HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-22 - Minutes - FinalCITY OF
ae
ARKANSAS
Planning Commission
August 22, 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, Jonathan Ely — Engineer, Cory Granderson -
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, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan.
Absent: Leslie Belden
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 August 8, 2016 meeting.
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.
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.
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Selby
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.gov
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.
Matthew Petty, Alderman, Applicant: Presented a revised request to the commission hopefully
addressing all of the commission and staff's concerns that we discussed four weeks ago.
Chris Brown, City Engineer: We feel like this is simplified and uses our existing ordinances and
practices for utilizing unpaved driveways that have been used from many years. We will have to
come up with a way to designate these so it is known that these are driveways and not city -
maintained alleys.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Matt Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed that he likes many of the things presented here. We
are being asked to vote here to make it easier to build a viable and desirable alternative to snout -
houses. It is really important for us commissioners to consider where we want this city to go. If we
want to make it easier to build snout -houses, which we have recently done, but not make it easier
to build alleys we really need to look at it. He discussed the ramifications of this type of
development pattern (alley loaded) that complies with our City Plan 2030 goals. I see this as an
all-around win.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asked what part of this code states that this is relevant only to
residential single family.
Petty: Responded that this would apply to all development, residential and commercial.
Hoskins: Asked about the residential driveway standards and how this proposal would make
building snout -houses more difficult.
Petty: Responded about the current driveway standards. He discussed the policy decision of
creating traditional town form. This is not about making it more difficult to build snout -houses, it is
making our preferred development pattern easier.
Hoskins: Discussed why he has a problem with gravel driveways and alleys. Yes you could go
in there and put down base and proof -roll the alleys. He discussed in his experience when you
leave them open, these gravel alleys are pumping - the surface has been moving around. This
applies especially if the alley surface is not capped.
Chris Brown, City Engineer: Discussed that in steep slopes you will have erosion problems. It
really comes down to proper drainage and getting the water off so it doesn't saturate the sub
grade. In flatter areas you may have to install pipes or ditches to convey the water.
Hoskins: Discussed that he is not ready to vote for this tonight.
Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Stated reasons why she liked many of the elements of this
proposal. I think with the recent conversation of rear -loaded homes it should be a high priority.
She discussed her experience living on a gravel alley. I do agree gravel alleys need to be
designed. In the situation when the slopes and run-off is right, it is an excellent tool to allow for it
in appropriate situations. She discussed the success stories of living on the gravel alley adjacent
to her home. She compared the exponential cost to construct and maintain paved alleys to gravel
alleys. There are also water benefits to this. You are reducing the amount of paved asphalt -
reducing runoff, reducing the heat island effect. It is a tool we should allow to be used
appropriately. She discussed comfort with a slope of 5-10% slope if it drains adequately.
Hoskins: Asked about gravel alleys in a new neighborhood.
Chris Brown, City Engineer: Discussed that the city would not be accepting new private gravel
alleys for maintenance under this proposed ordinance.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Discussed his son's home in Hyde Park, Austin, TX that all have
alleys that create a very nice area. They rear load their garbage and mail. He discussed the lack
of maintenance on the alleys and it still works very nice. Where we have a chance to implement
this we should. It can happen. You have very large neighborhoods that have been developed with
this pattern. It is a good positive step forward.
Hoffman: Described a number of neighborhoods in Fayetteville that have unimproved alleys and
it has worked well for a number of decades.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked planning staff about including signs for the private
maintenance of alleys. He discussed that he would like to make an amendment to apply this only
to residential projects and also specify signage to be installed regarding the maintenance. I think
we need to specify where this would be appropriate. In commercial areas and high density
residential areas I do not think this would be appropriate. I think we need to add something
regarding signage requirements. Five years after the alley has been there, who is to say that they
don't think this is public right-of-way. This could be an unexpected cost associated with
maintaining the gravel alleys.
Motion #1:
Commissioner Brown made a motion to add the word: "in single family zones" in the first
paragraph after the 5th word, after rights-of-way. Then in the last paragraph that says the city
shall not be responsible for maintaining alleys, add that "...they shall be designated with signage."
Motion dies for a lack of a second.
Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Agrees that this will allow more affordable houses in this
development pattern. He also discussed the positive benefits of this for storm water. My issue
with this is that if we want to look at making things more affordable there are other ways we can
make alleys more affordable. It is really taking it off the city and putting it on the future owner.
Quinlan: Agreed that working out how the maintenance is done is a long-term goal. Maybe we
do need to figure out for the city to maintain these at some point. In a year or two, is there a
process for the city to accept these if they are working okay. If we could accept them it would be
a good long term goal.
Petty: Asked the commissioners about the alley regulations and what they were looking for to
reduce cost.
Hoskins: Discussed the width of alleys being maybe too restrictive. He discussed the
undercutting and filling the alleys like a street when in many places it is not necessary. There are
alternatives available. This is just a step too far when we haven't looked at other regulations we
can modify.
Cook: Indicated that building alleys for back-loaded services is not necessary. An alley should
just be built for cars and pedestrians. To me it is more about the undercut and how wide it is.
Autry: Clarified that he was not trying to say that all alleys need to be built for services. He
responded to Commissioner Brown's comments regarding density. He discussed that he thinks
people will know to ask the question about maintenance of alleys.
Quinlan: There are cities in America that are starting to un -pave their streets, although she is not
advocating that practice in Fayetteville. The idea that it is unreasonable that the city cannot
maintain gravel, does not make sense.
Motion #2:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward ADM 16-5539 with a recommendation for
approval. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed
with a vote of 5-3-0. Commissioners Hoskins, Brown, and Cook voted 'no'.
3. New Business:
LSD 16-5488: Large Scale Development (2900 BLOCK MT. COMFORT RDJMACEY 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.
Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report.
Chuck Henry, Applicant: Explains that the applicant has made changes to the elevation that is
believed to meet requirements. Roof styles and materials have been changed, and colors may
be changed as well.
Tim Brisiel, Applicant: Explains that the development has met the other requirements of the
city.
Eric Heller, Applicant: Addresses the flag lot situation for members of the public and
turnaround situation in relation to fire access.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asks for clarification on the project site and connectivity through
flag portion.
51
Heller: States that Brown is correct on location and explains the situation with no development
in the flag.
Brown: Begins a detailed account of Pine Valley Subdivision, where having increased traffic
through the development would be problematic for safety in that subdivision. Asks City Attorney
if part of approval process can stipulate a connection north.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Explains how such a stipulation would not be constitution and
reasonable.
Heller: States this development is a good project for infill and staff has not recommended any
other improvements.
Ryan Noble, Commissioner: Asks Henry to explain the differences in architectural elevations.
Henry: Explains differences in elevations.
Noble: States that the only other problem is the turnaround.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Completely agrees with staff's recommendation for the
architectural elevations. He discussed concerns about an already dangerous situation with the
existing subdivision and how more traffic from a new development would be a problem for
pedestrians and overall safety. They are recommending tabling for both the architecture and
traffic issues, pending a traffic study.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Concurs with Brown and Hoffman.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Addresses how a development reviewed by Planning Commission
may be viewed by the City of Fayetteville and how facts are needed to make a judgement about
traffic. Williams has suggested a traffic study initially, but increased congestion is not grounds to
deny development. Planning could use police reports in order to review a correlation between
increased traffic and accidents in the adjacent subdivision. Planning Commission has more
leeway with the architectural elevation.
Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: Does not believe a traffic study is needed with
police reports, but the risk of said traffic allows the grounds to review the development for its
risk. Further expounds that Pines Valley subdivision has been designed with street problems
that would be worse with the proposed development.
Motion:
Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to table LSD 16-5488 for two weeks to address urban
residential design standards, police accident reports, and traffic safety analysis. Commissioner
Brown seconded the motion.
Williams: States that before a motion can be voted on, it would be defensible if the Planning
Department had facts in order to help the Planning Commission have a defensible argument.
Kyle Cook, Commissioner: States that with the surrounding street context of one -way -in and
one -way-out, it would create an obvious problem.
Hoffman: Concur with Cook. Asks staff it is possible to use other existing neighborhoods to use
as a measure for this neighborhood.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Answers yes.
Janet Selby, Commissioner: Asks the Attorney is there is a maximum of buildings that may be
built with one-way in and out.
Williams: Explains how the fire department determines that requirement.
Brown: Is concerned that the solution to all the discussion is simply more connectivity, which
can be scheduled or worked into the development.
Autry: Requests Quinlan to modify her motion to include police reports.
Quinlan: Agreed to amend her motion to make the change.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asks if it should be included to have a better turnaround. He
questioned if the Commission should help the architect understand what a significant variation
means for their elevations.
Cook: States that the development team should take note of all the comments of
commissioners.
Brisiel: Notes that the development team has met all other requirements of the City for this
development. The team is ready to work with the City on how to make the existing subdivision
safer, but requests quantifiable evidence in order to require said improvements.
Brown: Asks what the nature of the flag lot is for and its relation to a bridge.
Williams: Explains how that is not relevant to the proposal. Only what is before you can only be
reviewed. Off-site improvements must be part of the rough proportionality test for developers.
Asks for staff input on costs for a bridge.
Garner: Affirms that they are expensive.
Upon roll call the motion passed to table LSD 16-5488 for two weeks passed with a vote of
8-0-0.
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.
Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report.
Justin Jorgensen, Applicant: Explains that they are in agreeance with staff and happy to
answer questions.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Wishes that this development could be in the middle of the
parking lot.
Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: States that are in support of approving this
development.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: States they are also in support.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: States they are also in support.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Explains history of this development and its relation to the parking
lot landscape ordinances.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve LSD 16-5525 with conditions as
recommended by staff. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Noble `recused'.
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.
Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report.
Justin Jorgensen, Applicant's representative: Said he was in agreement with staff conditions.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Tom Brown, Commissioner: Said he would prefer to see sidewalk connections to off-site
parking.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said it is unfortunate that we are designing a bridge to
service just a few businesses.
Kit Williams, City Attorney: Said that the bridge is intended to alleviate traffic congestion at
Joyce and College.
Hoffman: Said that the large infrastructure improvement should be serving more businesses on
the nearby property.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Said he had paid into the Mud Creek Bridge Assessment years
ago, and that there were no buildings there at the time.
Ron Autry, Commissioner: Said the adjacent properties made full use of their parking lots, that
they were full very often and not over parked.
Alison Thurmond -Quinlan, Commissioner: Said her biggest concern was with the large
number of empty parking spaces that one can see on a Friday afternoon in this area.
7
Motion:
Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve LSD 16-5523 with all conditions as
recommended by staff including the conditional condition stated by staff allowing off-site parking
as a Planning commission determination. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon
roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
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.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report
Applicant: (City staff acted as applicant, no additional comment provided)
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Questions staff about the recent clearing on the site and
whether this should adversely affect the development of the property.
Curth: Confirms that a portion of the property has been cleared of scrub brush recently, but not
of any significant trees or canopy.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5535 recommending approval.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote
of 8-0-0.
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 RSF-18, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 18
UNITS PER ACRE.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report
Matthew Petty, Infill Group, Applicant's Representative: Expresses that there was no
intention to ignore the Walker Park Neighborhood Master Plan (WPNMP). Understood that the
plan was developed with the possibility for many different residential intensities. Although the
applicant intended to build missing middle and single family housing to the area, does not intend
to be a "stick in the mud." Understands the fear that neighbors have about non -single-family
development encroaching on their community, especially with a change of hands the property
may have to someone that wants to develop more intensely. Articulates frustration that there is
a gap in the available zoning districts to allow low -intensity commercial and low-density multi-
density development without higher intensity and density uses allowed. Requests to amend the
rezoning proposal to RSF-18, Residential Single -Family, 18 Units Per Acre.
Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Solicits staff's thoughts on the amended request.
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Contends that an RSF-18 zoning would be consistent with
citywide and neighborhood goals. Addresses the value of a neighborhood edge as seen here
and that the RSF-18 zoning district meets this.
Public Comment:
Nancy Kahanak, Neighbor: Requests clarification on what RSF-18 is
Garner: Provides details about the RSF-18 zoning district.
Kahanik: Lives in the Walker Park neighborhood and appreciates all that the PC and staff do in
making informed decisions. Feels that going with the single-family homes would be preferable.
Russ Meyer, Neighbor: Listening to the amended request he feels comfortable with RSF-18. A
neighbor wanted him to add that his neighbor is fine with Downtown General, but only if it is
approved with single-family housing permitted.
Karen Muehler, Neighbor: Moved from Austin, Texas due to affordability and lives in this
neighborhood because of its access. Often walks around the Walker Park neighborhood and
does not want to see more businesses or multi -family in the area.
Tony Wappel, Neighbor: Is comfortable with the proposed amended request to RSF-18. It is
much preferable to a large multi -family development as proposed years ago.
No more public comment was presented.
Allison Thurmond -Quinlan, Commissioner: Acknowledges her love of Downtown General,
and sympathizes with the applicant's frustration at the gaps in the zoning code. Will abstain from
the vote considering her status as a nearby property owner.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asks if Commercial Services would achieve the gaps in the
code.
Garner: Questions if Neighborhood Services may be what he means.
Hoskins: Inquires whether a solution to concerns would be a Bill of Assurance to limit the
permitted uses that may "scare the neighbors to death."
Garner: Yes
Hoskins: Asks why the adjacent DG doesn't justify this rezoning.
Garner: This is a notable property in that there has been a significant amount of neighborhood
input that has guided this zoning.
Hoskins: Has no problem with RSF-18 or DG, but recognizes that there are some permitted
uses in the DG zoning district that are not for this area.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Agrees with Hoskins about some of the DG uses not being
appropriate, and with the applicant about holes in the zoning code. Feels DG may still have
been appropriate with a Bill of Assurance limiting uses. Emphasizes the importance of
affordability and the inability of potential residents to buy land in the area. Feels that RSF-18
with other ordinances can create a good neighborhood that allows for affordability and makes
this a good proposal. Recommends approval.
Brown: Notes that some businesses can be located in an NC zoning district, but only with a
conditional use permit.
Motion:
Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5521 recommending approval of
the applicant's amended request for RSF-18. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Quinlan abstained.
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.
Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report
Patrick Foy, Morrison -Shipley, Applicant's Representative: Has no further comment, and is
available for questions.
Public Comment:
No public comment was presented.
Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Notes that this is a PZD, and that despite the minimum lot
size mentioned by staff, how does the Planning Commission know what requirements the
development will be held to?
Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Although PZD was an early one without significant
clarification of the zoning requirements, the applicant has provided very clear bulk and area
zoning regulations for the proposed single-family use.
Hoskins: Questions whether it is, or is not the case that architectural drawings are typically
provided for a PZD
Garner: For a new PZD yes, but as this is an amendment to an existing one it was not deemed
necessary.
Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Would ordinances not in this C-PZD apply to the PZD, like
the small lot infill requirements?
Garner: Yes they would apply.
10
Motion:
Commissioner Selby made a motion to forward ADM 16-5538 recommending approval as
proposed. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with
a vote of 8-0-0.
4. Reports: None
5. Announcements: None
6. Adjournment Time: 8:07 PM
7. Submitted by: City Planning Division
11