The Planning Commission devoted a large portion of last week’s meeting to a conceptual review of a proposed housing development.
The format meant that commissioners did not have a formal application before them and did not have to make a decision. David Buttecali asked for opinions on what he called the Crescent Ridge Development.
Buttecali said he had an opportunity to buy 39 acres on East Mountain to develop for housing. His first impulse was to create a “semi-luxury” setting with large lots and a gate, but he said the “numbers don’t work” at that density.
Instead, he began to consider affordable housing on the site. He said he would like to reserve several areas for higher-end housing but asked for opinions from the commission regarding the possibility of town homes or duplexes with one-car garages. The residences would be in the range of 1,200 to 1,500 square feet, large enough to serve a family.
Even with higher density, Buttecali said the numbers still would make it hard to make a return on the investment. He raised the possibility of receiving help from the city with water and sewer lines. He did not receive any encouraging news on that, although several commissioners were interested in the possibilities of as many as 80 units of new housing, some of which would be reserved as rentals. Commission Chair Ann Tandy-Sallee noted that Eureka Springs has lost many of its rental properties because of the recent real-estate boom.
The topic was only on the floor for discussion, not decision, but several at the table suggested that Buttecali would have more flexibility if he pursued the project as a planned unit development, rather than a subdivision. Buttecali has the property under contract but will not close without finding out what he could do with it.
CUP transfer denied
The evening began with a public hearing regarding an application to transfer a Conditional Use Permit for one unit of bed & breakfast lodging at 265 Spring St. Applicant Jessica Swofford sent out 16 letters to neighbors, and seven responses detailed a variety of objections. Spring Street already has parking problems, and some neighbors said the existing B&B adds to that because guests do not always use the off-street parking off King Street.
Other respondents noted that the property is still in probate, and the accessory building used for guests does not have a legal address. It also lies within 200 feet of another B&B.
Tandy-Sallee said Swofford would need one off-street parking spot for guests and two for the owner or manager living on site. Swofford said she had been parking her own vehicle on Spring St.
Commissioner Susan Harman reminded the others that any proposal opposed by more than 20 percent of the affected neighbors would require a three-fourths vote to pass. That rule did not matter in this case, as all voted against the CUP transfer. Swofford was told she could appeal to city council, and commissioners asked City Historic Preservation Officer Kylee Hevrdejs to check to see if Swofford could continue operating pending an appeal.
In other business:
- Sitting as the Board of Zoning Adjustment, commissioners considered a conceptual review for a possible parking lot at 5 Douglas St. Neighbors objected to this use in a residential neighborhood, and some painted a picture of a stream of strangers parking and walking through the neighborhood. Latigo Treuer said he did not want to offer commercial parking. Instead, he would offer space to those living in the area, or for downtown shop owners.
Despite the city-wide need for parking, commissioners seemed lukewarm at best to the idea of using the lot for parking instead of another residence. Tandy-Sallee said she had not found anything that would allow the commission to grant a variance, so the project would require a zoning change.
- Commissioners will consider a proposed ordinance regarding the Spring Street neighborhood parking district at the Oct. 11 commission meeting. In addition, a workshop is planned at 5 p.m. on Sept. 26, before the city council meeting.