Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-08 - MinutesCITY OF Fa y Vle ARKANSAS Planning Commission August 8, 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), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. Absent: Janet Selby (Arrived after ADM 16-5539) 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 July 25, 2016 meeting. CCP 16-5499: Concurrent Plat (16401 SUMMER RAIN RD./RIVERA, 455): Submitted by GLENN CARTER for property located at 16401 SUMMER RAIN RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 3.00 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 lots containing approximately 2.00 and 1.00 acres each. VAC 16-5519: Vacation (INTERSECTION OF MCMILLAN DR. & WEDINGTON DR./FITNESS ONE GYM, 441): Submitted by MILHOLLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at the INTERSECTION OF MCMILLAN DR. & WEDINGTON DR. The property is zoned UT -URBAN THOROUGHFARE and contains approximately 4.76 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav Fayetteville, AR 72701 2. Old Business: 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 alleys to be constructed of gravel in certain circumstances. This item was requested to be tabled by the applicant. No presentation or public comment was provided. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to table ADM 16-5539 until next meeting. Commissioner Noble seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 3. New Business: VAR 16-5542: Variance (830 S. LOCUST ST./PHILLIPS-VONFELDT, 562): Submitted by PARKCO ARCHITECTS, INC. for property located at 830 S. LOCUST ST. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request is for a variance of single family infill design standards. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Bret Park, Applicant's representative: Said he represents the project, and that the design process began two years ago, and were not aware of the new infill code until June of this year. He said that they have worked to re -design the project to meet the client's goals. He said that a meeting with Planning staff left him feeling that a consensus was reached, and it seemed that the project was meeting City goals, and the goals of the ordinance. He discussed the site, noting the commercial buildings across the street, and the impact of safety, noise, and privacy on the project. He said that he believes strongly in the design, and feels that meeting the code would result in a 'less good' design response, including the build -to -zone requirement of the DG zone, which requires that the building be placed near the street. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said that he is a resident of this awesome neighborhood. The neighborhood was platted at a time when Cities were deeply invested in 'traditional town form' and laid out in a way that reinforces that approach. A quick Google earth tour shows that 20-30 new homes in the area have been built in recent years, and they all meet the requirements of this ordinance, and in fact the neighborhood is a shining example of how we should be designing and building 'traditional town form'. He said he has great respect for Mr. Park and his work, but disagrees with him in this case. Alison Quinlan -Thurmond, Commissioner: Said that she agrees with Mr. Hoffman on many points. She said she appreciates the courtyard typology generally, but that in this case the design does not meet this goal, because the front gate and facade is dominated by the garage. Hoffman: Noted that noise and traffic and privacy are an issue, but that issue has been successfully resolved on busier streets than this. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Said that he does not generally like the approach of designing people's front yards. He asked the applicant if he is treating the garage as outdoor terrace. Park: Said that he was using a portion of the garage use as living space. Hoskins: Said that we need to be flexible, need to consider the wishes of the owners, and that he was leaning towards support for the variance. Janet Selby, Commissioner: Said she agreed with Mr. Hoskins. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked staff if there was a platted and unbuilt alley along the rear boundary of the property. Thompson: Said that there is alley right-of-way behind that lot, but that it has not been used. Brown: Said that the City is in a transitional period that is difficult for application of this ordinance, He added that he feels it is an important beneficial ordinance. He said that it is unfortunate that the City has no plan to improve unbuilt alleyways such as this. He said that he feels the courtyard does mitigate the sound of the street, but said the front door of the patio could be presented better. Finally, he said that he would support the ordinance. Hoskins: Asked if there was a home on the property at this time. Park: Indicated that it had been removed. Hoskins: Pointed out that the goals of City Plan 2030 stated that appropriate infill and revitalization is the City's highest priority. He said that some of our ordinances make that difficult. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Said that he has supported some of these variances recently, and while he believes the entry should be more prominent, he would support the variance. Hoffman: Said that this lot is not different from any other lot in this neighborhood, in terms of design challenges. He said that there is not anything unique and that this project sets a bad precedent. Thurmond -Quinlan: Asked the why the City does not maintain alleys like this one, which were platted to support rear -loaded garages. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Said that many paper alleys and streets were never built, have not been built to City standards or accepted by the City. Hoffman: Cannot see that there is any way that this variance can be approved because there is not any hardship. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Said that that the intent and purpose of the ordinance will not be nullified by approval of the variance as suggested by Mr. Hoffman. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve VAR 16-5542 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0. Commissioners Cook, Hoffman, and Quinlan voted `no'. RZN 16-5501: Rezone (1030 S. COLLEGE AVE./K. SMITH, 563): Submitted by KEATON SMITH for property at 1030 S. COLLEGE AVE. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0. 17 acres. The request is to rezone the property to NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. Keaton Smith, Applicant: Explains that Walker Park does call for a diversity of uses, which this would fit in the plan. A survey on Facebook concluded support for this use, including neighbors immediately abutting that are in support. The building has always been used by churches, so using it as a residence would not be practical. By keeping it non-residential, you can keep some of the character of this site and building. Public Comment: Zara Niederman, Neighbor: States that they are soon to be a resident of the neighborhood and feels strongly that this would be an opportunity for the neighborhood. Church was not built to be a residence. People are talking about having office space, coffee shop, etc that the neighborhood residences could take advantage of and walk to use, rather than walk or drive across town. This is the kind of revitalization they want. No other public comment. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Poses a question for applicant, asking why they did not want the CUP instead. Smith: Explains how the idea is to lease the building to a few small office tenant. This building would not work as a residence and they really like the historic character of the building. They consider the potential uses to be quite light. Kyle Cook: Asks staff what is allowed in limited business. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Explains limited business Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Believes that it is generally desirable to have walkable neighborhoods. Because of Walker Park, it would be difficult to find a corner to put businesses in this section of the neighborhood. There are some older buildings in this neighborhood that have potential for commercial uses. Historically, this street has included some light commercial uses nearby that could lend itself to support this project. Hoffman lends support this proposal. 4 Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Draws attention to appropriate infill, walkable neighborhoods, and how this site could be higher under NS. Quinlan is fully in support of this. Tom Brown, Commissioner: States that they took time to reread the entire plan, where staff today has made a good assessment of said plan. If the business and commercial were to take off, there is adequate flexibility within NC to use conditional use permits to allow non-residential uses for current and future times ahead. Conditional use permits allow the planning staff to make a more detailed assessment of proposed uses and ensure they fit within the neighborhood. They applaud the applicant and their idea to bring services to this area, but staff has made the right assessment. They hope the applicant will come back with a conditional use permit. Hoffman: Begins his statement by stating in terms of appropriateness and CUP, it is a step too far for each new business to have to go through this process each time the applicant gets a new tenant. NS was specifically designed for this purpose; to not allow large commercial buildings and to allow smaller commercial uses. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Concurs with Commissioner Hoffman, as limiting this would be a bad idea for this idea and project. A historical church is neat and they are in support. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asks what limited business is. Garner: Explains limited business. Hoskins: Believes that it is a shame to push commercial to the edges of the neighborhood. This park looks to be the edge of the neighborhood. The odds of this project becoming a large commercial project is not in the cards. They are in support of this rezone. Brown: Reminds the commission that current zoning allows development to happen and is not onerous, as the former commissioners have stated. This part of College should not be like other parts of College. Belden: Explains a story about her childhood neighborhood and how a mid -block business is more traditional than corner stores. They appreciate the applicant wanting to reuse the existing structure. Hoskins: Responds to Brown by stating that this is the edge of the neighborhood along Walker Park. The small nature of this commercial building works within the neighborhood and character. Brown: Reiterates that the professional planning staff sees it differently than Hoskins. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to forward RZN 16-5501 with recommended approval. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted `no'. RZN 16-5508: Rezone (NORTH OF COLFAX LOOP/THE COVES SD, PH. III, 555): Submitted by RAUSCH COLEMAN HOMES for property NORTH OF COLFAX LOOP. The property is an EXPIRED R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 35.98 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RSF-8, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 8 UNITS PER ACRE and R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Jesse Fulcher, Rausch Coleman, Applicant: Initial proposal was for RSF-8 only, but meeting with staff helped the applicant decide that density can be squeezed in to the southern portion of the site while also being compatible while preserving the requisite amount of canopy. Hopes that it can get through Planning Commission with support. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Confirms the setbacks for RSF-8 with staff and states his preference for a build -to -zone zoning districts. Does not agree with the applicant's decision to not to go with NC. Fulcher: The requested zoning district was bounced back and forth, with RSF-8 being chosen. When Rausch-Coleman presented RSF-8 to Farmington, per zoning requirements on a boundary, they received negative feedback. That said, they were reluctant to pursue NC with its even higher density. There is no unit that Rausch-Coleman currently builds that can effectively fit on a 40 foot lot. The narrowest floor plan is 38 feet and that couldn't happen with side setbacks. Hoffman: Questions what this has to do with not choosing a build -to -zone zoning. In his opinion, NC is a vastly superior zoning district, and density is not relevant. You could build 8 units an acre in NC just as easily as RSF-8. He would prefer to see NC. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Agrees with Commissioner Hoffman and asks the applicant if NC is not really a viable option. Appreciates the addition of R -A, but thinks it should be more readily located in the floodplain. There is an argument that Farmington may appreciate the protection of the drainage area near its boundary. Fulcher: With regards to NC, the biggest concern is still Farmington and NIMBY fears of density in that municipality. Brown: Questions the viability of offering floodplain as an "exchange" for increased density. Fulcher: With the way it would shake out, NC would not result in what the applicant is seeking. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Questions whether there is sensitive land in the floodplain. Fulcher: Is not certain, but notes a wetland delineation is being done. Hoskins: If there are no sensitive environmental issues, why does the applicant not just fill. Notes that the City has come a long way if RSF-8 is considered suburban. Hoffman: Is not concerned with what Farmington will say about the request, only Fayetteville. Questions whether a motion can be made to forward the request with a recommendation for NC over RSF-8. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Confirms that it is possible, but recommends breaking up the motion. Motion # 1: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to amend RZN 16-5508 replacing RSF-8 with NC. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Notes that when Fayetteville rezoned the Rupple Road area to NC, the City of Farmington approved it. Williams: Recommends involving the applicant in the decision, especially if there is resurveying necessary. Brown: Asks that the area proposed as R -A that is not in the floodplain be moved in to the floodplain. Fulcher: Feels like the effort has been made to set aside the portion of the property designated as Natural Area. Furthermore, the east side of the property will also be subject to tree preservation. Brown: Notes that the area in the floodplain may be undevelopable. By moving the R -A, the applicant may be getting more developable land. Fulcher: The applicant is in a tight situation where they must either set aside land in the floodplain or land for tree preservation. Hoffman: Clarifies that the motion is to change RSF-8 in the request to NC. Allison Thurmond Quinlan: Appreciates the conversation, but feels that having R -A pushed in to a somewhat arbitrary shape along the creek is not the best option. Notes that the floodplain's presence suggests a certain soil morphology, which is not simply addressed by the proposed R- A location and designation. Cannot support rezoning the area that is potentially most sensitive with something that is still possibly developed. Hoffman: Motion to forward the request with NC as opposed to RSF-8. Quinlan: Notes again that the rezoning districts are arbitrary, and not actually following any sort of sensitive wetlands or soils. Motion # 2: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5508 recommending approval as amended. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Commissioner Quinlan voted 'no'. RZN 16-5500: Rezone (335 E. 71" ST./NIEDERMAN, 563): Submitted by ZARA NIEDERMAN for property at 335 E. 7T" ST. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is to rezone the property to DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Zara Niederman, Applicant: Said that the house has previously been used for commercial activity, having been used for the retail sale of illegal drugs, with the expected attendant Police activity. The lot will not allow development denser than a two-family unit. The goal is to re- develop the lot with a three-family unit, and that while DG zoning does allow some commercial uses, the lot is too small to be useful for businesses. When looking at residential development, the form is as important as the density. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: This is an interesting request, not sure where I stand here. Driving by, one gets a sense of the intensity of use in the surrounding area. I appreciate the applicant's comments about unit types and bedroom numbers. Another thing that we talk about, is that there is a lot of NC and a lot of RSF-18, and that perhaps there is a tendency to use this area as a testing area for our new zoning types, which has been beneficial. Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: I am a fan of this zone, and find that this lot cannot be further split for anything other than single-family residential use. Everything in the area is mutli-family, and the zone is appropriate. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Said that he considered the lot to be a mid -block location, and not appropriate for DG. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Said that there is an urban design for the Walker Park area that identifies Jefferson School, Southgate shopping center, and that in between the design calls for residential neighborhood. The proposed zone is not appropriate, and not consistent with the Walker Park Neighborhood Plan. Hoffman: Said that it is important to provide opportunities for developers to create units on discrete lots, to allow people to buy affordable homes. Brown: Said that when the Walker Park Plan was created, the neighbors wanted commercial nodes and residential in between, that is what they wanted. If the trend to recommend for commercial zones in this neighborhood continues, then the neighborhood will be entirely commercial. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5500 recommending approval. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 4-4-1. Commissioner Quinlan abstained. Discussion Item 9. ADM 16-5545: Administrative Item (SINGLE FAMILY INFILL STANDARDS/UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 164.23): Submitted by CITY COUNCIL for general discussion and recommendation on any changes to the Single Family Infill standards. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Gave the staff report. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed the background for this proposed code change. Matthew Hoffman, Planning Commissioner: What is it about poor people that makes us think they deserve a lower level of design? I think they deserve the same amount of protection as other people. I support the name change to 'small lot'. Our most desirable neighborhoods are in downtown and walkable neighborhoods. We're looking at making it easier for developers to build auto -dependent communities on the edge of town where the less well-off people can afford to live. Why do we need to change this? Why do we need to provide additional flexibility? What is the problem? Tracy Hoskins, Planning Commissioner: In general I agree with Commissioner Hoffman. One of the first places they cut in order to make homes affordable is the garages. He asked about the definition of affordable housing. Williams: Discussed attainable housing that is mentioned in City Plan 2030 as a policy that can be used to make this determination of the proposed variance. He discussed the median income of a very large college student population that makes our overall median income lower. Hoskins: If we are so concerned with making affordable housing and that garage door placement is an issue that can address affordability, I think we need to look at that. I have a problem that applies to one group of folks different from another group of folks. While I am about City Plan 2030 and infill, I have a level of uneasiness of dictating what type of design people can have on their own homes. Hoffman: I think RSF-4 is far from dead. It is the most prevalent zoning in the city. There are plenty of locations in this town when you can find lots of more than 70 feet wide. There are plenty of opportunities of places for people to build a snout -house if they wish. If you go to west Fayetteville it is garage door after garage doo - ask them if they would rather live in Washington - Willow. I don't think it's appropriate for us to sit up here and determine what type of income levels get a different type of design. These types of ordinances is where we look out for quality of life for future residences. I did read through the proposed changes and I agree with all of the proposed changes. Probably if we said the garages could be in line with the front of the house it could make it simpler. Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: I am supportive of the name change. The council shortcut is difficult to understand. We refer to these goals all the time and saying that one of these goals is above our pay grade is hard to understand. We could make smaller lot sizes which would be a huge change in attainable housing. One of the reasons we have zoning is to protect property values. Most of the homes in Washington -Willow don't have garages. Most of them are rear - loaded with alleys. Rear loading is expensive and that is a topic we are discussing at another time. Hoskins: Clarified that any new RSF-4 zoning is dead. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Agreed with everything Commissioner Quinlan said. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: The affordable housing discussion is that when I was on City Council we could never define what it was. It is different depending on where you live. As far as that being a discussion for Planning Commission I think it would be more appropriate at City Council. I don't care about the exact details of the garage doors but it just shouldn't be the prominent design feature. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Concurred with other statements of commissioners. We live where we live out of choice. I don't like the situation where we had a situation back here where a person wanted to build some new homes and he wasn't able to do it. Do we force their business out of town? I don't want to have us do that. I agree that it is a slippery slope to define affordable housing. I never even thought about garage door placement before this. Hoffman: I am not certainly suggesting that the Planning Commission come up with a definition of attainable housing. It is inappropriate to interject attainable housing where you will have different standards for poor people than other people. Williams: Responded that we did create two classes with the first ordinance and that was wrong. We put that requirement on people that couldn't afford to buy a 70 foot lot. He discussed concerns with even regulating design of home. Autry: It boils down to common sense. He discussed reasons why previous variance approvals made sense. Tom Brown, Commissioner: I came up with some points I wanted to convey. This code was developed to meet a certain need. If the planning staff recommends certain changes I think that should happen. I do feel strongly that in hearing a development variance the Planning Commission needs to be involved in that. He referenced the variance chapter and how the commission can already consider financial viability as an undue hardship. Hoffman: There is no relationship between socioeconomic status and lot width. That is important because the ordinance does not have any link to socioeconomic status. These are directly related to public safety in the public way. This is not some crazy thing. This is built on expertise in the realm of public safety. He referenced a similar code in another city. If you build a street with narrow lots and a large portion is devoted to garage doors, homeowners are disengaged from the street. It is a buffer that keeps people from taking ownership on the street and it has a direct relationship to crime. Quinlan: I don't think that we created two classes of people with this ordinance. I am against reducing the lot width. I am more in favor of increasing this and applying it to all lots. It is a tough point to make that the government can't tell people what they want to build. Most of our zoning code is telling people what they can build. This is a difficult line to justify. Hoskins: I don't know where aesthetics ever got thrown into our code. Eyes on the street is always the best way to go to make it safer. I agree with Hoffman. What I don't agree with is that should we be forcing it on everyone that wants to build on lots less than 70 feet wide. I don't think rules should apply to anyone differently. I guess I didn't understand that it didn't apply to every lot in town and thought it was only in the downtown area. I have an uneasy feeling because I think 10 the rules should apply to everyone equally. I think we can focus on other things if we are trying to build affordable homes. I think we either do the deal for everyone or not do the deal. Hoffman: Discussed support to apply this code to all lots. This condition is exacerbated with smaller lots. It is not anything to do with separation of classes. Quinlan: The rule of law is that it should apply to everyone equally. It should apply to areas of town. The health, safety, and welfare is the reason behind our codes and creating an auto - dominant area is in opposition to those goals. Part of me wishes we didn't have to regulate but we need to shape the city into a place that is safe to live in. Belden: Asked about the definition of a carport. Garner: Responded that carports do not apply to this ordinance. The ordinance only applies to garage doors that could potentially block views of the home and driveway. Belden: Stated that the primary goal of this ordinance primarily is to promote public safety and not aesthetics. Williams: Discussed that the crime rate is low in Fayetteville. Public Comment: Mark Marquess, Owner of Riverwood Homes: The thing that I want to bring everyone is that the subdivision I'm bringing us is a blend of affordable, middle price, and executive homes. We are mixing 60, 70, 80 foot wide lots. Let us use our pocketbook to choose. If you look at what is selling it is homes under $250,000.00 in Fayetteville. Fayetteville got rated #1 as the best affordable housing place to live in the nation. If I am sitting here and we are selling 1,500 SF homes across from 2,500 and 3,000 SF homes and we are blending a community together. I don't think we should be here to say your garage is a deterrent to your neighborhood. We did Fiesta Park over by Sunbridge and these are vinyl siding homes over 20 years old and they sell for over $110 per square foot. I think that we have challenged ourselves to draw a line we didn't want to. He discussed the merits of this ordinance. I'm just saying whatever it is should apply across the board. No more public comment was presented. No action was taken other than discussion. 4. Reports: None 5. Announcements: None 6. Adjournment Time: 6:57 PM 7. Submitted by: City Planning Division 11