Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-22 Minutes(W)@ AIEM Cr &Al�9 • L 1 MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, February 22, 1982, in the Director's Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Don Hunnicutt, Newton Hailey, Martin Redfern, Melanie Stockdell. Windell Cullers, David Williams. Larry Wood, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Doug Holbrook, Jim Lindsey, Dennis Becker, Rick Cowdrey, Dawn Dunnuck, Charles Pope, Dick Seddon, Betty Bidwell, Mike Bidwell,Nan Lawler, Buddy Zisner, Gary Keith, John Box, Gary Carson, and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the February 8, 1982 meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The next item of business was the approval of the Large Scale Development plan for Charter Vista Hospital to be located South of the Southwest corner of Highway 265 (Crossover the New Zion Road. Property is zoned C-1, R-0, Residential Office District. Charter includes a request for waiver of setbacks. Doug Holbrook and Jim Lindsey were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt stated the Subdivision Committee wished to discuss the setbacks of the hospital property from the R-0 property to the South. They propose 185 ft. for initial development and 150 ft. for future phases in lieu of the 200 ft. required by ordinance. Also, the Subdivision Committee wanted the Planning Commission to discuss screening requirements. The developer of the hospital is supposed to submit information regarding existing vegetation on the site. Other than having the developer comply with Plat Review Committee comments and requests, those were the only items the Subdivision Committee wanted discussed. Jim Lindsey stated he is the owner of the property surrounding the site. He felt that he would go along with any waivers within the guidelines. Hunnicutt stated the property to the South, where the setback variance is being requested is Zoned R-0. It is not actually residentially zoned property as would be the case with R-1 or R-2. Lindsey stated that is correct, that residential development of R-0 is restricted. Doug Holbrook addressed the Commission. He stated he has the minutes of the Plat Review Committee meeting at which this development was reviewed. He presented an interior schematic to the Commission. The future development that will get into the setback will be an expansion off the nursing station. He did not feel this expansion would take place in the very near future. Jacks asked if the question of the setback variance only involves the South MINUTES LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CHARTER VISTA HOSPITAL HIGHWAY 265 Road) and Neighborhood Commercial District and Medical Corporation, Developer. This 16 A .• • L r Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1982 Page 2 portion of the property. Barbara Crook stated that is correct. Also, Crook said on 'Lhe-,-South 4.ine-''there's.a 60 ft. easement, 30 ft. of which will lie in the R-0 property which will further set back development on the tract South of the property currently being reviewed. With this phase, the hospital will be set back 200 ft., even though it will not beset back 200 ft. from the property line. Lindsey said the developer wishes to centrally locate the hospital tract. It could be moved Northerly towards the C-1 property, however, not be centered on the lot if this is required. Barbara Crook asked if the future expansion to the entrance. Holbrook stated it would not, there would be to the future expansion. Jacks said that Lindsey's argument makes sense, that he would be much more concerned about having the Developer comply with the 200 ft. setback if the property to the South were zoned R-1. Jacks said that R-0 is rarely developed single family. Holbrook addressed the existing vegetation on the site. He stated there are existing hardwoods and pines along 265. There is an existing bank of trees on the neighboring property to the South on the South side of the electrical easement. There are scattered spots of trees towards the center of the property which will be preserved as much as possible. In addition to the trees on the South side of the property, the elevation of the parking area will be 5 ft. below site level. On the West side of the property, where the drainage easement is shown, there is an existing line of scattered trees, the line is not solid. Bobbie Jones stated the ordinance calls for view obscuring screening consisting of a fence, vegetation or combination of the two between this development and any R -zoned property. She stated the trees along the West line could be removed for drainage purposes or the installation of utilities, and that the Commission should consider this if they are going to incorporate these trees as meeting part of the screening requirement. Holbrook presented "campus atmosphere". Hunnicutt stated he would be in property to the West but not necessarily from the R-0 to the South. He felt the screening could consist of either a fence or vegetation. He felt the separation from the R-0 was adequate not to require screening on the South side. Crook felt that if the property to the South is developed residentially, that screening should be installed. Jacks stated he would not be in favor of a fence. He would like to require more landscaping. Hunnicutt stated it would take a while for vegetation to become view obscuring. Bobbie Jones said the ordinance allows two years for vegetation to become view obscuring. Barbara Crook moved approval of the Large Scale Development plan with the following contingencies: on the it would South would involve an only an emergency exit.added a rendering and stated that the facility would have a favor of screening the hospital from the R-2 1. The development will be subject to all Plat Review Committee comments and requests. 2. Waive the 200 ft. setback to 18S ft. from the South property line with the initial development and waive the 200 ft. setback from the South property line to 150 ft. with future expansion. i1 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). The next item for consideration SEQUOYAH SOUTH PUD was the public hearing to consider a waiver S $ 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 $ 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 mayencourage 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. t8 • • 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. setbadk: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.fi 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. Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1982 • L Page 5 UBarbara Crook asked if the 250 ft. setback was maintained, if Mr. Pope would 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 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 Ca Q her that that many people will be coming at her front door. ^` 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 `ae) 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. p 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 tn change either. She did not think she could stem development. She said she sees UJ people stopping development, even developments that are well thought out. The g 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. C'9 Redfern asked if the developers had considered a street layout similar to Sunset Woods PUD where there are no through streets. development of Southern Heights, Phase I, that Rodgers Drive be extended.with the development of future phases. 9D • • 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) Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1982 Page 7 Jacks explained the ordinance controlling lot splits was formulated to prevent persons from dividing property up for sale without installing required improvements. Jacks asked Bobbie Jones at what point or at what acreage the lot split ordinance should not apply. Jacks asked if 5 acres would be a good amount. Bobbie Jones stated that if this amendment is set for 5 acres, then the lot split ordinance will have to be amended also, since 5 acres is already written into that ordiannce. She did not feel a lot split should apply to parcels over 40 acres. A lot split may be processed by the Office of City Planning without approval by the Planning Commission if the first split is 3 acres and the next two are 5 acres with the remainder of the property conforming. Larry Wood stated he felt 5 acres of land was large enough to not have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, if the property is sized right. He felt in certain configurations, that perhaps a split ought not be automatic. Don Hunnicutt moved the amendment to Appendix C be tabled until Bobbie Jones, Larry Wood and Jim McCord can give the Commission a recommendation as far as size of the parcel to which the subdivision ordinance will not apply.can be made to the Planning Commission. Melanie Stockdell seconded. The motion passed (6-0). The next item of business was a request from John Box that the Planning Commission amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow "sale of antiques"'as a use permitted in the R-0, Residential Office District. There was no one present to represent. Bobbie Jones stated that sales of antiques are allowed in C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, C-3, Central Commercial Distirct and C-4, Downtown Commercial District. Jacks stated that if antique sales are to be allowed in also be allowed in C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Buddy Zisner stated he was in favor of the amendment of He felt that perhaps some R-0 District. Bobbie Jones a Public Hearing. Jacks stated for shopping goods. Bobbie Jones stated the present ordinance provides storage in connection with sales of antiques. Crook asked if other retail is allowed in R-0. Bobbie Jones stated in connection with some other allowable uses. A pharmacy type operation of office furniture are allowed. Supplies in connection with artists, etc. are also allowed to be sold in the R-0. Bill Stiles stated he did not feel an antique operation a use as a doctors clinic in conjunction with a pharmacy, or Newton Hailey moved the public hearing for amendment be scheduled to allow sales of antiques as a use by right Melanie Stockdell seconded. The motion to publicize the public (6-0). REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW SALES OF ANTIQUES IN R-0 restrictions could be placed R-0 that they should the Zoning Ordinance. on the sales in the stated amendment to the zoning ordinance would require publicizing that many things are allowed in R-0, but presently it does not allow for screening of any outdoor it is allowed and sales architects is near as intense a beauty shop. to the Zoning Ordinance in R-0. hearing for amendment to the ordinance passed �2 A Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1982 Page 8 The next item of business was CLARIFICATION OF OFF-SITE PARKING a request by Gary Keith for clarification IN CONNECTION WITH THE STATION of off-site parking granted for 201 RESTAURANT - MOUNTAIN STREET West Mountain Street. Gary Keith was present to represent. He stated that in 1977 the Planning Commission granted a waiver of the on-site parking requirement in connection with the Station Restaurant with the contingency that the restaurant hours would be 4:00 to 11:30 P.M. Keith stated he is interested in purchasing the restaurant if he would be allowed to expand his floor splace, meeting the setbacks.requirements, and expand his hours to include lunch time business. Jacks stated he would like to see what expansion Mr. Keith plans on doing before he grants off-site parking for the use. Martin Redfern stated that the parking situation has gotten a lot tighter since this last variance was granted. Hailey stated the lot the Station proposes to use was 90% vacant last summer. Hunnicutt stated most persons eating during the lunch hour would probably be officepeople who are already parked in the public parking. Gary Carson stated he represented the Station when the off-site parking was granted in 1977. He stated he had discussed this situation with the City Attorney, and that the City Attorney had felt the variance goes with the use. Jacks stated the waiver was granted for a restaurant use whose hours would be 4:00 to 11:30 P.M.. He stated with the expansion of the hours, in his opinion the use had changed. Don Hunnicutt moved approval of off-site parking for the Station Restaurant whose hours will be from lunch through evening. Any expansion of the restaurant will have to meet with the Planning Administrator's approval. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (6-0). The next item of business REPORT ON LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE was a report on the Landscape Ordinance. Ernest Jacks, Chairman, gave his report. He stated the landscape ordinance committee met last week, all members were in attendance. Frank Sharp felt a resolution should be drafted for adoption by the City Board stating a policy from the City as far as maintaining existing foliage. Newton Hailey stated the City would set the example for developers as far as landscaping development by landscaping City Projects. The landscape committee will meet again day after tomorrow to consider that action. Jacks said he had been looking forward to going beyond that but Frank Sharp felt this was the proper way to begin. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:06 P.M.