Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-26 MinutesPlanning Commission April 26, 2010 Page I of 10 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on April 26, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED Consent. MINUTES: April 12, 2010 Page 3 Old Business: ADM 10-3559: (WEIR ROAD SUBDIVISION, 244) Page 4 New Business: ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved ADM 10-3554: (UDC AMENDMENT I-540 CORRIDOR DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT) Page 7 Forwarded Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 2 of 10 MEMBERS PRESENT Sarah Bunch William Chesser Hugh Earnest Tracy Hoskins Jeremy Kennedy Porter Winston Matthew Cabe Andy Lack STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Glenn Newman CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams, City Attorney MEMBERS ABSENT Craig Honchell STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate 5:30 PM - Planning Commission Chair Andy Lack called the meeting to order. Commissioner Lack requested all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call all members were present with the exception of Commissioner Honchell. Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 3 of 10 Consent. Approval of the minutes from the April 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Motion• Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 4 of 10 Old Business: ADM 10-3559: (WEIR ROAD SUBDIVISION, 244): Submitted by HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT. The property is located at the SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEIR ROAD AND HUGHMONT ROAD and contains approximately 17.64 acres. The request is for an extension of the approval for PPL 06-2010, Preliminary Plat Weir Road Subdivision. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. He discussed the letter written by the applicant that was distributed to the commissioners before the meeting. Staff recommends approval of a one year extension, not the applicant's requested two year extension. The applicant stated that they would only need six months to finish the project and have had four years so far. John English, applicant, explained that with the changing economy and also a change in engineers on the project they have been unable to meet their deadlines. Public Comment: Garland Yell, adjoining property owner, stated that he has four acres immediately adjoining the subject property. He explained that the applicant had gambled that they would get this done on time but they didn't. They shouldn't get an extension. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Chesser asked to see the historical aerial photos of the site that were being routed among the commissioners. Commissioner Cabe asked for the Engineering Division comments. Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer, explained the process for approval and issuance of permits for the project. He described the start and stop of the project over the past four years and the most recent start of the project again in February 2010. Commissioner Earnest asked if the community septic system can be connected to City sewer. Newman said, yes, the drip field is gravity so it can connect to city lines. Commissioner Lack said the drip field can tie-in, but that is beyond the bounds of this decision. Commissioner Cabe discussed that the revised letter from the applicant submitted for this meeting explains the project to such a level the he feels comfortable to approve the request. Commissioner Hoskins inquired about some of this applicant's other projects around town. English responded that the other projects include the Paddock Lane Final Plat, Sycamore Condo Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 5 of 10 project, and another project at Highway 112 and Garland Avenue. Commissioner Hoskins discussed seeing what looked like some mixed trash and fill being deposited at the Weir Road Subdivision site. He asked about this applicant hauling waste material from other projects to this site. English replied that no waste fill from their other sites was being taken from the subject property. He is not aware of any waste being dumped on this site. There is a meeting with the county tomorrow to discuss erosion control. Commissioner Hoskins noted that the streets are cut, but no pipes. This is not a lot of progress in four years. But you think you can finish in six months? English said yes. Commissioner Chesser asked about where the fill on the project site came from. Mark Schultz, project contractor, answered that the fill is spoils from the Mt. Comfort Road widening project. Commissioner Chesser asked if the road cuts are done. Schultz said yes, but no pipe is in the ground. The county asked them to stop the project before they got to that point. Commissioner Earnest said he sees no issue with the extension. Commissioner Hoskins discussed that has to look at how this overall project has been handled in the past. There has been no erosion control and trash looks like it has been dumped on-site. He stated that he cannot support this extension. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the criteria the commissioners should consider for this request. What have the applicants been able to prove to you as good cause as to why it couldn't be completed in three years? He discussed the applicant's letter. Are these reasonable issues as to why they couldn't complete the project? Commissioner Lack discussed the burden of proof. The type of fill onsite is regulated by other codes. Was a reasonable effort taken to complete the project? To me, the applicant has met the standard. Commissioner Winston asked the applicant how their finances changed so that they can now finish the job. English answered that they have 100% funding now and that the banks have delayed this project in the past. Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 6 of 10 Commissioner Chesser asked if another extension after this one was possible? Williams said no, only a one-time extension may be granted. Motion• Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve the request. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to approve passed with a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Hoskins voting "no". Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 7 of 10 New Business: ADM 10-3554: Administrative Item (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 160.28,1-540 CORRIDOR DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for revisions to Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 161.28,1-540 Design Overlay District. The proposed code changes consolidate the I-540 Design Overlay District requirements into other sections of the UDC, and eliminate requirements that are not consistent with current development regulations. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. She discussed the background for the I-540 Design Overlay District. The proposed code changes address conflicting areas in the code including curb cuts, 25 -foot greenspace, and 25% greenspace. All of these exceed the requirements in other chapters. Staff proposes to keep pole sign restrictions. Sanders reviewed the changes to the proposal since the agenda session including the requirement that industrial buildings are not exempt from commercial design standards in the I-540 DOD. Sanders summarized the overall proposal as listed in the chart in the staff report. There was no public comment. Commissioner Chesser asked about commercial design standards being vague. He went through the design standards currently in the code. Commissioner Lack discussed that this conversation is beyond the scope of this project. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner suggested that if the commissioners wish, staff could look at evaluating and potentially changing the commercial design standards as part of a different code amendment in the future. Commissioner Hoskins inquired about an industrial building next to a commercial building. Sanders stated that industrial uses in the I-540 DOD are subject to commercial design standards and that the proposal before the planning commission would not change that. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed concerns with the legal reaches of applying design standards to public schools and churches. He discussed religious expression in the design of buildings and aesthetics. He recommends we do not include churches in design standards. He also recommends that public schools not be included either. Commissioner Lack stated with churches, looking at the five criteria of commercial design standards, he has trouble seeing any of the commercial design standards limiting expression of faith, only regulating a few issues. Williams went through some of the other standards listed in the commercial design standards besides the five criteria. It's just a fundamental problem when we regulate the design of churches. Traditionally the state has not regulated aesthetics of a church. Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Lack asked Williams if our downtown design overlay district (DDOD) results in the same issue as churches have to comply. Williams answered yes. He stated that he had concerns when the DDOD went through. He doesn't think we should regulate aesthetics. Commissioner Lack asked about whether there are legal issues where churches are required to a conditional use permit and the design of a church is determined to be compatible with surrounding uses. Williams responded that churches in a residential district may not be appropriate. He discussed further the purpose of aesthetics in the construction a church. Commissioner Lack asked about proposed subsection (2)(d) that discusses that facades adjacent to a street need to be designed with elements similar to a front fagade. If a building faces a street, would that requirement also apply to the sides of the building that are visible from the street? Sanders explained that it would apply to the fagade directly facing the street, and wouldn't apply to the sides of the structure. This requirement wouldn't preclude back of house activities such as loading docks or back doors, however it may require wrapping a similar color or pilaster from the front fagade around to the other side of the building that faces a second street frontage. Commissioner Lack stated that he would like to see the commercial design standards apply to all facades when visible from street, not just when the fagade directly faces the street. Commissioner Hoskins asked about chapter 166.14(2) referring to similar buildings to the left and right. Williams stated that staff is proposing to expand the commercial design standards from the current standards. Commissioner Chesser asked if that architecturally designed meant that it had to be designed by an architect? Sanders said that an architect is not required. Commissioner Chesser asked if a Jehovah's Witness wanted to build and their standard design is without windows was in violation. Sanders said that churches would be able to ask for variances if they don't meet the design standards. Williams stated they must show a hardship on the site in order to be granted a variance. Commissioner Cabe said that a lack of windows doesn't necessarily mean that it is a blank fagade; there could be other elements that articulate the facade. Churches are built differently nowadays and Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 9 of 10 are not the typical traditional church building anymore. He is real comfortable with the way the code is proposed. He is okay applying the code to churches and schools. Commissioner Winston stated that there is a variance process and discussed that the variance process could be set up where a variance could be permitted when aesthetic issues would create a religious hardship. Commissioner Chesser stated that he feels we should really consider legal council's advice. Garner discussed that the overall intent of this proposal from staff was to eliminate the redundant and unnecessary items in the I-540 DOD; the design standards for churches and schools was a secondary item that was folded into proposal. If the design standard for churches and schools is the only issue the commission is struggling with, and can't agree on, staff would prefer to move this item forward and leave out the design standard for churches and schools, and address that at a later time. Commissioner Cabe would appreciate memos and cases from legal council on this topic. Commissioner Lack discussed again that he doesn't see why the five elements in commercial design standards discriminate against a church, and would like to see that as well from the City attorney. Motion #1: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to forward to City Council, striking the changes from commercial to non-residential, and discussing that we can take up the issue regarding churches and schools at a later date. The motion was not seconded and was withdrawn after commission and staff discussion. Motion #2: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to forward to City Council as recommended by staff, Commissioner Earnest seconded the motion. Commissioner Kennedy had a question about "architecturally" designed. Commissioner Cabe amended his motion to strike "architecturally" from Chapter 166.14 2.d Commissioner Earnest seconded the change. Commissioner Winston asked if a school has design standards. Williams said that, no, the school board approves plans that are designed by an architect. Upon roll call the motion to forward to City Council passed with a vote of 5-3-0 with Commissioners Lack, Bunch and Chesser voting "no". Planning Commission April 26, 2010 Page 10 of 10 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 PM.