Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-24 MinutesPlanning Commission March 24, 2008 Page I of 16 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 24, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: March 10, 2008 Approved Page 3 ADM 08-2957: (VISTA HEALTH, 372) Approved Page 3 C-PZD 08-2904: (BRIDGEDALE PLAZA, 569) Denied Page 4 CUP 08-2922: (VERIZON RUPPLE, 400) Tabled Page 10 CUP 08-2935: (COURTS BUILDING, 523) Approved Page 11 RZN 08-2934: (NEWELL/MORTON, 404) Tabled Page 12 RZN 08-2936: (MULLINS, 678) Forwarded Page 13 RZN 08-2937: (MOUNTAIN RANCH III, 478) Forwarded Page 14 C-PZD 08-2894: (PARK CENTER, 136) Forwarded Page 15 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 2 of 16 MEMBERS PRESENT James Graves Andy Lack Jill Anthes Matthew Cabe Christine Myres Lois Bryant Sean Trumbo Alan Ostner Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT 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. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. All members were present with the exception of Commissioner Myres, who arrived late. Mayor Dan Coody presented a plaque and words of gratitude for the six years of service from Commissioner Alan Ostner, on this, his final meeting of his term. Ostner also stated words of appreciation. The Planning Commission, by secret ballot, then voted for officers for the 2008-2009 year. The results are as follows: Chair: Sean Trumbo Vice -Chair Andy Lack Secretary Lois Bryant Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 3 of 16 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the March 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 08-2957: Administrative Item (VISTA HEALTH, 372): Submitted by KYLE NAPLES for property located at 4253 CROSSOVER, S. OF ZION ROAD. The request is for a variance from Chapter 166, Development, and from conditions of approval of CUP 07-2487 regarding the screening of trash enclosures. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1 (with Commissioner Lack recusing). Commissioner Myres arrived. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 4 of 16 New Business: C-PZD 08-2904: Planned Zoning District (BRIDGEDALE PLAZA, 569): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at THE SE CORNER OF HWY 16E AND RIVER MEADOWS DRIVE. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 15.95 acres. The request is for land use and zoning approval for a C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District, with 27 single-family residential dwelling units, 114,000 SF of self storage, 20,000 SF of Residential Office, and 20,000 SF of Neighborhood Commercial. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report in detail, describing each planning area, uses, density and intensity, along with all improvements to the plan that has occurred through the review process. Sanders reviewed various findings for the rezoning request, the changes in the project, etc. Though many of the components of project are positive, including the residential, office and commercial uses, staff recommended denial of the PZD request, finding the self -storage component of the project does not achieve an adequate level of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, nor will it meet the goals of the Planned Zoning District, Unified Development Code, and City Plan 2025. In staff's opinion, the storage facility use proposed does not contribute or add value to the neighborhood, and thus recommends denial. Should the City Council or Planning Commission find in favor, staff has attempted to anticipate conditions of approval to address several issues, and those are included in the staff report. Clint McDonald, applicant, described working with staff and the changes that occurred through the review. He stated he feels the project is appropriate, due to the screening from the single family to the west; to the east of the project, he feels this area will undoubtedly become a commercial node. McDonald stated he has the support of neighbors to the east. This proj ect will provide development in the area, but may decrease traffic in the area. Development is needed in the area (SE Fayetteville). People will buy goods in the local area. Low impact development (LID) strategies will help this area; storm facilities (cisterns), etc., will help. Storage facility will help provide service to people working out of homes, including pharmaceutical sales, etc.. He stated he has implemented every change requested over the past seven months. Sarah Lewis, Springline Consulting Group, applicant, presented the LID (Low Impact Development) techniques used with the mini -storage portion of the project, dealing with stormwater management. Her PowerPoint presentation discussed how LID focuses entirely on stormwater; it helps match pre -development hydrology. She gave a PowerPoint presentation describing LID techniques, and the detailed examples for implementation in Bridgedale Plaza, including pervious pavement, cisterns, rain gardens, landscape buffers and the potential for solar power. Public Comment: Rosemary Rouff, citizen, stated the development would disrupt the established neighborhood. There will be increased traffic with the commercial uses; with 24-hour service for the storage areas, a few yards from where children play, this will be unsafe. She stated she likes the neighborhood without commercial there. Zoning exceptions can only be made for good cause, based on State Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 5 of 16 codes. Ms. Rouff quoted from several Supreme Court cases that stated financial rewards/economic benefit can not be the only reason to rezone the property, and incompatibility of adjacent land uses is to be used as a consideration. Hardin Hanks III, citizen, lives at 1440 S. River Meadows Dr., stated he spoke at the last meeting. Flooding is his biggest concern, especially along the property bordering Roberts Rd, Stonebridge Rd. (passed out photos of flooding conditions). Joe Ray, citizen, stated there were no examples of mini -storage units in residential areas in the City and expressed that he believes there should not be mini -storage units in close proximity to residential areas here, either. 99 .. Alley, citizen, cited 2025 Plan, states that storage is not compatible with surrounding neighborhood, and she does not support the plan. Anthony Sumlin, citizen, lives at River Bluff Dr., and stated he is in favor of staff's recommendation. While he appreciates the LID techniques, he feels this development is not congruent to this area. He does not favor, however, placing a "green" sticker on it to get it passed. Jim Looper, citizen, lives at 1340 St. Andrews Circle, stated he is puzzled why no one in Bridgedale Subdivision was notified of this project and inquired about the notification process. He expressed his belief that Bridgedale will suffer in property values and lead to traffic problems. He claimed that mini -storage is a new home for drug dealers setting up "meth labs" and storing drugs in the units. He also discussed drainage issues. Eldon Roberts, citizen, 1197 Roberts Road, stated he has no problem with the development as proposed. He owns and borders the property to the east. He has lived there 60 years, and sold the property to Clint McDonald. He stated that a storage facility doesn't have noise, barking dogs, etc and that he would like to see commercial uses integrated with the existing residential uses. He discussed the history and extent of the drainage issues. (Passed out photos) Gary Alderson, citizen, stated he supports Clint and the project. He stated that he owns commercial property on Huntsville, that he believes this project will increase our property values, and that he plans to utilize the storage facility if approved. Richard Huffy, citizen, lives on River Meadows Dr., stated that obtaining maximum potential financial gain is not a criterion for rezoning and claimed that emphasis has been placed on improving services, offering new facility to area, which disguises the real intent. James Smyth, citizen, owns six houses in Bridgedale subdivision. He is here to support the development, as he believes that a lack of services hinders real estate sales in the area. He expressed his favorable opinion of the proposed design and screening techniques for the mixture of uses. Gregory Carter, citizen, Stonebridge Meadows resident, stated that everything he has is invested in Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 6 of 16 his home and would like the area to remain residential. John David Smith, citizen, lives at 2350 Hunton Lane, stated he supports development. He stated he lives in close proximity to this development and stores medical/x-ray supplies in climate controlled facilities across town. He believes that the applicant has made an extensive effort to make this fit and satisfy all parties involved. Sean Marriott, citizen, lives on Spring Street, stated that the cottage style is not cookie cutter. He stated he was in support of denial. Mr. Craig, citizen, lives in Bridgedale Phase I, stated that the proposal concerns him greatly, because of the proposed development's affect on property value and traffic in the area. Glenda Patterson, citizen, lives at Stonebridge Meadows, stated that the development bothers her because the people for it are people in business, not those in the area. She stated she was not in support of the project, along with several of the neighbors. Dean Thomey, citizen, lives at 1015 River Meadows Dr., and is concerned about the use and stated that he never would have moved in if this project was there. Mark Wilhite, citizen, lives at 1043 River Meadows Dr., and is concerned with the development and would rather see a park. Michelle Bailey, citizen, lives at 1274 River Meadows Circle, and stated she is against the development. (Submitted photos). Her major concern is with drainage. Vicki Campbell, citizen, lives in Bridgedale subdivision and stated opposition and that in June 2007 she was told the development was going to be all residential. Public comment period ended. Commissioner Winston stated that he prepared comments, and read them, as follows: I'm not convinced that self -storage is appropriate in this kind of development. I think that the concerns of staff are well thought out and well founded. I'm most troubled by the very possible reality of the self -storage being constructed and the rest of the project not coming to fruition. That said: I'm sure that it will be a long while before we will see a self -storage facility as well integrated into a neighborhood area as this. The points I would like to make in favor of the project are as follows: 1) In our packet on page 3, the phases of construction are outlined. I was happy to see that the developer is committed to build the houses between street three and the storage facility (lost 18-27). 2) It is visually insulated from the neighbors who have already built, at least from a ground floor vantage point. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 7 of 16 3) Onsite management, limited hours of access, rules barring storage of hazardous materials, sales and auctions as well as installing crime prevention technologies will help make the facility a safe and quiet neighbor. 4) Low Impact Development strategies such as pervious paving, rainwater collection and solar power further raise the standards of such a facility. 5) The developers have made changes that Subdivision committee recommended regarding connectivity to the east and screening to the south from existing neighbors. 6) This area is growing rapidly and very well might present a demand for self -storage. We have an opportunity to raise standards on self -storage design in Fayetteville. 7) Allowing this facility carries a risk of integrating uses that don't seem to support one another, but we may be surprised that having a nearby storage facility will encourage people to live in these smaller houses. I would further support this use if we implement the following conditions on the project: 1) In regard to Item 3 concerning the type of PZD, I would support keeping the C-PZD designation over the I-PZD designation because the storage facility primarily caters to residential rather than industrial clients. 2) With regard to item 10 concerning hours of operation, I would support changing the hours of operation from 6am-10pm to 7am-9am except by appointment. 3) With regard to item 11 concerning building heights, I would recommend limiting the building height of the storage buildings to 18 feet which would allow for a large single story plus parapet, while allowing the 35 foot height limit to remain for the management office. This would insure that a height restriction would not keep the design of this building from appearing in context with either the residential or commercial buildings. 4) In regard to phasing: I would be in support of this project if the houses on the south side of Street 2, those are lots 8 thru 17 were constructed before the actual buildings comprising the storage facility were open for business. 5) I am concerned that in the future the storage facility could expand to the east. I would like to have a bill of assurances that the facility would not expand beyond its current bounds. Commissioner Graves asked about typical traffic and a storage facility. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed the traffic study, and that storage facilities typically have a lower traffic volume. Staff is not as concerned with the traffic volume from this particular use. Commissioner Graves asked about the use of an I-PZD v. a C-PZD, as mentioned in the staff report. Pate described the determination of this rather hybrid self -storage use, which is partly commercial, partly industrial. The Commercial Planned Zoning District ordinance allows a maximum of 5,000 square feet of warehousing/storage space. The proposed warehousing obviously exceeds that, at 114,000 square feet. Staff did initially consider classifying this project as an industrial planned zoning district. However, in our review of the project, it became apparent that the industrial Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 8 of 16 classification does not fit as well as the commercial classification. Self -storage is not a manufacturing use, or a commercial warehousing use; rather, it is individually accessed by citizens, typically. Staff interpreted the use as a hybrid between an industrial use and commercial use, and found it fit more appropriately into the commercial classification. This is an interpretation of the UDC; staff felt it was appropriate to bring it to the Planning Commission's attention, however, in order to make everyone aware of the use. The alternative is to classify it as an industrial PZD, which would be much more difficult to apply findings to. In staffs review, while we do not support the mini -storage use within the neighborhood, for we do not find it fits with the idea of a mixed-use project in that it does not contribute to the neighborhood, we do find it appropriate to classify this PZD as a commercial one, as opposed to an industrial one. Commissioner Graves stated he disagreed with staff s position about self -storage. This seems to be what we want for the storage units. Traffic doesn't seem to be that big of a concern. Mixed-use projects are supposed to be supported. He stated he does support the project. Commissioner Lack stated he was supportive of the commercial along Hwy 16, and found it beneficial to the neighborhood. He stated he was in favor of slightly greater density of the residential portion of project. The Planning Commission is charged with a new task of reviewing mixed-use projects. However, he is not able to support the mini -storage component. This use is only allowed in higher intensity areas, such as industrial and commercial zoning districts. He stated he applauds the LID practices, and hopes they would follow the self -storage, wherever it goes. But he is not supportive of this use at this site. The overall use is a concern. Phasing is a secondary concern; he asked staff to elaborate on how the project would work, if the phasing did not occur as planned. Pate discussed the revoking of a PZD zoning, and the process it entails. A PZD that does not occur in the phasing as it was intended does not necessarily return to the original zoning. Ultimately the City Council decides the zoning of the property. Commissioner Lack stated he was concerned with the less compatible portion of the project being constructed, and the community being left with that. Commissioner Graves stated he had a question for the City Attorney regarding the order of phasing. Could they require some portion of it to be constructed first? What would happen if no houses were built, and the mini -storage constructed? That would be a concern. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that because this is a rezoning, if the Planning Commission is concerned about whether this particular use fits into the community, they could require the homes to be constructed first, as part of the phasing. However, Jeremy is more familiar with the code, I would ask him. Pate stated that yes, the phasing conditions could go to that level of detail, requiring houses to be constructed first. This is not something that has been done before, in his experience, and was one more item staff was concerned about with this project. Ultimately, if the use needed to be screened this much, perhaps it did not belong in the neighborhood. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 9 of 16 Commissioner Myres stated that there area lot of things she likes about the project, and appreciates the changes to make it more acceptable. The changes have certainly helped the project. However, she stated she still has a real problem with the section devoted to mini -storage. She liked the idea of mixed-use, but can't support the proposal with the storage use, as designed. She will support staff s recommendation. Commissioner Winston stated that the only ideas he came up with to use LID techniques on this property other than the use proposed is parks and playgrounds, but that's not reality. The project needs to be economically feasible. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to deny the request, based on the staff findings and recommendation. Commissioner Lack seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-4-0, with Commissioners Graves, Ostner, Winston and Trumbo voting no. Break. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 10 of 16 CUP 08-2922: Conditional Use Permit (VERIZON WIRELESS RUPPLE ROAD, 400): Submitted by TRACY WOODEN for property located at 1363 N. RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1. 11 acres. The request is for a wireless communication tower. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE ITEM BE TABLED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 14, 2008. Bob Estes, applicant, stated that the request is to be tabled to April 14, to explore alternative sites suggested by staff. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the request. Commission Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion was passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 11 of 16 CUP 08-2935: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (COURTS BUILDING, 523): Submitted by MCGOODWIN, WILLIAMS & YATES, INC. for property located at 140 W. ROCK STREET, THE NE CORNER OF ROCK AND CHURCH. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.50 acres. The request is to reduce parking ratios based on a shared parking agreement. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, stating that based on findings, staff recommends approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Chris Brackett, applicant, stated he was in agreement with staff conditions. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the request. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 12 of 16 RZN 08-2934: REZONING (NEWELL/MORTON, 404): Submitted by JAKE NEWELL & CLAY MORTON MNI, LLC for property located at 1141 HENDRIX. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre, subject to a Bill of Assurance. Andrew Garner, Current Planner, stated that the applicant requested the item be tabled to the April 14`h Planning Commission meeting in order to have a neighborhood meeting to discuss with aldermen. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the request to the April 14`h meeting. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0- 0. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 13 of 16 RZN 08-2936: REZONING (MULLINS, 678): Submitted by JOHN MULLINS & CHAD BRAMLETT MULLINS PROPERTY MGMT/INSPIRED BUILDERS for property located at 2846 S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.2 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to R -O, Residential Office. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Based on the findings, staff recommends forwarding the request to the City Council, recommending that the rezoning request. Chad Bramlett, applicant, stated that they will be remodeling the existing house. R -O is very consistent with this area, and there is R -O in direct vicinity of this area. They will add one more parking space for an office use. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Trumbo made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 14 of 16 RZN 08-2937: REZONING (MOUNTAIN RANCH III, 478): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOC. for property located at THE W PORTION OF MOUNTAIN RANCH PHASE III, S OF PHASE L The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 26.87 acres. The request is to rezone 17.22 acres of the subject property to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Based on the findings, staff recommended forwarding the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Dave Jorgensen, applicant, described the request. No public comment was received. Commissioner Trumbo asked what type of residential construction is proposed for the RSF-8 zoning district. Jorgensen stated there would be some rowhouses, a mixture of rear access and shared drives. There will be a mixture of lot sizes and home sizes. It seems to be a perfect fit. Commissioner Trumbo asked if any uses were different in RSF-8 than RSF-4. Is multi -family allowed? Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated there were the same uses in RSF-8 as RSF-4. Multi -family is not a use by right, and two-family dwellings are only allowed by conditional use. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 15 of 16 C-PZD 08-2894: Planned Zoning District (PARK CENTER, 136): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at THE NE CORNER OF ZION ROAD/VETERANS PARK ENTRY DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE AND R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 8.58 acres. The request is for Zoning, Land Use and Development approval for a Commercial Planned Zoning District with approximately 100,500 s.f. of office, retail and restaurant space and 15 residential units. Commissioner Lack stated he would recuse from this item. Andrew Garner, Current Planner, gave the staff report, including background info, and a description of the project. He discussed findings regarding the PZD request, including recommended conditions. Staff recommended forwarding the project to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Roger Boskus, applicant, discussed the design intent, and went through the transition of changing the layout. The biggest issues are money for right-of-way being paid back to the City. When the agreement for $42,000 was made for the City to pay us for the right-of-way, a public street was not planned. Now the project is $70,000 more because of the public street in the project. They would simply like to have consideration for that. Commissioner Trumbo gave a report from Subdivision Committee. They had requested more information regarding other projects that had public streets and off-site street improvements. These are now listed in staff report. He stated he was in favor of the intersection aligning with Vantage, on that condition. They had originally made a recommendation to allow access to the park road, but that has been changed for the better with the new proposal. They liked the commercial design standards. He would like to hear more about the reflecting glass. On bringing the buildings up to Zion Road in the site layout, the applicant was able to preserve more trees with this layout. The layout made sense, in light of what was being given in return. Trumbo asked staff to explain the ion Road agreement. Garner stated that typically a development would be required to dedicate right-of-way and make improvements to adjacent streets. When the improvement is to be delayed, an assessment for that improvement is taken. Garner discussed the cost of typical street improvements, which is generally $110/linear foot. Based on the $42,000 that would be paid to the City with this recommendation, the applicant would only be charged $68/linear foot. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, clarified that the $110/LF is a typical cost; if applying a cost to the development frontage, the assessment for this project would calculate to be $68.68/LF. If the typical assessment were charged at $110/LF, the developer would be required to both dedicate the right-of-way and pay that assessment, which amounts to roughly $67,000 (611 linear feet x $110/LF). Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the resolution from original agreements with the City Council, and stated his opinion that the public street was a good thing and should be considered in favor of the applicant. Planning Commission March 24, 2008 Page 16 of 16 Boskus stated the issue was not with the cost of Zion Road. The connection to the park is a good thing, but it has to be a public street. They don't want to maintain public access through to the park. Given that, roughly $68,000 more is being spent on this street than was anticipated. Commissioner Anthes asked if $67,000 that would normally be required for Zion Road is not being required, and the applicant was paid for the right-of-way that normally would be dedicated, and $68,000 for the amount that they have estimated is the additional cost, then is it not generally a wash? Don't the numbers essentially even out, with the payment of the $42,000 back to the Council? And the added benefit to the applicant is that the City will forever maintain the street, as opposed to the cost of the developer to maintain it. Commissioner Graves stated that if the applicant can present different information to the City Council, if they are going over and above the normal requirement, the City Council ought to consider their proposal. In his mind, the applicant is better off, the City; park users — it is a better situation all around if the street is public. He stated he was in favor of condition#1. In favor of #2; #3; agree with Commercial Design Standards; #5, he stated he agrees with staff's recommendation to make changes to the layout, due to the public street being provided, tree canopy being saved; #6 he would leave to staff to work out the language. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to forward the request to City Council with conditions as listed in the staff report, with a recommendation of approval, including the amendment to condition #6 regarding the revised site access in the northwest corner onto Zion Road, as presented. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0- 1 (with Commissioner Lack recusing). All business being concluded, meeting was adjourned at 8:20 PM.