CITY OF SILOAM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION. (Special-Called) Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. City Administration Building 400 N.

Transcription

1 I. Planning Commission CITY OF SILOAM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION (Special-Called) Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. City Administration Building 400 N. Broadway AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting of July 10, 2018 D. Development Permit Approval 1. Significant Development Permit, SD revised 1000 and 1100 Block of S. Holly St. Owner: Bauman Crosno Construction Michael Crosno Agent: Bates & Associates Jason Young, PE To the Board on August 07, 2018 E. Adjourn the Planning Commission 1

2 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SILOAM SPRINGS, BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS HELD JULY 10, 2018 The Planning Commission of the City of Siloam Springs, Benton County, Arkansas, met in regular session at the City Administration Building on July 10, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nation. Roll Call: Song, Engle, Blakely, Nation, Mounger, Driscoll, Colvin All Present. City Clerk, Renea Ellis; City Planner, Ben Rhoads; City Engineer, Justin Bland; Fire Chief Jeremey Criner; and City Attorney, Jay Williams; also present. A copy of the June 12, 2018 minutes had previously been given to each Commissioner. A motion was made by Engle and seconded by Song to accept the minutes. Voice vote was called. Motion passed unanimously. Item D1. Lot Split Development Permit, LS18-03 / 2810 Cheri Whitlock Dr. Ben Rhoads briefed the item. A Motion was made by Blakely and seconded by Song to approve the item with the stated conditions. Motion passed unanimously. Item D2. Rezone Development Permit, RZ18-06 / Rezoning from to P-D / 626 N. College St. Ben Rhoads briefed the item. A motion was made by Engle and seconded by Driscoll to approve the item. Motion passed unanimously. Nation announced the matter would go before the Board of Directors on August 7 th. Item D3. Rezone Development Permit, RZ18-07 / Rezoning from to G-I / 850 S Wright St. Ben Rhoads briefed the item. A Motion was made by Blakely and seconded by Driscoll to approve the item with the stated conditions. Motion passed unanimously. Nation announced the matter would go before the Board of Directors on August 7 th. Item D4. Final Plat Development Permit, FP18-01 / 2200 to 2400 Block of Bridlecreek Rd. Ben Rhoads briefed the item in depth. A motion to approve the item was made by Blakely and seconded by Song, with the stated conditions. Colvin made a motion to amend the third condition to read: The street currently listed as Bridlecreek to be relabeled N. Carl within the City limits prior to Board of Director submittal. The motion was seconded by Mounger. Deborah Treguboff, 2406 Bridlecreek Road, said she would prefer the name of the street remain Bridlecreek. She did voice concern regarding delay in emergency services. Williams asked the Treguboff if she would be amiable to signing a petition to allow the street name change. Treguboff again stated she would prefer it to remain Bridlecreek as she felt it was more aesthetic than Carl, and there was a very nice plaque inset in the brickwork of her home with 2406 Bridlecreek on it as were the other homes in the addition. She said she would prefer not to have to tear up her brick work and replace the plaque. Jeremey Criner, Fire Chief, addressed the audience to expand on possible issues with emergency services, and the preference for emergency services would be to change the street name to N. Carl all the way to Lawlis Road. A vote was then taken on Colvin s motion. Motion passes 4 in favor; 3

3 against with Song, Engle and Nation voting no. A vote was then called on Blakely s original motion. Motion passed 4 in favor; 3 against, with Engle, Mounger and Colvin voting no. Item D5. Significant Development Permit, SD18-03 / 2300 Block of E. Tahlequah St. Ben Rhoads briefed the item. Williams then indicated the prior item needed to be revisited. He explained the amended motion had indeed passed and a re-vote would need to be held on the original motion as amended. A vote was then taken on the original motion, as amended. The motion failed 3 in favor and 4 against, with Song, Engle, Blakely and Nation voting no. Nation announced the matter would go before the Board of Directors on August 7 th with a recommendation for denial. Returning to Item D5. A motion was made by Blakely and seconded by Mounger. Motion passed unanimously. Nation announced the matter would go before the Board of Directors on August 7 th. Item D6. Significant Development Permit, SD18-04 / 1000 and 1100 Block of S. Holly St. Ben Rhoads briefed the item. Rhoads them asked the Commission to table the item to a Special-Called meeting on July 24, A Motion to table was made by Mounger and seconded by Engle. Motion passed unanimously. Nation announced the matter would go before the Board of Directors on August 7 th. Item E1. Lot Consolidation Permit, LC18-03 / 850 S. Wright St. Ben Rhoads briefed the item and announced this was a staff approved permit. Item F1. Right-of-Way Closure, ROW18-01 / 850 S. Wright St. Ben Rhoads briefed the item and announced this was a Board of Directors approval permit. There being no further business, a Motion was made by Song and seconded by Blakely to adjourn. A voice vote was taken. All ayes. Meeting Adjourned. ATTEST: APPROVED: Renea Ellis, City Clerk Judy Nation, Chairman {SEAL}

4 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission From: Ben Rhoads, AICP, Senior Planner Justin Bland, PE, City Engineer Cc: Don Clark, Community Development Director Date: July 12, 2018 Subject: Significant Development Permit, SD revised Recommendation: Motion to approve SD18-04 (Significant Development Permit), subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall file an easement dedication plat via separate instrument for the utility easements, drainage easements and cross access easements prior to issuance of building permit for the subject property. Background: APPLICATION REVIEW DATES Planning Commission review: July 10, 2018 (tabled) 2 nd Planning Commission review: July 24, 2018 Board of Directors review: August 7, 2018 APPLICANT AND AGENT Applicant/Owner: Bauman Crosno Construction Agent: Bates & Associates Jason Young, PE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESSES 1000 and 1100 block of S. Holly St. PROJECT INTENT The applicant requests to construct six 6,538 sq. ft. residential quad-plexes, and one 4,926 sq. ft. triplex, for a total of 27 dwelling units. This permit was tabled at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 10, INTERNET MAP INFORMATION Planning staff has created a map made with Google My Maps. Attribution: Map data 2018 Google Imagery 2018, Arkansas GIS, DigitalGlobe, Landsat, State of Arkansas, USDA Farm Service Agency Washington County. Please click on the following link to access. This link will only operate if reading this report digitally. 7/17/18 P.N , et. al, SD18-04

5 EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING* EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING Vacant District (Residential, multifamily) PROPOSED LAND USE PROPOSED ZONING Residential, multifamily N/A SURROUNDING LAND USE SURROUNDING ZONING North: Vacant / Drainage Structure North: District (Roadway Commercial) South: Vacant / Drainage Structure South: District (Residential, multifamily) East: Residential, single-family / Vacant lot East: District (Residential, medium) / District (Residential, multiple-family) West: Residential, two-family West: District (Residential, multifamily) * Using all lots as one combined unit. A lot consolidation is not required. PROJECT ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL CRITERIA The following criteria are shown to indicate if this proposal meets the minimum criteria for approval. Criteria I-II is a subsection of Sec of the Municipal Code; Criterion III is Sec ; Criterion IV is Sec ; Criterion V is Sec ; Criterion VI is Sec thru ; Criteria VII & VIII are not directly applicable to the Zoning Code; and Criterion IX is Sec I. ZONING USE UNIT CONSISTENCY (a) Purpose The district is established to protect the enjoyment, privacy, and value of medium-density, multifamily dwellings. (b) Planned uses This property will be used as multifamily residential. This proposed use best falls within Use Unit 5 (Multiple-family dwelling). Use Unit 5 is permitted in the proposed district. (c) Special uses This does not apply to this project, as the proposed use is a planned use. II. LOT STANDARDS CONSISTENCY The minimum zone standards are compared with the subject property s lot below: MINIMUM () ZONING REQUIREMENTS (d) lot dimensions (1)(b) 2,700 sq. ft. / dwelling, or 10,800 sq. ft.* SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPOSAL (all lots in Haden Place Addition) Lot 1: 15, sq. ft. Lot 2: 13, sq. ft. Lot 3: 14, sq. ft. Lot 4: 14, sq. ft. Lot 5: 14, sq. ft. Lot 6: 14, sq. ft. Lot 7: 14, sq. ft. (2) Lot Width: 70 ft. Lot 1: ft. Lot 2 thru Lot 6: 100 ft. 7/17/18 P.N , et. al, SD

6 (3) Maximum lot coverage: 60 percent Lot 1: 45.59% Lot 2: 55.77% Lot 3: 58.12% Lot 4: 58.16% Lot 5: 57.93% Lot 6: 58.08% Lot 7: 57.54% (e) Building limits Front: Lots 1-7: ft. (1)(a) Front: 30 feet (b) Side: 10 feet Side: Lot 1-7: 10.4 ft. and greater (c) Side on Corner: 25 feet Side on Corner: Lot 1: 41.7 ft. (d) Rear: 20 feet Rear: Lots 1-7: ft. (2) Height Limit: 30 feet maximum Lots 1-7: ft. (3) Maximum Floor to Area Ratio: Lot 1: 31.97% Maximum 0.5 (50%) Lot 2: 46.93% Lot 3: 46.76% Lot 4: 46.56% Lot 5: 46.37% Lot 6: 46.17% Lot 7: 46.03% (4) Density: 16 dwelling units / acre. Lot 1: 3.0 units (Lot 1-7) Range of 5.13 to 5.62 units (f) Open Space (1) Landscape buffer not less than ten feet wide along property lines and a 6 ft. opaque screen (2) Minimum percent of open space: 40% 10% must be visible from front or sides of the lot from addressing right-of-way Lots 2-6: 4.0 units Lots 1-7:** North: 10 ft. and greater South: 10 ft. and greater East: 60 ft. West: 20 ft. Lot 1: 54.41% Lot 2: 44.23% Lot 3: 41.88% Lot 4: 41.84% Lot 5: 42.07% Lot 6: 41.92% Lot 7: 42.46% Over 20% is visible from S. Holly St. * Assume 4 dwellings per lot, except Lot 1, based on the proposal. ** Does not include the interconnected drives between lots, as these will be acquired through a cross access easement. 7/17/18 P.N , et. al, SD

7 III. PARKING SPACE DESIGN CONSISTENCY PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPOSAL (1) At least 9 ft. wide x 18 ft. long Spaces comply. (2) Graded for effective drainage Spaces comply. (3) Surfaced with asphalt or concrete Concrete (4) Sited to not block emergency Parking complies per FD review. vehicle access (5) Minimum parking lane width: 20ft. 20 ft. (6) Curbed if 8 feet from sidewalk N/A (7) Lot striping Spaces are striped IV. PARKING STANDARDS CONSISTENCY According to Municipal Code Sec (a)(2)(a), parking is calculated by the number of proposed dwelling units. The formula is 2 spaces for every dwelling unit. USE Multi-family dwelling REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PARKING NET PROPOSED PARKING* ** +21** * Includes ADA accessible spaces. ** Each unit has an enclosed one-car garage with a parking space in front. V. PARKING AREA DESIGN STANDARDS CONSISTENCY PARKING SURPLUS/ DEFICIT CONDITION FOR NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES (1) 5 or more spaces: shall be continuous lit at night. (2) 8 or more spaces: adequate turn around. (3) 10 or more: shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. (4) 12 or more: Shall be landscaped with 5% green space. (5) No parking allowed along easements, except as specifically shown SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPOSAL Spaces to be lit by wall lighting, to be confirmed on architectural plans. The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and determined that is allows for adequate vehicular turn around on all proposed parking areas. All parking areas will be paved. N/A The parking area encroachment into easements is typical and has been approved by all public and private utilities. 7/17/18 P.N , et. al, SD

8 VI. DRIVEWAY DESIGN STANDARDS CONSISTENCY MINIMUM DRIVEWAY STANDARDS SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (all lots are in the Haden Place Addition) (1) Surface Surface must be paved with asphalt, concrete or paver stones (2) Width 1. Width shall not exceed 40 ft. 2. Width shall not be less than 12 ft. (3) Curbs, lane markings. Curbing and markings shall effectively delineate traffic lanes. (4) Interior drive setbacks. No driveway which serves more than 40 spaces, and connects with a public street, shall itself be intersected by an interior driveway or parking land within 75 ft. of the roadway surface. Minimum Drive intersection with the street.* (2) Collector streets: a. 75 ft. from the center line of any other driveway b. 75 feet from the boundary of the of an intersection street s right-of-way. c. 25 feet from all boundaries of the lot. (b) Number (1) Minimum number: One (2) Maximum number: One per 150 ft. (c) Location Driveway location: Not over easements; must align with facing driveways (d) Angle: Right angle (90 degrees) (e) Grade: Must not exceed 5% grade. All driveways will be paved with concrete paving. Lot 1: 20 ft. Lots 2-3: 20 ft. (shared access) Lots 4-5: 20 ft. (shared access) Lots 6-7: 20 ft. (shared access) All drives and parking areas have curbs and appropriate lane markings. N/A. This regulation does not apply to any residential use. Lot 1: a. n/a; b. 64 feet*; c. 47 feet Lots 2-3: a. 200 ft; b. 200 feet; c. n/a (shared access drive between 2 lots) Lots 4-5: a. 200 ft; b. 400 feet; c. n/a (shared access drive between 2 lots) Lots 6-7: a. 200 ft; b. 500 feet; c. n/a (shared access drive between 2 lots) All proposed driveways meet or exceed these requirements. * The zoning Code states in Sec (b)(1) that each property platting and permitted lot may contain one drive accessing a public street. Driveway intersection which cannot meet the spacing standards shall be located where most nearly consistent with the spacing requirements. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY The 2030 future land use map describes this area as medium density residential. The proposed use is not consistent with the 2030 Land Use Map, however the current zoning holds precedence over the Future Land Use Map. See explanation in the attached staff discussion section of the Planning Commission staff report. 7/17/18 P.N , et. al, SD

9 VIII. IX. STAFF TECHNICAL REVIEW City staff met to review the project. The proposal meets or exceeds all City standards and all technical comments have been addressed by the applicant. LAND USE CODE REQUIREMENTS According to the Land Use Code, a significant development permit shall only be authorized when the applicant has convincingly demonstrated that the proposed significant project: (1) Will not interfere with other owners reasonable peace and enjoyment of their neighboring properties: The applicant s proposal is a multi-family structure. Staff is aware of no evidence that the proposed development will cause a consistent disturbance to the peace and enjoyment of the neighboring properties. Enforcement of the City Code s nuisance chapter will ensure that excessive noise, or unsightly debris, etc. is mitigated. These rules ensure that the proposal will not inherently decrease the quality of life standards already in place across the City. (2) Will not substantially damage, without fair recompense, any property value in the neighborhood: There are numerous cases where multi-family dwellings co-exist with dwelling types of a lower density, not impacting their property values. The key determining factor is not the housing density, but rather how well the structure is kept and the rent price points. The applicant s design and testimony appear to indicate that these units will be kept to a level to enhance the overall aesthetics of the area and will not overtly negatively impact the property values once it is established, landscaping installed, etc. To staff s knowledge, the dwelling units will not be rent subsidized and will be let at market rates. (3) Will not, whether by the nature of the use, or by the siting, height, or design of structures or landscaping, tend to burden the present or future use of neighboring properties in accordance with current zoning standards: There is no evidence that the proposal will cause any substantial burden to the present uses around the area. Traffic and noise will probably increase, but these factors are common to all new development. The question is, will the proposal damage these qualities to a degree to be considered a substantial burden. If traffic is not exceeding posted speed limits, the addition of new vehicles will not increase the safety risk. (4) Is adequately supported by infrastructure, including without limitation, water and sewage systems, streets, and drainage: Water System A 6 water line runs along the front of each lot on the west side of S. Holly St. Staff finds this existing infrastructure to be adequate for fire and domestic water needs. Sanitary Sewer System A 8 sewer line that runs north/south to the rear of the subject. Staff finds this existing infrastructure to be adequate for the proposed development. Storm Sewer System There is an existing detention basin south of Lot 7 that is designed to handle all storm water run-off of in the Haden Place Addition, which includes the lots of the subject property. 7/17/18 P.N , et. al, SD

10 Traffic Capacity The proposed development will increase traffic in the area. The Institute of Transportation Engineer s Trip Generation Manual was utilized to calculate the volume and rate of traffic increase for the site. Per this manual, each of the 28 townhouses will create an additional 5.86 trips for a total of 164 additional trip ends per day. However, this is within the bounds of traffic increase for when this subdivision and zoning was previously approved. Since then Holly St. has been widened to Hwy. 412 and the city is currently improving Kenwood St. in the vicinity of the development. (5) Is consistent with sound planning of the city s growth in terms of health, safety, and convenience within the neighborhood and affected vicinity: There is nothing in the proposal which would indicate unsound city planning. The multi-family expansion is consistent with the existing zoning. (6) Promotes economic conditions or public welfare within the city. The new housing allows for more people to live in the City, this will in turn lead to higher sales tax collected and less long-distance commutation for jobs located inside the City. The proposed land use will increase property taxes on the subject property. UPDATED STAFF DISCUSSION Due to the failure of the applicant in obtaining the requested side on corner setback variance for Lot 1, the applicant has responded by removing the northern-most dwelling unit on the quad-plex; converting this structure into a tri-plex. With the removal of the dwelling unit, the building is narrow enough to easily be within its building envelope. The zoning does not inhibit lowering the housing density to a tri-plex. Staff reviewed the revised proposal and finds no technical issues with the request beyond what is already noted in this staff report. ORIGINAL STAFF DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting approval to construct seven 3,570 sq. ft. residential quad-plexes, for a total of 28 dwelling units. The structures will be a total of 2 and a half stories, fronting onto S. Holly St. Even though this activity is occurring on 7 different lots within the Haden Place Addition, a significant development permit is required because each lot will contain a quad-plex, one building with four independent dwelling units. Unlike an apartment complex, each unit will be accessible through the ground floor and will contain its own garage. In this respect, the development will visually tie in with the built context of the area, particularly to the west where all the lots are used for two-family housing. See the attached building rendering for more on the appearance. Because the proposal faces onto S. Holly St., which is a collector street, the driveway spacing must be limited to improve access management onto S. Holly. Therefore, apart from Lot 1, every lot is making use of a shared access drive, where the driveway straddles the lot line. This configuration has been employed on collector and arterial streets to limit the number of new driveway connections. A condition is needed for the shown cross access easements between the lots, this is needed to allow for fewer drive connections onto S. Holly St. 7/17/18 P.N , et. al, SD

11 On Lot 1, the lot is not wide enough, even though it is wider than the other lots, to accommodate the same type of quad-plex structure uses for lots, therefore the applicant is requesting a setback variance for this lot. For more information on the variance, consult staff report BOA These easements are required prior to construction. Parking is in surplus, as shown in the Parking Standards Consistency Table, this is achieved by demarking additional spaces intended for visitors on each lot. Apart from the variance request, the proposal meets all City standards. LEGAL NOTICE The site was posted: June 04, Newspaper legal notification: June 20, 2018 (Herald-Leader). Letter legal notification: June 20, Staff received one phone call of a questioning nature and no correspondence on the request. Fiscal Impact: Street fees are not applicable for this request due to the street already being improved when the subdivision addition was constructed. Attachments: Site Specific Proposal Plan Aerial Overlay Drone View General Area Map 7/17/18 P.N , et. al, SD

12 SD18-04 (Holly Townhomes) 4th Submittal

13

14

15

16

17 SD18 04 Bauman Crosno Const. Plan Overlay North

18 SD18 04 Bauman Crosno Const. Drone View

19 GENERAL AREA MAP R2R-3 R-3 C-1A R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3R-3 ROW R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 M-H R-3 R-3 M- HWY 412 W ROW C- WAL-MART C MARKET R- Subject Property R- R- R- R R-3 R-3 R R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 R R-3 ROW R-3 R-3 R R-3 R-3 R-3 2 W KENWOOD ST Miles S. Holly St. Significant Development Permit SD18-04 W. Tulsa St. S STATE LINE RD N DOGWOOD ST N CARL ST S CARL ST S ELM ST S MT OLIVE ST DAWN N HICO S E MAIN ST S LINCOLN ST N LINCOLN W TU SILOAM SPRIN 412 HWY 16 STEPHE E HW KEC «16 3 Miles AYNE TRL S HICO ST E TAHLEQUAH ST COUNTRY LN