Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-23 - Minutes Planning Commission May 23, 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 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), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Quinlan. Absent: Ron Autry, Ryan Noble 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 May 9, 2016 meeting. VAC 16-5424: Vacation (NW CORNER OF MILL AVE. & SOUTH ST./THURMOND-QUINLAN, 524): Submitted by ALLISON THURMOND QUINLAN for property along the NW CORNER OF MILL AVE. & SOUTH ST. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.05 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a street right-of-way. No discussion on vacation. Motion: Commissioner Selby made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Belden seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1. Commissioner Quinlan abstained. 2 2. Old Business: 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 gave the staff report, discussing the proposal and changes since the previous meeting. The commissioners generally discussed that they were in favor of all of the changes. Commissioner Belden recommended a change to Section G.4.a to use gender neutral language instead of ‘his’. Alderman Petty recommended to change the word ‘his’ to ‘the’ to address Commissioner Belden’s concerns. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward ADM 16-5430 recommending approval with modification to Section 6.4.a, changing the word ‘his’ to ‘the’. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. 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. RZN 16-5366 has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 3. New Business: VAR 16-5436: Variance (15 S. LOCUST AVE/HICKERSON, 523): Submitted by FRANK JACOBUS for property located at 15 S. LOCUST AVE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.07 acres. The request is for a variance of the Downtown Design Overlay District building requirements and Single-Family Infill Standards. Quin Thompson, Planner, said that the applicant had requested that the item be tabled in order to work with staff. Commissioner Hoffman: I am glad that the applicant has requested that the item be tabled. I hope staff and the applicant can work together on this; I don't think there is a single variance here that I can support. Motion: 3 Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to table VAC 16-5436 indefinitely. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. VAR 16-5443: Variance (2292 N. MARKS MILL LN./BAUMANN, 329): Submitted by MIKE BAUMANN for property located at 2292 N. MARKS MILL LN. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The request is for a variance of the building design requirements. Harry Davis, Planner – reads report Mike Baumann, Representative – Any questions? 3rd developer in line to get community together. Many hardships and problems in trying to develop the neighborhood. Client and applicant are happy with the program. Kit Williams, City Attorney – Why a three car garage? Baumann – 3 car garage is mandatory for a better price point. House sells better and has more appeal as 3 car garage. No public comment Commissioner Belden – Staff supports 1st two variances. 3rd would require full attention. Understand dilemma with 3 car garage. Drawing seems to look like it could work. Commissioner Brown – Have you calculated as just one opening? Davis – Yes, we have. I’ll let the applicant further explain. Baumann – [further explains] Commissioner Hoffman – have you considered a ribbon driveway for the single garage? Would the client like that? Andrew Hensen, Applicant/Client – Hesitant on having a ribbon drive as lawn could be destroyed over time by cars missing the ribbon drive. Would be hesitant on saying yes. Hoffman – Would still like to see the ribbon drive. Very appropriate. Commissioner Hoskins – Is this a spec house or custom? Hensen – No, this is a spec house as a show home to show off and allow people to customize it. Hoskins – So you chose this plan? Hensen – Yes Hoskins – OK. In my firm we have ribbon strips as our main choice. Easy to do in the middle with our materials. Very difficult to digest 1st two variances as this is a spec home and the builder chose this. Not sure why you need these variances, as this project is chosen by you and not a 4 hardship as result of the site. Entry could be on the ground floor and the garage plane could be farther back. Hensen – For door on ground level, only certain ways you can build a house. Would be difficult to have all houses the same way in neighborhood. Don’t want them all to look exactly the same. Hoskins – We just moved the stairs inside for our plans. Hoffman – So you could comply with this for other lots? Baumann – Yes, have worked with staff on this for a while and designed for 8 months prior and before code change. Commissioner Quinlan – Agree with Hoskins. The combination of them all together, except one by one, could be dealt with together. Hensen – We would be willing to do the ribbon driveway as a result of this meeting. Williams – Commission needs to decide on the first two and officially deny the third. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve VAR 16-5443 with approval of variance 1 and 2, and denial of variance 3. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. CUP 16-5406: Conditional Use (2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PL./THE NEW SCHOOL, 290): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PL. The property is zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 19.40 acres. The request is for an expansion to the New School, Use Unit 4 in R-O and C-2 zoned districts. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve CUP 16-5406 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. VAR 16-5410: Lot Split (981 N. STARR DR./GFB INVESTMENTS, 451): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 981 N. STARR DR. The properties are in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA contains approximately 9.85 acres. The request is for a variance of the minimum street frontage requirement and City water service. 5 Quin Thompson, Planner, read the staff report. Heath Myers: Staff summed up the issues, I am here to answer any questions you may have. Janet Selby, Commissioner: This seems like a straight forward request, it has staff support. I'd like to ask the applicant if they support the conditions as proposed by staff. Myers: yes we do. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve VAR 16-5410 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. CUP 16-5411: Conditional Use (1335 W. DEANE ST./BLEW HOLDINGS, 365): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1335 W. DEANE ST. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 1.67 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Read the staff report. Buckley Blew, Applicant: Clarifies that he is proposing a lot split to create four single family dwellings which will have less impact than the previous cottage development proposal at this address. Counters the staff comment regarding the unbuilt right-of-way to the west by stating that if the applicant were to build as proposed on Deane, all four lots will have frontage to all public services. The applicant does not feel that building the street will help the surrounding area and will actually burden the City with maintenance. Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: Queries why the property could not be built as the previously proposed cottage development. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: The current proposal is easier to develop as there are not orientation requirements for the proposed lots like there are for cottage developments. Commissioner Leslie Belden: Requests clarification as to why did the cottage development not work. Blew: It was cost prohibitive with regards to the parking requirements and but particularly so considering the detention requirements. Commissioner Allison Thurmond-Quinlan: Seeks to ensure that the applicant knows that there have been changes to the cottage ordinance that may facilitate trying again. Hoskins: Requests that staff shift the aerial view of the site to adjacent properties that are tandem lots. Questions if there not a precedent for the applicant’s proposal? Garner: Yes and no. It depends on the lot in question. 6 Hoskins: Comments on how a nearby tandem lot was developed, and is impressed with how it turned out. Posits that a tandem lot is certainly one way to get infill and revitalization, which is what is being seen in the area. Commissioner Tom Brown: Agrees with staff that tandem lots are not the best approach, but has a feeling that there would be less impact on the neighborhood to split the lots than to build a road to connect Deane to Stephens along the existing, but undeveloped right-of-way. Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: Notes that he is very familiar with the area, and feels it is underutilized due to the lack of street connectivity. Understands that it would make development more expensive to develop the existing, but unimproved right-of-way, but thinks the neighborhood needs connections. As such, he cannot support the proposal. Quinlan: After viewing the adjacent tandem lots along Deane Street, she is further convinced that this is an undesirable means to achieving the City Plan 2030 goals. As such, she cannot support. Belden: Notes that is important that this area needs more affordable housing, but is uncertain if this is the way to do it. Prefers to see a cottage development, which she thinks is now more viable given the amendments to the ordinance. Hoffman: Expresses doubts that the proposed tandem lot will create affordable housing. Quinlan: Queries whether the City has plans to improve the undeveloped right-of-way. Garner: Nothing is planned, no. Quinlan: Expresses conflicting opinions about desire for good infill and the cost burden of improving a right-of-way. Motion #1: Commissioner Selby made a motion to deny CUP 16-5411. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Then motion was withdrawn. (Prior to withdrawal of Motion #1) Kit William, City Attorney: Cautions that requiring the development of the unimproved right-of- way does not likely meet the rough proportionality test, and the City saying they must build it is risky. Hoffman: Feels the tandem lots are not the solution. Hoskins: Requests the applicants opinion about tabling the issue. Blew: Is willing to table and discuss again after vacating the aforementioned right-of-way. Then will resubmit as tandem lots again. Does not feel that a cottage development is viable, regardless of the changes to the ordinance, and feels that the City's survey is inaccurate and that the right-of-way does not actually adjoin the subject property. Williams: Recommends tabling indefinitely. Blew: Agrees with the proposal. 7 Hoffman: To William's comment, the roads existence does not change his negative feelings towards tandem lots. Motion #2: Commissioner Selby made a motion to table CUP 16-5411 indefinitely. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. Commissioners Hoffman and Quinlan voted ‘no’. (Following Motion #2, but before a vote was taken) Hoffman: To Kit William's comment, the roads existence does not change his negative feelings towards tandem lots. RZN 16-5425: Rezone (NW CORNER OF MILL AVE. & SOUTH ST./THURMOND-QUINLAN, 524): Submitted by ALLISON THURMOND QUINLAN for property along the NW CORNER OF MILL AVE. & SOUTH ST. The property is zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, AND RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 1.84 acres. The request is to rezone the property to DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL. Harry Davis, Planner – reads report Brian Teague, Representative – DG would allow applicant to make a development that would work better with the property and neighborhood. To speak to concerns from the neighbors, applicant is changing the zoning to not develop a large, multi-family building. Applicant also believes that residents in the proposed change would walk or bike more instead of use cars. History of site has been historically mixed-use and vibrant. Staff has already talked about the context of the area around the site, including the downtown and walker park plans. Applicant believes DG would be a better fit for the area and in accordance with the city’s goals and aspirations. We hope you can forward this request to the City Council. Ed Kubal, Citizen – Alley is not adequate to handle traffic. Commissioner Cook – Just looking at a rezone, would be looked at closer in development stage. Commissioner Hoskins – What is the smallest lot available, narrowest, sq ft, etc. allowed in a multi-family district. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director – Not sure, not codified yet. Teague – Maybe 3,000 or so in a single-family. 2,000 or so for townhomes. Garner - Reduced it by half Hoskins – When does it take effect, the new code? Kit Williams, City Attorney – A month after it passes Garner – We haven’t cleaned it up yet. 8 Williams – Using an outside company to manage codes and it hasn’t been written up yet Hoskins – And what are the minimums in DG? Garner – 18 ft width, no minimum area. Hoskins – New development nearby. Height for DG is maxed at 56 feet. Mr. Teek, did you look at any other form-based codes for what you want to do? Teague – Differences in CS and DG is a front setback. Too much to deal with that, trees, parking, etc. Build-to zone is much better for us. Hoskins – Not convinced yet on rezoning. Commissioner Hoffman – Completely fine with this. Borders two great plans. Ready to vote. Williams – One person nearby had sued the city on a similar situation nearby where council denied them. We should let that person know since we are considering approving an upzoning nearby where they wanted to upzone, but were actually downzoned by council. Hoffman – Have discussed in other places about transition zones. Believes that rezone is appropriate. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5425 with recommendation of approval. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1. Commissioner Quinlan recused. RZN 16-5386: Rezone (NORTH OF 1110 N. FRONTAGE RD./LINDSEY PROPERTIES, 135): Submitted by HUGH JARRETT for property NORTH OF 1110 N. FRONTAGE RD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 6.40 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Hugh Jarratt, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoffman discussed that he was in favor of the request and was excited that a large company like this was proposing this zoning district. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5386 with recommendation of approval. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. 9 C-PZD 16-5408: Commercial Planned Zoning District (WEDINGTON & MARINONI DR/CROSS CHURCH, 441): Submitted by ESI ENGINEERING, INC. for properties located at WEDINGTON & MARINONI DR. The properties are zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE and contains approximately 24.60 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-PZD, Commercial Planned Zoning District. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Read the staff report. Ken Hall, Applicant’s Representative: Wants to provide context to parallel staff’s report. Cross Church has a location on W est Wedington which is marred by congestion. There are two major challenges to the current site. Firstly, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) proposal. Cross Church has acquired nine of the ten lots at McMillan Estates. The tenth lot is zoned C-2 and was intended for a hotel. AHTD has steadily moved its ROW needs eastward to the point where lot 10 is almost unbuildable. The applicant is still awaiting final AHTD plans as they move from the design to the construction phase. The church feels it is best to create a design that could accommodate further encroachment by AHTD right-of-way needs. The owner of the tenth lot exchanged his property with the church for lots on the interior with the condition that the hotel have access to a C-2 or similar zoning. The second challenge is that the church building was designed to accommodate the highway's realignment. Suggested staff layout alternatives are unfeasible due to the likely proximity to the proposed realignment. In discussing with City Planning staff the applicant realizes there are significant issues with the proposal. The end users are on board with moving many of the structures to the street. Acknowledges that a change will likely need to be made for the proposal to move forward. Commission Chair Kyle Cook: Requests clarification as to what is the applicant is requesting. Hall: Feedback Brian Moore, Applicant Representative (Engineering Service’s, Inc.): Feels that the applicant may have made something unpalatable. Wants the Planning Commission to know that all the lots are under contract. The lots at McMillan Estates are wider than they are deep and may struggle to meet the current UT zoning code requirements. With the new layout proposed with at this meeting, there will be 35-50% street fronting of buildings. Commissioner Leslie Belden: Appreciates the staff's submitted alternate designs, but does not feel that the late submission by the applicant of a new layout meets the intent of a C-PZD. Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: Agrees with Commissioner Belden. Notes that he is a very big fan of form-based zoning and thinks it is appropriate for this site. Feels The UT is still “form- based lite,” because it only requires 50% street frontage. Contends that the City has given a lot of ground already in that sense. Recognizes the need for C-2-like zoning for the hotel, but feels UT is already too close to C-2. Appreciates that the applicant is willing to be flexible and change, but feels that more can be done. Would like to draw attention to the Staff Alternate Site Plan III. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Clarifies how flexible the street frontage needs are, and all the options available to meet the minimums for UT. 10 Hoffman: Appears that all the building footprints look viable in Staff Alternate Layout III, and that a church can benefit from a major highway frontage, and should not shy away from it. Does not feel that the proposed C-PZD will meet the intent and cannot support said proposal. Commissioner Allison Thurmond-Quinlan: Echos the comments of commissioners Belden and Hoffman. This site is ideal but the proposal is effectively walling off the development from adjacent areas. Thinks there are huge opportunities for shared parking. Cannot support with this much paving being at Fayetteville's front door. Commissioner Tom Brown: Agrees with staff's assessment and efforts to implement a form- based approach. The existing zoning complies with City Plan 2030 and if staff supports denial, he agrees. Commissioner Tracy Hoskins: Outlines that contracts exist for the properties, and that that is an important consideration. Questions whether these signees agreed to the C-PZD layout, and how strong is the hotel owner's desire for comparable commercial zoning. Hall: The hotel owner does not prefer the street-side layout, but understands that it is necessary and needs the C-PZD to make it work. Hoskins: Notes that the Roger's Cross Church placed its parking behind, rather than on three size as shown in the proposed C-PZD. Unnamed Cross Church Representative: Parking at the Rogers Cross Church is spread throughout the site. Hoskins: Questions where the entrances at the Rogers Cross Church are, and why a similar configuration cannot be achieved in Fayetteville. Hall: The terrain and the property prevent a similar layout. Hoskins: Feels that the layout in Rogers is viable. Brown: The church's elevation appears more like a storefront . Feels it would look better closer to a street. Hoffman: To Commissioner Brown's point, this is a building with one entry as opposed to Roger's with multiple entries. If Cross Church would consider another layout it could fit within the current zoning. Cook: Queries how the applicant wants to proceed. Hall: Would like to speak to the client prior to committing to a direction. Expresses doubts that if the church was pushed to McMillan, it could not contend with the multi-use trail and the AHTD right-of-way changes. The way he sees it is that the church would have to front along Pam Angus. His concern is that the church may be stuck in an awkward position with not knowing where to build considering the encroaching AHTD right-of-way. Hoffman: Expresses a lack of understanding as to why the church cannot fit under the current zoning. Does not feel like the McMillan Drive is being reduced too much. 11 Moore: AHTD is going to talk McMillan and re-route it to the northwest, rather than just shorten it. Applicants request a moment and leave the chambers. Garner: Concurs with the applicant regarding the realignment of McMillan Drive but also identifies that orienting towards Pam Angus would create an almost 100% street frontage. Cook: Seeks clarification of AHTD status on I-49/Wedington. Curth: Provides the latest update and layout. Hoffman: Does not agree with the proposed layout of McMillan Drive as it angles towards Futrall. Cook: Calls for a 5 minute recess. Cook: Calls the Commission back to order Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to deny C-PZD 16-5408. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. 4. Reports: None 5. Announcements: None 6. Adjournment Time: 9:29 PM 7. Submitted by: City Planning Division