Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-24 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION A special joint meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Directors and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 24, 1985 at 7:00 P.M. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Paul Noland, Marilyn Johnson, Bill Martin, Ron Bumpass, Newton Hailey Jr., Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Fred Hanna, Stan Green, Frank Burggraf and B. J. Dow MEMBERS ABSENT: Ernie Lancaster, Marion Orton, Jeremy Hess and Joe Tarvin OTHERS PRESENT. OPENING City Attorney Jim McCord, City Manager Don Grimes, Assistant City Manager David McWethy, Planning Director Sandra Carlisle, Codes Technician Bobbie Jones, Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others Mayor Noland opened the meeting with introductions of Board and Commission members, Fayetteville's City Manager and City Attorney. Planning Commission Chairman, Hailey, extended thanks to all of those in attendance and a time of adjournment was discussed. FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING GOALS Stockdell noted that the City of Little Rock had hired a consultant to create a set of criteria to follow to try to avoid urban sprawl. She stated that she had also collected material on planning criteria from the Boulder Colorado which she felt was similar to Fayetteville in that it, too, is a university town. Stockdell said that all those present had opinions about what direction Fayetteville should take in the future as far as planning and that it was important to maintain individual perspective as it is the composite of same that results in the direction the City will take. In answer to Noland's question, Stockdell explained that the consultant firm in Little Rock had examined all of the various components of the planning process in the creation of the criteria. One example she gave referred to control of fringe areas oU town. aav Special Meeting September 24, 1985 Page 2 Hanna cautioned against applying the information used in Little Rock to the Fayetteville area. He said he felt that local people had a better understanding of the needs of this city. Johnson asked about long-range planning goals that the Board might examine. She expressed frustration in that she felt Board members sometimes react to immediate problems rather than addressing the entire picture. She asked what the Board could do to help the Planning Commission establish a long-range plan for the City. Stockdell replied that funds were needed to create a new Master Plan and Jacks agreed, noting that the Update Committee, on which he had served, had found that there are many major issues which have changed since the Master Plan was created in 1970. Hailey agreed, advising that the Update Committee had met a minimum of once a week and reached a point where the task became overwhelming because there was not a given set of circumstances to respond to. He said he would like to have this area explored again if there were funds to do so. Noland asked if a new Master Plan would include only new areas of town or the whole City. Burggraf replied that the entire City needs to be addressed because the results of decisions made for small areas affects the health and vitality of other areas. He said he felt the Commission was trying to make economic decisions without economic information and that those decisions also affect the tax base of the community. Green inquired whether it was the job of the Planning Commission to make economic decisions and Stockdell replied that it would be the result of decisions whether or not that was the intent. Burggraf said he felt that rezonings should not be granted if they are not in the interest of the community and he noted the lack of requirement for any demonstration of the credibility of that investment. He pointed out that there are many homes for sale in the area and still more being built. He asked if there was any evidence that this rate of growth is needed. Green said he felt that, if a developer wishes to build houses on 100 acres of his land that cannot be sold, it should still be that persons right as a property owner and business person to do so as long as the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City are protected and that it should not be the concern of the City or the Planning Commission whether that person would make or lose money. Burggraf said that decisions made by a developer, to the extent that they affect the economy of the community, are a matter of concern. He added that the merit of a plan presented for approval should not • • • Special Meeting September 24, 1985 Page 3 be examined exclusively on the face of it, but should include such things as how it will affect economics, the community appearance and environmental quality. McCord noted the need for his office to prepare a document notifying the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors of proper factors to consider in a rezoning application. He said he would prepare such a memorandum as stated. In answer to Madison's question, McCord said that his memo of criteria will be based on decisions by the Arkansas Supreme Court and not just Fayetteville ordinance. Martin asked how Commissioners see the use of a long-range plan and Burggraf replied that the premise is that planning dictates decisions on streets, water and utilities all related to density of building. He said that difficulties sometimes arise when the plan is departed from, especially when increasing the density, as the facilities are taxed to a greater degree. He explained that it was better to have a plan so as to not have to go back and tear up streets to add sewers. Martin asked under what circumstances Commissioners felt changes in zoning classifications were legitimate. Jacks explained that they refer to the General Plan, but if the area in question is growing counter to the General Plan, it is recognized and is followed by a change in the General Plan. Stockdell added that many requests for diversions from the Master Plan are being seen at this point because that plan has not been kept up with as far as growth. In answer to Martin's question, McCord replied that the constitution requires that a property owner be able to put his property to a reasonable use, but not necessarily to the highest and best or most profitable use. Stockdell advised that the City Attorney's presence was necessary at Planning Commission meetings in order do the best job. She added that she felt this City was quickly reaching the point where as full-time planner was needed, someone with the historical perspective of Jones, the administrative capabilities of Carlisle and who is honed into Fayetteville as much as Wood is honed into Northwest Arkansas. She said she felt Fayetteville was addressing planning as if it were a town of 15,000 to 20,000 instead of the current census of 40,000. Burggraf said he thought there were questions that the ordinance itself should address on environmental quality because people can do things within the confines of their businesses. As examples, he cited the storage of large amounts of explosive materials and natural gas tanks. He said attention should be paid to the way toxic materials are located. Special Meeting September 24, 1985 Page 4 Green advised that, although Johnson had noted that it appears some Commissioners wish to ignore the existing ordinances while others wish to adhere to them, there are still others who wish to merely interpret the ordinances fairly, adding that he didn't think that has always been done in the past. Johnson expressed concern that some developments come through with many variances having been granted with the developer giving little or no reason for those variances. She said this policy of granting variances leaves no reason for some of the ordinances. Green said, while he didn't think ordinances should be as specific as the Commission tries to apply them, if the City policy is that they be applied specifically, then the ordinance should be written that way. He agreed with Martin that ordinances need to be specific, thereby doing away with waivers. He said citizens should know exactly what they are dealing with when they approach the planning office. COMMUUCATION Noland advised that many times what the the Planning Commission has acted on. He in the proposition before being presented sending cases back to the Commission if changes. Board acts on is not what said there are often changes to the Board. He suggested there have been significant Martin said he understand the amount of effort Commissioners put forth and agreed with Noland that if a Commission recommendation is not acted on by the Board, it should go back to the Commission. McCord advised that, even though a rezoning petition was presented to the Board with different information, it would not be illegal for them to approve it, but he added that it is City policy to have the Planning Commission re-examine the case before going to the Board. Hailey noted that some items regarding large scale developments and subdivisions are covered in Plat Review and Subdivision minutes. Martin said he felt it would be helpful if there were someone to attend all meetings to clarify what had been discussed up to that point. Madison thought it should be an impartial person and Martin said he felt it should be a staff person and added that it would be a large improvement in communication between the two Boards. Hailey said he felt it would be an incredibly tough position as the follow-up question would be "what did they mean by that" and Johnson agreed noting that she could speak only for herself and not for the entire Board. Special Meeting September 24, 1985 Page 5 Bumpass agreed with Martin adding that one or two Board members should attend the entire process beginning with Plat Review meeting. He added that the Subdivision and Planning Commission minutes are usually received on Friday followed by Board tour on Monday morning, often leaving little time to examine the issues. He said he felt rezoning petitions were being initially filed by non-professionals who assume that they are prepared and will be approved and when they are turned down, hire a professional to assist them by adding "sweeteners" and "window dressings". Bumpass said a person who had attended the Planning meeting could verify what had been said of a petition. Hailey said he didn't feel that changes to the Planning Commission minutes have ever been made that would significantly affect any decision by the Board. He said he thought that a month wait between the Commission and the Board was, perhaps, in order. Madison said, with reference to minutes, that she would like to have Commissioners' packets include more recent Board minutes as the minutes they are receiving are three weeks old. She said the only way of knowing what the most recent Board action has been, is to have watched it on Open Channel. She also requested Planning Commission minutes by Friday following a Monday night meeting. Hailey commented that Commission meetings may last until 8:00 or 8:30 with minutes being delivered by Friday of the same week which he felt was incredible and he noted that spreading out the rezoning process might result in less of a burden on staff. Jacks advised that he has heard of a policy in Texas whereby a joint meeting of the Board and the Planning Commission is held to consider those issues which must be passed jointly. He suggested that an empowered group from each Board could attend such a meeting. McCord advised that the law provides that it would require a majority vote of the full Board of Directors to enact a rezoning ordinance. Commissioners all agreed that they felt comfortable with Directors receiving Planning Commission minutes before corrections are made. In answer to Burggraf's question, Jacks said he objected to direct communication regarding issues of concern between members of the two bodies and suggested relying on staff. Stockdell was in support of Jacks' suggestion but she said she felt that a staff was required that could meet this challenge. She added that she felt much of the existing problems resulted from a critical situation in the Planning Office in that, if someone is not currently being trained, they are in the process of leaving the office which gets very expensive in terms of training and in terms of the Commission having the support that is needed to maintain viable communications. • • • Special Meeting September 24, 1985 Page 6 Green commented that staff may still have opinions on how things should be done and may not be objective. Stockdell replied that a job description which includes objectivity implies a different set of criteria to be followed than members of the Commission or Board have. Johnson noted that it often becomes a ferreting process for Board members to discern all necessary information from the various minutes in making decisions. She said it would be helpful to know why a vote came out as it did, such as absence, etc. She advised that she was open to any Commissioner discussing items with her although she would rely mostly on staff. Hailey noted, that on a personal observation, he could not run his office with the severe overload that the Planning Office experiences. He said that 75% of the phone calls received are from distressed citizens and the problem should be taken into account by Directors. Madison asked if Board members would watch if Commission meetings were taped and Johnson replied that it took less time to read five pages of minutes than it would to watch a two hour meeting. It was suggested that only particular portions of a meeting could be viewed. Martin noted that he would like to rely on staff, particularly Carlisle who has shown a willingness to attend Board meetings, and until he sees that this doesn't work, he said he would continue to rely on the minutes, feed -back from Commissioners, other written material and Carlisle's reports to the Board. He said he didn't have time to attend the meetings. Stockdell said she felt that was placing a terrible burden on Carlisle whom she did not think she was equipped. Hanna said he thought it was part of the process to have differences of opinions within the nine member Commission as well as between the members of the Board. He said he thought the process set up by the City has been working pretty well since he has been on the Commission and he didn't expect everyone to agree on everything. McCord commented that there had been a request for an attorney to attend Commission meetings and he noted that he is "on call" to answer legal questions. He said that, in his perspective from 13 years in his office, most legal questions that are raised have been addressed before. He advised that his office would prepare a manual covering planning issues for distribution to new Planning Commission and Board members and that he would remain on call. aa5 • • • Special Meeting September 24, 1985 Page 7 RATIONAL NEXUS, ANNEXATION AND POLICY McCord continued that he had been asked to review not only rational nexus, but also the statutory functions of the Commission and Board members under Arkansas law, and annexation laws in Arkansas. He suggested that Board members and Commissioners review the material in the handouts prepared by him and to either call his office with specific questions or to request him to address questions at a future meeting. BED AND BREAKFAST AND RESIDENTIAL LONG -TERN CARE Jones stated that she had a copy of a memo prepared by her in May after having contacted a number of other cities for input on "Bed and Breakfast". She advised that a list of questions followed the memo for Commissioners and Board members to address in order to adopt a code covering this issue. She said there is a request for this use approximately once a month, particularly from the older, historic neighborhoods. Jones noted that she has recapped the way in which the State deals with this item which is included in her information packet. She also advised that information concerning Long -Term Residential Care was included for Commissioners" and Board members" review. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 10.a. Non -conforming structures as it relates to increasing the height of residential structures. Bumpass felt this issue raised the question of aesthetics. He expressed concern regarding the appearance of a property that was allowed to expand in an upward direction. He asked if a person could be required to present a detailed design of their proposal. McCord said that the City can enact a City-wide ordinance designed to promote the aesthetics of the City, such as a sign ordinance. He added that, under the law, the City may not (in an administrative capacity) base a decision on an individual application on the aesthetics of a particular building. Stockdell advised that, while doing research for the Update Committee, it was determined that aesthetics would be things such as plumbing, the integrity of the foundation and other items that standards could be set for. Madison explained that she felt this ordinance referred primarily to some older sections of town where the lots (and houses) are non -con- forming because they were designed before the current restrictive codes. She said if someone wished to add a game room over the garage or a bathroom over the back porch, it would constitute an encroachment into the existing setbacks under the current code. • • • Special Meeting September 24, 1985 Page 8 Burggraf noted that some common ordinances on aesthetics are ones that prevent a building's deterioration, requirements for repainting, and restrictions against storing more than one inactive vehicle at a time. He said an ordinance would need to be specific in order to be fairly applied rather than left as an aesthetic decision to an arbitrary group. Green said he felt some of these issues were covered in protective covenants but Burggraf replied that said covenants are difficult to enforce as people do not usually want to sue their neighbor. Madison advised that Commissioners had received a resolution from the Board in March of 1984 asking that allowing the expansion of structures and non -conforming use be examined and that this proposal is in answer to that resolution. Jones commented that this amendment was meant to deal with a great many request that were being seen by the Board of Adjustment who had, in turn, requested the Commission to address the situation. Johnson clarified that this amendment would apply to residential buildings only and not commercial. McCord said the wording would be added to Paragraph A as a proviso. Items 10.b, 10.c, and 10.d were briefly explained and discussed and Mayor Noland stated that he thought item 10.e, "establishing an R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential District" was a good idea. Hanna explained that there have been many requests for rezoning from R-1 to R-2 with too great of a difference in density and that R-1.5 would provide a compromise in the situation. LICHT ASSEMBLY Jones explained that there are many uses that have not been included in the 1970 Code of Ordinances that need to be fitted in. She said an example of light assembly would be electronics without manufacture. She advised that environmental impact should be examined in these cases. TREE AND LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Jacks advised that there had, at one time, been a committee formed and a model ordinance proposed which was applied by Larry Wood to several businesses in town. He said by the Planni g Co mission which may have had something etordopwithed economics at the time and he suggested trying it again. • • • • Special Meeting September 24, 1985 Page 9 Johnson advised that it when the City has a project to developers. Dow stated that she was in of this nature. is policy to save trees over 6" and she thought maybe this should favor of trying again to create in diameter be mentioned an ordinance Director Johnson extended thanks, on behalf of the Board of Directors, to the service and time put in by Planning Commission members. She noted that it is partly this effort that makes Fayetteville a nice place to live. Johnson said she would propose that the Board do something to make the Commissioners job a little easier. Grimes said he felt that good honest disagreement was a healthy thing and was not new to City bodies. Hailey suggested meetings of this sort every six months or year and Noland added that they could be held "on call" as well. Hailey said that the most current item necessitating additional input was the proposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. Johnson concluded by saying she felt communication between these two bodies has been a problem which this meeting has helped to alleviate. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.