Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0256-A Staff AnalysisMarch 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT: STAFF REPORT: St. John's Place Final Plan Approval North end of Polk, west of North Taylor White-Daters & Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 The applicant is requesting approval of the final development plan for St. John's Place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee. No changes from the f inal .approved plan were found. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval subject to: (1) filing tree survey, (2) staff approval of the construction access point to minimize tree disturbance, (3) location of the wall to minimize tree disturbance, (4) filing petition to close Polk Street, (5) installing sidewalk on Taylor Street, (6) filing a tri-party agreement to guarantee completion of improvements prior to building permit in the last phase. The applicant was represented by Mr. Joe White of White-Daters Associates, and the developer, Mr. Dickson Flake. The developer asked to phase the construction of r March 8, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued a street within the development. He explained that he wanted to delay paving the interior roadway surface in Phase II in order to avoid damaging the street with construction vehicles. All the grading, utilities, and drainage on the entire site would be done. Ms. Lindsey Huckaby of 2500 N. Taylor represented the property owners of the area, but mainly those on Taylor Street. They were opposed to the phasing. They felt that the busy activity on Taylor Street was not adequately reflected by the traffic study, since it was done during a time during a time when one-half of the area was out of town. The construction entrance should be off Tyler and Polk, not Taylor. She also felt that the years of disruption caused by construction would be bad for the neighborhood. She was against any change in the phasing. There was discussion as to whether the request was to be considered as an amendment to the plan. Mr. Flake argued that this was not a change in the plan. They had previously asked to do all the site work on the front end and they still would do it. The only thing requested was phasing the paving from the interior roadway based upon where construction would take place. A motion to include an amendment in the final plan for phasing of construction of the interior roadway was made, but failed to pass. The vote was 5 ayes, 4 noes, and 2 ,gbsent . A motion to approve the final plan was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, and 2 absent. 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 opwilblbeatraditional rchitecture with the neighborhoodDesign 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. Engineerin Comments (1) Submit sketch grading plan, stormwater detention calculations, and square footage of landscape areas. t - dedicate (2) North Taylor andis aproviderstreeteimprovements. r fight- o _ (3) Entry can't be developed as design in a public right-of-way. C. Issues/Technical/i,egal/Design (1) Dedicate access easement. (2) Preliminary plat required if houses are to be on separate t of commontareaseand nrelative drives should be maintenance submitted. (3) Redesign to break up building masses, eliminate amount of concrete on northern portion of site. Some units are double -served by (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 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 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 r (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. r Z-4852 - 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. 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-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 diffie-ult 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.) Z-4852 - 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. 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. I 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 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. Z-4852 - 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 hearinq 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 an� 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 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 a� 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-4852 - 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 Planninq 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 sinqle 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 thb participants especially with the participants feeling the burden for supporting the neighborhood in this matter. She felt that the four persons present were upcomfortable 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 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. 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 t]4e neighborhood. He felt the design is solely left to the developer and that the developer made no meaningful m`ffer 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. Planninq 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 separatinq 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 v Z-052 Y 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 ordinan a but to improve the area. He felt the project had receive 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 5chlereth d aecessltotTaylorhat eStreett in this project was to restrict of the felt the area would be best served wiMr.a]BrooksrJackson, in street improvements. The ortedtthat a tree survey has not response to a question rep been accomplished inbthlostrby�PLacement he is not sidewalkoraware of what trees would other improvements. ew of Mr. Greeson then offered cestreetlafeno walleorlfence is the rear of units from Taylor required. Commissioner Massie requested of Mr. Jackson a responsouthline. concerning the Phase Z or five units along theHe was curious as to how You would separate nsityorthese units exterior setbacks along the property with a minimum of ten feet and not lose Mr. Jackson reported more that to spread the unitsrwh�lfelt°that if the unitswerein he cluster concept. Further most all of a one -unit per level high --rise you could keep the trees on the property. He continued this thought by stating that if attached you will not lose as many trees. property line could be the south prop He felt that units along narrowing of the redesigned akonacthemodai�ethe rdboth5ion by units or making Mr. Greejon then ofnereMassieeresportedhthatpossible remaineddesign changes. Commissioner unconvinced that attached is not better. He felt that trees conventional development atedlthoat thereeissaving dangerous on this property. position relative to a vote ni a Coomm ssiont ninnot receiving several months with the Plang the changes for their reefers aMvoter. rwithouteeson oseparation tof comment by stating he pr the units. Commissioner Jones and othersceeduredversusedthethe staffconcerns of neighbors versus the vote PrO roval. Commissioner preference as to the form for app ortive of the Ketcher said he sensed that members were supp 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 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 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 sft tand. 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. Tleabstentionfailed (Jerilynto a vote oNicholson)f 5 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent, A second motion was then made to suspend the rules and consider a conditional approval by the Commission of the its. This motion passed by a vote of 6 plan with detached un 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 is between units. Under the Zoninq ordinance, the applicant to hie 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 Grote 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 this package. Tn67 resolution was approved at the meetinq on June 14, 1987.