Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-08 Minutes• • • PRESENT: CITY OF FAYMEVILLE UNIFIED DEVEUOPMENT PLAN WORKSHOP AUGUST 8, 1989 Alfred Raby & James Duncan - AICP/Plan Group, Planning Commission members: Ernie Jacks, Gerald Seiff, Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Fred Hanna, Julie Nash and Gerald Klingaman Board of Directors: Fred Vorsanger, Russ Kelley & Paul Marinoni Board of Adjustment: Larry Tompkins, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Dennis Becker and Dee Wright City Manager - Jim Pennington, City Planning Management Director - John Merrell, City Engineer -Don Bunn, NW Regional Planning- Larry Wood, City Inspection Superintendent- Freeman Wood, League of Women Voters - Harriet Jansma, Elaine Cattaneo - City Planning Secretary, members of the press and others Ernie Jacks, Chairman of the Planning Commission, announced that this workshop has been setup to discuss the Development Ordinance which is a combination of Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. They will only have time to cover the broader issues. They are planning at least one informal meeting besides this workshop to talk about details. Mr. Raby stated this his presentation is of direction so that everyone has a chance to look at it. Elements of the previous regulations are used. He recoends a change in terminology in the districts and ask for something that is more consistent with the general practice. He recommended looking at alternative financing mechanisms for the community. There is a potential for using impact fees with regard to incorporating schools under impact fees but it is more complicated to do. Jim Duncan gave a presentation on "impact" fees in require to street improvements and their advantages. This is a type of financing mechanism that local governments are looking at right now. Impact fees are capital oriented instead of being operational or administrative oriented. His studies showed that impact fees were the same no matter where you are located. For this reason they are not growth management tools. Education was the most expensive service. Impact fees do not increase housing costs. Ernie Jacks stated that what Fayetteville has in the current ordinances is off- site improvements requirements based on a "rational nexus". This has been very difficult to find an equitable way of doing it. Impact fees are a much more accurate and complex way of doing it. He asked Mr. Duncan to put impact fees in simple terms. Mr. Duncan explained what impact fees are and presented some slides on the • • Unified Development Workshop with Al Raby - AICP/RM Plan Group August 8, 1989 Page 2 subject. He noted that all the courts want you to do when you get into an impact fee situation is look at two things: 1) The burden on the development - the impact that is created by that development, for example, how much traffic it is going to generate. The burden on the community by the development. The impact has to be measurable. 2) The benefit of the development - The benefit is to the development provided by the community. The fees that are collected have to be somewhat equal to the services that they have to render. Mr. Duncan stated that this is not only for roads. In Florida, there are fees for seventeen different types of services. Impact fees are related to special assessments. Impact fees are an alternative method of equitably financing new developments. The Courts have pointed out three criteria to do with impact fees: 1) the need to expand - you have to be able to show that new development is going to cause you to create an expansion of your facilities, 2) come up with a fair share schedule to show that equal type of developments in equal situations will have to pay the same amount, 3) funds have to be ear -marked and spent on what they are supposed to be spent on. There is a basic checklist for the impact 3) proportion the cost for the new growth, 6) spend the money in a timely manner. fees: 1) plan ahead, 2) show need, 4) mark the funds, 5) assure benefit, Director Vorsanger asked for clarification on how impact fees are assessed. Mr. Duncan stated that one of the benefits is that the impact fee can be assessed at any time in the development process. Although, most are assessed at the building permit stage and are paid at this point. Ernie Jacks stated that isn't the question whether you want development to carry itself from an infrastructure standpoint or what percentage you want them to carry. He noted that the impact fee is simply a detailed way of establishing rational nexus as far as he can see Fred Vorsanger asked if impact fees are based on the value of the project. Mr. Duncan answered, no, it is not based upon the value at all but on the impact created by the project and the cost of the facilities pertaining to that impact. All impact fees that have been based on values have been thrown out of Court. An $80,000 house and a $300,000 house would have the same impact fee. Mr. Raby stated that many times the small developer gets by the exaction process of the Planning Commission simply because his project is not large enough to impose the normal type of exaction upon him such as building fee or sewer extension. Ernie Jacks advised that it really doesn't work to do what they have been and say the developer has to build half of the road in front of his project to City standards because it could be 200' wide or 900' wide and be the same acreage. Mr. Duncan advised that impact fees are one of the first regulatory tools he has seen that incorporate the accountability, certainty and equity in the process and everybody knows what the rules are. • • • Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 3 Dennis Becker, a member of the Board of Adjustment, stated that the impact fees sounds like a sneaky way to take care of the sins of our fathers. It may be the most fair way, but it has a direct correlation with the existing conditions. Mr. Raby stated that it can't be applied to any deficit of the past. Mr. Duncan stated that the Courts are very careful about that and there are a lot of safeguards to avoid that. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Mr. Raby stated that this is a rough draft and there are many refinements that need to be made in this. He noted that they have some updates since this was sent to them. One item was a new way to call some of the zones. Some community are calling the residential single family zone RS and then two digits after the RS to show the size of the lot. RS12 would be a 1200 square foot single family residential lot. RM would indicate residential multiple family with the number following means the permitted density. RM43 would be a multiple family district allowing 43 units. Mills wanted to know why R-0 was left off the list and Mr. Raby explained it was only an error and that there is an R-0 zoning. Ernie Jacks stated that as the zoning districts are set up now, as the number increases, it becomes more dense. He stated that the single-family numbers as they have set up works the opposite. Mr. Duncan stated`"that some communities try to translate the single-family number into a density instead of a lot size and they could do that here. Mr. Duncan summarized the zoning district purpose statements in a hand-out. These need to be tied into the comprehensive plan. Mr. Jacks asked why there was a Plan Unit Development zone and what the advantage of zoning. Mr. Duncan answered that it may be used as an overlay and Mr. Jacks asked for an explanation of an overlay. Mr. Duncan said that an overlay leaves the existing zoning districts and gives flexibility. Mr. Tompkins read that the unified development ordinance promotes health, safety, and general welfare, and that it relys on the intent and purpose. He asked why prosperity and the other concepts were left out. The preamble helps to understand what they mean, if it is environment, transportation, open space, or anything. Mr. Tompkins stated that the relationship to the comprehensive plan is not clear. Mr. Springborn stated that it comes down to whether you want an opportunity to exercise judgment or to be specific in your intent. Mr. Raby said this has a lot of options and the planned unit development zoning could designate areas to be involved. Mr. Hanna stated that the last 20 years the city has desired not to have any more mobile home district but that it might not be a bad idea to set out the areas where they would be acceptable. Mr. Raby stated that because housing is so available that there is relatively little present need for additional mobile home parks, unless the cost of housing • • • Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 4 increases dramatically or if the supply of housing gets restricted. Mr. Hanna stated that the reason there are not many mobile home parks in Fayetteville because they were pushed to the outlying communities. Mr. Jack noted that if an area is zoned for mobile home parks in the beginning it will tie up a lot of land that may not be used. Julie Nash said that every 6 months or so someone will want to put a mobile home in their backyard and they meet the ordinance requrirements of land, etc. This zoning for mobile homes would keep them out of residential zones. Mr. Jacks asked if it should be a pre -zoned or an overlay. Mr. Springborn stated that planned unit development would facilitate impact fees. Mr. Raby stated that they are limited in terms of doing actual zoning. Mr. Jacks stated that he likes the idea of having Planned Unit Development anywhere. Mr. Raby encouraged the Planned Unit Development. Julie Nash asked if C-3 and C-4 would be the same. Mr. Jacks said that the difference is in setbacks and parking. Mr. Raby stated that the central business district actually has applications to something like the Northwest Mall because it designates malls as opposed to the downtown district. General commercial is distinct from neighborhood business and thoroughfare would be more community commercial services. General commercial is more like the mall and the central business district if more specific and relates to an area where there are different setbacks and parking requirements. A woman in the audience stated that there are two historic districts now and wondered if a provision would be made for these districts. They are in residential areas but could be in a business district as well. Mr. Raby said that there is an intent to have a historic district overlay. Mr. Tompkins read that clear cut districts means that the character of that district is either residential or commercial. 1-10.1 states that all requirements are accumulative, which means that all of the requirements have to be met. Mr. Duncan stated that accumulated means whether or not the residential in commercial districts and commercial in industrial districts. Mr. Raby stated that under the plan that they be permitted under specific circumstances a "mixed use Planned Unit Development" where that is designated up front. Paul Marinoni, a member of the Board of Directors, asked where churches fit into this. Mr. Duncan stated that on the chart they fit into 866 as a Conditional Use in all districts and a permitted use in the commercial zones. This should be just like they are now. Commissioner Nash asked if there is anyway to designate agricultural land that is really and truly a farm and A-1 land that is in a holding stage to see how the City is going to develop. Mr. Duncan stated that they would have to go to two districts. Mr. Merrell discussed a type of zoning he had worked with before. One type was the traditional agricultural zone, which was geared toward farming and raising crops and another zoning district was agricultural -residential. • • • Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 5 Harriet Jansma stated that this county has the highest agricultural income of any county in Arkansas. Mr. Raby agreed but stated that it isn't the concept of farm land in the sense of plowing the ground, but land that is primarily involved in animal husbandry. It is the intent to impose more restrictive performance standards on the hillside development sections. If communities have other areas that are tough to develop on, if it is the communitites intent to set those aside as an open space, we would need to know. This would require designation of another zone. Mr. Duncan suggested that there might be a need for A-1 for 5 or 10 acre minimum and creating an RS40, RS80 or both which is your acre lot and 2 acre lot that is not really agricultural, and is more of an estate type development. Commissioner Hanna asked if they would have the opportunity at another meeting to offer suggestions. He stated that they have noticed before in the Planning Commission that there are a lot of definitions that don't fall into either thing and end up in Industrial. He added that there are a lot of cracks between light industrial and heavy industrial that would have to covered under miscellaneous manufacturing and not elsewhere listed. Mr. Jacks stated that the original intent of the R-0 district was high density office and apartment development for downtown. He stated that it has been used for a totally different thing. He noted that they have it listed where single family uses are permitted and multi -family are condition uses which the exact opposite of the original intent. He added that he felt they should go back and re-examine that district and maybe end up with an office zone without the residential component. A member of the audience stated that immediately north and west of here we have a transition zone in the downtown area. The conservation area needed special attention. He encouraged the re-establishment of some residential in that area to preserving the downtown area. We don't need to disregard this area. Gerald Seiff, Planning Commission member, asked what the rhyme and reason for the SIC code numbers on the chart. Mr. Duncan explained that it stands for Standard Industrial Classification and it is a Department of Commerce publication and is the only nationwide systematic classification of non-residential uses. It allows you to have a reference book. Commissioner Hanna stated that there are some problems that need to be worked out while they are putting this together. For example, a home furniture store is permitted in C-1 and C-2 whereas floor covering which is the same code number is only permitted in the C-2. There is not much reason in being able to sell furniture in C-1 but not being able to sell rugs there. Commissioner Jacks stated that with the new ordinances, there will be seven residential zones where previously there were four with four multi -family zones where previously there was only two. What is the rationale for expanding the numbers of these categories? • • • Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Jacks clarified that there is a less dense multi -family than they had before and now townhouses are a separate zone. Why should townhouses be a separate zone? He said that there is density change and a difference in height. There are presently 7 residential zones where previously we had 4. We have 4 multi -family where previously we had 2. He asked for a rationale for a change in the numbers. Mr. Springborn stated that the additional zones seem to provide for more flexibility in the right direction. He added that they recently denied a zoning because they thought it was too dense. Mr. Tompkins stated regarding the concept of "intensity" and "density", they are moving toward the concept of "density" but they are also working with ratios in the "intensity" of development. He added that this is very encouraging because the "intensity" of development is what the Board of Adjustment is faced with all the time. Mr. Jacks stated that the additional zones are on the low intensity side. Mr. Duncan discussed the matrix for residential zoning districts and a matrix relating to the non-residential districts. Mr. Tompkins asked about the open space concept and Mr. Duncan answered that the best way to get open space was an area requirement for landscaping and for drainage factors. Mr. Jacks stated that they had originally indicated that they were interested in talking about something having to do with the historic districts and they are talking about this being an overlay. However, there are no requirements in this yet to which you would apply as an overlay. The same thing is true on the elderly. There isn't any indication of that so far. Is that upcoming? Also, high-tech industrial wasn't addressed. Industries which want an image. That is something that needs to be discussed. Mr. Raby asked if anyone had questions or co �nents about specific sections. Dennis Becker, Board of Adjustment member, asked regarding the "purpose" at the beginning of the report, if there is some legal move that is going on here. He noted that he is familiar with the "health, safety and welfare" but why the "community -accepted standard of morals". Mr. Duncan stated that is just the standard type language. Mr. Tompkins stated that in Article 8 under administration, he wondered whether or not the administrative entities here defined as the City Board of Directors, the Planning Administrator and the City Planning Commission should not also include the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Jacks stated that he has always questioned why the Board of Adjustment is broken out as a whole separate article. Mrs. Mills stated that the Sign Ordinance is not mentioned in here. She noted that on Article 9-1.2 B it talks about the removal of Board of Adjustment members by the Board of Directors. There isn't anything about removal of any of the Board members. Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Jacks stated that the Board of Adjustment should look at having a set of bylaws and taking a lot of this detail out of the development ordinance. Mr. Tompkins stated that the Board of Sign Appeals is a separate board and it isn't mentioned in this development ordinance. Mr. Jacks stated that he doesn't know why there are references to signs in the development ordinance because it was took out at one point. Mrs. Mills stated that also according to this ordinance the power is given to the Board of Adjustment to work on parking. Mr. Jacks stated that the enabling legislation states that Board of Adjustment takes care of "bulk and area" requirements. Mr. Tompkins stated that it seems that a clarification is also necessary. The Board of Adjustment deals basically not with land use but with building structure. He noted that they have had problems with appeals to their decision going to the Board of Directors. Appeals from the Board should be spelled out. He stated that the appeals do not have any where to go after they have gone to the board. The procedure is not clear. He added that the definitions are a problem for them too such as "unreasonable hardship". Mrs. Mills stated that there needs to be a clarification regarding "nonconforming residences". She noted that they have never given a variance that will enlarge a non -conforming residence. This may be expanded 257.. Mr. Jacks asked if the following elements were essentially identical to the present ordinance: mobile homes, greenspace (parks fee) ordinance, P.U.D., tandem lots, nonconforming uses, notices & signs, dimensional requirements, use conditions. Mr. Raby said they did not have any major changes and that they tried to retain the integrety of the present ordinance. Mr. Jacks stated that they don't have anything on street widths, right-of-way, geometrics or details in here yet. He advised that there is a table on street geometrics that wasn't in the copy that they had to work from. Larry Wood from Northwest Regional Planning stated that he would send them a copy of the geometric table. Mr. Jacks said recommendations from the city engineer are needed. Mr. Raby had some dramatic changes in topography and applying geometric doesn't work. Flexibility is needed and it needs to be an administrative kind of thing. Mr. Jacks asked if fees are still to be determined by the Board. He stated that the Board has sort of stepped back from that. Mr. Marinoni stated that there are three zonings for single-family residential. He noted that his thoughts are that it might be a little too restrictive. In other words, the nature of a subdivision with lots of 6000 square feet vs. 8000 square feet are not really that much different and 12,000 is still not really the much different He noted that there are areas in Fayetteville that are "farmettes" with 3, 5 or 10 acres with an expensive house and a lake, golf course • • • Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 8 or horse in the backyard. He added that he is wondering where it would fit in the zoning. It would approach the A-1, Agricultural zone but those people don't want some of the things that would be permissible in an A-1 zone. Gerald Klingaman, Planning Commission member, asked how and when the new zones would be shuffled into the existing zones. He asked if the final zones adopted would be after the public hearings. Mr. Raby answered, yes Mr. Duncan said that there would not be massive changes. Mr. Jacks stated that they have talked about doing a public meeting in every ward on that level which would be mostly zoning questions. Mrs. Nash asked about changing what is now called the "Subdivision Committee" into the "Development Committee". She asked if they could have, maybe in the subdivision regulations, a list of procedures of what they committee is. If it was a development committee it would start earlier on in the development process rather than just reviewing the Plat Review comments. Mr. Jacks stated that they need to discuss the environmental issues, landscape tree protection, erosion control, hillsides, floodplains, site clearing, etc. Robert Davis, Board of Adjustment member, stated that in the Board of Adjustment section there is sprinklered quite frequently, a case of='semantics. He noted that they deal with variances, appeals to grant or deny variances. 9-6.4 A & B uses the terms special exceptions. He added that they would prefer not to deal with special exceptions. Mr. Klingaman stated that he feels that the landscaping and tree protection are two separate issues. The landscape ordinance by and large is very good. However, some of the semantics creeps in here again. He asked if vehicular use areas are the same as parking lots. Mr. Raby stated that a lot of connercial and institutional use paving blocks that allow grass to grow them for overflow parking. It looks like landscaping but it is used for parking. Mr. Klingaman added that he sees no real implementation in the landscape ordinance. He asked how the Planning Co.u' ission be involved in any of this or will they. Mr. Duncan said that this landscaping ordinance is more rigid than some communities' landscaping ordinances. Mr. Raby added that large scale development has to have a landscaping plan submitted. Mr. Tompkins stated that the administration of the tree protection ordinance and the landscape ordinance will be by the Planning Administrator. He noted that since one of the Board of Adjustment's powers and duty is to interpret the decision of the Planning Administrator, that means they now have an involvement in the type and size of trees. He noted that he doesn't think they should be involved in this. Mr. Raby stated that he did not think this was the intent. Mrs. Mills stated that Article 5-4.2 is talking about flood plain and says if anyone has a problem with that, they can come to the Board of Adjustment. She added that isn't one of their duties. • • • Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 9 Mr. Becker asked if there are implications here of staff increases to implement all of this. Mr. Raby explained that this is not something that would involve a person going out on a site and calibrating trees. Mr. Becker inquired as to who would verify that slope fills are being done according to the standards they have set. Mr. Raby said that an engineer signs and verifies it. Mr. Jacks stated that is an issue in the City's decision as to whether or not they should implement a tree protection ordinance. Mrs. Mills stated that in several of the public meetings they have had, it has been very plain that there is no way the current staff could handle the additional work. She asked if an increase in permit prices would help, and this seems like an excellent time the raise the permit cost. Mr. Duncan stated that an ordinance for tree protection that the public is aware of is needed. Mrs. Mills stated that trees are almost taken for granted in this area. Mr. Raby stated that trees enhance a property's marketability and value. Even the cost of moving a tree is worth it in terms of the increased market value. Mr. Klingaman asked if with the new ordinance there will no construction before someone has had the opportunity to look at the plans for the site. Mr. Raby stated presently a site review on multi -family and on non-residential should indicate the trees by a legitimate survey. Mrs. Jansma stated that the site review before the ground is broken will be an important tool for protecting the landscaping. Mr. Raby noted that goes back to if and when you get a grading ordinance established. Mrs. Nash stated that it said a site plan must be approved before a building permit could be approved, but it never said the land couldn't be altered. Mr. Raby stated that there is potential for a loophole occurring without the grading permit. Mr. Becker stated on 5-7.3 it says that "After City Board of Directors approval of the grading permit, the applicant shall file a surety bond with the City Attorney". Mr. Raby stated that they will look at that. Mr. Jacks asked if there'is a good reason why they couldn't combine erosion control, hillside development and grading standards in one package. Mr. Jacks asked the City Engineer if there are problems why they should have controls over water shed and flood plain. Mr. Bunn stated that he thinks the controls that exist are adequate. Mrs. Nash asked if all of these would be integrated together, in other words, the developer would not have to look at the three different areas. Mr. Jacks that they have tried to get something in the form of a landscape ordinance on the books two and maybe three different times over the years. Planning Commission and now the Chamber of Commerce is opposing. Mr. Raby stated that landscaping provisions are required in some connunities, as far as residential is concerned under Planned Unit Development exclusively. Under this recommendation it is appropriate to do this. The clustering effect will minimize the impact on the area. • • • • Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 10 Mr. Jacks asked if his purpose this time is to try to find out whether the City wants to pursue these environmental controls, and to integrate them in a landscape ordinance. The Board and Planning Commission in its meeting last October instructed them to prepare the ordinance and there was a broad consensus at that meeting. Mr. Seiff stated that it is very difficult to have landscaping ordinance without integrating into a grading ordinance, with one permit for both. Mr. Klingaman stated that he sees the grading ordinance as a different issue than the landscape ordinance. He added that the grading ordinance is basically a site preparation and the landscaping is the final finish on the job. Mr. Raby stated that the grading permit would be first. Mr. Tompkins asked why the concept plan in the subdivision process is optional. He stated that he thinks it is a good idea to require a concept plan. Mr. Raby stated that a Plan Unit Development is a different situation. Mr. Jacks stated that the subdivision regulations are written from a standpoint of saying you must do this, this and this. If a developer does that, there is no basis as to where they can deny approval of the subdivision. He added that he thinks that these strict controls are why the concept is left as optional. Mr. Tompkins should not be limited to new development'and•that a Planned Unit Development but used also in historic districs or older areas. Mr. Raby agreed that this could be an infilled tool as well and that is most often where developers will want to use it. Mr. Jacks stated that this was the reason for the small area PUD in the ordinance and that is the one that caused all the trouble. People used it to circumvent the zoning ordinance and put apartments in R-1 zones without the proper controls. That is when the board put a 250 foot setback which negated 5 acres. He added that the concept plat is also an optional item under PUD. A survey is required in the second stage. Mr. Hanna stated that he has some comments about the landscape ordinance and the tree protection. He stated that on the tree requirements that states what diameter the tree should have and the height, does this refer to new development. He added that the water tap and sprinkler system requirements are too expensive to put on a development with a parking lot in Northwest Arkansas. Same thing with the size of the trees. He asked if the tree protection applies only to people developing or does that apply to individuals who have an already established lot and home and want to do something with their lot. Mr. Raby stated that one of the most difficult measures to enforce is on a single family. A member of the audience inquired about the tree requirements in a subdivision. Mr. Raby asked for written comments and changes to be sent to Don or John Merrell and then shipped to him. He will distribute new copies with the changes made. Mrs. Mills asked if it would be beneficial to break these up and have an hour with one group and an hour with another group. Mr. Raby stated that they seek adoption of this by November. To come with this will be a zoning map, a Master • • • Workshop on Unified Development Plan August 8, 1989 Page 11 Street plan coming from Larry Woods' organization, and a future land use. Mr. Jacks stated that we have a Community Facility and could approve a comprehensive plan as a revision and could imply that the present Community Facility would be in force even though it is out of date. He noted that they will review each element, hold the public meetings, get new input and revisions, then they should come back together for an official public hearing before it is adopted by the Board of Directors. Mr. Vorsanger asked if the document will incorporate all the suggestions made before a public hearing and Mr. Raby said that it will. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.