HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-09 - Minutes
Planning Commission
May 9, 2016
5:30 PM
113 W. Mountain, 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 Thurmond-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
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 Thurmond Quinlan.
Absent: none
Staff: Andrew Garner – City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth – Senior Planner, Quin Thompson
– Planner, Harry Davis – Planner, and Kit Williams –City Attorney
1. Consent Agenda:
Approval of the minutes from the April 25, 2016 meeting.
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. Old Business:
VAR 16-5423: Variance (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 the single family
infill design standards.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: read the staff report.
Jesse Fulcher, Applicant: Not happy to be back requesting a VAR. Apologizes for the change
of applicant representatives. Strives to prove a true hardship. Subdivision developed prior to the
2
ordinance. Elected not to do use the same plans as Ph. II due to cost considerations. Applicant
did not know the ordinance was moving forward parallel site work. A lot of money put down
already. Addressing staff and commissioner comments. Hickory plan not used now due to cost
and applicant does not feel anyone can garner financing. The house plans used have too high
of a cost per square foot. An alley is not an option due to the location of electrical pedestals, or
tree preservation. Shared or side-loaded driveways are not a viable option due to house and lot
widths and the amount of driveway needed for vehicle maneuvering. They can side-load on the
corner lots, but not on the lots less than 70 feet. *Map provided by applicant* Feels that utilizing
side-loads and the Carnegie plan can make all but 22 lots compliant along with adjusting
setbacks or footprints. Requests the Planning Commission recognize their efforts to conform
and the circumstances in which the subdivision was built.
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Kyle Cook: Is what the staff presented the same as the applicant?
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: It is not clear, but what is, is that corner lots do not need a
variance.
Commissioner Allison Thurmond-Quinlan: Sketched out what could be done based on the
floor plans in Phase II. Feels that it is very feasible to comply with all of the codes.
Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: Wants to ascertain what the formal measure of the setback is.
Does it include porches and is there still a gray area?
Garner: What was included in the packet were examples of potential floor plans.
Hoskins: Feels there is still some uncertainty in the ordinance.
Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: Wants to emphasize importance of traditional town form. Is
convinced that the applicant can build to the ordinance. Is willing to support a variance for the
Carnegie plan.
Commissioner Tom Brown: How many properties in Coves Phase I?
Fulcher: 58.
Brown: Concerned that an issue of hardship is necessary to consider, especially with the
applicant willing to work towards bringing things in to conformity. Feels this project is far enough
down the line to allow some variances.
Commissioner Janet Selby: Concurs with Brown. Notes that in the last meeting the applicant
said they were more than happy to comply in the future, and that she would support the
variances in order to move forward.
Hoskins: The price for higher density is thoughtful design. Has no issue with a variance on curb
cuts or a slight difference in garage depth. Does not feel that a blanket variance of any sort is
appropriate especially given their interaction. Feels that when you plat narrow lots, you should
also have the design to go with it. Not certain what they are giving the applicant, and it is a new
neighborhood and should be possible to develop to code. With the current information it will be
difficult to support.
3
Hoffman: How would we go about giving a variance for a specific floor plan? Do you have to tie
the variance to specific lots?
City Attorney, Kit Williams: Feels it is possible, and that the applicant can clarify.
Fulcher: Describes exactly where the applicant wants the variances.
Hoffman: Did the applicant randomly choose lots to show as the Carnegie?
Fulcher: Yes.
Thurmond-Quinlan: How are the corner lots being treated?
Fulcher: Not trying to figure out how little they can do, but how much they can do to comply.
Thurmond-Quinlan: Clarifying that it will be 23 non-compliant and 22 compliant. Recognizes
that it will effectively cover 1/2 the lots.
Cook: Recognizes that situations like this are why variances exist, and feels the PC should
move on.
Commissioner Autry: Feels that other floor plans exist, and wants to empathize with the
developer. Can support the variances as it is on the west end of town.
Hoskins: A variance of 166.08 can be crafted to support any house that is side-loaded. If we
were to approve the variance, would the applicant be willing to ensure that the side-loaded lots
on the corner will be built compliant with the ordinance.
Fulcher: Yes, the corner lots will be built to compliance.
Hoskins: Wants to ensure that the corner lots will serve the secondary street.
Hoffman: Adds the Young house plan is an acceptable in meeting the intent of the ordinance.
Motion #1:
Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to approve VAR 16-5423 to allow curb cut variances for
all side-loaded homes. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Brown: Wants to clarify what is still in play.
Garner: Provides clarification.
Curth: Seeks to clarify what are the proposed variances requested.
Hoskins: Wants to seek clarification also. Disagrees with the balance of the lots being allowed
to receive a variance.
Hoffman: Is comfortable with the Young floor plan due to its staggered garages.
4
Second: Brown
Hoffman: Does it not include a variance for the Carnegie?
Brown: Right now wants to approve the 6 lots with the variance for the Carnegie or Young.
Selby: Why six and not five?
Quintana: I can amend it to six.
Hoskins: Why is there a change?
Fulcher: The number five was chosen because of the ratio of house plans and the likelihood
that that the Carnegie would be chosen. Six is acceptable though.
Motion #2:
Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to approve VAR 16-5423 to the single family infill design
standards to allow the Carnegie or similar plans on 6 lots with the condition that all corner lots
shall be side loaded. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Hoskins: Now that we are down to 21 lots, are you asking for a complete variance of 164.23.
Fulcher: Not a full variance, just to the portion regarding a protruding garage. Estimates to build
in compliance will cost a significant amount. They have no options for the remaining 21 lots if
they have to be built in compliance. Reprises the cost and timing of the subdivision.
Hoffman: Half the lots have been accounted for, of which they can build upon. Feels that
construction time will give the applicant time to design conforming lots.
Williams: Variances must be voted upon to give the applicant a chance at appeal.
Motion #3:
Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve VAR 16-5423 to the single family design
standards on all remaining lots. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Commissioners Hoffman and Quinlan voted no.
VAR 16-5427: Variance (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 compact parking requirements.
Quin Thompson, Planner: read the staff report.
Russell Rudzinski, Applicant Representative: Here to clarify the design proposal and explain
the reasons behind it. Site is in state of decay. Mark Zweig intends to replace with market rate
5
housing. 17 housing units will be built on existing foundation. A grand stair and grand entry will
replace the wide automobile entry, and the shared space in the center of the courtyard is imagined
with pink shrubs. The project anticipates future commercial development on College Avenue,
where residential development is unlikely. Proposing a monumental screen to identify this as a
private space, and crossing this line is trespassing.
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Janet Selby: This is a beautiful project and can support it.
Commissioner Tom Brown: Congratulate applicant on the project. Asks staff if trees will be
planted.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Street trees will be required.
Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: Are we approving signage at this level?
Thompson: The signs have been reviewed by staff. The large '521' has been deemed a wall sign
and meets area requirements. The projecting sign does not meet sign codes, it may not project
above the roofline.
Rudzinksi: These are studio apartments, large open floor space.
Hoskins: I appreciate the design, but both ends of the building are very unarticulated. I don't know
that this is an earnest effort to comply with the code. I am concerned that we still don't know what
the gate will look like. Does this picture represent the actual proposed gate?
Rudzinski: The pictures are representative of an as yet undesigned gate. We believe we have
met the ordinances. A gate is not a design element discussed in the code.
Hoskins: I was not sure what we were asked to approve last week, and I feel the same way today.
In order to approve, while I appreciate the pictures, I need to know what is being proposed in
detail. I do have a problem with the unarticulated front, and I have an issue with approving an un-
designed fence.
Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: We had a robust conversation last time where we hashed
out these issues. I agree with Hoskins generally. Hopefully we will have a great pedestrian
environment on College, and I expect any building to respond to that goal. We discussed the
screen, an element being used to block access from the street. The unit doors do not necessarily
need to be placed on the street in this type, but the gate defeats that goal. At the last meeting we
discussed with Ms. Rudzinski, removing the screen, working with landscaping such as bamboo.
All of the issues that we discussed at the last meeting at length with Ms. Rudzinski are still present
in the design and have not been addressed.
Commissioner Ron Autry: I love the design, I don't take issue with the gate. Provides a sense
of security. The articulation is appropriate given the nature of College Avenue. If we could
understand what the gate will be we would at least be able to move forward there, the projecting
sign is not a turret, but does meet the goal of design element.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed Supreme Court decisions about design codes.
6
Hoffman: As usual I appreciate the City Attorney's comments. As I look at this design package, I
do not see an entry anywhere.
Williams: What about the gigantic stair?
Hoffman: With a closed gate in front of it there is not obvious place to walk in. There is not an
entrance that I can see in this design.
Brown: I think what I saw in the first presentation, was that the entry gate was flush with the
building. Have you recessed it?
Rudzinski: It has not been moved, was always recessed.
Brown: I expect that there will be times when that gate is going to be open, and I think that
handrails will help define that entry space also. I feel comfortable approving.
Hoskins: I want to clarify my position from last week and this week. I want to see what the detailed
proposal is, not more feel good talking. My issue is that lack of articulation in the big walls. That
sign is not a turret. I do not see an entrance of any kind, only a grand staircase leading to
something that I can't see because it hasn't been presented. What is the design intention for this
entrance? Where do the people walk in? The problem is that we have to approve what you are
going to build, and that has not been shown. Articulation and pedestrian scale need to be
addressed.
Commissioner Leslie Belden: I have a bias for projects like this, appreciate commercial design
in this case. Design has been manipulated to meet our standards, which is fine. We should look
at the intent of the design standards. I would have an issue with the building if it did not have a
gate to provide security.
Commissioner Alison Thurmond-Quinlan: I can see and read the entry. I have an issue with
the projecting sign, not knowing what will ultimately be approved by another ordinance.
Rudzinski: I want to address a couple of issues. I find it odd that the building overall is well liked,
and we are not trusted to build the gate. I have heard the word gigantic thrown out, the term isn't
defined in the code. The porch is human scaled. The project is sending mixed signals, which is
correct in an urban environment. This is a gift to the City.
Commissioner Kyle Cook: Concerned that architectural elements relied upon to meet the code
will be reduced or removed.
Thurmond-Quinlan: Correct, the sign is being used to meet design standards but cannot be
approved and will change.
Cook: The other issue is that the Commission is concerned with the design of the gate.
Hoffman: The photos of the gate will look like and act as a fence. We are having a difficult time
reading your drawings. If this is an entry, why not draw it?
Rudzinski: The drawing shows an entry so transparent that it can't be seen.
Autry: I like the idea of security. I think you can find the entry.
7
Selby: I think Commissioners want to see the building drawn with the gate open. I think it would
make all the difference.
Hoskins: Why are you so reluctant to draw the front of the building?
Rudzinski: I think we have shown it repeatedly.
Hoskins: You have shown multiple images. Would you care to point to one right now that you will
build?
Rudzinski: Which element of the code are you referencing?
Hoskins: Articulation, visible entry, and others. This is the same conversation we had two weeks
ago.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve VAR 16-5427 as requested with the condition
that all architectural features be constructed as shown. Commissioner Brown seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Commissioners Noble and
Hoskins voted no.
RZN 16-5366: Rezone (NORTHEAST 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.
Quin Thompson, Planner: remarked that the project had now been tabled by the applicant for
three consecutive meetings; that further requests to table the request would not be brought
forward, and that the applicant had been made aware of this.
No public comment was presented.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry 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 two weeks.
3. New Business:
VAC 16-5404: Vacation (1649 W. FARMINGTON ST./STEVENS, 560): Submitted by ANGELA
STEVENS for property located at 1649 W. FARMINGTON ST. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY
COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request
is to vacate portions of an access easement.
8
Angela Stevens, Applicant: We were asked to vacate the road by the City in 2000. It was great
for the business, because we do have gates and other items that we paint. We nearly had an
accident with a young woman on a scooter with a cup of coffee in her hand when she came
through while a forklift was in operation.
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Kyle Cook: Will Eastern remain City street?
Quin Thompson, Planner: Yes
Commissioner Tom Brown: I love the opportunities here. I drove in my car from Razorback to
Hollywood [sic]. Opportunity to have parallel public streets to Martin Luther King is worth saving.
Down the road you want to have that connection. It can be turned into a street unless we give up
access.
Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: I am not sure what Mr. Brown is talking about in terms of
connection to Arbuckle. I own that property, and I will not allow that. There are plans for trail along
that corridor, but not street.
Brown: It could be an alley.
Commissioner Ron Autry: I agree with Ms. Stevens. This is a safety issue. We will have trail
through the area. I would not want to be responsible for an accident here.
Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: I appreciate Mr. Brown's comments. I think this will become
a very vibrant and walkable area. I think it is important to maintain the full range of land use in this
area, including the industrial use. I don't think it is critical to keep this particular access for the
future. I am definitely in favor of this vacation.
Commissioner Alison Thurmond-Quinlan: I think this should be approved. The City Council
made this request years ago, and I find it unfair that the business owner should have to maintain
it for access.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to forward VAC 16-5404 with conditions as recommended
by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a
vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted ‘no’.
ADM 16-5420: Administrative (DELAYED OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT ESCROW REFUNDS):
Submitted by CITY STAFF. The request is for a refund to the current property owners for projects
where the developer contributed funds for a project that did not occur within the 5 year timeframe.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: read the staff report.
No public comment was presented.
9
Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: Wants the process of the refunds to be reconsidered. Feels the
refunds should go to the individual that conveys the funds, not the current property owner.
Cannot image the code as written holding up in court.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Gives background on a Planning Commission meeting from 14
years ago wherein this was debated. The Planning Commission and City Council elected to
choose its current option to avoid being determined to be arbitrary and capricious. All
developers since cannot claim to not know this is the case.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve ADM 16-5420 with conditions as approved
by staff. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a
vote of 9-0-0.
VAR 16-5431: Variance (3421 N. GULLEY RD./TURNER, 219): Submitted by JORGENSEN &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3421 N. GULLEY RD. The property is in the
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 7.54 acres. The request is for a
variance to the street frontage requirements on Chassy Rd. in relation to LSP 16-5405.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: read the staff report.
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Allison Thurmond-Quinlan: Refers to Agenda Session discussion requiring an
access easement to Gulley. Disagrees and proposes the possibility of an easement from north
to south.
Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: Tries to recall if there was a north to south easement
suggestion.
Motion:
Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to approve VAR 16-5431 with conditions as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
ADM 16-5429: Administrative Item (NE CORNER OF E. MORNINGSIDE DR. & E. PUMP
STATION RD./PRISM EDUCATION CENTER, 603): Submitted by EB LANDWORKS, INC. for
property located at the NE CORNER OF E. MORNINGSIDE DR. & E. PUMP STATION RD. The
property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, and contains approximately
10.07 acres. The request is to reduce the required street improvements of a previously approved
large scale development for the Prism Education Center (LSD 15-5213).
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: gave the staff report.
Missy Newcomb, Applicant: discussed the request and phasing of the project and the overall
improvements. She described the growth of the school over the years.
10
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Hoffman discussed that I hope that we can find a way to grant this. Trails that
are serviceable for roads, shouldn’t everyone be allowed to ask for this type of standard. In
addition, will this start to be a regular practice where applicants come back to the commission
after the project has been approved?
Garner discussed the process for bringing this request forward and also the request for this trail
to be built to a different standard.
Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed his recommendation that the trail not be built unless it
meets the city standard and that the trail be delayed until the gymnasium and parking lot are
completed.
Commissioner Hoskins discussed agreement with the City Attorney. In addition, he discussed
that if you have a trail along a thoroughfare without vehicular traffic that maybe there is a different
standard that it can be built. I am concerned with pedestrian connection to this school. Whenever
we build I would be perfectly fine with them building a basic 5-foot sidewalk along both frontages.
Commissioner Cook asked about phasing the improvements with future phases of development.
Garner discussed development phases.
Commissioner Selby discussed that we could require sidewalk and trail to be built that were
originally required with phase 1 be required with any further phases of development.
Commissioner Hoskins discussed that he cannot support the request for no sidewalk or trail to
be built with phase 1 of the project as currently proposed.
Motion:
Commissioner Selby made a motion to approve ADM 16-5429 as requested by the applicant
requiring sidewalk and trail originally required with Phase 1 be required with any further phases
of development. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Hoskins voted ‘no’.
RZN 16-5400: Rezone (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PERSIMMON & BROYLES AVE./CROSS
KEYS SOUTH SD, 477): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties
located at the SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PERSIMMON & BROYLES AVE. The property is
zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and NC, NEIGHBORHOD CONSERVATION and
contains approximately 1.43 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NC and R-A.
Harry Davis, Planner, read the report.
No public comment was presented.
Jorgensen, Applicant: Equal swap of zoned land between the two properties. Well documented
report by staff.
11
Commissioner Brown: Appears staff has worked out reasonable approach to this rezone. Is
there anything special in this area? Any particularly-, environmentally-sensitive areas?
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: No, the future land use natural area follows the riparian
corridor via a floodplain. Nothing particularly special.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to forward RZN 16-5400 with recommended approval by
staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a
vote of 9-0-0.
ADM 16-5430: Administrative Item (UDC CHAPTER 164.22 COTTAGE HOUSING
AMENDMENTS): Submitted by ALDERMAN MATTHEW PETTY AND THE CITY ATTORNEY for
an ordinance to amend UDC Chapter 164.22 to change multiple code requirements for cottage
housing developments.
Alderman Matthew Petty was the applicant and gave the staff report.
No public comment was presented.
Commissioner Hoskins discussed the cottage ordinance and his experience with these types
of designs.
Commissioner Hoffman discussed concerns with changing the code to have only two
cottages.
Commissioner Thurmond-Quinlan agreed with Commissioner Hoffman.
Hoffman asked about the merits of allowing a duplex on the same size as two cottages.
Petty discussed the political process of the two different scenarios.
Thurmond-Quinlan asked about the different development requirements for duplexes and two
cottages.
Garner discussed the development requirements for building duplexes and two cottages.
Hoskins discussed the merits of the lot area size requirements.
Hoffman agreed with Commissioner Hoskins.
Commissioner Belden asked why it has to be a single family.
Petty discussed that we may need a second ordinance that builds upon this and allows multi-
family pocket neighborhoods.
Commissioner Brown asked about the open space.
Petty discussed open space configuration.
Motion:
12
Commissioner Belden made a motion to table ADM 16-5430 for two weeks. Commissioner
Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
4. Reports: None
5. Announcements: None
6. Adjournment Time: 9:50 PM
7. Submitted by: City Planning Division