HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4852 Staff AnalysisMeeting Date:
Case No.: Z-4852
Request: To approve a Planned Residential District for
single family development and usage. .
Location: Generally, the frontage on the east side of North
Taylor Street beginning approximately one block north of
Hawthorne Street.
Owner/Applicant: Catholic Diocese by Dickson Flake
Existing Status: Vacant lands zoned "R-2" Single Family
being a portion of the St. John's Seminary property.
Proposed Use: Single family dwellings in a private street
format on separately platted .Lots.
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Approval of a conditional Planned Residential District
subject to: (1) All units to be separated by a minimum of
ten feet. (2) The Planning staff to approve construction
access point off Taylor Street. This point to be closed
with the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the
last construction phase. All displaced trees are to be
replaced with three or four -inch or larger calipher trees
and extensive landscaping. (3) Delete sidewalks on North
Taylor Street. (4) The fence/wall is to be located by the
developer working with the staff to assure the least amount
of natural cover or trees being disturbed.
Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 6 ayes, 1 nay,
2 absent, 1 abstention (Jerilyn Nicholson) and 1 open
position.
Objectors_: Present were Messrs. Williams and Calhoun both
of which addressed the issues. There were several
additional persons in attendance who did not speak on the
proposal. At previous Planning Commission meetings on
June 30 and on July 14, there were significant numbers of
persons reflecting their objection by the submission of
cards wishing to speak. On the date of Planning Commission
action, July 28, there were several persons in attendance
submitting four cards requesting permission to speak. The
case file contains petitions with well over 1,000 signatures
of objectors.
NAME:
St. John's Place
Long -Form PRD (Z-4852)
LOCATION: East of Taylor, north of
Hawthorne at Polk (property
on west side of St. John's
Seminary site)
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
Catholic Diocese of LR White-Daters and Associates
c/o Dickson Flake
Barnes, Quinn, Flake, & ARCHITECT:
Anderson
2100 First Commercial Bldg. Brooks -Jackson
P.O. Box 3546 2228 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 372-6161 Phone: 664-8700
AREA: 8.5736 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE:
Attached Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an established single family
area. It is the western portion of the St. John's
Catholic Center site.
B. Proposal
(1) To construct a 26 lot single family residential
development with a private street system and an
average of 14,364 square feet per residence, which
is less density than surrounding neighborhoods
to the west and south of the subject property.
(2) Residence size will be 2,700' heated and cooled
and 3,400 square feet growth, which is larger than
the residences to "the west and south of the
proposed development.
Z-4852 - Continued
(3) Residences will be of compatible architecture with
the neighborhood. Design will be traditional
one-story with high-pitched roofs and dormers,
allowing individuals to finish attic space for
additional living space. The exterior will be
brick with minimum wood trim.
(4) Site coverage is_2.05 acres on an 8.57 acre tract.
B. Enqineerinq Comments
(1) Submit sketch grading plan, stormwater detention
calculations, and square footage of landscape
areas.
(2) North Taylor is a boundary street - dedicate
right-of-way and provide street improvements.
(3) Entry can't be developed as design in a public
right-of-way.
C, Issues/Technical/]regal/Design
(1) Dedicate access easement.
(2) Preliminary plat required if houses are to be on
separate lots. If not, agreement relative to
maintenance of common areas and drives should be
submitted.
(3) Redesign to break up building masses, eliminate
amount of concrete on northern portion of site.
Some units are double -served by streets.
(4) Site plan poorly dimensioned. Revised to show
building dimensions, floor plans, on-site fire
protection.
(5) Section through the site is backward.
(6) Submit more data required by PUD Ordinance on open
space, construction timetable.
Z-4852- Continued___
(7) Specify on plat and Bill of Assurance that all
public services and utilities have rights of
public access.
(8) Parking plan.
D. Staff Recommendation
Deferral, until comments addressed. Approval of a
private street system does not include limitinq access
by public agencies and utilities, including building
inspectors, Firefighters, and Water Works personnel,
etc.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted,
which clarified some aspects of the plan relative to
walkways and dimensions. He responded to staff's comments:
1, 2, 5, and 7 - Agreed to do as requested.
C-3 - Explained that he had broken building masses in
response to earlier staff concerns and that the lots
weren't double -served because the rear drives were only
alleys and the houses would be front on the drives to
the west.
4 - Submitted revised plans.
6 - Explained that most open space was privately owned.
In response to Engineering's concerns, the applicant said
that number D-3 was a mute point since the developer and
four property owners would close the street. He agreed to
do numbers B-1 and B-2. Approval, subject to Staff's
Recommendation:
(1) No gate at entrance on Polk Street, with entrance to be
developed as a driveway with no curb return (see
Engineering for details).
(2) Move two dwelling units at southwest corner forward
about 10 feet while retaining 15 -foot setback from
street.
Z-4852 _ Continued
(3) File petition to close Polk Street.
(4) Make contract with Water Works for maintenance of fire
hydrant.
(5) Close construction access at the end of the third
phase; no permanent vehicular access to Taylor Street
should be permitted.
(6) Amend the Parks plan.
(7) Complete fence and landscaping along Taylor Street in
the first year.
(8) Submit a phasing plan and schedule of development.
(9) Staff finds that the overall density of development is
consistent with single family density. The proposed
development is attractive and well-designed with
numerous breaks in the massing of buildings. Except
for some disturbance during construction, the
development should not adversely affect the
neighborhood. Waiver of sidewalks is acceptable due to
the private street system and short loop street, which
relate to the overall development concept as defined in
the PUD submission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant, Mr. Dickson Flake, was present. There were
50 or 60 persons present objecting to the application. The
Commission Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the application,
what was presented to the Commission for its review, and
asked that the opposition group members try to avoid
repetition in order to expedite the hearing of the matter.
Richard Wood, of the Planning staff, responded to the
Commission's request for history of the Parks Plan and its
relationship to this site. Gary Greeson, the Planning
Director, explained two parts of the staff recommendation,
elaborated on the Parks Plan history, and outlined the
advantages and disadvantages of cluster development.
z-4852-- Continued
Mr. Dickson Flake, the applicant, was asked to present his
application. He offered a slide presentation depicting the
neighborhood and graphics of the project. He offered
commentary on the reasons for choosing this type of single
family housing over conventional platting of 34 lots. He
identified the average floor areas in surrounding residences
and compared them to the unit sizes proposed in his plan.
Commissioner Jones asked for clarification as to why this
type was chosen. Mr. Flake responded by saying that the
approach permitted flexibility of design, marketing to
smaller families with older or no children, and shared
maintenance provisions. He further responded to a question
as to whether the church intended further such developments
to the east of the former seminary. He responded that they
proposed no additional developments, but that he could not
commit to what the church might decide in the future.
A question was posed by the Planning Director as to what
happens if the project fails after the first phase is
completed. Mr. Flake responded by saying that it would be
the same as any other type of development. He followed that
comment by stating that all of the infrastructure would be
installed at the beginning, including utilities, streets,
the Taylor Street wall and such.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the City's
encouragement of infill development and the effect of
construction activity on established neighborhoods. A
question followed these comments as to the need for access
on Taylor Street during the entire development period.
Mr. Flake stated that access must be to Taylor Street which
is the street that serves best as a collector and access.
He noted that possibly more impact would be experienced on
Polk Street. When asked about the setback from Taylor
Street of his buildings, Mr. Flake offered some dimensions
and followed by a comment that the houses on Taylor will be
about ten feet below the street elevation.
The following persons then offered comments in support of
the petition: Mr. Mays, Mr. Hinkle or his mother,
Mr. W.L. Grace, a prospective purchaser of a unit,
Ms. Carroll Griffee, Norman Holcolm, a builder and resident
of the area.
z
Z-4852- Continued
The Chairman then asked for opposing views to be presented.
He stated that 43 plus cards of speakers had been presented
(actual final count 55). The first spokesperson was
Mr. Mike Huckaby. He requested deferral and said they
wanted the site to be a park. He addressed a broad spectrum
of mattters, including effects that the neighborhood would
experience if these homes were constructed. His points
included: (1) the use is not conventional single family of
the type in this area, but practically speaking is a
condominimum which would change the flavor of the area; (2)
this area is not all Country Club members, but contains a
mix of housing and income levels; (3) the site would lose
big trees when creating all the roof tops and drives, (4) no
assurance that the church will not sell or develop more of
its land to the east; (5) a 1990 plan showed the site for
public, quasi -public land; (6) existing traffic may be
undercounted and there is more in the fall; (7) the land
could be given to the City by the church or purchased
through private sector contributions or the City bond money;
(8) bicyclists, mothers, and babies would be affected by the
additional traffic; (9) the market for the project is
unpredictable; (10) the units will be difficult to sell;
(11) construction traffic on neighborhood streets would be a
problem; and (12) the church should use its own entrance for
construction traffic. He closed his comments by stating
that he as well as the neighborhood felt like the park issue
should be settled first. During the course of Mr. Huckaby's
presentation, he offered a petition of some 500 signatures.
Mr. Rector, the Chairman, then offered for the benefit of
all involved, that the issue of the park has been acted upon
by the Planning Commission in the past. What is being
considered here is the Planned Unit Development application.
The next speaker, Pat Miller, a North Taylor resident,
offered comments on speculation, the need for a wall during
construction, construction access through Polk Street or the
church property, and loss of green space. The next speaker,
Mr. Bob Lowery, offered his objections and those of his
parents and his wife. He suggested that the diocese offer
the land and others offer money. He discussed the
appropriateness of the plan (traffic and density), the
neighborhood loss of green space, and the need to deal with
the park issue. The next speaker, Mr. Richard Groh, a
Z-4852 - Continued
resident of Hawthorne Street, offered a broad range of
objection but primarily to the use of the land for any
development other than single family lots or a park.
At this point Commissioner Jones offered a statement to the
effect that it was inappropriate for the Commission to
proceed and that the Board of Directors should dispose of
the park site questions first. Commissioner Jones then made
a motion to defer the application until the Board of
Directors decided the park issue. The motion was seconded
by William Ketcher.
A general discussion followed wherein the appropriateness of
the separation of the two issues was dominant. Several
Commissioners felt that the politics of acquisition would
have to be dealt with first. Commission members briefly
discussed their responsibility for acting on the matter as
opposed to deferring the subject. The subject of the 60 day
notice relative to the Master Park Plan arose. The primary
question being when the 60 day period began during which the
City must give notice to purchase the site or lose the
opportunity. The City Attorney's representative,
Mr. Stephen Giles, instructed the Commission that the time
began when the development request was presented at the
Commission meeting. It begins with the presentation in the
form of a plan or a plat to the Commission, which triggers
the ordinance requirement. The Board of Directors will have
to act within the 60 days if purchase is intended. One year
is provided for actual payment for the land.
The opposition was asked whether it opposed a deferral, and
several persons stated they were not. However, Mr. Flake
stated the Board of Directors had previously refused to act
on the park acquisition separately and had deferred action
pending receipt of the PUD application.
The City Attorney, Mr. Giles, stated that there was no
reason the Commission could not or should not vote on the
matter. The motion as offered was restated. The vote on
the motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes, and 1 absent.
(Being a procedural vote, the matter remained active on the
agenda.)
Y-48-52 - Continued
At this point, the Chair offered to hear additional
opposition comment. Mr. Bill Woodard, a resident, requested
additional time to address the park issue. Thelma Hobby
added to that comment expressing the desire that it be a
park. Lindsey Huckaby made comments to the effect that she
was responsible for the opposition turnout but wants more
time to deal with the park issue. Therisa Brown added
comments from the perspective of catholic church members and
lay persons and suggested that the church reconsider its
action due to the neighborhood opposition.
The Commission then entered again into general discussion of
deferral of the proposal. The Chairman and others entered
into a discussion with Mr. Huckaby on procedural matters.
Commissioner Massie then offered that perhaps a two week
deferral could allow time for the opposition to organize,
obtain professional expertise, get direction from the Board
of Directors, and ask the church to take a harder look at
the park issue. Mr. Massie then offered a motion in these
terms and indicated the July 14 Planning meeting as being
appropriate meeting date to take up the matter again.
Attorney David Meens, a representative of the Catholic
Church, added to the record that the church was thoroughly
involved with the views of the lay membership. He noted
that lay boards within the church organization had held many
meetings on this proposal and were committed to the project.
A vote on the deferral motion passed by 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent, and 2 abstentions (Jones, Ketcher).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-14-87)
The chairman, Mr. Rector, identified the issue and asked for
cooperation when speaking. He instructed everyone to speak
directly into the microphone and identify themselves
inasmuch as a court reporter was present and recording the
meeting. Mr. Rector then reported to those in attendance
that this is not the usual meeting for this type of issue
but normally deals with planning matters such as parks plans
and district plans.
Z-4852 - Continued
The first order of business on this case was a request by
Commissioner Nicholson to address the issue of abstaining.
She stated that she had contacted the City Attorney and
would be abstaining from participation. She was advised
that she did not have to identify her reasons for doing so.
Mr. Rector then advised that the abstention affected the
vote inasmuch as six positive votes are required to pass or
deny an action before the Commission. He stated for the
record that there was one open position and one absent,
leaving only eight to participate with one additional
potential abstention. At this point Commissioner Collins
stated that she had a conflict of interest and would not
participate thereby leaving only seven votinq eligible.
Mr. Huckabv, a neighborhood representative, offered comments
on the abstentions and the composition of the Commission.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the deferral process
and the effect of automatic deferrals on the voting.
Mr. Huckaby offered a request to quash the proceeding as
being inappropriate due to the notice deficiency. His
statement was that the 200 foot notice even though in
accordance with the law and procedure _is not adequate when
many persons further away are affected. The Chairman and
Mr. Huckaby agreed that the notice had been accomplished as
required by law and procedure. The City Attorney stated
that the notice had been accomplished as required per state
law. Mr. Huckaby then requested a deferral due to the
resignation of Dorothy Arnett and that effect upon the
Commission. A general discussion followed with several
Commissioners and Mr. Huckaby offering comments on the
effect of the Planning Commission composition. Commissioner
Jones offered a statement on Mr. Huckaby's comments and the
Commission's integrity. The City Attorney offered that the
Commission could conduct business as there were sufficient
numbers present to conduct business.
A general discussion followed during which the City Attorney
and others discussed the issue of participation by various
Commissioners. The Chairman then asked Mr. Flake to make
his presentation. Mr. Flake's comments were preceded by
Commissioner Schlereth requesting that the letter from the
City Manager be read into the record. Mr. Greeson read the
material which addressed the Board of Directors' instruction
as to -the proposed park site.
Z-4852_- Continued
Mr. Flake then made his presentation in summary form from
his June presentation. The Chairman then recognized
supporters of the application. These were Mr. Jack
Williams, Mr. Ray Kemp. Both supporters talked about the
need for this type of unit in the area, and the current
unsightly state of the property. (There were three cards
submitted indicating a request to address the Commission in
support of the application.)
The Chairman then recognized the opposition. Mr. Huckaby
was recognized first. He offered general comments on the
issue and offered a second package of approximately 1,000
signatures. These signatures are on petitions of objection.
He added that thousands were to follow. (There were 20+
persons in attendance in opposition. There were 27 cards
filed with requests to speak. Mr. Huckaby then read several
paragraphs of the Zoning Ordinance from the Planned Unit
Development Section concerning harmony, compatibility,
neighborhood involvement, and response. He stated that
there had not been an adequate test of traffic generation
during construction time of approximately four years or so.
He stated that cluster housinq is an inappropriate housing
type in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Massie requested that the staff describe the
PUD process and state whether it is the only approach to
development projects such as this. Mr. Greeson, the
Planning Director, offered that the PUD process was the only
approach to developing this type of development.
Chairman Rector then offered comments on district
application and density.
Mr. Huckaby then made comments on the saleability of the
project and traffic test needs, the fact that 'the church has
not committed to no other sales in the future. He
challenged Mr. Flake's assertion that units in the project
were of average floor area in the area. He challenged the
architectural compatibility of the project. He stated that
it is a condo type project no matter what it is called. He
offered that the project would depreciate neighborhood land
values and increase traffic.
A lengthy discussion of the issues followed. This
discussion centered on traffic, marketability, commitment of
the church on other lands. At this point, it was discussed
that the numbers of petitions offered should not be used to
make land use decisions.
Z-4852 - Continued--.--
The
ontinued_-.-
The next issue discussed was the burden of proof in this
matter. It was offered by the objectors that the burden of
proving the appropriateness of this project fell to the
developer and not with the objectors. Several Commissioners
offered comments on the difficulty of the development
process for PVDs and the Commission's reliance on the
Planning staff to develop the issues.
Mr. Lowery offered that there were two basic issues involved
in this case. The first of which being that between uses as
single family and uses as Planned Unit Development with
exception to standards. The second being the purposes
stated in Article 9 in the Zoning ordinance.
Chairman Rector then described the PUD process, the
Commission's involvement and the church's options for
development.
(A brief recess was called.)
The meeting was called to order. The hearing reconvened on
this matter. A brief discussion occurred at this point
relative to the usage of a court reporter for this public
hearing. The City Attorney stated he would pay part of the
reporter cost.
At the Chairman's request, the staff outlined the procedures
involved in the review of a Planned Unit Development
proposal from the occasion of first contact with the staff
through the public hearing process.
Henk Koornstra, the Traffic Engineer, then presented
comments on the traffic counts. He discussed Taylor Street
as being a minor collector. He stated that traffic numbers
were not an issue and answered questions from both the
Commission and the audience.
Another lengthy discussion followed involving statements
about benefit to be received by the area from this project.
Also what is considered when reviewing a case such as the
one filed. The points outlined as important were density,
access to the site, traffic generation.
The discussion then shifted to comments as to traffic access
onto Taylor Street vs. Polk Street.
Commissioner Jones discussed whether there was a way to
assure in any neighborhood of this city that traditional
development can or will remain without change and without
encroachment by other land types.
Z-4852 - Continued
The discussion then moved to whether the Planned Unit
Development process allowed a better development versus
maximizing development potential on a given site. Comments
were made about the subjectivity of the Planned Unit
Development review and the staff added that actions on
Planned Unit Developments should be reasonable and
defensible based on the surrounding area.
Several objectors stated at this point that they wanted
nothing on the site especially sameness.
The discussion then centered on the issue of housing type
being attached versus open side yards. The objectors
thought there was something special about this area of the
City and what should be kept there is side yards and
setbacks in a conventional format.
Mr. Groh, a resident of the area, offered his thoughts about
keeping the park site, the City bond issues, these being
condos, and whether action would go to the City Board with
support for a park site.
Mr. Flake was requested to describe his building design. He
offered that he did not have to file elevations, floor
plans, and detail drawings but did to help the review. He
continued by saying many of the units in his projects are 18
feet apart, providing courtyards and spaces between. The
garages and parking are screened from view by the attachment
of the buildings. He felt this would save trees by the
clustering and allow the design to fit the terrain.
The discussion then moved to the Taylor Street improvements
and the inevitably of getting onto a public street at some
point with the traffic generated by this development, both
the residents and the construction equipment during the
estimated four years.
The construction type was discussed on the private street
and whether it would hold truck traffic. Mr. Flake stated
it would be constructed of brick and designed in
curvilinear fashion to avoid trees and obstructions.
Further comments pointed out that it would be built to City
standard and withstand a fire truck and would possibly
support construction vehicles.
Discussion followed concerning access to Taylor Street, its
length, and the trees and natural foliage to be lost.
Z-4852 - Continued
Brief comments were then presented
strong emotions on this subject on
and effect in this proposal.
concerning whether the
both sides were of value
Several objectors again raised the park question. Some
objectors offering that perhaps they didn't understand all
of the plan as presented. The Chairman, Mr. Rector, again
addressed the subject of the park and the Commission's
position.
A discussion of a meeting of the two sides for resolution of
the issues outlined in the hearings resulted in the
objectors stating they were denied opportunity to resolve
the issues at the last occasion. The discussion moved on to
whether a person could be found to represent the opposition
side. During the course of discussion, organization of the
opposition in the form of an agent could not be gained.
The discussion moved to the subject of deferrals and whether
the applicant can call for a vote. It was determined that
Mr. Flake had that right to make a request for action.
However, a comment followed that the Commission could defer
the matter again if it so desired.
The discussion then moved to the subject of a totally
acceptable development. Comments were made relative to the
various types of development proposals that could be made in
this area, including large lot single family, conventional
lot, condominiums, or attached housing, etc. It was pointed
out by a Commissioner that the Board of Directors was the
final determiner, and in the final analysis will decide this
case on the basis of nontraditional development in a
traditional neighborhood setting.
The discussion moved to rules for deferral and how best to
deal with the bylaw application. The City Attorney,
Mr. Stodola, offered guidance on the rules and instructed
the Commission as to how they may proceed.
The discussion then extended into areas of amending the
bylaws to accommodate the voting procedure. The applicant
was asked about his position on deferral. He repsonded by
saying that he did not want to polarize the opposition.
Z-4'852 - Continued
Comments were offered by an opponent as to the location of a
shrine in the ravine either on or adjacent to this property.
It was apparent that no one knew the specific location.
The Chair then asked that the issue be brought to a vote. A
brief discussion of whether the resolution on the park
should be dealt with prior to the vote on the PUD. The City
Attorney's comment was that it should be a secondary vote.
A motion was then made to suspend the rules of procedure to
allow the resolution to be entered into the record. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open
position, 2 abstaining (Collins and Nicholson).
Mr. Rector then read the resolution into the record
(attached Exhibit A).
A motion was then made for adoption of the resolution. A
brief discussion followed. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position, 2 abstentions
(Collins and Nichsolson).
Commissioner Jones then made a motion to defer the
application for a period of two weeks to July 28, which
would permit a meeting with a good faith attempt on the part
of those involved to come to an agreement on this project.
Additional comment by other Commissioners introduced an
amendment to the motion which states an understanding that
the debate on this subject will be limited to 30 minutes on
the July 28 agenda. A vote was then taken. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 open position, 1
absent, 2 abstentions (Collins and Nicholson).
A discussion followed wherein Mr. Lowery and Mr. Huckaby
were encouraged to take the lead and meet with Mr. Flake and
Jerilyn Nicholson, a Commissioner, to moderate the session.
A report on the results of this meeting to be presented to
the Commission on July 28.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-28-87)
The Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the issue of the several
meetings held since the last Planning Commission review of
this matter on July 14. He requested a report from
Commissioner Nicholson who attended those meetings
Z-4852 - Continued
as a representative of the Commission and acted as a
facilitator. Commissioner Nicholson reported that the
participants held several meetings over the past week on a
Thursday and a Sunday. There were four area representatives
present, two persons for the applicant, and Mr. Tom Dalton,
the City Manager. She offered comments on the conversation
between Mr. Flake and others and the several discussions
relative to Plan A which is the application at hand before
the Commission, the possibility of a Plan B, separated
units, and Plan C which would be single family conventional
lots. She expressed the thought that an attempt was made to
get input from all the neighborhood representatives as to
the several plans. As to the Sunday afternoon meeting, she
reported that the concerns offered by the neighborhood were:
(1) a lack of diversity of unit type, (2) the phasing of the
development, (3) the number of units, there being too many,
and (4) the precedent set for future developments of this
nature on the Diocese properties. She reported that the
meetings held were pleasant meetings and that to a certain
extent the neighborhood feelings about the church's future
development were set aside by a church letter to neighbors
indicating there were no plans to develop the other
properties; however, this did not appear to be a consensus
of the neighborhood. She reported that a discussion of the
church did not satisfy all of the concerns of the residents.
Commissioner Massie then asked a question relative to the
neighborhood preference as to the three plans that were
indicated. Commissioner Nicholson stated there were diverse
opinions among the participants especially with the
participants feeling the burden for supporting the
neighborhood in this matter. She felt that the four persons
present were uncomfortable with attempting to represent
which of the several options would be appropriate.
Commissioner Jones then offered a commendation to
Commissioner Nicholson for her participation and chairing of
these meetings.
The Chairman then asked that Mr. Flake's issue be
represented. Mr. Sam Anderson was present representing
Mr. Flake and the church. Mr. Anderson offered comments as
follows: He stated that the application was a reasonable
use for the land. It is single family occupancy and is less
than pingle family density when computing the overall site.
He added that the project contains larger units than the
Z-4852 - Continued
area in general and they are more expensive. He reported
that 23 percent of the land coverage will be buildings and
that 77 percent of the site will be trees and landscaped
area. He felt that's what the neighbors wanted. He stated
that the project is being attacked on the design because the
units touch at the rear and other points. He felt that
touching is a design feature to allow private spaces such as
courtyards and garages and leave the trees, provide more
landscaping, and allow the project to fit the terrain. He
further commented that persons have been in attendance at
the Commission meetings and have stated their feelings abou
the possibility of buying some of these units. He felt that
the neighborhood wanted nothing on this site. Inasmuch as a
year had been spent in planning, he felt that the church had
quite an investment in this project at this time. He
further reported that he appreciated the Planning staff's
support and recommendation. He said that the applicants
have tried to appease the opponents except to the point of
givinq total control. He reported that if conditional
approval by detachment of the units in the development are a
requirement of the Commission he will accept that condition.
The owner has gone on record as stating they want the
development access off Polk Street and not Taylor Street.
He said that he needed staff help to work out a redesign
dealing with separation of structures and procedures for
accommodating that.
Mr. Brooks Jackson, the architect for the project, then
added comments at the request of the Commission. He stated
that changes to separate the structures would take several
months to accomplish. He said that the changes would vary
considerably in order to provide the suggested side yards.
Mr. Greeson then added comments concerning the procedure for
taking the matter to the Board of Directors when the
Commission approves in a modified form.
Mr. Anderson, when asked about whether a plat with lots was
included he stated that there has always been a plat with
individual lotting for each unit. The project will also
have a property owners association to assure maintenance of
the common spaces and open yard spaces.
The Chairman then asked for opponents to present their
comments. The first spokesperson was Mr. John Calhoun, an
attorney and resident of North Grandview. Mr. Calhoun
Z-4852 - Continued
stated he was one of the four persons present at the
meetings with Commissioner Nicholson. He stated he did not
know what was exactly before the Commission at this time.
Mr. Rector stated for the record that Plan A was before the
Commission as filed and no other items were to be considered
at this time. Mr. Calhoun continued by commenting on the
Planning Commission's former hearings and the area residents
objections. He addressed Mr. Anderson's comment on the
unreasonableness of the neighborhood position and stated he
disagreed with Mr. Anderson's comment. He felt the
residents would prefer to leave the site undisturbed but
were not obstructionists.
The neighbors are supportive of a conventional single family
project. He stated that when they met they had fundamental
differences with the developer such as the future
development of the additional church property. The
neighbors want a church commitment, but have been told that
it will not be forthcoming. Phasing is a particular concern
for the people in this area, but it has been stated by the
applicant that that is not flexible. He said they were told
several points were non-negotiable and that all the
developer would discuss was Plan A. There was no discussion
of detached units, and he stated the developer said Plan C
was not an op"tion. This would have been conventional single
family lots. He talked about the similarity of the units
and the developer being the determiner of footprint and
marketability and the association between the two. He said
the owner refused an architectural review committee as an
offering by the neighborhood. He felt the design is solely
left to the developer and that the developer made no
meaningful offer to redesign the units. At this point,
Mr. Calhoun read from the Purpose and Intent Section of the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance on compatiblity and
finished his comments by asking for a conventional project.
Commissioner Massie then asked about the comments on
non-negotiable items. Commissioner Nicholson stated that
some of the things the residents wanted as assurances on
such as future development of the church property, the
developer could not commit to and stated that there are no
guarantees that certain things will happen because the
market controls that circumstance.
The next spokesperson for the neighborhood, Mr. Williams,
Z-4852 • Continued
responded to Mr. Anderson's comments. He discussed the
former meetings and his appreciation of the Planning
Commission's actions and their time and effort. He
continued his comments by addressing the issue of this
proposal versus a park site on the property versus a project
for single family. He said a Planned Unit Development is an
exception to development standards within the ordinance. He
read from Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance dealinq with
enhancement and minimal disruption of the neighborhood and
other criteria. He said neighbors had pointed out that the
project is not benefiting the area. This had been stated on
several occasions. The people are not attempting to tell
the church that it cannot develop its land. He said the
ordinance does not deal with project profit maximization or
market targeting. He said the Planning Commission should
take the neighborhood's views into consideration in any
decision. He felt the applicant has not made a case for
a Planned Unit Development.
•. Chairman Rector then commented on the ordinance content as
to diversity of development. Commissioner Jones asked for
staff recommendation. Planning Director Gary Greeson then
presented from the agenda the referenced paragraph dealing
with the staff position. He read .the recommendation into
the record and expanded upon the written comment. He
reported that the staff would accept the minimum ten -foot
building separation if that were offered as a modification
of the current plan. He further stated that the staff is
standing by its recommendation.
Chairman Rector then added comments on the procedure for
preliminary and final Planned Unit Development review.
Mr. Greeson added additional comments on this subject.
Commissioner Massie added concerns about the number of units
if redesign is accomplished in the project. He had concerns
about the effect of grades, setback, and such on separating
of the buildings. Mr. Greeson reported that spacing of the
buildings would fall within the five percent test within the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance and felt that room can be
found to shift the buildings. He did not consider the
design changes to be a problem.
Commissioner Jones stated that in essence that what we could
actually do is vote on a concept as opposed to a specific
plan which would require the applicant to come back with a
Z-485.2 - .Continued
plan to coincide with what was approved or disapproved. He
felt technical problems will occur if the approval is not
specific and then allowing the staff_ to tidy up things in
the future.
Chairman Rector then responded to comments by reading the
90 -day provision in the ordinance for dealing with
conditional approved PUD's and the staff review attached
with that process. Mr. Greeson then explained the final
procedure as he understood it dealing with minor changes.
Commissioner Jones then stated that he wanted to hear any
additional comments -of objectors if they had requested
permission to do so. Mr. Greeson commented on the vote
being on the plan and not on a concept. Commissioner Jones
discussed his intent in asking last time for the meetings
between parties to resolve the detachment issue. He felt he
could not come up with any problems for attached over
detached. He said the Commission cannot turn an
architectural control over to the neighborhood committee.
He thinks this development will not do harm but that
architectural control would cause significant problems. The
development is reasonable he felt and he can support it if
detached with different brick, alteration of the exteriors,
and other amenities. He stated he was ready to make a
motion on the subject.
Commissioner Schlereth then added his thoughts on the
position of the Commission. He stated that he felt the
Planned Unit Development is not a way to get around the
ordinance but to improve the area. He felt the project had
received a great effort from the developer in its
development. He supports the attached units identified as
Plan A; however, he felt both Plans A and B are better than
a Plain Jane single family plat.
Chairman Rector then asked about Taylor Street improvements
as to whether it is a better situation to leave it alone or
to put in improvements. Commissioner Jones stated he felt
it was a staff technical issue to be developed at that
level. Mr. Anderson stated that if the Commission so desired
he would leave the street improvements out of the project.
Mr. Greeson said that widening would be better for traffic
flow in the area and drainage, but appearance is the issue.
He said improvements are better, including the sidewalk
because of children's movement through the area and others
who might use this improvement.
Z-4852 - Continued
Commissioner Schlereth stated he felt that the intent in
this project was to restrict access to Taylor Street. He
felt the area would be best served with a waiver of the
street improvements. The architect, Mr. Brooks Jackson, in
response to a question reported that a tree survey has not
been accomplished in this area; therefore, he is not aware
of what trees would be lost by placement of a sidewalk or
other improvements.
Mr. Greeson then offered comments related to the view of
the rear of units from Taylor Street if no wall or fence is
required.
Commissioner Massie requested of Mr. Jackson a response
concerning the Phase I or five units along the south line.
He was curious as to how you would separate these units with
a minimum of ten feet and not lose density or exterior
setbacks along the property lines. Mr. Jackson reported
that to spread the units will remove more trees than the
cluster concept. Further he felt that if the units were in
a one -unit per level high-rise you could keep most all of
the trees on the property. He continued this thought by
stating that if attached you will not lose as many trees.
He felt that units along the south property line could be
redesigned to accommodate the dimension by narrowing of the
units or making them taller or both.
Mr. Greeson then offered comments on the possible design
changes. Commissioner Massie reported that he remained
unconvinced that attached is not better. He felt that
conventional development will not assure saving of the trees
on this property. He stated that there is a dangerous
position relative to a vote on a concept with a return in
several months with the Planning Commission not receiving
the changes for their review. Mr. Greeson followed that
comment by stating he prefers a vote without separation of
the units.
Commissioner Jones and others then discussed the concerns of
neighbors versus the vote procedure versus the staff
preference as to the form for approval. Commissioner
Ketcher said he sensed that members were supportive of the
project. He talked about what he felt were the residents
Z-4852 - Continued ----
objections. He urged other Commissioners to join him in a
vote against the proposal as submitted. Mr. Greeson then
clarified his statements on the vote procedure.
Chairman Rector again offered comments on the rules of
procedure as to suspending the rules of bylaws in order to
send this matter on to the Board rather than an additional
deferral.
Commissioner Sipes commented on the Taylor Street
improvements and the tree and sidewalk loss. Commissioner
Perkins added his comments. He felt that the project is a
self-contained project and that separation of the units
would do more damage than good.
Chairman Rector stated that he felt that the project is a
good development. He compared it to what can be done and
developed as single family. He stated that the Planning
Commission has not seen Plans B and C but only the plan that
is before them. He further felt that all neighborhoods need
new blood and that things have happened in the Hillcrest
neighborhood that have helped the area. He felt this
project will enhance the neighborhood. He closed this
comment by stating he felt the sidewalk should be taken off
Taylor Street unless there is a strong feeling they need to
remain.
Commissioner Massie added comments concerning access Orr
Taylor Street during the period of construction. His
questions were what plans had been made to relandscape the
disrupted area and restore as a natural barrier plus what
planting and materials. Commissioner Massie said he felt
that the neighborhood did not want to see this project.
The architect, Mr. Jackson, responded to questions as to
what is planned along Taylor Street. He added the
following: The plan at this time is a brick and iron wall
and fence arrangement with landscaping the full length of
the project. This landscaping will continue across the
access point after construction is completed with
restoration landscaping as best can be accomplished. He
stated he cannot indicate the location of the trees at this
time due to the absence of a tree survey. He offered that
improvements will be done with the least destruction and the
greatest concern for the environment. Commissioner Massie
then added that he wants a commitment from the developer to
Z-4852 - Continued
restore lost trees by new plantings. He felt these should
be of a calipher three or four inches or larger. He felt
the elimination of the sidewalk should be tied to avoidance
of loss of trees. He further felt that the street should be
widened with curb and gutter. He continued by saying that
he felt the staff should have determination authority as to
the location of the construction access point.
Mr. Anderson then addressed the loss of a fence and
sidewalk. He felt that the wall or fence was needed to
prevent neighborhood kids from going to the Seminary site
through this project. He agreed to work with the staff to
reduce the effects of the fence location. Commissioner
Jones then added a thought that access to the Seminary by
area kids may be desired and that they may want to take
direct access to play on the Seminary grounds. Mr. Anderson
stated that he was opposed to totally eliminating the fence.
Mr. Greeson and Commissioners discussed procedure on an
advanced vote on suspending the rules. Commissioner Massie
then offered a motion to suspend the bylaws concerning the
six -vote or deferral rule and that this case be forwarded to
the Board of Directors should it not receive the required
six votes to deny or approve, with a recording of the vote
on the motion. Commissioner Jones then added a comment in
which he opposed this motion as being inappropriate. He
said that the Commission should do as usual and let the
record stand. Chairman Rector reported that he felt
everybody wants to send this matter on to the City Board.
The Manager and Board of Directors have gone on record as
stating such.
A general discussion of procedures on the vote then
followed. Discussion involving Chairman Rector and
Commissioners Massie, Schlereth, and the City Attorney,
Mr. Giles. Commissioner Massie withdrew his motion.
Chairman Rector closed this discussion by clarifying the
issue as now before the Commission which is an application
with the following conditions:
1. The Planning staff to approve the construction access
point which is to be located in such a way as to
minimize disturbance of existing trees.
2. The point of construction access to be closed and
Z-4852 - Continued
planted with mature trees as a condition of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the last phase of
construction.
3. Deletion of the sidewalks along Taylor Street.
4. Keeping the fence/wall with the developer to locate the
fence to minimize disturbance of trees, subject to
staff approval.
At this point, Commissioner Nicholson stated for the record
that she would abstain. A vote was then taken on the
motion. The motion failed due to a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes,
2 absent, 1 abstention (Jerilyn Nicholson).
A second motion was then made to suspend the rules and
consider a conditional approval by the Commission of the
plan with detached units. This motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes, 1 no, 2 absent, 1 abstention.
A third motion was then made by Commissioner Jones. The
motion was that the project be approved with the condition
that the units be detached with a minimum of ten -foot
between units. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is
to have a 90 -day period in which to submit a revised plan to
Planning staff and the Planning staff is to send the matter
to the City Board if found in conformance with the Planning
Commission's conditions. For the record, it was noted that
the conditions agreed to in the first motion are attached to
this motion. A vote was then taken on the motion which
passed by a_vote of 6 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent, 1 abstention
(Jerilyn Nicholson).
The Commission action carries a recommendation associated
with the parks issue as indicated in the resoiutzon_attached
to this acka e. The resolution was a roved at the meeting
on June 14, 1987.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: St. John's Place
Long -Form PRD (Z-4852)
LOCATION: East of Taylor, north of
Hawthorne at Polk (property
on west side of St. John's
Seminary site)
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Catholic Diocese of LR White-Daters and Associates
c/o Dickson Flake
Barnes, Quinn, Flake, & ARCHITECT:
Anderson
2100 First Commercial Bldg. Brooks -Jackson
P.O. Box 3546 2228 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 372-6161 Phone: 664-8700
AREA: 8.5736 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: 11R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Attached Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an established single family
area. It is the western portion of the St. John's
Catholic Center site.
B. Proposal
(1) To construct a 26 lot single family residential
development with a private -street system and an
average of 14,364 squard feet per residence, which
is less density than surrounding neighborhoods
to the west and south of the subject property.
(2) Residence size will be 2,700' heated and cooled
and 3,400 square feet growth, which is larger than
the residences to the west and south of the
proposed development.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(3) Residences will be of compatible architecture with
the neighborhood. Design will be traditional
one-story with high-pitched roofs and dormers,
allowing individuals to finish attic space for
additional living space. The exterior will be
brick with minimum wood trim.
(4) Site coverage is 2.05 acres on an 8.57 acre tract.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Submit sketch grading plan, stormwater detention
calculations, and square footage of landscape
areas.
(2) North Taylor is a boundary street - dedicate
right-of-way and provide street improvements.
(3) Entry can't be developed as design in a public
right-of-way.
C. Issues/Technical/Legal/Design
(1) Dedicate access easement.
(2) Preliminary plat required if houses are to be on
separate lots. If not, agreement relative to
maintenance of common areas and drives should be
submitted.
(3) Redesign to break up building masses, eliminate
amount of concrete on northern portion of site.
Some units are double -served by streets.
(4) Site plan poorly dimensioned. Revised to show
building dimensions, floor plans, on-site fire
protection.
(5) Section through the site is backward.
(6) Submit more data required by PUD Ordinance on open
space, construction timetable.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(7) Specify on plat
public services
public access.
(8) Parking plan.
D. Staff Recommendation
and Bill of Assurance that all
and utilities have rights of
Deferral, until comments addressed. Approval of a
private street system does not include limiting access
by public agencies and utilities, including building
inspectors, Firefighters, and Water Works personnel,
etc.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted,
which clarified some aspects of the plan relative to
walkways and dimensions. He responded to staff's comments:
1, 2, 5, and 7 - Agreed to do as requested.
C-3 - Explained that he had broken building masses in
response to earlier staff concerns and that the lots
weren't double -served because the rear drives were only
alleys and the houses would be front on the drives to
the west.
4 - Submitted revised plans.
6 - Explained that most open space was privately owned.
In response to Engineering's concerns, the applicant said
that number D-3 was a mute point $ince the developer and
four property owners would close the street. He agreed to
do numbers B-1 and B-2. Approval, subject to Staff's
Recommendation:
(1) No gate at entrance on Polk Street, with entrance to be
developed as a driveway with no curb return (see
Engineering for details).
(2) Move two dwelling units at southwest corner forward
about 10 feet while retaining 15 -foot setback from
street.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(3) File petition to close Polk Street.
(4) Make contract with Water Works for maintenance of fire
hydrant.
(5) Close construction access at the end of the third
phase; no permanent vehicular access to Taylor Street
should be permitted.
(6) Amend the Parks plan.
(7) Complete fence and landscaping along Taylor Street in
the first year.
(8) Submit a phasing plan and schedule of development.
(9) Staff finds that the overall density of development is
consistent with single family density. The proposed
development is attractive and well-designed with
numerous breaks in the massing of buildings. Except
for some disturbance during construction, the
development should not adversely affect the
neighborhood. Waiver of sidewalks is acceptable due to
the private street system and short loop street, which
relate to the overall development concept as defined in
the PUD submission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant, Mr. Dickson Flake, was present. There were
50 or 60 persons present objecting to the application. The
Commission Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the application,
what was presented to the Commission for its review, and
asked that the opposition group members try to avoid
repetition in order to expedite the hearing of the matter.
Richard Wood, of the Planning 'staff, responded to the
Commission's request for history of the Parks Plan and its
relationship to this site. Gary Greeson, the Planning
Director, explained two parts of the staff recommendation,
elaborated on the Parks Plan history, and outlined the
advantages and disadvantages of cluster development.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Dickson Flaker the applicant, was asked to present his
application. He offered a slide presentation depicting the
neighborhood and graphics of the project. He offered
commentary on the reasons for choosing this type of single
family housing over conventional platting of 34 lots.
identified the average floor areas in surrounding residences
and compared them to the unit sizes proposed in his plan.
Commissioner Jones asked for clarification as to why this
type was chosen. Mr. Flake responded by saying that the
approach permitted flexibility of design, marketing to
smaller families with older or no children, and shared
maintenance provisions. He further responded to a question
as to whether the church intended further such developments
to the east of the former seminary. He responded that they
proposed no additional developments, but that he could not
commit to what the church might decide in the future.
A question was posed by the Planning Director as to what
happens if the project fails after the first phase is
completed. Mr. Flake responded by saying that it would be
the same as any other type of development. He followed that
comment by stating that all of the infrastructure would be
installed at the beginning, including utilities, streets,
the Taylor Street wall and such.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the City's
encouragement of infill development and the effect of
construction activity on established neighborhoods. A
question followed these comments as to the need for access
on Taylor Street during the entire development period.
Mr. Flake stated that access must be to Taylor Street which
is the street that serves best as a collector and access.
He noted that possibly more impact would be experienced on
Polk Street. When asked about the setback from Taylor
Street of his buildings, Mr. Flake offered some dimensions
and followed by a comment that the houses on Taylor will be
about ten feet below the street elevation.
The following persons then offered comments in support of
the petition: Mr. Mays, Mr. Hinkle or his mother,
Mr. W.L. Grace, a prospective purchaser of a unit,
Ms. Carroll Griffee, Norman Holcolm, a builder and resident
of the area.
July -28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
The Chairman then asked for opposing views to be presented.
He stated that 43 plus cards of speakers had been presented
(actual final count 55). The first spokesperson was
Mr. Mike Huckaby. He requested deferral and said they
wanted the site to be a park. He addressed a broad spectrum
of mattters, including effects that the neighborhood would
experience if these homes were constructed. His points
included: (1) the use is not conventional single family of
the type in this area, but practically speaking is a
condominimum which would change the flavor of the area; (2)
this area is not all Country Club members, but contains a
mix of housing and income levels; ( 3 ) the site would lose
big trees when creating all the roof tops and drives, (4) no
assurance that the church will not sell or develop more of
its land to the east; (5) a 1990 plan showed the site for
public, quasi -public land; (6) existing traffic may be
undercounted and there is more in the fall; (7) the land
could be given to the City by the church or purchased
through private sector contributions or the City bond money;
(8) bicyclists, mothers, and babies would be affected by the
additional traffic; (9) the market for the project is
unpredictable; (10) the units will be difficult to sell;
(11) construction traffic on neighborhood streets would be a
problem; and (12) the church should use its own entrance for
construction traffic. He closed his comments by stating
that he as well as the neighborhood felt like the park issue
should be settled first. During the course of Mr. Huckaby's
presentation, he offered a petition of some 500 signatures.
Mr. Rector, the Chairman, then offered for the benefit of
all involved, that the issue of the park has been acted upon
by the Planning Commission in the past. What is being
considered here is the Planned Unit Development application.
The next speaker, Pat Miller, a North Taylor resident,
offered comments on speculation, the need for a wall during
construction, construction access through Polk Street or the
church property, and loss of green space. The next speaker,
Mr. Bob Lowery, offered his objections and those of his
parents and his wife. He suggested that the diocese offer
the land and others offer money. He discussed the
appropriateness of the plan (traffic and density), the
neighborhood loss of green space, and the need to deal with
the park issue. The next speaker, Mr. Richard Groh, a
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
resident of Hawthorne Street, offered a broad range of
objection but primarily to the use of the land for any
development other than single family lots or a park.
At this point Commissioner Jones offered a statement to the
effect that it was inappropriate for the Commission to
proceed and that the Board of Directors should dispose of
the park site questions first. Commissioner Jones then made
a motion to defer the application until the Board of
Directors decided the park issue. The motion was seconded
by William Ketcher.
A general discussion followed wherein the appropriateness of
the separation of the two issues was dominant. Several
Commissioners felt that the politics of acquisition would
have to be dealt with first. Commission members briefly
discussed their responsibility for acting on the matter as
opposed to deferring the subject. The subject of the 60 day
notice relative to the Master Park Plan arose. The primary
question being when the 60 day period began during which the
City must give notice to purchase the site or lose the
opportunity. The City Attorney's representative,
Mr. Stephen Giles, instructed the Commission that the time
began when the development request was presented at the
Commission meeting. It begins with the presentation in the
form of a plan or a plat to the Commission, which triggers
the ordinance requirement. The Board of Directors will have
to act within the 60 days if purchase is intended. One year
is provided for actual payment for the land.
The opposition was asked whether it opposed a deferral, and
several persons stated they were not. However, Mr. Flake
stated the Board of Directors had previously refused to act
on the park acquisition separately and had deferred action
pending receipt of the PUD application.
The City Attorney, Mr. Giles, stated that there was no
reason the Commission could not o� should not vote on the
matter. The motion as offered was restated. The vote on
the motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes, and 1 absent.
(Being a procedural vote, the matter remained active on the
agenda.)
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
At this point, the Chair offered to hear additional
opposition comment. Mr. Bill Woodard, a resident, requested
additional time to address the park issue. Thelma Hobby
added to that comment expressing the desire that it be a
park. Lindsey Huckaby made comments to the effect that she
was responsible for the opposition turnout but wants more
time to deal with the park issue. Therisa Brown added
comments from the perspective of catholic church members and
lay persons and suggested that the church reconsider its
action due to the neighborhood opposition.
The Commission then entered again into general discussion of
deferral of the proposal. The Chairman and others entered
into a discussion with Mr. Huckaby on procedural matters.
Commissioner Massie then offered that perhaps a two week
deferral could allow time for the opposition to organize,
obtain professional expertise, get direction from the Board
of Directors, and ask the church to take a harder look at
the park issue. Mr. Massie then offered a motion in these
terms and indicated the July 14 Planning meeting as being
appropriate meeting date to take up the matter again.
Attorney David Meens, a representative of the Catholic
Church, added to the record that the church was thoroughly
involved with the views of the lay membership. He noted
that lay boards within the church organization had held many
meetings on this proposal and were committed to the project.
A vote on the deferral motion passed by 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent, and 2 abstentions (Jones, Ketcher).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-14-87)
The chairman, Mr. Rector, identified the issue and asked for
cooperation when speaking. He instructed everyone to speak
directly into the microphone and identify themselves
inasmuch as a court reporter was present and recording the
meeting. Mr. Rector then reported to those in attendance
that this is not the usual meeting for this type of issue
but normally deals with planning matters such as parks plans
and district plans.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The first order of business on this case was a request by
Commissioner Nicholson to address the issue of abstaining.
She stated that -she had contacted the City Attorney and
would be abstaining from participation. She was advised
that she did not have to identify her reasons for doing so.
Mr. Rector then advised that the abstention affected the
vote inasmuch as six positive votes are required to pass or
deny an action before the Commission. He stated for the
record that there was one open position and one absent,
leaving only eight to participate with one additional
potential abstention. At this point Commissioner Collins
stated that she had a conflict of interest and would not
participate thereby leaving only seven voting eligible.
Mr. Huckaby, a neighborhood representative, offered comments
on the abstentions and the composition of the Commission.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the deferral process
and the effect of automatic deferrals on the voting.
Mr. Huckaby offered a request to quash the proceeding as
being inappropriate due to the notice deficiency. His
statement was that the 200 foot notice even though in
accordance with the law and procedure is not adequate when
many persons further away are affected. The Chairman and
Mr. Huckaby agreed that the notice had been accomplished as
required by law and procedure. The City Attorney stated
that the notice had been accomplished as required per state
law. Mr. Huckaby then requested a deferral due to the
resignation of Dorothy Arnett and that effect upon the
Commission. A general discussion followed with several
Commissioners and Mr. Huckaby offering comments on the
effect of the Planning Commission composition. Commissioner
Jones offered a statement on Mr. Huckaby's comments and the
Commission's integrity. The City Attorney offered that the
Commission could conduct business as there were sufficient
numbers present to conduct business.
A general discussion followed during which the City Attorney
and others discussed the issue of participation by various
Commissioners. The Chairman then asked Mr. Flake to make
his presentation. Mr. Flake's comments were preceded by
Commissioner Schlereth requesting that the letter from the
City Manager be read into the record. Mr. Greeson read the
material which addressed the Board of Directors' instruction
as to the proposed park site.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Flake then made his presentation in summary form from
his June presentation. The Chairman then recognized
supporters of the application. These were Mr. Jack
Williams, Mr. Ray Kemp. 'Both supporters talked about the
need for this type of unit in the area, and the current
unsightly state of the property. (There were three cards
submitted indicating a request to address the Commission in
support of the application.)
The Chairman then recognized the opposition. Mr. Huckaby
was recognized first. He offered general comments on the
issue and offered a second package of approximately 1,000
signatures. These signatures are on petitions of objection.
He added that thousands were to follow. (There were 20+
persons in attendance in opposition. There were 27 cards
filed with requests to speak. Mr. Huckaby then read several
paragraphs of the Zoning Ordinance from the Planned Unit
Development Section concerning harmony, compatibility,
neighborhood involvement, and response. He stated that
there had not been an adequate test of traffic generation
during construction time of approximately four years or so.
He stated that cluster housing is an inappropriate housing
type in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Massie requested that the staff describe the
PUD process and state whether it is the only approach to
development projects such as this. Mr. Greeson, the
Planning Director, offered that the PUD process was the only
approach to developing this type of development.
Chairman Rector then offered comments on district
application and density.
Mr. Huckaby then made comments on the saleability of the
project and traffic test needs, the fact that the church has
not committed to no other sales in the future. He
challenged Mr. Flake's assertion that units in the project
were of average floor area in the are -a. He challenged the
architectural compatibility of the project. He stated that
it is a condo type project no matter what it is called. He
offered that the project would depreciate neighborhood land
values and increase traffic.
A lengthy discussion of the issues followed. This
discussion centered on traffic, marketability, commitment of
the church on other lands. At this point, it was discussed
that the numbers of petitions offered should not be used to
make land use decisions.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The next issue discussed was the burden of proof in this
matter. It was offered by the objectors that the burden of
proving the appropriateness of this project fell to the
developer and not with the objectors. Several Commissioners
offered comments on the difficulty of the development
process for PUDs and the Commission's reliance on the
Planning staff to develop the issues.
Mr. Lowery offered that there were two basic issues involved
in this case. The first of which being that between uses as
single family and uses as Planned Unit Development with
exception to standards. The second being the purposes
stated in Article 9 in the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Rector then described the PUD process, the
Commission's involvement and the church's options for
development.
(A brief recess was called.)
The meeting was called to order. The hearing reconvened on
this matter. A brief discussion occurred at this point
relative to the usage of a court reporter for this public
hearing. The City Attorney stated he would pay part of the
reporter cost.
At the Chairman's request, the staff outlined the procedures
involved in the review of a Planned Unit Development
proposal from the occasion of first contact with the staff
through the public hearing process.
Henk Koornstra, the Traffic Engineer, then presented
comments on the traffic counts. He discussed Taylor Street
as being a minor collector. He stated that traffic numbers
were not an issue and answered questions from both the
Commission and the audience.
Another lengthy discussion followed iDvolving statements
about benefit to be received by the area from this project.
Also what is considered when reviewing a case such as the
one filed. The points outlined as important were density,
access to the site, traffic generation.
The discussion then shifted to comments as to traffic access
onto Taylor Street vs. Polk Street.
Commissioner Jones discussed whether there was a way to
assure in any neighborhood of this city that traditional
development can or will remain without change and without
encroachment by other land types.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The discussion then moved to whether the Planned Unit
Development process allowed a better development versus
maximizing development potential on a given site. Comments
were made about the subjectivity of the Planned Unit
Development review and the staff added that actions on
Planned Unit Developments should be reasonable and
defensible based on the surrounding area.
Several objectors stated at this point that they wanted
nothing on the site especially sameness.
The discussion then centered on the issue of housing type
being attached versus open side yards. The objectors
thought there was something special about this area of the
City and what should be kept there is side yards and
setbacks in a conventional format.
Mr. Groh, a resident of the area, offered his thoughts about
keeping the park site, the City bond issues, these being
condos, and whether action would go to the City Board with
support for a park site.
Mr. Flake was requested to describe his building design. He
offered that he did not have to file elevations, floor
plans, and detail drawings but did to help the review. He
continued by saying many of the units in his projects are 18
feet apart, providing courtyards and spaces between. The
garages and parking are screened from view by the attachment
of the buildings. He felt this would save trees by the
clustering and allow the design to fit the terrain.
The discussion then moved to the Taylor Street improvements
and the inevitably of getting onto a public street at some
point with the traffic generated by this development, both
the residents and the construction equipment during the
estimated four years.
The construction type was discussed on the private street
and whether it would hold truck traffic. Mr. Flake stated
it would be constructed of brick and designed in
curvilinear fashion to avoid trees and obstructions.
Further comments pointed out that it would be built to City
standard and withstand a fire truck and would possibly
support construction vehicles.
Discussion followed concerning access to Taylor Street, its
length, and the trees and natural foliage to be lost.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Brief comments were then presented concerning whether the
strong emotions on this subject on both sides were of value
and effect in this proposal.
Several objectors again raised the park question. Some
objectors offering that perhaps they didn't understand all
of the plan as presented. The Chairman, Mr. Rector, again
addressed the subject of the park and the Commission's
position.
A discussion of a meeting of the two sides for resolution of
the issues outlined in the hearings resulted in the
objectors stating they were denied opportunity to resolve
the issues at the last occasion. The discussion moved on to
whether a person could be found to represent the opposition
side. During the course of discussion, organization of the
opposition in the form of an agent could not be gained.
The discussion moved to the subject of deferrals and whether
the applicant can call for a vote. It was determined that
Mr. Flake had that right to make a request for action.
However, a comment followed that the Commission could defer
the matter again if it so desired.
The discussion then moved to the subject of a totally
acceptable development. Comments were made relative to the
various types of development proposals that could be made in
this area, including large lot single family, conventional
lot, condominiums, or attached housing, etc. It was pointed
out by a Commissioner that the Board of Directors was the
final determiner, and in the final analysis will decide this
case on the basis of nontraditional development in a
traditional neighborhood setting.
The discussion moved to rules for deferral and how best to
deal with the bylaw application. The City Attorney,
Mr. Stodola, offered guidance on the rules and instructed
the commission as to how they may ,proceed .
The discussion then extended into areas of amending the
bylaws to accommodate the voting procedure. The applicant
was asked about his position on deferral. He repsonded by
saying that he did not want to polarize the opposition.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Comments were offered by an opponent as to the location of a
shrine in the ravine either on or adjacent to this property.
It was apparent that no one knew the specific location.
The Chair then asked that the issue be brought to a vote. A
brief discussion of whether the resolution on the park
should be dealt with prior to the vote on the PUD. The City
Attorney's comment was that it should be a secondary vote.
A motion was then made to suspend the rules of procedure to
allow the resolution to be entered into the record. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open
position, 2 abstaining (Collins and Nicholson).
Mr. Rector then read the resolution into the record
(attached Exhibit A).
A motion was then made for adoption of the resolution. A
brief discussion followed. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position, 2 abstentions
(Collins and Nichsolson).
Commissioner Jones then made a motion to defer the
application for a period of two weeks to July 28, which
would permit a meeting with a good faith attempt on the part
of those involved to come to an agreement on this project.
Additional comment by other Commissioners introduced an
amendment to the motion which states an understanding that
the debate on this subject will be limited to 30 minutes on
the July 28 agenda. A vote was then taken. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 open position, 1
absent, 2 abstentions (Collins and Nicholson).
A discussion followed wherein Mr. Lowery and Mr. Huckaby
were encouraged to take the lead and meet with Mr. Flake and
Jerilyn Nicholson, a Commissioner, to moderate the session.
A report on the results of this meeting to be presented to
the Commission on July 28.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-28-87)
The Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the issue of the several
meetings held since the last Planning Commission review of
this matter on July 14. He requested a report from
Commissioner Nicholson who attended those meetings
July _28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
as a representative of the Commission and acted as a
facilitator. Commissioner Nicholson reported that the
participants held several meetings over the past week on a
Thursday and a Sunday. There were four area representatives
present, two persons for the applicant, and Mr. Tom Dalton,
the City Manager. She offered comments on the conversation
between Mr. Flake and others and the several discussions
relative to Plan A which is the application at hand before
the Commission, the possibility of a Plan B, separated
units, and Plan C which would be single family conventional
lots. She expressed the thought that an attempt was made to
get input from all the neighborhood representatives as to
the several plans. As to the Sunday afternoon meeting, she
reported that the concerns offered by the neighborhood were:
(1) a lack of diversity of unit type, (2) the phasing of the
development, (3) the number of units, there being too many,
and (4) the precedent set for future developments of this
nature on the Diocese properties. She reported that the
meetings held were pleasant meetings and that to a certain
extent the neighborhood feelings about the church's future
development were set aside by a church letter to neighbors
indicating there were no plans to develop the other
properties; however, this did not appear to be a consensus
of the neighborhood. She reported that a discussion of the
church did not satisfy all of the concerns of the residents.
Commissioner Massie then asked a question relative to the
neighborhood preference as to the three plans that were
indicated. Commissioner Nicholson stated there were diverse
opinions among the participants especially with the
participants feeling the burden for supporting the
neighborhood in this matter. She felt that the four persons
present were unconfortable with attempting to represent
which of the several options would be appropriate.
Commissioner Jones then offered a commendation to
Commissioner Nicholson for her participation and chairing of
these meetings.
The Chairman then asked that Mr.'Flake's issue be
represented. Mr. Sam Andersons was present representing
Mr. Flake and the church. Mr. Anderson offered comments as
follows: He stated that the application was a reasonable
use for the land. It is single family occupancy and is less
than single family density when computing the overall. site.
He added that the project contains larger units than the
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
area in general and they are more expensive. He reported
that 23 percent of the land coverage will be buildings and
that 77 percent of the site will be trees and landscaped
area. He felt that's what the neighbors wanted. He stated
that the project is being attacked on the design because the
units touch at the rear and other points. He felt that
touching is a design feature to allow private spaces such as
courtyards and garages and leave the trees, provide more
landscaping, and allow the project to fit the terrain. He
further commented that persons have been in attendance at
the Commission meetings and have stated their feelings about
the possibility of buying some of these units. He felt that
the neighborhood wanted nothing on this site. Inasmuch as a
year had been spent in planning, he felt that the church had
quite an investment in this project at this time. He
further reported that he appreciated the Planning staff's
support and recommendation. He said that the applicants
have tried to appease the opponents except to the point of
giving total control. He reported that if conditional
approval by detachment of the units in the development are a
requirement of the Commission he will accept that condition.
The owner has gone on record as stating they want the
development access off Polk Street and not Taylor Street.
He said that he needed staff help to work out a redesign
dealing with separation of structures and procedures for
accommodating that.
Mr. Brooks Jackson, the architect for the project, then
added comments at the request of the Commission. He stated
that changes to separate the structures would take several
months to accomplish. He said that the changes would vary
considerably in order to provide the suggested side yards.
Mr. Greeson then added comments concerning the procedure for
taking the matter to the Board,of Directors when the
Commission approves in a modified form.
Mr. Anderson, when asked about whether a plat with lots was
included he stated that there has always been a plat with
individual lotting for each unit. Th'e project will also
have a property owners association,to assure maintenance of
the common spaces and open yard spaces.
The Chairman then asked for opponents to present their
comments. The first spokesperson was Mr. John Calhoun, an
attorney and resident of North Grandview. Mr. Calhoun
July '28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued -----------.--
state d
ontinued—____.
stated he was one of the four persons present at the
meetings with Commissioner Nicholson. He stated he did not
know what was exactly before the Commission at this time.
Mr. Rector stated for the record that Plan A was before the
Commission as filed and no other items were to be considered
at this time. Mr. Calhoun continued by commenting on the
Planning Commission's former hearings and the area residents
objections. He addressed Mr. Anderson's comment on the
unreasonableness of the neighborhood position and stated he
disagreed with Mr. Anderson's comment. He felt the
residents would prefer to leave the site undisturbed but
were not obstructionists.
The neighbors are supportive of a conventional single family
project. He stated that when they met they had fundamental
differences with the developer such as the future
development of the additional church property. The
neighbors want a church commitment, but have been told that
it will not be forthcoming. Phasing is a particular concern
for the people in this area, but it has been stated by the
applicant that that is not flexible. He said they were told
several points were non-negotiable and that all the
developer would discuss was Plan A. There was no discussion
of detached units, and he stated the developer said Plan C
was not an option. This would have been conventional single
family lots. He talked about the similarity of the units
and the developer being the determiner of footprint and
marketability and the association between the two. He said
the owner refused an architectural review committee as an
offering by the neighborhood. He felt the design is solely
left to the developer and that the developer made no
meaningful offer to redesign the units. At this point,
Mr. Calhoun read from the Purpose and Intent Section of the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance on compatiblity and
finished his comments by asking fo r a conventional project.
Commissioner Massie then asked about the comments on
non-negotiable items. Commissioner lyicholson stated that
some of the things the residents wanted as assurances on
such as future development of the church property, the
developer could not commit to and stated that there are no
guarantees that certain things will happen because the
market controls that circumstance.
The next spokesperson for the neighborhood, Mr. Williams,
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
responded to Mr. Anderson's comments. He discussed the
former meetings and his appreciation of the Planninq
Commission's actions and their time and effort. He
continued his comments by addressinq the issue of this
proposal versus a park site on the property versus a project
for single family. He said a Planned Unit Development is an
exception to development standards within the ordinance. He
read from Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with
enhancement and minimal disruption of the neighborhood and
other criteria. He said neighbors had -pointed out that the
project is not benefiting the area. This had been stated on
several occasions. The people are not attempting to tell
the church that it cannot develop its land. He said the
ordinance does not deal with project profit maximization or
market targeting. He said the Planning Commission should
take the neighborhood's views into consideration in any
decision. He felt the applicant has not made a case for
a Planned Unit Development.
Chairman Rector then commented on the ordinance content as
to diversity of development. Commissioner Jones asked for
staff recommendation. Planning Director Gary Greeson then
presented from the agenda the referenced paragraph dealing
with the staff position. He read the recommendation into
the record and expanded upon the written comment. He
reported that the staff would accept the minimum ten -foot
building separation if that were offered as a modification
of the current plan. He further stated that the staff is
standing by its recommendation.
Chairman Rector then added comments on the procedure for
preliminary and final Planned Unit Development review.
Mr. Greeson added additional comments on this subject.
Commissioner Massie added concerns about the number of units
if redesign is accomplished in the project. He had concerns
about the effect of grades, setback, and such on separating
of the buildings. Mr. Greeson reported -that spacing of the
buildings would fall within the five percent test within the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and felt that room can be
found to shift the buildings. He did not consider the
design changes to be a problem.
Commissioner Jones stated that in essence that what we could
actually do is vote on a concept as opposed to a specific
plan which would require the applicant to come back with a
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
plan to coincide with what was approved or disapproved. He
felt technical problems will occur if the approval is not
specific and then allowing the staff to tidy up things in
the future.
Chairman Rector then responded to comments by reading the
90 -day provision in the ordinance for dealing with
conditional approved PUD's and the staff review attached
with that process. Mr. Greeson then explained the final
procedure as he understood it dealing with minor changes.
Commissioner Jones then stated that he wanted to hear any
additional comments of objectors if they had requested
permission to do so. Mr. Greeson commented on the vote
being on the plan and not on a concept. Commissioner Jones
discussed his intent in asking last time for the meetings
between parties to resolve the detachment issue. He felt he
could not come up with any problems for attached over
detached. He said the Commission cannot turn an
architectural control over to the neighborhood committee.
He thinks this development will not do harm but that
architectural control would cause significant problems. The
development is reasonable he felt and he can support it if
detached with different brick, alteration of the exteriors,
and other amenities. He stated he was ready to make a
motion on the subject.
Commissioner Schlereth then added his thoughts on the
position of the Commission. He stated that he felt the
Planned Unit Development is not a way to get around the
ordinance but to improve the area. He felt the project had
received a great effort from the developer in its
development. He supports the attached units identified as
Plan A; however, he felt both Plans A and B are better than
a Plain Jane single family plat.
Chairman Rector then asked about Taylor Street improvements
as to whether it is a better situation to leave it alone or
to put in improvements. Commissioner Jones stated he felt
it was a staff technical issue, to be developed at that
level. Mr. Anderson stated that if the Commission so desired
he would leave the street improvements out of the project.
Mr. Greeson said that widening would be better for traffic
flow in the area and drainage, but appearance is the issue.
He said improvements are better, including the sidewalk
because of children's movement through the area and others
who might use this improvement.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continue
Commissioner Schlereth stated he felt that the intent in
this project was to restrict access to Taylor Street. He
felt the area would be best served with a waiver of the
street improvements. The architect, Mr. Brooks Jackson, in
response to a question reported that a tree survey has not
been accomplished in this area; therefore, he is not aware
of what trees would be lost by placement of a sidewalk or
other improvements.
Mr. Greeson then offered comments related to the view of
the rear of units from Taylor Street if no wall or fence is
required.
Commissioner Massie requested of Mr. Jackson a response
concerning the Phase I or five units along the south line.
He was curious as to how you would separate these units with
a minimum of ten feet and not lose density or exterior
setbacks along the property lines. Mr. Jackson reported
that to spread the units will remove more trees than the
cluster concept. Further he felt that if the units were in
a one -unit per level high-rise you could keep most all of
the trees on the property. He continued this thought by
stating that if attached you will not lose as many trees.
He felt that units along the south property line could be
redesigned to accommodate the dimension by narrowing of the
units or making them taller or both.
Mr. Greeson then offered comments on the possible design
changes. Commissioner Massie reported that he remained
unconvinced that attached is not better. He felt that
conventional development will not assure saving of the trees
on this property. He stated that there is a dangerous
position relative to a vote on a concept with a return in
several months with the Planning Commission not receiving
the changes for their review. Mr. Greeson followed that
comment by stating he prefers a vote without separation of
the units. -
Commissioner Jones and others then discussed the concerns of
neighbors versus the vote procedure versus the staff
preference as to the form for approval. Commissioner
Ketcher said he sensed that members were supportive of the
project. He talked about what he felt were the residents
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
objections. He urged other Commissioners to join him in a
vote against the proposal as submitted. Mr. Greeson then
clarified his statements on the vote procedure.
Chairman Rector again offered comments on the rules of
procedure as to suspending the rules of bylaws in order to
send this matter on to the Board rather than an additional
deferral.
Commissioner Sipes commented on the Taylor Street
improvements and the tree and sidewalk loss. Commissioner
Perkins added his comments. He felt that the project is a
self-contained project and that separation of the units
would do more damage than good.
Chairman Rector stated that he felt that the project is a
good development. He compared it to what can be done and
developed as single family. He stated that the Planning
Commission has not seen Plans B and C but only the plan that
is before them. He further felt that all neighborhoods need
new blood and that things have happened in the Hillcrest
neighborhood that have helped the area. He felt this
project will enhance the neighborhood. He closed this
comment by stating he felt the sidewalk should be taken off
Taylor Street unless there is a strong feeling they need to
remain.
Commissioner Massie added comments concerning access off
Taylor Street during the period of construction. His
questions were what plans had been made to relandscape the
disrupted area and restore as a natural barrier plus what
planting and materials. Commissioner Massie said he felt
that the neighborhood did not want to see this project.
The architect, Mr. Jackson, responded to questions as to
what is planned along Taylor Street. He added the
following: The plan at this time is a brick and iron wall
and fence arrangement with landscaping the full length of
the project. This landscaping will dontinue across the
access point after construction is,completed with
restoration landscaping as best can be accomplished. He
stated he cannot indicate the location of the trees at this
time due to the absence of a tree survey. He offered that
improvements will be done with the least destruction and the
greatest concern for the environment. Commissioner Massie
then added that he wants a commitment from the developer to
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
restore lost trees by new plantings. He felt these should
be of a calipher three or four inches or larger. He felt
the elimination of the sidewalk should be tied to avoidance
of loss of trees. He further felt that the street should be
widened with curb and gutter. He continued by saying that
he felt the staff should have determination authority as to
the location of the construction access point.
Mr. Anderson then addressed the loss of a fence and
sidewalk. He felt that the wall or fence was needed to
prevent neighborhood kids from goinq to the Seminary site
through this project. He agreed to work with the staff_ to
reduce the effects of the fence location. Commissioner
Jones then added a thought that access to the Seminary by
area kids may be desired and that they may want to take
direct access to play on the Seminary grounds. Mr. Anderson
stated that he was opposed to totally eliminating the fence.
Mr. Greeson and Commissioners discussed procedure on an
advanced vote on suspending the rules. Commissioner Massie
then offered a motion to suspend the bylaws concerning the
six -vote or deferral rule and that this case be forwarded to
the Board of Directors should it not receive the required
six votes to deny or approve, with a recording of the vote
on the motion. Commissioner Jones then added a comment in
which he opposed this motion as being inappropriate. He
said that the Commission should do as usual and let the
record stand. Chairman Rector reported that he felt
everybody wants to send this matter on to the City Board.
The Manager and Board of Directors have gone on record as
stating such.
A general discussion of procedures on the vote then
followed. Discussion involving Chairman Rector and
Commissioners Massie, Schlereth, and the City Attorney,
Mr. Giles. Commissioner Massie withdrew his motion.
Chairman Rector closed this discussion by clarifying the
issue as now before the Commission w4iclT-is an application
with the following conditions:
1. The Planning staff to approve the construction access
point which is to be located in such a way as to
minimize disturbance of existing trees.
2. The point of construction access to be closed and
July 28, 1987
Item No. A. - Continued _
planted with mature trees as a condition of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the last phase of
construction.
3. Deletion of the sidewalks along Taylor Street.
4. Keeping the fence/wall with the developer to locate the
fence to minimize disturbance of trees, subject to
staff approval.
At this point, Commissioner Nicholson stated for the record
that she would abstain. A vote was then taken on the
motion. The motion failed due to a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes,
2 absent, 1 abstention (Jerilyn Nicholson).
A second motion was then made to suspend the rules and
consider a conditional approval by the Commission of the
plan with detached units. This motion passed by a vote of 6
ayes, 1 no, 2 absent, 1 abstention.
A third motion was then made by Commissioner Jones. The
motion was that the project be approved with the condition
that the units be detached with a minimum of ten -foot
between units. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is
to have a 90 -day period in which to submit a revised plan to
Planning staff and the Planning staff is to send the matter
to the City Board if found in conformance with the Planning
Commission's conditions. For the record, it was noted that
the conditions agreed to in the first motion are attached to
this motion. A vote was then taken on the motion which
passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent, 1 abstention
(Jerilyn Nicholson).
The Commission action carries a recommendation associated
with the arks issue as indicated in the resolution attached
to thisacka e. The resolution was approved at the meeting
on June 14, 1987.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Comments were offered by an opponent as to the location of a
shrine in the ravine either on or adjacent to this property.
It was apparent that no one knew the specific location.
The Chair then asked that the issue be brought to a vote. A
brief discussion of whether the resolution on the park
should be dealt with prior to the vote on the PUD. The City
Attorney's comment was that it should be a secondary vote.
A motion was then made to suspend the rules of procedure to
allow the resolution to be entered into the record. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open
position, 2 abstaining (Collins and Nicholson).
Mr. Rector then read the resolution into the record
(attached Exhibit A).
A motion was then made for adoption of the resolution. A
brief discussion followed. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position, 2 abstentions
(Collins and Nichsolson).
Commissioner Jones then made a motion to defer the
application for a period of two weeks to July 28, which
would permit a meeting with a good faith attempt on the part
of those involved to come to an agreement on this project.
Additional comment by other Commissioners introduced an
amendment to the motion which states an understanding that
the debate on this subject will be limited to 30 minutes on
the July 28 agenda. A vote was then taken. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 open position, 1
absent, 2 abstentions (Collins and Nicholson).
A discussion followed wherein Mr. Lowery and Mr. Huckaby
were encouraged to take the lead and meet with Mr. Flake and
Jerilyn Nicholson, a Commissioner, to moderate the session.
A report on the results of this meeting to be presented to
the Commission on July 28.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-28-87)
The Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the issue of the several
meetings held since the last Planning Commission review of
this matter on July 14. He requested a report from
Commissioner Nicholson who attended those meetings
July 28, 1987
Item No. A --- Continued
representing the Commission and acting as a chairperson.
Commissioner Nicholson reported that the participants held
several meetings over the past week on a Thursday and a
Sunday. There were four area representatives present, two
persons from the application, and Mr. Tom Dalton, the City
Manager. She offered comments on the conversation between
Mr. Flake and others and the several discussions relative to
Plan 1 which is the application at hand before the
Commission, the possibility of a Plan 2 and Plan 3 which
would be single family conventional lots. She expressed the
thought that the attempt was made to get input from all the
neighborhood representatives as to the several forms. Ats to
the Sunday afternoon meeting, she reported that the concerns
offered by the neighborhood were: (1) a lack of diversity
of unit type, (2) the phasing of the development, (3) the
number of units, there being too many, and (4) the precedent
setting for future developments of this nature on these
properties. She reported that the meetings held were
pleasant meetings and that to a certain extent the
neighborhood feelings about the church's future development
were set aside by the church etter; however, this did not
appear to be a consensus ° -tet the neighborhood. fiie
-t,Qaz--ian of thn church d1
G: s. ommissioner Massie then
asked a question relative to the n ighborhood preference as
to the three plans that were indicated. Commissioner
Nicholson stated there were diverse opinions among the
participants especially with the participants feeling the
burden for supporting of the neighborhood in this matter.
She felt that the four persons present were unconfortable
with attempting to represent which of the severalA.
f-Vo""uld be
appropriate.
Commissioner Jones then offered a commendation to
Commissioner Nicholson for her participation and chairing of
these meetings. *The Chairman then asked that Mr. Flake's
issue be represented. Mr. Sam Anderson was present
representing Mr. Flake and the church. Mr. Anderson offered
comments as follows: He stated that the application was a
reasonable use for the land. it is single family occupancy
and is less than single family density when computing the
overall site. He added that the project contains larger
units than the area in general and they are more expensive.
He reporters that 23 percent of the land coverage will be
VJ1LV1N6S veqe4atieaa and that 777percent of the site will be TFtc-mss ANG l.ANasW6V
11R,Ji L. �l]Y-1, —a. He felt that's what the neighbors wanted. He
stated that the project is being attacked on the design
because the units touch at the rear and other points. He
felt that touching is a design feature to allow private
spaces such as courtyards and garages and leave the trees,
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
provide more landscaping, and allow the project to fit the
terrain. He further commented that persons have been in
attendance at the Commission meetings and have stated their
feelings abo i the possibility of buying some of these units.
He felt that the neighborhood wanted nothing on this site.
Inasmuch as a year had been spent in planning, he felt that
the church had quite an investment in this project at this
time. He further reported that he appreciated the Planning
staff's support and recommendation. He said that the
applicants have tried to appease the opponents except to the
point of giving total control. He reported that if
conditional approval 69 detachment of the units in the
development are a requirement of the Commission he will
accept that condition. The owner h sgone on record as
stating they want the development
,eo the Polk Street access
and not Taylor Street. He said that he needed staff help to
work out a redesign dealing with separation of structures
and procedures for accommodating that.
Mr. Brooks Jackson, the architect for the project, then
added comments at the request of the Commission. He stated
that changes to separate the structures would take several
months to accomplish. He said that the changes would vary
considerably in order to provide the suggested side yards.
Mr. Greeson then added comments concerning the procedure for
taking the matter to the Board of Directors when the
Commission approves in a modified form.
Mr. Anderson when asked about whether a plat with lots was
included�Astated that there has always been a plat with
individual lotting for each unit. The project will also
have a property owners association to assure maintenance of
the common spaces and open yard spaces.',�,The Chairman then
asked for opponents to present their comments. The first
spokesperson was Mr. John Calhoun, an attorney and resident
of North Grandview. Mr. Calhoun stated he was one of the
four persons present at the meetings with Commissioner
Nicholson. He stated he did not know what was exactly
before the Commission at this time. Mr. Rector stated for
the record that Plan A was before the Commission as filed
and no other items were considered at this time.
Mr. Calhoun continued by commenting on the Planning
Commission's former hearings and the area residents
objections. He addressed Mr. Anderson's comment on the
non-negotiable and unreasonableness of the neighborhood
position and stated he disagreed with Mr. Anderson's
comment. He felt the residents would prefer to leave the
site undisturbed but were not obstructionists. S%e
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The neighbors are supportive6a conventional single family
project. He stated that when they met they had fundamental
differences with the developer such as the future
development of the additional church property. The
neighbors want a church commitment, but have been told that
it will not be forthcoming. Phasing is a particular concern
for the people in this area, but it has been stated by the
applicant that that is not flexible. He said they were told
several points were non-negotiable and that all the
developer would discuss was plan A. There was no discussion
of detached units, and he stated the developer said Plan C
was not an option. This would have been conventional single
family. He talked about the similarity of the units and the
developer being the determiner of footprint and
marketability and the association between the two. He said
the owner refused an architectural review committee as an
offering by the neighborhood. He felt the design is solely
left to the developer and that the developer made no
meaningful offer to redesign the units. At this point,
Mr. Calhoun read from the Purpose and Intent Section of the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance on compatiblity and
finished his comr..ents by asking for a conventional project.
Commissioner Massie then asked about the comments on
non-negotiable items. Commissioner Nicholson stated that
some of the things the residents wanted as assurances on
such as future development of the church property, the
developer could not commit to and stated that there are no
guarantees that certain things will happen because the
market controls that circumstance.
5p-@ *5
The next4person for the neighborhood, Mr. Williams,
responded to Mr. Anderson's comments. He discussed the
former meetings and his appreciation of the Planning
f
Commission s actions Rtheir time and effort.
He continued his comments by addressing the issue of this
proposal versus a park site on the property versus a project
for single family. He said a Planned Unit Development is an
exception to development standards within the ordinances.
He read from Article 9 of the boning Ordinance dealing with
enhancement and minimal disruption of the neighborhood an3
other criteria. He said neighbors had pointed out that the
project is not benefiting the area. This had been stated on
several occasions. The people are not attempting to tell
the church that it cannot develop its land. He said the
ordinance does not deal with project profit maximization or
market targeting. He said the Planning Commission should
take the neighborhood's views into consideration in any
decision. He felt the applicant has not made a case for
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
a Planned Unit Development Chairman Rector then commented
on the ordinance content as to diversity of development.
Commissioner Jones asked for staff recommendation. Planning
Director Gary Greeson then presented from the agenda the
referenced paragraph dealing with the staff position. He
read the recommendation into the record and expanded upon
the written comment. He reported that the staff would
accept the minimum ten -foot building separation if that were
offered as a modification of the current plan. He further
stated that the staff is standing by its recommendation.
Chairman Rector then added comments on the procedure for
preliminary and final Planned Unit Development review.
Mr. Greeson added additional comments on this subject.
Commissioner Massie added concerns about the number of units
if t4e redesign is accomplished dLn the project. He had
concerns about the effect of grades, setback, and such on
separating of the buildings. Mr. Greeson reported that
spacing of the buildings would not fall within the five
percent test within the Planned Unit Development Ordinance
and felt that room can be found to shift the buildings. He
did not consider the design changes to be a problem.
Commissioner Jones stated that in essence that what we could
actually do is vote on a concept as opposed to a specific
plan which would require the applicant to come back with a
plan to coincide with what was approved or disapproved. He
felt technical problems will occur if the approval is not
specific and then allowing the staff to tidy things in the
future.
Chairman Rector then responded to comments by reading the
90 -day provision in the ordinance for dealing with
conditional approved PUD's and the staff review attached
with that process. Mr. Greeson then explained the final
-2rocedure as he understood it dealing with minor changes.
Commissioner Jones then stated that he wanted to hear any
additional comments of objectors if they requested t%ad
permission to do so. Mr. Greeson commente on t e vote
being on the plan and not on a concept. Commissioner Jones
discussed his intent in asking for the meetings.._- b� last
time between parties to resolve the detachment issue. He
felt he could not come up with any problems for attached
over detached. He said the Commission cannot turn an
architectural control over to the neighborhood committee.
He thinks this development will not do harm but that
architectural control would cause significant problems. The
development is reasonable he felt and he can support it if
detached with different brick, alter the exteriors and other
amenities. He stated he was ready to make a motion on the
subject.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Commissioner Schlereth Schlereth then added his thoughts on the
position of the Commission. He state that he felt the
Planned Unit Development is not:a way to get around but to
improve the area. He felt the t had received a
great effort from the developer in its development. He
supports the attached units identified as Plan A; however,
he felt both Plans A and B are better than a Plain Jane
single family plat.
Chairman Rector then asked about Taylor Street improvements
as to whether it is a better situation to leave alone or to
improve. Commissioner Jones stated he felt it was a staff
technical issue to be developed at that level. Mr. Anderson
stated that if the Commission so desired he would leave the
street improvements out of the project. Mr. Greeson said
that widening would be better for traffic flow in the area
and drainage, but appearance is the issue. He said
improvements are better including the sidewalk because of
the children's movement through the area and others who
might use this improvement.
ef
Commissior} Schlereth stated he felt that the intent in this
project was to restrict access to Taylor Street. He felt
the area would be best served with a waivez q the street
improvements. The architect, Mr. BrookstAVen asked
reported that a tree survey has not been accomplished in
this area; therefore, he is not aware of what tress would be
lost by placement of a sidewalk or improvements.
Mr. Greeson then offered comments related to the open
relationship of this project to Taylor Street behind the
units if no wall or fence is required.* Commissioner Massie
requested of Mr. Jackson a response concerning the Phase I
or five units along the south line. He was curious as to
how you would separate these units with a minimum of ten
feet and not lose density or exterior setbacks along the
property lines. Mr. Jackson reported that to spread the
units will remove more trees than the cluster concept.
Further he felt that if the units were in a one -unit level
high-rise that you could keep most all of the trees on the
property. He continued this thought by stating that if
attached you will not lose as many trees. He felt that/,nits
along the south property line`'Sdould be redesigned to
accommodate the dimension by narrowing of the units or
making them taller or both.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Greeson then offered comments on the possible design
changes. Commissioner Massie reported that he remained
unconvinced that attached is not better. He felt that
conventional development will not assure saving of the trees
on this property. He stated that there is a dangerous
position relative to a vote on a concept with a return in
several months with the Planning Commission not receiving
the changes for their review. Mr. Greeson followed that
comment by stating he prefers a vote without separation of
the units.
Commissioner Jones and others then discussed the concerns of
neighbors versus the vote procedure versus the staff
preference as to the form for approval. Commissioner
Ketcher said he sensed that members were supportive of the
project. He talked about what he felt were the residents
objections. He urged other Commissioners to join him in a
vote against the proposal. Mr. Greeson then clarified his
statements on the vote procedure.l;'Chairman Rector again
offered comments on the rules of procedure as to suspending
the rules of bylaws in order to send this matter on to the
Board rather than an additional deferral.,Commissioner
Sipes commented on the Taylor Street improvements and the
tree and sidewalk loss. Commissioner Perkins added his
comments. He felt that the project is a self-contained
project and that separation of the units would do more
damage than good.
Chairman Rector stated that he felt that the project is a
good development. He compared it to what can be done and
developed as single family. He stated that the Planning
Commission has not seen Plans B and C only the plan that is
before them. He further felt that all neighborhoods need
new blood and that things have happened in the Hillcrest
neighborhood that have helped the area. He felt this
project will enhance the neighborhood. He closed this
comment by stating he felt the sidewalk should be taken off
Taylor Street unless there is a strong feeling they need to
remain.OkCommissioner Massie added comments concerning
access off Taylor Street during the period of construction.
His questions were what plans had been made to relandscape
the disrupted area and restore as a natural barrier plus
what planting and materials. Commissioner Massie said he
felt that the neighborhood did not want to see this project.
The architect, Mr. Jackson, responded to questions as to
what is planned along Taylor Street. He added the
following: The plan at this time is a brick and iron wall
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
and fence arrangement with landscaping the full length of
the project. This landscaping will continue across the
access after construction is completed with restoration wir'
landscaping as best can be accomplished. He stated he
cannot indicate the location of the trees at this time due
to an absence of a tree survey. He offered that
improvements will be done with the least destruction and the
greatest concern for the environment. Commissioner Massie
then added that he wants a commitment from the developer to
restore lost trees by new plantings. He felt these should
be of a calipher three or four inches or larger. He felt
the elimination of the sidewalk 1 should be
tied to avoidance of loss of trees. He further felt that
the street should be widened with curb and gutter. He
continued by saying that he felt the staff should have
determination as to the location of the work drive access
point.
Mr. Anderson then addressed the loss of a fence and
sidewalk. He felt that the wall or fena was nee to
prevent neighborhood kids from going toaeminary�� rough
this project. He agreed to work with the staff to reduce
the effects of the fence location. Commissioner Jones then
added a thought that access to the Seminary by area kids may
be desired and that they may want to take direct access to
play on the Seminary grounds. Mr. Anderson stated that he
was opposed to totally eliminating the fence . # Mr . Greeson arJ6oi vu#,,,
discussed procedure on an advanced vote on suspending the
rules. Commissioner Massie then offered a motion to suspend
the bylaws concerning the two -vote rule on deferral and that
this case be forwarded to the Board of Directors should it
not receive the required six votes to deny or approve with a
recording of the vote in the motion. Commissioner Jones
then added a comment in which he opposed this motion as
being inappropriate. He said that the Commission should do
as usual and let the record stand. Chairman Rector reported
that he felt everybody wants to send this matter on to the
City Board. The Manager and Board of Directors have gone on
record as stating such.
A general discussion of procedures on the vote then
followed. Discussion involving Chairman Rector and
Commissioners Massie, Schlereth, and the City Attorney,
Mr. Giles. Chairman Rector closed this discussion by
clarifying thi-6e issue as now before the Commission which is
an amended application with the following:
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
1. The Planning staff to approve the construction access
point. ��
h.� S
2. This point of access to be closed and certifiedA at the
point of Certificate of Occupancy issuance for the last
phase of construction.
3. Deletion of the sidewalks along Taylor Street.
4. Keeping the fence/wall with the Planning staff to work
with the developer to locate the fence to reduce tree
loss.
5. Project as submitted with attached units.
At this point, Commissioner Nicholson stated for the record
that she would abstain. A vote was then taken on the
motion. The motion and application failed by a vote of
5 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention. 1AA second motion was
then made to suspend the rules and consider a conditional
approval by the Commission of a plan to detach the units.
This motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent,
1 abstention.
A third motion was then made by Commissioner Jones. The
motion as follows:that the project be approved
conditionally. The conditions specifically being that the
units be detached by a minimum of ten -foot separation. The
application as amended is to have the 90 -day period in which
to submit a revised plan to Planning staff and Planning
staff to send the matter to the City Board if found in
conformance with the Planning Commission's recommendations.
For the record, it was noted that the conditions agreed to
for amendment in the first motion are attached to this��Ib�
motion. A vote was then taken on the motion, the vete and
the Planned Unit Development were approved by a vote 6 ayes,
1 no, 2 absent, 1 abstention.
The Commission action carries a recommendation associated
with the parks issue and a resolution attached to this
package. The resolution drafted and submitted for inclusion
at the meeting on June 14, 1987.
July 28,, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: St. John's Place
Long -Form PRD (Z-4852)
LOCATION: East of Taylor, north of
Hawthorne at Polk (property
on west side of St. John's
Seminary site)
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Catholic Diocese of LR White-Daters and Associates
c/o Dickson Flake
Barnes, Quinn, Flake, & ARCHITECT:
Anderson
2100 First Commercial Bldg. Brooks -Jackson
P.O. Box 3546 2228 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 372-6161 Phone: 664-8700
AREA: 8.5736 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USE: Attached Single Family
A. Existing Conditions
The site is located in an established single family
area. It is the western portion of the St. John's
Catholic Center site.
B. Proposal
(1) To construct a 26 lot single family residential
development with a private street system and an
average of 14,364 square feet per residence, which
is less density than surrounding neighborhoods
to the west and south of the subject property.
(2) Residence size will be 2,700' heated and cooled
and 3,400 square feet growth, which is larger than
the residences to the west and south of the
proposed development.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(3) Residences will be of compatible architecture with
the neighborhood. Design will be traditional
one-story with high-pitched roofs and dormers,
allowing individuals to finish attic space for
additional living space. The exterior will be
brick with minimum wood trim.
(4) Site coverage is 2.05 acres on an 8.57 acre tract.
B. Engineering Comments
(1) Submit sketch grading plan, stormwater detention
calculations, and square footage of landscape
areas.
(2) North Taylor is a boundary street - dedicate
right-of-way and provide street improvements.
(3) Entry can't be developed as design in a public
right-of-way.
C. Issues/Technical/Legal/Design
(1) Dedicate access easement.
(2) Preliminary plat required if houses are to be on
separate lots. If not, agreement relative to
maintenance of common areas and drives should be
submitted.
(3) Redesign to break up building masses, eliminate
amount of concrete on northern portion of site.
Some units are double -served by streets.
(4) Site plan poorly dimensioned. Revised to show
building dimensions, floor plans, on-site fire
protection.
(5) Section through the site is backward.
(6) Submit more data required by PUD Ordinance on open
space, construction timetable.
July'28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(7) Specify on plat and Bill of Assurance that all
public services and utilities have rights of
public access.
(8) Parking plan.
D. Staff Recommendation
Deferral, until comments addressed. Approval of a
private street system does not include limiting access
by public agencies and utilities, including building
inspectors, Firefighters, and Water Works personnel,
etc.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted,
which clarified some aspects of the plan relative to
walkways and dimensions. He responded to staff's comments:
1, 2, 5, and 7 - Agreed to do as requested.
C-3 - Explained that he had broken building masses in
response to earlier staff concerns and that the lots
weren't double -served because the rear drives were only
alleys and the houses would be front on the drives to
the west.
4 - Submitted revised plans.
6 - Explained that most open space was privately owned.
In response to Engineering's concerns, the applicant said
that number D-3 was a mute point since the developer and
four property owners would close the street. He agreed to
do numbers B-1 and B-2. Approval, subject to Staff's
Recommendation:
(1) No gate at entrance on Polk Street, with entrance to be
developed as a driveway with no curb return (see
Engineering for details).
(2) Move two dwelling units at southwest corner forward
about 10 feet while retaining 15 -foot setback from
street.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(3) File petition to close Polk Street.
(4) Make contract with Water Works for maintenance of fire
hydrant.
(5) Close construction access at the end of the third
phase; no permanent vehicular access to Taylor Street
should be permitted.
(6) Amend the Parks plan.
(7) Complete fence and landscaping along Taylor Street in
the first year. Staff finds that the overall density
of development is consistent with single family
density. The proposed development is attractive and
well-designed with numerous breaks in the massing of
buildings. Except for some disturbance during
construction, the development should not adversely
affect the neighborhood. Waiver of sidewalks is
acceptable due to the private street system and short
loop street, which relate to the overall development
concept as defined in the PUD submission.
(8) Submit a phasing plan and schedule of development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87)
The applicant, Mr. Dickson Flake, was present. There were
50 or 60 persons present objecting to the application. The
Commission Chairman, Mr. Rector, addressed the application,
what was presented to the Commission for its review, and
asked that the opposition group members try to avoid
repetition in order to expedite the hearing of the matter.
Richard Wood, of the Planning staff, responded to the
Commission's. request for history of the Parks Plan and its
relationship to this site. Gary Greeson, the Planning
Director, explained two parts of the staff recommendation,
elaborated on the Parks Plan history, and outlined the
advantages and disadvantages of cluster development.
July 2.8, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Dickson'Flake, the applicant, was asked to present his
application. He offered a slide presentation depicting the
neighborhood and graphics of the project. He offered
commentary on the reasons for choosing this type of single
family housing over conventional platting of 34 lots. He
identified the average floor areas in surrounding residences
and compared them to the unit sizes proposed in his plan.
Commissioner Jones asked for clarification as to why this
type was chosen. Mr. Flake responded by saying that the
approach permitted flexibility of,design, marketing to
smaller families with older or no children, and shared
maintenance provisions. He further responded to a question
as to whether the church intended further such developments
to the east of the former seminary. He responded that they
proposed no additional developments, but that he could not
commit to what the church might decide in the future.
A question was posed by the Planning Director as to what
happens if the project fails after the first phase is
completed. Mr. Flake responded by saying that it would be
the same as any other type of development. He followed that
comment by stating that all of the infrastructure would be
installed at the beginning, including utilities, streets,
the Taylor Street wall and such.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the City's
encouragement of infill development and the effect of
construction activity on established neighborhoods. A
question followed these comments as to the need for access
on Taylor Street during the entire development period.
Mr. Flake stated that access must be to Taylor Street which
is the street that serves best as a collector and access.
He noted that possibly more impact would be experienced on
Polk Street. When asked about the setback from Taylor
Street of his buildings, Mr. Flake offered some dimensions
a#id followed by a comment that the houses on Taylor will be
about ten feet below the street elevation.
The following persons then offered comments in support of
the petition: Mr. Mays, Mr. Hinkle or his mother,
Mr. W.L. Grace, a prospective purchaser of a unit,
Ms. Carroll Griffee, Norman Holcolm, a builder and resident
of the area.
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
The Chairman then asked for opposing views to be presented.
He stated that 43 plus cards of speakers had been presented
(actual final count 55). The first spokesperson was
Mr. Mike Huckaby. He requested deferral and said they
wanted the site to be a park. He addressed a broad spectrum
of mattters, including effects that the neighborhood would
experience if these homes were constructed. His points
included: (1) the use is not conventional single family of
the type in this area, but practically speaking is a
condominimum which would chance the flavor of the area; (2)
this area is not all Country Club members, but contains a
mix of housing and income levels; (3) the site would lose
big trees when creating all the roof tops and drives, (4) no
assurance that the church will not sell or develop more of
its land to the east; (5) a 1990 plan showed the site for
public, quasi -public land; (6) existing traffic may be
undercounted and there is more in the fall; (7) the land
could be given to the City by the church or purchased
through private sector contributions or the City bond money;
(8) bicyclists, mothers, and babies would be affected by the
additional traffic; (9) the market for the project is
unpredictable; (10) the units will be difficult to sell;
(11) construction traffic on neighborhood streets would be a
problem; and (12) the church should use its own entrance for
construction traffic. He closed his comments by stating
that he as well as the neighborhood felt like the park issue
should be settled first. During the course of Mr. Huckaby's
presentation, he offered a petition of some 500 signatures.
Mr. Rector, the Chairman, then offered for the benefit of
all involved, that the issue of the park has been acted upon
by the Planning Commission in the past. What is being
considered here is the Planned Unit Development application.
The next speaker, Pat Miller, a North Taylor resident,
offered comments on speculation, the need for a wall during
construction, construction access through Polk Street or the
church property, and loss of green space. The next speaker,
Mr. Bob Lowery, offered his objections and those of his
parents and his wife. He suggested that the diocese offer
the land and others offer money. He discussed the
appropriateness of the plan (traffic and density), the
neighborhood loss of green space, and the need to deal with
the park issue. The next speaker, Mr. Richard Groh, a
July 28, 1987
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
resident of Hawthorne Street, offered a broad range of
objection but primarily to the use of the land for any
development other than single-family lots or a park.
At this point Commissioner Jones offered a statement to the
effect that it was inappropriate for the Commission to
proceed and that the Board of Directors should dispose of
the park site questions first. Commissioner Jones then made
a motion to defer the application until the Board of
Directors decided the park issue. The motion was seconded
by William Ketcher..
A general discussion followed wherein the appropriateness of
the separation of the two issues was dominant. Several
Commissioners felt that the politics of acquisition would
have to be dealt with first. Commission members briefly
discussed their responsibility for acting on the matter as
opposed to deferring the subject. The subject of the 60 day
notice relative to the Master Park Plan arose. The primary
question being when the 60 day period began during which the
City must give notice to purchase the site or lose the
opportunity. The City Attorney's representative,
Mr. Stephen Giles, instructed the Commission that the time
began when the development request was presented at the
Commission meeting. It begins with the presentation in the
form of a plan or a plat to the Commission, which triggers
the ordinance requirement. The Board of Directors will have
to act within the 60 days if purchase is intended. One year
is provided for actual payment for the land.
The opposition was asked whether it opposed a deferral, and
several persons stated they were not. However, Mr,. Flake
stated the Board of Directors had previously refused to act
on the park acquisition separately and had deferred action
pending receipt of the'PUD application.
The City Attorney, Mr. Giles, stated that there was no
reason the Commission could not or should not vote on the
matter. The motion as offered was restated. The vote on
the motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes, and 1 absent.
(Being a procedural vote, the matter remained active on the
agenda.)
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
At this point, the Chair offered to hear additional
opposition comment. Mr. Bill Woodard, a resident, requested
additional time to address the park issue. Thelma Hobby
added to that comment expressing the desire that it be a
park. Lindsey Huckaby made comments to the effect that she
was responsible for the opposition turnout but wants more
time to deal with the park issue. Therisa Brown added
comments from the perspective of catholic church members and
lay persons and suggested that the church reconsider its
action due to the neighborhood opposition.
The Commission thein entered again into general discussion of
deferral of the proposal. The Chairman and others entered
into a discussion with Mr. Huckaby on procedural matters.
Commissioner Massie then offered that perhaps a two week
deferral could allow time for the opposition to organize,
obtain professional expertise, get direction from the Board
of Directors, and ask the church to take a harder look at
the park issue. Mr. Massie then offered a motion in these
terms and indicated the July 14 Planning meeting as being
appropriate meeting date to take up the matter again.
Attorney David Meens, a representative of the Catholic
Church, added to the record that the church was thoroughly
involved with the views of the lay membership. He noted
that lay boards within the church organization had held many
meetings on this proposal and were committed to the project.
A vote on the deferral motion passed by 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent, and 2 abstentions (Jones, Ketcher).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-14-87)
The chairman, Mr. Rector, identified the issue and asked for
cooperation when speaking. He instructed everyone to speak
directly into the microphone and identify themselves
inasmuch as a court reporter was present and recording the
meeting. Mr. Rector then reported to those in attendance
that this is not the usual meeting for this type of issue
but normally deals with planning matters such as parks plans
and district plans.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The first order of business on this case was a request by
Commissioner Nicholson to address the issue of abstaining.
She stated that she had contacted the City Attorney and
would be abstaining from participation. She was advised
that she did not have to identify her reasons for doing so.
Mr. Rector then advised that the abstention affected the
vote inasmuch as six positive votes are required to pass or
deny an action before the Commission. He stated for the
record that there was one open position and one absent,
leaving only eight to participate with one additional
potential abstention. At this point Commissioner Collins
stated that she had a conflict of interest and would not
participate thereby leaving only seven voting eligible.
Mr. Huckaby, a neighborhood representative, offered comments
on the abstentions and the composition of the Commission.
Commissioner Jones offered comments on the deferral process
and the effect of automatic deferrals on the voting.
Mr. Huckaby offered a request to quash the proceeding as
being inappropriate due to the notice deficiency. His
statement was that the 200 foot notice even though in
accordance with the law and procedure is not adequate when
many persons further away are affected. The Chairman and
Mr. Huckaby agreed that the notice had been accomplished as
required by law and procedure. The City Attorney stated
that the notice had been accomplished as required per state
law. Mr. Huckaby then requested a deferral due to the
resignation of Dorothy Arnett and that effect upon the
Commission. A general discussion followed with several
Commissioners and Mr. Huckaby offering comments on the
effect of the Planning Commission composition. Commissioner
Jones offered a statement on Mr. Huckaby's comments and the
Commission's integrity. The City Attorney offered that the
Commission could conduct business as there were sufficient
numbers present to conduct business.
A general discussion followed during which the City Attorney
and others discussed the issue of participation by various
Commissioners. The Chairman then asked Mr. Flake.to make
his presentation. Mr. Flake's comments were preceded by
Commissioner Schlereth requesting that the letter from the
City Manager be read into the record. Mr. Greeson read the
material which addressed the Board of Directors' instruction
as to the proposed park site.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Flake then made his presentation in summary form from
his June presentation. The Chairman then recognized
supporters of the application. These were Mr. Jack
Williams, Mr. Ray Kemp. Both supporters talked about the
need for this type of unit in the area, and the current
unsightly state of the property. (There were three cards
submitted indicating a request to address the Commission in
support of the application.)
The Chairman then recognized the opposition. Mr. Huckaby
was recognized first. He offered general comments on the
issue and offered 'a second package of approximately 1,000
signatures. These signatures are on petitions of objection.
He added that thousands were to follow. (There were 20+
persons in attendance in opposition. There were 27 cards
filed with requests to speak. Mr. Huckaby then read several
paragraphs of the Zoning Ordinance from the Planned Unit
Development Section concerning harmony, compatibility,
neighborhood involvement, and response. He stated that
there had not been an adequate test of traffic generation
during construction time of approximately four years or so.
He stated that cluster housing is an inappropriate housing
type in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Massie requested that the staff describe the
PUD process and state whether it is the only approach to
development projects such as this. Mr. Greeson, the
Planning Director, offered that the PUD process was the only
approach to developing this type of development.
Chairman Rector then offered comments on district
application and density.
Mr. Huckaby then made comments on the saleability of the
project and traffic test needs, the fact that the church has
not committed to no other sales in the future. He
challenged Mr. Flake's assertion that units in the project
were of average floor area in the area. He challenged the
architectural compatibility of the project. He stated that
it is a condo type project no matter what it is called. He
offered that the project would depreciate neighborhood land
values and increase traffic.
A lengthy discussion of the issues followed. This
discussion centered on traffic, marketability, commitment of
the church on other lands. At this point, it was discussed
that the numbers of petitions offered should not be used to
make land use decisions.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The next issue discussed was the burden of proof in this
matter. It was offered by the objectors that the burden of
proving the appropriateness of this project fell to the
developer and not with the objectors. Several Commissioners
offered comments on the difficulty of the development
process for PUDs and the Commission's reliance on the
Planning staff to develop the issues.
Mr. Lowery offered that there were two basic issues involved
in this case. The first of which being that between uses as
single family and uses as Planned Unit Development with
exception to standards. The second being the purposes
stated in Article 9 in the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Rector then described the PUD process, the
Commission's involvement and the church's options for
development.
(A brief recess was called.)
The meeting was called to order. The hearing reconvened on
this matter. A brief discussion occurred at this point
relative to the usage of a court reporter for this public
hearing. The City Attorney stated he would pay part of the
reporter cost.
At the Chairman's request, the staff outlined the procedures
involved in the review of a Planned Unit Development
proposal from the occasion of first contact with the staff
through the public hearing process.
Henk Koornstra, the Traffic Engineer, then presented
comments on the traffic counts. He discussed Taylor Street
as being a minor collector. He stated that traffic numbers
were not an issue and answered questions from both the
Commission and the audience.
Another lengthy discussion followed involving statements
about benefit to be received by the area from this project.
Also what is, considered when reviewing a case such as the
one filed. The points outlined as important were density,
access to the site, traffic generation.
The discussion then shifted to comments as to traffic access
onto Taylor Street vs. Polk Street.
Commissioner Jones discussed whether there was a way to
assure in any neighborhood of this city that traditional
development can or will remain: without change and without
encroachment by other land types.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
The discussion then moved to whether the Planned Unit
Development process allowed a better development versus
maximizing development potential on a given site. Comments
were made about the subjectivity of the Planned Unit
Development review and the staff added that actions on
Planned Unit Developments should be reasonable and
defensible based on the surrounding area.
Several objectors stated at this point that they wanted
nothing on the site especially sameness.
The discussion then centered on the issue of housing type
being attached versus open side yards. The objectors
thought there was something special about this area of the
City and what should be kept there is side yards and
setbacks in a conventional format.
Mr. Groh, a resident of the area, offered his thoughts about
keeping the park site, the City bond issues, these being
condos, and whether action would go to the City Board with
support for a park site.
Mr. Flake was requested to describe his building design. He
offered that he did not have to file elevations, floor
plans, and detail drawings but did to help the review. He
continued by saying many of the units in his projects are 18
feet apart, providing courtyards and spaces between. The
garages and parking are screened from view by the attachment
of the buildings. He felt this would save trees by the
clustering and allow the design to fit the terrain.
The discussion then moved to the Taylor Street improvements
and the inevitably of getting onto a public street at some
point with the traffic generated by this development, both
the residents and the construction equipment during the
estimated four years.
The construction type was discussed on the private street
and whether it would hold truck traffic. Mr. Flake stated
it would be constructed of brick and designed in
curvilinear fashion to avoid trees and obstructions.
Further comments pointed out that it would be built to City
standard and withstand a fire truck and would possibly
support construction vehicles.
Discussion followed concerning access to Taylor Street, its
length, and the trees and natural foliage to be lost.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Brief comments were then presented concerning whether the
strong emotions on this subject on both sides were of value
and effect in this proposal.
Several objectors again raised the park question. Some
objectors offering that perhaps they didn't understand all
of the plan as presented. The Chairman, Mr. Rector, again
addressed the subject of the park and the Commission's
position.
A discussion of a meeting of the two sides for resolution of
the issues outlined in the hearings resulted in the
objectors stating they were denied opportunity to resolve
the issues at the last occasion. The discussion moved on to
whether a person could be found to represent the opposition
side. During the course of discussion, organization of the
opposition in the form of an agent could not be gained.
The discussion moved to the subject of deferrals and whether
the applicant can call for a vote. It was determined that
Mr. Flake had that right to make a request for action.
However, a comment followed that the Commission could defer
the matter again if it so desired.
The discussion then moved to the subject of a totally
acceptable development. Comments were made relative to the
various types of development proposals that could be made in
this area, including large lot single family, conventional
lot, condominiums, or attached housing, etc. It was pointed
out by a Commissioner that the Board of Directors was the
final determiner, and in the final analysis will decide this
case on the basis of nontraditional development in,a
traditional neighborhood setting.
The discussion moved to rules for deferral and how best to
deal with the bylaw application. The City Attorney,
Mr. Stodola, offered guidance on the rules and instructed
the Commission as to how they may proceed.
The discussion then extended into areas of amending the
bylaws to accommodate the voting procedure. The applicant
was asked about his position on deferral. He repsonded by
saying that he did not want to polarize the opposition.
July 28, 1987
Item No. A - Continued
Comments were offered by an opponent as to the location of a
shrine in the ravine either on or adjacent to this property.
It was apparent that no one knew the specific location.
The Chair then asked that the issue be brought to a vote. A
brief discussion of whether the resolution on the park
should be dealt with prior to the vote on the PUD. The City
Attorney's comment was that it should be a secondary vote.
A motion was then made to suspend the rules of procedure to
allow the resolution to be entered into the record. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open
position, 2 abstaining (Collins and Nicholson).
Mr. Rector then read the resolution into the record
(attached Exhibit A).
A motion was then made for adoption of the resolution. A
brief discussion followed. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position, 2 abstentions
(Collins and Nichsolson).
Commissioner Jones then made a motion to defer the
application for a period of two weeks to July 28, which
would permit a meeting with a good faith attempt on the part
of those involved to come to an agreement on this project.
Additional comment by other Commissioners introduced an
amendment to the motion which states an understanding that
the debate on this subject will be limited to 30 minutes on
the July 28 agenda. A vote was then taken. The motion
passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 open position, 1
absent, 2 abstentions (Collins and Nicholson).
A discussion followed wherein Mr. Lowery and Mr. guckaby
were encouraged to take the lead and meet with Mr. Flake and
Jerilyn Nicholson, a Commissioner, to moderate the session.
A. report on the results of this meeting to be presented to
the Commission on July 28.
1. Meeting Date:
Z. Case No.: Z-4'$52
3. Request: -Tn 4PPrzwe A c o- F.sMJ L. 4 USE A"D D4&VELoP[�+�'
4. _Location: �P1U�R -4Y THE rRdp'r�V �L.o M G ". may c C,M 5,T 15ei1a
NAP --TW Of- WAW -rWO hdC-- ST. (f-VIAJCs om 'THE EAST SIDE Or- if -w- ST.
5. Owner/Applicant:
(:,&-rt1C)L1C- D!o CASE R -f OICK591- FLAZe
6. Existing_Status: SIPAGLkE
7. Proposed Use:
'j IM6.LC FAMI LY IPWrr ..l- IIJG S tN A PAIVA7c- ST FOf mA-r 4M SF -PARA -rt-
P Vi'T[EO Lars,
8. Staff Recommendation:
APP(24U&L. UNOM
9. Planninq Commission Recommendation:
ApPA'Ov&I- a c- A [�i�nrTro�A� P.RD . S�Ii�lE�L7 To
1. ALA-. U)JITS Tn �'e 5epA"-A--3) LeA5T IQ (-T.
.
5 -EAC -f- Ta APPIZovr, C.,(5 0 s -r. r-CAF5 S Potty T oFF -V6y(AlL S I. ANO 743 P"'15r [.e.c 5 D W r7 1
iss,j&.jr.4r,- dp cEirr. of. o ccd p ear 57 Pt�s� CaN57 . ■ Oys�er.� 7r 5 7� A It -�
pw.-r cw��+�
w Tiu 3d+cq.•• a�W 0IG---rirews Amp Gw0s
3. De E 5rr wOc1�3 �"I �Yto1- 57.
4. F-emC..-/wAu- -re, i.e 0oca-r.�v my wfgje("G w+7N S`WF� 74 �SS�� 7AW L -c; 5T
�r
16Mau4 T 0 F A14-0 AaL- C.n v eff- e ff-
I
10. Recommendation Forwarded With: A VOTE OF N
AV,US
�J. NICROLSa
I orE-N PISITIoa
11. Ot)j ectors :.pre 5"+ h1C I*: Messms
k)(LLIAAA S.
1•,%,t-:JaUM Lk) uo ADDj2C-iSEW 77Jt ►SSV&S.
TI.iE ZL:l W GJZ-ET SvRMI -7FC<n CO M4 OVjcXILS
uAMWO AT C),WM-ro'eS'.
T[ r Jc.c c A' —,vN5 pC'"Tr r OM 5 W ('Ti+
loot 5j6NA'TVILc-S d F QIS.1FC7e�,f