Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-11 Minutes (2)• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 11, 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: Fred Hanna, J.E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Jett Cato, Mark Robertson, Joe Tarvin, Charles Nickles Jack Cleghorn and Jana Lynn Britton J. E. Springborn and Jack Cleghorn John Merrell, Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others EXCAVATION DISTRICT Mr. John Merrell explained the Board of Directors instructed the City Manager to have the staff prepare an excavation and grading ordinance. He stated staff, with the assistance of a consulting committee, drafted a proposed ordinance. There have been public hearings on the proposed ordinance. He further stated that staff had a meeting with Chairman Allred asking for further direction. Merrell explained they had attempted to draft an ordinance that addressed the concerns of the public. He further explained there was no opposition on the extraction overlay that supplements the main excavation and grading ordinance. He stated they had discussed the possibility of the Commission voting on this section at this meeting and then decide how to handle their approach to the main, overall ordinance. Ms. Bryant explained there were several pages and each page would fit into a different section of the zoning ordinance. The first page on the extraction district would fit into the different zoning categories. The second page - Use Unit 30 Extraction Uses would fall under the different use units. The last two pages would be use conditions that would be attached to this type of activity. She explained that basically this would be a new zoning district, with two uses permitted by right - Use Unit 1, City -Wide Uses by Right, and Use Unit 30, Extractive Uses. There would also be one use permissible upon appeal which is Use Unit 2, City -Wide Uses by Conditional Use: Other items were the bulk and area requirements, items considered in the Use Units, and restrictions. Mr. Merrell explained this was the instrument the City would use to direct anyone doing excavation to apply for rezoning subject to certain criteria. He explained this would have been a means to have prevented the Zion Road matter. Ms. Bryant explained that extraction district zoning controls the location of commercial extraction activities. The excavation and grading ordinance does not deal with commercial extraction; it deals with the ordinary grading, cutting and filling asociated with all types of developments. The excavation and grading ordinance regulates how cuts are made not where they are made or if they can be made. Mr. Hanna stated basically this prohibited extraction but allowed one to come before the Planning Commission and ask for conditional use. Me. Bryant stated it would be to ask for a rezoning. /6b • • Planning Commission Special Meeting March 11, 1991 Page 2 Mrs. Britton stated it would be a full rezoning to E-1, not a conditional use. Mr. Hanna stated he had no problems with an ordinance prohibiting gravel pits, rock quarries and strip mines within the city limits. He further stated he really didn't see any need for an E-1 zone within the city limits but there was the possibility the city could grow to such a size that such an operation could be incorporated. Mr. Merrell explained the possibility might occur when such a district was needed, far away from any residential area. Mr. Hanna stated this would prohibit what happened on Zion Road from occurring again. Mr. Merrell stated, if an owner of an excavation operation came before the Commission for rezoning, this ordinance would give the Commission the means to either prohibit or approve such activities of a particular location. Mr. Allred asked, if the extraction ordinance was passed, how would it intertwine with the cut and fill ordinance - could they be incorporated into one ordinance. Ms. Bryant stated they would be slipped into the appropriate parts of the land use regulations; they are independent ordinances. Mr. Hanna stated they could vote on the extraction ordinance at this meeting and then let each Commissioner give comments to staff regarding the cutting and grading portion. Mr. Allred stated this would satisfy the need to have an ordinance to prevent what had happened on Zion Road and give the Commission more time to review and think about the cut and fill ordinance. He explained the Commission had fulfilled all necessary requirements since this was the third public hearing on this matter. He further stated there was a quorum present. Mr. Jamie Jones, 1654 Zion Road, appeared before the Commission and requested that the Commission consider a responsible excavation and grading ordinance. He stated the City needed to have some control over grading and excavation. He questioned, if the extraction ordinance passed, what could be done to halt the Zion Road excavation, stabilize and beautify the area. Mr. Merrell stated he had previously talked with the city attorney regarding this matter but he was not certain of how the passage of this ordinance would affect the Zion Road matter. He stated he would ask for a written opinion from the city attorney. He further stated he was not sure whether the extraction could be frozen or that the continued extraction of the materials on the site would be allowed until it was all gone. Mr. Jones stated that was very important to him. He further stated that the Zion Road excavation was to have been completed in January 1991 at the latest but extraction was still taking place. He asked what recourse the adjoining property owners had other than Court action if the city would not enact some way to control that type of operation. Mr. Allred explained that it was not a matter of enacting something but that whatever was enacted was legally enforceable. • Mr. Jones asked that the Commission or staff get an opinion from the city attorney and further, contact the property owner doing the excavation regarding • • • Planning Commission Special Meeting March 11, 1991 Page 3 the January 1991 deadline. Mr. Merrell stated he would contact the city attorney however, the January 1991 deadline had not been imposed by the city. Mr. James stated, if the Commission passed the extraction district, he still was strongly in favor that they didn't just duck out of a responsible excavation and grading ordinance for the city. A member of the audience, who did not take the floor, spoke in favor of the passage of the excavation and grading ordinance also. Mr. Merrell explained to the Commission that if they were comfortable with the extraction overlay part of the ordinance, they could act on that portion of the ordinance. He also recommended that the Commission vote on the excavation and grading ordinance in the near future. He explained that the Board of Directors were expecting the ordinance. Mr. Hanna stated he had been in favor of voting on the extraction district but now questioned voting on it without knowing what type of affect it would have on an ongoing situation. He believed the Commission should have that information before voting. Mr. Nickle asked if the city attorney's opinion would change his vote. He stated he believed this could be resolved between this meeting and when the ordinance went before the City Board of Directors. He further stated he believed it was the Commission's responsibility to continue with the extraction zone, and if there were some detrimental aspect, the City Attorney could advise the City Board on that aspect. Me. Bryant asked if Mr. Hanna's concern was that, if they passed the extraction district and the city attorney determined the current extraction operation cannot be enlarged, then the City might be sued. The Commission discussed the situation on Zion Road and it was determined that Mr. Merrill would, as earlier stated in the meeting, ask for an opinion from the city attorney. It was further determined that someone else could start another excavation area if the Commission did not vote on this item. NOTION: Mr. Hanna moved the Commission recommend the district E-1, Extraction District, be added to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0-0. Mr. Tarvin left the meeting. Mr. Hanna stated he would like for the Commissioners to give staff comments regarding the excavation and grading ordinance. Mr. Allred asked if the extraction district would now go before the Board of Directors. Mr. Merrell stated he would check to see what the next available date would be. He further stated it could be as early as the first meeting in April but if not, the second meeting. Mr. Merrell also stated that in November staff had done some • • • Planning Commission Special Meeting March 11, 1991 Page 4 field work on Zion Road for a "Zion Road Plan" and that would be presented to the Commission possibly the first meeting in April. Mr. Hanna stated he had been on the Commission for a number of years and explained that he had seen a number of things occur in the City of Fayetteville that he didn't like because the city had no control, such as the fill behind the old jail on College Avenue, a parking lot on the 400 block of North College Avenue with 20 feet of sewer pipe showing and cutting into the mountain on North College without having any type of retaining wall. He further stated he was concerned regarding the terrain of Fayetteville and the type of ordinances other cities of comparable size with comparable terrain had. Mr. Hanna stated he would like to have the ordinances place the responsibility of overseeing the restrictions on the city engineer rather than a permit procedure through the Planning Department. He suggested the engineer be granted leeway in the proposed ordinance. Me. Bryant explained the proposed ordinance did put a great deal of responsibility on the city engineer and was based on guidelines so the engineer did have a great deal of flexibility. Mr. Allred stated most of the problems with excavations were in the commercial zones, not residential areas. He suggested it might better be geared to the commercial aspect in the commercial zoning areas to see if it would work and not get into the residential areas. He agreed with Mr. Hanna that it needed to be the purview of the city engineer since there could be mitigating circumstances that would allow a four foot cut without adversely affecting any one. Mr. Allred stated he would like the city engineer to have the latitude to approve that without going through all the landscape architects, engineer, Planning Commission and planning staff. He further stated the engineer needed to have the authority by the ordinance to make such decisions. Ms. Bryant stated they had dealt in depth with the commercial issue - whether it should be just limited to commercial activities - in the excavation and grading committee. She asked for the other Commissioners' opinions on this, matter. She explained the committee had decided that both commercial and residential areas have equal contributions to the problems in Fayetteville. There are a lot of small residential sites, but because there are so many of them, they make as much a problem as the commercial areas. Mr. Merrell inquired if Mr. Allred was asking for a trial of the excavation ordinance in an area where there was commercial zoning, making a test case to see what type of problems were experienced, and then if, everybody deems it necessary look into the residential areas. Mr. Allred stated it could be a phase-in approach. Mr. Cato agreed with everyone on the need for an ordinance. He further agreed that the ordinance should be geared more toward commercial areas because the Commission had no idea of the scope of involvement from the residential standpoint. He stated he was concerned for the individual wanting to build a house. They would have to hire engineers and landscape architects and pay additional fees in order to comply with the ordinance. He further stated he did not think that was the intent of the Commission; however he did appreciate what staff was saying regarding the number of residences. He explained the city engineer needed the latitude to look at subdivisions and bring them in as isolated incidents, if needed, without disrupting residential building. Mr. Nickle stated the majority of problems that he had seen were of a commercial nature and those were the ones that were the glaring problems. He stated he • • • Planning Commission Special Meeting March 11, 1991 Page 5 believed the commercial areas were where the emphasis needed to be. Mr. Nickle explained he thought there would be a problem regarding enforcement in the field. He suggested that if the ordinance was directed toward commercial properties, perhaps the mechanics of the process and the costs involved, could be worked out before expanding it to all properties. Mr. Merrell suggested they have some discussion regarding what zoning districts the Commission would like to cover. Mr. Cato suggested using the elimination approach and eliminate R-1. He further stated he looked at subdivisions and R-2 and R-3 as commercial ventures. Mr. Allred explained they had to figure out how to administer it. He stated if it applied only to commercial for a year it.. could be studied, making any corrections, and then come back and amend it to include residential zones. The Commission and staff discussed regulation by use rather than zoning district. Mr. Robertson asked how many building permits were issued, broken down by commercial and residential, in 1990. He explained that might allow the Commission to have a better idea regarding the extent of the ordinance. Mr. Merrell stated he had received a report from the superintendent of the inspection division with all of the 1990 construction year reviewed. He could not sure of the percentage of commercial construction for 1990 but believed it was in the neighborhood of 25% He explained that the percentage did change from year to year. He stated he believed that was 150 to 200 commercial building permits. Mr. Nickle stated they. also needed to look at the number of problems created or existing by a certain type of construction. Ms. Bryant asked their thoughts regarding subdivisions -- should they have a grading plan. Mrs. Britton stated they should -- it was a commercial venture. Mr. Allred asked how they would know where the home or building would be located on the subdivision. Mr. Nickle stated that was the problem they got into in the Committee. He explained that once the lot was sold to an individual, that individual might have totally different ideas on the house or building and placement of it from the developer. He suggested commercial and industrial districts should be considered first to see how it worked out. He further stated he thought the subdivision committee should review the grading and drainage very closely. Mr. Bunn stated the subdivision plan was not a plan for each lot but a plan to control runoff during construction of the streets and other facilities. He further stated he did not believe it would be unreasonable to require a drainage plan for each lot He explained a large portion of the ordinance dealt with control of the runoff during construction. Mr. Allred stated the city engineering department needed the responsibility to review the subdivisions. Mr. Bunn explained that sometimes during construction there was a long period of time between cutting the street and surfacing it. He explained this ordinance would allow him to oversee the regulation of the runoff in these instances. • • • Planning Commission Special Meeting March 11, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Allred asked if there was any permit process on subdivision development. Mr. Bunn explained that Planning Commission's approval of a preliminary plat was a permit to start construction but there were no separate approvals except for drainage plans, etc. approved. Mr. Nickle asked if this ordinance would be more workable were it to be tailored for commercial, industrial property, large scale developments and subdivisions. Mr. Bunn stated it would be more workable than the idea of permitting each residential lot subject to the ordinance. He explained that, while it was desirable to permit each residential lot, it would be almost impossible to do with current staff levels. He further stated that it still might require additional staff just for commercial and large 'scale development property. Mr. Allred stated it would be a good place to start. Ms. Britton stated administering of the ordinance was one of her big concerns. Mr. Robertson stated he had some concerns regarding residential developments with steep grades. He stated he felt the Commission needed to address that. Mr. Merrell asked if Mr. Robertson was suggesting accepting the compromise for commercial zoning districts and LSDs but also include the extreme steep slopes irregardless of the type of district. Mr. Robertson stated that was his preference. He further stated he felt the extreme slope lots should be looked at on an individual basis. Mr. Nickle suggested that on the building permit it be percentage of slope, the building inspector would have Mr. Cato stated there had been a problem with water subdivisions. He asked if the proposed ordinance would he didn't think a lot by lot review would change that. Mr. Bunn agreed and said there were many times when a lot by lot drainage plan would be helpful if there were enough people to enforce it. He explained that 75 to 80% of the complaints received on drainage was from one lot to another. He stated drainage did need to be looked at more closely in the subdivision plans. Ms. Bryant suggested a deadline by noon Wednesday for comments from the Commissioners for redrafting of the ordinance. noted that at a certain to review it. and runoff on existing change that. He stated The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.