HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-22 - Agendas - Final CITY OF
Fay -y� l'I'l� AGENDA
ARKNSAS
Final Agenda
Planning Commission Meeting
August 22, 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
Call to Order
Roll Call
Consent
1. Approval of the minutes from the August 8, 2016 meeting.
2. VAC 16-5536: Vacation (S. END OF MARKS MILL LN./SUMMIT PLACE S/D, 329):
Submitted by MIKE BAUMANN for properties located at the SOUTH END OF MARKS MILL LN.
The properties are zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately
0.09 acres. The request is to vacate portions of a utility, drainage, and access easement.
Planner: Andrew Garner
3. CCP 16-5531: Concurrent Plat (4148 N HUNGATE LN./HUNGATE, 141): Submitted by
BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 4148 N. HUNGATE LN. The property is in
the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 5.61 acres. The request is to
split the property into 2 lots containing approximately 4.61 and 1.25 acres each.
Planner: Quin Thompson
Old Business
4. 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. Alderman: Matthew Petty
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav
Fayetteville, AR 72701
New Business
5. LSD 16-5488: Large Scale Development (2900 BLOCK MT. COMFORT RD./MACEY DR.
TOWNHOMES, 363): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, INC.for property located at the 2900
BLOCK OF MT. COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RMF 24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,
24 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 6.76 acres. The request is for a 58 unit
apartment complex with associated parking. Planner: Harry Davis
6. LSD 16-5525: Large Scale Development (1780 N. CROSSOVER RD./PLANET FITNESS,
372): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 1780 N.
CROSSOVER RD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains
approximately 5.17 acres. The request is for a 15,040 square foot gym attached to the current
structure and utilizing the existing parking. Planner: Harry Davis
7. LSD 16-5523: Large Scale Development (SE CORNER OF N. VANTAGE DR. AND E.
RAINFOREST RD./FOCUS FAMILY EYE CENTER, 175): Submitted by JORGENSEN &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at the SE CORNER OF N. VANTAGE DR. & E.
RAINFOREST RD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains
approximately 1.17 acres. The request is for a 4,830 square foot eye care clinic with associated
parking. Planner: Quin Thompson
8. RZN 16-5535: Rezone (EAST END OF BORICK DR./CITY FIRE TRAINING CENTER, 683):
Submitted by CITY STAFF for property at the EAST END OF BORICK DR. The property is zoned
1-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL & R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains
approximately 14.20 acres. The request is to rezone the property to P-1, INSTITUTIONAL.
Planner: Jonathan Curth
9. RZN 16-5521: Rezone (SE OF SOUTH ST. & S. COLLEGE AVE./FAYETTEVILLE
RENTALS, 524): Submitted by THE INFILL GROUP for properties SE OF SOUTH ST. & S.
COLLEGE AVE. The properties zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains
approximately 0.67 acres. The request is to rezone the property to DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL.
Planner: Jonathan Curth
10. ADM 16-5538: Administrative Item (2180 W. MOORE LN./SPRINGWOODS C-PZD
MODIFICATION, 286): Submitted by MORRISON-SHIPLEY ENGINEERS, INC. for properties at
2180 W. MOORE LN. The properties are zoned C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING
DISTRICT and contain approximately 12.50 acres. The request is to amend the SPRINGWOODS
C-PZD, COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT to allow single family dwellings as a use
by right on the subject property. Planner: Jonathan Curth
2
The followinq items have been approved administratively by staff:
• LSP 16-5515: Lot Split (2498 S. HUNT LN./DUCA, 648): Submitted by ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC. for property located at 2498 S. HUNT LN. The property is in the
FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 0.50 acres. The request
is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 0.75 acres each.
Planner: Harry Davis
• LSP 16-5471: Lot Split (3128 OAKLAND ZION RD./FOSTER, 257): Submitted by
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3128 OAKLAND ZION RD.
The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 2.80
acres. The request is to split the parcel into 2 lots containing approximately 1.47 and 1.33
acres. Planner: Harry Davis
Announcements
Adjourn
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE:
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning
Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment.
Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and give your name and address.Address your comments
to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments to the appropriate appointed
official, staff, or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the
agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak.
Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, are available for all public hearings; 72 hour
notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330.
As a courtesy please turn off all cell phones and pagers.
A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection
in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested
parties are invited to review the petitions.
3
CITY OF
Fa Y i'1'1� MINUTES
ARKANSAS
Planning Commission
August 8, 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, 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: Planning Commission
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteviI eu ust22,
Fayetteville, AR 72701 A es 8- Iteemm 1
1
Y Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 1 of 11
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.
Planning Commission
August 2,2016
Agen a Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 2 of 11
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.
Planning Commission
AugustY2,2016
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 3 of 11
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.
Planning Commission
August 2,2016
Agen a Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 4 of 11
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
Planning Commission
Augustr_2,2016
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 5 of 11
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.
Planning Commission
Augus2,2016
Agent Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 6 of 11
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'.
Planning Commission
August-'2,2016
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 7 of 11
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.
Planning Commission
AugustQ22,2016
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 8 of 11
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.
Planning Commission
AugusV2,2016
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 9 of 11
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
Planning Commission
AuguIV-2,2016
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 10 of 11
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
Planning Commission
Augult�2,2016
Agenda Item 1
Minutes 8-8-2016
Page 11 of 11
CITY OF
Ta L CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ARKANSAS
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Council
THRU: Andrew Garner
FROM: Matthew Petty, Ward 2 Alderman
DATE: July 14, 2016
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. An ordinance to amend Chapter 6
Pavement Structure and Materials of the Minimum Street Standards
Manual to allow alleys to be constructed with gravel pavement sections
in certain circumstances.
BACKGROUND:
In 2015, Fayetteville adopted the Minimum Street Standards which define cross-sectional and
geometrical standards for alleys within the city. At a Planning Commission meeting in the first
quarter of 2016, several commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with current code language
which requires all alleys to be constructed to the same standards as city streets. Similarly, a
handful of developers have asked me why gravel alleys are not allowed when several already
exist in the city and appear to function adequately for all users.
DISCUSSION:
This ordinance allows alleys to be constructed of alternative pavement materials—namely,
gravel—in limited circumstances. For the current requirements for soil testing, subgrade
preparation, and pavement materials to be waived, the alley
1. may not be used for Solid Waste services;
2. must have a grade less than 10%;
3. and must not be located within the Downtown Master Plan area.
Furthermore, the ordinance empowers the City Engineer to require drainage measures, such as
underdrains and culverts, to be installed where necessary. The ordinance also prohibits the
storage of surplus pavement material within the alley.
In order for an alley with an alternative pavement to be approved, the ordinance requires the
cross-section be first designed and certified by a Professional Engineer to have a crown
constructed in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration publication Gravel Roads and
Maintenance. Secondly, the alley must past a proof rolling test with a loaded dump truck, in lieu
of normal compaction testing. Finally, the City is not responsible for maintaining such alleys.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
Budget: none.
Mailing Address: Planning Commission
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevilleu EMjXiust 22,em 2
Fayetteville, AR 72701 ACh.6 A tem 2
Y 16-5536 UDC Ch.6 Amend.
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 6 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE AND
MATERIALS OF THE MINIMUM STREET STANDARDS MANUAL TO ALLOW ALLEYS
TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH GRAVEL PAVEMENT SECTIONS IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5789, which was passed by the Fayetteville City Council on August
4, 2015, adopted the Minimum Street Standards manual as part of the Unified Development Code
and requires City Council approval for amendments to those standards; and
WHEREAS, § 6.1.3 Standard Pavement Sections of the Minimum Street Standards manual
currently requires that the pavement section requirements for alley construction be the same as for
a public roadway unless alternative materials are approved by the City Engineer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby repeals the last two
sentences of§ 6.1.3 Standard Pavement Sections of the Minimum Street Standards Manual.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas hereby enacts a new§ 6.1.4
Alleys of the Minimum Street Standards Manual with the language below and renumbers the
following sections accordingly:
6.1.4 Alleys
Alleys for which Solid Waste services are not proposed, which are not within the
Downtown Master Plan area, and which have a grade less than 10% are exempt from the
requirements of this chapter and may be constructed with gravel pavement sections
certified by a professional engineer. Certified sections containing gravel courses shall
illustrate a properly crowned surface as described in the Federal Highway Administration
publication Gravel Roads and Maintenance, shall meet the dimensional requirements
described in the Master Street Plan, and shall be constructed using an angular surface
gravel.
When constructed, alternative pavements shall pass a proof rolling test conducted with a
loaded dump truck and the crown shall be constructed in accordance with the certified
pavement section. The City Engineer shall have the authority to require drainage measures
such as underdrains and culverts where necessary. Maintenance windrows of pavement
materials shall not be allowed.
The City of Fayetteville shall not be responsible for maintaining alleys constructed in this
manner.
Planning Commission
August 22,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5536 UDC Ch.6 Amend.
Page 2 of 3
PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
Planning Commission
August 22,2016
Agenda Item 2
16-5536 UDC Ch.6 Amend.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ftay e
L Y 1 e PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
ARKANSAS
TO: City of Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
SUBJECT: VAC 16-5536: Vacation (S. END OF MARKS MILL LN./SUMMIT PLACE
S/D, 329): Submitted by MIKE BAUMANN for properties located at the
SOUTH END OF MARKS MILL LN. The properties are zoned NC,
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contain approximately 0.09
acres. The request is to vacate portions of a utility, drainage, and access
easement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends forwarding VAC 16-5536 to City Council with a recommendation for approval
with conditions.
BACKGROUND:
The Summit Place Subdivision is located on the south side of Township Road approximately 400
feet east of College Avenue. The subject property is a utility/drainage/access easement in the
rear yards of six lots in the southwest portion of the Summit Place Subdivision. Surrounding land
use and zoning is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
Direction Land Use Zoning
North, South, East Single family lots (Summit Place) NC
South Mountain Ranch Residential Subdivision RSF-4
East Forest Hills mixed commercial C-PZD
Forest Hills
West Mixed commercial along College Avenue RSF-4; C-2
Proposal:The applicant proposes vacation of a portion of the utility/drainage/access easement to
allow for required tree mitigation planting in these areas.
DISCUSSION:
Vacation Approval: The applicant has submitted the required vacation forms to the City utility
departments and applicable franchise utilities, with the following responses:
Utility Response
Cox Communications No objections
PINMMIRT�Mmission
Mailing Address: August 22,2016
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ZKJPMa Item 3
Fayetteville, AR 72701 16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 1 of 15
AEPISWEPCO No objections
Source Gas No objections
AT&T No objections
Ozarks Electric No objections
SWEPCO No objections
City of Fayetteville Response
Solid Waste No objections
Transportation No objections provided the east 38 feet of the
west 48 feet of the easement area be
retained (no vacated) as utility easement for
the existing sanitary sewer
Water/Sewer No objections
Public Comment:
No public comment has been received.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding VAC 16-5536 to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. The vacation is limited to retain the east 38 feet of the west 46 feet of the easement area
as utility easement for the existing sanitary sewer (as requested by the City WaterlSewer
Department).
2. Any relocation or damage to utilities and associated new easement dedication shall be at
the ownerldeveloper's expense.
Planning Commission Action: ❑ Approved Ci Forwarded ❑ Denied
Meeting Date: August 22, 2016
Motion:
Second:
Vote-
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None.
Planning Commission
August 22,2016
G 1ETC1Development Services Review1201610evelopment Review116-5536 VAC 5.End of Marks Mill Ln.(Summit Place SD) Agenda Item 3
329103 Planning Commission108-22-20161Comments and Redlines 16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 2 of 15
Attachments:
• Request Letter
■ Petition to Vacate
■ Utility Approvals
• Easement Vacation Exhibit
■ One Mile Map
■ Close Up Map
Planning Commission
August 22,2016
G\ETCOevelopment Services RevieM20160eveIopment Review116-5536 VAC S.End of Marks Mill Ln.{Summit Place SD} Agenda Item 3
329103 Planning Commission108-22-20161Comments and Redlines 16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 3 of 15
BAUMANN CROSNO
R 1
Baumann&Crosno Construction
PO BOX 4072
Fayetteville,AR 72702
Petition to Vacate and Alley,
June 20"'2016
On behalf of the property owners of Summit Place we formally request the vacation a portion no less
than the length of each lot and no less than 8' in width of the 46' utility easement along the Western
Side of lots 148, 147, 146, 145, 144, 143, 142,and 141. The utility,drainage easement, and access
easement on these lots will be utilized to pian and reforest the lots to meet the design criteria set forth
in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District,which these lots fall in. Upon review of locates called in during
May of 2016 and observed in lune of 2016,the only utility present is the sewer line. We formally
request that a portion of the easement be vacated so as to plan three or more hardwood trees per the
Urban Forrester's request on each of the affected lots.
Respectfully,
7q--
Mike Baumann
Petitioning Representative
479-799-4616
Planning Commission
August 22,2916
Agenda Item 3
16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 4 of 15
"dLAS� � • . '�
MM! MIT �; 44s�E� f CYT-
7 " a° 3fii
Mrs
1101
X Afmft AM Lm
41
yI f
SO
ell 1.4
p
BIS l f'' Y ilffi ,lie
a
. - -� w
Gr
Jill
71.
-Re II" {
1 e� ■ {�y1+ r, • g9 s a
r
oj22,,2
on
August 16
Agen3
16-5536 SummiD
Page 5 of 15
C:TILITY APPROVAL FORM
FOR RIC;HT-OF-WAY.ALLEY.AND
UTILITY EASEMENT VACATIONS
I]ATE: rj
LML ITY Co.%1PA'.Y:
APPLICANT NA,"-IE: APPLiC.-%NT PHONE-.
REOUFSTED VACATION i applirunr m1e5r rhe el"all r1lat upply; y
XL:tility 1~asenion:
Xi2:ght-of-%vay for allay Or streets and all utsiity easen;cnts located'"lilett the vacatcd Ti Kh;-oi=wa}.
Alley
Street rtgltt•of wFy
I hati c been nQ'ified of�hc petition 10 tiacatc the folim,ing fallen•, casement, rigi,t-of-way).described as follo-,t s.
General location 1.address W�__�.�
...— +S
iL (ATTACH legal descriprfon andgraphic representation of hat is being Vacated-SURVEY)
UTILITY CQtiiPA.Ny Co;M EN'm
No objections to[hc vacation(s)described above,and no comments.
;~o objections to tht vacation(s)described abase,provided following des%,nbed easements are retained.
(State the location,dimensions,and purpose'oelau,]
No objections provided the folion•ing conditi=s are met:
Any damage to or relocation of our existing facilities will be at t e owners eve op
19"rure of Ctiliry Company Xeprescnta[it-e
-Conatruction Ar Planning Manager
Av:ra,e4�r'r71f
Page S
Planning Commission
August 22,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 6 of 15
L/
LI
' Planning Commission
August 22,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 7 of 15
I TsI—.'i 1 APPR9% .-\L F�1i;'•f
Ga
IIyyr;i i.,��s_ilin �.' %ra,� �.+��VZ.� l f7•�, � ��� i4� ��� ��Llt �..�2� 1`'i�.'�-.
?TT 1
rIti w Av,�Y I)J�h—iT Cv-��
x
If any.,AT&T facilities are damaged or are required to be relocated will be
the responsibility of the owner/developer. -
OigitaAysigned by 1EFF P,—IM—,—LI—OW—
ON.JEFF H AM l LTO N ON INEEAI F ant R=jh o=AT&7,oM.r.=N577t[1CTiONi
ENGINEERING.email=jh543pgaan-com,r.=US
Date;2015-06.21 13:55:59-05'00'
MGR OSP P1ng & Engrg Design
Planning Commis ion
August 22,2! 16
A enda Ite 3
16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 8 of 15
fi q ,4
wes� rVt��y
Staking Tech. III
Planning Commision
August 22,2 16
Agenda Ite 3
16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 9 of 15
UTILET4 APPROVAL t=ORNi
`C1T�f�fC�Hi-f]F-1'x'•11. 1Li"F;1. ��C1
E iT1..f C1'E.��EII F\T S'SC";•Ct{}��
TIL!l r'CC!,:F=L.�' �C�
ft'L!C' tiTfVI� �
Rr ESTIE U VACATION�rrpplir�:er rnttsr el�er�cell there Qyl ls:
t.:l is}•=ase:-��ns
!ti};:-x-`pati for liter or i:rets and a i
'�i•C 1" .
izctn notified cf the petition to%a%awe site fnnovrin€railer,rsr�
...
?ocaTiiglvr,.l:�r-.r;•
C;rsseaa3on;.address t.�.a�43Z.0 S � Lq1 1 L,4 c, �l'��•r1 3� ��
_ 4 T T4 CH fegal dee;c,rprrar+and graphic:epeesea rarion of-whar is brae;-a'C ared SUR 3'E Yj
I 1--IFY Y CONIP4tiY COOS ,1L'i I's
� i Tilt va-tlo!{s;descrihcd EELove.avid cu nma.!s.
�t;�eti�nc:a int sa�anonTs?drsrrtred aba :.r•s s�ide3 toiio,�sag GcscrfC a c�,ctYer rs arc rciatetil
aCate t-c ItLcation.drmersiotts,a"Id pus•svose he!o I
Or! r?Ci]tt_I7�,Gria4n art._.�.
ccr
Planning Commision
August 22,2 16
Agenda Ite 3
16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 10 of 15
UrrtrrY LvNipv,r �.�t❑ �i ESTE...•.�;. rtsy�t��.L1�
REQUES I ED VAC.
far alien Ir streets and a u!djrn easerne:tu laraEtd :ri:iUP the ,a,:aced rIgltt rsi=ua}
dcscrib�d as fvllowr,
:411 ?. 1424_
�a ab�cc:rans prnvtgcd ih:{o�Zow•ing_oadrtioas art mcr
_ t
in Company
Lirr�Nn� r1r kl �.'v.�Cy !1 L�y1
Planning Commis ion
August 22,2016
Agenda Itein 3
16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 11 of 15
w
1 �
r v
I
Planning Commission
August 22,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5536 Summit Place SD
Page 12 of 15
i
�Cy�![,:�f�4
,
�:rF,.f., .f,��r „ ,. . ,.. .E-�ti.u�se_.�• ; � � � l�� I4�a, �`-1�,� 14� !�� 1
. r .. - .- - .. .1 S•-.I I �iSfi[v_�-..u[-7 r'bS C i i•:r
" �►-� CA 3T 3B FST aF � Er���
" - (HT1 G �l�rvTio� �kr�'?a�vG S.F,•r SFw
Planning Commission
August 22,2016
Agenda Item 3
16-5536 Summit P SSD
Page 13 of 15