Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-08 MinutesPlanning Commission October 08, 2007 Page I of 14 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 08, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: September 24, 2007 Approved Page 3 VAC 07-2733: (PHYSICIAN'S SURGERY CENTER, 175) Forwarded Page 3 ADM 07-2755: (R-PZD WOODBURY, 137) Approved Page 3 ADM 07-2739 (MARKETPLACE EXPRESS) Denied Page 4 CUP 07-2666 (VERIZON — SANG AVENUE, 481) Tabled Page 6 C-PZD 07-2726 (SUNSHINE HOUSE, 292) Forwarded Page 7 ADM 07-2712 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) Forwarded Page 10 RZN 07-2708 (CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE FIRE STATIONS) Forwarded Page 13 ADM 07-2762 (USE UNIT 5 AMENDMENT) Forwarded Page 14 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 2 of 14 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Matthew Cabe Christine Myres Lois Bryant Alan Ostner Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Tim Conklin CITY ATTORNEY: David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves Andy Lack Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Glenn Newman/Engineering Planning Commission Chair Jill Anthes called the meeting to order. Commissioner Anthes requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. She also stated that the applicants should be aware that only six Commissioners were present and it takes five affirmative votes to pass conditional use, rezoning and planned zoning district requests. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. Commissioners Graves, Lack and Trumbo were not present. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 3 of 14 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the September 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. VAC 07-2733: (PHYSICIAN'S SURGERY CENTER, 175): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3873 NORTH PARKVIEW DRIVE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is to vacate portions of a utility and a drainage easement on the subject property ADM 07-2755: Administrative Item (R-PZD WOODBURY,137): The request is to extend the approval of R-PZD 06-2190, Residential Planned Zoning District, Woodbury for 1 year. Commissioner Anthes asked if any item should be removed from the consent agenda. Seeing none, she asked for motions. Motion: Commissioner Ostner moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 4 of 14 Old Business: ADM 07-2739: Administrative Item (MARKETPLACE EXPRESS): Submitted by CamargoCopeland Architects, LLP requesting a waiver from exterior lighting regulations to allow neon/LED lighting in excess of 75% of the building's linear fagade length. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, including an update from the previous meeting. The updated percentage of requested neon has now been reflected in the numbers presented by the architect for the applicant, and represents 86% of the building's linear feet of fagade. The applicant's request has been modified to remove neon lighting off of the tower/cupola feature. Commissioner Anthes asked if the applicant were present. The applicant was not present. No public comment was received. Commissioner Anthes asked Garner if staff had spoken with the applicant about the meeting. Garner replied that he had spoken with the applicant regarding the new numbers, which were resubmitted, and they should be aware of the item being presented for consideration. After discussion, the Commissioners decided to continue consideration of the item. Commissioner Winston stated his concern would be a different color of neon than white. He would be concerned if it changed to pink, yellow or another color. Commissioner Anthes asked if there had been any discussion with the applicant regarding color. Would it be appropriate to add the white color as a condition of approval? Garner replied that yes, it would be appropriate to condition the request to limit neon lighting to white color. Commissioner Cabe stated that the ordinance allows 75% of a building's linear fagade to be outlined in neon. The applicant has not provided any apparent hardship or justification, as required by the variance request. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to deny the request, accordingly. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 3-3-0, with Commissioners Ostner, Bryant and Myres voting against the motion. Commissioner Myres stated that she could support the neon, finding there was a unique circumstance in that the building had no real back and the location of the building without direct Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 5 of 14 street access. The access is from the parking area, and not a public street. The building was clearly visible, so the hardship is not that great, but it makes sense as requested. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request, adding a condition of approval that only white -colored neon would be required to be utilized. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner stated he was tempted to vote for the motion to deny previously. Lighting three-fourths of the building does seem sufficient. However, the reason he will vote to approve the request is because the building does not have access to a street. It is facing inward, to the parking lot. Additionally, the numbers the architects have submitted, with 86% coverage, and the City permits 75%, this is a 14.5% overage. This is comparable to extra parking requests the City has approved in the past, in terms of comparison of overages. He sees merit in the request. Commissioner Anthes stated she had made her points clear at the last meeting. It may be odd to have only three sides wrapped in neon, and the other side blank, but she hoped the architect would bring something back more imaginative, such as lighting the architectural features of the building in a more creative manner. There are also plenty of tools in the lighting ordinance, such as up -lighting or down -lighting, to adequately light the building. Other businesses in this area have done so without the use of neon. Additionally, in reference to other businesses having an unfair competitive advantage with more neon, they were permitted prior to the neon ordinance. Olive Garden is a good example of a restaurant that is consistently listed as one of the top restaurants in the area, and the lighting of that particular building is subtle and appropriate. Commissioner Ostner asked staff what other types of up -lighting have been proposed for this building. Garner stated that to his knowledge, no other up -lighting has been proposed for this building at this time. This would not preclude the applicant from proposing it later, however, even during construction. The motion to approve, as amended, failed with a vote of 3-3-0, with Commissioners Winston, Cabe and Anthes voting against the motion. The motion failed due to lack of a majority vote. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 6 of 14 CUP 07-2666: (VERIZON WIRELESS SANG AVENUE, 481): Submitted by WOODEN, FULTON & SCARBOROUGH, P.C. for property located at THE SANG AVENUE WATER TOWER SITE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 13 acres. The request is for a 150' wireless communication facility on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, discussing new information from Alltel that the existing Alltel tower may be able to be replaced with new tower at 150 -feet height, the existing antennas would be relocated to the new tower, and Verizon could mount their antennas at the top, with room for one additional carrier, a "drop and swap". Alltel stated in writing that they would be willing to discuss such an option with Verizon. Due to possibility of eliminating the need for a new tower, staff recommends tabling this item indefinitely to allow time for dialogue with Alltel. Bob Estes (applicant) stated he concurred with the recommendation. Estes discussed that Verizon contacted Alltel, and that Alltel's co -location representative never discussed a drop and swap with them. He concurred with tabling. Julian Archer, neighbor, stated he lives at 415 W Markham Rd. Concurs with staff and the applicant. He discussed that the application for CUP that a good faith effort should be made to co - locate. The applicant contacted the co -location agent for Alltel, KGI, Inc., not Alltel directly. James Coger (public) stated he believes that staffs recommendation is the perfect solution. No more towers. Seeing not more public comment, public comment was closed. Commissioner Ostner stated that the drop and swap was a good path to go down. The height on the existing Alltel tower may have to be increased. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to table the request indefinitely. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 7 of 14 New Business: C-PZD 07-2726: Planned Zoning District (THE SUNSHINE HOUSE, 292): Submitted by GREG & ANGIE LANDERS for property located at 2460 N. OLD WIRE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.95 acres. The request is for rezoning and land use approval for a Commercial Planned Zoning District to allow a child care facility on the property. Andrew Garner, Current Planner, gave the staff report and described the project. He described that staff discussed a CUP with the applicant, but a CUP application in RSF-4 zoning district only allows a maximum of 10 children and the applicant proposed up to 60 children. A daycare with this many children would require a commercial rezoning. Staff recommended that a PZD would be more appropriate than C-1 or C-2 rezoning. Old Wire Rd. does need to be improved, staff is recommending assessments for those improvements. The PZD application meets City Plan 2025, and the intent of the PZD ordinance as it would be compatible and would help provide needed daycare facility in this neighborhood. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Garner described that staff broke assessment down for 40 children with the initial phase of development for a total of $10,561.40; the second phase of the development for up to 60 children, would be determined at time of development, but with today's numbers, would be an additional $5,558.60. Other conditions are typical of a daycare facility. Glenn Carter, applicant, stated he represents Angie Landers in the project and is available for questions. No public comment was received. Commissioner Anthes asked if the building was currently on septic. Garner stated that he was not certain, but after discussion with the applicant that was their understanding. Commissioner Anthes asked if it sewer would be extended with the first phase? Carter stated he hasn't been able to confirm if it is on a septic system, but it would connect with the first phase if required. Commissioner Anthes asked about the condition for sewer connection. Garner clarified that yes, it was condition #13. Commissioner Anthes asked about trash service. Garner stated it is anticipated that trash service would be able to be accommodated by standard residential carts. He discussed that if a commercial dumpster were ever required it would be required to be reviewed and screened, and that there is a condition of approval addressing this issue. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 8 of 14 Commissioner Anthes asked about ADA spaces. Garner stated he hasn't looked into that detail yet but that it would be reviewed at the time of the parking lot permit. Commissioner Anthes asked about bicycle racks. Garner stated that a bicycle rack is not required unless there are 25 parking spaces or more. Commissioner Anthes asked about signage. Garner stated that signage is limited as indicated by the applicant in their application, and this is addressed in condition #14. Commissioner Anthes asked about the content of the signs. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the Planning Commission doesn't address sign content. Commissioner Ostner asked if there were any comments from neighbors. Pate stated he spoke with an alderman about the process, but that there has been no other public comment. Commissioner Ostner stated that it seems to fit and would be a good thing in this location. Traffic conditions have not spoken about. He is concerned about speeding traffic. Pate discussed traffic safety, turning movements, and that staff is recommending assessment for improvements to Old Wire Road that would help with traffic safety when the road is improved. He discussed that turning movements into and out of this daycare facility would help slow traffic down. Commissioner Ostner asked if there were any children that would be playing in the front yard. Carter stated that there was an 1,800 square foot fenced play area in the back. Angie Landers, applicant, stated there were would be no children near the road. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to forward the request with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Bryant asked if the daycare doesn't ever go in, can another commercial Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 9 of 14 development go in? Pate stated that under the PZD zoning a residential house/use is allowed. A different commercial use other than a daycare would require a different PZD and the applicant would be required to go through the same procedure again. No other commercial uses are allowed other than what is proposed. Commissioner Anthes asked about aligning drive entry with street area from Old Wire. Garner stated that staff felt it was okay for now with the 11 -space parking lot, but that staff will review the location with future development on property. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 10 of 14 ADM 07-2712: (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS): An ordinance amending the Unified Development Code to allow Accessory Dwelling Units by right in Residential Zoning Districts. Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director, explained that the accessory dwelling unit ordinance was one of the benchmarks adopted by the City Council. The proposed ordinance was drafted to allow existing homeowners to construct accessory dwelling units. He explained that accessory dwelling units also known as detached second dwelling units are currently permitted by conditional use. Planning staff was bringing forward a prescriptive ordinance that addresses site design, bulk and area, building height, setback, and architectural compatibility. The ordinance advances three of the six goals adopted in City Plan 2025: Allowing accessory dwelling units meets Goal 1, Appropriate Infill, discouraging suburban sprawl meets Goal 2, and creating attainable housing meets Goal 6. He suggested the Commissioners review what was adopted by other communities in Washington, Wisconsin, and California. A PowerPoint presentation was shown that discussed the benefits of the ordinance and how it relates specifically to Fayetteville. Conklin asked that if the Commissioners had any additional requirements or suggestions above and beyond those discussed, that he be notified. Each exhibit was presented and summarized. Commissioner Anthes asked if it will modify approved PZDs. Conklin stated that no, it's too complicated to do so with all Residential PZDs. Instead, Use Unit 41, Accessory Dwelling Units, will be added to the UDC and could be used to amend an existing PZD through the City Council process. Public Comment was received: Joann Kvamme, neighbor, stated she is concerned about small lot sizes. She stated that the amount of coverage on a lot be considered by the amount of impervious surface. She expressed drainage concerns and how the additional units would change the flavor of neighborhood. She expressed that ADU's should be looked at on a case by case basis. She thought this proposed ordinance was too risky for the City to blanket approval ADU's. She understood PZDs won't change, but once a person buys the property, they could change it after it is built. She also expressed concern that off-street parking won't be enough to serve the ADU. Dan Conner stated the main reason they haven't been approved is the whole neighborhood comes out and fights it. He suggested they keep ADU's as a conditional use permit. Conklin stated that the City does have lot coverage standards, but they don't have them for actual paving. With regard to previous ones, they typically aren't a problem if they are done correctly. If this is something we want to encourage, as affordable housing, or if there needs to be additional requirements to make it more prescriptive, please let staff know your ideas. Commissioner Anthes asked if development in PZDs can change. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 11 of 14 Conklin stated that no, the PZD ordinance goes with the Land. Commissioner Ostner asked about R -O zoning and ADU's. Conklin stated they tried to stay with just single-family, because they currently only allow one single family dwelling. Commissioner Ostner asked if there was an impact fee for an additional unit. Conklin confirmed that impact fees would apply to each new unit. Commissioner Ostner asked if there were separate water/sewer taps, or together? Conklin stated that he has seen it done both ways. Commissioner Ostner stated it can get expensive to build an ADU. He questioned trash pick up and how that would be handled. He stated that Mr. Conner had a good point that people fight these requested -for ADU's. He stated that there were no parameters in previous applications — no specific rules and that they probably should have been fought. He stated he thought 600 square feet was too big. He thought 400-500 s.f. would be more appropriate. He would like to see the ordinance say 400 s.f, instead. He stated that he lived in 420 s.f. with a roommate. He thought the Ordinance is terrific, to set up rules to promote ADU's. He stated that density is what is going to save this town. You can get more shops, and keep Dickson alive. This is a great way to do density right. Commissioner Winston asked about the size of the dwelling unit on the right in the slideshow. Conklin stated that he did not know but would find out. Commissioner Ostner stated he hopes that the entire property, both ADU and primary dwelling don't becomes rent houses. And that you could have six people living in these houses. Commissioner Anthes asked about a deed restriction on the property that requires owner occupancy for one of the units. Commissioner Ostner asked about the potential problem of an unscrupulous owner who doesn't occupy one of the units. Commissioner Bryant asked how the deed restriction worked and how it would be enforced. She asked what stops them from renting both out. Pate stated that if there is a violation of UDC, it will be prosecuted. Commissioner Cabe asked about the amount of buildable area, and how this ordinance would impact existing second dwelling units that did not go through CUP. He also asked about grandfathered units. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 12 of 14 Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request to ordinance review. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes stated she appreciates staff's work on research to produce a predictable outcome with this process. She discussed the benefits of this ordinance with helping to create additional income to allow citizens afford housing, the downsizing of families, and being able to stay in neighborhood. She stated that she supported this ordinance. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 13 of 14 RZN 07-2708: (CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE FIRE ST., 255): Submitted by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE for property located at VARIOUS LOCATIONS. The property is zoned VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS. The request is to rezone all of the existing Fire Stations and proposed sites (except F.S.1) to P-1, Institutional to bring them into zoning compliance. Tim Conklin gave the staff reports for items #8 & 9 on the agenda to rezone six of the seven fire stations to P-1 institutional and add Use Unit 5 to the P-1 zoning district. He stated that the City was in the process to rezone city owned property currently used for municipal purposes to P-1 and that they would be seeing the City parks come before them in the future. He explained that the need to add Use Unit 5 to the P-1 zoning district resulted from amending the Use Units several months ago to remove police and fire uses from Use Unit 3, since they were already listed in Use Unit 5. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request to City Council. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Planning Commission October 08, 2007 Page 14 of 14 ADM 07-2762: (USE UNIT 5 AMENDMENT): Submitted by Planning Staff to make Use Unit 5, Fire Station, a use by right in the P-1, Institutional, Zoning District. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to forward the request to City Council. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Subdivision Committee is this Thursday. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 6.48 PM.