Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 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: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Charles Nickle, and Jett Cato Jana Lynn Britton Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the July 9, 1991 meeting were approved as distributed. CONDITIONAL USE CU91-14 CHARLIE SLOAN - W SIDE OF HILLCRBST, N OF ABSHIER The second item on the agenda was a request for a conditional use in order to construct duplexes in R-1, Low Density Residential submitted by Charlie Sloan and represented by Harry Gray. The property is located on the west side of Hillcrest Avenue, north of Abshier Drive. Becky Bryant reminded the Commission that, at the June 24, 1991 meeting, this item had been tabled in order to allow staff to further investigation the allegations that the subject 2.2 acres had been designated greenepace. She stated that previously the Abshiers had offered to place restrictive covenants on the property in exchange for C-2 zoning. The covenants were executed and filed. She explained the rezoning had been brought to a public vote and citizens had voted down the rezoning. She further explained that revoking the zoning had the legal effect of also revoking the covenants. She stated she had discussed this matter with the Assistant City Attorney who agreed the covenants were no longer binding nor valid. Ms. Bryant further pointed out the original covenants had only affected the east 20 feet of the property. She stated the City had a 30 foot easement along the east property line so there would be no building in that area anyway. She further stated Mr. Sloan was willing to give a Bill of Assurance for tree protection along the street. She explained •staff believed this was a high quality development which would not significantly impact the neighborhood. Me. Bryant suggested the Commission could apply conditions on the development. She pointed out that, should the conditional use be denied, Mr. Sloan or any other party could remove the trees on Hillcrest and construct a single family affordable housing project over which the city would have little control. She stated the only solid legal ground on which the Planning Commission could deny the conditional use was by finding that the request was incompatible with adjacent properties. She explained, however, that one of the planning principles used to encourage buffering of single family residential from commercial was the use of an intermediate type of zoning. Me. Bryant stated Commissioner Britton had raised a question about access to the property. She stated both drives on the north and south ends were included in the legal description of the property which Mr. Sloan hoped to purchase. She stated, if the conditional use were granted, the development would then go 217 • • Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Page 2 through the large scale development process. She suggested any further concerns about access be addressed at that time. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Bryant explained the property could be used for an affordable housing development without rezoning. She stated the Commission had some control over the property with a conditional use but, without a conditional use, the Commission had very little control. Mr. Tarvin asked if they could add a provision to the conditional use a provision denying parking and access by pedestrians along Hillcrest. Ms. Bryant stated the Commission could impose any reasonable condition as long as the condition was not arbitrary or capricious. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Ms. Bryant stated a 30 -foot easement along Hillcrest had been executed by the developer. She explained nothing could be built in the easement but an easement did not restrict the developer from clearing the area. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained that, should the property be developed as single family homes, he believed the property would be split into eight lots all fronting on Hillcrest with drives onto Hillcrest. He further explained it would be much more difficult to develop single family homes with private drives. He stated the terrain dictated the type of construction. Mr. Tarvin asked if the difference was because the duplexes would all be owned by one person. Mr. Gray stated the current plan was that Mr. Sloan would own all of them. He stated eventually they could be sold. He explained there would be covenants set up to cover the private drive. Mr. Tarvin asked if the covenants could not be set up for private homes. Mr. Gray explained they could but, due to the terrain, he did not see the development being a quality single family development. He stated covenants were normally tied to property owners associations which cover the maintenance of the drives, etc. He further stated he could see some problems with covenants on single family development on this property. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray explained the duplexes would face Hillcrest shielding the parked cars from view. He further explained the apartment plan was for two-story duplexes with the lower floor being below the level of Hillcrest and the upper floor extending slightly above it. He stated the plan was to construct a wooden bridge to extend from Hillcrest to the upper level of the duplexes in order to provide pedestrian access. Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and spoke in opposition to the conditional use. He explained the construction of duplexes would triple the number of people and traffic; that the residents of the duplex and visitors to the duplexes would park on Hillcrest; there was only 120 feet of flat land on the subject property which made it undesirable to build on; the trees and shrubbery provided a buffer between Hillcrest and the shopping center; water pressure was already poor in the area, additional residences would cause more water problems; and the duplexes would lower property values in the neighborhood. He stated they had a nice quiet neighborhood and the residents believed it should be left as R-1 with no conditional use. Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Oliver had his choice to leave the zoning R-1 without the conditional use and have it constructed into single family houses facing onto Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Page 3 Hillcrest and possibly removing some of the trees versus the duplexes which would he prefer. Mr. Oliver stated he had seen in the newspaper that the property was going to be rezoned R-1.5 for low rent housing. He explained that, if the property were developed as single family housing similar to those already in the neighborhood, he would not be opposed. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Me. Bryant stated there was not an application to rezone this property to R-1.5. Mr. Tarvin explained that the property could be developed into single family housing without the lot size and house size being comparable to those existing in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Oliver his preference between R-1 with a conditional use for duplexes with protective restrictions regarding the trees and parking versus R-1 single family with 70 foot frontages. Mr. Allred explained that should the conditional use be granted the Planning Commission would have some control, but if the conditional use were denied, they would have no control over any single family development. Mr. Oliver stated he would prefer the property remaining as it was, but since that was not possible, he would opt for the conditional use for duplexes with the conditions that all of the trees remain as a buffer and that there was no access to Hillcrest from the duplex. Mr. Allred pointed out the duplexes were to be large and rather expensive, designed toward executive -type families which would be compatible with the neighborhood. He further pointed out, should the property be developed as affordable housing, the residents might not blend into the neighborhood. He explained that would have more of a negative social impact. Mr. Paul Bailey, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and asked where the development would get its water. He explained there was only a 4 -inch line serving the neighborhood. He stated the city had recently put in an 8 -inch line in the area and he wanted to be sure the new development would tap off the 8 -inch line. Mr. Bunn stated he had not seen a proposal but would have to make sure the elevations were such that the development could use the 8 -inch line. He explained the 8 -inch line was on a main pressure plain and the 4 -inch line was on a high pressure plain. Mr. Gray pointed out that should the conditional use be granted, the developer would still have to present a large scale development plat or subdivision plat which would cover water, streets, sewers, etc. He explained the residents would be notified of the hearing at that time. Mr. Bailey stated he believed the property should be developed in congruence with existing properties. He stated he wanted to be sure if the duplexes were built that there would be no access on Hillcrest. Mr. Cato asked Mr. Bailey, if the property were to be developed as proposed into seven duplexes accessing a private road on the west side of the property and preserving the trees versus developing the property into seven or eight lots with probable access onto Hillcrest, which he would prefer. Mr. Bailey stated he would prefer no ingress or egress onto Hillcrest nor any trees or bushes destroyed on Hillcrest. • • Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Allred asked the residents in the audience if they preferred the duplexes with the requirement that the trees be preserved and no access to Hillcrest. It appeared the majority of the residents preferred the duplexes with those conditions. Mr. Allred explained that the Commission was trying to determine what was best for the neighborhood. He agreed that the most ideal use for the neighborhood was to leave it like it was. He explained they did not have that type of control so they were trying to determine what the next best alternative. Ms. Dawn Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated she was not in favor of the duplexes, that she would prefer single family housing. She questioned the size of the tract, stating she did not believe it was a large enough tract to construct seven or eight houses. She stated she had reviewed the city ordinance covering conditional use applications, Section 160.195. She explained the Planning Commission would not grant a conditional use unless certain requirements were met, including making written findings certifying compliance with eight areas of concern. Ms. Copeland stated the first two concerns were ingress and egress to the property and off-street parking. She showed the Commission a drawing of the area pointing out the subject property in comparison to the surrounding property. She explained there was a private driveway coming out of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center leading into a narrow alley with a retaining wall. She further explained the developer was proposing to put a driveway at the top of the retaining wall, which would have to go north (she stated the street would not be wide enough to go both ways), and then feed back into Hillcrest to go south. She stated this area would not be conductive to good traffic flow. She further stated there was the possibility of a fire hazard since the fire trucks would have difficulty in negotiating the street. She also pointed out the trash collectors would also have difficulty in negotiating the street for pickup. Ms. Copeland stated another concern was location and availability of utilities. She explained the water pressure diminished as it went downhill. She stated the residents had been told the new 8 -inch line was strictly for the purposes of fire hydrants and would not have any residential service. She pointed out the existing gas line along the tree line. She explained the builder had offered to buffer the area by leaving the trees on the west side of Hillcrest but there would be no yard or open space since it would be filled with buildings. She further stated that by filling the area with buildings, it would create drainage problems with runoff going into the back of the shops in Evelyn Hills. Mr. Allred explained the drainage would be addressed in the large scale development and the city engineer would be looking at the plan. Ms. Copeland stated she was confused because they were telling her this was just proposals that the developer was making and that it had to go before another board to decide on the streets, gutters, etc. She stated the ordinance read "...Before any conditional use shall be issued the Planning Commission shall make written findings, certifying compliance with the specific rules governing individual conditional uses and that satisfactory provision and engagement has been made concerning the following..." Mr. Allred explained the Planning Commission delegated their authority to the planning office and city engineering staff. He further explained there were other ordinances requiring that any development had to have the city engineer's approval. • Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Page 5 Ms. Bryant concurred with Ms. Copeland that the Planning Commission should make findings or reference staff findings. Ms. Copeland stated other concerns were the signs they would have on the duplexes and security lighting which would add to the glare. She stated the final consideration was the compatibility and harmony with adjacent property. She pointed out this was a density problem, that building duplexes would result in too many people being crammed into too small an area in a quiet neighborhood composed of single family dwellings. Ms. Copeland stated she did not think preserving the trees would make up for building duplexes. She asked the Commission to deny the conditional use. Mr. Springborn pointed out, should the subject property be subdivided into minimum size city lots, the new property owners would have the same rights as the existing property owners and their driveways could also enter from Hillcrest. Me. Copeland stated she understood that. Mr. Nickle pointed out neither the easements nor the setbacks entered into the calculation of the\lot size. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained the west edge of driveway would be thirty feet east of the retaining wall. He stated the depth of the lot, from the retaining wall to the right-of-way of Hillcrest was 146 feet. • Mr. Gray stated the proposal was that the duplex would be approximately 40 feet in width. • Ms. Trena Oliver appeared before the Commission and stated it bothered her that they were trying to put too many people in a small area. She stated she was in favor of single family housing with only 7 or 8 families. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin regarding access to Hillcrest, Mr. Gray explained he had not looked at access to Hillcrest from a single family standpoint. Mr. Cleghorn stated he did not see a need for a change when the neighborhood had existed for many years and the change was for a business venture. Mr. Nickle agreed with Mr. Cleghorn. He stated he did not feel access was sufficient - that a one-way street 12 feet wide, going across 600 feet, was not in the best interest of the city. He further stated he was opposed to the conditional use. NOTION Mr. Springborn stated he normally voted in favor of the neighborhood, even though as a Commissioner he felt like as far as the city was concerned, that the application was a good one. He moved to deny the application. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Commissioners Cleghorn, Hanna, Springborn, Allred, Tarvin, Cato and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioner Robertson voting "no". • • • • Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Page 6 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - TBE SPORTS PARR RICK COLLINS - S OF WEDINGTON DR., W OF BETTY JO DR. The third item on the agenda was a request for a large scale development for The Sports Park submitted by Rick Collins for property located on the south side of Wedington Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, explained the large scale development consisted of a recreational area on 76.35 acres. Activities include a golf driving range, batting cages, putting green, and pro shop. He explained future phases would include a restaurant, a retail garden shop, and a par three golf course. He stated there were no significant problems identified at the Plat Review meeting or the Subdivision Committee meeting. He stated there was some discussion about the drainage plans and it had been suggested at the subdivision committee meeting that the drainage plan be available for the planning commission. He explained there was also a question about the location of an easement where there were several large trees. He recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of drainage plans by the City Engineer; resolution of the location of the 15 foot utility easement; construction of a sidewalk along Wedington Drive; and conformance with the terms of the conditional use granted earlier by the Planning Commission. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to to staff comments, Mr. Hanna seconded The motion carried accept the Large Scale Development of The Sports Park subject plat review and subdivision committee comments. the motion. 8-0-0. WAVIER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 BERT RAKES - N OF DICKSON ST., E OF WEST AVE. The fourth item on the agenda was a request by Bert Rakes, City of Fayetteville Land Agent, on behalf of Robert Lewis and Nancy Witt Lewis for a lot split on property located north of Dickson Street and east of West Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. • Commissioner Robertson stated he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this item since Mr. and Mrs. Lewis were his clients. Mr. Rakes explained the subject property was a portion of the Walton Arts Center parking and, to fulfill their obligation, the city had to furnish parking spaces. He further explained this property contained 1.41 acres, extending from West Avenue to Campbell. He stated the split was in order to allow Jose's Restaurant to retain their parking. He further stated the City would be buying 0.79 acres. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the lot split as requested. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-1-0 with Mr. Robertson abstaining. Ll� • • • Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Page 7 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS #1 AND #2 BERT RAKES - S OF WATSON, W OF CAMPBELL The fifth item on the agenda was a request for waiver of subdivision regulations for two lot splits requested by Bert Rakes, City of Fayetteville Land Agent, on behalf of William Hayden Mcllroy. The property is located south of Watson Street, west of Campbell and is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Rakes stated this tract was also to be a portion of the Walton Arts Center parking. He explained they would be splitting the building from the property. He explained the original property consisted of 0.79 acres and they were proposing two tracts be split off consisting of Tract A (0.15 acres) and Tract B (0.20 acres). The remaining property would contain 0.44 acres. He stated negotiations were continuing on a joint use agreement for parking with the affected businesses. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the requested lot splits subject to staff comments. Mr. Sickle seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 LESLIE GOODMAN - 2229 HUGH MOUNT RD. The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations for lot split #1 requested by Leslie Goodman for property located on County Road 706 (2229 High Mount Road). The property is outside the City Limits of Fayetteville. Mr. Bunn explained the original tract contained 5 acres and Mr. Goodman was proposing that Tract A (consisting of 2.75 acres) be split off leaving a tract of 2.25 acres. He further explained Tract A would have a 25 foot permanent access easement for the purpose of accessing the remaining property. He stated water was available on County Road 707 but sewer was not available. He recommended the split be approved subject to county approval, the provision of an easement across Tract A for water service, and Health Department approval of the on-site sewage disposal system for both tracts. Mr. Goodman explained the subject property was his personal residence but he was planning on moving into the City of Fayetteville. He further explained he wished to retain a portion of the property in order to move back to it at a later date. He stated the paperwork was being drawn up for the provision of a utility easement. He stated the sewer system on Tract A was existing and had been approved by the Health Department. He explained he was not planning on building on the other tract for at least five or six years and they did not know where they would construct the house. He explained he could not determine where to run the perc test. He stated he could run a perc test but he could not be sure that it would be in the eventual building location. In response to a question from Mr. Bunn, Mr. Goodman explained the land was relatively flat. He further explained that roughly, along the split line, there was a severe drop of approximately 30 feet. Mr. Bunn explained he would not have a problem in releasing the requirement if he was sure Mr. Goodman would be the one building on it at a later date. He further stated he was concerned that in several years Mr. Goodman would sell the 2 /9 • • • Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Page 8 tract with no proven perc test. He further explained the perc test was for a prospective purchaser's protection. Mr. Nickle explained he was allowed to pick any spot that was a buildable spot, as long as there was a site which would perc. MOTION Mr. Hanna stated whenever someone installed a septic tank they now needed a permit and a perc test. He stated they would need another perc test when the septic tank was installed so he though a perc test at this time would be a waste of time. Mr. Hanna moved to approve the lot split subject to county approval of the split and the provision of an easement across Tract A for water service. • Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0-1 with Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Springborn, Mr. Allred, Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Cato, and Mr. Nickle voting "yes" and Mr. Robertson voting "no". WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 RICHARD AND LINDA FRITZ - SE CORNER OF CALVIN AND KNOB The seventh item on the agenda was a request for waiver of subdivision regulations requested by Richard and Linda Fritz for property located on the southeast corner of Calvin and Knox. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained the property was a 0.43 acre tract and it was proposed that it be split into two tracts of approximately 0.21 acres each. He stated all requirements of the zoning ordinance would be met by the proposed lots. He further stated it appeared that water service would be directly available to each of the lots created by the split; sewer service was available on Calvin Street and would not be adjacent to Tract No. 2. He recommended approval subject to making sewer available to Tract No. 2 through either a sewer extension or a private easement across Tract 1 for a sewer service line; providing for the access of all of the other utilities to each of the lots, including the granting of whatever easements that might be required; and payment of parks fees. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. • The motion passed 8-0-0. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 GEORGE FAUCETTE - 2356 AND 2366 N. COLLEGE AVE. The last item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations for lot split #1 presented by George Faucette for property located at 2356 and 2366 North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained the total acreage on the subject property was 0.97 and the proposed split would allow Tract A to contain 0.39 acres and Tract B to contain 0.58 acres. He further explained Bonanza Restaurant was located on Tract B and Tony C's was located on Tract A. He stated the lots created by the split met all of the zoning requirements. All utilities were existing and there would be no new construction on the lots. He recommended approval of the split. 2 20 • • Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Page 9 MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.