Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-23 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday March 23, 1987 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish, Julie Nash, Gerald Seiff and B.J. Dow NONE Ervan Wimberly, Julian Archer, Yancey, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi of the press and others Jane Archer, Truman Franzmeier, members DETERMINATION OF GREEN SPACE FEES JIM LINDSEY - APPLEBY STREET APARTMENTS PHASE I AND II The first item on the agenda was a recommendation from the PRAB Committee. Jacks advised this item was on the for a determination between the Parks Carlisle added the Parks Board had met to the City Board of Directors that of land for Appleby Street Apartments MOTION agenda two weeks, and was tabled Board and Jim Lindsey. on March 18, 1987, and recommended they would accept money in lieu Phase I & II. Robertson moved to take this item off the table, seconded by Dow. The motion passed 9-0-0. MOTION Robertson moved to recommend the Parks Board recommendation to the City Board of Directors for money in lieu of land, seconded by Dow. The motion passed 9-0-0. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - JULIAN ARCHER PRATT WOODS ADDITION - NORTHWEST OF HOTZ & NORTH OF GARVIN The second item on the agenda was consideration of the preliminary plat for Pratt Woods Addition, submitted by Julian Archer, and represented by Ervan Wimberly. Property located northwest of Hotz and north of Garvin. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, and • • • Planning Commission March 23, 1987 Page 2 contains 9.5 acres. Jacks advised the preliminary plat did not come before the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Farrish explained Ervan Wimberly requested a change in the meeting time for the Subdivision Committee. He said Mr. Wimberly had not been able to contact members of the Subdivision Committee to make the change, and since this was a light agenda he saw no reason to come directly to the full Planning Commission. Jacks advised the Planning Commission that the plats and a letter requesting several waivers were added to their packets. Ervan Wimberly stated Dr. Archer was a native from Fayetteville, and his parents and grandparents owned the land prior to him. He said Mr. Archer presently resides in Des Moines, Iowa, and planned to return to this area someday. Mr. Wimberly said the developer wanted to develop a small portion of the property that he owned, which was referred to as Markham Hill. Mr. Wimberly added the developer would like to develop this portion of property into a high quality, small secluded neighborhood. Mr. Archer would like to preserve the natural setting as much as possible, and this was the main reason for the number of variances requested. Mr. Wimberly said the developer would like to construct the street and sidewalks of exposed aggregate concrete. He said the sidewalks were not indicated on the plat because they would like to wind the sidewalks through the trees, and save as many trees as possible. The whole hill side was heavely wooded, and as bad as the developer hated, could not save all the trees. Mr. Wimberly added this waiver would have to go. to the Board of Directors because the City had no provisions for a public street of exposed aggregate. Mr. Wimberly said the developer felt to go through the PUD criteria. was designed for 17 single family approximately 120' X 195' deep. that it was not in the best interest He said the proposed subdivision lots, and the lots sizes would be Mr. Wimberly added another waiver that would go to the Board of Directors was for the street width. He said the proposed subdivision regulations were geared for narrow streets with less lots to serve. He said Hotz and Garvin existed as 27' streets, and personally could not see the reasoning in building a 31' wide street extending off a 27' wide street. He said if the proposed subdivision regulations passed the 27' wide street would be allowed anyway. Another request that would also have to go to the Board of Directors was that SWEPCO has a contract with the City of Fayetteville to provide, • • • Planning Commission March 23, 1987 Page 3 install, and maintain street lights. SWEPCO was bound by the contract to do either a mushroom head or mercury vapor hanging off a pole. Dr. Archer wanted to supply, and install a cast iron replica of the old gas light type street light. Jacks asked what lamp would be used in that type of street light. Mr. Wimberly explained the lamp could be adapted to any type of lamp with the required luminums, and the required height. Again Wimberly said Dr. Archer was trying to indicate a high quality, nice looking subdivision. Wimberly added another variance was the length of the cul-de-sac, which depended on how it was measured. If measured from the intersec- tion of Garvin and the street going west the length would be 540' to the tip end of the cul-de-sac. Wimberly said he spoke with Fire Chief Mickey Jackson, and he had no problem with the proposed length. Wimberly said the developer would like to construct the sidewalk all the way around both streets, but would prefer not to construct a sidewalk on the south side of lot 1 which was on the north side of the existing Hotz Drive. The reason being Mr. Ainsworth, owner of lot 26 in the adjoining subdivision has a 6' retaining wall at that location, and the sidewalk would go no where, except off a 6' retaining wall. Wimberly also requested a variance on the frontage for lots on the cul-de-sac. Standard cul-de-sacs require 42' of frontage, and the proposed cul-de-sac lots would come to a narrow frontage on the cul-de- sacs, and might end up with a 40' frontage. He said one of the reasons for this waiver was the restrictive covenants specified a 40' setback which would still leave the required frontage at the setback. Wimberly stated they had spoke with a number of the neighbors in the earlier stages of the proposed subdivision. He said basically the neighbors in the area would prefer the property not to be developed at all, and the developer understood why. He said the developer had tried to work up a development plan that would enhance the neighborhood. Wimberly said it would be better to extend Garvin Street through to Markham, and possibly take the other cul-de-sac and open it up to Cross. He said the neighbors were very opposed to that idea, and there was heavy opposition to connecting Garvin or Hotz to either Markham or Sang Avenue. Wimberly said the developer had tried to work with the neighbors as best he could, but the neighbors would prefer the land not be developed. Madison asked why the developer needed a variance for the frontage on a cul-de-sac. She said if the building setback had been determined to meet the required setback at that point, then she thought that • • • Planning Commission March 23, 1987 Page 4 was permitted. Carlisle said if the required frontage was met at the building setback line it would be in compliance with City Code. Dow asked if the covenants had to be in existence before the rule applied. Wimberly explained he just wanted it clarified, and did not really know if the variance was required. Madison asked if there were existing covenants with Mr. Williams, and the property in question. Wimberly replied he was not aware of any existing covenants. Madison said she knew the City did not enforce covenants, but she did not feel good about breaking them. In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Wimberly explained when the exposed aggregate had to be repaired it would be more expensive. He then said this was the only concern of City Staff, that it would be more of an expense to the City somewhere down the line if repairs had to be made. Wimberly added Westwind Subdivision had a private street, that's maintained by the Property Owners Association and was constructed of exposed aggregate. Sandra Carlisle stated she had some comments to enter into the record. Harry Ainsworth, 1658 Hotz' Drive said there was a terrible drainage problem at that location, and with the removing of undergrowth, and trees would only enhance the drainage problem Frances Cole, 49 Garvin, objected to anymore traffic at a bad intersection (Garvin & Hotz). Dr. Richard Rea, 1705 Hotz, objected to the additional traffic on Hotz as well as the drainage problem. Carter Short, 1661 Hotz, objected to the increase in traffic, but if another access was provided he would not object at all. Wimberly stated that he failed to mention that the western edge of lots 12 and 13 were being negotiated between Julian Archer and John Williams. He said there was a possibility that Mr. Archer would sell John Williams 40' off both lots to increase Mr. Williams lot size. Wimberly explained the final plat may reflect the loss of 40' off the back side of lots 12 and 13. He said the developer was aware of the drainage problem, and would be intercepting the drainage where • • Planning Commission March 23, 1987 Page 5 it free flows down to the 50' easement. He said it would be storm drained from that point to the creek, intercepting 70% of the drainage. Mr. Sutherland stated he had quite a few problems with the proposed subdivision. First he wanted to commend the engineers on the solution to the road system. Mr. Sutherland simply wanted to express his reserva- tion on the number of lots that had been produced, and a resultant increase in traffic. He felt that in the number of lots that had been produced, some had been placed on very questionable topography. Mr. Sutherland said decreasing the number of lots would increase the desirability of the property, and also reduce the amount of traffic. Mr. John Williams, 140 N. Sang stated he had the same reservations about the number of lots. He said he agreed with the idea of the cul-de-sacs, and felt they were much better for a number of reasons. Mr. Williams was concerned about were the streets might be extended as to undeveloped and gravel roads, and the amount of dust that would create. John C. Guilds, 37 Garvin explained he was a neighbor that had not been contacted as to the proposed subdivision. He wanted to register the same complaints as the other neighbors. Mr. Guilds said the reason the area in question was attractive to him was, a relatively quiet, secluded neighborhood, near the University. Frankly he was distressed to learn that might not always be the case, and that it would change the character of the neighborhood. Julian Archer, owner of the property in question said what the people have west of Fayetteville was a family park, created by his Grandparents (Mr. S Mrs. Pratt). He said his grandparents moved to Fayetteville around the year 1900, and bought the top of a hill called Sassafras Hill. His mother (Evanglin Pratt Waterman Archer) added to that property over the years, and accumulated approximately 270 acres between his Mother, and Aunt (Joy Pratt Markham). He said Mrs. Markham willed her interest in the property to the University of Arkansas. He said a separation was effected from the University of Arkansas, by trading what the University received from Mrs. Markham for a peice of property to the far west (By-pass). Mr. Archer said he had 200 acres in the City of Fayetteville, which had been maintained in its natural state for 90 years. He said all the residents in that area have enjoyed that property, and he and his wife wanted to enjoy it as well. He said unfortunately, because of tax considerations they had to develop a small portion of it. Mr. Archer said he would rather not have to develop any of it at all, and sence they do have to undertake the proposed development, wanted one which he, and his wife could be proud of. • Mr. Archer said the intent was to hold onto the remainder of the property, but later might have to develop another section. He said he wanted • • Planning Commission March 23, 1987 Page 6 to maintain the top of the hill in its natural state so they could come and enjoy the beauty of this region. Mr. Archer explained this was the reason for this plan, with so many variances from the standards. He said presently he resides in a Historic District, and was President of the Neighborhood Association in Des Moine, Iowa. Mr. Archer said he was responsible for getting that neighborhood on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Archer hoped the Commission could pass a favorable recommendation onto the Board of Directors for endorsement. He said this was his interest, his home town, he was born here, went to the University, and wanted to be proud of what happens. Madison asked Mr. Archer if he planned to develop the property between this peice and Markham Road. Mr. Archer replied "no" he was not, and it was he and his wifes desire that that not happen in their lifetime. Nash asked if Mr. Archer would be willing to sit down with the neighbors and go over the plan with them. Mr. Archer said he had no hesitation about that at all. He said all the people he was required to notify had been notified about the proposed development. He felt those neighbors would find the proposed lots were larger than any of the lots in which they had ever built on. Mr. Archer added he would certainly be happy to sit down with them and explain, but would also appreciate a vote of endorsement on this tonight. Mr. Archer explained he teaches at Drake University, and was down here on his academic spring break. • Madison said she was also concerned that the neighbors were not fully aware of what the proposed plan was. She said this would greatly impact Hotz further down the line as well as across the street, and Garvin. She wanted to know when the neighbors were notified. Julian Archer stated he had met with John Williams, and Cyrus Sutherland last summer during the planning stage of the proposed development. He said all the adjoining neighbors had been notified and personally contacted about the development. Mr. Archer said the people in the neighborhood had benefited from the park at his expense for the entire time they had lived there. He realized the proposed plan was going to be a change for the neighbors, and would rather this not happen, but the economy of maintaining the entire 200 acres requires this change. Carlisle stated the signatures of all adjoining neighbors were on the plat. • Wimberly stated certified letters were not sent, but each property owner was contacted personally. Planning Commission March 23, 1987 Page 7 • Seiff asked Carlisle how many signatures were on the plat, and Carlisle replied 7 signatures, all of which are adjoining property owners. The public hearing was closed, and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. Hanna said he would like to point out that the Commission was only considering a preliminary plat. He said most of the neighbors had expressed some concerns that occured to him; one Garvin should be extended through to Markham; the road on the interior of the preliminary plat should be extended to Cross Avenue. Hanna thought in view of the terrain, which someone mentioned, would be hard to build on the proposed lots. He said it was quite possible given the size of the lots, and the restrictions to the coventants whereas, a house could not be smaller than 1,800 square feet. He said anyone who built homes, and looked at the topo would know that split-levels would have to be built or do an awful lot of dirt work. He said the neighborhood west of the stadium was a source of pride, and felt the proposed subdi- vision would be a continuation of that. Hanna said he would be in favor of approving the length of the cul-de-sac because there would only be 4 lots on each side of the longest part of the cul-de-sac. NOTION Hanna moved to approve the preliminary plat as requested with the provisions that the Planning Commission grant the street width request, and personally he would like to see the aggregate street allowed. Hanna said he would like to go on record to approve the dead-end street, lot frontage if required on the cul-de-sac, driveway safety zones, and also the street lamps be allowed as requested. Hanna included in his motion to recommend that the sidewalk be waived on the south side of lot 1. Hanna recommended the granting of the approvals contingent upon the protective covenants as listed 1 through 7, seconded by Farrish, and followed by discussion. Madison stated her opposition to the proposed plat. She said this was simply another example of developers constructing public streets that were very selfish, and would only serve the residence in that neighborhood. She said at the same time, they then go and dump their traffic on the neighboring streets, and make no effort to dissipate that traffic. She could understand that the neighbors might feel like opening one of the streets through to Sang or Markham would increase their traffic, but any one who tried to drive in that part of town would be nuts too, unless they had too. She simply felt, that to continue constructing nothing but cul-de-sacs, that would only serve those in the neighborhood was selfish, and not in the best interest of the City. Madison said the very least that should be done in this • • • Planning Commission March 23, 1987 Page 8 situation was the streets should be private streets, and maintained by the property owners, especially if the developer was going to high maintenance exposed aggregate. The question was called and the motion to approve as requested passed 7-1-1, Hanna, Robertson, Dow, Farrish, Jacks, Nash and Green voting "yes", Madison voting "nay", and Seiff abstained. Seiff explained his abstension because he with Commissioner Madison. He said he had the time he had received his agenda. He was maintenance, and did not have any objections wanted to have more time to discuss the type that reason he abstained. had some feelings along thought about this from worried mostly with the to the development, and of street. He said for Seiff said if he could of had more information as to the construction, and may be Mr. Wimberly could have helped him out a little better with respect to, would the street require the City to spend more money for maintenance. Sandra Carlisle said she discussed the street briefly with the Public Works Director, and was told it would be determined by the City,not the engineer nor the developer as to the exposed aggregate street. Seiff asked, if it was okey, he would like to change his vote to a "yes". Jacks then advised, the motion as presented passed 8-1-0,..with madison voting "nay". REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GLADYS G. GUINN - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAY AND CLEVELAND The third item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for a lot split, submitted by Gladys G. Guinn, and represented by Truman Yancey.. Property located at the Southeast corner of Gray and Cleveland, and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. Yancey said he did not have anything more to say other than what had already been presented. Jacks asked if there was a house on the site. Mr. Yancey explained there were 2 houses on the lot, and•was requesting to split one of them off. MOTION Nash moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Hanna. Planning Commission March 23, 1987 Page 9 The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. Dow added she wished all lot splits were this clear cut. She said this was the kind of lot split that should be approved. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks referred to the off-site improvements, and noted in his mind the matter had been pretty much settled by the City Board the other night. He said after the Planning Commission had held the line on the Halsell Road split the City Board had chose to override the Planning Commission. He said it seemed to him they were talking out of both sides of their mouths He said the Board was telling the Planning Commission on one hand to hold the line, and then the Board went ahead and waived the bill of assurance for Halsell Road. Jacks said at this point on splits like that one he felt no compunction anymore to try and hold the off-site improvements line. Green said he had been to the same meetings with Commissioner Jacks, and never heard the Board telling the Planning Commission to hold the line on those sorts of things. He said he heard the Board say they intended for the Planning Commission to apply judgement. Dow said she agreed with Chairman Jacks, in that the Planning Commission should require those type of assurances. Don Grimes, City Manager said he would take part of the responsibility for the Halsell deal. He said he recommended to the Board that they waive the Bill of Assurance on that. He said there were 45 pages of material in the Board agenda, and it had been jacked around so long, and so confused. He said the last 3 splits that had come before the Planning Commission were not required to accept a Bill of Assurance. Mr. Grimes said the property owners were told not to come to the City and asked for improving the street. He said the Halsell deal was very confusing from the very beginning. Jacks said that the Board action the other night, really kind of eased the problem for him because he was not going to fight for it anymore. Jacks reminded the Planning Commissioners of the retreat scheduled for March 24, 1987 at 5:00 p.m., at the Fayetteville Country Club. MINUTES The minutes from the March 9, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:15p.m. G3