Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-22 MinutesPlanning Commission August 22, 2011 Page I of 16 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 22, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN Consent: MINUTES: August 8, 2011 Page 3 Approved ADM 11-3926: Administrative Item (465 S. LOCUST AVE./SYCAMORE LOFTS, 523) Page 3 Old Business: Approved RZN 11-3866: Rezone (2013 E. MISSION BLVD./RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370/371) Page 4 Forwarded New Business: 11-3896: Conditional Use Permit (4618 N. COLLEGE AVEJARK HELICOPTERS, 096) Page 5 Denied CUP 11-3897: Conditional Use Permit (1236 S. SCHOOL AVE./KISOR, 562) Page 6 Approved CUP 11-3900: Conditional Use Permit (313 N. ROLLSTON AVE./TAVERN BAR & GRILL, 484) Page 7 Approved RZN 11-3901: Rezone (811 & 833 S. BEECHWOOD AVE./LOVE BOX, 559) Page 8 Forwarded RZN 11-3892: Rezone (FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN, 599) Page 9 Tabled MEMBERS PRESENT Craig Honchell Sarah Bunch William Chesser Hugh Earnest Tracy Hoskins Chris Griffin Porter Winston Matthew Cabe Kyle Cook MEMBERS ABSENT Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 2 of 16 STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Jeremy Pate Data Sanders CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams, City Attorney 5:30 PM - Planning Commission Chair Matthew Cabe called the meeting to order. Commissioner Cabe 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 August 22, 2011 Page 3 of 16 Consent. Approval of the minutes from the August 8, 2011 meeting. ADM 11-3926: Administrative Item (465 S. LOCUST AVE./SYCAMORE LOFTS, 523): Submitted by JACOBS & NEWELL for property located at 465 S. LOCUST AVE. The property is zoned MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is for a greenspace variance to permit a lot split of the developed property. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 4 of 16 Old Business: RZN 11-3866: Rezone (2013 E. MISSION BLVD./RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370/371): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 2013 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 28.93 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION; AND RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS/ACRE, subject to a Bill of Assurance. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Justin Jorgensen, applicant, discussed reasons for tabling this item at the previous three meetings. He presented a signed Bill of Assurance to the Planning Commission and reviewed the Bill of Assurance in detail. Public Comment: JoAnne Kvamme, thanked the developers for meeting with the neighbors and stated that the developer has been listening to the neighbors. She read a comment from the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Commission discussing the value of hilltops and west facing drainages. The comment she read discussed that this wooded area is attractive to the general public. The property to the east, offsite, has had erosion and invasive species. She discussed erosion problems on the site. Please consider impacts to downslope neighbors. Will this Bill of Assurance be binding and enforceable to future land owners? Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the legal requirements of a Bill of Assurance and confirmed that the Bill of Assurance will affect future landowners. He discussed the Bill of Assurance's relation to the zoning of the land and that the Bill of Assurance may be changed or removed only by City Council approval. Normally Bills of Assurances are never changed unless the zoning changes. He also stated that zoning is never locked in place forever and that it could change over time. Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, directly adjacent to the property. He discussed that they have discussed the zoning with Mitchell Massey and Jorgensen and Associates and stated that he thinks the zoning is adequate and that the developer has been willing to make some compromises. He discussed that when Ruskin Heights went through the first time the City Council changed the project substantially. He discussed the hillside ordinances and an inadequate parking situation for the Ruskin Heights development. He would like to see all parking off- street. He discussed impacts in winter weather. The historic grade is extremely important including the height limitation. We want to see engineered foundations. If you can pass this ordinance and tie it to the hillside ordinance I don't think we will have very many problems. Malcolm Cleveland, University of Arkansas professor, Bachelor and Masters in Forestry, PhD in Geosciences and work in watershed management. He walked the property. He described steep slopes on the property and that the City's slope ordinance is not adequate for this property. Sometimes the ordinance is not enforced. He discussed density on steep slopes. Erosion has occurred and will get work when construction proceeds. There will be a lot of impermeable surfaces. The small area for runoff will be inadequate. It will take some really good hydrodynamic engineering to solve the problem but that will not occur. Traffic, a left turn off of Greenview is hazardous. Traffic will get worse with this project. The intersection at Crossover is already congested at times. The City has never hired a competent traffic engineer. Tamara Bishop, 1825 N. Cambridge, had questions about the Bill of Assurance. Are they similar to covenants? Kit Williams, responded that, no, they are not similar to covenants. He described the differences between a Bill Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 5 of 16 of Assurance and covenants. Covenants are a private agreement. A Bill of Assurance is an agreement offered to the City Council or Planning Commission. He discussed that a Bill of Assurance is enforceable and the injunctive relief is possible. A Bill of Assurance is much stronger than a restrictive covenant and a Bill of Assurance is what the City will enforce. Tamara Bishop, asked about amending the Bill of Assurance. Kit Williams described how a Bill of Assurance can be modified only by the City Council. Tamara Bishop, thanked the developer and engineers have been very gracious in meeting with us and they seem very open to hearing our concerns. It sounds like they are accommodating our concerns. As a neighbor I understand that if you own property you have a right to use it and don't want to impede their responsible development of their property. This Bill of Assurance is a great way to address problems with developing this site. She discussed evaluation of the City's ordinance to ensure good development. Mike Wiggleston, 2146 E. Camelot, he agreed with what Tamara said. Let's don't come here every month to grant developer variances to accommodate a developer. I'm a citizen of Fayetteville and if anyone deserves to be accommodated it's me. Don Conner, 1686 E. Shadow Ridge, directly adjacent to the property. I appreciate the developer's having worked with us; it's a nice welcome change. We've all learned more about the form -based development and we're a lot more comfortable with the density. He stated that he would like to see no money taken in lieu of trees. What is the status of the Fayetteville municipal improvement district #29 thatwas part of Ruskin Heights, where they sold bonds to build infrastructure? Is it still attached to this development? Commissioner Cabe stated that the improvement district is not a part or related to this rezoning. Kit Williams responded that you could go to the court and see who set up that district and who are the commissioners of that district. As the chairman commissioner indicated this is not something to be considered with this rezoning. Don Conner asked if future residents would have to pay into that district. Would this be a hidden cost? Kit Williams described the process for establishing an improvement district and discussed that the City doesn't get involved and the City Council has no authority one way or another on these improvement districts. It has not bearing on the rezoning of this property. Gale O'Donnell, 1960 N. Greenview Drive, am I right that no economic decisions can be considered regarding the rezoning of this property? Kit Williams discussed that the highest and best use of the property can be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council for a rezoning. There are many other considerations, primarily compatibility is the number one consideration, but you can consider the highest and best use of the property which would be an economic consideration. Gale O'Donnell, what does highest and best use mean? Kit Williams answered that the owner of the property could refer to the highest and best use of the property which could mean highest dollar value, or some other reason, that the owner would like to argue. Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 6 of 16 Gale O'Donnell, what does compatibility mean? Kit Williams discussed compatibility in terms of adjacent and nearby neighbors that will not degrade or diminish the property. That does not mean that property cannot be developed. Gale O'Donnell asked about the economic interests of the Planning Commission related to this development or bank of this property. Kit Williams, discussed conflict of interest rules and that if any one had a direct financial interest they would recuse. He discussed various reasons why a commissioner would recuse or be required to recuse. Gale O'Donnell stated that comparison of future zoning to the defunct Ruskin Heights property should not be made. The previous development damaged the property because of so many variances. Please consider the hillside, trees, and highest and best use. Cathy Wait, 1775 Cambridge, thanked the developer and engineers for all of the time they took in listening to us, we are most appreciative. They did take our comments into consideration as obviously shown in the Bill of Assurance that was changed. People are concerned with height and the views that they have currently and they are concerned about their property value being diminished by a taller structure impeding their view. Is their something in the code that restricts height? Kit Williams discussed that if someone built a house next to yours; even if it was taller than yours if it was allowed under the zoning it would be permitted. Garner discussed that the maximum height for single family homes in the proposed zoning is 45 feet in height and 4 stories or 56 feet in height for multi -family or non-residential in the Community Services zoning. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, explained how height is measured to make sure it meets the requirement. Cathy Wait discussed traffic concerns along Mission Boulevard and the concern is that this will be putting a lot of traffic on a two-way highway that does not have curb and gutter or shoulders on Highway 45. Kit Williams discussed the previous improvements required with Ruskin Heights including a turn lane on Mission. He discussed a traffic signal and the warrants being met before a signal could be installed. Gale O'Donnell discussed that Highway 265 is being widened, which was not in consideration when this was originally approved. After a request for final comments by the Planning Commission Chair Matthew Cabe, no more public comment was presented and public comment was closed. Commissioner Earnest complimented this rezoning and public process that has resulted in a proposal that is moving towards something that is acceptable to the community. He described the compromises that resulted as a result of the meetings. Commissioner Winston asked how this rezoning and future development tied to the hillside ordinance Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 7 of 16 Kit Williams discussed that the hillside hilltop ordinance is tied to the development and he discussed and described the grading and tree preservation ordinances. That does not mean variances could not be granted. He discussed the development review process. He discussed the intent of the tree preservation ordinance. Commissioners Winston asked of the engineering department found that the foundation for construction on this site were not adequate can they require more. Kit Williams discussed that the hillside hilltop overlay district ordinance requires a foundation to be stamped by an engineer and if that is provided by a developer in accordance with ordinance then the City will likely approve the plan. Commissioner Winston asked about taking money in lieu of tree preservation. Kit Williams discussed the priority and intent of the tree preservation. The first priority is preservation of trees; the next step if it cannot be preserved is to plant trees onsite, the next step is to pay money in lieu or plant trees offsite. He discussed the hierarchy of the ordinance. Commissioner Hoskins asked about the infrastructure on the project. Pate discussed that the first phase has been installed but a majority of the site does not have infrastructure installed. Pate also described the improvements along Mission that were completed and the tree canopy that has been removed during the first phase. There was very little tree canopy removed during the first phase. Development of the southern areas of the site will be much more difficult to develop because of the higher tree canopy numbers. Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, asked to speak Commissioner Earnest stated that he would allow Mr. Sherman to speak. Fred Sherman, 2134 E. Camelot, discussed the hillside hilltop overlay district ordinance. Commissioner Cabe officially closed public comment again. Commissioner Chesser asked about the tree preservation requirements in the HHOD. Pate responded that there is a 5% increase in tree preservation in the HHOD. He also discussed the minimum undisturbed area. Commissioner Chesser asked about on -street parking. Garner responded that on -street parking is permitted to count towards required parking spaces at the determination of the Zoning Development Administrator. Commissioner Chesser asked about a traffic study for the signal on Mission. Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 8 of 16 Justin Jorgensen, applicant, discussed that the traffic study has not been updated. It may be required when it comes through for development. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to forward RZN 11-3866 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval subject to the applicant's Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Earnest seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0 (Commissioner Hoskins voting `no'). Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 9 of 16 New Business: CUP 11-3896: Conditional Use Permit (4618 N. COLLEGE AVE./ARK HELICOPTERS, 096): Submitted by CAMRON MCAHREN for property located at 4618 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 17.55 acres. The request is to allow helicopter rides year-round at Mae Farm, Use Unit 2, City-wide uses by conditional use, in the C-2 and R -A Zoning District. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Camron McAhren, applicant, gave a presentation discussing the number of helicopter flights they completed this summer, demographic information about those that rode the helicopter, several statistics, and their overall proposal. Public Comment: Sharon Fergusen, 1524 Windsor, Arkanshire POA, Springdale. Discussed their neighborhood has completed a petition that says this application is not in their interest and discussed opposition to the application for several reasons including noise and property values. Don Mobley, 1454 Churchill, Springdale. Echoed the comments of the previous person, especially the issues about property values. Al Newton, 419 Oak Manor Circle, Springdale. Lives 700 feet away. He hates to speak against this but disagrees with the application. He discussed that this would be much safer and there would be less public comment if it was at an airport. Steve Clark, President Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce. There are lots of things occurring in this area of town, new businesses in this area. He encourages the Planning Commission to accept this request. Aubrey Shepherd discussed the helicopter rides would be a pain for people living in the area. Larry Agness, Southtown Sporting Goods owner stated that he hasn't noticed any problems with this business. Claudia Mobley, 1454 Churchill, stated that the helicopter flies over our house every 10 minutes. That is not why I moved to this area. Beverly Newton discussed that she is in favor of aviation education. She discussed the Botanical Garden, the park, and the beautiful setting. The helicopter rides are an attitude of pure recreation and enjoyment. You lose a certain continuity with these rides. I don't think it fits. Cynthia Hasselhoff, owner of the subject property, discussed that these helicopter rides have given Mae Farm an identity. There is a balancing act between the neighbor's needs and our needs. She discussed that the letter from the Parks Department made her angry and discussed problems with people from the park vandalizing her property. We are doing our best to be green. This is an urban lake. Donna Sparks, lives in the Fayette Junction area. Discussed helicopter rides during the BBBQ festival over her neighborhood occurs on Saturdays and Sundays on days off when you want peace and quiet. I hope you Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 10 of 16 don't renew the permit. Chuck Dickson, pilot for Arkansas Helicopters. Stated that there has got to be a way to sort this out. We fly at 500 feet over the homes. He described the operations of the business. Tim Cooper, discussed that the Fayetteville Airport flight path goes over the country club. Larry Agness, discussed that Medivac flies along Highway 71 between the hospitals. No more public comment was received. Commissioner Hoskins asked about the number of flights and frequency. McAhren and Hoskins calculated that over the summer the applicant did an average of about 48 flights per day or about a flight every ten minutes. Hoskins asked McAhren if he paid Fayetteville sales tax. McAhren stated `no'. Hoskins asked how much money these flights brought to Drake Field. James Nicholson, Finance Director Drake Field, stated that he was not sure how much. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the finance structure for the airport. Commissioner Hoskins stated that there is nothing green about helicopters. He discussed concerns with safety and noise impacts that he experienced at his house this summer from the applicant. He can't think of a worse idea in a worse area. Commissioner Griffin stated that there was one thing that the applicant stated that he felt should be repeated: there are a lot of empty hangers in Drake Field. Commissioner Chesser discussed that the number of flights was not a flat average. He asked the applicant about locating this business at an airport. McAhren discussed that there is not traffic at the airport that would see the helicopter. Commissioner Chesser asked how to approach the Springdale citizens. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that they should be considered in terms of compatibility. Commissioner Chesser asked about regulation after the helicopter takes off. Mcahren discussed that is regulated by the FAA and the respective air control tower in the particular air space of the flight. Commissioner Chesser asked about decibel levels. Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Cabe discussed that decibels are exponential. Commissioner Chesser asked about the noise ordinance. McAhren stated that they did not violate the noise ordinance. Commissioner Chesser asked about the Future Land Use Map. Garner discussed that this area was designated for mixed use. Commissioner Honchell asked about when they signed a lease with Mae Farm. McAhren stated about 90 days ago. Honchell asked if helicopters were anticipated as part of the Mae Farm CUP. Cynthia Hasselhof stated that, no, it was not anticipated. Commissioner Winston asked about boats having on Lake Fayetteville. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed boats are required to have no wake because itwas a nature study area, to reduce noise, and to not disturb fisherman. Commissioner Cook confirmed that the no wake was also intended to reduce bank erosion. Commissioner Winston asked if Locomotion had a CUP. Garner stated yes. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, discussed that it was an old CUP that doesn't have any conditions. Commissioner Winston discussed that he cannot support this application. Commissioner Earnest read a quote from the staff report and indicated that the Police Department noise measurements indicate that this is not in violation of the noise ordinance. He stated that we should workwith the applicant to increase the visibility of the site. Commissioners Cook and Chesser asked about the noise ordinance. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that the issue is not the noise ordinance, but whether or not the proposed use is compatible with the neighbors. An application could comply with the noise ordinance but still not be compatible. Motion: Commissioner Griffin made a motion to deny CUP 11-3896. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0 (Commissioners Cabe, Earnest, and Chesser voting `no'). Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 12 of 16 CUP 11-3897: Conditional Use Permit (1236 S. SCHOOL AVE./KISOR, 562): Submitted by ERIC KISOR for property located at 1236 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is for Use Unit 17, Transportation trades and services, for an auto detail shop, in the DG Zoning District. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Eric Kisor, applicant, introduced himself. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve CUP 11-3897 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Griffin seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 13 of 16 CUP 11-3900: Conditional Use Permit (313 N. ROLLSTON AVEJTAVERN BAR & GRILL, 484): Submitted by TIM COOPER ARCHITECT for property located at 313 NORTH ROLLSTON AVENUE. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.21 acre. The request is for a parking variance and offsite parking lot. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Tim Cooper, applicant, discussed the application. No public comment was presented. Kit Williams, City Attorney, requested that the conditions of approval be modified to require that the parking agreement is "maintained". Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve CUP 11-3900, finding in favor of the determination in condition of approval #1 including the language recommended by the City attorney that the shared parking agreement shall be maintained. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 14 of 16 RZN 11-3901: Rezone (811 & 833 S. BEECHWOOD AVE./LOVE BOX, 559): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for properties located at 811 and 833 SOUTH BEECHWOOD AVENUE. The properties are zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 16.24 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, applicant, was present for any questions. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins stated that he was the adjacent property owner and asked the applicant if they wanted him to recuse. Blake Jorgensen stated no. Commissioner Earnest discussed his initial concern in the conflict with this proposal and the Future Land Use Plan map, but after talking to Steve Clark (President Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce) he has no concerns. Commissioner Hoskins stated that he thinks it is great they will do anything with this brown field. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 11-3901 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 15 of 16 RZN 11-3892: Rezone (FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN, 599): Submitted by THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING DIVISION for property located WITHIN THE FAYETTE JUNCTION MASTER PLAN AREA. The properties are zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 DU/ACRE; C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL; C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL; and I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. The request is to rezone select properties within the Fayette Junction Master Plan area to NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES; CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES; UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE; P-1, INSTITUTIONAL; AND 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, presented the staff report and recommendation. Public Comment: David Druding owns property in the Fayette Junction Master Plan Area that is proposed to be rezoned from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to CS, Community Services. He discussed the Cato Springs widening project, and he expressed his concern that staffs proposal would eliminate the uses currently permitted on his property by the C-1 zoning district. Dawn Sparks owns property in the Fayette Junction Master Plan Area that is proposed to be rezoned from C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial, to CS, Community Services. She explained that she didn't understand the impact of this proposal on her property and requested clarification on the reason for rezoning large areas at one time. Marcy Benham -Bliss owns property in the Fayette Junction Master Plan that is not proposed to be rezoned at this time. She expressed concern with density, access, and flooding in her area of the Fayette Junction neighborhood. No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Cabe asked staff to address the question of large rezoning actions. Sanders discussed the neighborhood planning and implementation processes. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, explained further and stated that staff is not proposing to rezone property in the area located near Ms. Benham -Bliss' neighborhood. Commissioner Griffin compared the permitted use in the C-1 and CS zoning districts and explained that staffs proposal would provide more flexibility for Ms. Spark's property for the short- and long-term. Ms. Sparks stated that she did not have any objections to the proposal considering this information. Commissioner Griffin, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Pate discussed the issue of nonconforming uses with Mr. Druding. Commissioner Chesser thought that some citizens might feel that more time is needed and preferred to table the proposal. Motion: Planning Commission August 22, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table RZN 11-3892 until the next Planning Commission staff to allow more time for public comment. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM.