Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4852 Staff AnalysisJuly 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 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 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 28, 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 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 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 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 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 ddvelopment 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 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. 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.