Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-27 - Minutes Planning Commission June 27, 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, Allison Quinlan, Ryan Noble, and Janet Selby, Absent: None. 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 June 13, 2016 meeting. 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 9-0-0. 2. Old Business: 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). Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Donna Hardcastle, applicant, discussed the old growth trees that are intended on being preserved. 2 No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins asked about the pedestrian access easement. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that he felt a pedestrian access easement would be needed. Commissioner Cook asked the city attorney about dedicating the pedestrian path in an easement. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed why the pedestrian access easement was needed. Commissioner Belden discussed that she would be in support of access across the park instead of along the street. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve ADM 16-5432 modifying condition of approval #1 as follows:  #1. A pedestrian access shall be provided across Lot 68 as generally depicted in the exhibit and concept provided by the applicant. The pedestrian access shall be completed within 18 months of completion of final plat for the creation of this lot.  Agree with condition of approval #2 as written.  Add a condition of approval #3 as follows:  #3. A pedestrian access easement shall be platted along the constructed pedestrian access. The easement shall be platted after construction of the pedestrian access. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-2. Commissioners Hoffman and Quinlan recused. 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 and contain approximately 99.10 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. Harry Davis, Planner, gave the staff report. Bart Bauer, applicant, had nothing to add and agreed with the planner. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Hoskins discussed that he was surprised to not see public comment. There was a point of contention when the last submission had apartments. Neighborhood Services is a fancy way of saying apartments. Where NS is located doesn’t say that there will be limited business and is more telling of 3- and 2-family zoning. I will tread lightly for this. He asked staff about the areas north being notified of change in acreage. 3 Andrew Garner, Planning Director, indicated that those property owners would be required to be notified. Bart Bauer, applicant, discussed that it was an error on the part of his engineer to include northernmost portion. Mark Caviness, property, indicated that they were not supposed to include the northernmost parcel. Commissioner Cook discussed that the engineer shows all 128 acres. So that is wrong? Bart Bauer, applicant, indicated that is correct. It is now 99 acres as it was two weeks ago. Commissioner Hoffman discussed concerns about the NC north of Clabber Creek. He agreed with Hoskins that the NS is a fancier way of saying higher density, but the combination of NC and NS would be much better for the neighborhood in the future. Commissioner Brown asked staff to bring up the Future Land Use Map. It was my understanding that the entire Natural Area was supposed to be included in R-A. Will that be included? Bart Bauer, applicant, discussed the difference between floodway and floodplain. The point of their request was to capture the floodway in R-A and be able to use parts of the floodplain as back yards for homes. Commissioner Brown discussed concerns that NC allows 10 units per acre and that those areas would endanger the floodplain if not R-A. Bart Bauer, applicant, discussed that this low-density project would be ok for the floodplain and still allow development with a return on the investment. Commissioner Cook confirmed that the northern portion is not included. Davis responded ‘yes’, it is not included. Commissioner Quinlan discussed that the problem in this area is a lack of services. The NS would be an appropriate and compatible use for this area. I hope that the NS would not automatically mean that the only thing that occurs there is higher density residential. Commissioner Autry discussed that the last time this came through, there were so many people here speaking about this area. The biggest point of contention was about the higher density residential. Thank you to the applicant for hanging on through this process. Commissioner Quinlan hopes that applicant will be patient with the process. Kit Williams, City Attorney, requested that Planning Department notify the neighborhood associations nearby of the change in the proposal. The added possible density in the NS zoning could be a trigger for nearby neighbors and be a huge point of contention for the future. Is that possible? Garner indicated they could contact the adjoining neighborhoods. Motion: 4 Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5442 with recommendation of approval. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Hoskins voted ‘no’. 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, read the staff report. Frank Jacobus, applicant, gave apologies for beginning construction prior to building permit. This project was started three years ago, but the ordinance was made public in May of this year. I disagree with Planning that the example he showed a comparable project. The lot was wider, had a single garage, and on-street parking. I am concerned that requiring an 18' strip of concrete in front of every house in the downtown area. The proposed plan allows this retired couple to age in place, pushing bedrooms upstairs, and decreasing the effectiveness of carefully designed passive energy strategies, forcing the project to open up to the Fire Department, which is not a desirable situation. We have redesigned the driveway and garage door width at the request of planning. If we push the garage back, we would be backing into a public sidewalk from a blind spot. I have a client who wants to move downtown, live next to a fire station, and invest half of a million dollars to do that, and I think we ought to applaud that effort. Bill Hickerson, Owner, moved here 30 years ago. We are retired and have set goals of being able to age and walk to the places we need to go in downtown Fayetteville as we get older. We have proposed a large balcony that will have flowers and allow interaction with the street. We plan to live here until we die, and we feel the design fits the needs of an older couple, and we feel it is good for Fayetteville as well. Commissioner Autry discussed that this is a unique design, and a challenging lot. I like the design. I am concerned about the Hickersons backing out onto the sidewalk, but flipping the garages for the front door doesn't fix that issue. This appears to be a design having done a lot with a little area. A unique urban infill project, one of the City's primary goals. Commissioner Hoffman discussed that this is a false choice between doors on the street. I think of Charleston, SC, where residential development on small lots that address the street is done very well. Commissioner Thurmond-Quinlan, asked staff about ST-45 designation for Locust. Thompson discussed the street right-of-way has been verified and previous staff concerns about the actual right-of-way location have been addressed. Commissioner Brown discussed that he is not concerned about the window sills. My biggest concern is about backing out on the sidewalk. It is a real problem, especially as you get older and maybe aren't driving as well as you are now. Perhaps a carport would be a better approach, with open sides that allow visibility. 5 Commissioner Belden discussed that she is biased with residential infill. I am fine with residences that look commercial in a downtown area. I think our Infill standards are intended for a suburban situation. This could be built as an office, and then we would allow it to be used as a residence after that. Commissioner Selby agreed with Ms Belden. I like the design and am in favor of the project. Commissioner Hoffman appreciated the Commissioner's comments, and like a modern design myself. However, in a commercial setting, you would not see the street side characterized by garage doors. I do not want to see this any more than I want to see blank walls in the same place. There is a wealth of design opportunities that could be used to address this condition. This is not an incredibly unique site, it is an example of a small but common lot in the Southern United States. Commissioner Thurmond-Quinlan discussed that she can easily support the variance for design standards, but agree completely with concerns about the car parking. I think there may be some further design issues that may require variances, and I don't think it is appropriate to decide these variances without knowing exactly what the extent of variances will be. Commissioner Autry agreed with Ms Belden that this is an appropriate project. We are not setting any precedent in this case, and will be looking at many of these variances in the future. Commissioner Hoskins agreed with many of the comments. I may better support the garage doors if they were similar to the front door glazing system. I appreciate Mr. Autry's comments, but I do think we will see many more of these as our downtown redevelopments. I don't think backing across a sidewalk is a good idea, and am not feeling very supportive of the project right now. Commissioner Hoffman stated that he knows we don't set precedent, but this is the second case where an applicant has proposed parking cars in the front yard, based on a set of constraints, although I think it is typically not necessary but a desire on the part of the applicant. I think we need to stick to our goals and not approve this project. Bill Hickerson, applicant, discussed that the garage doors will be metal and glass if that meets your standards. I appreciate carriages in the back, but we don't have a way to the back. The lot is 42 feet wide, the home is only 18 feet wide. Where would the yard be? We looked at this in a lot of ways and we believe this is the best solution. Frank Jacobus, property owner discussed that Commissioner Hoffman is talking about a car- dominated front, but if we do it the other way, we will be placing cars in the yard, rather than inside the house, which I think worse than our proposal. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that there is a precedent for garages on East Street. Commissioner Brown indicated that the applicant expressed willingness to provide a certain type of garage door and a back-up mirror to allow rapid assessment of the sidewalk. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, stated that would certainly be within your purview to require design requirements to offset the impact of the requested variance. 6 Commissioner Hoskins, indicated that the applicant has stated that they would be willing to provide metal and glass door, but in the end this isn't a commercial project, but a single-family residence, which I don't necessarily think we should regulate. I can support the project. Commissioner Hoffman asked if the garage door glass would be required to meet transparency requirements. Garner: Yes. Hoskins: I'd like to see tinted or reflective glass. I am in support of adding that to the variance. Hoffman: I'm not. Brown: My major concern is safety, I feel I should thank the City Attorney for his comments, as a result of which I am feeling more comfortable with the issues. Thurmond-Quinlan: My only discomfort is that we aren't entirely sure what we are voting to approve. Everything hasn't been worked out in terms of the overall design. I prefer to wait until we know everything. Hoffman: If we don't want to require the garage doors to be transparent, then we might as well have painted doors and save the applicant a lot of money. I think the glazed doors could mitigate the safety issue. Clear glass is essential to safety if we approve this. Kyle Cook, Chair: Does staff have issue with possible further variances? Thompson: I am comfortable with the variances as presented, most of which, if any, deal with materiality. There are many options for the project that would meet Downtown Development Overlay District (DDOD) standards. Cisterns in the set-backs can easily be removed or a zoning variance can be sought from the Board of Adjustments. Hickerson: We will meet design standards with the exception of the requested variances. Brown: Could a window be placed such that someone in the garage could see out to the sidewalk? Jacobus: Yes I think that is possible. Autry: Whether glass or steel, I would not sit there and wait to see what is coming out of a garage when I am on my bike. We are talking about a large investment in downtown, and we are also starting to design this person's home. Hoffman: While glass doors do go some way to mitigating safety issues, such doors are very expensive and I'd hate to see those items removed as construction goes ahead. Hoskins: We are expecting clear glass, correct? Thompson: Correct. It is a requirement of the DDOD. Belden: Are aluminum doors allowed? 7 Garner: Yes. The DDOD standards were developed with input from local architects looking for quality, long-lasting materials. Motion #1: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve VAR 16-5436 with the conditions that the garage doors be constructed of glass that complies with the DDOD requirements. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, and Cook voted ‘no’. Motion #2: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve VAR 16-5436 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Motion #3: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve VAR 16-5436 with a variance of UPC 172.11 to allow the garage within 18 feet of the street. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, and Cook voted ‘no’. 3. New Business: VAR 16-5477: Variance (4140 FRONT PORCH VIEW/LOT 75-OAKBROOKE SD, 361): Submitted by PARADIGM DEVELOPMENT, INC. for property located at 4140 FRONT PORCH VIEW. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is for a variance of the driveway width standards. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director, gave the staff report. Jim Ramsey, applicant, was present for questions. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Quinlan asked about the need for the variance. Jim Ramsey discussed that the variance was needed because it was the best option for this home. Commissioner Autry discussed that he was comfortable with this request. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve VAR 16-5477 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-1 (Commissioner Hoskins recused). 8 LSD 16-5374: Large Scale Development (1241 W. MLK BLVD./ARENA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER EXPANSION, 521/522): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located at 1241 W. MLK BLVD. The properties are zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL, and contain approximately 4.71 acres. The request is for 2 new structures containing approximately 9,530 square feet of shopping center space with associated parking. Quin Thompson, Planner, read the staff report. Jorge DuQuense, Applicant: Agree with staff, and will answer any questions you may have. Public Comment: Aubrey Shephard, Neighbor: What year was the building built, and what year was the detention pond built? There is underground detention nearby, north and south. I am concerned about how those are maintained and how long they last. This is a very significant place where water comes together from all directions. This is the original Town Branch, the very edge of the City in 1935. The point is that there is a small spring fed stream. You can't sell City required detention ponds can you? I suppose the owner did not give up ownership when they installed the detention pond. The area has had many many floods, and I hope that it will be looked at very very carefully. Zoanna Chestnut, Neighbor; I am concerned out the additional road being put on Indian Trail. I have seen the transformation with the Vue apartments. Everyone cuts through Indian Trail to avoid traffic. There was a bad accident in the area recently. Children ride through there, people run through there, using the trail. I think it is unsafe to add an additional crossing there. Nor is access from Stadium Drive safe. We need to think about flooding in the area. We have a detention pond that helps with flooding, but then you are going to add more building the area. No more public comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Has a landscape plan been submitted? Thompson: Yes. Brown: a second problem I have with this is access on Stadium Drive. Is the separation distance adequate? Thompson: Yes it does, with room to spare. Kyle Cook, Chair: As to the detention pond, if the applicant can meet the existing requirement and add the capacity necessary for the additional development, then they are allowed to do that. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Please keep in mind that when looking at Large Scale Development, it is your job to make sure that the project meets code and does not make a worse safety condition. Staff has reviewed the project and decided that it meets development codes as stated. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: discussed stream improvements designed by the applicant and City staff, complementing efforts on both sides. 9 Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Describes erosion control and improvements proposed by the applicant. Cook: What is lifespan for detention system? Granderson: This proprietary system does come with a maintenance schedule, typically every two years the system must be cleaned. The City does not regulate actual cleaning of these systems. We need to do a better job of managing this. Our drainage manual has robust language about maintenance requirements, and we are working on oversight of those. Autry: Will the system help with the specific issues brought up by Ms Chestnut? Granderson: This system does not specifically address those issues. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: I have heard comments about safety of ingress and egress. I appreciate that this proposed building will stop one of the points where people pass through the center in order to avoid traffic. I wish that we could remove curb cuts in the back in order to improve safety there. Then I have heard comments about detention and impervious surfaces. I am not a fan of unnecessary pavement. Allison Thurmond-Quinlan, Commissioner: I can't support pedestrian connection from Stadium Drive to allow students from the Vue to access the site. Also, proposed compact parking spaces adjacent to ADA parking create a traffic safety issue. I understand that the parking space dimensions meet code requirements, but I don't think the placement is good. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve LSD 16-5374 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. LSD 16-5461: Large Scale Development (NE CORNER OF JEWELL RD. & SALEM RD./FLATS AT FOREST HILLS, 440): Submitted MORRISON SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for properties located at NE CORNER OF JEWELL RD. .& SALEM RD. The property is zoned R- PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT, and contains approximately 9.81 acres. The request is for 5 new structures with 55 multi-family units and associated parking. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner, read the staff report. Patrick Foy and Morrison Shipley, Applicant’s Representatives: Offers no further comment. No Public Comment Allison Thurmond-Quinlan, Commissioner: Clarifies that Subdivision Committee would likely have supported a building height variance if needed, but no longer feels it is needed given the applicant’s modifications. Motion: 10 Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve LSD 16-5461 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. The following items have been approved administratively by staff: LSP/PLA 16-5433: Lot Split-Property Line Adjustment (3111 W. MT. COMFORT RD./BRISIEL, 363): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, INC. for properties located at 3111 W. MT. COMFORT RD. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 14.09 and 18.31 acres. The request is to split and adjust the parcels into 3 lots containing approximately 13.84, 13.31 and 5.23 acres. 4. Reports: None 5. Announcements: None 6. Adjournment Time: 9:30 PM 7. Submitted by: City Planning Division