HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4431 ORDINANCE NO, 4431
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF FAYETTEVILLE,
TO PROVIDE A DATE CERTAIN FOR THE EXPIRATION OF
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PERMITS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS :
Section 1 . That Chapter 166, Development of the Unified Development
Ordinance, Code of Fayetteville, is hereby amended by inserting the following:
§166.18 EXPIRATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS.
All approved large scale developments, planned unit developments, conditional uses, and
lot splits approved prior to July 1 , 2002, which have not received all required permits to
begin construction, have not begun construction, have not been established, or in the case
of lot splits, have not been recorded within twelve (12) months from the date of the
passage of this ordinance, shall be required to comply with all current ordinances. The
City Planner is authorized to approve minor plat modifications and/or design changes
necessitated by compliance with this section.
§166.19 EXPIRATION OF APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS.
A. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply to all of the following plans
and permits:
1 . Preliminary plats;
2. Planned unit developments;
3. Conditional uses;
4. Large-scale developments;
5. Lot splits;
6. Physical alteration of land permits;
7. Stone water, drainage, and erosion control permits;
8. Tree preservation plans;
9. Sign permits; and,
10. Floodplain development permits.
B. One-year Time Limit.
1 . All of the above-enumerated plans and permits are conditioned upon the
applicant accomplishing the following tasks within one (1 ) year from the date of
approval:
a. For any renovation or new construction, receive a Building Permit; and/or,
b. For a lot split, record a deed or survey at the Washington County Circuit
Clerk's Office, stamped for recordation by the City Planning Division; and/or,
c. Receive a Certificate of Zoning Compliance; and/or,
d. Receive all permits and approvals required by City, State, and Federal
regulations to start construction of the development or project.
2. Prior to the expiration of the one (1 ) year time limit, an applicant may
request the Planning Commission to extend the period to accomplish the tasks by up to
one ( 1 ) additional year. The applicant has the burden to show good cause why the tasks
could not reasonably be completed within the normal one ( 1 ) year limit.
3. If the required task(s) are not completed within one ( 1 ) year from the date
of approval or during an allowed extension period, all of the above-enumerated plans and
permits shall be rendered null and void.
C. Three-year Time Limit.
1 . All of the above-enumerated plans and permits are also conditioned upon
the applicant completing the project and receiving final inspection approval and/or a final
Certificate of Occupancy permit within three (3) years from the date of issuance of a
Building Permit.
2. Prior to the expiration of the three (3) year time limit, an applicant may
request the Planning Commission to extend the three (3) year period to complete the
project by up to two (2) additional years. The applicant has the burden to show good
cause why the project could not reasonably be completed within the three (3) year time
limit.
3. If the applicant fails to meet the requirements of subsection C.1 . within
three (3) years from the date of issuance of a Building Permit or during an allowed
extension period, all of the above-enumerated plans and permits shall be rendered null
and void.
Section 2. That §163.02, Authority; Conditions; Procedures, of the Unified
Development Ordinance, Code of Fayetteville, is hereby amended by inserting the
following:
E. Expiration if Discontinued. All existing conditional uses that are discontinued
for more than one ( 1 ) year shall be rendered null and void, and shall not be reestablished
without Planning Commission approval of a new conditional use permit.
PASSED and APPROVED this 5`s day of November, 2002.
APPROVED:
By: 4 ILAzee�
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
lire
ATHER WOODRUF Xity Clerk
s • fAYEI�t
1 ,,
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4431
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date Document
1 11 /05/02 Ordinance # 4431
2 09/24/02 Staff Review Form
3 10/23/02 Memo from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk to Tim Conklin,
Planning
NOTES :
• STAFF REVIEW FORM
_X_ AGENDA REQUEST
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW
FOR: COUNCIL MEETING OF October 15, 2002 MAYOR'S APPROVAL
FROM:
Tim Conklin Planning Division
Name Division Department _
ACTION REQUIRED An Ordinance Amending Title XV: Unified Development Ordinance of
the Code of Fayetteville, to Provide a Date Certain For the Expiration of Approved
Development Plans and Permits
COST TO CITY:
Cost of this Request Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program Name
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund
BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget Coordinator Administrative services Director
CONTRACT(GRANT(LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
Acco rtin Manag Date Internal Auditor Date
r^ g - ZH - a -s
CityRkt ey I Date ADA Coordinator Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
v2 _ CROSS REFERENCE
Division Head Date
New Item: Yes No
Department Director Date
Previous Ordinance/Resolution No.:
Ie ative ces Di for Dat
Mayor Date
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF FAYETTEVILLE,
TO PROVIDE A DATE CERTAIN FOR THE EXPIRATION OF
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PERMITS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OViTCIT ` OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 . That Chapter 166, Develo ment ofceruinifi d Development
Ordinance, Code of Fayetteville, is hereby amen6e by inserting heofoll wing: I f
§166.18 EXPIRATION O&PRE'VIOUSLY PP OVED P ANS AND PE S.
All approved large scale-dee aelopme , ts, planne unit evelopments, conditions ses, and
lot splits approved prior toJuly 1�, 02, while have n t recerveb all required permits to
begin construction, have not beg construcii , halve nt been established, or in the case
of lot ppiils have` not beeh�reec1 1 \ rded within
twelve)
,)7 m nths from the date of the
passage of this ordinance, hall be requireiJ to comply with all current ordinances. The
City, Panner is authorized to approve miino plat modifications and/or design changes
necessitated by coli nce 'th tliiss Win.
§166.1 EXP TIONaO APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS.
A. AD fica bility. The provisions of this section apply to all of the following plans
andypermrts:
1 . Preliminary plats;
2. Planned unit developments;
3. Conditional uses;
4. Large-scale developments;
5. Lot splits;
6. Physical alteration of land permits;
7. Storm water, drainage, and erosion control permits;
8. Tree preservation plans;
9. Sign permits; and,
10. Floodplain development permits.
B. One-year Time Limit.
1 . All of the above-enumerated plans and permits are conditioned upon the
applicant accomplishing the following tasks within one ( 1 ) year from the date of
approval: '
a. For any renovation or new construction, receive a Building Permrtl ; and/or,
b. For a lot split, record a deed or survey at theoWringt(Jnounty C ircuit
Clerk's Office, stamped for recordation by the City Planning Divas and/or,
c. Receive a Certificate of ZoningC m Bance; and/ ,
d. Receive all �P er'rmmits d appy 5 alss re uired by ity, State, an Federal
regulations to start conArrulion of'�tfflle development or; oject.
i
rPrni or to the exp�ticn of thone (I ye ime limit, an applicant may
requestnning Co i�sio to exten the per to accomplish the tasks by up to
one (1 ) additional year. ITHe applicant has burden to show good cause why the tasks
could not reasonably be +orppleted\1;0hin the normal one ( 1 ) year limit.
3. IVe regui lretasks) are not completed within one ( 1 ) year from the date
of approval orr.�daring an allowed extension period, all of the above-enumerated plans and
permits-shy 5e rendered null and void.
C. Three-year Time Limit.
1 . All of the above-enumerated plans and permits are also conditioned upon
the applicant completing the project and receiving final inspection approval and a final
Certificate of Occupancy permit within three (3) years from the date of issuance of a
Building Permit.
2. Prior to the expiration of the three (3) year time limit, an applicant may
request the Planning Commission to extend the three (3) year period to complete the
project by up to two (2) additional years. The applicant has the burden to show good
cause why the project could not reasonably be completed within the three (3) year time
limit.
3. If the applicant fails to meet the requirements of subsection C.1 . within
three (3) years from the date of issuance of a Building Permit or during an allowed
extension period, all of the above-enumerated plans and permits shall be rendered null
and void.
Section 2. That §163.02, Authority; Conditions; Procedures, of the Unified
Development Ordinance, Code of Fayetteville, is hereby amended by inserting the
following:
E. Expiration if Discontinued. All existing conditional uses that are discontinued
for more than one ( 1 ) year shall be rendered null and void, and shall not be reestablig � d
without Planning Commission approval of a new conditional use permit.
I
PASSED and APPROVED this day of / 2002 .
APPROVED-
By:
PPROVED:By
Al OODY, Iv�ayor
ATTEST \
By:. , 1 OX
- H THER W ; ODR FF, Gity Clerk
I
i
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Dan Coody
THROUGH: Hugh Earnest, Urban Development Director
FROM : Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: September 27, 2002
ADM 02-29.00: Administrative Item (Large Scale Development Ordinance/Expiration) To amend
the Unified Development Ordinance to require all approved undeveloped or discontinued large scale
developments, planned unit developments, conditional uses, and lot splits that have not received all
required permits to begin construction, have not begun construction, have not been established, or recorded
to meet all current Unified Development Ordinances.
To amend the Unified Development Ordinance to set time limits for application/plan/project approvals
by staff, Planning Commission, and City Council.
BACKGROUND
Staff has brought forward these amendments to the UDO in order to address the issues of `old" large
scale developments and other approvals and permits that do not meet current ordinances and standards,
developments that are occurring on "paper subdivisions" without public hearings or notice, and have
no existing time limits for current and future approvals.
The staff and the Planning Commission has dealt with all of these issues over the past few years and
the public and elected officials have expressed concern regarding several developments, approvals, and
permits that do not meet current ordinances or ever expire.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments.
H:I USERSICOAfAfONIPLANN/NGIREPOR7SIPCREPOR7S2002LSEPTEMBERI9-9U SDAND EXP/RAT/ONOF PERMJ7S ADM02-29.DOC
Planning Commission• • • •
September 9, 2002
Page 25
ADM 02-29.00: Administrative Item (Large Scale Development Ordinance/Expiration)
To amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require the development of any lot(s) in a
previously approved and recorded subdivision, where required infrastructure such as sewer,
sidewalks, streets, street lighting, or water is lacking or incomplete, .or in the judgment of the
City Planner is otherwise inadequate to serve the proposed development, shall be processed in
accordance with the requirements for a large-scale development, regardless of the size or
number of lots.
Hoffman: Our next item on the agenda is ADM 02-29.00, which is another administrative
item for Large Scale Development Ordinances and Expiration dates. This item
is to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require the development of
any lots in a previously approved and recorded subdivision where required
infrastructure such as sewer, sidewalks, streets, street lighting or water is
lacking or incomplete or in the judgment of the City Planner is otherwise
inadequate to serve the proposed development shall be processed in accordance
with the requirements for a Large Scale Development regardless of the size or
the number of lots. Secondly, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to
require all approved undeveloped or discontinued Large Scale Developments,
Planned Unit Developments, Conditional Uses and Lot Splits that have not
received all required permits to begin construction, have not begun construction,
have not been established or recorded to meet all current Unified Development
Ordinances. Then thirdly, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to set
time limits for application, plan, and project approvals by staff, Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Conklin: Madam Chair and members of the Commission I would like for you to review
this ordinance this evening however I would like to bring back to the next
Commission a final version of the ordinance and there may be some people here
tonight that would like to also offer comments but I think it would be valuable
for staff to hear- from the Commissioners if we need to make any changes. The
City Attorney and I can get together and we can produce a final draft. Basically
we are trying to bring forward an ordinance that would amend our Large Scale
Development requirement and place that Large Scale Development requirement
for development that is occurring within or adjacent to what is called like a
paper subdivision where the infrastructure has not been placed or installed.
Also, within this ordinance we are trying to establish an expiration of a
previously approved plan or permit. We currently have Large Scale
Developments that have been approved by the Commission in the early 90' s,
maybe even in the 80's that are existing that currently do not meet our current
standards for tree preservation, commercial design standards, parking lot
landscaping. This ordinance revision would require that they either build their
development within 90 days from the date of passage of the ordinance or they
be required to meet all current city ordinances. I have been fairly successful in
getting these developments to meet our current ordinances, especially with
commercial design standards. There were some metal buildings that were
Planning Commission• • • •
September 9, 2002
Page 26
approved a while back prior to our commercial design standards. You have
some very prominent visible intersections in Fayetteville. However, it would be
helpful to have this ordinance in place so I don't have to sit there and ask them
to voluntarily comply with these standards. We have a commercial
development on Hwy. 265 and Huntsville Road, right behind the gas station, a
commercial shopping center that currently doesn't have landscaping within the
parking lot. Also the back of the building will be visible from the back of the
street. I am working with them to try to get into compliance as much as
possible. There was no expiration. The commercial development at Rupple
Road and Wedington Drive that went in, several of you asked about when we
approved this. Well it was approved many, many years ago prior to probably
anyone on this Commission. Once again, staff had to work with them to at least
bring it up as close to compliance with our current standards. That is the second
part of the ordinance. The third part is to make sure any future approvals for the
different things that the City of Fayetteville approves has an expiration date on
them and we have a one year time limit and we have conditions for the projects
once they are approved to begin construction or renovation, receive their
Certificate of Zoning Compliance, record the lot split deed and file it over at the
County, receive all the permits from the city, state, and federal regulations.
Basically once we approve a project we want to make sure that that project is
going to be built and it is going to be built within a time frame. After the
permits are issued I also proposed a three year time limit. If you get your permit
and you are under construction that within three years you need to complete
construction. I have some projects out there that are many, many years old that
have not completed construction. Certain things they have not complied with, it
is more of an enforcement issue. I want it in writing in the Unified
Development Ordinance to state that all your approvals will be voided if you
don't start your project and complete it. I am not going to name the project but
just a couple of Planning Commission meetings ago after Planning Commission
approved the project I met with the developer and at that time we talked about
meeting the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission. They talked
about years, taking years to meet these conditions. That concerned me when we
talked about screening, commercial design standards, landscaping. They were
talking about doing this piece meal. I think it is very hard to keep up with as
staff and we just need to clarify that in the ordinance. Those are the three major
changes that are proposed with regard to Large Scale Development. Requiring
that all previously approved development after 90 days will meet all of our
current ordinances and setting up a three year time limit. Thank you.
Williams: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to tell you that one reason we did not want you
to go forward tonight is .that there were some suggestions made at your
Thursday evening agenda session. We have not been able to get all that down
in black and white. We are pretty close and will be getting you what we believe
are more finished ordinances so don't waste too much time studying the ones
you have in your packet now because we are going to incorporate the
Planning Commission• . • 6
September 9, 2002
Page 27
suggestions that the Planning Commission made at it's agenda session and we
will be getting you new clean copies of ordinances which I think are slightly
improved from your suggestions.
Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there any member of the public that would like to
address us on these proposed ordinances? Seeing no one, I will bring it back to
the Commission for discussion and motions.
Bunch: Just a quick question for Kit and for Tim also I guess, in those revisions that you
are contemplating do they include some system of extensions and also to
accommodate phased jobs?
Williams: I have drafted some language concerning the extensions. I haven't drafted
anything specifically about phased jobs. Both of the extensions would have to
come before the Planning Commission and the developer would have to show
good cause why they could not complete the tasks within the time period
originally allowed. It would be their burden and they would have to appear
before the Planning Commission prior to their time period expiring and then the
Planning Commission would have the power to grant an additional year in the
first one and I tentatively have put an additional two years on the completion of
the project. If you think that we need something else in a phased project then I
welcome any sort of language that might incorporate that idea. I have not
included anything in relation to a phased project.
Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Williams.
Shackelford: I was also someone who brought up a couple of points in the agenda session that
I want to go ahead and get on record. The points that I made Thursday were
that as this proposed ordinance is currently written that regardless of the size of
the development or the lot in which this development is on something as minor
as an incomplete sidewalk or a missing street light could force a project through
the Large Scale Development process. My concern was that you have a small
business owner, and we have seen several of these in my time on the Planning
Commission, a very small building on a lot that he or she may own that this
could be very cost prohibitive for that developer to the tune of 15, 20 or 30%
additional cost just for the process to go through Large Scale Development. I
would ask that the City Planner be given a broader discretion in the enforcement
of this ordinance or some other situation which we can address.
Williams: I have some proposed language and I am going to get with our City Planner that
should take care of that situation I hope. Tim has been understaffed and with
the lateness of the suggestions we just weren't able to get everything together
for tonight.
Shackelford: I understand, I just wanted to get that on public record.
Planning Commission•. •
September 9, 2002
Page 28
Motion:
Estes: In accordance with our City Planner, Mr. Conklin's request and in conformity
with our City Attorney, Mr. Williams comments, I move that we table ADM 02-
29.00.
Hoffman: There is a motion by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second?
Shackelford: I will second it.
Hoffman: A second by Commissioner Shackelford. I would like to add a comment that I
agree about the smaller projects, I would like to see specific exemptions for
smaller projects but don't necessarily exempt them from our ordinances. They
will still have to comply with parking lot, commercial design standards and so
forth but to avoid a public hearing is sometimes a big thing for a smaller project,
small additions, utility line extensions and things like that. Can we add those to
the wish list?
Conklin: I certainly can work with our City Attorney. What I am trying to do here is
address a problem also where I have had developers request property line
adjustments to create .9999 acres to avoid any site plan review process by the
Planning Commission. I will definitely work on that. What I want to make
sure, and you as a Planning Commission can help me, is that we don't create an
exemption where I have the developers back in my office asking to create
parcels that meet the exemption and that is the only difficult part of that
ordinance.
Hoffman: I think that can be made fairly restrictive that would discourage that practice.
Conklin: I agree with Loren Shackelford with regard to a single-family home but I think
we need to come up with some language, especially when you own more than
one lot that is contiguous to each other, I think we need to be careful because we
have areas where you can't even get a fire truck down a street and turn around
and even on a single-family home that concerns me putting one more home
down that street but we will come up with something for our next meeting.
Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Is there any further discussion?
Allen: I just
wanted
to comment that I see that it
needs some tweaking but I think the
basic
premise
of this ordinance is excellent.
Hoffman: Thank you. Renee, would you call the roll please?
Planning Commission• • • •
September 9, 2002
Page 29
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 02-29.00 was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Hoffman: Thank you. The motion to table carries unanimously.
Planni•ng Commission • •
September 23, 2002
Page 2
Aviles: I would like to welcome everybody to the Monday, September 23rd meeting of
the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven Commissioners present with
Commissioners Shackelford and Hoover being absent.
Aviles: We have seven Commissioners present tonight. Thank you Renee. The next
item will be the approval of the minutes from the September 9`h meeting. Do I
have a motion for that?
Motion:
Allen: I move for approval of the minutes.
Ward: Second.
Aviles: I have a
motion
and a
second
for
the
approval of the minutes from the last
meeting.
Renee,
would
you call
the
roll
please?
Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes was approved
by a vote of 7-0-0.
Aviles: Thanks Renee. We have four items on the agenda tonight. The first item is
really number four, it is old business, it is ADM 02-29.00, which is an
administrative item to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to require the
development of any lots in a previously approved and recorded subdivision
where required infrastructure such as sewer, sidewalks, streets, street lighting,
or water is lacking or incomplete or in the judgment of the City Planner is
otherwise inadequate to serve the proposed development shall be processed in
accordance with requirements for a Large Scale Development regardless of the
size or number of lots. Also, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to
require all approved undeveloped or discontinued Large Scale Developments,
Planned Unit Developments, Conditional Uses, and Lot Splits that have not
received all required permits to begin construction, have not begun construction,
have not been established or recorded to meet all current Unified Development
Ordinances and thirdly, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to set
time limits for application, plan and project approvals by staff, Planning
Commission and City Council. Tim, would you like to bring us to speed on this
one?
Conklin: Sure. The ordinance that we are considering tonight is the expiration of
previously approved plans and permits and then setting time limits for our
different types of applications. Then setting a time limit for the expiration of
the permit if they start construction and then they expire or they start but don't
finish their project within a three year time period. Basically, after this
Planning Commission • •
September 23, 2002
Page 3
ordinance is passed by the City Council they will have 90 days to use their
current permits that have been issued by the City of Fayetteville Planning
Commission and go ahead and construct their project. We have some projects
out in the community that have been approved as far back as nine or ten years
ago that don't comply with our Commercial Design Standards or Landscaping.
Standards in parking lots. Basically, if they want those project approvals to
stand they need to go ahead and get their projects underway. After 90 days they
need to meet our current city ordinances. That is the first part and then it sets up
a one year time limit with conditions for approvals. Once the Planning
Commission approves a project or staff, that any building permits for a
renovation or new construction that has a one year time limit. For a lot split that
has a one year time limit. They need to go ahead and meet the conditions of
approval for the lot split and go get that filed. We have a situation, I just had
one last week where a lot split was approved a couple of years ago. The sewer
line was not extended. There was a private line crossing the property line issue
with the buyer and the person that split the property. We have these things that
are just sitting out there that if you are going to go ahead and get approval you
need to at least get your infrastructure complete within that year. They need to
receive a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Those are issued at the time of
building to permit and make sure the use is allowed and receive all permits and
approvals required by the city, state, and federal regulations to start the
construction. If the applicant has a good cause of why he can't achieve those
conditions he can come back to the Planning Commission to request a one year
time extension for the approval. That is part of the ordinance also. Basically,
we are just trying to set up a time limit that once you get approval, go ahead and
get your permits in hand, and start construction of your project. You may see in
the future if this ordinance is passed, that applicants would come back before
you asking for an additional one year time extension. Then, basically Part C of
the ordinance is a three year time limit. Once you start your project you have
three years to complete it. We also added in the Conditional Use section that all
the previously approved Conditional Uses that are currently out there in our
community, if they are discontinued for more than one year that they become
void and they would have to reapply for a Conditional Use. Currently, we issue
Conditional Uses and there are Conditional Uses out there that don't have the
one year time limit that five years ago there was a child care facility established
and they came into our office and there was a Conditional Use that was
approved by the Planning Commission we would have to allow them to go
ahead and reestablish that childcare without this ordinance. We are trying to
clean up those also. That is all I have on this ordinance. If you have any
questions I would be more than happy to answer them.
Bunch: Tim, a question on the timing on page 4.3 in paragraph 166.18 where it says
approved prior to July 1 . Do we not have quite a number of projects out that
have a one year time limit on it and it would not take away that one year time
limit from those and establish a 90 day time limit?
Planning Commission •
September 23, 2002
Page 4
Conklin: I think I understand your question. By passing this ordinance with that time
limit would that give them 90 days to complete.
Bunch: Right. Some that already have a one year sunset clause and if I understand
properly the purpose of this is to bring in those that have no time limit on them.
What affect would this particular language have on projects that have come
through currently, meet our current conditions and have a one year time limit
but predated July 1, 2002?
Conklin: That is a good
question. The
intent of the
ordinance is any
projects approved
recently
should
have a year to
go ahead and
get their permits in
hand.
Williams: The 90 days was added to actually give anyone that had a very old permit 90
days from the passage of this ordinance by the City Council to go ahead and go
forward with their project so they are not bound by this one year limitation
which they will be if they don't begin their project. I can get with Tim and as it
goes up the line to the City Council we will look at trying to clear that wording
up to make sure that we are not restricting anyone to less than one year, which is
what this provides.
Bunch: We have people that have recently gone through the process that have done
everything that they should and there is no sense in penalizing them because of
other conditions.
Williams: That is not the intent of that. We will look at that language again and make it
clear exactly what it is we are trying to get to with that. The 90 days was simply
a window that was being provided to anyone, even if they have a very, very old
project, to go forward so that they don't have to comply with this particular
ordinance. They can go ahead and begin their project even if their permits are
very, very old.
Bunch: I understand the 90 day deal but my question is is the 90 days in conjunction
with July 1, 2002?
Conklin: We can take a look at that. Once again, I want to make sure that I can work
with the City Attorney and have some language in there that the intent is to not
penalize anybody that has an approval less than a year, take that away from
them. Whatever language we can put in there between now and Council we will
put in there. It is to catch the very old ones that I am having to deal with
currently.
Williams: In fact, we can just move that date back I would think because for the last
couple of years you have been putting as conditions of approval a time limit on
Planning Commission • •
September 23, 2002
Page 5
virtually everything that goes forward have you not Tim as a part of the
Planning process?
Conklin: I want to say yes but can't guarantee 100% so it kind of worries me to push it
back too far. Let me do some research and I will work with the City Attorney's
office and we will have language in there to cover all bases. I don't want
something in between the date and the passage of the ordinance that falls
through. Basically, I want to put everybody on the same playing field.
Aviles: Thanks Tim.
Estes: I have a question for Mr. Conklin. Tim, in the introductory material that we
have on page 4.1 at the end of the first paragraph is the phrase "shall be
processed in accordance with the requirements for a Large Scale Development
regardless of the size or number of lots." Is there a portion of the draft
ordinance that has inclusionary language? I see that there is exclusionary
language over in subsection "G", what is excluded. Is there language in the
draft that contains the inclusion that is in our introductory material for a Large
Scale Development regardless of the size or number of lots?
Conklin: That was actually the staff report that went to the first Planning Commission. It
was not updated and. it is separate from what we are discussing this evening. I
apologize for not taking that out of the staff report.
Aviles: So we are just going to strike the first paragraph since it is not under
consideration tonight?
Conklin: Yes.
Aviles: What is the status on that Tim? Is the Planning Commission going to be hearing
that when you have had enough time to draft it I assume?
Conklin: I talked with Commissioners that were at
agenda session
and they seemed to
favor just
bringing
one ordinance at a time
to you. I have a
list of ordinances so
as we get
ready we
will bring them to you.
Does that answer your question?
Aviles: It does.
Conklin: I don't have the dates in my head right now that I can give to you.
Aviles: Is there any further discussion on the proposed ordinance that is in front of us?
Is there any member of the public here that wishes to address us on this item?
Seeing none, I will close public discussion and bring it back to the Commission
for further discussion or motions.
Planning Commission • •
September 23, 2002
Page 6
Ward: I feel like this particular ordinance is an excellent ordinance. It is something
that should have been done a long time ago. I am a little amidst that all of the
sudden we are just putting a 90 day time frame in there. I think that is too short
of time. If we don't do this ordinance a lot of these things can last for another
twenty years. I don't think 90 days is an appropriate time to allow for some of
these old developments and so on to come through. I think maybe one year
would be a time frame that would be closer to what I would feel was acceptable.
Also, Tim are we going to notify all the present owners by Certified Mail what
is going to be happening to their properties and how this will affect it? I think
that needs to be done for sure. Even on the Conditional Uses, we need to notify
all those people.
Conklin: I don't have that capability or staff to do that at this time. I am always surprised
when they bring in their projects to me and they say they got this approved in
1990, here is the Large Scale Development, we want our permits.
Ward: I just feel like we are trying to push too much.
Conklin: I have thousands of files and approvals I would have to go through. I don't
have that staff time. I would not have the staff time this year, I will not have the
staff time next year to do that unless we wanted to hire someone to help out.
Unfortunately, that is the reality. There are some very old approvals and every
year I get one or two of them that come up that all staff, Engineering, Planning,
Tree and Landscape are unaware of.
Ward: I think it is a very well needed ordinance but I think we are trying to push the
time frames way to quick. Things that have been on the books for a long time,
by doing the ordinance I think it is a way of doing it but I don't think 90 days is
appropriate at all, and unless we do notify them by certified mail.
Estes: Commissioner
Ward, do
I understand
that you are suggesting §166.18 that
within 90 days
be changed
to within one
year?
Ward: Yes, I'm not holding that as some kind of terrific date or anything, I just think
90 days is way too short of time for something that we are not even notifying
about.
Estes: That would satisfy Commissioner Bunch's concerns I believe and should
Commissioner Ward make such a motion I would certainly second it.
Aviles: I will support it too because I think that it is more in line with standards for
extensions granted to Large Scale Development projects. This can be treated
almost like that.
Planning Commission • •
September 23, 2002
Page 7
Motion:
Ward: With that, I will go ahead and make a motion to approve ADM 02-29.00, which
is the administrative item for the Large Scale Development Ordinance
Expiration and with the one change from 90 days to 12 months time frame.
Estes: For the reasons that have been articulated by Mr. Conklin, the recommendation
of staff, and the recommendation of our City Attorney's office that passage of
this ordinance be made and with the change from 90 days to one year I will
second the motion.
Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. I have a motion and a second. Is there any
further discussion? Tim, before we vote on this, could you let us know, this
now goes to the Ordinance Review Committee?
Conklin: It is up
to the City Council.
Typically we put it on
the City
Council agenda and
if they
have questions they
refer it to the
Ordinance
Review
Committee.
Aviles: I think that this goes as a recommendation in either case to the City Council and
I think it is one that is well advised because it would give property owners a
chance to secure financing and so forth. Renee, would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 02-29.00 was
approved by a vote of 7-0-0.
Aviles: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously.
FAYETTEVItLE •
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Tim Conklin
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: December 5, 2002
Attached is a copy of Ordinance # 4431 amending Title XV: Unified Development
Ordinance of the Code of Fayetteville, to provide a date certain for the expiration of
approved development plans and permits.
The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor
APR -11-2003 14:11
AR DEMO GRZ CLASS
•
•
442 1760 P.01/07
14431 4/11/03 12:50 Pn 0 1
4421 2A2
ORDINANCE NO. 4L31
AN ORDINANCE AMENDNG TRLE %Y. DMFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDNC INAE OF THE CODE OF --
�. F PRM1IOrAnTTtwN OFT APPROVED DEQENCIRT 1M5 D
INN PC lifE
PERS. aa
BE IT ORDAWED BY THE CITY COt1NM OF THE CITY OF City of
BE
FAYETTEWIE. ARKANSAS:
Bp.TPn 1. TIb$ Ch I6D. DWOptve. oft. tkt.d DNMbnere DNrwYI. Coo. OS Fe)ftS..
[s ris ey em ndad by Insw ft IN beoM110:.
5166.16. DWPATION OF PREVIOLLSLY APPROVED PLANS D PER(TS Alamomdlxe pla
Pe Ml evenMn11Frm. Or V1 w cne nl M1 !Fla. ham rot G'vel nr d0d w11Nn r**. (!fl mp
train iNsae N tarp sa.aIR:of*aa.ems mtepuee acenW +Pn a1 angle 0Cnan
Ilya C4y Pauly it c aa.E to iPpu a n is pair rnao!caupR wWor d. i�n cNev eL N9Ylts
by rO pY o weh 1Na rOw1
§111619. W AT10N O APPRY FUNS AND PERMRS.
A Aponsy. TN emM of Otis itiKMOn Mealy m Ma Of ea Immw+g d1a aN pWnt
1. Pans t
3Pl�niM
pduv
2. Cordvo l anebprama:
c l Inn:LVQ -b
e. t IS; aNralOprlW91;
6, artt IS;
6. Stgruy.J,p o! a dol!nla:_ . _—
m ..
0. B1ai_J,.... do damp. . and oroolm war wn.da:
0. Tlnpr tylly: .
9.$on doain : S
to. FbOdplelndMapmam pWmla.
d OrlsyeN Twain. .
1:MNaY MMfNarlbnAf WbpWf ab psmU PT w[p...J. !p an da yPtarn aa?^nt!w
bwvy -whn in oils (1) OW Othe pQaN:
a. For aro lypgepn Of nW Colcluc1 to . c9cWA 9 Boldtl9 Penme; WING.
0. For a tll 'P9. rent19 a Pna Or WtNy SIN Wtll VWI CpMy aDN CMA2 06u. alanp00
remdWO. by IN Cry Plmg anion: andtp.
C Rea9b 6 Cwu ti of SGarg CNTpwlcr MOM
U. RNo.a al Prnnes" appo+al: mwAb by Coy. Sia* ad Fbael rewatbns m man matn
N
IN wt an Ca (:;y I
IN 0510010 05100NYgbthe 10 len
Nqw QUOa CBIYB wRy 410 tilde
O 9V m%Ae mwA w tot cOn,klb wand Na III year eonl the dale of aPP" or
)WOE;toanbn-Won. CS IN to-..ura0n pan at panne l m ruiNMaw
TTh yew Tars in
Aa of e.a sb5.aarearl w p4wa and o-nma am So wNWaNd ,rood the eppemo a
l pared aid !9C no 61W IrmpaRbn eppmm orwor a Ma CnMmte Of Oat 'cy PP
w w yWe worn IN we of Inca of a Bw" PbmI.
t;.p to ti', sopnhr1 of oo Vow (3) Yw ur$ kvil. El supka1t IT SY moat 410
...'' - . — • • . WI.r .. — - , . - - -
3.h 9m amycam tMe To fl MlNan,.ttN.aea.C9m C.1. wftw nyee (>)years awl the d.
of basic. de Div Penns p dTJ en e"owaa net Deco Si W Viemewemnwsbpsn
Yrg pima ilea m reAdab fl ilo'Ala.
Seem 2. That flNIDP. AWlntey, Cartmr; fl, N Mrs tMeb OaMMp1111aN 61M.M,
E. E" bu n Dmaonivb. MWss1Yg mnatoce trot ee n imfltuetatO mr dyne zs 0'e OI
yva shS W .-rink rah srt Wo rob Vial art m leeMlminb sMaloW PthNSiQ Caewt+ol
mpmvel of a,I W aorlmlonW w ain't.
PASSED aN ADPRC..t tar am raj a Nd.NNw, 2703
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, t , do solemnly swear that t am
Le I Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat -Gazette newspaper, printed and
published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that from my own personal knowledge
and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of:
was inserted in the regular editions on
** Publication Charge: $ JJ9 /9
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
of , 2003.
otary Public
My Commission Expires: 5-I -{Y7
** Please do not pay from Affidavit.
An invoice will be sent.
OFFICIAL SEAL RECEIVF7D
SHERI DENISE SUTTON
NOTARY PUBLIC . ARKANSAs1 APR 2 1. 2003
WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF FAYETTL V LE .
COMMISSIONEXP.05/01/071 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
r •
ORDINANCE NO. 4431.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE )CV: UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF
FAYETTEVUE. TO PROVIDE A DATE CERTAIN FOR THE
E%PIMTON OF APPROVED DEVa0PMENT PLANS AND Jc_
PERMITS. d{tia V' Fa" dlle
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE'CITY COUNCIL OF NE CITY OF 7����"�'��
FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS:
Section 1 That Chapter 166. De+elogoem, of the Unified Development Ortbtarlce, Code of FOYSSW e,
is hereby wretded by 4aatrQ the fceaMrg.
§166.18, EhPIMTON OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS. Ai approved large scale
dege cxP&tis. penned unit devebpnanla: co dtional uses, at lot its approved Pro to Jury 1
2002, whbh have not received d required Parma to begin matructbn, have not begun construction.
have not been estabahed, or In the case of lot splits, have not boon recorded within twelve (12) months
from the date of the passage of this ordinance, shall be required to conpry with all current onihades.
The at? Paaar is authorized to appnwe minor plat modlfldtOns ad/c design charges necessitated
by comply nce with fit section.
§166.19. IJ(PIMTION OF APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS.
A. Apo lcabtllty. The prwislons of the section apply to Si of the tallovA g plans and permits
1. PreGmbary Pats:
2. Panned WI dedScpnanta:
A(7
ISSS;
4. C uses:
Tin
rge-scat
4. Lat 9 tnnents:
sclit
5. wt spits:
n O
.�O
B. Phyrm alteration of andd eosin
7. Storm writer, drainage, and erosion control Permits:
r
fTl 01
(v
PT7
B. Tree Pr non pans:
1 `'f
mitts:
9. Sign permits: and.
TTL
6-14
10. Roodplain daYMOPMnt Par li
N
B. One-year Time Unit:O
p
p�q
fps{
1. All of the above-tnlnra netOd pans art Pemba am caditicnal upon the apparent aODNTP 5Nng the
1.
61-
in
CLa
C)
foaowi g tasks wdtln one (1) year from the date of approval:
TD
a. Fanny renwatbn or new nor U tlOn, recei.e a BWWIng PmIt; and/or,
b. For a bt spit, record a deed o awe/ at the Wasltgton Canty Circuit ClerkOffice, stamped tar
recordation by the City Plawsg DMsion; ad/o,
: ". LI lt.-F r4ZtIU9 • : .: .
C. Thee -yea Time unit.
1. Ai of the above-aknerated pace and perms ere also Co ditto ed Wm the appicent CO
the ppa:t ad receiving final inspection appova and/or a final Catacao of Oavpancy Pen
three (3) years from the date of Issuance of a Bulldog Pen nt.
2. Phot to the expraton of the three (3) year time lint, an applbant nay request the
Commlsslan to extend the three (3) year period to compete the palest by up to two 12) addition
The applcant has the bacon to thew good cacee why the poled coSd not reasarabty be a
within the tvee (J) year tore Wit.
3. If the applicant tab to meet the egwarana of tubsectim Cl. vMtirt thee (3) years from
a'sseance of a Bildbg Permit or dung endowed extension period. al of the abos avnca
and permits shall be radioed tea and void.
5th day of November, 2002.
ATTEST:
HHEAThER WWOODRUFF, City Cihk