Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-09 MinutesPlanning Commission March 9, 2009 Page I of 12 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on March 9, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. MINUTES: February 23, 2009 Page 3 ACTION TAKEN Approved ADM 09-3236: (540 FLEX PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION) Approved Page 3 RZN 09-3217: (WINKLER / SOUTH & COLLEGE STS., 524) Forwarded Page 4 RZN 09-3218: (LIFE STYLES, INC., 363) Forwarded Page 11 ADM 09-3219: (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 166.12, DEVELOPMENT)Forwarded Page 12 Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 2 of 12 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe James Graves Jeremy Kennedy Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Karen Minkel CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Dara Sanders 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. Upon roll call, all members were present. Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 3 of 12 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the February 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 09-3236: (540 FLEX PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION): Submitted by GREAT SOUTHERN BANK for property located at the END OF N. SHILOH DRIVE, S. OF MT. COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 12.29 acres. The request is for a one year extension for the approval of the PPL 07-2534. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Graves seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 4 of 12 RZN 09-3217: (WINKLER / SOUTH & COLLEGE STS., 524): Submitted by STEVE & MICHELE WINKLER for property located at 300 S. COLLEGE AVENUE AND 145 E. SOUTH STREET. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request. This property was part of the Walker Park Master Plan adopted in 2008. In that Plan this property was slated to be zoned NC, Neighborhood Conservation. During review of that Plan, the Planning Commission recommended in favor of the applicant's request to have the property zoned DG, Downtown General. Once this request was in front of the City Council, the Council changed it to Neighborhood Conservation and that it how it was approved with the overall Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan. The applicant has now come forward with his own individual request to have the Commission and Council look at his own property in the setting of this neighborhood. The original request was to have the 0.63 acres be zoned Downtown General, but staff expressed some concerns with compatibility, transition and density for rezoning that entire tract, which was all the property between S. College and Washington Avenue. The applicant has amended his request to be 0.25 acres approximately, that's only one tract between Washington and College. Staff feels that rezoning this small tract at a corner location along a fairly highly traveled street, College Avenue, bordered to the north by Downtown General, and catty -corner from Downtown General, would be appropriate both in use and intensity, and felt it also still managed to create an appropriate transition between those uses, this street and the existing neighborhood zoned NC to the south and east of this property. We felt that it was in line with the City Plan 2025 and the Walker Park Master Plan, both of which encourage a variety of housing types and trying to keep non-residential uses, which would be allowed by right by the Downtown General zoning district, at corner locations. We felt that this rezoning, if left at the corner location, would be an appropriate change in zoning. We have recommended approval of this rezoning request. I did provide an additional packet of letters we received from the neighborhood. All those came in this weekend or today after our agenda meeting on Thursday. We did include all the meeting minutes from the previous Walker Park discussions from Planning Commission & City Council for your review. Steve Winkler, applicant, stated he has been here before, and there's just one change made since then, we're not seeking the entire 0.68 acres but only the corner lot. I might also note that it says it's zoned NC, you might be aware that there's an appeal pending in Circuit Court for that. But it is for 0.25 acres. I have nothing to add to Staff's report. There is opposition to this. We took your recommendation to the City Council last time, and then we were denied because of neighborhood opposition evidently. We've tried to zero in on what the opposition is. We've talked to neighbors, we went to a neighborhood association meeting with the architect last Saturday to try and get some feedback and neighborhood participation. We think there are four categories of objection. One is the traffic. Another is that they didn't like the sketches that we had, which was very preliminary, just to show it's a modern -type building, three stories high. They thought it was ugly. I also asked whether it was the structure itself or the people within the structure that they didn't like, because there's a societal bias against people who rent. The other main objection that was people didn't want change. They want this to be set in the zoning in which it is. We don't want to change anybody else's zone, only the property we own. I think the City Plan 2025 is the best tool the City Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 5 of 12 could have to get through these times. Tony Wappel, neighbor, stated that his biggest concern with the rezone is that for several months last year and the year before we were all involved in the charrette process to set the future for the Walker Park neighborhood. People took lots of time to participate in that. City staff and the City Council approved the way we had it set up with Neighborhood Conservation, and this proposed Downtown General where Mr. Winkler is wanting to rezone was not ever considered until the very end in which a group of us signed a petition to stop it, and the City Council agreed, they said no this should remain Neighborhood Conservation. So my biggest concern is, are you really going to stand by the citizens that participate in the charrette process, or are you going to change it every time somebody with money wants to build apartment buildings. Otherwise what's the point of the charrette process? So, my only comment is to stick to the original plan and keep it Neighborhood Conservation. Mike Hillis, neighbor, stated he believes he speaks for most of the neighborhood when he says he is opposed to the development. We have nothing like this apartment building in the neighborhood, we're all owner -occupied. No further public comment was received. Commissioner Cabe asked Mr. Williams if the Planning Commission needs to consider the fact that this issue is currently involved with an appeal in Circuit Court. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the Commissioners should not consider that. Commissioner Lack stated that with the height regulations in Downtown General, my concern is knowing the slope. I'm not opposed to the higher density at the corners or right across from the other parcels zoned Downtown General or the transect zoning which is generally considered to be more appropriate at the back property lines, those things are all in favor of this. I am more concerned about the fact that the downhill side — because this is a sloping site — would have an amplified height ramification. If I could ask staff to go over the way the height would be measured, because my recollection of that is that it's measured from the natural grade at the lowest point of the building, which means that at the most south portion of the building the maximum height would be measured from that location. Fulcher stated that the height is measured from the existing natural grade, so since the south side of the site would have the highest side of the building, that being the lowest portion of the site. So the 56 feet, or four stories, would be measured at that point, being the lowest portion of the site and the north being the highest portion of the site. Commissioner Lack stated that the south property being the one most affected by that would be no different than if it were a flat site because it is that south property line, or south edge of the building, that would regulate the height, and there would not be that amplification. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, stated that when you measure the height over a site, if the grade changes through the site, the maximum height of that building can change to follow the topography Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 6 of 12 of the site as well. You measure it from that natural grade as the points change along so the envelope of the building height changes to follow that. Commissioner Winston asked if it is appropriate to add a condition if we were to approve a zoning change, that any structure on this property would have to follow the height restrictions of Neighborhood Conservation zoning? Williams stated that when a rezoning is brought before you, you cannot place additional restrictions on it. The zoning would be approved pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Occasionally you will find, especially in the past with broader zonings like RSF-1 or 2, an applicant asking to exclude certain uses or agree that the building will not cover more of the site, save trees, height, etc., with a Bill of Assurance. It can be offered by the applicant but it cannot be requested. We have no such Bill of Assurance here and we don't see them very much anymore because a lot of that is covered by PZDs, which are enforceable. Commissioner Winston asked if a PZD would be just as appropriate as Downtown General for this location. Fulcher stated that a PZD could be requested. Generally you look for a PZD to be used due to unique circumstances, maybe to change setbacks, height regulations, etc. and because of the setbacks allowed on this property, which are build -to zones on two sides, you can really build what he needs to and has a flexibility built into the zoning already. So we didn't feel that a PZD would be an appropriate request. Williams stated that he doesn't feel you can demand a PZD. If somebody is requesting another type of zoning, then that is the request and for you to act upon that request rather than trying to request him to come back with a PZD. Commissioner Myres stated she knows that we are considering just the rezoning request and not any plans that the applicant has to build on this, but I'm curious looking at the lot size, which is a quarter -acre, and some of the requirements under Downtown General for parking lots and setbacks and this sort of thing, and wondering how large a structure could be placed on this that would house 8, 10, 12 people and still have enough places for them to park. So there seems to be a lot of restrictions that are going to limit the size. I agree with Commissioner Lack that when you have four corners of an intersection that are already zoned one way then it doesn't seem strange to create a node that has essentially the same zoning on three separate comers. I'm generally in favor of this. I appreciate the neighbors' comments. I have no conclusions to make, I'll see what else others have to say. Commissioner Anthes stated that when we see a rezoning request, we don't see the development proposal. We have no idea, other than what's been stated tonight, about the plans for this site. It's a rezoning request in front of us. As the Commissioner who made the motion for Downtown General in this area, based on the arguments that were made at the time when we were looking at the whole map, I can say that I was interested in what would happen in this area is because this is a unique link between S. College and S. Washington and connecting through Huntsville Rd. It's a unique situation in the City of Fayetteville. We don't have those kind of kooky street patterns because they Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 7 of 12 get straightened out a lot. I thought it could be really interesting to see what could develop along that edge of that link taking into account that Downtown General is still primarily a residential zone. It allows for some higher intensity use like a cafe, but it's not a commercial zoning district. What I'd hoped would happen is that those parcels would come through as a PZD that would create a front to South Street that would be a really interesting project that the neighbors would see as benefiting their area. While I agree with what Commissioners Lack and Myres had to say about corners, higher -intensity mixes at corners, and what those corner properties can be, I'm hesitating now because the applicant has stated that they want to put a single -use, multi -family residence on that corner. I don't think that, in and of itself, is fantastic for that location. The other thing is that the decision was made a short time ago by City Council to make this Neighborhood Conservation. I guess I'd like to hear from staff, since they recommended we forward this change to City Council. What do you think is different about what the Winklers are proposing now versus what they were asking for at the time of the mass rezoning that would change City Council's mind, since they are the policy -setting body and we are only the recommending body? Jeremy Pate, Director of Development Services, stated that we asked the same question of ourselves, because a Council decision is a policy decision. One of the primary components is when we were looking at this originally it was several hundred acres. We're not looking at your typical zoning findings for a rezoning application on an individual property -by -property basis. We discussed this property amongst six others that had potential changes. I can guarantee you that someone within the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan will also come back forward and make rezoning requests as well, so we have to honor those on a case-by-case basis and review those accordingly. Looking at our City Plan 2025, our general policies, and guiding tools that we have, and also the Master Plan we've created. So, the zoning is certainly not set in stone, no zoning ever is, it's always something that a future City Council can change. It's a very short time from when that decision was made, but we have to look at it in context of what would be the findings that we go through support ultimately the recommendation that we make. So that's our first step, to look through those five or six findings that we have and see if it supports that recommendation ultimately. Commissioner Graves stated that in follow up to the last comments that Commissioner Anthes made, I am not going to be in support of the rezoning request, and it primarily is because of the City Council action and the charrette process and the recent nature of it. This isn't a property that's been zoned this way for 10 years or 15 years and now someone's coming in asking to make a change. My concern with what Jeremy just stated is that while it is true that the Walker Park Neighborhood was zoned more on a large-scale basis, this is a property that was looked at specifically. There may be other properties within that MP that come forward and want to make a change to how they were zoned under that MP, but they may be a property that wasn't considered at that time. This is property was that brought up and looked at specifically, this body made a recommendation about it, and City Council set policy another way. So we now have feedback from the citizens of the area, and what they want to see in the design process, and it's not Downtown General. We have guidance from City Council in what they want to see, and it's not Downtown General. I just can't in good conscience, under those circumstances, vote to change the zoning when it's only been a year. Commissioner Trumbo asked what the zoning was a year and a half ago prior to the most recent rezoning. Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 8 of 12 Fulcher stated that much like the majority of the area it was RMF -24. Commissioner Graves stated that the City Council had the definitions of DG and what the uses were in front of them when they decided to overrule this body on these parcels. They knew what it had been, they knew what the owner wanted it to be, and they still made the decision that they made. Commissioner Cabe stated he would like to mirror Commissioner Graves' comments. The citizens spoke through the charrette process, City Council spoke by denying the rezoning earlier, and I too won't be able to support this. Commissioner Winston stated he went to the neighborhood meeting and got a good feeling of what their reaction to it was and it wasn't necessarily strongly against, they were there to listen, to hear, to ask questions and that sort of thing. Most of those people have written letters saying they are opposed to this. A lot of those people have been involved with the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan, and I agree with Commissioner Graves that it hasn't had a chance to work yet, and it's too early to be making a change that goes against what the majority of the neighborhood and City Council have asked for. At the same time, I want to say that I agree with higher densities, multi -use, buffer zones, and nodes that have a great potential to be more than they are right now. That said, I will be not supporting this rezone. Commissioner Kennedy stated he would probably be in support of this. If we say on one hand that the downtown amenities need to be available to more people, and on the other hand we say we have to keep this a single-family or two-family neighborhood. As we said, we're not looking at the exact development but as a general rule, I think that maybe a Downtown General zoning district in this spot would be something that we should support. We could probably criticize and see what comes up with when we see a development plan, but I think at this point, I'm in support of a rezone here that would allow more units in that neighborhood and benefit from the amenities that are there. Commissioner Lack stated that his favor of the rezone would be without regard for issues such as what it had been zoned. I think in the past the blanket rezone was constitutional in its arrangement, its public meetings. I think the way all of that was taken care of was good. I think the idea of Downtown General is something I supported at the time because I felt it made good planning sense because that is what we are here to look at. I think we're still here to look at that from a policy standpoint, the same as we were at that time. As Mr. Pate has stated, at that time they looked at the findings, reasoned from the findings that it made sense according to the ordinance, and recommended it. Certainly, there is some interpretation there as there for us and for Council as well. I believe our position to be to administer that as much as staff has said to look at the logic of that from an ordinance standpoint, and I think that is our only real task. I think that while I very much respect the action and decision of City Council, I don't know that I would say that that necessarily set into motion a formal policy with regard to this site that made any modifications to the UDC, or any modifications to the way that we would look at this site. I just wanted to make sure that I clarify that I do respect the actions of City Council with regard to the decision made on this site originally, but I feel from a planning standpoint that it does make sense. Commissioner Graves stated that any Commissioner in favor of the rezoning, my suggestion would not be that they are doing anything wrong, I think this body has the ability, as it did the first go- Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 9 of 12 around, to make recommendations to the City Council. This body may very well make the same recommendation that it did last time, and that is that this should be Downtown General as opposed to NC. My suggestion is that we are in a unique position here in having a lot more information than we normally have because of the charrette process and because of the City Council's action with regard to this particular property. We normally don't have that type of guidance and advance of a rezoning request about what the City Council thinks of the requested change. That's my rationale for voting against it tonight because I have that information. It's not to suggest that someone who wants to vote the other way is doing something beyond the power of this body, because I don't think that they are. Commissioner Anthes asked staff what is the further approval process of the project if the proposed zoning is approved? Pate stated that it would be a Site Improvement Plan, which is an administrative review that goes through staff review and through our Technical Plat Review process, which is utility companies and staff, and then building permit review. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to deny the request. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Commissioner Trumbo stated he was going to vote against this motion. I respect what everybody has had to say on both sides. I tend to agree with Commissioner Anthes, I liked the original recommendation that we sent out from this body that was denied. I still agree with Commissioner Myres that this is a good node and a good place for Downtown General. Whether I'm supposed to or not, I do take into consideration the charrette process and the people against it, but also the property owner who did own some multi -family property here that has been changed since. I don't know if I should include that in my reasoning, but that is a factor. Those are my comments, and the reason I will be voting against this motion. Any other comments? Upon roll call the motion failed by a vote of 4-5-0, with Commissioners Myres, Kennedy, Trumbo, Lack, and Anthes voting no. Commissioner Kennedy made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-4-0, with Commissioners Cabe, Bryant, Graves, and Winston voting no. Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 10 of 12 RZN 09-3218: (LIFE STYLES, INC., 363): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at NORTH OF THE SYCAMORE ST. AND SADDLEHORNE AVENUE INTERSECTION. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.27 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to P-1, INSTITUTIONAL. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the request. Geoff Bates, applicant, stated he represented the property owner and had nothing to add. Stated he was available for any questions. No public comment was received. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 11 of 12 ADM 09-3219: (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 166.12, DEVELOPMENT): The request is to modify the Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 166.12 to permit yard accessories over public easements if written permission is provided by utility companies. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, stated that the UDC currently does not allow structures to be placed within the utility easement. There are cases throughout the city where there have been yard accessories installed over easements such as signs, trash enclosures and other small structures. In some of those cases, staff has allowed the applicant to go through a process where they get all the utility companies to sign off on it with written documentation giving the applicant permission. Our Code is not clear on this issue, so we have added some amendments to our Code to allow for certain yard accessories to be placed in easements. We have added some language to 166.12 to allow for yard accessories such as signs, rain barrels, furniture, fences, posts, structures that could be easily removed out of an easement if the utility companies and the City have reviewed it and signed off on it. We're proposing that allowing such structures like this would not preclude the utility companies' right to maintain or use the easement for the service of utilities but it would simply allow us a way to regulate some of the small types of yard accessories that get placed in those easements. Commissioner Winston asked if the weight of monument signs is considered when permitting them. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, stated that the definition of a monument sign requires the entire sign to be supported by its base, so that's why when you see monument sign with some type of footing, most of the time it ends up being a concrete or brick footing. It's a definition requirement as to why you see them constructed the way that they are. Commissioner Winston stated that he thought the City might be able to come up with some recommendations for people that want to put a monument sign in an easement that would allow for utilities to get past them whether it's a narrower foundation or putting sleeving underneath it that would increase the odds that a utility might not have to tear the sign out entirely. Pate stated that in a lot of ways that will be something the utility could work out with the applicant, so if the applicant for instance requested to place a sign where the utility company thinks that they may need to go, that's one possible solution that they would design a sign that could rotate out away. We've done that before. Or, when they're installing utilities they could install conduits so that they can pull their lines as opposed to having to go in and dig a trench. Those are options that are going to be on a case-by-case basis. Once again, the discretion is left entirely up to utility companies and the City in order to grant this, so if there's something that can't be worked out, that request will probably be denied. Commissioner Bryant asked if there was a time frame in getting the signatures from the utility companies. Pate stated that staff will most likely come up with a form and through our administrative processes will give the applicants some guidance and open up our Technical Plat Review meetings which is about the only time you can get all the utility companies in one room, allow them to come there and Planning Commission March 9, 2009 Page 12 of 12 have that conversation with them, perhaps at the end of the meeting. I would think that if the utility company is releasing their rights to something, then it's going to be something they're OK with forever and not have changed their mind six months later. This is not really about the utility company giving up their rights, however, it's really more about the property owner and their risk, since the utility company is going to be able to access their easement just like they did before, they're just recognizing that something may be in the way. I don't anticipate a specific time frame, to answer your question. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the amendment. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 7.45 PM.