Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THS FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday August 25, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish, B.J. Nash and Paul Skwiot MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: The meeting was of the August 11, MINUTES None Fred Hanna, Dow, Julie Larry Wood, Ervan Wimberly, Michael Crider, Mike Price, Doug Hemingway, Don Grimes, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others balled to order by Chairman Jaeks and the minutes 1986 meeting were considered. Commissioner Madison made the following eorreetions: Page 2, last paragraph, at this point...they...would open; Page 2, last paragraph, if there were a request...they...may stay open, Page 3, paragraph 3, and if...there were...10 parents; Page 4, paragraph 5, minimal amount of...things...; Page 5 and 6, ehange all tree's to...trees...; Page 8, paragraph 1, they had that...sense... of lack; Page 8, paragraph 1, to speak...their...mind and now...they have been...denied that ehanee; Page 10, paragraph 7, would they maintain...their...natural beauty; Page 10, paragraph 10, better understand...their...objections and felt...their...objeetions have been; Commissioner Skwiot asked that the 7th full paragraph on page 10 be stricken from the minutes, there was no action taken on this request. The minutes were approved with these corrections. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-14 SOUTH OF WEDINGTON S WEST OF DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD - FIRST NAT'L BANE The second item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-14 submitted by First National Bank and represented by Mike Price for 1.97 aeres lobated South of Wedington & West of Double Springs Road. Request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Wood recommended rezoning to R-2 for the following reason: • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 2 If this were vacant land R-2 District would not be recommended because of the lack of sewer facilities and fire plugs. But since all of the dwelling units are already in place and the requested zoning district is compatible with the General Plan recommendations R-2 District is recommended. If the Planning commission felt that R-2 District was premature there was the possibility of R-1.5 District or conditional use in R-1 District. Madison asked what they Gould do with the land if it was rezoned to R-2 that would not require the addition of sewer and fire plugs. Larry Wood assumed the applicant would want to subdivide the property into individual lots and sell the property off. R-2 would allow this as well as R-1.5 or a conditional use under R-1. Dow asked was the surrounding property zoned A-1 and Wood answered "yes" all the adjoining property is zoned A-1. Wood stated the only activity they have had in that area was at Rupple Road and 16 West for the SpeeDee Mart, a church that was rezoned and a subdivision on the North side. Farrish asked if this had been recently annexed into the City and Wood stated it had been annexed about 3 years ago. Farrish then asked when land is annexed in what zone would it some in at and Wood stated it would be A-1, R-1 or as the annexing ordinance specifies but it he thought the ordinance said it would some in as A-1 unless otherwise specified. Farrish then stated it appears this property was developed as R-2 property before the annexation and his question was why hadn't the property been annexed in as R-2 instead of A-1. Wood stated it's more or less a City policy, the City would like to have more control over what takes plane there. They like to put everything in A-1 and then take a look at it as requested changes occur. Madison asked if this was rezoned to R-2 with whatever the problems they may have now with the property could it potentially compound those problems. Wood replied if the property were zoned R-2 they're eligible for any development activities under R-2. He noted if everything burned down out there tomorrow, then they would be free to develop as R-2 property which would be more dense than the duplexes are at the present time. Jacks opened the public hearing to anyone in favor of this rezoning. Mike Price, 3460 N. College stated the bank had aquired this property through a foreclosure and obviously they just want to sell it and they have not been able to sell it all as one unit. They would like to be able to divide it up and sell it to individuals. He said he was advised by the Planning Office to rezone the property to R-2 because the lots did not have enough frontage for R-1 and were mostly duplexes. <5) • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 3 He then said some of those buildings were built as long as 20 years ago. Prise said their second stage would be to file a subdivision plat and go ahead and market off the individual lots. Dow asked could they market the were R-1 with a conditional use. get to sell these as individual on what the zoning was. The bank property any further. property the way they wanted if it Mr. Price said whatever they could units would not make a difference has no intention of developing this Carlisle stated he would be forced to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance on the Bulk and Area Regulations if it were zoned R-1 because there is not enough required frontage. MOTION Nash moved to recommend approval of this rezoning from A-1 to R-2 to the Board of Directors, seconded by Green. The motion passed 8-1-0, Madison voting "nay" APPROVAL FOR A FINAL PLAT OF SEQUOYAH PLACE JAMES LINDSEY - HIGHWAY 45 EAST OF WHIPPOORWILL The third item on the agenda was a request for approval of the final plat of Sequoyah Place submitted by James Lindsey and represented by Doug Hemingway. The 1.188 acres is located at Highway 45 East and Whippoorwill and is zoned R-0, Residential Office. Jacks advised this was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee at their last meeting and a few changes were suggested and as far as Jacks could tell that had been done. Jacks asked if they had not asked for an assurance that lot 1 would aneess off of Whippoorwill and lot 2 would be the only assess off of Highway 45. Madison then asked where the driveway would be off of Whippoorwill and Jacks stated there was a 25' easement on the East side and they would enter on the North end for assess to lots 1, 3 and 4 as a private drive. Doug Hemingway stated there was at least 102' on the ROW with Whippoor- will and there would not be any problems with the Highway Department. Jacks stated he agreed with Commissioner Madison that the drive should be as far South as they could get it as not to create a bad traffic situation. MOTION Madison moved to approve this final plat with the stipulation that only 1 driveway at most have access off State Highway 45 and in addition to the driveway on Whippoorwill shall intersect Whippoorwill as far to the South as possible, seconded by Dow and followed by further • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 4 discussion. Green asked what did as far South as possible mean and Jacks assumed it would mean for the private drive to be as far away from the intersection of Whippoorwill and Highway 45 as possible. Upon roll sail, the motion to.approve the final plat passed 9-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ELKHART PRODUCTS CORPORATION (EPC) 3265 HIGHWAY 71 SOUTH - ERVAN WIMBERLY S MICHAEL CRIDER The fourth item on the agenda was the Large Seale Development for Elkhart Products Corporation (EPC) for a Tube Mill addition, located at 3265 Highway 71 South. This property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, Heavy Commercial. This LSD was submitted by Elkhart Products Corporation and represented by Ervan Wimberly of Northwest Engineers and Michael Crider EPC Plant Manager. Jacks, speaking for the Subdivision Committee, advised that the committee had approved this LSD subject to: a waiver of the screening requirement and a Bill of Assurance for a sidewalk along Highway 71 South. Jacks stated the screening requirement would be on the North side of this property. EPC now owns the adjoining 5.76 acres abutting this North property line. MOTION Madison moved to grant a waiver of the screening requirement on the North side of EPC with a substitution of 10% landscaping and accept the existing tree line as the 10% and the existing line shall be preserved, seconded by Nash. The motion to approve passed 9-0-0. APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAT - H.H. HUDGENS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON HOOT OWL LANE AND SMOKE HOUSE TRAIL The fifth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a concept plat for a subdivision submitted by H.H. Hudgens and represented by Ervan Wimberly for property located south of Ozark Mountain Smokehouse and west of Hoot Owl Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ervan Wimberly stated Mr. Hudgens had received approval for a lot split on the southern piece of this property with the existing two- story house. Wimberly stated there are 2 acres left on this parcel with an existing house on lot 1. Mr. Hudgens would like to make 3 nice -sized lots in addition to the existing house on lot 1. Wimberly stated that would create 4 lots and Mr. Hudgens would like to transfer this property by lots to his children. Wimberly then noted Mr. Hudgens is not a developer and this is not his intent. Smokehouse Trail comes off of Hwy 62 and up to the east side of Frank Sharps Smokehouse and up to the edge of the old Smokehouse with a few houses. Mr. Hudgens has approximately 270' of frontage on Smokehouse and Hoot Owl Lane • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 5 is a gravel lane that extends to the east side of the property and services the existing house and one other parcel of land. Wimberly stated if Mr. Hudgens had to bring either one of those two streets up to City Standards or even his half, that parcel of land would not be worth it, the cost of bringing those streets up to City standard would be too great. Hoot Owl Lane does adjoin a large undeveloped tract to the east which may develop in the future and if and when it did, Mr. Hudgens would go ahead and dedicate 25' of ROW so that at some point in the future a 50' ROW would be there. Wimberly stated the existing gravel road that is noted on the plat is partially on this other property and its a road of record and is not a dedicated road. It does serve one other house on up the hill and he noted the chances of Hoot Owl Lane ever being extended would be very slim. Madison asked where the new house is located that Mr. Hudgens built and Wimberly stated he has not built as yet but it would be immediately west of the existing two story house and was not included in the plat. Madison then asked how would it have access and Wimberly stated Hoot Owl Lanes extends on up and it was covered in the lot split that was approved earlier. Madison asked if lot 4 had required frontage or was it a tandem lot and Wimberly stated it was a tandem lot. Farrish questioned the intent of what Mr. Hudgen's wanted to do and asked if his main concern was to bring those two roads up to City Standard and Wimberly stated that was Mr. Hudgen's only concern. Farrish asked how Mr. Hudgens would feel about a Bill of Assurance that would say if and when those roads are brought up to Standard by the other people surrounding him, would he pay his proportional share. Wimberly stated that would be acceptable but they would rather not encumber the property with a Bill of Assurance like that but if necessary, yes they would accept. Wimberly asked if there would be a time limit on this Bill of Assurance and Farrish stated he would not propose any time limit because he liked the idea of Mr. Hudgens coming in with a plat showing the subdivision requirements and the alternative would have been to come in and ask for another lot split. Farrish felt there should be some consideration given to the approach taken on this concept plat. Madison asked if proof of notification had been submitted the Planning Office and Wimberly stated all adjoining property owners had signed the plat and Sandra Carlisle had received it. Green stated they always fall bask on Bills of Assurances as to the answer for everything they don't want to make anybody do right now and he felt that was not right and over a long term it would be a cloud over that property and the City would probably never improve that street. Green stated they have the ability under the ordinance to make a judgement tall. Green noted the ordinance said one of the conditions for a waiver is that a subdivider may petition the Planning • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 6 Commission for a waiver of off-site improvements requirements in whole or in part on one or more of the following grounds. The first one, Green stated, is that the City had no plans for upgrading the substandard street or road which off-site improvements are proposed to be required by the subdivider. Green said they were avoiding making a decision by going with a Bill of Assurance and in that situation he could not see that any harm would be done to anyone by not having a Bill of Assurance. He could not see that the City would ever want to improve either one of those two streets and as Evan Wimberly pointed out, once they get to the top of that hill there is no where to go. Farrish asked if they wanted an indication from tonight's meeting if a Bill of Assurance would be required or not and Wimberly answered "yes". Hanna stated Hoot Owl Lane ends at the end of Mr. Hudgen's property and Hanna said when he looked at it when the lot split was approved it seemed to him that Mr. Hudgens had probably improved and maintained that Lane at the side of his property. Wimberly stated Mr. Hudgens had done more to maintain that lane than anyone else in that area. Jacks asked Mr. Grimes if he felt the City would be pressured at some future date to some in and pave that street when this property had been subdivided and built on. Mr. Grimes stated "somewhat", and what same to his mind was Sunrise Mountain Road. They did no improvements when the property was developed and the City is forever being pressured by those property owners to improve the roads. However, he could see where Mr. Hudgens was coming from and he wished there was some middle ground or they could insert a clause stating they would not come after the City to improve the roads in the future. Green stated he would have felt differently if they were talking about 10 or 12 houses in there but they are talking about 3 houses maximum on this plat over and above what's already been approved in the past and it seemed like a minimal risk to him. Dow said she did not think any development would happen right now but she did not think that the City could perceive that development would not happen at some point in time. Robertson stated why not do what Mr. Grimes has suggested as to a clause stating the City would not be responsible for any improvements as it developes. Madison asked if that would be noted on the Deed and Sandra Carlisle stated it would be noted on the final plat and then filed with the Court House and that would hold them to it without a Bill of Assurance. Madison questioned if there had been any comments from the staff on • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 7 this concept plat and Carlisle stated the plats were sent to the staff but she had not received any comments. Madison then stated it seemed to her they were relaxing their normal standards simply because of the financial situation of Mr. Hudgens. Wimberly stated it would not be feasible for anyone to build a road up through there be it the City, property owners or anyone else. Farrish stated the financial situation of anyone had nothing to do with this and Farrish stated they have 4 lots, its a small development and what else could happen to that piece of land initially unless you leave it there. There is a tremendouse amount of footage around this land that does not need anything done to it regardless of what their financial situation is at this point in time. Farrish said a question comes up about the future and the suggestion Commissioner Robertson gave takes dare of the problem in the future. Madison asked if the Planning Commission would take any action on a concept plat and Jacks said he thought Mr. Wimberly would like some expressed opinion. Wimberly said they would like to have some action. Green stated he did not feel the Planning Commission was relaxing their normal standard because what they would be doing is in accordance with the ordinance. He said the ordinance was not an arbitrary thing to be applied to every ease that would dome in. Madison stated the tandem lot bothered her and she felt it should be required to have street improvements and Wimberly asked why a tandem lot would bother her. She stated all tandem lots bother her. Dow asked where the tree line fell behind the tandem lot. She said there was a fence row of trees and Mr. Hudgens stated if they were standing up at the south property line looking north Frank Sharps forest or woods would be on the west line and then some people by the name of O'Neal have timber on the east side. Hanna stated he felt it probably would be better if there was a Bill of Assurance for Smokehouse Trail and a stipulation that the City would not have to develop Hoot Owl Lane. Hanna stated when Hudgens builds his new house and splits the other 3 lots, and if they did build 3 houses, then eventually the water would run down Smokehouse Trail and he felt at some time in the future there may be a need for curb and guttering on Smokehouse Trail. If there was a need, it would be because of the development of this land. • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 8 MOTION Hanna moved approval of this concept plat as presented with the stipula- tion that a Bill of Assurance be given on Smokehouse Trail and the stipulation being put on the plat that if Hoot Owl Lane is ever improved it would be at the expense of the property owner and not the City. Seconded by Nash, followed by futher discussion. Green stated he would vote against the motion, because he felt the concept was fine and a Bill of Assurance was not necessary. Upon roll Ball, the motion to approve passed 8-1-0, Green voting "nay". DISCUSSION OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The sixth item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance. Jacks stated there were two unresolved items which were fees and off-site improvements. He said they have had two meetings now between the Subdivision Committee and the Board of Directors Street Committee, the last meeting having been held on Friday, August 22, 1986. He said they had talked about off-site improvements to some extent. Jacks stated it turned out the City does not want to forego in any way the requirements that developers pay for what they develop, including off-site improve-ments. After considerable discussion it was decided that they get together with Mr. Burch to try and develop a check list of information to be given then to the Planning Commission to make a judgment in each ease about the appropriate amount of off-site improve- ments. Green stated it was his impression they agreed that mechanical application, as to how much they widen, eurb and gutter and everything that touches the property. He then said it would probably not be appropriate justi- fication and would really be a judgment Ball that would be up to the Planning Commission to make. Jacks stated there were several things involved as how to do it such as acreage, traffic count and street frontage. All these things had some bearing although none of them were fool proof. Jacks then stated the question for tonight is to receive some comments from the Planning Commission members and ultimately see if they were ready to give this to Jim McCord to draft a legal amendment on which they could hold a public hearing. Green stated he was not sure what was good and what was bad. He said they had one set of regulations submitted by the Engineer that the City hired and another set that was marked up by the Planning Office. Carlisle stated the set that was submitted 4 weeks ago had everything except for one sheet on the storm drainage which she issued as a handout • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 9 to substitute for the existing sheet she said Ervan Wimberly and Mel Millholland had prepared in upgrading the storm drainage. Jaeks explained what was handed out with the last agenda with the exception of the one sheet on storm drainage was under eonsideration Jenks then said those sheets refer to all the information. Madison stated she took those sheets and inserted the eorreetions and found it was a little trieky to figure out. She then said on page 2-1 of section 2 the procedures for Subdivision under eoneept plat called for 20 copies of the Plat and everywhere else it ealled for 18 copies, her question was why a eoneept plat needed 2 more copies. Carlisle then noted what they have now is 18 copies of the concept plat and there would be no need for the 20 copies. Madison then stated the only real issue she had was a stipulation for sidewalks to be set back from the curb and not the ROW line. Farrish thought it said they could be planed anywhere in between those two areas and Madison said it says on page 4-4 //9 all sidewalks should be loeated at the ROW Wimberly stated that was the line where she wanted the sidewalk, the ROW line was back away from the street and not the curb line. Madison then stated she would not have a problem if Mr. McCord looked at this now. Green said the only problem he had was if someone could take the original draft Mr. Reynolds submitted and make the ehanges that have been recom- mended and go through this process again and tell us what to change from the current Subdivision Regulations. Jacks stated the final form that would eome to us for approval for a publie hearing would be as amendments to the existing Subdivision Regulations. Jaeks then said one idea would be to send it on to Mr. McCord and let him incorporate all of it but it would be a lot of work. Green agreed it would be a lot of work but it's almost impossible for him to incorporate all these ehanges and eventually someone would have to do it at some point. Jacks stated there were not more than 5 or 6 ehanges with the added drainage requirements. Green stated these ehanges should be incorporated into the orginal draft. Jacks then said the subsequent ehanges would be street widths, changes on the structural number, drainage requirements and lot splits and Jaeks noted that Mr. MeCord would have to ineorporate all of these ehanges before they could hold a public hearing. Madison asked if the Board members would be concerned if they addressed temporary drainage on-site and Jacks said what they asked about was retention and it was suggested, not required. Wimberly stated on-site retention was either reeommended or suggested. Again, he said that would be up to the Planning Commission or Board as to whether they would want to ineorporate that into the draft or not. • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 10 Wimberly stated on Commercial and Industrial sites Springdale required retention of the excess flow created by the improvement. The City of Rogers also leans that way very heavily and Bentonville has an ordinanee that requires retention. Wimberly explained that retention is to retain the excess run-off on a piece of property with a holding basin, pond, large ditch, etc. for the duration of a storm. MOTION Madison moved to have further diseussion on the revised Subdivision Regulations on the next agenda, seconded by Nash. The motion to plate bask on the next agenda vas approved 9-0-0. LETTERS REGARDING TREE ORDINANCE Jacks advised there had been a number of letters reeeived in the Planning Offiee asking for the Planning Commission to hold a publie hearing. Jaaks said there had been a lot of impressions given that certainly were not good for the Planning Commission's publie relations, in that they have appeared to be immature in a lot of ways. There seemed to be an impression on the part of a lot of people that the Planning Commission had been sort of high handed for voting against a publie hearing and even though Jaeks disagreed and voted the other way at the last meeting, he said the Planning Commission had the right and he would defend that right, to raise subjects, study it and finally to vote whether or not to take it to a publie hearing. That was what the Planning Commission did as far as he was eoneerned. He then said it simply got into a semanties problem and he would like to think they could talk about a Public Hearing from a legal aet on a document that would be a legal amendment to the ordinanee. Jaeks then said the Board of Directors had directed them to hold a publie hearing. He had had a conversation with the Mayor and a eouple members of the Board and they all seemed to agree that a publie meeting would probably be more appropriate. Jaeks' own view of this was they were not ready to hold a publie hearing but what they needed to do was hold a public meeting to get the citizen's input as requested by the Board of Directors. He then said they had reeeived a number of letters in support of the Tree Ordinance and also letters in opposition of the Tree Ordinanee. Jaeks stated his view of this was to go ahead and hold a publie meeting, get the citizens testimony and see where it goes from there. As far as he was eoneerned, at this point the Planning Commission had very legally deeided to stop the tree ordinance at their last meeting and sinee that time they had been directed by the Board of Directors to hold a publie meeting. Skwiot said he felt betrayed by the aetion that the Planning Commission had taken last Tuesday at the August llth meeting. He had been embarrassed by the way people had been handling themselves and thought it was • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 11 very childish and thought they had planed this eommission in ridicule in the public's eye and compounded this thing into polarization or whatever they wanted to tall it. He really failed to see how it could be resolved, short of the 4 of them tendering resignations as he did not see how they could work together. Skwiot stated when Jacks said publics meeting, as they were having a publics meeting then, did he mean to hold a publics meeting to have citizen's input. Jacks said yes and it would not be planed on a regular Planning Commission agenda but would be a separate advertised meeting. MOTION Skwiot moved to refer the ordinance bask to the committee, that subsequent to the first meeting in September at the regular Planning Commission meeting the following Monday an advertised public meeting be held to receive citizen input and then following the first meeting in October to hold a public hearing and reeeive the proposed ordinance and make some sort of recommendation. Seeonded by Madison and followed by further discussion. Madison felt that whatever the Board meant it should stay a public hearing. She would be happy to do both but they had been directed to hold a public hearing. She also said they should hold a public meeting to receive input from the citizens and she felt obligated to do something about a public hearing. Jaaks then stated if they held a publie hearing then the draft would have to go to Mr. McCord and then tome back to them with an amendment to the existing ordinance. Green stated as far as he was concerned he has heard about this for a year, virtually everyone of the letters they had received so far had been from someone who had been at a publie meeting and he did not feel like any decision was made without publie input. He said he thought it was probably made with more public input than virtually any item that had been discussed since he had been on the Planning Commission. Green stated he read in the newspaper how they were all going to vote and it did not seem like it would be particularly productive for this body to hold a publie hearing, if they do indeed already know how they would vote. He suggested saving the citizen's who would show up for this publie hearing a trip to City Hall and recommending to the Board that the Board hold a publie hearing or public meeting whatever they want to hold, because the decision would ultimately be before them. He had not seen anything as yet from the Board telling the Planning Commission to do this and he said he would have felt differently if they would have indeed told them to do this. Green stated he would vote against this motion. Madison asked eould the Board of Directors hold a publie hearing and c • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 12 Green said there was absolutely nothing that said this body must hold a publie hearing on anything other than an amendment to the zoning map The City Board can initiate changes without a publie hearing. Madison stated she watched the meeting on television, she asked Mr. Grimes if the Board asked the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the Tree Ordinance and Mr. Grimes answered "yes". Green then stated his response would be to recommend the Board hold the publie hearing and Madison said she felt some responsibility to hold a publie hearing if the Board told the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing. She said she would hope there are some things she eould learn from the people of Fayetteville about the tree ordinance that she had not thought of yet and Green said if the Board wanted them to hold a publie hearing after they reeeived this suggestion then they would certainly hold a public hearing. Dow said as a member of the Tree Committee she would really like to hear what people have to say about the ordinance. Dow stated there had been so much controversy that she would like to hold a publie meeting as Skwiot said initially to get the input. If the publie does not want it, fine that's what she wants to know. If they do want it, fine. If they wanted to give some direction as to which way to go with the Tree Ordinance, if they want a Tree Preservation versus something else, that's what she would like to know, She said she had a feeling as to what the citizens wanted but she would like to hear it from them and she thought they should have a right to say it. Farrish asked Dow if they should hold a publie meeting and a publie hearing both and Dow stated she thought that would be helpful and Farrish asked what would they accomplish by having those two hearings. Dow said she wanted input as a committee member not as a Planning Commission member, she wanted input as to whieh direction those people wanted to go. Farrish then said the question he had was they had wrestled with this thing back and forth for a long time and there have been people in to say they do not like the tree ordinance and there have been people in saying they remember College Avenue before it was redone and his opinion was that's what they would get again when they hold a public meeting without a doeument. Dow stated Skwiot's approach is giving them a chance to do both of those. If they eould get the input and then do what they think people would want and then put together a final draft if they did get a final draft and then they could speak on a speeifie ordinanee. Farrish asked if Dow meant to hold a public meeting and have all those people come in and incorporate all those ideas into a ordinanee. He added they would not suoneed because what they would have would be a large segment of the community for it and large segment of the eommunity against it and he did not see how they could reeonaile the two • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 13 irreconcilable differences. Jacks stated at this point the Planning Commission had voted not to continue the study of the tree ordinance and the City Board had directed them to hold a public hearing and that was what they had before them right now. Jacks said Skwiot had added another point, to refer the ordinance back to the committee and Jacks stated he would not be ready to vote for that as yet and would like to hear what the public had to say before he felt it would be appropriate to send it back to the committee. Farrish stated the committee that worked on this did a very good job on a recommendation. He said they had public meetings, public input, advertisment and all those things. He said they drafted a proposed tree ordinance to be brought to the Planning Commission and since all that had already been done, why go through that process again. Why not hold a public hearing on the proposed tree ordinance that the committee recommended to the Board the first time. Madison asked which one and Farrish stated the only one that came out of the committee. Farrish stated they would be giving the public an opportunity to speak on what the committee did. He said he never offered any changes on this and if they are going to go back and rework it then are they going to want your changes, my changes and everybody's changes and in time it would get adopted. Madison stated she had been naive enough all along to think that they could work together on getting the bugs out of this thing and fine- tuning it, but everytime she read the ordinance she could find some problems with it. She did not mean that she would want to dictate her feelings, but she would like to bounce it off her fellow Commissioners; problems like do they want a tree ordinance or not. She said Farrish had found some problems in the tree ordinance and when she looked at it she appreciated his concern for the obvious gap in the tree list. She said these are some of those issues that they could talk about and work out some of the bugs without throwing what she considers to be an old draft in front of the public. Farrish stated the old draft is the only draft that name out of the Committee and the Planning Commission had been critisized by Director Orton for whittling down the ordinance. He thought they should not hold something for the public to hear with the perception that 4 guys on the Commission had whittled down anything and he thought the public should see it in all its glory. Green stated this whole thing had been voted down at least one time and it seemed to be a misperception of exactly what their responsibilities were because he did not think their responsibilities necessarily supported any idea that anyone on the Planning Commission same up with. He said he had tried to voice his opposition to this entire concept since day one so it should be no surprise to anyone that he would not make 4 • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 14 • much of a contribution to help put this thing into shape because in his opinion, the only way this could be put into shape would be to drop it entirely. Green stated they mould go on with this forever and they had already gone on with it forever but Parrish had a valid point. Green said he still would not be in favor of a public meeting and to the best of his knowledge the only thing that had been approved by this Committee of people they call the Landscape Committee, some of whom were for it and some of whom were opposed, was that very first document. The rest had been revised by the City Attorney and changed by, to the best of his knowledge, a member of the Committee without a full meeting. Green stated there is no way they would be able to draft a ordinance that would satisfy everyone in Fayetteville and that was part of their responsibility; to sort through all these fasts, figures, circumstances and opinions and come up with something that would work and that's why he had been so adamantly opposed because he saw no way it would work. Green said as far as he was concerned he liked his first suggestion of letting the City Board hold the public hearing because they ultimately would have to make the decision and he felt this thing has taken all of the Planning Commission's time it should take. • Madison asked why not hold this public meeting on the philosophy of a tree ordinance. • Jacks stated the City Board felt, and he felt too, that there had been so much adverse publicity about this matter that the Commission needs to square themselves with the public whether they agree with the way things have gone or not. This Commission had been directed to stop further action and now have been directed by the City Board to hold a public "whatever". Jacks stated Skwiot's motion recognizes that with a further point that the ordinance be referred bask to Committee. Green asked since the Planning Commission stopped further action, what would they do if they hold a public hearing. Jacks stated he did not know. Nash stated at this point she saw no reason to try to punch holes in each other's positions and said the fast of the matter was they had been told by the Board of Directors to hold a public hearing and that Mr. Skwiot had made a motion for two meetings, one for public testimony and refer it back to committee and then a public hearing. Green stated there was not a legal requirement for a public hearing. Dow stated she felt they are ultimately responsible to the citizens of Fayetteville, and she felt that getting more than enough input was better than getting not enough input. The more input they can get the better. Farrish asked if they were going to hold a public meeting with no • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 15 document and were they just going to sit there and let everyone come and tell them what they think. Nash answered "yes" and Farrish said we do that and then what happens. Jacks answered he did not know. Farrish then said another point was after it went bask to the Committee then they would hold a public hearing which they had already voted not to have. Farrish then asked if they could vote on these things one at a time and Skwiot stated he would let his motion stand. Jacks stated he would not vote for this motion either. He said he would vote for a motion to hold a public meeting and receive input and he said as far as he was concerned the tree ordinance was stopped. The Planning Commission voted to drop it and he respects that decision. Green stated he wanted to make a point so that he was understood perfectly and clearly that he did not want to argue with the City Board. That was not the point of his suggestion. The point he was suggesting pure and simple was to offer the City Board an alternative that would accomplish two things: 1) it would get this off of the Planning Commis- sion's banks and basically a 5 to 4 vote is good as a tie to him 2) let the City Board have the benefit of all the input because it's clear they would ultimately have to make the final decision. Green stated he could not agree more that they need to get on with their business and he sincerely had been thinking about this a lot and what he was suggesting is the best way. Nash asked Green if he was the time of public hearing suggestion was to offer the with the work that had been that have been drafted with want to hold a public hearing saying return this to the City Board at or for the ordinances. Green said his City Board an alternative; present them done, present them with the ordinances the totals; and let them pick what they or public meeting on. Jacks stated they had a motion before them and he was ready to vote for this motion. Skwiot stated his reason for refering the ordinance bank to Committee was he was trying to leave open the possibility of someone coming up with something valuable to say, that they would want to make some changes and so forth. He said if it were essential to make a success out of this motion, he would like to rephrase it to be referred back to committee after the public hearing for any pertinent changes. Skwiot said hold an advertised public meeting the off Monday after the first meeting in September and then refer the ordinance bank to Committee to make any pertinent changes with the Committee delivering the ordinance to the commission by the first meeting in October. After that first meeting in October they would hold an advertised public hearing. Jacks then stated he thought that was the original motion and Skwiot answered "right" and Jacks then said "so it's not changed" and Skwiot answered "right". �6 • • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 16 The question was called. The motion was to hold an advertised public meeting the off Monday after the first meeting in September; then refer the ordinance back to the landscape committee to make any pertinent changes with the committee delivering the ordinance to the Planning Commission by the first meeting in October. After that first meeting in October an advertised public hearing would be held. Motion failed 4-5-0, Skwiot, Madison, Nash and Dov voting in favor of and Farrish, Jacks, Green, Hanna and Robertson voting "nay". MOTION Madison moved to schedule an advertised public meeting on the tree ordinance at the same time as Mr. Skwiot's motion with the option after that public meeting of proeeeding further with this ordinanee and Jacks stated he did not understand what she meant by option of proceeding further. He said according to the City Attorney they have the authority to reconsider anything they had done at any time. AMENDMENT Madison amended her motion to advertising public meeting for by Farrish. The motion to Farrish, Nash, Jacks and Dow Robertson voting "nay" schedule an advertised, 15 days of September 15, 1986 at 7:00 p.m., seconded approve passed 6-3-0, Skwiot, Madison, voting in favor of and Green, Hanna and Hanna stated he wanted to reply to Skwiot's request for his resignation. Hanna said he thought Mr. Skwiot had shown propensity to be a trouble maker, and if there was to be a resignation, Hanna submitted that Skwiot should offer his resignation. Hanna stated he did not think any of them had tried to aause trouble and they tried to be decent to one another. Hanna said they did not betray Skwiot, it was his own free choice not to attend the last meeting and Hanna had no idea Skwiot was not going to be there and he wished he had been. Hanna stated he thought there were things they could throw out that would probably mandate Skwiot's resignation if it were brought to the public but Hanna said he did not believe in doing things that way. Hanna stated Skwiot had said too much about too many people and he thought Skwiot ought to change his attitude or step down. OTHER BUSINESS Robertson suggested that the special meeting be held in the Continuing Education Building. Sandra Carlise said she would make the arrangements for the special meeting in the CEC building for 7:00 p.m. on September 15, 1986. Green stated he had something he would like to bring up. He said �6� J • • Planning Commission August 25, 1986 Page 17 the meeting tonight provided all the more evidence why something appeared like this in the Board meeting. Green said the Fayetteville Board of Directors have standard conduct for their meetings and he felt that was something that the Planning Commission should consider adopting. Green said part 82 was all he was proposing that they put on a future agenda. He said that under "public meetings" do not really call for anything other than common sense and eourtesy. Green said the 4th paragraph was the one he found particularily interesting where it said all members of the Board would shall have the utmost courtesy to each other, City employees and members of the public appearing before the Board, they shall refrain at all times from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments in statements as to motive and personalities. Board members are to confine their questions to that particular matter before the Board and Jacks stated he did not think anyone could argue with that. Green asked this be put on the agenda one month from now. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.