Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-22 MinutesPlanning Commission November 22, 2010 Page I of 13 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on November 22, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Consent. MINUTES: November 8, 2010 Page 3 Unfinished Business: ACTION TAKEN Approved RZN 10-3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 EAST ALICE STREET, 213): Page 4 Forwarded New Business: ADM 10-3716: Administrative Item (545 W CENTER ST): Page 7 Approved ADM 10-3717: Administrative Item (211 N. BLOCK AVENUE): Page 8 Approved CUP 10-3709: Conditional Use Permit (LIERLY LANE S/D/LOTS 52-56, 62): Page 9 Approved PPL 10-3694: Preliminary Plat (LIERLY LANE S/D/ LOTS 52-56, 62 244): Page 10 Approved CUP 10-3693: Conditional Use Permit (1515 BURR OAK / ARKANSAS ATHLETES OUTREACH, 287): Page 11 Approved CUP 10-3703: Conditional Use Permit (MT. COMFORT CEMETERY, 322): Page 12 Approved ADM 10-3519: Administrative Item: (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 166, DEVELOPMENT): Page 13 Forwarded Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 2 of 13 Craig Honchell Sarah Bunch William Chesser Hugh Earnest Tracy Hoskins Jeremy Kennedy Matthew Cabe Andy Lack STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Dara Sanders Karen Minkel Matt Casey CITY ATTORNEY Jason Kelly, Assistant City Attorney MEMBERS ABSENT Porter Winston STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Jesse Fulcher Glenn Newman 5:30 PM- Planning Commission Chair Audy 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. Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 3 of 13 Consent. Approval of the minutes from the Monday, November 8, 2010 meeting. Motion• Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Earnest seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Hoskins arrived. Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 4 of 13 Old Business: RZN 10-3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 EAST ALICE STREET, 213): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 101 EAST ALICE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE, and contains approximately 0.74 acre. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report and recommended denial based on the information included in the staff report. Avis Bailey, Nissan Dealership Owner, discussed the bill of assurance being offered by the applicants, the existing zoning in the area, and requested approval of the rezoning request to allow for the expansion of a parking lot on the subject property. She believes that her proposal will fit into the neighborhood really well. No public comment was received. Commissioner Chesser asked staff if the applicant's intent to expand the dealership could be approved by conditional use permit (CUP) in the Community Services (CS) zoning district. Sanders verified that the request could be approved by CUP in the CS zoning district. She explained staffs opinion that attention to screening and buffering of the proposed car dealership use for the subject property is warranted. Commissioner Chesser asked if the limitations outlined in the proposed Bill of Assurance would be permitted in the CS zoning district. Sanders stated that the Bill of Assurance significantly limits the uses and development of the property, further than the uses and building height permitted in the Community Services district. Commissioner Chesser asked the Assistant City Attorney questions about the wording in the Bill of Assurance Commissioner Chesser asked if staff believes that the CS zoning district would provide a better transition into the neighborhood. Sanders stated that the reason for the rezoning request is due to the expansion of the Nissan technology to electric cars; therefore, it is highly likely that the dealership will soon outgrow the current site, allowing for redevelopment of the subject property. Staff prefers the CS zoning district because it would allow for the expansion of the dealership at this time and allow for the reuse of the property and would not limit the use of the property to only a car dealership. Commissioner Chesser stated agreement with staff, finding that the applicant's request to expand could be approved and allow for a better transition under the CS zoning district. He realizes that C-2 is surrounding but would prefer to see a better transition between the dealership and the adjacent single-family neighborhood. Commissioner Kennedy asked what happens to the land should the property ownership change hands. Jason Kelly, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the restrictions run with the land and that the new owner would request that the City Council release the property from the restrictions. Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 5 of 13 Sanders added that the permitted and conditional uses in the C-2 zoning district could then operate on the subject property and may not require notification. Commissioner Earnest reiterated staffs concern with limiting the subject property to only a car dealership. Commissioner Hoskins asked staff if redevelopment of the property is anticipated in the future. Sanders stated that it is highly likely that the property will redevelop in the future. Commissioner Hoskins asked staff s opinion of the odds of a property owner of land on College Avenue of saying in the future that they want to rezone from C-2 to CS - aren't they essentially down zoning the property? Sanders stated that staff would likely recommend that the applicant rezone the property from C-2 to Urban Thoroughfare (UT), as a majority of the uses on College Avenue are consistent with the uses permitted in the UT zoning district, which is also a form -based zoning district. However, the subject property is a separate lot and could remain to be a separate lot. It could be redeveloped separately from the existing car dealership site; therefore, staff finds that the CS zoning district is more appropriate in order to serve as a better transition. Commissioner Hoskins asked the applicant if it is the intent to construct a building on the property. Bailey stated that there was not the intent to build a building and that their attorney recommended including the building limitation. Parking is the primary concern. Commissioner Hoskins has concerns with the ability of a service garage being constructed 10 feet from the property line. He asked staff if there is another zoning district that will allow for the parking of cars in the near future. He also expressed concern with the Bill of Assurance and would prefer more detail for the "masonry wall", as he would not be in favor of a cinder block wall. Bailey stated that she didn't have a cinder block wall in mind. Commissioner Hoskins stated that he has known the applicant for years and knows that she always does a good job on everything she does; however, the Bill of Assurance isn't clear. Bailey stated that she is will to change it. Kelly stated that the Commission can not negotiate changes in the Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Hoskins explained that he doesn't support the Bill of Assurance. Sanders stated that discussion of the Bill of Assurance is turning into something resembling a conditional use permit, which is one reason for staffs recommendation to review the applicant's expansion proposal through the conditional use permit process under the CS zoning district, should the property be rezoned. Regarding the different zoning districts, the City Council has determined that the suburban zoning districts, such as C-1 and C-2, are not consistent with the City's future vision and comprehensive plan, City Plan 2025. The Planning Commission and City Council recently approved three new zoning districts proposed by staff. Neighborhood Services (NS), Community Services (CS), and Urban Thoroughfare (UT). NS does not permit Use Unit 17, Transportation Trades and Services, under which a car dealership is classified, by right or conditional use. CS Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 6 of 13 will allow the expansion of the car dealership by conditional use permit. UT will allow by -right, as well as other uses that staff finds to be incompatible with the adjacent residential dwellings. Staff has met internally and with the applicant to discuss that the CS district is the most desired zoning district available in the Unified Development Code for the subject property because it is consistent with the City's land use and zoning policies and will allow for the expansion of the car dealership at this time. Commissioner Hoskins asked staff if the recommendation for C-2 rezoning district will always be for denial. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, stated that staff will take each rezoning request into consideration and that the C-2 zoning district may be appropriate in some locations. Commissioner Earnest complimented staff on the detail in the staff report and asked if a conditional use permit could be issued for a parking lot in the existing underlying RSF-4 zoning district. Sanders stated that an off-site parking lot could be permitted in the RSF-4 zoning district by conditional use approval but would be specific only to parking cars. No business could be conducted on the property, which would be difficult to enforce. Commissioner Lack stated that he believes the neighborhood is encroaching on the commercial area adjacent to College Avenue and that the boundary could be moved. He also believes that City Plan 2025 states that we acknowledge strip development but encourage complete and compact development. He doesn't believe that City Plan 2025 says that we deny the C-2 request. He regrets that the Bill of Assurance limits the uses to only a car dealership, but that can be altered. He discussed the uses that the adjacent neighborhood doesn't want. He appreciates the applicant responding to the neighborhood's concern. He discussed the noise ordinance requirements and regulations. He supports the request. Commissioner Honchell will support the request. He believes that they've been good neighbors for 20 years and doesn't see anything in front of him that speaks volumes to noise complaints. He understands the intent of zoning. We keep talking about them changing things dramatically, but they've been here for 20 years and they probably won't be leaving tomorrow. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to deny the request. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 2-6-0 with Commissioners Hoskins, Bunch, Honchell, Lack, Kennedy, and Earnest voting `no'. Commissioner Kenney made a motion to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Honchell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6- 2-0 with Commissioners Cabe and Chesser voting "no". Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 7 of 13 New Business: ADM 10-3716: Administrative Item (545 W CENTER ST): Submitted by David McKee for property located at 545 W. CENTER STREET. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER, and contains approximately 0.39 acres. The request is for variances from the parking and access management ordinances for a redevelopment project. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. The applicant was not present. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Cabe asked about a roll over curb. Matt Casey, Assistant City Engineer, responded that one of the reasons for the applicant's request was because they have expensive low clearance vehicles they want to have access to the garage. A roll-over curb would present problems with clearance for this type of vehicle. Commissioner Hoskins asked about the amount of greenspace proposed with this project. Garner discussed that with the exception of the proposed driveway, greenspace would be provided between the building and the street where there is currently no greenspace, as indicated on the drawings. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Earnest seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 8 of 13 ADM 10-3717: Administrative Item (211 N. BLOCK AVENUE): Submitted by Tom and Sallie Overbey for property located at 211 N. BLOCK AVENUE. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER., and contains approximately 0.38 acres. The request is for a variance from the Downtown Design Overlay District standards. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, recommending approval of the variance request from the porch requirements, finding a hardship in the definition of a porch, and denial of the variance request from the fence picket orientation, finding no hardship. Sallie Overby, applicant, discussed the request and stated that the reason for the vertical picket orientation requirement is related to an outdated International Building Code prohibition of horizontal pickets. Commissioner Chesser asked staff about the International Building Code correlation. Sanders stated that she read through the minutes in the Downtown Design Overlay District project folder and cannot verify the correlation between the two requirements. She suggested that Commission Lack may know, as he served on the review committee. Commissioner Lack stated that he recalls a correlation and asked staff to read the code. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, read the applicable section of the code. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Kennedy made a motion to approve the item with the conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0, Commissioner Earnest voting `no'. Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 9 of 13 CUP 10-3709: Conditional Use Permit (LIERLY LANE S/D/LOTS 52-56,62): Submitted by APPIAN, INC. for property located at LIERLY LANE S/D, LOTS 52-56 & 62. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.17 acres. The request is to create two tandem lots with the replat. Dara Sanders, Curent Planner, gave the staff report. Evan Neihaus, representative, discussed the background of the project and offered to answer any questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the item with the conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to approve passed with a vote of 8-0-0 Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 10 of 13 PPL 10-3694: Preliminary Plat (LIERLY LANE S/D/ LOTS 52-56, 62 244): Submitted by TTO, LLC for property located at LIERLY LANE S/D, LOTS 52-56 & 62. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 5.17 acres. The request is to replat lots 52-55 and 62 of the Lierly Lane Subdivision to adjust existing property lines and to create five (5) new lots. Dara Sanders, Curent Planner, gave the staff report. Evan Neihaus, representative, discussed the background of the project and offered to answer any questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve the item with the conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 11 of 13 CUP 10-3693: Conditional Use Permit (1515 BURR OAK / ARKANSAS ATHLETES OUTREACH, 287): Submitted by KIP HEARNE H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1515 BURR OAK DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 4.33 acres. The request is for continued and expanded Use Unit 4, Cultural and Recreational Facilities for the Arkansas Athletes Outreach organization at this location. LSD 10-3692: Large Scale Development (1515 BURR OAK DR. / ARKANSAS ATHLETES OUTREACH, 287): Submitted by KIP HEARNE H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 1515 BURR OAK DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 4.33 acres. The request is for an expansion of the existing facility with associated parking. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report for both CUP 10-3693 and LSD 10-3692 Arkansas Athletes Outreach. He recommended an amendment to condition of approval No.4 for CUP 10-3693 to read as follows: Condition of Approval No. 4 `Planning Commission determination of a landscape variance to permit the existing parking lot to remain within five feet ofthe western property line and to permit the new parking lot all the way to the property line as proposed on the submitted drawings. Staffrecommends in favor of this variance with the condition that written permission beprovidedby the adjacentproperty ownerprior to construction permits to allow the landscaping and parking lot as indicated on the submitted drawings. - Brad Friess, applicant, described the Arkansas Athletes Outreach facility and work. He described the proposed project to centralize the training facilities all under one roof. He discussed that the facility will be used for sports practices and training. He also discussed that they hope to bring in events such as sports tournaments from out of town. No public comment was presented. Motion for CUP 10-3693: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve CUP 10-3693 with the conditions as recommended by staff, including the modification to condition of approval No. 4 to approve the variance for the parking lot within five feet of the western property line as stated by staff. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Motion for LSD 10-3692: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve LSD 10-3692 with the conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 12 of 13 CUP 10-3703: Conditional Use Permit (MT. COMFORT CEMETERY, 322): Submitted by the MT. COMFORT CEMETERY ASSOCIATION for property located at THE NW CORNER OF MT. COMFORT ROAD AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - I UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 12.55 acres. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the existing cemetery. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Tony Hardin, applicant, discussed the background and request for the cemetery addition. No public comment was presented. Commission Chesser asked about building on the property line. Garner discussed that if the building is built across the proepty lines then the parcels are considered to be combined for permitting purposes and the interior building setback lines are considered to be removed. expressed Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission November 22, 2010 Page 13 of 13 ADM 10-3519: Administrative Item: (UDC AMENDMENT CH. 166, DEVELOPMENT): Submitted by CITY STAFF, the request is to amend Chapter 166, Development, Section 166.04 (13)(3)(c)(iii)., to require the installation and maintenance of private street signs at time of development. Karen Minkel, Strategic Planning and Internal Consulting Director, gave the staff report. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins asked whether the ordinance would apply to private alleys, pointing out that alleys were being encouraged by City Plan 2030 and signage could get expensive if required. Minkel clarified that the ordinance states "where a structure is addressed on a private street or drive." The main purpose was to enable emergency responders to locate the street. Typically, a structure would not be addressed off an alley, which means the signage requirement would not apply to the alleys. Commissioner Hoskins thought the wording of the ordinance could make this more clear. Commissioner Chesser, Commissioner Lack, Kelly and Garner offered wording alternatives for consideration. Commissioner Hoskins stated that he wanted the record to reflect that the ordinance was not intended to apply to private alleys. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to forward the item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8- 0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7.00 PM.