Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-24 MinutesPlanning Commission October 24, 2011 Page I of 16 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 24, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Consent: MINUTES: October 10, 2011 Page 3 Old Business: ACTION TAKEN Approved CUP 11-3918: Conditional Use Permit (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW (SALE BARN), 562) Page 4 Approved LSD 11-3903: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON DR./KUM & GO, 402) Page 5 Tabled New Business: ADM 11-3974: Variance (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW/SALE BARN), 562) Page 6 Approved ADM 11-3964: Variance (LOT 1, TIMBERLAKE OFFICE PARK/SMITH, 135) Page 7 Withdrawn CCP 11-3946: Concurrent Plat (1559 E. MISSION BLVD./VENEMA, 296) Page 8 Approved LSD 11-3962: Large Scale Development (PINES AT SPRINGWOODS, 286) Page 9 Approved CUP 11-3965: Conditional Use Permit (2475 W. PIERRE CROSSING/BELCLAIRE POOL, 169) Page 11 Approved RZN 11-3960: Rezone (1730 N. OLD WIRE ROAD/WILLIAMS & COOPER, 369) Page 12 Denied Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 2 of 16 MEMBERS ABSENT Craig Honchell Sarah Bunch William Chesser Hugh Earnest Tracy Hoskins Chris Griffin Porter Winston Matthew Cabe Kyle Cook STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher 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 with the exception of Commissioners Bunch and Earnest. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 3 of 16 Consent. Approval of the minutes from the October 10, 2011 meeting. 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 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 4 of 16 Old Business: CUP 11-3918: Conditional Use Permit (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW (SALE BARN), 562): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at 510 WEST 11TH STREET AND 989 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 10.95 acres. The request is to utilize a trailer as a temporary leasing office, Use Unit 2, for an apartment complex. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Heather Robason, applicant, stated agreement with the condition. Commissioner Hoskins asked about condition of approval #4 regarding the height of shrubs. Heather Robason, applicant, stated that they have no problem agreeing to a minimum height of the shrubs. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve CUP 11-3918 amending condition of approval #4 to state that the shrubs shall be a minimum height of three feet tall, and finding in favor of all other conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 5 of 16 LSD 11-3903: Large Scale Development (2530 W. WEDINGTON DRJKUM & GO, 402): Submitted by CEI ENGINEERING for property located at 2530 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.54 acres. The request is for a gas station and convenience store containing approximately 4,958 square feet. The applicant requested this item be tabled until the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. No public comment or staff report was presented. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table LSD 11-3903 for two weeks. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 6 of 16 ADM 11-3974: Variance (510 W. 11TH ST. & 989 S. SCHOOL AVE./BARTHOLOMEW/SALE BARN), 562): Submitted by MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at 510 WEST 11TH STREET AND 989 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and contains approximately 10.95 acres. The request is to allow a curb -cut on South School Avenue and a reduced drive aisle width within the parking lot. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Heather Robason, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve ADM 11-3974 finding in favor of all variances as recommended by staff. Commissioner Chesser seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 7 of 16 ADM 11-3964: Variance (LOT 1, TIMBERLAKE OFFICE PARKISMITH,135): Submitted by GENE PIERCE for property located at LOT 1, TIMBERLAKE OFFICE PARK. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.50 acre. The request is for variances from Unified Development Code Chapter 172, Parking and Loading. The request was withdrawn. No discussion or comment was presented. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 8 of 16 CCP 11-3946: Concurrent Plat (1559 E. MISSION BLVDJVENEMA, 296): Submitted by BLEW AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 1559 EAST MISSION BOULEVARD. The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 8.35 acres. The request is for approval of a concurrent plat with four lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Mike Sebo, applicant was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to approve CCP 11-3946 finding in favor of all conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 9 of 16 LSD 11-3962: Large Scale Development (PINES AT SPRINGWOODS, 286): Submitted by JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located NORTH AND EAST OF DEANE SOLOMON ROAD AND MOORE LANE. The property is zoned C-PZD, SPRINGWOODS and contains approximately 25 acres. The request is to complete the remainder of Phase I of the Pines at Springwoods project, constructing nine new buildings with a total of 32 new multifamily dwellings (seven quad-plexes and two duplexes). Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Representative, discussed the background of the modified request and the reason for the variance request is a result of the applicant's agreement with the existing residents. He discussed variation in geometry of the building design proposed. Public Comment: Roland Broth, resident, is happy that the project will be completed. He supports the variance request No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins discussed the findings of the Subdivision Committee and stated his support for the variance request from the Urban Residential Design Standards based on the residents' support for utilizing the same building design. Commissioners Chesser and Hoskins discussed the detrimental effects of meeting the regulations. Commissioner Hoskins stated that the existing development of the site exceeded the landscaping requirements, which contributes to the overall design of the site. Staff stated that there is no condition in the report or recommended by the Subdivision Committee that would require the applicant to install additional landscaping with the requested variance. Commissioner Cabe discussed his support for staffs recommendation to require variations in materials and colors for the new structures. He doesn't find a hardship. Commissioners Hoskins and Winston discussed previous variance requests from design regulations. Commissioner Honchell discussed the layout of the property. He finds that requiring the applicant to provide a variation in materials and colors will result in the loss of continuity throughout the development. He finds that the developer was attempting to create a specific type of built environment, and he supports the variance request. Kit Williams, City Attorney, Commissioner Hoskins, and Jorgensen discussed the possibility of the multi- family dwellings being single-family due to ownership and not being subject to the design standards. Williams provided the Commission with language to support the variance request. Commissioner Cook doesn't believe the Urban Residential Design Standards are heavy handed, and he expressed support for staffs recommendation. Motion #1: Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve condition of approval #1 to approve the urban residential design standard variances as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Griffin seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 4-3-0 (Commissioners Chesser, Cabe, and Cook voting `no'). Motion #2: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve LSD 11-3962 with the conditions of approval recommended by staff, except for condition of approval #1 that was addressed in the previous motion. Commissioner Honchell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 11 of 16 CUP 11-3965: Conditional Use Permit (2475 W. PIERRE CROSSING/BELCLAIRE POOL, 169): Submitted by APPIAN, INC. for properties located at 2475 W. PIERRE CROSSING. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.37 acre. The request is for a conditional use permit for Use Unit 4, for the development of a community pool, pool house, and playground. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Evan Neihues, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion approve CUP 11-3965 with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 12 of 16 RZN 11-3960: Rezone (1730 N. OLD WIRE ROAD/WILLIAMS & COOPER, 369): Submitted by JACKSON WILLIAMS AND TIM COOPER for property located at 1730 N. OLD WIRE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 8.6 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, subject to a Bill of Assurance. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Tim Cooper, applicant, discussed the proposed rezoning. Public Comment: Harry Jackson, property owner to the south and west, discussed that his concern is having access to his property after this subdivision is built. He does not want to be landlocked. Kevin Sanchez, 1273 East Ash Street, read an email that he sent to the Planning Commission objecting to the rezoning for a number of reasons. Aubrey Shepherd, discussed that this site is the beginning of the prairie. He discussed that flooding will get worse with this rezoning. We need to protect the watershed. Sallie Kelley, lives on Ash Street, moved there in 1994. She discussed that it took two years to work to resolve a drainage problem on her property. She stated concerns with making the drainage problems worse. Jonice Adams, 1630 Charlee Avenue, opposed to the rezoning because of the higher density will not fit in with the neighborhood. She discussed that there is a huge amount of traffic on Mission in the morning. It is very difficult to get out of Charlee onto Mission. She discussed concerns with Charlee being connected. There is angle and site distance issues with the intersection of Charlee and Mission. Ann Ratcliff, 1750 Charlee Avenue, opposes the rezoning request because of flooding issues and safety issues. On Charlee there are children before and after school. There are families that walk their kids up and down the street. I cannot imagine a worse safety issue. I ask you to retain the cul-de-sac on Charlee. The proposed homes would not be the same size as surrounding homes. We do not have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Laura Lindsey, lives on Charlee Avenue, I oppose this because we have children. There are 15-20 people that park on Charlee every morning and walk kids. You are going to take out someone, there is going to be a death and I don't want it to be my children. The safety issues are bad, we bought because this was a cul-de-sac and you are going to make it a cut -through. There are so many things wrong with this. We have so many cars parking on this street already. You would not want this on our street so why put it on ours. You are going to change the whole continuity of our neighborhood. You can't put that many cars on our street. She described the pedestrian crossing guards. You are talking an additional 500-1000 cars per day on our street. We bought in this neighborhood because it was a quiet safe street. You don't want this in your backyard so don't put it in our front yard. Tom Sawyer, lives on Ramsey Avenue. He described previous rezonings that were approved including Summit Place and Ruskin Heights that will put more homes on Mission. Root and Vandergriff Elementary are at capacity. This should go through the school boards. I don't want people cutting through on Ramsey. We bought or rent on Ramsey for a reason because it is a quiet dead-end street near Root. We don't want traffic cutting through. We get people parking on our street and running across Mission Boulevard not at the cross walk. Was Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 13 of 16 Ramsey ever designed as a cut -through? Garner discussed that Ramsey Avenue was designed as a through street and the right-of-way stubs out all the way to the property line. He also discussed that Samantha Street and Charlee Avenue stub -outs also were intended to be through streets as well. He discussed that the location of street stub -outs and through streets is not something that is determined with a rezoning request. Cabe stated that we are only considering land use. We are not considering street connections. We are strictly looking at whether this property should be rezoned. We arejust looking at land use. Development is not part of this proposal. Jana Berton, 1702 Charlee, lived there since 1992.1 have several concerns including children that live and play on Charlee. We bought on this street because it is a charming cul-de-sac. My children walked to and from school. She discussed that traffic is bad in the morning and afternoon around Root Elementary. We will have a lot of cars turning and cutting through our street. It will affect the safety of our children on Charlee and Ash street. I am concerned with smaller high-density units adversely affecting the values of our homes. We're concerned with protecting our homes and the size of units coming in affecting our property values. Kit Williams, City Attorney, clarified that roads are not evaluated now but traffic can be considered. He discussed other items that can be considered with a rezoning including compatibility. Dale Thompson, 1690 Charlee Avenue, we have been there since 2001. We bought here primarily because of the good school system. His primary concern is because of the smaller lot sizes. Part of the reason they bought on Charlee was because of the house size. The other thing is the traffic. He discussed traffic in the morning and the afternoon and kids being safe on Charlee. He discussed flooding in this area and that the drainage system needs to be evaluated closely. He is against this rezoning. Amy Rosetti, 1657 Charlee Avenue, my husband and I are opposed to this rezoning. There is a lot of traffic and it is unsafe. One time I had to call Root School because it was so tight cars couldn't even get through Charlee. One time on Saturday morning my daughter and I were in a wreck exiting Charlee onto Mission. There is speeding at other times of the day when the school is not in. The police do not patrol this area. I am concerned with the traffic. She discussed concerned with the proposed small homes and lack of greenspace and no place for the water to go. Michelle Hightower, 1645 Charlee Avenue. I am opposed to the rezoning primarily because the density is much different than surrounding neighborhoods. The density and look will be different. I don't think there is a need to put housing like that. I have concerns with those homes being closer to the road. I am concerned with safety. I have four children. We only have sidewalks on one side. If our road is a connector, we are not in compliance with sidewalks. She discussed concerns with the creek and changes in the end of the creek causing flooding on their homes. There are already some flooding issues. Has there been a study to address the creek? There should be some assurances that nothing will happen to our property because of the homes back there. Debbie Heller, 1621 Charlee Avenue, they are in the floodplain. She described flooding issues on her property. Everyday cars park in front of my house, I have to time when I am going to leave my home because it is so congested. Laura Lindsey (again) said she has pictures of the water and flooding and can show pictures right now. Andy Hightower, 1645 Charlee Avenue, discussed that you could consider traffic. We get a preview of what Charlee will be if it is it a cut -through about once a day when someone thinks it is a cut -through and it is Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 14 of 16 terrifying how fast they go. It is terrifying how fast they leave. I have four children and my concern is their safety. He talked about the vision of the City being a safe community and said Charlee is a safe street now and would like to keep it that way. No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Chesser discussed the potential for cul-de-sac streets being connected. Were the developer to develop right now by right could the developer connect those streets? Garner discussed that, yes, we described that in the rezoning report that all three of those streets were planned to be connected, and the City's ordinances would more than likely require all three of those streets to be connected with any residential subdivision on this property at the current RSF-4 zoning or the proposed NC zoning. The comments we're hearing about those streets being used as street stub -outs would be an issue whether or not the property were rezoned or not. Commissioner Chesser discussed that under the current zoning it appears they could develop 34 units and under the proposed zoning they could develop 50 units. Is that correct? Garner stated `yes', the proposed zoning would allow 16 additional homes over what is existing. Chesser asked about City Plan and connectivity. Garner discussed that it is a strong policy of our City Plan and ordinances for connections within and throughout neighborhoods and streets in the city and to try to prevent dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs. Chesser asked about schools and their input of a rezoning. Garner discussed that impacts to schools is one of the legal findings for a rezoning. The City notifies the schools of rezoning requests but he was not aware of the City ever receiving comments from the school districts for a rezoning. Chesser asked about the neighborhood being required to follow storm water requirements. Garner stated that we did bring up the flooding issues to City Engineering staff. Garner read a statement from the Assistant City Engineer that is in the rezoning staff report regarding storm water and drainage requirements at the time of development. Commissioner Winston asked the City Attorney about highest and best use. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed that highest and best use is something you can consider along with many other factors. Compatibility is the primary consideration for a rezoning. Commissioner Winston stated that there will be some development on this land whether it is under the existing zoning or the proposed zoning, and there will be some connections through the streets that you all are concerned about. There is no way to imagine that is not going to happen. He discussed that he thinks about this in terms of development patterns. The NC development pattern is preferable to the RSF-4 development pattern. It will allow more diversity to the living situations in the City and I'm generally in favor of that. I do want to point out that the neighborhood is absolutely right that when these streets are connected people using these streets to get their kids to the school will use these streets in a way that is not safe. The condition is such a mess that I live Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 15 of 16 right around the corner that I avoid the situation. Something needs to be done with other developments in the area. There will be more traffic and more traffic. Root School is a mess and it is unsafe. I'm not sure that rezoning this to NC will have enough of an impact to say that we should not do it. There is another question that we have to deal with regarding Root School and traffic in the area. Garner discussed that City staff and administration and the alderman are aware of traffic issues in the area. He discussed that within the past year or so one of the alderman requested staff to do a street connectivity study in the area so staff completed an east -west connectivity study. We realize there are pinch -points where traffic is funneled all in to one area, such as Mission. So we looked at getting additional connections between and through neighborhoods to alleviate some of these issues. We are planning on installing a traffic signal at Mission/Old Wire Road as one of the first improvements along Old Wire Road. The City is aware of the traffic issues and we are trying to find some solutions. Winston discussed that when development of this site occurs there would be different storm water requirements than when this area was initially developed. Garner discussed the current storm water and detention requirements, and the possibility of downstream improvements depending on the extent of the project and status of the existing drainage system. Commissioner Winston asked about the streamside protection ordinance. Garner stated that it was in the streamside protection zone but that the creek doesn't really run through the site but barely cuts through the southwest corner. Commissioner Chesser asked about downstream improvements. Garner discussed that determination would be based on the development. Commissioner Chesser asked about public comment from the person that stated they may be landlocked Garner discussed that location of streets would be determined at the time of preliminary plat. He stated that he had spoken to Mr. Jackson and it does appear that based on the dimensions and layout of the properties there would likely be one or two stub -outs. Harry Jackson came up and indicated his concern with being landlocked. Commissioner Chesser discussed concerns with the cul-de-sacs being extended but that even if we did nothing with the rezoning they could extend the streets by right. The question is will there be 34 or 50 houses built there. Given the goals of the City to do infill in sites just like this and to make that infill more walkable rather than less, and given the goals of the City to provide affordable housing he would like to make a motion to forward. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to forward RZN 11-3960 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Commissioner Honchell asked about bringing a new subdivision into an older neighborhood like this and the sidewalk requirements. The destination of choice will be to walk or ride to the school. What is the ordinance for Planning Commission October 24, 2011 Page 16 of 16 sidewalks? Development on this site will generate a ton of foot traffic down Charlee and Ramsey. Garner discussed that City ordinance requires that almost all street cross sections in our Master Street Plan requires new streets to have sidewalks on both sides of the street. In some cases a development might warrant offsite sidewalk improvements if the project generates enough pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Honchell asked about the maximum number of units per acre being four units? Garner stated `yes'. Commissioner Honchell discussed safety, traffic, and flooding. I won't be in favor of the applicant on this one. Upon roll call the motion to forward failed with a vote of 4-3-0 (Commissioners Honchell, Hoskins, and Griffin voting `no'). The rezoning failed to be forwarded due to a lack of five positive votes. Kit Williams, City Attorney, described the appeal process and requirements for the applicant to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to City Council. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7.40 PM.