Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-25 - MinutesCITY OF ae ARKANSAS Planning Commission July 25, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 MINUTES 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), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, and Tom Brown Absent: Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Ron Autry (Vice Chair), and Leslie Belden. Staff: Andrew Garner — City Planning Director, Quin Thompson — Planner, Alan Pugh, and Chris Brown 1. Consent Agenda: Approval of the minutes from the July 11, 2016 meeting. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. 2. Old Business: None. 3. New Business: VAR 16-5502: Variance (EAST END OF CEDAR RIDGE RD./STRIEGLER, 205): Submitted by JOGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at the EAST END OF CEDAR RIDGE RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 8.64 acres. The request is for a variance to minimum street frontage requirements in the Fayetteville Planning Area. This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting (no discussion). Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 ADM 16-5514: Administrative Item (1503 N. GARLAND AVEJROTH CUP 14-4722 EXTENSION, 404): Submitted by BAUMANN & CROSNO, INC. for property located at 1503 N. GARLAND AVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0. 18 acres. The request is for a second extension for CUP 14- 4722. Quin Thompson, planner: gave the staff report. No applicant was present. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Asked staff if applicant representation was required. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Said that representation was not required, and that the request could be granted. Hoffman: Said that he was satisfied that the use is appropriate at this location, and despite concerns about the elevations, would support the request. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Asked staff if it would be reasonable to discuss the submitted elevations. Thompson: Said that the elevations have not changed since the original approval. Garner: Added that it did not seem appropriate to discuss the elevations at this meeting. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve ADM 16-5514. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 4-2-0. Commissioners Cook and Selby voted `no'. ADM 16-5539: Administrative Item (MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS CHAPTER 6 AMENDMENT/PAVEMENT STRUCTURE & MATERIALS): Submitted by ALDERMAN MATTHEW PETTY for an amendment to the Minimum Street Standards Manual. The request is to modify CHAPTER 6, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE & MATERIALS to allow allows to be constructed of gravel in certain circumstances. Matthew Petty, Alderman: Gave a presentation on the proposal. Public Comment: Chris Brown, City Engineer: Gave examples where the public have requested gravel alleys to be paid at the city expense. He discussed the primary concern is drainage. This provision indicates that the city will not maintain these alleys. However, that requires the residents to maintain the alleys. There is always the concerns that people cannot pave or maintain a gravel alley. He recommended that if approved the number of homes be limited on a gravel alley. He 2 recommended that the alley be paved at least 18' from the public street right-of-way to prevent gravel from being tracked onto the street. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Asked about the sub grade requirement for alleys. Petty: Discussed that soil tests would be waived requiring sub grade. When we are requiring that people build driveways to a roadway standard we are increasing the cost of homes and barrier to market. In every way we are holding back development. Today there is a variance process but none have ever been granted. In this case the engineering standards hold us back. It gives the regulatory burden for these types of projects. We should let calibrate our code to the successful condition that we already have. We can look to existing gravel alleys in our town as examples. No more public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed the difficulty with the extremely expensive cost of building an alley. This is an important proposal because it is a critical component to building traditional town form. He asked about exempting the Downtown Master Plan area. He discussed that the downtown area is an area where we would want to encourage infill development. He agreed that gravel alleys should be looked at more closely in the Hillside, Hilltop Overlay District. He agreed that the alleys should be paved the required 18 feet from the street right-of-way as recommended by the City Engineer. Brown: Responded that the roller test proposed is an appropriate way to test solid qualitatively. Hoffman: Agreed that it is important encourage development to follow traditional town form with this proposed code change. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Discussed agreement with where we are going with this. I would like to take the time and break this down by zoning district. I would think that the RSF and R -A districts it should be allowed. He discussed further districts where it would be allowed. In the commercial zones I don't think we should allow it. I understand that in the downtown you are trying to maintain an image. He recommended that signage be installed indicating that this is not a city maintained road. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: He discussed the width of two way alleys is 16 feet. I applaud Mr. Petty on wanting to simplify the code. I do believe that are alley regulations are excessive. He discussed the scenario of people living on gravel alleys and rutting the alleys and potential problems and maintenance. He asked about the types of gravel and dirt being tracked onto streets from SB 2 for a long, long, time. He discussed the aesthetics of this type of development. If we're using gravel, how do we contain that within the alley? Should we have 1 -foot ribbons put along the edge? What type of gravel is used? I don't ever recall any New Urbanism projects using gravel as a paving surface for alleys. He asked Tom Hennelly (local engineer at Crafton Tull) his opinion on this proposal. Tom Hennelly, Crafton Tull: Generally agreed with Alderman Petty that the alley construction standards are generally too stringent for the daily impact. There is a risk in the proof rolling in dry versus wet weather conditions. However, it is probably excessive to have two feet of hillside undercut. With SB 2 you have a lot of fines coming out of there. That is probably not the best choice. There are plastic grid containment systems that can contain pea gravel or using a chip -n - seal would hold the gravel in place. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Discussed that if he felt the alley section requirements are too difficult let's look at those requirements, but not the paving requirement. The ultimate maintenance of the alley will go to the future home owners. I don't feel that gravel alleys should be an option. He discussed when Fred Hanna was mayor he had a goal to pave streets and alleys because of the burden it was to the city to maintain these areas. Hoffman: Discussed the experience of unpaved alleys. This is a part of how a city is made. You do one layer, then you do another layer. In 2016 we want everyone to bring everything to the table initially. That is never how it was done in the past. Somehow we got along. I want to reiterate my support for this. I would be in support of tabling this and having another conversation with the full commission. Hoffman: Agreed that the way we have to build alleys is overkill. I couldn't support this yes. If there were provisions as to what type of gravel. It would be nice if we could research some things such as clean stone or cinder. It would be nice to explore the idea of some type of containment. A 1 -foot ribbon down both sides of the alley would not be too expensive. Brown: Explained why he felt that public signage in the alleys would be preferred so people know not to call the city when there is a rut in their alley. I am for tabling the item. Petty: Agree it should be disallowed in the HHOD. He discussed precedent of using gravel in other applications and projects. He discussed the angular gravel type. I am fine to table it but I want to manage your expectations. Some things will always be difficult for neighbors to resolve. Hoskins: Asked about alley maintenance. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed that if alleys haven't been constructed and accepted by the city to city standards, the city doesn't have a legal requirement to maintain. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to table ADM 16-5539 until the next meeting. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. RZN 16-5483: Rezone (NE CORNER OF MORNINGSIDE & 15TH STJRAUSCH COLEMAN 564): Submitted by RAUSCH-COLEMAN, INC. for property at the NE CORNER OF MORNINGSIDE & 15TH ST. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 36.00 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, subject to a Bill of Assurance. Quin Thompson, planner: Gave the staff report. Tom Hennelly, applicant representative: Said the applicant was in agreement with staff, and Rausch-Coleman was excited about development of a cluster housing development. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. 121 Tracy Hoskins, commissioner: Said that this seemed to represent exactly what the City was seeking in terms of development, and indicated his support. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5483 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. VAR 16-5507: Variance (NW CORNER OF FLORIDA WAY & CATO SPRINGS RD./LOTS 3- 18 -BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS, 600): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at the NW CORNER OF FLORIDA WAY & CATO SPRINGS RD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 0.84 acres. The request is for a variance to Streamside Protection Ordinance. Alan Pugh, City Floodplain Engineer: Gave the staff report. Jason Young, Applicant representative, Bates and Associates: Was present for questions. Public Comment: Thomas Brinkley, Property owner, 917/919 Cato Springs Road. Four of my grandsons live at 917 in the front. They run and play and I have concern of the safety of my grandsons because of traffic on Cato Springs Road. I am against what they are proposing. There were six cars parked on the street in a half block area while they also have a garage in the back. If you allow the proposal to go in the way it is you will double the amount of traffic. He discussed concerns with the density of the property. No more public comment was presented. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Responded to Mr. Brinkley's comments. Pugh: Discussed the location of the floodplain does not currently affect any of the lots except for Lot #3 that faces Cato Springs Road. Explained the difference in rules for developing in a floodplain vs. a floodway. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed that this development will not go any closer to the stream than what has already been built and agreed with staff's recommendation given the existing situation of this subdivision. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Discussed reasons why he would be in support of the request. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve VAR 16-5507 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. The following items have been approved administratively by staff: LSP 16-5486: Lot Split (109 S. GRAHAM AVE./NETTLESHIP DEVELOPMENT, 521): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 109 S. GRAHAM AVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 0. 10 acres each. 4. Reports: None 5. Announcements: None 6. Adjournment Time: 6:57 PM 7. Submitted by: City Planning Division