Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-22 MinutesCITY OF Tay e ARKAANNSAS Planning Commission June 22, 2015 5:30 PM City Administration Building in Fayetteville, AR, Room 219 MINUTES Members: Sarah Bunch - Chair, William Chesser - Vice -Chair, Ryan Noble — Secretary, Ron Autry, Kyle Cook, Thomas Brown, Matthew Hoffman, Janet Selby, and Tracy Hoskins City Staff: Andrew Garner — City Planning Director, Jesse Fulcher — Senior Planner, Quin Thompson — Planner, Cory Granderson — Staff Engineer, and Kit Williams —City Attorney 1. Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Sarah Bunch 2. In Attendance: Thomas Brown, William Chesser, Janet Selby, Tracy Hoskins, Matthew Hoffman, Sarah Bunch, Ron Autry, Ryan Noble, and Kyle Cook Absent: Staff: Andrew Garner, Jesse Fulcher, Quin Thompson, Corey Granderson, and Kit Williams 3. Consent Agenda: Approval of the minutes from the June 8, 2015 meeting. ADM 15-5110: Administrative Item (1946 N. BIRCH AVE./THE CONTAINER KITCHEN, 367): Submitted by BENJAMIN MILLS for property located at 1946 N. BIRCH AVE. The property is zoned 1-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 1.55 acres. The request is for a Mobile Vendor Annual Permit. CCP 15-5085: Concurrent Plat (5648 JESS ANDERSON RD./NOTTENKAMPER, 358/359): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 5648 JESS ANDERSON RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 16.74 acres. The request is to subdivide two lots into four lots containing approximately 4.42, 4.07, 4.14, and 4.11 acres each. VAC 15-5080: Vacation (WEIR & SALEM RDS./HOLCOMB HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION 245): Submitted by RIVERWOOD HOMES for properties located at the intersection of WEIR & SALEM RDS. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 8 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 0.61 acres. The request is to vacate a street right-of-way within the subdivision and portions of utility easements. VAC 15-5078: Vacation (EAST OF 4148 W. MILK BLVD./HOLLANDS SUBDIVISION 595): Submitted by CITY STAFF for property located EAST OF 4148 W. MLK BLVD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE and contains approximately 15.20 acres. The request is to vacate a street right-of-way within the subdivision. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Motion: Commissioner Chesser 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. 4. Old Business: LSD 15-5072: Large Scale Development (2269 N. HENBEST DRJADVENTURE SUBARU, 325): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 2269 N. HENBEST DR. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 8.36 acres. The request is for construction of three structures related to car sales consisting of approximately 14,600 square feet with associated parking and sales lot. Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner, read the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, applicant, stated that all of the outstanding items had been addressed. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Cook stated that modifications have been made since the last meet, though not big changes. Motion: Commissioner Cook made a motion to approve LSP 15-5072 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-1. Commissioner Hoffman recused. LSD 15-5070: Large Scale Development (3739 N. STEELE BLVDJUARK CREDIT UNION, 173): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at 3739 N. STEELE BLVD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.27 acres. The request is for construction of an 8,927 square foot bank with associated parking. Quin Thompson, Current Planner, read the staff report. Jon Shireman, Applicant, was present to answer questions. No public comment was presented. Ron Autry, Commissioner, said the current proposal was similar to the last item, and had attempted to meet the code. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner, said he was in agreement with Commissioner Autry Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve LSD 15-5070 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-1. Commissioner Cook recused. PPL 15-4989: Preliminary Plat (SOUTH OF MANOR & RIDGELY DR./REMINGTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 449): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for property located SOUTH OF MANOR & RIDGELY DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 12.10 acres. The request is for a 27 lot single-family subdivision. Quin Thompson, Current Planner, read the staff report. Jason Appel, Applicant, said that the development team had addressed staff concerns, including a 27 foot wide street south of Manor Drive [to the property line.] Public comment Eric Howerton, Neighbor, said that safety of existing streets was his concern, that increased traffic would be funneled into a narrow [21'] street without sidewalks. Wanda Walker, Neighbor, said she continues to oppose the development, saying that each waiver [variance] had been approved by staff without consideration of the neighborhood. She expressed concern for stability of property values. Jay P Greene, Neighbor, was alarmed by the recommendations of Planning staff, saying that [engineering] staff had opposed a retaining wall previously. He said that thedeveloper had made no good faith effort to speak to neighbors. He said the developer has been given variances without cause. He pointed out errors in the staff report for Subdivision Committee, and provided inaccurate information to the Planning Commission. He said the neighborhood relies on City staff for protection. He noted that the City Attorney had previously said that the Commission must vote 'no' to the project [if neighbors refused to grant easements to allow grading.] Steven Garrish, Neighbor, said that he was concerned with the well-being and safety of his family, particularly due to the proposed retaining wall and potential flooding that the development may cause. He said he was open to development, but not as proposed. Dick Vertz, Neighbor, said that the developer was asking to increase traffic on a narrow street [Manor Drive]. He said that a primary concern of the Commission should be safety of pedestrian: children, adults, and animals that use the street because there is no sidewalk. He said that Manor Drive should be improved as a part of this project. He said that the Commission was not required to ensure the developer's profit. Jamie Walker, Neighbor, said the development would create dangerous living conditions, including increased traffic at an already dangerous intersection [Manor Drive at Crossover Road]. He said he is not opposed to development, but to access and safety issues that this proposal would make worse. He added the most effective and outspoken opposition members had not been included in an e-mail [containing current staff report] which he found significant. Lisa Williams, Neighbor, said that accidents and deaths caused by this development would be 'on the shoulders' of the Commissioners if they approved the project. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner, asked staff if the Mayor's approval was required for the retaining wall in the right-of-way. Kit Williams, City Attorney, said that a retaining wall could be approved by the Mayor or the Mayor's designee, the City Engineer in this case, after all other avenues are exhausted. He added that during the previous Commission meeting, neighbors had indicated that easements [necessary to build the road without a retaining wall] would not be granted, effectively exhausting the alternatives to a retaining wall in this case. He said that the City cannot deny the right of the property owner to make use of the 12 acre parcel, or face the likelihood of the City being forced to purchase the acreage. Hoskins asked whether the neighbors could choose between the designs if they would rather have grading than the retaining wall, if development should be approved with the wall. He asked staff if the Conditional Use Permit for the tandem lot was a part of this proposal. Thompson replied that project would not be required to build the wall if other arrangement could be agreed upon, and that the tandem lot approval was no longer required after the applicant revised lot lines. Hoskins asked staff about the existing street width at Manor Drive. Thompson said that it was approximately 20' wide. Williams spoke to the constitutionality of off-site improvements, discussing the `rough proportionality' test. Hoskins asked staff about traffic safety impacts expected by the proposal. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, said that impacts would be felt but are not likely to be extreme. He added that the Police Department does not typically comment at this stage in the development process. William Chesser, Vice -Chair, asked the City Attorney to address the tree removal or damage and mitigation on adjacent property. He asked if land owners have recourse if trees on their property are damaged by grading in the right-of-way. Williams said that he was unsure, and that it would be best to 'wait and see' if damage occurs. He said that no trees on neighboring properties would be removed by the proposal. Chesser noted that the Commission Chair had asked that the developer begin conversation with the neighbors to find agreeable solutions. He asked the applicant if this had happened. Kevin Riggins, Developer, said that he had discussed the project with one party to the west, but was not at liberty to say what the conversation had been. Chesser asked Mr. Greene and Mr. Garrish if they had been contacted by the developer. Garrish said that he had been asked what kind of street he wanted, either retaining wall or grading. No more public comment was presented. Chesser said the main issue that he saw is the retaining wall, especially confusion around the previous staff decision not to allow it, followed by the reversal of that decision. He asked if a retaining wall was an unusual request. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer, said that retaining walls are a 'last resort' for maintenance reasons. He added that if the developer had proven that all avenues had been exhausted prior to Subdivision Committee, then the engineering recommendation would have been for retaining wall at that time. Ron Autry, Commissioner, asked how long the retaining wall would be. Appel said that less than 200 feet of wall would be built according to the proposal, that it would likely be a segmented block wall and no more than 30 inches in height. He said the wall would begin about 15 feet from Manor Drive. Autry asked about construction staging and said that he was concerned about safety, traffic, and the retaining wall. He said that he felt more discussion [between developer and neighbors] could have led to a better project. He said he could not support the project, mainly due to concerns about traffic impact and safety. Sarah Bunch, Chair, asked about trips per day that would be generated by the development. Staff discussed trip generation estimates. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner, said he was concerned with lack of street connectivity and the effect that could have in the future. He added that without open conversation between parties, he could not agree that all avenues had been exhausted for the grading/retaining wall issue. Chesser said that he could not imagine the development generating enough traffic to warrant a stoplight on Crossover. He said he believed that Manor Drive should receive improvements, and that he did not agree with staff on the 'rough proportionality' calculation in this case. Tom Brown, Commissioner, asked about options for improving Manor Drive Thompson replied that the neighbors could request improvements be done by the Transportation Division, which completes a number of such improvements annually. Garner noted that the developer was making approximately 300 feet of improvements to Ridgely as a part of this project, including widening the street, sidewalk, curb and gutter, streetlights, and street trees. Williams said that the improvement variances recommended by staff were the minimum necessary to allow for safety and fire protection. Garner noted that a retaining wall is a last resort for the City, and that neighbors had indicated that no grading easements would be allowed, thereby exhausting all avenues other than the wall. Brown asked what is done with a street that does not meet City requirements. Williams responded that Manor Drive is substandard, with a deep ditch and no sidewalk typical of older developments. He said that the City Council reviews street improvements, taking constituents into consideration, then makes a list of projects. He said he agreed with staff in this case that the improvements on Ridgely met the rough proportionality test for the development. Kyle Cook, Commissioner, said he had not liked the development at Subdivision Committee, but that he understood that the City could not deny access to the property. He said he agreed with staff recommendations. Brown said that he was sympathetic to the concerns of neighbors and understood opposition to change, but that he was convinced that development regulations are being met by the project and that he must therefore vote in favor. Bunch said that she did not care for the project personally, but felt that it has met development requirements. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve PPL 15-4989 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-4-0. New Business: LSD 15-5074: Large Scale Development (SOUTH OF 3203 N. WARWICK DR./HUNTINGDON APTS., 216): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN for property located at SOUTH OF 3203 N. WARWICK DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 1.13 acres. The request is for construction of a 12 unit apartment complex with associated parking. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Brian Teague, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Chesser gave a Subdivision Committee report discussing the public comment. Garner discussed the additional conditions that have been added to deal with construction issue. Brian Teague discussed construction of the previous apartment and problems that occurred. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve LSD 15-5074 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. 9 RZN 15-5066: Rezone (1324 W. CLEVELAND STJARKANSAS LEGACY, LLC., 443): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN for properties located at 1324 W. CLEVELAND ST. The properties are zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 3.98 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL. Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner, read the staff report. Kit Williams, City Attorney, asked the applicant if the Bill of Assurance had been signed Brian Teague, applicant, stated yes and proceeded with a power point presentation. We feel that the Bill of Assurance is enforceable and we went this route because of tree preservation. We couldn't get a commitment from staff on the tree preservation plan. We would like to hear your feedback on the plan and Bill of Assurance. We have concerns with making a connection to the north and directing traffic from Razorback to Wedington and the neighbor doesn't want the connection. The Walker Park plan shows the use of Downtown General zoning outside of the downtown area. We are not doing Project Cleveland — prefer a range of housing types. Public comment: Ken Gardner, neighbor, stated that this isn't downtown and the Downtown General zoning district isn't appropriate. The property should remain RSF-4 or go through the PZD process. Archie Schafer, neighbor, stated that he realizes the property will be developed and I don't object to development. However, Downtown General is not the correct zoning. George Hamilton, neighbor, stated that Downtown General is inappropriate. The Bill of Assurance is vague and open to interpretation. The PZD process seems to be the correct route. Meeting the tree preservation ordinance may require less density. The project needs to fit in with the neighborhood. Susan Gardner, neighbor, stated that the developer doesn't want to go through the PZD because it doesn't work with the tree preservation requirements. This is not a good reason and they should go through the PZD route. Mary Bassett, neighboring property owner, asked why there wasn't a stub -out to her property to the west or property to the north. I understood that the project was going to be RSF-4 with cottages. Do not support Downtown General. No more public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins asked about staff's comments on tree preservation and street requirements. Fulcher describes the Bill of Assurance language and goes on to clarify that a tree preservation recommendation is just that and not a variance procedure. The Planning Commission ultimately approves a tree preservation plan. Commissioner Hoskins stated that he doesn't support the rezoning 10 Commissioner Chesser asked why the PZD required a higher tree preservation percentage. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, stated that the PZD gives you flexibility to make a unique project, so you can work around trees. Commissioner Chesser asked staff if they support the plan concept. Fulcher stated that we couldn't without more information. Commissioner Chesser stated that he supports higher density, but not sure that Downtown General is appropriate. The applicant did make many good points. Commissioner Hoffman stated he appreciated the public comment. A development plan like this could be good, but the current Bill of Assurance and plan is general and vague. What is the extent of the Bill of Assurance if the land sells. Williams states that it runs with the land. Teague stated we were told that tree preservation would be a variance if we don't meet the minimum requirement. Commissioner Chesser asked about the PZD process. Garner describes the process. Commissioner Chesser asked how much canopy was being preserved. Teague stated about 13%. Commissioner Chesser stated he agreed with Commissioner Hoffman. I would be much more comfortable with a PZD. Commissioner Hoskins asked if they were keeping the houses Teague stated they are saving one of the two houses. Commissioner Brown stated that he agreed with staff. The Downtown General zoning is not appropriate and am concerned with transition and buffering. The PZD process is likely the best path. Commissioner Bunch stated that the plan could fit in this area, but there is a lot of unknown. The plan can't be accurately defined or enforced. Teague stated that he feels the plan is clear, but I'm not getting feedback on how to make it clearer. 11 Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to deny RZN 15-5066. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. 12 ADM 15-5093: Administrative Item (UDC Chapters 161,164 and 172/SINGLE FAMILY INFILL STANDARDS): Submitted by CITY PLANNING STAFF for revisions to Chapters 161, 164 and 172 to modify the bulk and area regulations to encourage small -lot, single family infill in multi -family zoning districts, and to include minimum design standards for this type of development. Jesse Fulcher, Senior Planner, described the code changes and recommended tabling the project. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Chesser asked if the 18 foot driveway requirement applied along an alley. Fulcher stated no. Commissioner Hoskins stated that this was a step in the right direction. What about stacking units back to back? The proposed changes don't plan for this layout. Fulcher stated that we hadn't considered that and would take a look at the standards before the next meeting. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table ADM 15-5093 until the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. 13 ADM 15-5090: Administrative Item (AMENDMENT TO THE MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS GUIDELINE- UDC CHAPTER 171, STREETS & SIDEWALKS): Submitted by CITY ENGINEERING STAFF for revisions to Chapter 171 to modify the Minimum Street Standards Guideline. Jonathan Ely, Staff Engineer, discussed the proposed recommendations. He discussed that basically we are proposing to take a lot of the technical language out of the ordinance and put it into a Minimum Street Standards guidelines. This is similar to what we did with the drainage manual. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table ADM 15-5090 until the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. 14 5. Reports: No reports 6. Announcements: 7. Adjournment Time: 8:26 PM 8. Submitted by: City Planning Division 15