Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 8, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: J.E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Ernie Jacks, Julie Nash, Gerald Klingaman and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: Butch Robertson, B.J. Dow and Gerald Seiff OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Elaine Cattaneo, Larry Wood, Mike Price, LaRue Mabry, Brad Wright, J.C. McClain, Harry Gray, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-10 FREDA WISE POORE- 4195 & 4295 W 6TH ST The first item of consideration on the agenda was a petition for a rezoning submitted by Freda Wise Poore and represented by Mike Price for property located at 4195 & 4295 W 6th Street. The request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. This item was tabled at the June 27, 1988, meeting. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, stated that after discussing this with John Merrell, City Planning Director, he recommended that they not abandon the Highway 62 West plan. He stated that as he had indicated, although that plan is not perfect, it makes a policy statement that commercial activity should be grouped at major intersections and not be allowed to occupy entire frontage of a highway. He noted that the plan also makes the statement that in order to preserve the traffic carry capability of the highway, they need to discourage the very close facing multiply commercial curb cuts because of traffic hazards. He stated that he feels that introducing commercial at this location means basically that they would be abandoning the Plan and that any frontage along Highway 62 West is commercial frontage. Mr. Wood advised that with the business the Ozark Smokehouse has, the Planning Commission might consider introducing an R-2 or an R-0 zoning district as a buffer against that use. Although, these two districts are not now a part of the Plan, he felt that introducing them at this time expresses the intent of the Plan and that is to discourage strip commercial zoning of the highways. Commissioner Allred asked what the capability of the highway to carry is, what is • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 2 that highway designed for. Mr. Wood answered that a 5 -lane facility of that type would probably carry 21,000 or aver vehicles per day. It is carrying about 12 to 14,000 now. Commissioner Allred asked if Mr. Wood perceived that highway carrying 21,000 in the future. Mr. Wood answered, yes. Commissioner Allred stated that this area is not R-2 land. Why would he want to recommend an R-2 zoning when it is not a practical zoning? Mr. Wood answered that the bypass probably will carry between 32 and 35,000 vehicles and it will probably be very attractive for R-2 zoning in the future. Commissioner Allred advised that R-2 developments that have been done in the past have not been on major arteries because they have difficulty renting those units when you have that much traffic count. He stated that the R-2 zoning is not, in his opinion, practical for that area Mr. Wood advised that Highway 45 East would probably carry the same amount of traffic and it has residential along it. Commissioner Allred stated that they need to take a common sense approach to some of this zoning and to him the highest and best use of this is either R-0 or a light commercial. Mr. Wood advised that they are making the policy statement then that all highways are either commercial or office. Commissioner Allred noted that if they have an incorrect zoning, they need to change it. Just because it is a policy doesn't mean it is right. Commissioner Hanna advised that he sees this as somewhat of a flaw in having to petition for the C-2 zoning. He noted that the applicant had offered a Bill of Assurances that nothing commercial other than the mini -storage would be put there. If it were R-2 with around 38 apartments, he visualizes a minimum of 1.5 cars per apartment which will be going in and out several times a day. However, with a mini -storage, a person might visit their storage unit once a month. You would have a whole lot more traffic going through the cut from an R-2 if it were fully developed than you would for mini -storage on 1.61 acres. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Allred about it not being conducive to R-2 zoning under the traffic situation here as compared to the mini -storage. He advised that he had asked last time if it had to be C-2 for mini -storage. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Wood what zoning they had ended up with on the big piece of land at Finger Lane (east of this property). Mr. Wood answered that they had ended up with C-2 at One Mile Road and C-2 at the extreme west end and R-0 in between with R-2 behind it. Commissioner Nash stated that if she understood correctly, Mr. Wood is not necessarily recommending that they zone this R-2,but that it should not be rezoned C-2. She asked if they had a policy statement that they don't strip commercial zone. Mr. Wood answered, yes She stated that if that is their policy then she would be against rezoning this to anything. It should stay A-1 at this time. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he thinks that part of this is certainly a planning problem and there are ways that this could be made quite acceptable as a residential area. There would need to be screening between the road and the • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 3 property and readily accessible to a major road. In this case it might be a very attractive residential area. Chairman Jacks advised it seems to him that their Plan all along there back when it was developed, oriented the residential properties which were along there back away from the highway with the streets to the inside away from the highway. Larry Wood noted that they originally started the parallel access road to try to group the access points but it took up so much land that they abandoned the parallel access road there. Commissioner Nash asked if mini -storage could be put in a residential zone. Mr. Wood answered, no. Commissioner Hanna advised mini -storage was not allowed by conditional use in any zone other than C-2. Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this. Mike Price of 3460 North College, representing the owner, stated that apparently all the neighbors were mailed notice of this and no one is here to oppose it. He noted that the commercial zoning is not what is important to them, just any type of zoning to be allowed to put the mini -storage in. Also, a Bill of Assurance has been offered to insure that there will never be anything else there forever. He stated that he can't get it straight in his mind that there shouldn't be any commercial property out there. It makes sense to him that a structure such as this would be better than apartments or even single-family housing at this particular place. Chairman Jacks pointed out that he doesn't think that the Planning Consultant is suggesting that there be no commercial property out there. The Planning Commission has operated for a long time on the principal of commercial property occurs at nodes, at certain locations, and that they stay away from commercial stripping such as north Highway 71. Mr. Price asked if that wouldn't be strip residential zoning if that were to be rezoned to residential. Chairman Jacks answered that the Planning Commission has operated for a long time on the principle that commercial properties exist at approximately one mile intervals where major intersections occur and that in between properties are zoned something else to get away from commercial stripping and the need for defensive driving like on North Highway 71. He advised that some places like Highway 62 West were kind of a hodgepodge of uses when zoning came in and they tried to make some sense out of it. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the commissioners. NOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the rezoning to C-2 with a Bill of Assurances attached that it will be used only for mini -storage purchases, seconded by Allred • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 4 and followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn stated that as a matter of policy, Commissioner Klingaman, Commissioner Nash and Chairman Jacks have made very good points. He stated that they do have policy and if they are going to deviate from policy in the interest of short-term over long-term views, they would be going down the wrong path and taking the wrong direction. The motion to grant the rezoning vas denied 2-4-0 with Allred and Hanna voting "yes" and Jacks, Nash, Springborn and Blingaman voting "no". Chairman Jacks advised Mr. Price that they have the option of appealing that to the City Board. CONDITIONAL USE IN C-2 ZONING (MINI -STORAGE BUILDING) 4195 AND 4245 W 6TH STREET - FREDA WISE POORE The second item was dropped because the rezoning of this property to C-2 was denied. •PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-12 LARUE MABRY - S OF HWY 16 W, E OF 54TH AVENUE The third item of consideration on the agenda was a petition for a rezoning submitted by LaRue Mabry for property located south of Highway 16 West along the east side of 54th Avenue just south of County Road 667. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. • Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended that the Planning Commission consider that change to R-1 indicating that: 1. The R-1 district is consistent with the General Plan; 2. The surrounding existing development is single-family or undeveloped; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the property. He noted that they should take precaution with the fire protection because this is about 2.5 miles outside the 1.5 mile first response area. Response time to that area at this point without a west Fire Station is going to be much longer. He stated that he anticipates more development in this area. LaRue Mabry of 2836 North Gregg, Apt. 9, stated that she is requesting this rezoning so that she might build a home on this lot which was given to her by her son and daughter-in-law Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this request. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the commissioners. G3 • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 5 MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the rezoning from A-1 to R-1 as requested, seconded by Nash. The motion to grant the rezoning passed 6-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-11 FONDA M. ROGERS WRIGHT - INTERSECTION OF HUNT LANE & HWY 16 E The fourth item of consideration on the agenda was a petition for a rezoning submitted Vonda M. Rogers Wright. Property located on Highway 16 East at Hunt Lane. Request was to be rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended to the Planning Commission that they consider the R-1, Low Density Residential district for the following reasons: 1. R-1 District is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the existing land use; and 3. The public facilities and services are available to serve the development. John Merrell advised that this item is one of the first items that he has been directly involved with since he came to work for the City of Fayetteville. He stated that they were approached by the Wrights a few weeks ago who had received approval in early June from the County Court for this property to be annexed into the City. The next step was for them to go before the Board of Directors and get their approval of the annexation which was done last week. The next step is for them to achieve this rezoning and get it through the subdivision process. He stated that they do contemplate a single-family residential subdivision on the property with approximately 30 lots with an average density of about 1/3 acre per lot which is well in excess of the minimum standards in an R-1 zone. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this petition. Brad Wright of 2504 Sweetbriar advised that they do have a preliminary plat of what they propose out there. He stated that it is 10 acres with 31 lots proposed and a very well planned subdivision. All entrances will come off of Hunt Lane with a cul-de-sac going down and all of the lots will face the interior with no lots facing Highway 16 or Hunt Lane. Chairman Jacks asked if they would have any access to Highway 16. Brad Wright answered, no, no access to Highway 16 except off of Hunt Lane. Mr. Wright stated that there will be no home in there smaller than the minimum square footage required. All the homes will have 2 -car garages and there will be some very stringent, restrictive covenants on the subdivision. The houses will be in the $60,000 to $65,000 range He noted that they intend to develop this C4� • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 6 themselves and not sell any vacant lots. Commissioner Nash stated that she needed clarification on something. She stated that she understood when the Skillern Road rezoning came through not long ago, the directive from the Board of Directors was when a rezoning is being considered, they are not supposed to consider a subdivision plat or question what will be built there. She stated that she understood the Planning Commission was only supposed to decide if the land was comparable for the rezoning. Chairman Jacks stated that he didn't know that the Board of Directors had actually said that to the Planning Commission. He stated that what the Planning Commission has always said and always understood was that when they are considering rezoning cases the issue is whether it is proper usage under their minimum standards for that zone. He stated that he didn't know that there was anything that tells the Planning Commission that they can't look at the subdivision layout here if they want to although it is not a factor in the rezoning. James R. Lee who owns the eight acres just west of this property was not able to attend the meeting because he lives in O'Fallen, Illinois. However, he called the City Planning Office and stated that he would like to go on record as opposing this rezoning petition. He stated that he would like for it to remain Agricultural because he plans to retire there and he is opposed to a subdivision being right next door to him. Dan Martin stated that he had just bought the house from Brad Wright at 1610 Hunt Lane about three weeks ago. He stated that his only concern with this is the traffic that might come through there with 30 more homes in there. He stated that there is an awful bad curve at the Highway 16 and Hunt Lane intersection where an accident just took place. He noted that he would like to see the homes be limited to a lower number in that subdivision. Commissioner Hanna stated that he thought they have the cart before the horse again here. He noted that Mr. Wright's coiu'o�ents on how the subdivision is going to be laid out and the other comments on traffic are relevant at this time. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Klingaman stated that it looks like a good area for residential development and there are several other nice residential development areas in that part of town. Commissioner Springborn stated that it is kind of encouraging to hear from a developer who plans on a density of homes that is less that the minimum requirement. Chairman Jacks stated that the traffic issue that was brought up is always a concern. However, we really can't condition their zoning on anything other than what the ordinance allows. They either say that it is appropriate for • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 7 residential property or that it is not appropriate for residential property. He stated that he thinks, unfortunately, that street development sort of tails along after development. It is always a reactive sort of situation. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to grant the rezoning, seconded by Klingaman. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (FIRST LOT SPLIT) J.C. MCCLAIN - SE CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF HOWARD NICKKI.L & S SALEM The fifth item of consideration on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (first lot split) submitted by J. C. McClain. Property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Howard Nickell & Salem Roads containing 2.5 acres Chairman Jacks advised that if this had been 3 acres, it could have been handled administratively. J. C. McClain of 3311 Howard Nickell Road stated that the reason for dividing this 5 acre lot was because all the rest of the property on the 40 acres there has been split into 2.5 acre tracts. He stated that when he bought it, it was listed as to be sold in 2.5 acre lots or 5 acres. He noted that he bought the 5 acres and all he has been doing with 2 5 acres of it is mowing it and paying taxes on it so he decided to sell it to someone to build on. He stated that he has already sold it because he didn't realize that he would need to go through this lot split process with the City. Chairman Jacks explained that the reason for the lot split ordinance is because if the City didn't have the ordinance a person could come in and subdivide by simply dividing up property and not ever putting in any street improvements or anything and there would be a lot of substandard subdivisions. The lot split process enables the Planning Commission to look at these and avoid the those problems. Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this. Commissioner Hanna stated that he liked the way Mr. McClain has divided the lot into the 2.5 acre lots better than the lots to the East of this that are so long and narrow. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Allred followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman asked how far outside of the City Limits do the these regulations apply. Chairman Jacks answered that jurisdiction allows them to go 5 Ccs • • Planning Commission August'8, 1988 Page 8 miles as the planning area outside the City. Generally, they have gone about 2 to 2.5 miles outside the City Limits. The motion to grant the lot split passed 6-0-0. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT OF SUNNERBILL WEST ADDITION CHARLES SLOAN - S OF MILLSAP RD & N OF MASONIC DR 4. The sixth item of consideration on the agenda was the final plat of Summerhill West Addition submitted by Charles Sloan and represented by Harry Gray. Property is located south of Millsap Road and North of Masonic Drive and zoned R-1 with 4.17 acres and 12 proposed lots. Commissioner Nash stated that the plat of Summerhill West was discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting and it was very straightforward. The easements have been worked out and notification has been taken care of. She noted that the only problem is the on going problem of off-site improvements. The lotion at Subdivision Committee was made based on Mr. Gray's comments that the developer and the City Board would get together on the off-site improvements at their agenda meeting. This final plat was approved subject to Plat Review comments and with the understanding that the off-site improvements would be handled at the agenda meeting with the Board of Directors. Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Gray if all of this was satisfactory. Mr. Gray answered yes. Chairman Jacks asked if the problem with the street light variance had been taken care of. Mr. Gray stated that they obtained that variance when the preliminary came through. NOTION Commissioner Nash moved to approve the final plat subject to Plat Review comments and with the understanding that the off-site improvements would be handled at the agenda meeting with the Board of Directors, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-0. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION SWEPCO - W OF ARMSTRONG AVE & NORTH OF LEEPER The seventh item of consideration on the agenda was the Large Scale Development Plan for the Electrical Substation submitted by Bob Waldren of SWEPCO and represented by Harry Gray. Property located at west of Armstrong Ave and north of Leeper and zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. Commissioner Nash stated that this plat was discussed at the Subdivision Committee. Basically, it only reason it was required to come through the large scale development process was because they have a small structure (the control house) which requires a building permit. She stated that they needed very few City services so it was approved subject to Plat Review comments. 66 • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 9 Commissioner Klingaman asked how the power would be getting to the substation and what route will the transmission lines take. Harry Gray answered that he didn't have that information but he assumed they either have easements or will be obtaining the easements for that. Commissioner Klingaman stated that this was an a crucial issue as far as he was concerned. He stated that he has some reservations about that because that will have impact far beyond the industrial zone. Chairman Jacks agreed but he stated that they certainly have to have power in the industrial park somehow. Commissioner Klingaman asked if they were talking about the big metal transformers and what kind of capacity is this substation going to have. Mr. Gray stated that he couldn't answer that but he didn't think they would have the metal towers. It would probably be regular wooden poles. Commissioner Springborn stated that he shared the concern of Commissioner Klingaman about the lines coming in. He stated that he sees it as a question of whether the Planning Commission has the authority on something like this from the standpoint of the zoning ordinance is a geographic one. He noted that it seems like they are dealing with air space here and they don't know what is taking place in the air space. He stated that he didn't know if they were in the position to take action on this. Harry Gray advised that since there is a major concern here, he stated that he would prefer to table this until he could obtain some answers to the questions being asked. Commissioner Allred stated that the City has to have additional power to grow and he there isn't a better place for it than the Industrial Park. NOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan, seconded by Hanna followed by further discussion. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he would like to encourage his fellow commissioners to consider a "no" vote and that this be tabled until they can find out a little more information about exactly what is going to be going into this site. He stated that there does need to be power for the Industrial Park, but it could be simply a site selection choice that might make the bringing in the power a lot more compatible to that end of Fayetteville. Chairman Jacks stated that he assumes that this site has been selected based on secondary distribution. Mr. Gray noted that this is pretty close to the middle of the Industrial Park. Commissioner Springborn stated that he endorsed Commissioner Klingaman's views on this and he would like to ask John Merrell to investigate this to see if it doesn't fall into the air space approaching an airport. He stated that he didn't know if Fayetteville had policies regarding air space, but these are • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 10 considerations in other cities. When the air space is going to be occupied by very substantial electrical transmission lines, he would like to be assured that they are within their authority. Chairman Jacks asked Commissioner Springborn what the difference in his feeling and the average subdivision where overhead lines are brought in to feed the subdivision. Commissioner Springborn stated that he regarded overhead lines in a subdivision from the standpoint of visual pollution. Chairman Jacks asked what is the difference, in everything the Planning Commission does, between the average commercial developments, residential development and this. The size of the incoming lines? He stated that they had never talk about air rights before. Commissioner Hanna asked if the only object for doing these substations like this with these transformers was not so that they can get that oil with the pcb's in it down on the ground to be able to service and maintain it rather than putting it up on poles. Harry Gray agreed that was true to some extent. He noted that mostly it has to do with the size of the transformer. Commissioner Allred stated that they will have to get there easements to run the lines, but he didn't see where the Planning Commission has any authority to get into regulating easements. He advised that the Planning Commission had been asked only to approve the Large Scale Development, not whether they think their lines are appropriate or inappropriate. He stated that they don't have the power or authority to voice an opinion on that. He felt that was getting into regulating growth instead of planning it. Commissioner Klingaman stated that is they don't have any input into planning, they should all pick up their stuff and go home. He stated that they can have an impact on what it is going to look like in the future. Harry Gray advised that SWEPCO has a franchise agreement with the City where they can use all the street right-of-way. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to table this for two weeks, seconded by Klingaman. The motion to table failed 3-3-0 with Springborn, Nash and Klingaman voting "yes" and Allred, Jacks and Hanna voting "no". Commissioner Hanna advised that he really felt that the SWEPCO engineer would have cleared all of this up for them if he had been here. He noted that by turning this down, the Planning Commission is just going to delay something that is going to happen inevitably. He further stated that he agreed with Commissioner Allred that this wasn't the Planning Commission's place to try to regulate utilities. Commissioner Klingaman noted that utilities do provide a public service and they are accountable to the public. Therefore, the public needs to be aware of what • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 11 is going to happen. There may be no one here that is opposed to or in favor of this simply because they are unaware of it occurring. Harry Gray advised that it might be appropriate to table this here at the Planning Commission level and come back with someone who can answer the questions of concern. He stated that he wanted to reemphasize that if it weren't for the control house, they could have built this there without even having to get a building permit assuming the zoning was appropriate. MOTION Chairman Jacks advised that at the moment they have a motion to approve. He asked if there were any other comments or motions from the con i• issioners. The motion to approve passed 4-2-0 with Springborn and Blingaman voting "no". OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Jacks advised that he threw away 30 pieces of paper out of his agenda that he felt were not necessary. He stated that they don't need things like legal descriptions, etc. John Merrell, City Planning Director, advised that he understands the comments made about the agenda and hopefully by the August 22 meeting or the first September meeting, they will be able to streamline the agenda packet with recommendations from the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION OF INGRESS ONLY CURB -CUT TO HWY 71 AT THR IBM BUILDING Commissioner Nash advised that an ingress only curb -cut on Highway 71 had been approved when the final plat for the IBM Building was approved last September. She stated that in reading the minutes of the meeting, it seemed there was no particular reason for this ingress only curb -cut. She noted that she had several calls from IBM people saying that during the day the ingress only is fine, but at quitting time there will be 136 cars coming out on Frontage Road and stopping at Joyce Street because the traffic on Joyce is backed all the way up to Butterfield Village. Commissioner Nash advised that she called the owners, Flake & Company, in Little Rock and they ascertained that this was not something that the State Highway Department had mandated. They were under the impression that it was City Code. She stated that she would like to ask for a waiver so that this can be an egress and an ingress. Commissioner Hanna stated that there was a Bill of Assurance on that property there that they would not have any exits to Highway 71 off of any of those lots other than one that is already there. Chairman Jacks stated that there is one entrance there but he didn't think there were any exits. Chairman Jacks advised that they have been so careful to get away from ingress (07 • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 12 and egress into that controlled -access highway. Even with this problem, he stated that he is not in favor of dumping traffic out onto that highway. Commissioner Hanna advised that the Planning Commission has turned others down for the same thing. Chairman Jacks stated that when they built the by-pass, the Highway Department negotiated prices by the property for it and wouldn't tell anything until they got finished. Then they presented a map that shown around 52 accesses to this controlled -access bypass. He stated that a bypass ordinance was then devised. Commissioner Nash noted that all of Joyce Street would continue to be developed and it is going to be a mass of traffic lights. She stated that she would like to have it put in the record that some sort of traffic light system be worked out for Joyce Street because this is just going to get worst. Larry Wood stated that part of the solution would be extending that service road north up to Zion Road. Chairman Jacks asked if there are any plans to do that at this time. Mr. Wood answered, no, not at this time. Commissioner Allred asked if Commissioner Hanna was saying there were some restrictive covenants made when that was developed to prohibit this. Commissioner Hanna answered, yes, when Johnny Bassett originally developed that land. Commissioner Allred stated then if that is the case, it would take some legal work. The Planning Cou'uission couldn't approve it or disapprove it. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to refer this matter to Perry Franklin, the Traffic Superintendent, for further study, seconded by Klingaman. The motion to refer to Perry Franklin passed 6-0-0. DISCUSSION OF MEETING BETWEEN LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE & AL RABY, THE PLANNING CONSULTANT Commissioner Nash advised that the Landscape Committee met this afternoon because of the report that was received from Al Raby, the Planning Consultant, that listed under the "Environmental Plan" a Tree Protection ordinance and a Landscape ordinance. She noted that they decided rather than going both the Landscape Committee and Mr. Raby going in the same direction, they would like to come back to the Planning Commission to amend the original motion. She stated that they would like the Planning Commission to ask the consulting team to include the Landscape ordinance in their new zoning package and have Mr. Raby let the Landscape Committee know by September 1st if the consultants are going to include the ordinance. Chairman Jacks asked where the new packet indicates that this may be included. Commissioner Nash pointed out that it was under the title "Environmental Policy". She stated that as she understood it, this is everything think should be included Xs • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 13 in the new plan. She added that the consultants need to get back with them when they know if a Landscape ordinance will be included in their ordinances. Chairman Jacks stated that this question could be addressed at the meeting on August 9th with Mr. Raby. Commissioner Nash stated that the Planning Commission by a 7-2 vote established a Landscape Committee and told them to draft a proposed ordinance. She noted that she would like the consultants to let the Landscape Committee know by September 1st if they are including it in their ordinance. Chairman Jacks asked if this indicates that if they do indeed rewrite the zoning ordinance that this could be included. Commissioner Nash answered that Mr. Raby told the Landscape Committee today that he doesn't know yet and won't know until he sits down with Mr. Pennington and Mayor Johnson and discuss this. Chairman Jacks asked John Merrell if there had been any amendment to Mr. Raby's contract to rewrite the zoning ordinance. Mr. Merrell answered that he is not aware of an amendment to the contract. He stated that he thinks what they are talking about is the possibility of an amendment to Phase II of the contract along with the new zoning ordinance & amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Jacks asked if it wouldn't be wise to wait untilthey go through this meeting tomorrow before they vote on this. Commissioner Nash stated -that they want to know what is going on before they leave town. Chairman Jacks stated that if Mr. Raby doesn't yet have a contract to rewrite the zoning ordinance, he didn't think he would have an answer for them soon. Commissioner Nash asked if they would rather wait until they decide if they will include the Landscape ordinance and then come back to the Planning Commission and ask for a motion to dissolve the Landscape Committee. Commissioner Springborn stated that he would rather see them take a positive step along the lines that Commissioner Nash suggests and set back and wait because, based on their discussion with Mr. Raby, it appears that he has not had direction. He did not indicate that there was any hope that out of the workshop on August 9th, there would be a better indication. He noted that Mr. Raby as he understands it will be making a presentation as to what is desirable and what is not desirable to be included in the ordinance from the standpoint of planning. Commissioner Allred stated maybe they should table this to the next Planning Commission meeting and then maybe they will get some indication tomorrow as what they are going to do. Commissioner Springborn stated that there is little hope that they will get that direction tomorrow, August 9th. Commissioner Nash noted that basically what she thought the motion should say was that the Planning Commission is asking the consulting team to include a landscape ordinance. • • • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 14 Commissioner Klingaman stated what they are trying to encourage is the addition of the Landscape Ordinance as an agenda item for his inclusion in the package for the final document. At the moment, the major things they have been asked to look at in Phase II is the zoning districts, the grading provision and perhaps one on mobile homes. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to have the Planning Commission ask the consulting team to include the Landscape Ordinance in the new zoning package. The consultant will let the Landscape Committee know by September 1 if the consultants are including this ordinance. Chairman Jacks stated that he doesn't think there should be a date stated. He stated that he thinks what the motion is stating is that they want to get it out to the City Board that if indeed the zoning ordinance is rewritten, the Planning Commission wants it to include the Landscape provision. Commissioner Nash added that they wouldn't necessarily be disbanding the Landscape Committee. Commissioner Klingaman stated that the impression he had was that the negotiation that the consultant was having was not necessarily with the Board but with the City Director and the Mayor. Therefore, they were a little unsure where it would go. Secondly, in the event that they do decide to have the Landscape ordinance, the Landscape Committee simply wants to know. Commissioner Allred stated that he thinks it is a good idea to let the Board deal with this situation, but in the event that the contract is let then that will be included. If the contract is not let, then the Landscape Committee can resume what they were doing. Commissioner Nash repeated her motion to have the Planning Commission ask the consulting team to include the Landscape Ordinance in the consultants new zoning package and basically to let the Landscape Committee know. Chairman Jacks clarified that she is asking that if the consultants do indeed rewrite the zoning ordinance that it include the Landscape provision and they inform the Planning Commission when this decision is made. Commissioner Nash agreed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Klingaman. The motion passed 6- 0-0. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of July 25, 1988 were approved as distributed. DISCUSSION OF MOBILE HOMES IN THE PLANNING AREA Brad Wright stated that he would like to bring up a tremendous problem that they are having in the fringe areas of Fayetteville. He advised that he had just sold a $150,000 home out next to the City Limits and two days before they closed (09 • Planning Commission August 8, 1988 Page 15 the deal, a $3,000 mobile home was moved in just across the line from it. He stated that he didn't know what could be done about this but he stated that he wanted to make them aware of it. He noted that this person already had one mobile home on his property, now he has moved in another one. How many more will he be able to move in on this property. Larry Wood stated that the City doesn't have control over land use on contiguous land to the City Limits except with Subdivisions and Lot Split Activity. The County Planning Board has a Mobile Home Ordinance. Commissioner Allred stated that they had a problem in the Board of Adjustment on something out in the County as far as installing another mobile home. He told Mr. Wright that he might want to research the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meetings for the last year and get the information on that. Chairman Jacks advised that they are aware that is a problem. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned about 6:00 p.m.