HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-25 - Minutes
Planning Commission
April 25, 2016
5:30 PM
City Administration Building in Fayetteville, AR, Room 219
Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary),
Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Quinlan.
City Staff: Andrew Garner – City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth – Senior Planner,
Quin Thompson – Planner, Harry Davis – Planner, Cory Granderson – Staff Engineer,
Blake Pennington – Asst. City Attorney, and Kit Williams –City Attorney
1. Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook
In Attendance: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary),
Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Quinlan.
Absent: none
Staff: Andrew Garner – City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth – Senior Planner, Quin
Thompson – Planner, Harry Davis – Planner, Cory Granderson – Staff Engineer, and Kit
Williams –City Attorney
2. Consent Agenda:
Approval of the minutes from the April 11, 2016 meeting.
ADM 16-5403: Administrative Item (1898 E. MISSION BLVD./WHISTLER WOODS SD,
370): Submitted by PHIL CRABTREE for property located at 1898 E. MISSION BLVD. The
property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and
contains approximately 8.62 acres. The request is for an extension of PPL 14-4865 Whistler
Woods Subdivision.
No Discussion
Motion:
Commissioner Selby made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner
Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0,
2
3. Old Business:
RZN 16-5366: Rezone (NE CORNER OF GREGG AVE. & VAN ASCHE DR./LOTS 20 &
21-CMN BUSINESS PARK, 172): Submitted by McCLELLAND ENGINEERS, INC. for
properties at the NE CORNER OF GREGG AVE. & VAN ASCHE DR. The properties are
zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 19.34 acres. The request is to
rezone the properties to C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM
FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS.
Motion:
Commissioner Belden made a motion to table RZN 16-5366. Commissioner Selby
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Tabled for
2 weeks.
ADM 16-5393 Administrative Item (UDC CHAPTER 151.01 AMENDMENTS): Submitted
by ALDERMAN MATTHEW PETTY AND THE CITY ATTORNEY for an ordinance to amend
UDC Chapter 151.01 to allow certain architectural features within a building setback.
Alderman Matthew Petty presented the request to the commission.
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Belden asked about separation of eaves.
Alderman Petty responded to the inquiry.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward ADM 16-5393. Commissioner
Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
4. New Business:
VAR 16-5422: Variance Item (SW CORNER OF JOYCE & STEELE BLVDS./UPTOWN
APTS., 173): Submitted by SPECIALIZED REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. for property
located at SW CORNER OF STEELE & JOYCE BLVDS. The property is zoned C-3,
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 14.01 acres. The request is for a
variance to the greenspace requirements.
John Scott, Urban Forester, gave the staff report.
Michael Pope, applicant, was present for questions.
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Hoffman discussed support for the request.
3
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve VAR 16-5422 with conditions as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
VAR 16-5423: Variance Item (SPRINGFIELD DR. & ALBERTA ST./COVES PH. II, 555):
Submitted by RAUSCH COLEMAN HOMES, INC. for properties located in the COVES
PHASE II SUBDIVISON. The properties are zoned RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY, 8 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 10.22 acres. The request is for a
variance of single family infill design standards.
Jonathan Curth, Planner, read the staff report.
Steven Lear, Applicant: Rausch Coleman has developed 200 or so homes across City,
and this is the last 45 lots. Applicant can develop with the ordinance, but it may cost a lot.
Approximately 90 days, $8,000-10,000 a house, and 120 days lost.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Does Rausch Coleman intend to work further in the
City?
Lear: Yes.
Hoffman: Does it intend to comply in the future?
Lear: Yes.
Hoffman: Reminds the Commission of a past variance to this ordinance approved for
another subdivision, but in that case it was to match existing homes. Does not feel a
variance is appropriate considering this is an unbuilt subdivision.
Lear: Feels they are almost built out, and delayed because of the economy.
Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Asks if there areany lots with side- or rear-facing
homes?
Amanda Licato, Applicant: Yes, one on a corner with a side-oriented garage.
Quinlan: Are the rest all front?
Licato: There is a mix in the first phase.
Quinlan: Is it possible to change?
Licato: The existing lots are too shallow, or otherwise challenged to develop.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Hates to burden a substantial developer in the community
and hamper development. Wants to echo Hoffman's importance on all future development
complying.
4
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: How do the lots in Phase I compare?
Lear: They are smaller.
Hoskins: How do they compare to the shared driveway lots in Phase I? And are they still
in the Rausch Coleman portfolio?
Lear: I don't know, but shared driveways resulted in a lot of disputes. And the Phase I lots
are generally deeper.
Hoskins: What has been the dispute?
Lear: Owners are upset when residents and contractors are not respecting the shared
driveway, limiting homeowner access. Can see where a shared driveway would fit, but it
creates a challenge in changing easements and re-grading. Planned for this subdivision
(marketing, time, etc.) in the midst of the ordinance being passed. Might have to pull plans
from archive to make it comply with the ordinance.
Hoskins: Points out where a shared drive can be accommodated on the site.
Lear: States that the applicant would have to relocate utilities.
Hoskins: Can you not build over an easement?
Lear: I don't know, and would have to ask staff.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: A driveway can be over most easements with the
exception of a drainage easement.
Hoskins: Outlines past work that came through as smaller, and with fewer implications.
Does not feel that the argument that it would complete the subdivision is valid, as the
housing plans look quite different. Thinks it's possible to create a compromise of different
drive styles. Does not feel that Rausch Coleman has tried to make any adjustments.
Suggests tabling item, and incorporating different design ideas.
Lear: Agrees, but feels that time constraints and the potential for lost money made
seeking the variance more appealing.
Hoskins: Do you prefer an up or down vote?
Lear: Do the commissioners have any suggestions?
Leslie Belden , Commissioner: The curb cuts on Alberta look like they are built for
shared drives(?)
Lear: Yes, they are shared. The applicant wants to finish this project and move forward to
compliant projects.
Belden: One of the plans has a garage 4'11" set back, right?
Lear: Yes.
5
Autry: Sounds like you want to move on. Suggests 2 week tabling.
Lear: Is open to tabling.
Quinlan: Can sympathize, but feels Rausch Coleman has the potential to comply based
on adjacent developments. Suggests identifying lots that can be built in compliance.
Lear: Clarifies for applicant’s benefit; Agrees that the applicant is going to have to
redesign no matter what considering the subdivision layout.
Hoffman: Agrees with Hoskins regarding an alley. Suggests building all left-hand or all
right-hand drives.
Garner: Staff is open to reviewing the option.
Kyle Cook: Asks for motion.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to table VAR 16-5423. Commissioner Autry
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Tabled for
2 weeks.
VAR 16-5427: Variance Item (521 N. COLLEGE AVE./TWIN ARCHES APTS., 445):
Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 521 N.
COLLEGE AVE. The properties are zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, and
DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contain approximately 0.54 acres. The request is for a
variance to building design standards and parking requirements.
Quin Thompson, Planner, read the staff report.
Evan Niehaus: doing something different with this project, including a sweeping stair to the
street. We want to move on with a new project, keeping fayetteville funky. Compact spaces
are a minimal variance, several spaces have been removed to preserve trees on the site.
Side parking, providing a very wide entry for two units, more than twenty feet.
Yumi Rudzinski: architect, a variance of the requirement for one entry. My goal as an
architect, is to build to code. I understand that there is no hardship, but it is important to
respect the nature of College Avenue. I am only thinking of the residents of the two front
units, not thinking of you and I driving down the street. Provided a grand entry suitable for
urban nature and scale of College ave. We want people to be able to sit there and enjoy
College Ave and walk to grocery.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: I want to congratulate you on the project, very
appropriate. Two blocks from some of the most desirable neighborhoods in Fayetteville.
Millions of dollars are being spent on College Ave to create a walkable environment. I think
a lot of great things are about to happen on College, and you are the first.
6
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Confused by the elevations, materials.
Rudzinski: Redesigned and submitted last week, but it didn't get into the packet.
Hoskins: No problem with parking deck. No problem with lack of front entrances. I do have
a problem with the stair to 'nowhere'. It seems that a lot of design hasn't been resolved.
Niehaus: The important part is that we aren't providing two separate unit entrances, but one
large shared entry.
Hoskins: It looks like a gated community without a gate. Not certain about the articulation
requirement being met with the very small window.
Hoffman: Nothing in the pedestrian scale that says 'entry'.
Rudzinski: Rendering not illustrating the materials well.
Hoffman: it is about scale of activity. The code is about creating spaces and places for
people.
Cook: Everyone seems okay with parking variance.
Leslie Belden, Commissioner: I have an architecture degree, and appreciate your project.
It blends commercial and residential very well. It's compatible with nearby Lacuna. I do walk
this street, and think it could be a pleasant experience.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Excited to see this project done.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Congratulate you on wonderful design. Nothing troubling
about the 'compact' parking. Should be demarcated.
Thompson: Marking is required, and paint on the pavement is typical.
Brown: I think you have a great deal of detail in your mind, which has not been represented
by the drawings. No problem with the variances for doorways, which could be contrary to
your vision as an architect. No problem with Architectural design standards. Could you push
the screen back so that the project 'appears' inviting from the street.
Thurmond-Quinlan, Commissioner: Could we not provide wheelstops to give the
appearance of more space.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Wheel stops are required by code to prevent parking
in grass.
Motion #1:
Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to approve VAR 16-5427 for compact spaces.
Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a
vote of 9-0-0.
7
Brown: I can't see how the building relates to the public space, other than just the stairway.
I don't see the elements that will make this project good for pedestrian.
I need more information.
Williams: The statute does not speak to landscaping in any way, but only to the building.
Brown: It's difficult to assess without more information.
Belden: We approved Variance one, Variance two is for front entry doors. Variance three is
for architectural standards.
Hoffman: Cannot support this projects in it's current form.
Hoskins: Agree with Hoffman, need far more information. Developer does a great job on a
lot of projects. I would love to be able to support this project.
Cook: I think I agree with Hoffman and Hoskins, that in principal we don't have an issue
about variances other than how the project meets the street.
Hoffman: No, these elements are related. Entries on the street are important part of how
the building meets the street.
Motion #2:
Commissioner Belden made a motion to approve Variance 2 of VAR 16-5427 with
conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. No roll
call.
Motion #3:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to table VAR 16-5427. Commissioner Hoskins
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Tabled for
2 weeks.
CUP 16-5388: Conditional Use (EAST OF WASHINGTON AVE. BETWEEN 7TH & 11TH
STREETS/WILLOW BEND SD, 563): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN, INC. for
properties located EAST OF WASHINGTON AVE. BETWEEN 7TH & 11TH STREETS. The
properties are zoned RSF-18, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 18 UNITS PER ACRE, AND
NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 9.12 acres. The
request is for cottage lots in a single family zoned district. THE APPLICANT HAS
REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE TABLED INDEFINITELY
No staff report or public comment was presented.
Motion:
Commissioner Selby made a motion to table indefinitely CUP 16-5388. Commissioner
Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-1.
Quinlan recused.
8
RZN 16-5385: Rezone (SOUTH OF PUMPKIN RIDGE DR./FALLING WATERS, 646):
Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties SOUTH OF PUMPKIN
RIDGE RD. The properties are zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contain
approximately 35.31 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-2, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY, 2 UNITS PER ACRE, subject to a Bill of Assurance.
Robert Rhodes: the RPZD was approved in three readings by unanimous vote in 2005.
The owners have contributed to extension of water and sewer. Many neighbors spoke
against traffic last year, traffic issues seemed to stem from connection to Pumpkin Ridge
Road. Now the project is expanded and a construction access can be added to Dead Horse
Mountain Road. The applicant is willing to change the Bill of Assurance to ensure this. The
entire golf course is in the RSF-4 zoning district. The Plaza development has been approved
further east, so this project is not sprawl, but actually infill. It is within your authority to pass
this forward with a thumbs up to City Council.
Public Comment:
Wanda Altman: Neighbor, is concerned about environmental impact on the edge of
Fayetteville. This cannot in any way be considered 'infill' development by any understanding
I have of the term. This has been denied by the city because it is simply not compatible with
the area or with City Plan 2030. I believe to think of it as a shared vision of what we would
like our City to be; it is the future of the entire City that is at risk. This was a huge issue just
last year. A cover letter from the engineer says the 'plan' is that Cherry Ridge Road would
not be used for construction is not a legally binding document.
Jay Ray, neighbor, 6 floods since 2005, the new bridge flooded this years. We have only
one access when it floods, the unimproved Roberts Road. Imagine how much the houses
and new road will impact flooding.
Gregory Carter, neighbor, concerned about traffic getting onto the highway. This will not be
improved.
Larry Altman, we are beating a dead-horse mountain. We discussed this at length last year.
Same issues, same discussing. Although it is a small rezone, I believe this an attempt at
'slow-rolling' development in this area. I believe it is the intention of the owner to develop
the entire property over time.
Commission:
Cook: to Kit: please comment on the Bill of Assurance. A cover letter is not legally binding.
Drainage is not to be considered during a land-use discussion. Flooding is an issue for the
area, but not one for a re-zone.
Hoffman: I get a lot of calls about development, but none speak to the goals of City Plan
2030 as well as Mrs Altman. I am thankful that we have these goals and cannot support the
request.
Thurmond-Quinlan: Project is counter to the goals of 2030 plan, is not economically
responsible.
Hoskins: Is the area in the HHOD.
9
Garner: Yes
Hoskins: The sprawl has already happened. A lot of money has been spent on the property.
The land is within the City boundary. In order to get urban densities, we need rooftops.
Construction traffic issue has been resolved. When the neighborhood connects to the north,
it will give those neighbors a second way out.
Brown: We need to support the 2030 plan. There is a logic to the plan. There is a transect
from center to edge, where density is low. This should stay a low density residential area in
order to limit erosion and disturbance. HHOD is in sensitive areas. Will not support the re-
zone.
Hoskins: The point of the HHOD was to encourage responsible development on hillsides.
Mr. Brown's argument is not valid, it was never intended to restrict development.
Brown: The HHOD is placed here to protect environmental assets.
Autry: I did not support this request last year, for the same reasons I cannot support it this
time.
Hoskins: is the motion to forward with a recommendation to deny?
Garner: No sir, an appeal is possible. The motion is to deny.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to deny RZN 16-5385. Commissioner Quinlan
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0.
Commissioners Noble and Hoskins voted ‘no’.
5. Reports: No reports
6. Announcements:
7. Adjournment Time: 7:16 PM
8. Submitted by: City Planning Division