Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-28 - Minutes - FinalCITY OF Fa y VlI'l e ARKANSAS Planning Commission November 28, 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 Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook In Attendance: 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 Absent: none. Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner, and Corey Granderson, Engineering. City Attorney: Kit Williams Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the November 14, 2016 meeting. Old Business: 2. VAR 16-5661: Variance Item (710 N. CEDARWOOD AVE./FLEMISTER, 442): Submitted by RICHIE LAMB for property located at 710 N. CEDARWOOD AVE. The property is zoned RSF- 4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a variance to UDC Chapter 166.08, Street Design and Access Management Separation for a new curb cut. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED. No staff report or public comment was presented. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to table VAR 16-5661 indefinitely. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav Fayetteville, AR 72701 3. ADM 16-5631: Administrative Item (UDC CHAPTERS 161 & 162 AMENDMENTS): Submitted by PLANNING STAFF for revisions to several chapters in the Unified Development Code. The proposal is to create two new zoning districts, a new use unit, and include accessory dwellings as a permitted use in several existing districts. The intent of the code changes are to facilitate greater flexibility in medium -intensity commercial and medium -intensity urban residential development. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Appreciates the changes made, but would like consideration to be given to having the street frontages for one-, two-, three-, and four -family dwellings all changed to the requirement for one -family dwellings. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Agrees with Commissioner Hoffman's comments. Allison Thurmond Quinlan, Commissioner: Also agrees, and goes further to propose zero side setbacks, with the building code taking care of any fire or safety concerns. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Asks which zoning district Commissioner Quinlan would like to see the side setbacks changed on. Quinlan: Clarifies that she is speaking about the proposed RT -U zoning district. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Solicits staff's opinion regarding the Commissioner comments. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Is in agreement on some of the comments regarding RT- U, but notes that the intent of the NS districts is for less of an urban setting, where not all building typologies may be appropriate. It may be difficult to make these district work in a more suburban areas with the proposed changes. Quinlan: Notes that only 3- and 4 -family dwellings are "punished" with a wider street frontage. Garner: Reiterates that it depends on the intent and purpose of the zoning district, and that there are other districts that are more appropriately used for 3- and 4 -family dwellings. There is also some staff concern about the potential feedback of adjacent property owners that may oppose more intense residential development. Hoffman: Seeks clarification and understanding as to the staff's proposal for disparate lot widths for one- and two-family dwellings and three- and four -family dwellings. Garner: Notes an example in town that may be appropriate for nonresidential use, but not for an apartment, and thinks this may carry to the rest of the City. Again comments that there are other zoning districts that may be more appropriate for residential uses of more than two-family dwellings in density. Hoffman: Contends that requiring these wider lots makes it effectively impossible to integrate these more intense residential uses into low-density residential. Quinlan: Follows up on Commissioner Hoffman's comments by saying that these lot widths do not get to the City's goal of traditional town form, as they practically encourage parking on the front or side. Garner: States staffs comfort with making these changes. Quinlan: Inquires why the NS zoning districts have lot widths but and lot area minimums. Garner: It is a matter of the right zoning district in the right location. The lot area is to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Continues by stating that eliminating certain lot widths or minimums starts to blur the lines between districts. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Notes that the Commissioners are all in agreement other than a few points. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to forward ADM 16-5631 agreeing with staff's proposal with the change that the lot width minimum in the NS districts be 35 feet for all residential lots. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. New Business: 4. VAR 16-5652: Variance Item (495 W. PRAIRIE ST./PRAIRIE ST. APTS., 523): Submitted by THE INFILL GROUP, INC. for property located at 495 W. PRAIRIE ST. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER, and contains approximately 0.21 acres. The request is for a variance to parking space size requirements and parking lot greenspace requirements. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Matthew Petty, Applicant: Discussed his goals for the project and reasoning for the request. Public Comment: Debbie Marley, Neighbor: Asked about dedicated parking for the commercial space. No more public comment was presented. Thompson: Replied that no parking will be provided for the commercial space, but that 6 on - street parking spaces are proposed, which will be first come first served. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said that the City does not require parking for commercial development, rather, it is provided at the developer's discretion. He said we should loosen landscape regulations in urban areas. Alison Quinlan, Commissioner: Asked Matthew Petty if the green space west of the parking lots is required. Petty: No, not sure what that is, staff prepared the exhibit. We intend to put a patio for one of the units in this location. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: We have in the past told developers that they are trying to put too much building on a site where we have a large number of variance requests. I support this one because it's a good project. Janet Selby, Commissioner: Said she supported the variances. Quinlan: Said masonry walls are really expensive, and perhaps we should consider other finely detailed materials for buffering with screen walls. Motion: Commissioner Selby made a motion to approve VAR 16-5652 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. 5. PPL 16-5641: Preliminary Plat (SE OF PERSIMMON & BROYLES/SLOANBROOKE SD, PH. II, 477): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located SE OF PERSIMMON & BROYLES. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 28.20 acres. The request is for 103 single-family lots. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. Added condition noting that the approval of this plat does not guarantee any support for any future rezoning proposal associated, or un- associated, with this project. Justin Jorgensen, Engineer: States they are in agreement with staff's report Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Explains that the applicant responded well to the conditions coming from Subdivision Committee. Asks Engineering if it is possible to phase the waterline construction. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Asks Corey Granderson to answer. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Explains how the city can cost -share with the applicant and how the waterline is a staff interpretation, which would need to be appealed to City Council. Hoskins: Asks how many homes were built in the first subdivision. Granderson: Answers 97 lots. Hoskins: Asks Granderson what the policy on dead-end lines are for the City. Granderson: Explains city policy. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asks about where the parkland dedication is on this plat. Davis: Explains that the applicant should answer. I] Jorgensen: Explains to the room about the location in the floodplain. Brown: Wonders about criteria for accepting parkland in a floodplain. Kit Williams, City Attorney: States to Brown that some of the best parkland is in floodplains and how this would not be an issue. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: States that this area will also include a multi -use trail into the parkland design. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Asks about the average lot width and density of proposal. Jorgensen: Answers. Hoffman: States that they are frustrated by the disparity between the density allowed in the underlying zoning district and how large the lots are in this subdivision, which impact the development's density. Hoffman delves into his overall frustration with perimeter developments like this one where there is huge cost associated over time but little improvement over development patterns previously seen in earlier decades with RSF-4 zoning. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve PPL 16-5641 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Quinlan: Asks staff about the length of the block in north-east. Garner: Answers. Quinlan: Asks if there will be a turnaround for fire trucks. Quinlan wonders about how the stub - out works with areas in the floodplain zoned R -A. Garner: Answers. Explains that the original rezone for this area called for the floodplain to be zoned R -A in order to help conserve area and keep developers from doing major lot development in these areas. Quinlan: Asks if a condition can be made to connect Oldham Dr. into Street 7 to avoid significant development into the floodplain and R -A zone. Davis: Confirms with Quinlan that it is her intention to suggest to the applicant that they loop Oldham Dr. into Street 7. Kyle Cook, Planning Commission Chair: Confirms with Quinlan that they would like to add that to the conditions and have staff work to find a solution with the applicant. Hoskins: Asks if the three lots taken out were located in the conservation area. Garner: Answers yes and that it is not a conservation area, but a zoning district called R -A that would limit the size of development and make it harder to have a subdivision in that area within the floodplain. Hoskins: Asks if the stub -out are appropriate for the area and if the street design is a current issue. Garner: Answers yes that the stub -out are appropriate, but would just like to reiterate to the applicant that they could not develop lots in the same way within this area like they have done for the other parts of this subdivision. If the area were rezoned, they could have something more dense than what is allowed under R -A. The street design is currently OK'ed from city staff. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0. 6. PPL 16-5642: Preliminary Plat (NE OF 15T" & MORNINGSIDE DR./PARK MEADOWS SD, 564): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NE OF 15T" & MORNINGSIDE DR. The property is zoned with a mixture of NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, and RA, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 68.00 acres. The request is for 290 single-family lots. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Jesse Fulcher, Applicant: Said the project has taken a long time. He noted that the street improvements are the most important part of this project. The traffic study has provided more concrete information since Subdivision Committee. What we should talk about in terms of concern for traffic study, is that we are generating 5 left hand turns in the AM form Huntsville and 12 in the evening. I can't imagine why the turn lane would be required. The previous developer was proposing 200 lots without significant street improvements. The question is, how much per lot is typical for street improvements. Other developments are coming in in the hundreds of dollars per unit. Our projection is for $3000 per unit. The Links at Fayetteville had the most required improvements, and also the most development. Sub -division Committee was a recommendation, this is a determination, with planning staff recommending denial if the improvements aren't made. Huntsville is more than restriping, but rather adding width to the north side. This is the highest cost per unit required ever for a subdivision. The level of service is currently an Wand will remain an 'A' after this development. There is no justification for the added turn lane. It is not rational. We did not realize we needed to add further stub outs, we will look at that. There is flood plain to the east. Public Comment: Kate Conway, Neighbor: Have lived across the street for 37 years. We have concerns about traffic and safety, especially with 600-1200 people moving into the area. There will be no east access, every car will use 15th street and Huntsville. Adding a light at Huntsville and Morningside is very important. There will two streets that are already existing Fairlane and xx and if we could make those four way stops, it would help slow down traffic on Morningside. Bike trails: I like the idea of the park, and that it will be public and people can have access to. There is a lot of wildlife in that field, deer, rabbits, geese, and coyote. What happens to those animals? Are they relocated? What is normally done? Rodney Hicks, Neighbor: My biggest concern is for traffic on Morningside. It is already horrendous. The street cannot handle that traffic. Trees will need to be removed, and a traffic light definitely needs to be installed. Spent 5 minutes waiting at that intersection tonight. Traffic is my main concern. Ralph Nesson, Neighbor: Lived across the street for 37 years. We have known that the land would be developed. We hope that the traffic speed and safety will be taken into account. Speeding is a very serious issue on Morningside. We encourage you to make sure we get improvements and a traffic signal along with this development. The density concerns us, less than .23 acres per lot. This will create a large number of homes on a small area. Would like to see as many traffic safety measures as possible. There is a large amount of wildlife, we hope that preservation will take place. Chris McGill, Neighbor: Thanks to the Planning staff and to the Commission for their concern and looking out for neighbors. This is a big development, and I do appreciate you looking into it in such detail. There is only one chance to get it right. No more public comment was presented. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: How much are parks fees? Thompson: $269,560. Hoskins: parks fees, trail easement, and build the trail? As a developer, I am stunned by the amount of improvements required by staff. I don't see how they can make it work. Huntsville Road is a narrow road with steep ditch. Trees, telephone poles, will need to be removed. I am surprised that we are requiring a traffic signal. I think all three of us thought it was way too much. I can see the improvements on Morningside, without a doubt. Huntsville Road improvements are not warranted. I am amazed by the requirements. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Thanks to the public for the well -considered comments. I think it is important that we maintain and improve the walk ability of this part of town. Morningside: Traffic speeds are marked at 25 miles per hour now, people don't follow that. We need to balance capacity with traffic speed. These are independent of each other. Easiest thing to do is to add on -street parking. Is that being proposed? Andrew Garner, Planning Director: yes. On the east side of the street. Hoffman: Have concerns about traffic calming if we use the 30 foot section. Question to Fulcher: Excited by the number of alley loaded homes. Why can't we have it on the east side too? Would it be possible to get some alleys there? Fulcher: We are being squeezed out of space for more alleys. The small increments of space being removed for easement, street ROW, et c have resulted in small lots. Hoffman: We are asking a lot of these parcels. They will have lame backyards, with 24' wide auto storage at the front of 50 foot wide lots. It would be easier to understand backing off on some traffic related improvements if we are able to provide a more walkable development. I could forego traffic improvements if trail is provided. Alison Quinlan, Commissioner: I think you could provide more rear loaded lots. That could be to your benefit. I agree completely with you [Futcher] about no need to improve Huntsville Road. I do support a traffic signal. Why doesn't the developer get credit for parks fees and trail? Thompson: There is not parkland being dedicated. Garner: Actually there is parkland being dedicated. The parks fees numbers are estimates if no land is dedicated. Hoskins: Developers are still paying whether they are dedicating land or paying parks fees or building trail. The developer is paying. I would Ike to understand how creating more alleys reduces a need to street improvements. Quinlan: Alley loaded homes increase pedestrian traffic by creating traditional neighborhood developments. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: I love Disney World and go there often. I would love to live in utopia. Not many people can afford to go to Disney Land often. I don't want to compromise safety ever, while making it as beautiful as it can be without adding cost to the developer and be passed along to the buyer. Morningside improvements have to be done. Tom Brown, Commissioner: What street section is Huntsville Road? Garner: Collector. Brown: This property is unlike other recent subdivisions on the edge of town. It is really close to downtown. We need to do the improvements to Morningside. We do need a stoplight at Huntsville Road. We should not rip up recent improvements to improve Huntsville road. I like the phasing approach. I think that if we don't require the trail, we should still require the dedication of land so that the City does not have to acquire the ROW. Is it possible to move the street by the park to the west a few feet? And add more alleys for rear loaded homes? Quinlan: Are the proposed alleys required to be dedicated or could they be put into access easements? Garner: Either. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Do we have a plan for AHTD improvements? Thompson: Yes. Williams: Why should we approve a plat that may have 11 unbuildable lots? Does the street parallel to 15th street meet separation requirements? Garner: Meets street design standards. Williams: is it safe in your opinion? Garner: it meets development code. Williams: As to trail dedication, the Planning Commission cannot require dedication for trail. It is unconstitutional. Trails have been dedicated as a part of park land dedication. If the trail dedication is required, then we should give them credit towards the parks fees. As to the traffic signal: It is unlikely that it will be built and money will have to be returned. Quinlan: Project should be tabled. Fulcher: If the project is tabled, then we are likely to see the same recommendations from staff and same proposal from Rausch Coleman. I don't think that we have enough direction to be tabled. Garner: I'm not sure what tabling would accomplish. I think this is ready for a vote. Brown: If I get some feedback from the applicant that they will look at the additional alleys. Quinlan: There is a very wide discrepancy in what staff is recommending and what the subdivision committee recommended. Nearly $650,000 Difference. Garner: Discussed traffic safety, re -stating that Huntsville road improvements should be the very last to be removed to ensure that Huntsville Road remains safe. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Said that he had reviewed the traffic study, and noted that City Eng staff disagreed with the applicant's analysis. He said that the traffic consultant misread the report that they generated. He said that the warrants are in fact met on Huntsville road and the Huntsville/Morningside intersection. During peak hours, Huntsville has a vehicle every 4 seconds. Because of high volume, if the tables are read correctly, the turning lane is warranted. Intersection is the first priority for safety, and second the turn lane on Huntsville Road. Tom Hennelly, Applicant's Engineer: Discussed the traffic study, there is no way to read the table as indicated by the City. According to the traffic study and distribution model according to our consultant, the warrants are not met. Perhaps we could decide that we will make the improvements that are warranted. Hoskins: We were discussing rational nexus. We had decided that improvements were necessary to Morningside. Were you suggesting that improvements to Huntsville would be in lieu of improvements to Morningside? Williams: What I was saying was that there is a rough proportionality to improvements, and given that our planning director has said that the Huntsville improvements are the most important for safety, the PC will have to decide which improvement is more important. Mr. Peters has presented to us many times, and I have sometimes disagreed with his analysis. Planning Commission will have to determine what is most important for a traffic safety point of view, and will have to apply the appropriate amount of money to that improvement. Hoskins: I am leaning toward including the traffic signal assessment. Cook: I am going to retract my statement about tabling, and vote to table. Belden: We had discussed a three way stop at the intersection, and it works at Mission and Maple. The transportation division determines where stop signs go. Brown: The improvements to Morningside are critical to the developer and the image of the neighborhood they want to project. They won't just want a ditch in front of those homes, so they are going to do this improvement. Fulcher: On Huntsville, the improvements recommended on Huntsville are only for those turning into and out of our development. There are more turns at the intersection. This is where the traffic is. This should be a balance of safety and cost. The north side of Huntsville has open ditch. Expansion there will be expensive. We should provide turn lanes where they are needed. Motion #1: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to table PPL 16-5642 for two weeks. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-6-0. Motion #2: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve PPL 16-5642 with the following conditions: Street improvements -Improve Morningside Drive as recommended by staff. -No improvements to Huntsville Road except for a turn lane at the intersection of Morningside Drive. -Payment of assessment for proportional contribution to a traffic signal at Huntsville/Morningside with payment by project phase as recommended by staff. -No multi -use trail improvements are required to be constructed by the applicant. Dedication of land to the city for the planned multi -use trail internal to the site to be provided to the city in a fee simple transaction prior to final plat. Other Conditions of Approval: #1. Approve the block length variance between Fairlane and McClinton Streets and require an additional street stub -out to the east between Street `H' and Street 'B'. #2. Approve variances for all double frontage lots as requested by the applicant. #3. Recommend a combination of land dedication and money in lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements. This includes the acceptance of land dedicated for the multi -use trail corridor internal through the site to be deeded fee simple to the City as parkland. #. Including all other conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0. The following items have been approved administratively by staff: LSP 16-5585: Lot Split (S. OF 3870 BLACK OAK RD./GOFORTH, 762): Submitted by REID & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located S. OF 3870 BLACK OAK RD. The property is in the FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 31.26 acres. The request is to split the parcel into 3 lots containing approximately 3.18, 4.50, and 23.58 acres. 1. Reports: None 10 2. Announcements: None 3. Adjournment Time: 8:40 PM 4. Submitted by: City Planning Division 11