Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 22, 1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springburn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Jett Cato, and Charles Sickle OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the April 8, 1991 meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING -REZONING APPEAL R91-10 MARK MARQUES - E OF OLD MISSOURI RD, N OF ERROL STREET The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on Rezoning Appeal R91-10 for property located east of Old Missouri Road, north of Errol Street and presented by Mark Marques on behalf of BMP Development. The request is to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Marques was represented by Harry Gray. Mr. John Merrell, Planning Director, stated he had been informed that afternoon that the applicant desired to table this matter for two weeks in order to meet with residents of the neighborhood. He explained the applicant hoped to answer questions raised by the rezoning application. Mr. Harry Gray, Northwest Engineers, appeared before the Commission and explained they believed there was a misunderstanding on the part of the adjoining property owners. Mr. Marques did not want to enter into any development that might create hostile feelings. He further explained the rezoning was to develop an affordable housing project. Mr. Gray stated the intent for the tabling request was to try to work with the adjoining property owners in the development of the property. Mr. Hanna stated he had received 22 phone calls and two letters concerning the zoning. He further stated that was the most interest he had ever seen on a single item in his eight years with the Planning Commission. He stated he would like to know what the plans were for a public meeting between the developer and the adjoining property owners. Mr. Gray stated he would like to have a meeting at Butterfield School since it would be convenient for the residents. He explained he had spoken with the principal, and if the meeting was called by the City, the principal could make the school available. Mr. Gray explained he and Mr. Marques would make themselves available at the convenience of the neighborhood. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Merrell explained, if it was the intent of the commission to table this item for two weeks in order to allow the developer and adjoining property owners an opportunity to work out their problems, whoever made the motion to table the item could also request that the school system make the school available. He further explained he did not see the meeting as a planning commission meeting, but one between the developer and residents of the area. Mr. Gray stated he hoped some city officials would attend the meeting. He explained it was a unique situation in that they were requesting a rezoning to R-1.5 but with a Bill of Assurances that the property would remain single family I CO • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 2 development so it would not be a change in land use. He further stated there were a number of issues involved such as drainage, traffic, street configurations that could be addressed. He explained the meeting might not change anything, but they believed it could be beneficial. He stated the issue of affordable housing needed to be addressed. Mr. Allred informed the residents of the area that the Planning Commission could only discuss the land use -- they could not get into the drainage, sewer system, etc. -- at this meeting. Mr. Merrell pointed out the developer had every right to make the request to table this item, and the people present had every right to oppose the tabling of this item. He explained the Commission, first, would need to determine if they wanted to table this item. MOTION Mr. Springborn stated in the past the Commission had tabled matters such as this. Sometimes it had been good; other times it had not. He further stated he liked to see good communication, and if the developer was willing to undertake to try to improve the situation between himself and the people in the area, he believed the developer deserved sympathy. He moved to give the developer the opportunity to present the situation to the residents of the area and to take as much time as was required. He moved the item be tabled until the next hearing. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion. The motion failed 6-2-1 with Mr. Springborn and Mr. Robertson voting "yes", Mr. Sickle, Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Allred, Mr. Cato and Mr. Tarvin voting "no" and Ms. Britton abstaining. Mr. Merrell explained Mark Marques, of BMD Developments, was looking for a location for a second effort to do an affordable housing subdivision. He explained Mr. Marques was the developer of the Fiesta Park Subdivision, which had been a highly successful. He stated there was a market in Fayetteville for affordable housing; as the proportion of population that could afford to purchase a newly constructed home had shrunk in the last few years. He stated HUD was indicating to cities that, unless they did something to put together a plan to bring about affordable housing, the city ran the risk of losing the annual community development grant. Mr. Merrell stated there were various differences in R-1 and R-1.5 districts. He explained some of the major differences were: in R-1 districts the minimum width of the lot frontage was 70 feet but in R-1.5 districts it was 60 feet; there is approximately a 2,000 square foot difference in the minimum lot size requirements; R-1 zoning allows 40% coverage by building and R-1.5 allows approximately 50% of the lot by building; the density in R-1 was four dwelling units per acre and R-1.5 allowed a density of 12 dwelling units per acre; R-1.5 allows duplexes and triplexes while R-1 allowed only single family homes. Mr. Merrell stated it was his understanding that the developer would provide a Bill of Assurances stipulating that the development would be only single family residential even though they would be allowed a duplex or triplex under the ordinance. He further stated the developer had discussed having a density of between five and six units per acre. He explained that to the east of this area was Huntingdon Subdivision, to the north was a large area with one or two single family homes, to the south was the rest home and to the west was one single family residence, with another subdivision across Old Missouri Road. He explained there was a mixture of surrounding land uses, there was a row of duplexes that fronted on Old Missouri Road. He suggested the Commissioners keep • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 3 in mind the chances of an exclusive, or one type, development being developed on this tract of property were diminished by the presence of duplex housing on Old Missouri Road and the rest home being to the south of the property. Mr. Merrell stated staff had gone over the property and request quite closely. He realized there were numerous objections. He explained the Commissioners' options were now to either recommend approval of the Board of Directors or deny the request. He explained that, if they denied the request, the developer could appeal the decision to the Board of Directors. He further explained that, if they recommended approval, it would automatically go to the Board of Directors and then both sides would have an opportunity, in a public hearing, to express their views at that time. Ms. Britton asked Mr. Merrell to define, in dollars and cents, affordable housing. She further asked if there was a bracket used by HUD to define affordable housing. Mr. Merrell stated he did not believe HUD had such a bracket; that it would probably vary from one community to the next. He explained the figures he had heard discussed when talking about affordable housing fell between $40,000 and $70,000. Ms. Britton asked what advantage would affordable housing give to Fayetteville. Mr. Merrell explained it gave the citizens who could not afford to purchase a more expensive house another alternative than going into an apartment or having to rent a house or mobile home. Ms. Britton asked what part of the community needed affordable housing. Mr. Merrell stated he thought there were several areas throughout the city that would be appropriate for affordable housing. He stated affordable housing was a factor that incoming industries looked at in terms of their employees. He further stated he had the opportunity to meet some of the residents of Fiesta Park and he was impressed with the diversity of people living in that area - junior executives, teachers, nurses, retired people, empty nesters, etc. He stated that, if the City was going to be serious in trying to encourage this type of development, they needed to look at it fairly, needed to look at it city wide. Ms. Britton asked where would the people live, if affordable housing was not provided. Mr. Merrell stated it would be someplace besides Fayetteville. Ms. Britton suggested they would probably live in outlying communities such as Greenland, Prairie Grove, Farmington, etc. Mr. Hanna asked if, after public discussion, the Planning Commission still did not have the option of tabling this item and calling for a public meeting to have more input and more discussion. Mr. Merrell agreed that was true. Harry Gray stated he was disappointed that the Planning Commission had not tabled this item. He explained he had talked with Mark Marques that morning and they had discussed trying to work out a viable project. He explained they felt it would be tabled. Mr. Gray explained Mr. Marques had available slides on Fiesta Park and several homeowners of Fiesta Park were planning on being present to explain why they purchased property in Fiesta Park. He stated Mr. Marques was concerned when he heard there was heated opposition to this proposed development; because he did not want to do the development if it was a bad thing for the • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 4 neighborhood. He stated Fayetteville needed affordable housing. Mr. Gray explained the request was not for a change in land use -- they were requesting single family land use for smaller houses in order to be affordable housing. He asked if there was not a place for this housing in Fayetteville, or was it just for the other side of the tracks. He stated the residents of this type of area were taxpayers, they had children, they wanted a home in a nice residential area convenient to shopping. Mr. Gray explained there would be 6,000 square feet per lot instead of 7,000 square feet, there would be five lots per acre instead of four lots per acre. He stated he could not see that it would be a big impact. He further stated the development would be similar to Fiesta Park. He explained a Bill of Assurances had accompanied the rezoning request restricting the development to single family housing. He stated he also desired to amend the petition to state that the east 100 feet of the property, adjoining Huntingdon, would remain R-1 and that on the north side of the property a spring fence would be provided. He stated there were 14 adjoining property owners and, of those, not more than 9 were in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Tarvin stated he understood there were no minimum square footage requirements for homes with the R-1 zoning. He further stated it seemed to him that the number of lots per acre was a minor part of the cost savings compared to the reduction in the cost of the house. He suggested Mr. Gray could still build the same size house on an R-1 lot. Mr. Gray stated that was true and the cost of the property would be another $1,500 or $1,700 per lot more but that added up when you put in parks fees, sidewalks, etc. and amortized it over 30 years. He stated every dollar tacked on would cost the homeowner 3 to 5 times that much over the lifetime of the loan due to interest. Mr. Springborn stated Mr. Gray had indicated the builder had completed some "affordable housing" already. He asked for an indication of a cross section of the owners of that property. Mr. Gray explained that was one of the reasons he regretted this item had not been tabled. He further explained that Mr. Marques had planned on being present with a number of property owners from Fiesta Park so they could explain where they worked. Mr. Mike McClendon, 2870 Stanton Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated the influx of low cost housing would impact adversely on the value of the surrounding buildings. He further stated the Butterfield School would be adversely affected by the increased traffic flow, making it an increased danger for children walking to and from the school. He stated he believed there were other areas in and around Fayetteville much more appropriate for this type of housing development. He stated he strongly opposed the development. Mr. John Park appeared before the Commission and explained he lived adjoining the north side of the property in question. He reviewed the history of the area. He reminded the Commission that a local realtor had recently requested a change in zoning to R-1.5. He stated the recommendation of the city staff in a March 20 memorandum on file was to deny the zoning request for two reasons: 1) the rezoning would constitute spot zoning which would be discriminatory in that this tract was in no way distinguishable from R-1 property across Old Missouri Road or to the north or east, all of which it was felt suffered to some extent from the proximity to the nursing center, and all of which had similar topography and 2) that R-1.5 was not a buffer zone between A-1 and R-1. He stated that, if the Commission were to grant R-1.5 zoning at this location, it might encourage higher density development along Old Missouri Road and furthermore, the owners of • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 5 adjacent, undeveloped land, might be justified in requesting and receiving R-1.5 or R-2 zoning. He further stated the planning staff had recommended tabling the item in order to study the entire area after another developer had expressed interest in another tract (the one under consideration). He explained the Planning Commission had voted to recommend the rezoning request of the smaller adjacent parcel to R-1.5. Mr. Parks explained this had gone unnoticed by all of the surrounding neighbors because: surrounding notification of neighbors by mail extended only to 100 foot radius of property; the notification signs were laying in the front yard; and the meeting was at the end of spring break, when many people were coming back from vacation and did not see the notice in the newspaper. He further explained that notification of the present request had been noted. He explained that, since the notices were mailed and published, the surrounding property owners had become aware and involved in opposing the rezoning change. Alan Tyler, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and stated he agreed with Mr. Tarvin's comments regarding lot size. He stated the land in question was undeveloped land in the middle of fully developed R-1 communities. He further stated that, while there were a few smaller R-2 areas, they were off to the side. Mr. Tyler explained several developers had tested the subject property over the years only to find solid bedrock with variable soil coverage. He stated development had been abandoned for several reasons: significant blasting and boring would be required to provide adequate utilities to the area, above ground sewage would add odors to the area, and potential destruction of surrounding property was possible because of the blasting of the bedrock. He stated many houses nearby were sitting directly on the bedrock or on rocky clay. Blasting would endanger the foundations and homes themselves. The blasting would also be disruptive, if not dangerous, to the adjacent school and nursing home. He then presented a picture of his property showing the water flow and stated disruption of natural drainage in the area would cause problems, that water already ran 11 months of the year through his property. He stated rains, because of the water catchment area, could create walls of water 6 feet across and 3 feet deep. The water flow would cause problems for potential residents and buildings constructed on the area would further impact the difficult problem already existing on Old Missouri Road. Mr. Tyler stated the existence of the city's only water main feed ran through the property. He explained no previous builder wanted to put houses directly on top of the main. He further stated it was his understanding that the city intended to run a secondary main nearby. With houses directly in its path, the city would be forced to buy the developed property at significantly increased rates. He stated he believed a complete study of the underlying geography by an independent soil geologist would be necessary. He stated traffic congestion was already mentioned in regard to the school children at Butterfield School and there was also school overcrowding. A high density development would only make this worse. He stated the sudden addition of families to a school district would not help the current overcrowded situation in Butterfield School. He ended his comments by saying the current residents bought homes in this area with the belief that the area's zoning would remain stable and compatible. By making a change, the city was disregarding its commitment to the established residents. John Falkner, 3127 Tartan Way, appeared before the Commission and explained the Huntingdon Subdivision was a planned unit developed containing 160 families. He explained they had gone into that area to buy and build homes in order to protect their investment, to be protected from issues like the one being considered. He • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 6 stated they had some very strict regulations in the subdivision, there was a Board of Directors that regulated and monitored the regulations. Mr. Falkner stated he was chairperson of the green space committee on the board of directors. He further stated it was a closed community of people seeking protection from developments like the one under discussion. He agreed with the previous two speakers regarding drainage problems, the bedrock outcropping, the increased demand on the school system, and decreased values of homes. He stated he believed a study should take a closer look at the issue. He stated over 395 people in the area had signed a petition opposing the rezoning. He further stated 95% of the people in his area were against the rezoning. Mr. Falkner explained many of the residents had started off in low income housing, spending many years working their way up to this area - homes from $95,000 to $150,000. He suggested a master plan for affordable housing in Fayetteville needed to look at what areas of the city were best suited for affordable housing. He stated the Board of Directors of Huntingdon were available to work with anyone on such a plan. Me. Kathy Malstrom, 3248 Charing Cross, appeared before the Commission and read the section relating to R-1.5 zoning from the zoning ordinance. She stated the key words were "to provide a development between low density and medium density housing". She showed the Commission a zoning map of the area, pointing out that four out of the five areas zoned R-1.5, were not adjacent to R-1 zoning. Ms. Gwen Wood, 2611 Elizabeth, stated her apprehension regarding the rezoning request concerned Butterfield Elementary School. She explained the addition of up to 81 housing units to the present attendance would acerbate two existing problems for the school: traffic congestion causing hazardous walking conditions for the school children and overcrowding causing probable redistricting for the neighborhood. She stated two years ago a traffic study had been done showing an average of 3,000 trips on Old Missouri Road by Butterfield School. She explained that she had asked Perry Franklin of City Traffic Control Division for a 24-hour traffic count on Old Missouri Road at Butterfield Trails School which would be available at the end of the week. Ms. Wood drew the Commission's attention to the plat study showing the increase in trips would be 834 trips, a 28% increase in traffic. She stated the Fayetteville Police Department had reported there had been 43 accidents on Old Missouri Road from January, 1988 to present. The accident report indicated the majority of the accidents were in or near the intersections of Sweetbrier, Stubblefield and Rolling Hills. The report showed that, of the four elementary schools considered to have significant traffic problems, Butterfield Trail is one of the most dangerous. Ms. Wood explained the current enrollment at Butterfield Trail School is 585 students even though the maximum enrollment set by the school district was 550 students. She stated the addition of 81 housing units into the attendance zone would most probably result in those children new to the neighborhood not being able to attend Butterfield Trails School -- they would be sent to an elementary school in the system that was not at capacity, then the Butterfield Trails School would be redistricted. She explained that the residents who considered Butterfield Trails School to be the neighborhood school would find their children assigned to an elementary school far removed from the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to consider the cost of the rezoning in terms of the adverse affect on the neighborhood, neighbors and the school. She stated proceeding with a plan which knowingly acerbates traffic problems, endangers children, taxes and existing school's ability to serve the area and divide the school's neighborhood is not good urban planning. • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 7 Grant Smart, 1841 Harold, stated he agreed unconditionally with what had been said in opposition to the rezoning. He explained that most of the residents in the area had invested in their property aware of existing development (the duplexes, nursing home, etc) but knowing the remaining vacant parcels were zoned R-1. He asked the Commission to protect their interests. He stated he had collected 396 signatures on a petition opposing the rezoning. He presented the petition to the Commission. Mr. Bradford Wright, 3263 Katherine, and stated in his opinion the proposal was spot zoning and requested the Commission deny the request. Mr. Alan March, 2957 Strawberry Drive, stated his house was built on the bedrock and was one of the several homes not hooked up to the city sewer because of the bedrock. He stated he was concerned about future proposals that might come before the Commission for the adjacent property. Mr. Jim Compton, 2209 Sweetbriar Drive, expressed concern regarding the traffic problem and overcrowding at Butterfield School. Mr. Richard Wooten, 3015 Elizabeth, stated that, should the Commission approve the change in zoning to R-1.5 and the present developer decided not to develop the land, someday someone could purchase the property and develop it at 12 houses per acre. He urged the Commission to vote "no". David Thomas, 1416 Briarcliff, suggested the Commission consider purchasing the property and turning it into a park or leaving it as a green area. Mr. Allred asked for a show of hands of people in the audience opposed to the rezoning. A large number in the audience raised their hands. There was no show of hands in favor. Mr. Bill Ethridge, 3340 Old Missouri Road, stated all natural drainage came across his front yard. He stated when they added 15 acres of houses, driveways and streets, that would add to the problem. He asked the Commission to not make his house a waterfront property. Mr. Harry Gray appeared again before the Commission. He stated the low point of the property would not flow toward Old Missouri Road. He explained he knew the complaints regarding drainage, traffic, bedrock, etc. would come up. He further explained developments created drainage situations, not problems. He stated the property would develop and he believed it would be single family development. He stated he believed the rezoning was a reasonable request. Mr. Hanna stated he had told numerous people that he believed this item would be tabled. He stated he did not realize there would be as many people present, and he felt they should be heard. He asked now that Mr. Gray had heard the complaints and fears of the residents, if he felt that the developer could address the problems if the issue were tabled. Mr. Gray stated he doubted it. He explained that, if everyone really wanted to work toward alternatives to the proposed development, they might be able to resolve some of the problems but he felt the opposition believed they had the rezoning "whipped". He stated he still believed there was a place in Fayetteville for smaller homes. He explained they had hoped for a productive meeting with the residents to work out street arrangements, etc., but from the discussion he had heard, he was not sure anything could be gained by a meeting with area residents. • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 8 Mr. Gene Lynch appeared before the Commission representing the Butterfield Crime Watch Association. He stated the people he had spoken with were opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Hanna stated, having been on a committee with the Chamber of Commerce to look into the issue of affordable housing in Fayetteville, and having talked with Mr. Marques regarding his desire to develop this property, he was sorry it did not get to the point were Mr. Marques could present what he had in mind about the sewage, roads, Errol Street, the development, and what he had done previously. He stated Mr. Marques had developments in other places other than Fayetteville. He agreed with Mr. Gray that another meeting would be unproductive. He stated he would not be able to vote for the rezoning with this kind of opposition. Mr. Nickle commented that he was impressed with the turnout. He stated it took this type of effort to let the Commission know how a neighborhood felt. He stated he was not in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Britton stated she would have to abstain from voting because her impartiality would be questioned. - MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved that the rezoning be denied. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-1 with Ms. Britton abstaining. Mr. Cleghorn left the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-9 JOE ROBINSON - W OF CROSSOVER RD, N OF JOYCE The third item on the agenda was a public hearing on Rezoning Appeal R91-9 for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, north of Joyce Street and presented by Rick Parker for Joe Robinson. The request is to rezone from A-1, Agriculture, to R-1, Low Density Residential. The property consists of 8.9 acres. Mr. Merrell stated Dr. Robinson wished to split this property into four lots. He further stated one of the lots would be a tandem lot. He explained that there were four items on the agenda all relating to each other - the conditional use request for one tandem lot, the rezoning and lot splits 2 and 3. He pointed out that the corner of Crossover and Joyce had been designated as commercial and office area. He stated that, while staff believed R-0 might be a better choice of zoning, R-1 was still good zoning for this area since there were numerous quality residential developments along Crossover Road. Mr. Merrell recommended the Commission approve the rezoning. Dr. Joe Robinson reviewed his request for rezoning, three lot splits and conditional use for a tandem lot. He explained the size of the lots was to allow putting in a septic system if needed. He stated the adjoining property owners had no objection to his plans. He explained he would be constructing four moderate size homes on the property, one of which would be his residence. Dr. Robinson stated that, while he recognized the city's wish that he provide water and sewage lines, the great distance the lines would have to run made it very expensive. Therefore, since septic systems were allowed on lots of 1.5 acres or larger, he had chosen to have all of the lots be at least 1.5 acres and put in a septic system. He discussed various plans for getting water lines to the subject lots but pointed out he believed he would have difficulty in personally running water and sewer lines for 1200 feet. Dr. Robinson pointed out access to the lots would be from 265. • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 9 He explained he had no problem with Mr. Bunn's request that a drainage plan be developed by a professional engineer. He further stated he was willing to pay the park fees and construct sidewalks along 265. He did point out the county was planning on widening 265. He requested that, until the widening of 265 occurred, the sidewalks not be required. Ms. Fran Matlock, an employee of Dr. Allbright (an adjoining property owner), stated Dr. Allbright was unable to attend the meeting and had requested she appear for him. She explained Dr. Allbright's concern was, if Dr. Robinson's property was rezoned to R-1, the difficulty in the future of having his property rezoned to R-0 or commercial zoning. Ms. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, explained that R-0 was considered a buffer between commercial and residential areas. She stated Dr. Allbright might have to screen the property. She stated R-0 would probably work fine in that area. Mr. Tarvin stated he had understood the area was planned as commercial and residential -office. Rick Parker appeared before the Commission and explained that, if the subject property were on the corner, staff would be more comfortable with it being R-0. He further explained Dr. Allbright's property was on the corner with the subject property being directly north of Dr. Allbright's. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Dr. Robinson stated Dr. Allbright's property was approximately 14 acres in size. Ms. Britton asked why this project had not been submitted as a subdivision. Don Bunn, City Engineer, explained applicants were allowed three lot splits and that is what the applicant had choosen. He stated that, as far as the city's requirements, it was the same as a subdivision. Ms. Britton asked if sewer line service would have been required had it had been presented as a subdivision. Mr. Bunn stated the regulations indicated that, if the applicant could show provision of water and sewer was not economical, then it could be approved without the water and sewer service being provided as long as the lot size was at least 1.5 acres. Ms. Britton stated she had no problem with the rezoning but felt uncomfortable with the lot splits because there seemed to be a trend along 265 to have single family developments with no access through any of them to the property behind them. She explained the subject property would present four driveways going into a road on a curve. She stated it would not be as much of a hazard if it were only one street. Mr. Allred stated that probably should be discussed when they were reviewing the lot splits. In response to a question from Mr. Sickle, Mr. Bunn stated, if the requested splits were approved, it would eliminate any future splits. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin regarding a general plan for the property located at 265 and Joyce, Mr. Merrell stated it had been planned to be R-0 or C-1. Mr. Merrell explained that having R-1 on adjoining property to the north should not hamper the ability of Dr. Allbright to rezone his property to R-0 or C-1. • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 10 Dr. Robinson, in response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, stated he would not object to having either R-0 or C-1 next to his home. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE 91-6 - TANDEM LOT JOE ROBINSON - W OF CROSSOVER, N OF JOYCE The fourth item on the agenda was Conditional Use 91-6 for a tandem lot submitted by Joe Robinson and Rick Parker. The property is located on the west side of Crossover, north of Joyce. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated there were three lot splits. He explained one of the splits could have been approved administratively but that it was his intent that the planning commission would vote on all three lot splits. He pointed out that one of the splits would create a tandem lot. He recognized that, in the past, the commission had some problems with tandem lots. The criteria in the ordinance involved the terrain, whether the property could be developed easily in a conventional manner, and the property values of the neighborhood. Mr. Bunn explained he did not see any physical evidence that would affect conventional development. He stated there had also been some concern by staff that the proposed development might cut off access to the property to the west. He stated the closest water and sewer facilities were located at Joyce Street but he was not sure the location of the other utilities. Mr. Bunn stated that, if the proposed splits and tandem lot were approved, he recommended that the splits be taken to plat review committee so the other utility companies would review it in order to request any necessary easements, that water and sewer be extended to serve each lot in accordance with subdivision regulations; sidewalks along 265 as required by the master sidewalk plan; payment of parks fees; and a drainage plan in order to assure that a problem would not being created by the development. If it were not economically feasible to service the area with sewers, the Planning Commission could approve it without sewers since the lots were of such a size that septic tanks would be acceptable provided the perc rates were such that it could go on an acre and half lot. Dr. Robinson pointed out on the plat only one access to 265, not four access points. In response to a question from Ms. Britton regarding restrictions on tandem lot driveways, Mr. Bunn explained the restriction required at least 25 feet but this applicant had 50 feet, allowing more than one person access. Ms. Brittan pointed out there was no stipulation that the other property owners would have to use the same drive. It was suggested that be a stipulation if the lot splits were approved. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the condition use for the tandem lot subject to: entrances to the three lots on the south being off the common easement limiting the access to Highway 265 to two spots - one where the easement is granted and one for the northern most lot on Highway 265; the splits being taken to plat review as Mr. Bunn requested so that the easements can be viewed by the utility companies; that water and sewer be extended to serve each lot with the exception that, if it is economically unfeasible to do the sewers and the lots will perc for the septic systems, they be allowed to use septic systems; that the drainage It2 Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 11 plan be developed by a registered engineer and approved by the city engineer; that sidewalks be constructed along 265 and the petitioner, Dr. Robinson, be allowed to give a Bill of Assurances that he will install the sidewalks upon call of the City when the widening of 265 is completed; that the parks fees be paid in accordance with city ordinances. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - CHILI'S GRILL & BAR SNOWSTATE JOINT VENTURES - N. OF MILLSAP, W OF COLLEGE The seventh item on the agenda was a large scale development for Chili's Grill & Bar submitted by Charles Morgan on behalf of Snowstate Joint Ventures. The property is located on the north side of Millsap, west of College and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The property consists of 2.12 acres. Mr. Merrell stated there were no significant problems discussed at the plat review or subdivision committee meetings. Mr. Bunn stated nearly the entire site was going to be paved over and that did cause some concern regarding drainage. He stated he had received the proposed drainage plan but had not yet reviewed it. He explained the parking spaces were very much in excess of what the City required and the number of spaces may be cut down. He further explained the city staff had recommended further landscaping, even though it was not required. He recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision comments, subject to the city's approval of the drainage plan, and subject to sidewalk construction in accordance with city ordinance. Mr. Charles Morgan stated they had increased the landscaping. He further stated he was available for questions. Ms. Britton stated the development bothered her because so much of the area did not allow for percolation of rainfall. She stated storm drains were fine but the water still had to go somewhere. She further stated she would feel more comfortable if the percentage of covered area was lower. She also pointed out the parking area met the property line on both sides and felt it was heavy use of the property. She suggested some buffer on each side. Mr. Nickle asked, if this development were looked at under the proposed storm drainage ordinance, what the permeability requirements would be. Ms. Bryant stated she wasn't sure but she believed they would not be able to cover more than 50% - 65% or somewhere in that ballpark. Ms. Britton stated 75% would be a good compromise. Mr. Nickle explained that had been his comments in the subdivision committee meeting. He stated he felt 90% of the lot being paved was too high but there was no ordinance for regulation at this time. Mr. Hanna pointed out it could be solved by making part of the parking lot gravel instead of concrete. Ms. Bryant explained there were alternate paving techniques which could be required such as using permeable surfaces. /13 0 • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 12 Me. Britton pointed out the development could also provide a lawn where larger vehicles could park. Mr. Merrell stated another possibility would be the use of paving stones. Ms. Britton stated there were at least five or six different products that could be used that were permeable. Mr. Merrell stated the city had been looking for an experimental case. He further stated he was not sure if Chili's would be interested or not. Mr. Nickle pointed out, if they were to allow each property to develop as this one was presented, there would be nothing but pavement to the west. He stated he felt the number of parking spaces was exorbitant. He suggested they cut down some parking either on the sides or the rear. Mr. Morgan stated the actual need was 125 spaces. He stated the proposal showed 204 spaces. He asked for the percentage of permeable spaces the Commission 'desired. Ms. Britton explained there was a large area in the back showing parking spaces. She suggested making that area permeable. Mr. Morgan stated those areas could be grassed but would have to be mowed. He further stated he would be reluctant to grass the entire back lot. Ms. Britton pointed out the parking places in the middle of the back lot. Mr. Nickle suggested 25% of the entire lot be permeable. He stated the plan showed only 11%. Mr. Morgan asked how they could have a significant impact on the permeability. He agreed there was a lot of pavement and the water would go down better on a lawn. He pointed out there still had to be parking for at least 125 cars. He further pointed out they expected to have large vehicles, motor homes, etc. and that was the anticipated use of the back of the lot. He explained that, while permeable surfaces were more expensive since the subbase still had to be put under the surface and make sure the soil would accept the percolation of the water, they would work. He stated he would have no problem in going with some percentage on the back. He stated the back half of the back lot would not be a problem if that would satisfy the requirements. Ms. Britton asked if he could get 25% of the entire lot. Mr. Nickle pointed out that would only be approximately 15% more. Mr. Morgan agreed to 25%. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to accept the proposed large scale development with the recommendations from staff and that a new parking configuration with 25% permeability be worked out. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 13 CONDITIONAL USE 91-7 - SKATEBOARD PARK TINA CAZORT - 505 PRAIRIE The eighth item on the agenda was Conditional Use R91-7 for a skateboard park to be located at 505 Prairie at the request of Tina Cazort and Neal Crawford. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. Mr. Merrell reminded the Commission the applicants had made this request approximately a month and half earlier but for another piece of property. He stated the neighborhood and staff had opposed the proposal at that time. He explained the applicants searched for another site and found a site at 505 Prairie. He stated staff had reviewed the site and felt there was sufficient room for off street parking, bathroom facilities were available on site, and that it was reasonably compatible with adjacent land uses. He stated he was concerned about the noise impact on the houses across the street. He explained, in order to mitigate that problem, the hours of operation could be restricted. Mr. Merrell pointed out there was a lot of interest in skateboarding in Fayetteville and, hopefully, the park would be a better skateboard site than having people use the streets. He recommended the conditional use be granted. Ms. Britton asked if the conditional use would automatically be reviewed in a year. Mr. Merrell stated it would not unless the Commission so stipulated. Mr. Neal Crawford appeared before the Commission and explained they had chosen the site because it was surrounded by I-1 zoning. He stated they intended to eventually install a sound system, which would be regulated with all the adjoining property owners, and if it became too loud, they would remove it. He explained there were several noise reduction measures they could use on the ramps and they were willing to work with the adjoining property owners in order to keep the noise down. He reviewed the plans with the Commission and explained the intended hours were Monday thru Thursday - 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday - 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday - noon to 10:00 p.m., and Sunday - 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. He stated the hours might vary in the summer months by opening earlier in the day. He further explained their intention was to also install a retail outlet to sell skateboard equipment and supplies. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle regarding lighting, Mr. Crawford explained the structures were built with decks on them and the lights will be in the corners of the decks. He further explained each structure would have its own wiring system, and if the structure was not in use, it would not be lit He stated there would be no large pole lights. Mr. Crawford also explained, in response to a question, that skateboard parks were also located in Tulsa, Springfield, and Little Rock. Mr. Tarvin asked whether it would bother Mr. Crawford if the conditional use were reviewed in one year. Mr. Crawford explained the lease was for one year and tentative on approval of the conditional use. He further explained the ramps were designed to break down in sections and be easily moved. He stated that after a year he and Ms. Cazort would need to review the business to see if they wanted to invest any more money. Mr. Tarvin asked if any of the zoning classifications allowed this by right. Mr. Merrell explained this use came under Use Unit 19, Commercial Recreation, and was allowed as a conditional use in I-1, and allowed by right in C-4, C-3, and C-2 zoning districts. /4 • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 14 Ken Osborne, representing the residents of 510 Prairie, appeared before the Commission to express their concern on increased traffic in the area. He requested that the hours of operation be enforced. He stated the residents were also concerned about the noise level and safety of area residents in walking on the sidewalk. Mr. Osborne also pointed out the resident at 510 Prairie had recently spent $10,000 in upgrading his property and would oppose any thing that would lower the value of his residence. He stated he was opposing the conditional use on behalf of the residents at 510 Prairie Street. Mr. Richard Peters, owner of three pieces of property across the street from 505 Prairie, appeared before the Commission and explained he was concerned about the additional traffic and parking. He further explained that Prairie was a very narrow street, and he was fearful the street would be blocked off by extra vehicles. He further explained his daughter-in-law was a nurse, who worked varied hours, and was concerned that the noise would keep her awake during her non -working hours. He stated he was opposed to the conditional use. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Crawford stated there would be on-site parking not on -street parking. Mr. Osborne asked if a sidewalk could be put in on the south side of Prairie Street. He explained his clients were concerned about the skateboarders using the current sidewalk on the north side of Prairie in coming to and leaving the park, making it hazardous for pedestrians in the area. Mr. Crawford explained the kids were not encouraged to ride their skateboards to the park. He stated they were hopeful the parents would drop off and pick up the kids. � Mr. Hanna stated he did not believe the Commission had the authority to require a sidewalk on a conditional use. He further stated there was a ditch along the north side of the property, not leaving room for a sidewalk. He explained there was a city noise ordinance and the police would come out on request with their meter to check the decibels of the noise. He stated there was recourse if noise became a problem. He suggested that, if the conditional use was approved, that it be made part of the motion that the music be turned down and that parking not be allowed on the street. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Merrell recommended that, should the Commission approve the conditional use, it be reviewed after one year. He explained that, if there were any complaints from the neighbors or, the police were called for any kind of disturbance, it would be documented and the evidence would be presented when the conditional use was reviewed. MOTION Mr. Springborn stated that with the one year review, he moved to approve the conditional use subject to staff recommendations. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Commissioners Britton, Mickley Springborn, Robertson, Allred, Cato and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Hanna voting "no", Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 15 CONDITIONAL USE 91-8 - TANDEM LOT ALAN BEAUCHAMP - WARWICK DRIVE The ninth item on the agenda was Conditional Use 91-8 for a tandem lot located on Warwick Drive presented by Alan Beauchamp. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, explained the tandem lot was accompanied by a lot split on the same property. He stated the lot being created by the split was 0.69 acres and was located at the north end of a total 5.69 acre tract. The remaining tract will contain 4.31 acres. He explained the proposed tandem will have a 25 foot permanent access easement from Warwick Drive and utilities are available. He further explained Mr. Beauchamp was granted a conditional use for a tennis center on the property some time ago. He stated he had considered whether splitting a lot off the north end would affect the conditional use but it was his opinion it would not invalidate the conditional use. He recommended the conditional use for a tandem lot and the lot split be approved. He further explained the topography would indicate a tandem lot could be created. Mr. Alan Beauchamp appeared before the Commission and stated he had lived and taught tennis at this site for approximately 10 years on a private court. He explained the previous conditional use was for a tennis club, if he ever had the opportunity to develop the land as one. He explained that he and his brother were now wanting to build more tennis courts and his current residence would be incorporated into the tennis center. He, therefore, desired the lot be split so they could have a private residence at the north end of the site. Mr. Nickle asked if the adjoining neighbors were aware of this action. Mr. Beauchamp stated they were. He stated they had voiced no opposition to the lot split or tandem lot. He stated one neighbor had asked about lighting the court. He then explained to the Commission that he and his brother were hoping to expand the site into at least three tennis courts. He further explained that, unless they expanded to more than three courts, it was unlikely his current residence would become a tennis club house. He stated his brother would teach on one court, he would teach on one court, and they hoped to rent the third court. He further stated, if it went well, they would turn his current residence into part of the tennis facility. Mr. Tarvin asked if it was acceptable to turn the residence into a club house. Mr. Merrell stated he was reviewing the minutes of the previous meeting granting the first conditional use, but he believed there would be a problem in converting the residence into a club house. Mr. Beauchamp stated Summerhill Tennis Club had six outdoor courts, three indoor courts, a pro shop, a bar, four racquetball courts, a swimming pool. He stated a club house was a normal function of a tennis club. Mr. Hanna asked if Mr. Beauchamp was granted a conditional use in 1972 to teach tennis and build one tennis court at his place of residence. Mr. Beauchamp stated the conditional use was to build 8 lighted tennis courts. He stated he had told the Planning Commission in 1972 that it might be awhile before he built any more than the first court. He stated he originally had gotten permission to build the courts on a larger acreage, then he sold part of the acreage to the Huntingdon Subdivision. He stated he then received permission to build the courts on the five plus acres. He stated he had permission to build a tennis club, specifically 8 lighted courts. He explained it was understood that everything that goes with a tennis club was accepted. He stated Summerhill TS • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 16 had numerous things going on - aerobics, weight lifting, etc. but moat tennis clubs just had tennis and swimming. He stated his brother would like to leave the options open but he, personally, did not want lighted courts and preferred clay courts. Mr. Hanna asked if Summerhill was allowed by conditional use. Ms. Bryant stated Summerhill was in a R-1 Recreational, tennis courts were listed. Unit 19, Commercial Recreation, but that zone in which Use Unit 4, Cultural and She stated it could also fall under Use required commercial zoning. Mr. Merrell stated there was a breakoff point between someone living on site and teaching tennis then stepping up to a full blown facility. Mr. Hanna stated he had no problem with what Mr. Beauchamp was suggesting - two more clay courts with no lights, but allowing a club house, selling tennis accessories and putting in several more lighted courts would be a commercial enterprise in a residential area. Mr. Beauchamp stated this type of facility was approved all over the country in residential areas. He pointed out the Tulsa Tennis Club was in one of the most exclusive residential areas of Tulsa with the surrounding homes being $500,000 to $1,000,000 homes. He stated both the Planning Commission and Board of Directors approved a conditional use allowing him to build 8 lighted tennis courts in 1972. Ms. Bryant pointed out that Mr. Beauchamp was not, at this point, doing a club. The application was for a lot split not a conditional use. Mr. Beauchamp stated he did not have to come back before the Planning Commission to build additional courts, only if he built another structure. Ms. Bryant stated Mr. Beauchamp had also gone through a large scale development earlier and minor modifications to large scale developments could be handled administratively. She stated staff would have to compare it with the original large scale development to decide whether this was a minor or major modification. She explained that, if it was determined it was a major modification, Mr. Beauchamp would have to come back before the planning commission. Mike Corso, 2437 Sharon, appeared before the Commission and stated he was concerned regarding a commercial use of this property in the future. He stated he believe the previous conditional use was granted when this property was a rural area. He also pointed out the property was in a flood plain area. John Falkner, 3127 Tartan Way, stated the Board of Directors of Huntingdon Subdivision had discussed possible extra traffic caused if Mr. Beauchamp added more courts. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the conditional use for the tandem lot and the lot split. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Commissioners Britton, Sickle, Springborn, Robertson, Allred, Cato, Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Hanna voting "no". Mr. Tarvin left the meeting. • • • Planning Commission April 22, 1991 Page 17 CONDITIONAL USE 91-9 - TANDEM LOT ANDY ADAMS - S. OF ROCKWOOD TRAIL, END OF CREST DRIVE The final item on the agenda was a request for conditional use for a tandem lot located south of Rockwood Trail, adjacent to the end of Crest Drive. The conditional use was submitted by Andy Adams on behalf of Hayden Mcllroy. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the piece of property in question was tangent to the Crest Drive cul-de-sac and had no frontage. He further explained this was the only point where the property touched a public road right-of-way. He stated if the request were approved, the owner would need to acquire at least 25 feet of property adjacent to the cul-de-sac. He stated water and sewer were available on Crest Drive but that the water may have to be extended a short distance to serve the property. He further stated that, depending upon the location of the house on the property, the sewerage may have to be pumped into the sewer main. Mr. Bunn explained it was the intent of the owner to construct a single family residence on the lot. He further explained the only thing allowed on the tandem lot, if it were approved, was a single family residence. He recommended approval of the conditional use for a tandem lot subject to acquisition of the required 25 foot of frontage, the extension of utilities necessary to serve the lot, and the construction of one single family residence only. Mr. Andy Adams presented the Commission with additional surveys of the property. He explained that adjoining property owners had tentatively agreed to deed property to Mr. Mcllroy giving him the required 25 foot frontage on the end of the cul-de-sac. He stated Mr. Mcllroy would agree to execute a Bill of Assurances, if the city wished, stating the property would only be used for a single family residence. Becky Cole, 520 Crest, stated a few months earlier another resident of the area asked for a tandem lot and it was denied. She asked, if by approving this tandem lot request, a door would be opened allowing the first request. Mr. Merrell explained the request they had heard a few months ago was for a lot split to establish a tandem lot in order to construct a house and then sell the house and lot. He stated there had been significant neighborhood opposition. He stated he saw no relationship between that one and this conditional use. Mr. Adams, in response to a question from Mr. Nickle, pointed out the probable area of the proposed house. He also stated the previous tandem lot request was on a much smaller lot. He stated he believed the current request by Mr. Mcllroy would enhance the neighborhood. Ms. Britton pointed out this piece of land was landlocked unless the Commission gave it access. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the tandem lot. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. C6