Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-22 MinutesPlanning Commission October 22, 2007 Page I of]] MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 22, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: October 08, 2007 Approved Page 3 ADM 07-2768: (SOWDER PARK LAND DEDICATION, 444) Approved Page 3 ADM 07-2380: (URBAN RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS) Forwarded Page 4 CUP 07-2753 (BRISIEL, 524) Tabled Page 6 LSP 07-2744 (BRISIEL, 524) Tabled Page 6 CUP 07-2749 (MATHIAS, 372) Approved Page 7 CUP 07-2752 (MORTON/NORTH STREET, 445) Approved Page 8 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 2 of 11 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Andy Lack Matthew Cabe Christine Myres Lois Bryant Sean Trumbo Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Tim Conklin CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Glenn Newman/Engineering Planning Commission Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order. Commissioner Trumbo requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. Commissioner Myers was not present. Commissioner Myers arrived after the consent agenda. Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 3 of 11 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the October 08, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 07-2768: Administrative Item (Sowder Park Land Dedication): Submitted by Glenn and Victoria Sowder requesting dedication of 0.74 acres of park land for Scull Creek Trail with an equivalent park land bank credit for 43 multi -family units for future development in the southwest park quadrant. Commissioner Trumbo asked if any item should be removed from the consent agenda. Seeing none, he asked for motions. Motion• Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 4 of 11 Old Business: ADM 06-2380: Urban Residential Standards: Submitted by Planning Staff to forward an ordinance establishing urban residential design standards to the Ordinance Review Committee. Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director, gave the staff report, stating that Karen Minkel has been working on these design standards. In December 2006 a draft was presented to the Planning Commission, at which concerns were expressed regarding the cost of development with these standards. At the meeting of January 22, 2007 there were still concerns, especially regarding public street frontage. On July 19 staff met at the agenda session with the Planning Commission and discussed removing components of site planning, street frontage, etc. from this draft. The Planning Commission at that time directed staff to bring back a less prescriptive ordinance. Staff is now bringing forward a formal ordinance that moves away from establishing a traditional neighborhood development (TND)form, and instead addresses architectural standards for multi -family units. A TND ordinance is planned to bring forward these other issues, which can address this at a later date, at the direction from the Planning Commission. With this ordinance, if a multi -family dwelling unit does front on a public street within 10-25' it must be articulated as a front facade. If it is not, the building must set back from the right-of-way 50 feet. Parking, garage entries, and parking lots must be behind or beside the building, and none are permitted within the build -to zone. There must be pedestrian access to public sidewalks. Screening for dumpsters, utility equipment and the like are required much like in commercial applications. Fences have been regulated, as well. With regard to the architectural design standards, three or more residential structures must be designed with different colors and materials so one could tell the difference. On each building, there must be two or more architectural treatments, such as a porch or bay. This ordinance does not address building materials. Conklin presented a PowerPoint presentation with examples of compliant and non-compliant multi -family dwellings. He went over the City Plan 2025, adopted by the City Council, which directs staff to come forward with this ordinance, Staff is trying to draft an ordinance that fronts a building onto a public street when it is facing a public street, similar to Commercial Design Standards. What is being proposed is not a prescriptive ordinance, and is very different than what staff proposed in December. No public comment was received. Commissioner Trumbo stated that from previous time the Commission reviewed this ordinance, one of his main concerns was developers being forced to front all buildings onto public streets. This proposal will now allow private drives and drive aisles. Commissioner Graves asked about chain link fences. On a corner lot, there are 2 fronts. Who determines what the front is? Conklin stated that the way the zoning ordinance reads, a corner lot has two fronts and two sides, so that is already defined by code. Commissioner Graves stated he wanted to make sure it was defined. He noted a grammatical error in the barbed wire fence section, to be corrected. Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 5 of 11 Commissioner Winston stated it seems like there needs to be a process for a variance. If, for instance, an applicant found an architectural treatment that is not on the list? Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated there is a procedure for variances in the variance chapter, related to Ch. 166 Development, in which the proposal is now being considered. It does require an applicant to prove undue hardship, however. Staff might want to take a look at that so comparable feature could substitute for one on the list without proving a hardship. Commissioner Winston asked about screened -in porches. Conklin stated staff will look into that and that the intent was to match the downtown design standards. Commissioner Bryant discussed on -street parking, and how it would relate to the parking ratios. Conklin stated this ordinance does encourage on -street parking, which is an essential component of creating a walkable, pedestrian -friendly environment. On -street parking is not always an option, however, and will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request to the Ordinance Review Committee with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Graves asked the motioner if she intended to include the comments made by the Commission regarding staff looking into the porch screening. Commissioner Myres stated yes, the language for the porch screening should be congruent to the downtown standards. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 6 of]] CUP 07-2753: (BRISIEL, 524): Submitted by LEGACY VENTURES, LLC for property located at 540 EAST HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-8, SINGLE FAMILY - 8 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.79 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Commissioner Trumbo stated that the applicant has requested the conditional use and lot split applications for 540 E. Huntsville be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting on November 13, 2007 and asked if there was any public comment. Seeing none, he asked for motions. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the request to the November 13, 2007 meeting. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. LSP 07-2744: Lot Split (BRISIEL, 524): Submitted by LEGACY VENTURES, LLC for property located at 540 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The property is zoned RSF-8, SINGLE FAMILY - 8 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.79 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 3 tracts of 1.40, 0.18, and 0.21 acres. Commissioner Trumbo asked if there was any public comment. Seeing none, he asked for motions. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the request to the November 13, 2007 meeting. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 7 of]] New Business: CUP 07-2749: (MATHIAS, 372): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located on BOX AVENUE, NW OF MISSION BLVD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is to construct duplexes in the RSF-4 Zoning District. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report and described the project, which consists of two duplexes within an RSF-4 district, on two separate lots. He stated that a large scale development was recently approved for an office building on the adjacent property to the south and that the adjacent properties to the west were developed as commercial businesses. Although the properties were zoned RSF-4, two-family dwellings on the subject properties created an appropriate transition from the nonresidential properties and provided a variety of housing opportunities in the vicinity of a principal arterial street and schools. Street improvements are recommended along one side of Box Avenue, and are included in the staff report. The units constructed should be compatible with surrounding uses and staff recommended approval of the request, with conditions. Terry Box, neighbor, stated that he and his family own many of the lots on Box Avenue and that they plan to request a rezoning for their properties in the near future. He was against the request for two-family dwellings, since an approval for a residential use may jeopardize his family's chances to receive approval for a rezoning to R -O or C-1. He stated he wants to build a dentist's office there. The best use of the properties along Box Ave. is commercial or office. Approval of this would establish a precedent that will lessen the potential value of the property they own. Commissioner Lack asked what uses were permitted in the R -O zoning district. Aren't two-family dwellings allowed by right? Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that two-family dwellings are a permitted use in the R -O zoning district. Commissioner Lack stated that the use seems to be compatible and appropriate, given that duplexes are allowed by right in R -O, as well. Commissioner Myers stated that she agreed with Commissioner Lack's comments completely. Motion: Commissioner Myers made a motion to approve the request with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Commissioner Graves asked if the motion included a finding on condition of approval #1, street improvements. Commissioner Myers stated that she was in favor of condition #1. Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 8 of 11 Commissioner Lack stated he was in favor of condition #1. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 9 of 11 CUP 07-2752: (MORTON/NORTH ST., 445): Submitted by MORTON ASSET MANAGEMENT for property located at 533 NORTH STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The request is for a detached 2nd dwelling unit/granny unit. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report and described the project. He stated that the applicant has submitted all required documents for the request. Staff finds that the second dwelling unit is compatible with the principal structure as indicated by the photographs and building elevations, with the use of the same building materials and height. Comments from area residents have been submitted and are included in the Commissioner's packets; issues include privacy, noise, tree removal, and traffic increase. Second dwelling units can be compatible in single-family zoning districts with appropriate standards in place, such as adequate parking areas, square footage limitations and the requirement for the property owner to reside on the property. Staff recommends approval of the request with 8 conditions of approval, which were described. Clay Morton, applicant, stated that he plans to live in the principal structure and that a second dwelling unit fits into the City Plan 2025. There are other second dwelling units in historic neighborhoods in the City and that the use shouldn't negatively affect property values, as indicated by these other examples. Mark Kinnon, neighbor, stated that the conditional use request has stirred a lot of emails and asked the neighbors who object to the request to raise their hands. (Approximately 7 people raised their hands) Safe ingress and egress to the property was a concern because North St. is such a busy road and the intersection with Gregg Ave. is only 40 yards away. Parking is an issue with the additional unit and if the unit was rented to students then there would be even more vehicles on site. There is no on -street parking in this area. While the structures are architecturally compatible, the use is not compatible with the neighborhood or adjacent properties. There is high density in the neighborhood, and a variety of uses, which he described. The neighborhood endorsed higher density and infill. It is good to see the addition of single family homes in the neighborhood. This is one of two city neighborhoods with an historic designation. He stated residents were worried about the loss of the wooded area. We also need to look at the need. There are a lot of empty rental properties in the area and maybe rentals units have been overbuilt. The conditional use should not be approved on this property. Brad Vester, neighbor, stated that he adjoins the property and that a 6' privacy fence won't screen the new unit above the garage. You would need to be build an approximately 16' tall fence to keep the privacy in his backyard. The greenspace will be replaced with a large whitewall and there will be an increase in noise, traffic and there is no guarantee as to the type of neighbor that will live in the unit. This use does not fit in with the surrounding properties. It is like a deer stand looking into back yards. It does not fit in. Jon Davidson, resident, stated that he was in favor of the request. The unit will only be 500 sq. ft. It is difficult to find a small residential unit that is nice and new in this area. The property is close to the intersection of Gregg and North and there is already a great deal of traffic in the area, which should be a positive. The applicant has complied with all of the ordinance requirements, property Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 10 of 11 values should not be reduced and the City wants to see density downtown. The city keeps talking about bringing density, and making this a great city. He doesn't think that if the applicant has complied with the codes, why we should fight it. Barbara Gavron, neighbor, stated that the large windows will be overlooking her property and that the whole building could have been designed without large openings and an exterior staircase. There is plumbing on the outside walls with no heating space? Who has approved these plans? She purchased her property in a single-family neighborhood. If all of the neighbors are against the request, then why should it be approved? The property on the corner, to the west, is experiencing drainage problems due to the new construction on the subject property. She stated she lived in Eureka Springs and knows conditional use permits, they fight them all the time. This proposal will result in a loss of all the trees. Jeanine Presley, neighbor, stated she lives on Vandeventer and she would hate to see lower-income apartments coming into the neighborhood. Houses in the area are not cheap. She would not like to see those types of apartments. Sara Luke, neighbor, stated that she and her husband just purchased the house adjacent to this property and they don't want the light and noise affecting their property. Chris Rosen, neighbor, stated that he counted 7 rental properties on the way home from the University, so it doesn't seem that additional units are needed. Privacy is a concern, but the larger issues are noise and light shining into their bedroom and baby's room. Commissioner Graves stated that he was in support of the project, and that he wanted to clarify some items. The Planning Commission can't consider economics, or market saturation of rental property. Whether a good or bad investment and owning versus renting is also not a consideration they can make. There are a lot of second story structures in the City where anyone can look down on their neighbor's property. If two-story structures weren't allowed, much of the existing neighborhood wouldn't be built as it is. The garage can be built as located without any additional approvals and the trees can be removed with the garage anyway, so the question is can a very small dwelling unit be located on top of the garage? With one additional car, the traffic danger argument just isn't persuasive. Traffic isn't a concern because a large family could generate as much or more traffic. The income of the person living there isn't an appropriate topic to discuss. He stated he sees this particular request as compatible to the neighborhood. Commissioner Myers stated that she would like to second Commissioner Graves's comments. The Planning Commission recently reviewed an accessory dwelling unit ordinance that would allow these types of units by right, which the Commission was in favor of. There are similar projects in the Washington/Willow neighborhood, which have been successful. This seems to fit, especially with the small size of the dwelling. Commissioner Lack stated that he also supports second dwelling units. This case meets the merits and hopefully will work out. You can't guarantee the owner/developer/tenant in any situation. A Planning Commission October 22, 2007 Page 11 of II couple of concerns or questions need to be posed, though. Isn't there a limit on the size of an accessory structure? Fulcher stated that the maximum size of an accessory structure is no larger than 50% the size of the principal structure. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that part of the ordinance requires the Planning Commission to review the compatibility of the accessory structure to determine if it fits. Fulcher stated that the ordinance allows second dwelling units to be no larger than 1,200 sq. ft. Commissioner Lack asked staff to address the drainage issues brought up by the neighbor. Pate stated that typically, existing drainage cannot be exacerbated by new construction. This being single family home construction, however, a grading and drainage plan is not typically reviewed, so there are no specific requirements to be met. Commissioner Winston asked about the requirements for tree preservation on the property. Pate stated that the tree preservation ordinance does not apply to single-family lots unless it is within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, which this is not. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve the request with all stated conditions of approval. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0 with Commissioner Bryant voting no. ANNOUNCEMENTS: No announcements. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 PM.