Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 28, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN RZN 05-1413: (JONES, 294) Forwarded to City Council Page 4 RZN 05-1409: (SCB INVESTMENTS, LLC, 366) Forwarded to City Council Page 9 RZN 05-1412: (MOUNTAIN RANCH/TERMINELLA, 478)Forwarded to City Council Page 12 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner Jill Anthes Nancy Allen Candy Clark Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught Loren Shackelford Christine Myres James Graves STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 2 Award Presentation: Ostner: Welcome to the March 28`h meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Before we have the roll call I believe we have a special presentation by Mr. Dumas. Dumas: The Mayor asked me to be here today. He is some place in the Desert Southwest trying to find all of the blooming flowers in the desert out that direction. This is a thing for Loren. In appreciation for your hard work and dedicated service as a Planning Commissioner from 1999 to 2005 it is a great honor to present you this award on behalf of the citizens of Fayetteville. I would like to thank you, and the Mayor also, for the time and effort you have volunteered in making some very difficult decisions for the benefit of the city over the last six years. The leadership and experience you have provided to fellow commissioners, city staff, and the citizens of Fayetteville is very appreciated and will be missed. Thank you. This is a symbol of our appreciation. Shackelford: Thank you very much. This has been a very big part of my life for the last six years and it is hard to believe that it is over. I want to thank my family, my wife, for allowing me the time to do this and my employers for allowing me the time. This really is something that you have to work in your day to day routine and does take away from both of those areas and I appreciate that opportunity. I have lived in this town my whole life, I have seen a lot of changes, I have seen a lot of growth in this area. I am really impressed with what this city has been able to do growth wise and still keep it's core culture. I'm a firm believer that growth isn't bad. I think planned growth is where we have to be and I've been very happy to be a part of that planned growth for the last six years Thank you guys very much and for anybody that is interested in doing this I would strongly recommend finding an area that you can voice your opinion and get involved. It is a great way to give back to the community Thank you for a lot of fun in the last six years. Ostner: I have a few words too. I've only been here three years but Mr. Shackelford has been quite a leader on this Commission. I've appreciated your in sights and your leadership. It has meant a great deal in my perspective and also my education in learning how to be a better Commissioner. I appreciate your guidance. We will have the roll call and begin our meeting. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were nine Commissioners present. Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 3 Election of Officers: Ostner: At this point we will have the ballots turned in for the vote of officers. Thomas: The Nominating Committee selection was Alan Ostner for Chair, Jill Anthes for Vice Chair and Nancy Allen for Secretary, and that was also the vote. Ostner: There are three items on our agenda tonight. I don't believe the minutes from the March 14th meeting have been studied yet by us. If someone would like to make a motion that we delay that approval I would be open to hear that. MOTION: Shackelford: I will make a motion to table the minutes to the next meeting. Clark: Second. Osmer: There is a motion and a second to table the minutes. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table the March 14, 2005 minutes was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 4 RZN 05-1413: (JONES, 294): Submitted by TOM HENNELLY for property located at 2468 N CROSSOVER RD. (THE NE CORNER OF CROSSOVER & TOWNSHIP). The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-2, Residential Single-family, 2 units per acre. Ostner: There are three items on the agenda tonight. The first item is under new business, RZN 05-1413 for Jones submitted by Tom Hennelly. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This property is located east of Crossover Road. The property consists of three lots. They are zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The southernmost is currently developed as a single family lot. For the owner to develop a single family home on each of the remaining properties a variance would be required because the minimum two acre lot area minimum is not met. To give you a brief overview of what is existing on the property. The developer does intend to develop this property for single family use at a density slightly higher than the current R -A zoning district will allow. The proposed zoning is RSF-2, two units per acre, which will result in a maximum potential of nine dwelling units. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning based on findings herein. To give you an overview of the surrounding land use and zonings around this property, they vary quite a bit. To the north the property is zoned R -A and RSF-4 and there is a developed subdivision to the north. To the south the property is zoned R -A and is currently vacant, most of which is vacant at this time. To the east are single family residential homes and to the west is St. John's Lutheran Church as well as Hickory Park, which is an R-PZD under construction. Fire and Police have reviewed this request. This property is located approximately 1 ''A miles from the nearest fire station with a response time of two minutes and 15 seconds. Police have stated that although this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density nor will it create an undesirable increase on Police services. Staff finds that the proposed zoning for single family use at two units per acre is compatible with adjacent properties and nearby single family dwelling units already existing. The General Plan designates this property as residential and the requested rezoning is compatible with the General Plan 2020. We also find that the proposed zoning is justified and in order to allow for the existing property to be developed for single family use consistent with surrounding development. With regard to increase, whether this would increase traffic danger and congestion, the additional density will not greatly or significantly increase the amount of traffic currently utilizing Crossover Road as well as Township Street to the south. However, access to these properties will need to be thoroughly reviewed at the time of development. At this time, if these lots were to be brought into compliance two driveways could potentially be constructed to access Crossover Road. Staff does recommend however, that we review this Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 5 utilizing an alley for development. However, at this time we are just considering rezoning the property. Therefore, staff is recommending this rezoning request from R -A to RSF-2 in this area. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Hennelly: My name is Tom Hennelly, I'm with 112 Engineering representing Jerry Jones and Lynn Rogers Jones who own this property. They also occupy the house that is located on the exhibit, concept #3 in your packet. They occupy the house located on Lot #1. Suzanne covered pretty much everything. The only thing that I would like to bring up, I'm not sure whether this is an appropriate time to do it or not, under staff finding number three, there was some discussion, we met with Planning when Mr. Jones approached us to develop this property with certain feasibility, various scenarios that he wanted to explore with a multi -family or higher density. In doing a cost benefit analysis on this for the number of lots and the infrastructure that was required to develop it, we thought that an RSF- 2 was the best use of the property because it didn't increase the number of access points onto Hwy. 265 anymore than area already available for the three lots that are already there which would allow for three access points on Hwy. 265. The other reason that we chose this was this is a heavily wooded area. We thought that this had the least impact to the site as it is now with the trees, there are some large trees on there. If we were to try to put this in as an RSF-4 and get a zoning for an RSF-4 we would be looking at having to put detention, which we would have to clear that site, or a portion of the site, to put detention in it. We had also discussed with Planning the possibility of putting an alleyway in this. As it turns out, this RSF-2, if we use an alleyway it becomes financially unfeasible for them to develop it at that density. We would need to try for an RSF-4 and I don't know whether now is the time to entertain that discussion. We will be coming back to you with a Preliminary Plat that looks very similar to the exhibit that you have in your packet. I guess I would like to try to get a feel as to whether or not the layout that we have on this Concept Plat is something that you all would consider without a common alleyway access around the back of it. I don't know whether we are able to discuss that now or not. Ostner: This is actually the point of just a land use discussion. If we get through that land use discussion and feel pretty firm in our vote we can probably discuss that when we are done just for added benefit. At this point I will open it up to the public if anyone would like to speak to this rezoning please come forward. This is RZN 05-1413. Seeing no public comment, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 6 Shackelford: On finding of fact number four it shows that a 4.77 acre tract under an RSF-4 zoning designation would allow a maximum of two single family units, I think that should be R -A to clarify the records. The second thing I wanted to ask about, in regard to what the applicant just stated, their desired rezoning request might change depending upon the development, assuming that that did occur and they wanted to pursue an RSF-4 zoning in the future, is there any limitation to rezone property that has been rezoned within a certain period of time or anything like that? Pate: There is not. The only limitation is if a zoning is denied for some reason there is a year period in which they cannot request substantially the same rezoning request. Shackelford: What if between the period of time in which it came out of Planning Commission with a recommendation to City Council and the time that the City Council saw the item if the applicant decided to change their request at that point, could that be cooled and start that process of a rezoning? Pate: It would likely need to come back to the Planning Commission, probably not through the whole process, but the Planning Commission does need to make a recommendation to the City Council about the zoning before them. We would definitely recommend it come back to the Planning Commission at least to discuss that. I think in a number of ways Chairman Ostner said it, we are not really looking at the development of the property here. However, based upon potential development this property owner could potentially possibly look at a different rezoning request. I think it is important to keep that in mind. With a large project it would be very difficult to make those kinds of calls. This is relatively straight forward. Typically, I would not recommend you go down that road of looking at a Preliminary Plat. Just for the facts, really there are a couple of different ways to approach this, an alley access with rear access for these lots or potentially three curb cuts as shown. An alley access would likely require two curb cuts and they are allowed three curb cuts right now. That is kind of boiling it down to the development issues. Again, this is a land use decision however, so we do need to keep most of the discussion with regard to the rezoning request, the density, compatibility with adjacent properties and the other findings of fact. Traffic is one of those and so that is why we have made a finding in that regard. Shackelford: I agree with what you are saying. I just would like to give the applicant some direction on as this develops into a land use conversation, not what opportunities they have going forward. Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 7 Anthes: On finding number four, in the next sentence it says the proposed RSF-2 designation allows a maximum of nine multi -family dwelling units would be permitted. That should be single family. Vaught: Just from looking at it, I think this is something very compatible with the homes in the area. Of course, access is an issue. Requiring an alley access in this site is hard for me with the number of cars entering and exiting a home. As long as the curb cuts meet the state highway standards for distance and sight I don't see why we wouldn't let three curb cuts in this location. I think that is the standard we should default to. It would be very hard to require an alley access with this number of units. If this was an RSF-4 where they were going to put 15 houses or something on here, we would be looking at something totally different with probably two curb cuts instead of the third. That's just my two cents worth. I think I could support the three curb cuts. I do feel like this is compatible with the homes in the area. This whole area is developing with a lot of residential, mostly larger home sites in the surrounding area, as far as that goes, this is compatible. I would also be able to support the third curb cut, especially since that is what is currently allowed, as long as that meets the state highway standards for curb cuts. I'm not sure, does the applicant know what the distance is between curb cuts on this proposed drawing, the Preliminary Plat? Hennelly: To answer your question, it is a little bit over 200' for each one. We tried to show the accesses, these are shared accesses for the two lots so that there was no increase in the number of curb cuts off of Hwy. 265. One benefit that I would like to point out though, currently, the house on Lot 1, the one that the Jones' live in, the curb cut is closer currently to the intersection of Township and Hwy. 265 than it will be after the development. We will actually be moving that driveway north away from it and hopefully, improve the situation, for whatever that is worth. Vaught: Pate: Vaught: Pate: MOTION: Anthes: Jeremy, does that meet the State Highway requirements for curb cuts? Yes. Currently these are shown about 200' or 250' away from each other. These would meet the city and state requirements I believe. The Highway Department is stricter than city's requirements on state highways is that not correct? They do approve any work within a state highway. I would say that this does appear to be compatible with surrounding land uses and has several benefits as stated, the preservation of tree canopy, the Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 8 potential for shared drives and the fact that the houses will face the street rather than be surrounded by a wall. With that being said, I will make a motion for recommendation for approval by the City Council of RZN 05- 1413. Shackelford: I will second. Osmer: Is there further discussion? Before we vote, I would like to basically agree with what has been said. I believe that the land use is appropriate at R-2. Going beyond that, for the applicant's benefit, if a Preliminary Plat came that were like this 1.9, entitled Concept #3, I would tend to not have a problem with it. It seems like a good proposal with a good sight distance between curb cuts. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1413 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 9 RZN 05-1409: (SCB INVESTMENTS, LLC, 366): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at 1841 LEVERETT AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.43 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units/acre. Ostner: Morgan: The second item on our agenda is RZN 05-1409, SBC Investments, LLC. The subject property is located near the southwest corner of Leverett Avenue and Melmarr Drive. It is owned by SBC Investments. The former owners of this property, in April, 2004 requested a rezoning, of area comprising this subject property to RMF -24 to RSF-4. This request was tabled however, and no further action was taken. At this time the current owners are requesting a rezoning to RMF -24. The request to rezone 1.43 acres of property. Currently the property is comprised of an older single family home as well as a large yard and remnants of a large farm which once existed in the area. Surrounding properties are multi- family in zoning and land use, with exception of the area to the south, which is an established single family residential neighborhood. The developer intends to develop this property with multi -family units and the current zoning does not permit this type of development. The shape of the property is a remnant parcel of surrounding development and may make development of the property into single family lots impractical. The proposed zoning allows for a maximum density of 24 units per acre, resulting in a maximum potential of 45 dwelling units on the property. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. I will discuss the findings for which we have based that decision. Just to review, Fire and Police have taken a look at this proposal. This property is approximately 1.1 miles from the nearest fire station with a response time of 2 minutes and 28 seconds. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that the rezoning will not substantially alter the population density nor create an undesirable increase on police services. The General Plan designates this property for residential use and staff finds that the proposed RMF -24 zoning district is compatible with our General Plan and that the proposed zoning for multi -family residential land is compatible with nearby multi -family dwellings already in existence. Though this is a small property the proposed zoning district will potentially create additional traffic on Leverett Avenue and Melmarr Drive. However, as discussed previously, the Police Department does not find that this will create a dangerous situation. As well as, Leverett in this area is a collector street and is designed to carry additional traffic. We also find that the proposed zoning will increase the population density from the current zoning in this particular location. However, we find that it will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, we are in support of this rezoning request from RSF-4 to RMF -24. Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 10 Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Cooper: I'm Tim Cooper, the architect representing the owner. Basically, this project actually falls in line with the other projects in the area. This drawing shows what the zoning map will look like after this rezoning. This is our project right here. That line naturally, the property that we are talking about is actually more a part of the RMF -24 section here than it is single family. There is RMF -24 here and there is a parking lot that abuts against our property. We are right at 34 units total for the project. Ostner: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone from the public like to speak about RZN 05-1409? Seeing no public comment, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Trumbo: Have we had any comments from the public Jeremy? Pate: Not that staff is aware of. No Sir. MOTION: Shackelford: As I read the staff report, I am in agreement with their findings of fact. If you look at the map or more importantly, if you drive out to the property this tends to be in an area where there is a lot of multi -family. I think there is some that has been developed in the comer of Melmarr and Leverett since this map was updated. I think it is very much in line with what is being developed out there and I think it is a very good project for this specific zoning. I want to make a motion that we recommend RZN 05- 1409 as RMF -24 to the City Council. Ostner: Thank you. There is a motion to forward by Mr. Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Clark. My comment, I drove out there and did some counting and some crude math and the development that this abuts just the adjoining property to the north and west of here, I counted for it to come out to about 19.3 units per acre. That is a built out density. That is zoned RMF -24. Across the street it is zoned RMF' -40 and I counted a built out density of 13 units per acre. I would agree with Commissioner Shackelford that I believe this is a multi -family dense part of town. I know it abuts a single family residential area. Since we are talking about land use I am going to go ahead and vote to forward this but I would hope in the development plans that we could create some sort of buffer system or be at least, aware, of the single family abutting this project. That is the only comment I have. Is there further discussion? Myres: I'm not sure if the consistency is important but if you look at the figures on page 2.2 where it says resulting in a maximum potential of 45 dwelling Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 11 Pate: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: units and in the bold face at the top of 2.4 a maximum of 34 multi -family dwelling units. I don't know which one is right since the build out is usually not as dense as the zoning is anyway. 34 is the correct number. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1409 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 9-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 12 RZN 05-1412: (MOUNTAIN RANCH/TERMINELLA, 478): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES INC. - ROGERS for property located at SOUTH OF THE FUTURE PERSIMMON ST., SOUTHEAST OF THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 21.05 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: Our third item is RZN 05-1412 for Mountain Ranch, Terminella. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This property is adjacent to several properties that we have seen in the past year come before you for annexation and rezoning. This subject property contains approximately 21.05 acres and is located southeast of the Fayetteville Boys and Girls Club and adjoins an extension of Persimmon Street as reflected on the Master Street Plan. Approximately 78 acres adjacent to this property on the west was annexed and rezoned RSF-4 in July, 2004. This property is currently zoned R -A and was actually within the city limits at the time that the property to the west was annexed. The applicant intends to develop this property for single family residential use as one phase of a larger multi -use project. The applicant therefore, is requesting that this property be rezoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, as is the property to the west. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. Future changes and additional development on this site will be regulated by the city creating uniform and consistent with the property surrounding it. With regard to existing land uses and zonings, zoning to the north, south and east is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural with property to the west being zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. Fire and Police have reviewed this request. This property, although streets have not been constructed to this specific site, at the time of development those will be required and it will be approximately .5 miles from the future Fire Station #7, which I believe is under construction. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter population density nor create an undesirable increase on police services. Staff finds that the requested RSF-4 zoning is compliant with the General Plan 2020 designation where it designates this property for residential use. The proposed zoning we find is justified in order to promote orderly and consistent development patterns and make use of existing infrastructure, as well as allow for development that will create infrastructure in this area. This proposed rezoning will create additional traffic in surrounding streets. There are several streets in surrounding areas that are being constructed at this time or will be required to be constructed with this development. Current zoning for this tract would allow a maximum of 10 dwelling units, one per two acres. With the proposed RSF-4 designation, a maximum of 84 dwelling units could be permitted. Staff feels that this is compliant and compatible with the Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 13 General Plan and surrounding properties. Therefore, we are in support of this request. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Please come forward and give us your presentation. Terminella: I'm Tom Terminella here on behalf of the Reserve, LLC. I'm not sure that I can add anything to what Ms. Morgan commented on but I'm available for any questions. Osmer: Thank you. At this point I will open it up to the public. Would anyone like to speak to RZN 05-1412? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Staff, you mentioned the new Fire Station on Rupple Road, is there an approximate opening that has been targeted? Pate: I'm sure there is. I'm not aware of that opening date. I can get with the Fire Chief and let you know. Ostner: Will it precede this development? Williams: I think we are within a month of opening that. Pate: It is very much under way and looks constructed today. They are in the process of finalizing some punch list items. Ostner: Thank you. MOTION: Shackelford: As I read this again, I'm in agreement with the findings of fact of the city staff. I think the RSF-4 land use is very much in line with what we anticipate being out there. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we forward with a recommendation for approval, RZN 05-1412 to the City Council. I have one comment I would also like to make. Just for the record, I would like to state that at the time of development I really encourage the developer and the city to work together to ensure proper ingress and egress in this area. I think this is going to be one of the fastest growth areas that we see in Fayetteville within the next couple of years and with the school being out there I think that the ingress and egress is critical and would encourage the city and developers to work together to get it right the first time. Trumbo: I will second. Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 14 Anthes: I have a question for the applicant. Correct me if I am wrong, is this particular piece of land part of the presentation that Mr. Estes brought to us? Terminella: Yes. Anthes: Terminella: Anthes: Terminella: Anthes: Pate: Anthes: Pate: At that time a PZD was discussed and I see that also in the staff report, can you fill us in about that process? Unfortunately, the current PZD ordinance doesn't allow for a project of this size to come through the city in a manner that is affordable and civilly obtainable. With a PZD we would have to basically entirely engineer the thing civilly with no reassurance that we would have approvals. The land mass has grown to 450 acres. We felt like this was a way to go ahead and move it forward and obtain the necessary approvals to bring Phase I on. Our overall plan that we originally submitted is still in play and that is our intent, but we will be bringing it through in pieces to create an overall master planned area instead of one big PZD, which we are unable to create. The time and the effort and the expense to create that would take years to civilly engineer 450 acres at one time. That is why you see it coming through with a Lot Line Adjustment and zoning request. Is this piece of property basically the flat land? Yes, it would adjoin what is the Persimmon extension and would be east of the 80 acres that we have already annexed and zoned. Thanks Tom. Staff, where are we on our PZD ordinance rewrite? This is a classic example of why we need that. Staff has obviously, taken that to the Planning Commission and forwarded it on to Ordinance Review Committee. It is at Ordinance Review Committee being reviewed by Council members and other members of the public. It has also been taken to the Council of Neighborhoods and been received there as well. It needs to go to City Council for final approvals. Do you have a time line on that at all? Not at this point I do not. I would mention however that again, based on the applicant's master plan presented at the time of annexation, in the master plan for this portion of this property, fits best in the RSF-4 zoning district. If we would never have seen a master plan for this type of development we would be recommending that this come through as an RSF-4 zoning request simply because that is the most suitable for the type of development proposed in this area and that is what City Council has directed us to do. If there is a zoning district that is similar or fits the Planning Commission March 28, 2005 Page 15 development patterns that are proposed, that is what staff has been directed to recommend to the applicant to proceed with and I believe that is what the applicant is planning on proceeding with. Anthes: I wish I could remember what the whole plan looked like because I don't have a copy of that. Again, I look in this area and I see that there is a commercial node, a Girls and Boys Club, school and a lot of RMF -24 zoning in the area and basically, level topography and I see that RSF-4 as stated in our ordinance, is designed "to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in a suitable environment." All of you know that it has been a problem to me that we continue to blanket the city with RSF-4 and lower zoning in areas where we might should be thinking about nodes of higher density and mixed use. That is why I was looking forward to a PZD on this property that would allow for a multiple amount of different zoning densities and different uses on the site. When you get a piece of property this large I think that is a benefit to the city. Particularly in relationship to proximity to such an incredible amount of infrastructure and civic use. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this is actually a zoning classification that permits too low of density in this area. Ostner: We have a motion and a second, are there further comments? Renee, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1412 was approved by a vote of 8-1-0 with Commissioner Anthes voting no. Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Meeting adjourned: 6:14 p.m.