Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 25, 1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Fred Hanna, J.E. Springborn, Jett Cato, Mark Robertson, Jana Lynn Britton, Joe Tarvin, and Charles Sickle Jack Cleghorn Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, members of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 1991 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING ON EXCAVATION & GRADING ORDINANCE AND EXTRACTION DISTRICT ZONING Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, presented the history leading to the proposed Excavation and Grading Ordinance. She explained that at a City Retreat in August 1988, the Board and Planning Commission came to a consensus that a new zoning ordinance should address cut/fill ratios, control of ground cover removal, slope protection and drainage management. The excavation and grading ordinance included in the zoning ordinance drafted by consultants in 1989 had some problems. She explained that approximately a year ago a local developer excavated a huge hole on Zion Road and exported the soil to another site for use as fill. She stated other property owners in the area contacted the planning staff, complaining of equipment noise, truck traffic, soils washing away; however, there was no current zoning ordinance that addressed excavations. Because planning staff thought the adjoining property owners' concerns were valid, they decided to push ahead with an excavation and grading ordinance. Bryant clarified that the origin of the ordinance was the August 1988, retreat (or even before that). The Zion Road situation accelerated the schedule for adoption of the ordinance. Bryant stated the ordinance was drafted based on a review of many other ordinances from around the United States and other technical information such as that provided by the State Highway Department, Soil Conservation Service and the Planner's Technical Advisory Service. She explained that it was a state-of-the- art ordinance, tailored to Fayetteville's special needs with a great deal of built-in flexibility. She explained that after an internal review by various departments in the city, a citizen's advisory committee (including a soil scientist, engineer, landscape architect, architect, people with building experience, a commercial excavator, and two private citizens) was organized. She further explained this advisory committee closely reviewed the ordinance and made many excellent suggestions that are now a part of the ordinance. 162 • • • Planning Commission February 25, 1991 Page 2 Bryant explained staff would revise the ordinance based on the information received at this meeting plus comments that are presented directly to the planning office. Once the next draft is completed, it will be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Don Bunn, City Engineer stated problems in the area of erosion and flooding were being caused by unrestricted excavation and grading. He explained the purpose of the ordinance was not to prevent those activities from taking place but to control such activity in order that potential problems would be mitigated to the point that adjacent properties and streams would be protected and the problems associated with open cuts and working on land would be eliminated. He further stated the intent was to restore the property as closely as possible to pre - development state as it relates to the run-off and erosion. Bunn read the first sentence of the ordinance: "This ordinance is designed to prevent excessive grading, clearing, filling and cutting and similar activities which in part, or combination, cause landslides, flooding, excessive run-off, degradation of water quality, erosion, sedimentation." He explained the ordinance was not tree ordinance and not intended to be enforced as such - the clearing and cutting would be controlled only to the extent where it has a potential to cause erosion problems. He further explained it was not the intent to supersede any existing or state regulations involved in the control of erosion or run-off. He stated Section 7 of the ordinance contained the guidelines to show the developer the controls necessary to meet the intent of the ordinance. Bunn explained the City Engineer is the city official that has the bulk of responsibility for approval of grading plans and the enforcement of that grading plan. The ordinance gives the City Engineer criteria to be used in evaluating the grading plan. He stated it was the intent of the ordinance that his office would have considerable leeway in the approval of a grading plan. He explained that not only would his office have the ordinance to use as a guideline but would also use some engineering judgment in the approval of alternatives. Bunn stated there would be an appeal process whereby any aggrieved person (neighbor, resident living nearby, or anyone who feels like the plan is not sufficient), can appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. He further explained the City Engineer will have the right to stop work under certain circumstances if the grading plan is not being followed. He stated there will be a booklet prepared by the City which will summarize the ordinance, illustrate the various requirements of the ordinance and provide typical grading plans to be approved by the City; that the booklet will be made available to the general public and to developers and should clarify many of the provisions in the ordinance and show how certain provisions will be interpreted and enforced by the City. Charles Nickle explained that the makeup of the committee consisted of citizens, professionals, non-professionals, developers, etc. He stated everyone on the committee agreed that a grading ordinance was needed and that they should have already had one in place. He explained that, while the committee felt there were problems in managing the ordinance from the City Engineer's point, it was probably the best place due to some of the technical items required such as run- off, soil erosion, equations, etc. He explained setback requirements, as they relate to streams or drainage ways, were among numerous items covered by the committee. He explained there were clauses in the initial ordinance relating to permeability which basically stated that there are certain permeabilities of lots when they are developed that have • • • Planning Commission February 25, 1991 Page 3 to be maintained. He stated they had a lot of conversation about that and it was decided by the committee and then agreed by the staff to take that out of the ordinance and place it under storm drainage ordinance which has not yet been reviewed. Nickle stated it was the goal of the committee to make this ordinance workable, not complicated or extensive on the individual homeowner. He explained they did not want to discourage that type of development. He explained there were many items to consider when developing a grading plan, including cost to the developer. He stated it had been the goal of the committee to not hinder an individual from building a home but still prevent something like what happened on Zion Road. He reiterated that random excavation needs to be halted, but the ordinance cannot be too complicated. Jerry Allred stated the Board would now review the ordinance section by section and take comment on each section. He explained they were talking about the ordinance itself, the physical document. He stated any discussion on whether an ordinance was needed or not should be discussed after a final draft had been prepared, before the vote. He further stated they would not be voting on the ordinance on this date. He explained this was the first draft of the ordinance and that the staff and Commission were looking for input. It would then go back to the staff for review and revision and then come back to the Planning Commission for their vote. He stated that having a workable, enforceable ordinance was the Commission's goal. He stated he had a list of people wishing to make comments on the ordinance. He called on Katie Featherston. Ms Featherston, one of the advisory committee members, stated she worked at the University of Arkansas in the soil test and research lab and had a degree in soil science and also was registered in the State of Arkansas a a professional soil classifier. She explained that the advisory committee had worked well together going through the proposed ordinance, inch by inch, every line, attempting to make the ordinance as workable as possible. She explained that in Washington County there are 16 soils out of the 30 soils in Washington County that have a high shrink/swell potential, which can be dangerous when cutting or grading soils. She gave as an example North College where there had been a lot of sliding after a cut. She also said the steep slopes in Fayetteville contributed to the problem. Mr. Jon Johnson appeared before the Commission, representing the Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club. He stated his group wanted to strongly endorse the ordinance in order to bring Fayetteville in line with other communities of the same size. Mr. Harley Brigham appeared before the Commission and stated while he was not a resident of the City of Fayetteville, he had built numerous homes in the city and he believed the grading ordinance was quite progressive and was long overdue. He explained when they first moved to the area they lived in Springdale for a year and then brought property near Fayetteville and had noticed there was considerable difference in real estate values between the two towns due to the better building and sign ordinances. He asked if there was anything in the ordinance relating to channelization of the natural waterway on Joyce Street north of the gas company. Mr. Bunn stated it did address how water is to be handled on a certain site but it did not prohibit channelization. After discussion, it was determined that since there were many citizens desiring to comment on the need for an ordinance, they would open the meeting for all comments. • • • Planning Commission February 25, 1991 Page 4 Nancy Seiff appeared before the Commission representing the League of Women Voters. She stated the consensus of the League of Women Voters was that regulation of land development in Fayetteville should include provisions to buffer the visual pollution, decrease the storm water runoff, stabilize the soil and prevent erosion and preserve desirable vegetation, trees, river and stream banks. She stated her group supported adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Doug Knapp, one of the advisory committee members, addressed the Commission and explained he also had been impressed with the staff work in preparing the ordinance. He further stated the advisory committee had been very representative and highly skilled. He had been a builder and landscaper in Fayetteville. He stated he felt the two most important points of the proposed ordinance was the minimum size requirements necessitating a permit and the cost of preparing the plans, etc. on a permit. He explained they had changed the minimum sizes from approximately 6,000 square feet to one-half an acre. He stated there were good and bad pointe to the flexibility built into the proposed ordinance - a lot of responsibility for the city engineer's office. Mr. Jamie Jones spoke in favor of the ordinance. He explained that he was not in favor of repressive or needless regulations, but he strongly favored responsible control by the City. He stated he believed a fair and comprehensive ordinance could be adopted without unduly penalizing contractors or significantly increase the cost of construction of homes. He urged the Commission to give their support to the enactment of the ordinance. Mr. Duane Woltjen addressed the Commission and stated he believed Section 73b of the ordinance could be altered to read "The City Engineer may require soil testa at the expense of the permittee during progress and upon completion of compaction work." He explained this would protect the contractor from needlessly expensive corrective measures should the nonconforming compaction be discovered below the final layer. He further stated that Section 22 of the ordinance concerning bonds should be altered to read "If approved plans and specifications will be corrected to eliminate noncompliance as well as hazardous conditions." He stated the bonding section did not address the question of bonding performance of site restoration directly and specifically. He suggested the ordinance be very specific. He stated he was greatly in favor of such and ordinance and requested the Planning Commission approve this ordinance. Mr. Dennis Becker explained that the Building Code only dealt with the actual building and once outside of the building there was no regulatory code or ordinance. Ms. Judy Brittnum appeared on behalf of Karen Rollet, a member of the advisory committee. She explained that Ms. Rollet was the current president of the Arkansas Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. Me. Brittnum gave the Commission copies of photographs showing poor excavation at a site located on North 71 Business. The series of photographs showed a site with a 30 to 40 foot cut at the top of a hill for a parking lot and office building. The next photograph showed the erosion and runoff from the hill down into back parkings lots as well as across 71 B. She stated there was still no stablization of this cut and the parking lot is now abandoned and filled with debris. She explained that Ms. Rollet urged the adoption of the ordinance in order to, among other items, preserve the quality of the landscape, decrease in storm water runoff, the stabilization of soil, preventing erosion and preserving stream banks. Sue Madison appeared before the Commission giving as an example the need for such an ordinance. She explained that the property directly behind the County Courthouse drops off very sharply and some of the property on Washington Street • • • Planning Commission February 25, 1991 Page 5 abuts the courthouse property. She further explained that one lot in the middle of the block was vacant and the owner realized he could lease more parking to the courthouse if the lot were taller. He made it a lot taller. She stated now on south Washington Street there are houses in a row and in the middle of the block there is a towering mound of dirt which was filled in; at the top, much higher than the surrounding houses, he added 20 parking spaces. The neighbors complained but the Planning Commission could do nothing. She stated the request for staff to work on an excavation ordinance had been made at that time. She suggested that the section which reads "The following shall require a grading permit without exceptions: developmental activities within a 100 year flood plain or under 25% or greater slope and any excavation site from which fill will be exported" be altered to add the statement "or imported". Maxine Hutchins, a resident at 1720 Zion Road, explained to the Commission how dangerous it was to raise children and live in an area where improper excavation had taken place. She stated the city needed to do something now to keep this type of excavation from taking place in another neighborhood. She urged the Commission to stop another Zion Road from happening again. Jerry Sipes and also gave the lot behind the courthouse as an example. He stated the lot is now beginning to sluff off because the slope angle was so great. He stated some of the gravel and surface was falling to the bottom of the hill. He asked that the Commission consider the clean up aspect after construction has been completed. Mr. Allred asked Becky Bryant to read the ordinance section by section for comments from the Commission and audience. He directed she read the entire section on areas that were specific but just do an overview on the areas that were general. Becky Bryant stated that Section 1 was the intent of the ordinance, Section 2 was general requirements, which read as follows: "Persons engaged in land alteration activities regulated by this Ordinance shall take measures to protect public and private properties from damage by such activities. "Development shall conform to the natural contours of the land, natural drainage ways, and other existing site conditions. Land that is not suitable for development shall be allocated to open space or recreational uses. "All developments shall be constructed and maintained so that adjacent properties are not unreasonably burdened with surface waters as a result of such development. More specifically, new development may not unreasonably impede water runoff from higher properties nor may it unreasonably channel water onto lower properties. "It is the intent of this ordinance that land be revegetated and restored as close as practically possible to its original condition so far as runoff and erosion are concerned." Mr. Hanna asked if there was not a state law that one could not by altering the land and running water on to his property. Don Bunn answered there was a recourse through the courts if a had been damaged by water being altered. Mr. Hanna asked if the third paragraph of Section 2 wasn't doubling the jeopardy. Jana Lynn Britton stated the ordinance was trying to stop that type of thing before it happened. burden a neighbor person feels they • • • Planning Commission February 25, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Bunn stated he thought it was important to try to control runoff from a property. He further stated it might give the other property owner two chances to have something done. He reiterated he believed it should be controlled and still give the neighboring property owner the opportunity to go to court if needed. Mr. Springborn stated he had felt uncomfortable when a point was raised about runoff as a consequence of adjacent construction or development. He stated he had always had to reply that the only recourse was to go to court. He further stated this was needed in the ordinance so it could be controlled at this level. Mrs. Britton asked who would decide if the adjacent properties had been unreasonably burdened. Another commission member asked who would decide whether measures had been taken to protect public and private properties and whether the land was suitable for development, etc. Mr. Bunn stated that at this point the City Engineering had that responsibility on the grading plan and the Planning Commission might become involved in making those types of decisions on excavations. Mr. Tarvin stated he did not understand the last paragraph "land be revegetated and restored as close as practically possible to its original condition so far as runoff and erosion are concerned". He asked if that would prohibit building a parking lot. Don Bunn stated it would not prohibit building parking lots. He stated he thought the last paragraph meant they needed to have buffer areas wherever possible and do as much as possible to mitigate the effects of parking lots, etc. Mr. Springborn commented that it appeared they were proposing controls through a permit process and, therefore, in Section 1, Intent, which reads: "This ordinance is designed to prevent excessive ..." they replace the word "prevent excessive" with "control through a permit process". Mrs. Britton suggested there should be a map of the City of Fayetteville and any site that is questionable according to soils and grades would be designated as not suitable and it would be in the master plan. Ms. Bryant agreed that type of study did need to be done in the near future. She explained that many times developers knew there was some marginal property and that type of property could be dedicated to green space. Mr. Allred asked who would make the determination. Ms. Bryant stated she would assume the developer would make that determination, and if land was determined to be unsuitable, it could be dedicated to green space. Mrs. Britton commented that if the entire tract was unsuitable the developer would still go ahead and develop it. Mr. Allred stated there had been times when the City would not accept the green space. The city wanted the parks fees in lieu of the green space. Me. Bryant stated it was her understanding that the City would be considering more situations like this in the future. Mr. Robertson stated that presently there was not a parks master plan or green space plan for the City and, therefore, the park's board was hesitant to accept land. He further stated they had recently rejected parcels of land. He stated, • • • Planning Commission February 25, 1991 Page 7 hopefully, the plan would be established within the next year. He explained that just because a developer wanted to cede a piece of land that's not suitable for anything doesn't necessarily mean that the parks board would accept it. Mr. Tarvin asked if a one -acre lot with a steep slope could be developed. Me. Bryant explained that if, the developer were cutting more than three feet or creating a slope greater than five to one, they would have to get a grading permit unless the total volume was less than 100 cubic yards. She further explained that this would not preclude development, it just mean the developer would have to get a permit. Mr. Hanna stated he had noted the ordinance created new district - El, an Extraction District and a use Unit 30 for extractive uses. He asked if the committee had you considered an ordinance just prohibiting gravel pits, rock quarries or strip mines within the city limits of Fayetteville. Mr. Nickel stated they had not reviewed the extraction district material. The meetings had been completed before they received it. He further stated he had some questions about the district. Mr. Hanna asked if it would not relieve some of the pressure if the Commission approved an ordinance that prohibited gravel pits, strip mines, rock quarries, etc. in the city limits of Fayetteville. Ms. Bryant stated she didn't believe it would relieve any of the pressures. She explained this was just a basic ordinance and most of the elements would be included in any excavation and grading ordinance. She further explained that while that was one way of dealing with the Zion Road situation - just outlawing it entirely - she wasn't sure that was the fair way, since there could be land in town that might be suitable for that use, if enough safeguards were taken. She asked where people would get the gravel and fill they needed, if the city and county both outlawed it. Mr. Hanna reiterated he thought the Committee should consider having an ordinance prohibiting strip mining and/or gravel pit types of operation. He stated he could not visualize the need to have a strip mine or gravel pit inside the city limits any more than he could visualize allowing someone to build a poultry house inside the city limits just because the land was A-1. He expressed concern that the proposed ordinance was too restrictive. Mr. Springborn suggested the second, third, and fourth paragraphs be considered for inclusion as appropriate, relative to comments received, in the body of the ordinance and that general referrals be left with the first paragraph. He further stated he believed the second paragraph was dealt with specifically in the body of the ordinance. Mrs. Britton stated the Commission needed to designate between an extraction district and developers that needed fill in developing a subdivision. She stated she believed the City must have a designated extraction area in order to protect itself. Mr. Allred asked if there were any questions or comments on Section 3. Mr. Robertson stated that he realized the intent of item 5, "Site preparation and clearing activities which do not disturb more than 1/2 acre", was to exclude some residential activity; however he felt that 1/2 acre was too large. He explained that moderate size lots that would be smaller than 1/2 acre and activities that would occur on a smaller lot can affect adjoining lots. He further stated he didn't understand where this would be prohibited from occurring or be regulated. • • • Planning Commission February 25, 1991 Page 8 He further stated he thought the Commissioned needed to address lots of a smaller size than 1/2 acre. Ms. Bryant agreed that it was not clear but explained this section was intended to exempt site preparation and clearing activities. She stated, if the site was one-half acre or less, it could be cleared without a permit but, if there are excessive cuts or fills, as itemized in the proposed ordinance, a permit would be required. Mrs. Britton suggested instead of using the words "site preparation" that "clearing activities" be substituted. She explained that site preparation could get into bulldozing, etc. Mr. Robertson asked if a lot smaller than one-half acre was only to be cleared, it was exempt from the revegetation. He stated there could still be erosion. In response, Ms. Bryant explained that minimal erosion control requirements in Section 4 would cover that problem. Mr. Springborn stated he did not understand why half -acre lots were being exempted. Mr. Nickle stated they had discussed that and had decided that not only was it too great of a burden on the city engineer, but also on every homeowner. He explained they did not want every homeowner that purchased a lot to build a house have to go before the city engineer and go through a grading permit situation, hire an engineer, get a plan, etc. Mr. Springborn asked what would keep a developer from developing half an acre, then going on to another half an acre. Mr. Nickle stated they had discussed that. He said, when a subdivision plan was submitted, the grading plan should be with it. Mr. Bunn explained that, if a grading permit were required with each building permit, nothing would be getting done except approving grading permits and policing grading permits. He further explained that was one of the reasons in setting a cutoff point. He stated that Section 4 was written to cover those lots that were exempt from a grading permit. He further stated, if there were complaints, there was a section in the ordinance to enforce remedial measures. Mr. Springborn suggested that instead of just exempting the half acre lots, they have the city engineer just waive the permit requirement on city lots of one-half acre or less. Mr. Nickle stated it was not to be excessive grading. difference how small the lot the city engineer needed to the intent of staff to He further explained was, if there was a cut be involved. exempt the lot if there was that it did not make any of three or more feet deep, Mr. Bunn stated that section did not appear to be clear. Mr. Springborn stated he believed the city engineer should be given discretion in waiving the permit requirement. Mr. Tarvin suggested that item 3 should be struck because there would be no land fills within the city limits. George Faucette appeared before the Commission and suggested single family residential lots be exempted from the ordinance. He explained that there had • • • Planning Commission February 25, 1991 Page 9 been very few problems with drainage in single family residential lots in the City of Fayetteville. He further explained that a developer should be covered by the ordinance but the builder and/or homeowner should be exempted. Mr. Tarvin stated he basically agreed with Mr. Faucette however a developer could not provide a grading plan, the builder had to do that, because the developer does not know the shape, size, location, etc. of the house to be built on the lot. He stated that he believed, if the Commission required that a grading plan be provided for all single family houses, it would be overdone. Mr. Springborn stated the need for this ordinance was to assure that everything was conducted in such a fashion that the safety, health and welfare of the citizens of Fayetteville would be protected. Mr. Nickle stated the committee had looked at numerous examples of single family dwellings that had problems because the retaining walls had failed. Mr. Allred asked Mr. Nickle how long the committee had worked on the ordinance. Mr. Nickle stated they spend approximately 18 hours going over the ordinance. He explained they had the same type of discussions as the Commission was having now with many of the same questions. He stated it was a comprehensive ordinance. Mr. Allred stated that they would adjourn at 7:00 p.m., take the information they had received at this meeting and then make the public hearing on the ordinance the first item on the agenda at the following meeting. He further explained they would devote approximately one hour per Planning Commission Meeting until the entire document had been reviewed and the public had opportunity to speak on each item in the ordinance. Ms. Bryant stated there were still people present that wished to speak. Mr. Rudy Hatcher, a local builder, stated most residential homes in Fayetteville required a three foot cut to have proper drainage. He explained he was fearful that the ordinance would cause developers to not make the necessary cuts in order to avoid having to get a permit. He agreed with the Commission that an ordinance was required to stop excessive grading, stating that the key word was "excessive". Mr. Allred stated that if there was to be affordable housing in the City of Fayetteville, there could not be extremely restrictive zoning ordinances. Various members of the general public, who did not take the floor, spoke giving examples of problems they had encountered with retaining walls, drainage, etc. Mr. Springborn requested that, at the next public hearing, the comments be limited to the draft ordinance. Ms. Bryant stated that, in the last week, three Commissioners had directed comments regarding the ordinance to her; she encouraged the other Commissioners to do the same. The meeting was adjourned.