood bordered on one side by a university with a population of 14,000 and bordered on the other side by a High School with a high population, you had better expect some traffic and noise. Carnahan stated that the drainage, traffic, noise, and sewer problems that these people have been dealing with are not the fault of the developer, this development does not even exist. He suggested these people take up their frustrations with the appropriate City departments. Carnahan said that this developer had complied with the City Ordinances and that a reconsideration of this Large Scale Development plan would be wrong. Ms. Townes referred to a letter written by the Developer requesting that the closure of Delaware Avenue be postponed. She asked Mr. Carnahan why this item was being requested to be tabled. Carnahan replied that the owner of this property does not intend to build on the property immediately, and that he wishes the property to front on both streets in case it is sold instead of developed. Cecil Cogburn asked if it is necessary to close Delaware in order to develop this property. Carnahan stated that is not correct, but for this particular plan, Delaware Avenue would have to be vacated in order to meet building setback requirements. However, all requirements for the closure of Delaware Avenue have been met. The Commission voted on David Williams' motion to rehear the closure of Delaware Avenue, seconded by Windell Cullers. The motion passed (6-2) with Joe Wilson and Windell Cullers casting the "Nay" votes. The Chairman asked the acting Planning Administrator to republish the nptice of public hearing on the closure of Delaware Avenue. Under other business, the OTHER BUSINESS Commission considered a question by Wade Bishop. He purchased an undeveloped parcel of property on which a preliminary plat had been filed. A condition of approval with this preliminary plat was that a sidewalk be constructed to tie Sheryl and Elizabeth together for school children, and subsequently an easement was dedicated. In 1977, the Planning Commission gave Mr. Coleman permission to close the existing easement, without providing any easement for a sidewalk. Mr. Bishop wondered if he subdivided the property, if he would be required to construct the sidewalk as required under Mr. Coleman's preliminary plat. Bishop stated that Ms. Francis Langham had discussed this matter with adjoining property owners, two to the North and two to the South and they did not want the sidewalk installed and hoped that it would be eraced from the minutes. David Williams moved that the sidewalk be eliminated with this development. Newton Hailey seconded. !05 Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 1981 Page 9 Ms. Langham addressed the Commission. She stated that due to a restrictive time element, Mr. Bishop had requested this item be considered under other business, there was no time to have it placed on the agenda. She stated she felt that this item would not be a problem. Mr. Bishop stated that is correct, that he is under pressure to close the loan on th property, but he did not want to do so until this matter is resolved. Cullers stated he did not see any reason to comply with someone else's time schedule. The motion to eliminate the sidewalk by Williams and seconded by Hailey passed (5-3) with Gitelman, Hunnicutt, Williams, Jacks, Hailey voting "Aye" and Cullers, Wilson, and Crocker voting "Nay". There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:20, P.M. lob