Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Thursday, February 22, 1990 in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Gerald Klingaman, Jett Cato and Fred Hanna OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, Don Bunn, Don Mills, members of the press and others DISCUSSION OF THE 2010 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, stated that she would like for them to review the proposed ordinances page by page. The input will then be pooled together with input from the Board of Adjustment, staff and others. She noted that John Merrell was ill and unable to attend this meeting. Commissioner Klingaman stated that they have been through-this--process-before and he can't tell that the changes they have recommended in the past have been addressed. He noted that he have actually only reviewed the landscaping ordinances in detail. Ms. Bryant commented that the staff may try to make the next revision themselves so that they can make sure the revisions are all included. Chairman Hanna noted that Article I, pages 1-4 is pretty self-explanatory and necessary in order to have any kind of development ordinance. Commissioner Springborn noted that he felt this area is the City Attorney's jurisdiction. Ms. Bryant noted that they hope to have staff meetings on this section by section and get comments from the City Attorney and other staff members. Article II, Interpretation & Definitions: Ms. Bryant noted that John Merrell had stated that he thought there is a lot of problems with the definition sections. Some things needed to be defined more clearly and others needed to be added. She commented that some of the definitions need to be taken out. She advised that there are 25 definitions of signs, but there is no definition of "awning" or "block" . Commissioner Springborn noted that there isn't any definition of "mobile home". Chairman Hanna commented that regarding retail liquor stores, there was a conflict that came up recently with a rezoning petition. The proposal was to rezone so that a restaurant could move in next to the grade school. He advised that there is an ordinance regarding retail liquor stores and their proximity to schools which was most likely written before they were allowed to sell beer and wine in restaurants. He added that there isn't any provision in the • • Planning Commission Special Meeting February 22, 1990 Page 2 ordinance addressing the sell of liquor on -premises. There needs to be a clarification on this. In his opinion, the ordinance on liquor stores was intended to prohibit any sell of alcoholic beverages within 600' of schools. Ms. Bryant noted that the problem with the definitions seems to be that they are too technical and not general enough. Also, some definitions should be taken out and others included. Chairman Hanna requested that the Commissioners make a list of any definitions that they felt should be included or deleted and bring it to their next discussion meeting. Article 3, Procedures Required: Ms that they pay particular attention system. She asked if they like the review", "small impact development", . Bryant noted that John Merrell had asked to Article 3, particularly to the tiered tiered structure having an "administrative "large scale development" & "subdivision". Don Bunn stated that according to the definition of "small impact development", it sounds like it is a non -conforming use or a conditional use. He noted that he isn't sure what the intent of a "small impact development" is. Commissioner Allred noted that, as he understands it, even a small scale development would have to come before the Planning Commission. Chairman Hanna stated that if the words "conditional use" were substituted for "small impact development", it would be nearly the same as the current ordinance. He added that it seems that this new version would be taking a lot of the administrative.decisions and making them the Planning Commission's decisions. He commented'that'he would rather the staff be able to solve as much administratively as possible. Commissioner Allred commented that the ordinance needs to be extremely simple to follow where there isn't any confusion. Mr. Bunn stated that the only thing he sees on the list on page 31 under "Small Impact Development" that doesn't already go to the Planning Commission is "Transfer or Adjustment of Common Property". The consensus was that there wasn't much reason for the "Small Impact Development" section. They determined that "Transfer or Adjustment of Common Property" should be handled administratively, but everything else should be taken before the Planning Commission as is done currently. Ms. Bryant advised that John Merrell had stated that as far as the Administrative Review, he would like to have a little more latitude than this section allows. Commissioner Springborn stated that there are two Planned Unit Developments, small and large. However, "Planned Unit Development" isn't defined. Ms. Bryant noted that as it stands currently, any development that is less than an acre doesn't have to go through the Large Scale Development process. However, there are a lot of developments on less than an acre that have a major impact on the neighborhood and should go through the process. She advised that, for example, a developer in an agricultural area next to a residential area on less than an acre could put in chicken houses. Also, a high-rise could be Planning Commission Special Meeting February 22, 1990 Page 3 developed on less than an acre and wouldn't have to come through the large scale development process. Chairman Hanna noted that it could be set up so that any development on less than an acre could be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the discretion of the Planning Administrator. Mr. Bunn advised that there would need to be standard criteria to determine which developments would have to go through the process and not just leave it to the discretion of a member of the Planning staff. Commissioner Allred stated that he is concerned about keeping the procedures clear and uncomplicated. He noted that there are some other ordinances that would take care of some of those problems; i.e, height regulations. He added that a lot of developers try to avoid the large scale development process because of the bureaucracy and because the ordinances are so vague. Chairman Hanna noted that possibly the staff could come up with something that could be used as a guideline to follow to determine whether or not to refer the smaller developments to the Planning Commission. Ms. Bryant stated that the staff feels that the numbers such as how many copies to submit and the processing fees should not be set by the ordinance, but that the Planning Administrator be given the latitude to set those. Commissioner Klingaman stated that if there isn't an ordinance.covering how the fees will be set, there needs to be something addressing hour they are set. Mr. Bunn noted that all the processing fees will most likely be revised when this ordinance is passed, so at the time this ordinance is passed, a resolution setting all the fees should be passed at the same time. Commissioner Springborn noted that it could be covered in the definitions. Article III, Section 3-5: Mr. Bunn noted that Paragraph (A) seems to give the Planning Commission some authority in designating the types of development on less than one acre that should go before the Planning Commission. The consensus was that it should read "unless it is deemed unsuitable by the Planning Commission". Commissioner Springborn noted that he would like to see an addition under (I)(4) on page 35 which states "if the Planning Commission sees that the consequences of a development will violate a City ordinance, State Statue or Federal Statue". He advised that this probably needs to be at the beginning of procedures required on page 23 with an addition that states something to the affect that "the consequences of development not detrimentally impacted on health, safety and welfare of the city residents." In this way, it would be plain that there is an overall guideline so that if they get into a situation where the is a large number of people opposing something, the Planning Commission has something to fall back on. He advised that there needs to be some input from the City Attorney on this. Ms. Bryant noted that there doesn't seem to be any latitude for the Planning Commission to deny a large scale development plan such as an amusement park that meets the large scale development ordinance and is zoned correctly despite what • • Planning Commission Special Meeting February 22, 1990 Page 4 could be tremendous neighborhood opposition or impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Bunn stated that part of the solution would be to group those activities that really impact the neighborhood in a different way or more so than other developments together as conditional uses. Chairman Hanna noted that in the past, there has been concern about a rezoning to P-1 for a church because a zoo is also allowed in Use Unit 4. Commissioner Klingaman noted that there could be a little leeway in the interpretation just by saying "the following items and others...". Commissioner Allred noted that he felt the Subdivision Committee should review Section 3-10 (Subdivision - Construction Plans) on page 39 very carefully and determine if there is any procedural changes that need to be made. Commissioner Klingaman noted that "major subdivision" isn't in the definitions. Ms. Bryant noted that John Merrell had stated that he felt that this whole section on subdivisions needed to be restructured because it is unclear. He had also suggested that the discussion about deadlines and time -frames should be eliminated and referred back to the Planning Administrator. Mr. Bunn noted that deadlines for the Planning Commission to act on something, etc., probably should be included, but application deadlines could be set by the staff. Commissioner Klingaman stated that it is important that -an applicant be given a reasonable amount of time to get an answer on something. Otherwise, things seem to get lost in the void which is very frustrating. He noted that this isn't something that should be eliminated completely from the ordinance. Ms. Bryant commented that on page 28 where it states "Within ten (10) working days of receiving a complete application for administrative review, the Planning Administrator shall " is an example of a set time period that the staff would not want to have included in the ordinance. Chairman Hanna advised that whatever changes to be done in this capacity should be suggested by the staff and submitted to the Planning Commission for review since this all initiates in the Planning Office. Commissioner Allred agreed that most of this needs to be handled administratively and suggestions should be made by the staff. Ms. Bryant noted that the staff can define the internal deadlines, but this ordinance gets into detail, for example, on page 33 where it states "ten (10) copies of the revised large scale development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Administrator seven (7) days prior to the scheduled meeting...". If the staff just had general guidelines, they could determine these time periods without having it in the ordinance. Commissioner Allred suggested that the staff review the administrative portion • of this section and get back with the Planning Commission with suggested changes. • Planning Commission Special Meeting February 22, 1990 Page 5 Chairman Hanna noted that they will skip Article III, Section 3-12 (Sign Permit and Review) since they don't deal with signs. Article III, Section 3-13 (Amendment and Rezonings): Chairman Hanna stated that they need to make sure that when a rezoning is denied by the Planning Commission and then appealed to the City Board of Directors, the appeal to the City Board is the same as the one that was denied by the Planning Commission. He advised that there was a recent case like this where the appeal to the Board was for a rezoning on only a portion of the property that was brought before the Planning Commission. He advised that it was put on the Board of Directors agenda as a smaller portion of the property than the Planning Commission reviewed which should never have happened. Commissioner Allred stated that it isn't noted in this new ordinance that adjoining property owners of a rezoning petition are to be notified by certified mail. He commented that he felt that instead of just adjoining property owners, all persons who own property within a 300' radius of the subject property should be notified. It could apply to all applications that require notifications. After further discussion, the consensus was that if the procedures that are followed now with notification is working, leave it as is. Ms. Bryant asked for input on (4)(b) on page 56 and (1)(b) on page 58. Chairman Hanna requested that the City Attorney be consulted om_these two sections for clarification on what scope this includes. Article IV, Section 4-1 (Districts and Purposes): Chairman Hanna commented that there are a lot of different zoning districts particularly in residential in this new ordinance that aren't in the current ordinances. He advised that everyone look at this section very closely and submit suggestions and ideas for review. They will reserve recommendations and suggested changes for the next meeting. Commissioner Klingaman asked how this fits into the current land use plan. Who will decide which areas will be designated which zoning districts. Ms. Bryant stated that the staff would have to go out and do the fieldwork. Mr. Bunn stated that there would probably be a lot of non -conforming areas created like there were in 1970 when this was done. Don Mills, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, stated that the consensus of the Board of Adjustment was that they stay with the zoning districts that they have currently because having such a large number of zoning districts was too structured. The consensus was that the zoning districts they have currently will adequately answer all the problems with a few exceptions such as zero lot lines. She advised that there isn't any provision in this new ordinance for an R-0, Residential -Office, district which is a good buffer zone. Chairman Hanna stated that they will take up at Article IV, Zoning Districts, at their next meeting. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.