HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-13 - Minutes
Planning Commission
June 20, 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, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan.
Absent: Ryan Noble and Janet Selby (Tracy Hoskins left the meeting after RZN 16-5438)
Staff: Andrew Garner – City Planning Director, Jonathan Curth – Senior Planner, Harry Davis –
Planner, Corey Granderson - Staff Engineer and Kit Williams –City Attorney
1. Consent Agenda:
Approval of the minutes from the May 23, 2016 meeting.
VAC 16-5440: Vacation (2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PLACE/THE NEW SCHOOL, 290): Submitted
by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 2514 N. NEW SCHOOL PLACE.
The properties are zoned R-O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contain 19.49 acres. The request is
to vacate portions of a utility easement.
No discussion on vacation.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Hoskins
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0.
2
2. Old Business:
None.
3. New Business:
ADM 16-5457: Administrative Item (E. END OF VAN ASCHE DR./VAN ASCHE MSP, 174):
Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, LLC. for property located at the E. END OF VAN ASCHE
DR. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately
4.44 acres. The request is to remove the connection over Mud Creek from E. Van Asche to S.
Shiloh Dr. on the Master Street Plan.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report.
Applicant not present
Jaime Kennedy, Public: Spoke in opposition to the removal of the street connection, citing its
ability to mitigate the traffic issues associated with the area.
Clinton Bennet, Public: Spoke in opposition to the removal of the street connection,
contending that traffic will continue to increase in that area, and that issues along Mall Avenue
to the west will only become aggravated.
Commissioner Hoffman: Appreciates the public comment and agrees with it. Thinks that
adding lanes to current streets is the last things that should be done, that connectivity is the first
thing, and that land uses should be reconsidered. Expressed Skepticism of the ability of the
Sain-Vantage connection to ameliorate existing problems. As such, is unable support the
amendment.
Commissioner Brown: Checked the daily traffic counts in the area and they are many times
higher than in downtown where there are many more connections. It is not an appropriate time
to eliminate connection options.
Commissioner Hoskins: Feels that applicants often offer alternatives, and that is not done in
this case.
Commissioner Belden: Feels that there are dangers associated with the traffic that moves
through the parking lot to the north as people try to negotiate Mud Creek. Even considering the
environmental challenges, is not in support of the amendment.
Commissioner Autry: Feels there is currently gridlock, and that the potential for environmental
damage to the creek does not outweigh it.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward ADM 16-5457 with recommendation of
denial. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with
a vote of 7-0-0.
3
ADM 16-5432: Administrative Item (MISSION BLVD. & MERIDIAN DR./MISSION HEIGHTS
S/D, 371): Submitted by LAWRENCE FINN for property located at MISSION BLVD. & MERIDIAN
DR. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately
11.58 acres. The request is to eliminate a portion of sidewalk approved with the Preliminary Plat
(PPL 14-4698).
The applicant requested that this item be tabled until the 06-27-2016 Planning Commission
meeting.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to table ADM 16-5432 until the next meeting.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote
of 5-0-2. Commissioners Hoffman and Quinlan recused.
PPL 16-5415: Preliminary Plat (NW OF RUPPLE RD. & WEDINGTON DR./RUPPLE
MEADOWS SD, 400): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL, INC. for properties located NW OF
RUPPLE RD. & WEDINGTON DR. The properties are ZONED RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY, 8 UNITS PER ACRE AND RMF-12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 12 UNITS PER
ACRE and contains approximately 15.80 acres. The request is for 68 single-and multi-family lots.
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: gave the staff report.
Ronald Watkins, Applicant: Discussed agreement with adding a pedestrian connection to the
south and the other conditions of approval.
Commissioner Autry: Conveys the Subdivision Committee report.
Commissioner Hoffman: Asks about the street cross sections.
Garner: Discusses the street requirements.
Hoffman: Discussed agreement with the requirement for the street stub-out to the south.
Commissioner Brown: Discussed the thoughts of the Subdivision Committee regarding the
pedestrian and street connection to the south.
Hoffman: Discussed the merits of a street connection to the south.
Commissioner Quinlan: Discussed that she hoped we could look at the street cross sections
that are too wide with the Transportation Master Plan. There is a public safety concern with
pedestrian deaths compared to fire-related deaths. Sometimes there is a dis-connect between
our city goals and what is actually built.
Autry: Discussed the speed limit on Rupple and Wedington.
Tom Hennelly, Applicant: Discussed their perspective on street connectivity and why they do
not want to connect to the south. He discussed a left hand turn into the southern stub-out if it
connects through. Anybody that comes out of the development would be going east and would
4
not be using the southern stub-out. We are willing to add street lights on the pedestrian
connection. We don't think a vehicle connection is practical.
Commissioner Hoskins: Asks staff about the block length from Rupple to Meadowlands.
Garner: Indicates it is 1,100 SF.
Hoskins: Indicated that we probably need them to add a connection to the south. Maybe we
should table this to give them an opportunity look at this again.
Hennelly: Indicated that they could just work with Engineering and Planning if that is what you
decide to do.
Garner: Discussed that staff would be fine to work with the applicant on the location of a
connection.
Commissioner Belden: Asked about the street connection in the future.
Garner: Discussed the future street connection.
Brown: Asked about the neighborhood plan and the street cross section.
Quinlan: Discussed the Wedington Illustrative Plan and the point that the applicant's plan does
not match the street grid of the Wedington Plan.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve PPL 16-5415 with conditions as
recommended by staff including a requirement for a street stub-out to the south. Commissioner
Belden seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0.
Commissioner Quinlan voted ‘no’.
CUP 16-5444: Conditional Use (35 STONEBRIDGE RD./ALEXY, 527): Submitted by ALAN
REID & ASSOCIATES for property located at 35 STONEBRIDGE RD. The property is zoned
RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 4.00
acres. The request is for a tandem lot.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report.
Commissioner Brown: Recognizes that tandem lots are undesirable, but feels that the site
characteristics merit it.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve CUP 16-5444 with conditions as recommended
by staff. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with
a vote of 7-0-0.
5
CUP 16-5453: Conditional Use (1721 N. WOODLAND AVE./PURSLEY CONSTRUCTION,
367): Submitted by BROCK POSEY for property located at 1721 N. WOODLAND AVE. The
property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains
approximately 0.23 acres. The request is for a duplex in a single family zoned district.
Harry Davis, Planner – Read the staff report. Staff added some last-minute public comment to
the report, noting that neighbors are in opposition to this and addressing their concerns in the
speech. Staff did add a condition of approval to the original report stating that the applicant would
have to seek a variance with the Board of Zoning Adjustments for the minimum lot width before a
public permit may be approved and issued.
Brock Posey, applicant/representative – Was given the go-ahead by the city to build the
duplex. Would make a good product.
Harrison Pittman, neighbor – Speaking on behalf of people in neighborhood. The people
standing in this room are all standing in opposition to the development. Start out by thanking the
commission with having a difficult job to do. Mr. Pittman is frustrated with the problems and
mistakes made in the whole process. Mr. Pittman believes that this duplex and staff’s
recommendation is not correct. An appeal for a variance should be before the conditional use
permit. Mr. Harrison also drew attention to the fact that the minimum area is not satisfied, so staff
and the commission should not recommend or approve something that does not meet all code.
Mr. Harrison then reads off various portions of the UDC to prove a point that the commission does
not have the ability to grant a CUP for a duplex in the RSF-4. Duplexes may not be approved by
the commission. Mr. Harrison continues to draw attention to inconsistencies in the code regarding
what the PC may approve or review, or that is duplexes are even allowed in RSF-4. Mr. Harrison
is frustrated that the city did not catch the minimum area discrepancy for Mr. Posey and notify him
earlier in the process. We appreciate the fact that staff met earlier in the day. Mr. Harrison drew
more attention to problems between acreage counts in the applicant’s letter, the report by staff,
and another interpretation of the lot. Mr. Harrison continues by refuting the idea that the nearby
condominium in RT-12 zoning is not a part of the neighborhood, and is also being used as a way
to set precedent for this conditional use permit. Mr. Harrison further continues by stating that the
idea of an “eventual transition to denser forms” is something that is not desired in this
neighborhood. By allowing all of this is a backdoor to not actually rezoning for density. Mr.
Harrison is wrapping up by stating that the parking is insufficient for the duplex. He also takes
issue with how the cover letter was constructed. Mr. Harrison asks that the PC deny this project.
Bruce Dune, neighbor – More and more developers, and more and more lot splits, are
happening in this area, which could lead to more places for duplexes. Mr. Dune in a general sense
believes that this sets a dangerous precedent for future development and should be denied.
Janet McMulland, neighbor – The parking is insufficient for the project proposed. The lot is too
small for a duplex.
Nancy Allen, neighbor – Used to be part of Planning Commission. Neighborhood is very middle
class. Neighborhood is as diverse as you can get with an empty chicken house, a strip joint, a
school, businesses, residences, etc. My first catalyst for being involved in the city is based on the
nearby RT-12 project, being in opposition to that. I am opposed and have more letters from others
that are opposed.
Markus Hall, neighbor – Definitely against this project.
6
Christopher Spencer, neighbor – Newcomers to neighborhood. Neighborhood was attractive
as it is a stable place. He and wife are opposed to this development. How does this raise property
values? Maybe applicant can explain.
Glenn Mutton, neighbor – Traffic is a main concern in the area, partly based on the school.
Fayetteville is number one for protecting resources of the community, it would be smart to deny
this tonight.
Kit Williams, City Attorney – Conditional uses allowed through chapter are allowed and has
always been obvious that applicants would have to seek a conditional use from the planning
commission. If there are ambiguous parts of the code, then it is always in favor of the applicant
or owner. This is the proper way to do this conditional use. Does agree with Mr. Pittman that it
would have been better to start with the BOA than the PC. The applicant needs to show that there
is an undue hardship for the BOA in order to get the variance needed. That would be a difficult
call in order to allow the applicant for a variance, of this amount, for the project. Mr. Williams
appreciates Nancy’s previous service to the city. The main concern with a CUP is compatibility,
which the neighbors are the best at knowing such.
Commissioner Cook – So can we still make a decision tonight?
Williams – No, it should be tabled and then brought before the BOA.
Commissioner Hoffman – I was previously on the BOA, and it would be better for them to start
with the BOA. Would a rezone also be an available route for the applicant?
Andrew Garner, Planning Director – Yes, that is an option. For clarifying the process, it is not
uncommon to have a conditional use permit to be before the BOA before the PC. In an ideal
world, it would be better for the BOA first and PC second.
Hoffman – Ok, yes. Commissioner Hoffman goes into character of the neighborhood he lives in
and similarities to neighborhood. Fortunately, his neighborhood was rezoned to NC, which was a
boon to the neighborhood. There isn’t a lot of infill development, but it has happened. Many
neighbors opposed to infill 6 years ago, but they have come around today. Hoffman agrees that
this duplex is compatible with surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Brown – Benefit of other neighborhoods over this one, is that they have gone
through a neighborhood planning process with an agreed-upon vision. This neighborhood hasn’t
had that benefit. Before we do piecemeal changes, we should have a plan for this neighborhood.
Maybe the plan would call for more density, maybe not, but that would be in the plan.
Hoffman – Explains the differences between comprehensive plans, neighborhood plans, etc. with
the planning process of Fayetteville. Although we don’t have a plan for this neighborhood, we do
have a comprehensive plan. How does this project meet the plan?
Garner – It fits within Residential Neighborhood Area.
Hoffman – It would be wrong to put on the breaks for the comprehensive plan just for this
property.
Commissioner Hoskins – What improvements to the property have been done?
7
Posey – Just brought in infill dirt.
Hoskins – No vertical improvements?
Posey – No
Hoskins – Fill dirt does not justify a hardship. Echoes what Mr. Pittman said that the city shouldn’t
have brought this to the BOA first before the PC. Although I agree and support the comp plan,
you can’t do infill everywhere. This neighborhood is not changing or moving into something
denser. Does not believe that this will significantly impact traffic, but the single-car garage is
worrying. The nearby condos should not be included in compatibility for nearby uses. As for lot
size, Mr. Hoskins was surprised to not see any changes to RSF-4 that would affect this
development. Either way, dropping a duplex in this neighborhood is not appropriate for the
neighborhood with the lot size. This is not a compatible use for this neighborhood, BOA aside. As
for rezoning, we try to stay away from spot zoning, so that would not happen. Not in support of
this.
Commissioner Autry – Completely agree with both Hoskins for this property and Hoffman for
bringing up infill and encouraging it. Mr. Hoskins made a note that trees were already removed
and that leaves a scar on the neighborhood. Mr. Hoskins is worried about the close proximity of
homes and how someone may be able to look directly into another home. Red flag is raised about
some problems in connection to the applicant’s letter. He is concerned about an attention to detail
from the applicant, like making sure he got all the required steps with the city. Concurs with
Williams about how the neighborhood determines compatibility the best. Cannot support project.
Commissioner Quinlan – Thank you to the public input from everyone. This is an example of
saying when we want the goals of the comprehensive plan, but then we want to make those things
not allowed or illegal. This is something we need to work through as a city. Duplexes can be a
great tool for infill in Fayetteville. As for a duplex reducing property values, there is a nearby
duplex nearby, not as well detailed. The house next door to that sold higher than the values in the
current neighborhood. I think this fits within our vision and plans.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to deny CUP 16-5453. Commissioner Autry seconded
the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. Commissioners Hoffman
and Quinlan dissenting.
RZN 16-5438: Rezone (1094 DRAKE ST./PENDERGRAFT, 249): Submitted by LEADERSHIP
PROPERTIES, INC. for properties surrounding 1094 E. DRAKE ST. The properties are zoned R-
O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and C-2, COMMERCIAL
THOROUGHFARE and contain approximately 185 acres. The request is to rezone the property
to UT, URBAN THOROUGHFARE.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report.
Robert David, Applicant representative: Nothing to add
Commissioner Quinlan: Inquires what percent of the property is R-O?
8
Curth: Roughly 2/3rds
Commissioner Brown: Is R-A not more appropriate for the area of this property in the flood
zone?
Curth: Only the most NE corner is in the flood zone, and development can ameliorate for flood
concerns.
Commissioner Hoffman: A little taken aback by the scale of the property under consideration.
Wonders if there is not a more appropriate transect to consider.
David: Working with planners to create a mixed-use, live-work -play development that will have
minimal impact on surrounding uses. A full rezoning will allow for something unique and
fabulous for the City.
Hoffman: Where in the transect is this likely to fall?
David: Urban residential with no detached housing. The applicant, Pendergraft, has very high
hopes for this property. There will not be any surface auto parks or anything.
Hoffman: Feels that the adjoining uses, zonings, and transportation are perfect. Very excited
about the prospect of this developing.
Commissioner Cook: Requests staff's perspective on transportation.
Garner: Access may be difficult, but in meetings with the applicant he has outlined a RR
crossing and the potential for a highway off-ramp on to this property.
Hoffman: Wants to note that development of the type of which the applicant has alluded to is
the type that can mitigate its own traffic.
Commissioner Autry: Feels that this looks like a fantastic opportunity for the City, and wishes it
could have occurred to the northeast.
Commissioner Quinlan: Echoes the prevailing sentiment. Only hesitation is the rezoning of all
the R-A areas to UT. Wants to ask if the applicant will leave certain areas R-A.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: This is not a request that the Commission can make of the
applicant. Only after AHTD takes ROW, and the property comes back for development can the
Commission ask for anything like greenspace preservation. You can make a motion to keep
something R-A, but the City does not have a preservation zone due to legal considerations. You
can propose an amendment to have some of the land withheld as R-A.
Commissioner Belden: Wants to ensure that development will come back before the Planning
Commission.
Hoffman: Wants to speak to Quinlan's concerned about R-A loss. Feels that it is important to
use and maintain land on the edge of town, but the special nature of this property given its
connections and compatibility gives the City an amazing opportunity to facilitate an influx of
population.
9
Commissioner Hoskins: References concerns to the property to the north, and the risks of
blanket rezoning and traffic circulation. Rezoning 185 acres to UT brings up another issue. UT
and other form based districts offer a lot of wiggle room that can be a slippery slope. A property
owner can request one of these zones as a selling point, then just develop a uniform use across
the property. As such, cannot support
Hoffman: Recognizes that there is some division in the room, and that he himself has some
reservations. Asks if the applicant can provide some more detail or would consider tabling the
matter.
David: Is unsure how to respond given that this is what the City wants. Identifies that there is a
portion of the property that will not be developed, and that there are provisions for structured
property. Feels that the applicant is asking for what the plan provides for. It is a long-term
project and tabling the issue is undesirable. This rezoning will build upon the existing railroad,
possibly using it, and have an extensive road network.
Garner: Cautions the Commission that they are not to consider development as part of a
rezoning.
Williams: There is a proposal before you and the applicant has a right to be considered.
Hoffman: Motion to forward.
Hoskins: Asks the applicant what area is being considered for preservation.
David: An old tree grove in the northeast.
Hoskins: Why is the Pendergraft property with his home being rezoned?
David: It will be part of a foundation.
Hoskins: Can the applicant rezone portion-by-portion?
David: This allows the most flexibility.
Hoffman: Feels that there is no real way to know how this will play out, and that UT could just
be what is trending right now among Commissioners.
Brown: Appreciates the applicant and leans on Staff to ensure that the property will develop in
an effective manner. I will support this.
Quinlan: Feels she can support rezoning 66 acres, but changes in the economy can change
things drastically. But she is not necessarily opposed.
Belden: Very supportive of the proposal, and feels a full rezoning will allow the developer to
effectively develop a coherent project. Confident that the PC is capable of voting denial if they
would like to.
Motion:
10
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5438 with recommendation of
approval. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with
a vote of 6-1-0. Commissioner Hoskins voted ‘no’.
RZN 16-5448: Rezone (2050 S. SCHOOL AVE./HARMON, 601): Submitted by HAROLD
HARMON for properties at 2050 S. SCHOOL AVE. The properties are zoned RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY and C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contain
approximately 8.08 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to CS, COMMUNITY
SERVICES.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report.
Mr. Harmon: Is comfortable with staff’s presentation representing the proposal.
Sharon Vaughn, Public: Has two properties on Nonnamaker Drive and wants to know if this
rezoning will affect her properties.
Commissioner Cook: Clarifies that she is not within the proposed rezoning.
Vaughn: Thank you. I am not opposed to the proposal, I think it will be good.
Cook: Seeks clarification on what the vote will need, considering Commissioner Hoskin’s
departure between agenda items.
Kit Williams. City Attorney:
Commissioner Brown: Thanks the applicant for choosing a form-based zone, and he will have
no problem with the proposal.
Commissioner Autry: Also has no issue with the proposal, and thinks it will be a welcome
addition to the area.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to forward RZN 16-5448 with recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote
of 6-0-0.
RZN 16-5441: Rezone (NW CORNER OF MT. COMFORT & SALEM RD./GHAN-COOPER,
323): Submitted by GHAN & COOPER PROPERTIES, INC. for property at the NW CORNER OF
MT. COMFORT & SALEM RD. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and
contains approximately 2.71 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY
SERVICES.
Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Gave the staff report.
Frank Stevens, Public: Notes that this area is really bad for traffic.
11
Commissioner Belden: Asked if there are any projected time lines and the connection for
Rupple and Salem and when there would be a traffic light in this area.
Suzanne Ramey, Public: Highly opposed to it at this time because the developer wants to put
in a Dollar General. There is a church and daycare in this area. The traffic is very congested.
There are no sidewalk on Salem at this time. This is not the way to start development. Dollar
General does not set a good precedent for the area.
Jim Kimbrough, Public: We don't know what will happen with the CS designation. I would ask
the commission to hold off until we know what else will go in with Dollar General.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed Rupple Road improvements that are in the future that
are probably several years off.
Commissioner Hoffman: Discussed that commercial use of this size would be appropriate for
the area. What you will end up with is a Dollar General in a form-based zoning district. This
would be different than any other Dollar General you have seen. I think you will see reduced
vehicle trips at Mount Comfort/I-49 because people will be able to have commercial goods and
services met at this site.
Commissioner Brown: Discussed support for this request. The rezoning is in line with the 2030
Plan. It is not making a change into those neighborhoods.
Commissioner Autry: Asked the main entrance into the store?
Stewart Ghan, Applicant: Discussed the entrances and entry for the future Dollar General
store.
Autry: Discussed access into the site that may be a little difficult on both sides. He discussed
that this may be a real challenging site for a successful business.
Belden: Discussed a lack of connectivity in the area. She also discussed that she thinks this
rezoning would be a benefit to the community in the short term and long term.
Commissioner Cook: Discussed a need for services in this area.
Belden: Discussed food security issues and that it is very important for people to have access
to more than snack foods. I regret that there is not a sidewalk on Salem at this time.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5441 with recommendation of
approval. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with
a vote of 5-1-0. Commissioner Autry voted ‘no’.
RZN 16-5442: Rezone (2575 DEANE SOLOMON RD./RAZORBACK GOLF COURSE, 285):
Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at 2575 DEANE SOLOMON RD. The
properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, RSF-1,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 1 UNIT PER ACRE, and R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL
12
and contain approximately 99.10 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NC,
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION.
Harry Davis, Planner – Read the staff report
Bart Bauer, applicant – Decline to comment further. Happy to take questions.
John Kessler, neighbor – Went through this proposal a month ago for the same issues on traffic.
At least they could rezone the floodplain to R-A
Matt Brooks, neighbor – This area is a country area. There are no services nearby. And they
want to put more people there. This is a crappy property, and a crappy proposal, and the applicant
wants to pack people in. All this congestion seems backwards.
Linda Marcos, neighbor – None of the neighborhood is concerned with RSF-4. But with the
flooding last year, we don’t need ten units per acres in this area. With more people crammed in
on Deane Solomon, it becomes a much bigger issue. The developer will only do as much as the
city requires and then nothing more. Developers don’t care about their development’s impact.
With bigger lots, you will have less people, and a much smaller problems.
Commissioner Hoffman – This is back. We saw this three times before. We have some new
commissioners. I spoke at length before about what I would like to see. We tried to come to some
form of consensus. I think that a considerable portion of this property should be kept R-A in order
to deal with the floodplain and flooding issues. NC is a zoning I am very comfortable with.
However, nearly a hundred acres of NC is missing a fine-grained look at the potential of what this
area could be. You could fit a complete town in 130 acres. I would like to see a deeper
understanding about how this town can operate. Taking another look at CS, Community Services
in this area within the development would be great for the neighborhood. The traffic impact can’t
be completely mitigated, but that could help with such.
Commissioner Quinlan – Echo and appreciate Commissioner Hoffman. Appreciate public
comment about this. It would be better to cut down driving time with some light commercial that
would be amenable to neighbors. Also, staff’s recommendation about R-A would help with the
neighbors and environment.
Commissioner Belden – Not only are we missing Community Services, but can’t imagine this
development solving problems of connectivity. Can’t support this.
Commissioner Brown – With applicants concerns over preserving the floodplain, this is a huge
improvement over the previous submission. Less concerned over having commercial presence.
The commercial is currently concentrated on Mt. Comfort. You can still have a walkable or bike
able environment with this proposal. Support staff’s assessment and recommendation.
Hoffman – The size of this property would allow a mix and multitude services within the
development. Disagrees that the services could be located on Mt. Comfort. They should take
place within and not on the periphery. This would be better for both the property, the
neighborhood, and for the city in general. That will help the people there.
Bauer – States that he won’t actually be able to use all 99 acres, more like 50 acres. With the
improvements on Deane Solomon, and the other conditions in developing the property, it makes
it incredibly difficult to develop. With all considered, it will only allow about 50 useable acres.
13
Hoffman – so if you have so many difficulties, why not put it in R-A?
Bauer – We can and would be ok with that.
Hoffman – Do you understand my comments on CS? Not a Buffalo Wild Wings, but a coffee
shop.
Bauer – Yes, it just wouldn’t work out. I’m just a small developer.
Hoffman – It works all over the country and it could definitely work here. When you sell and finish
this property, this will remain here for us to deal with.
Commissioner Cook – Seems like there isn’t a lot of support.
Commissioner Autry – The Deane Solomon issue is the biggest part. I’d like to see it developed,
but I have trouble supporting it.
Cook – Would more R-A change opinions?
Autry – Although I agree on the CS, I think businesses would have a difficult time operating there.
Brown – Biggest concern is to preserve natural areas. Developer is willing to sit down with
planning staff to delineate areas for R-A. I am less concerned about the density and what is
proposed by applicant. The allowable residential is same for both CS and NC.
Bauer – I wanted flexibility for these lots and having some that are deep. This is in relation to
working with trees and other elements.
Hoffman – CS is a bit more heavy and you can do it right. NS would actually be closer and better
with NC. Andrew can you explain NS.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director – Explains NS.
Hoffman – Does that make sense?
Bauer – Sure I can sit down and go through this with planners.
Cook – So if we table this for two weeks and let you come back with a better proposal, would that
be ok?
Bauer – Yes
Cook – Therefore we can clarify we are talking about the same things.
Bauer – Yes I have to figure out what to do with the floodplain and how that gets addressed.
Hoffman – You can work with planning staff to figure it out.
Brown – I would prefer NS over CS.
14
Motion:
Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to table RZN 16-5442. Commissioner Autry seconded
the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Hoskins
was unable to vote as he left the meeting prior to this item.
4. Reports: None
5. Announcements: None
6. Adjournment Time: 9:29 PM
7. Submitted by: City Planning Division