HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 8,
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:
Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred,
Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Jett Cato, and Charles Nickle
Jack Cleghorn
John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members
of the press and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the March 11, 1991 special meeting and of March 25, 1991 were
approved as distributed with one correction. Me. Britton pointed out she had
made some remarks that were critical regarding the private drive on the Leverett
property at the March 25, 1991 meeting which were not in the minutes.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - WOOD VIEW ESTATES
LARRY HAINES - W OF SASSAFRAS HILL RD,, N OF HWY 45
The second item on the agenda was presentation of a preliminary plat for Wood
View Estates, submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Larry Haines. The
property is located outside of the City Limits on the wet side of Sassafras Hill
Road and north of highway 45. The property contains 31.61 acres with 11 lots.
Mr. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated the only significant issue raised at the plat
review meeting was an easement requested by the utility companies and agreed to
by the developer. He stated that, while fire protection outside the city was not
required, the developer had chosen to put in a 6 -inch line to two fire hydrants
to offer fire protection. He explained that the county would consider this item
on April 15. Mr. Bunn recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to
the plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of streets,
drainage, and water plans; and subject to Washington County approval.
Mel Milholland appeared before the Commission and stated two of the lots had
existing homes.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved they
subdivision comments;
County approval. Mr.
accept the preliminary plat subject to plat review and
approval of streets, drainage and water; and Washington
Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-0.
CONCURRENT PLAT - HAYS ADDITION _
LINA WATSON - S. OF HOWARD NICKELL RD, E. OF SALEM RD
The third item on the agenda was presentation of a concurrent plat for Hays
Addition, submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Lina Watson. The property
is located on the south side of Howard Nickell Road, east of Salem Road. The
property is outside the City Limits and contains 16.9 acres with 4 lots.
Mr. Don Bunn explained this was being submitted as a concurrent plat, although
each lot fell one acre short of being of the proper size to be considered as a
concurrent plat. He stated the ordinance required out each lot to be a minimum
of five acres. Mr. Bunn pointed out all of the utilities were already in place
to serve this development, together with an approved county road. He stated the
Associate Planner had recommended against approval of the concurrent plat because
of the possibility of setting a precedent and that potential problems might not
surface before final approval. He further stated that, should the Planning
176
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 2
Commission approve the concurrent plat, it should be subject to plat review,
subdivision comments and to Washington County approval.
Mr. John Merrell, Director of Planning, stated George Faucette had presented him
with a copy of the covenants.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Bunn explained that, according to
the ordinance, a subdivision with 5 -acre tracts could be approved as a concurrent
plat. He further pointed out that approval of a concurrent plat was approval of
the preliminary and final plats the same time.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the Planning Commission could approve this item since the
ordinance set forth the tracts had to be a minimum of 5 acres.
Mr. Bunn stated it had been done before. He explained that literally the
ordinance required 5 -acre tracts or required that the subdivision be a minor
modification of already existing lots. He pointed out there was no construction
to be done on this subdivision.
Mr. Tarvin stated he believed 4 1/4 acre tracts would probably meet the intent
of the ordinance.
Mr. Springborn asked if the city attorney had been contacted regarding this
matter. He further asked if the Planning Commission should approve the
concurrent plat even though it did not meet the requirements.
Mr. Allred asked if going through the process of preliminary and final plat would
not be a mute point since all roads and utilities were completed.
Mr. Tarvin explained that, at the Subdivision Committee Meeting, they had been
told the reason this plat was being presented as a concurrent plat was because
they already had people wanting to buy lots and build. He pointed out there was
nothing to change about it since all of the improvements were completed.
Mr. Merrell stated that he felt more comfortable with the concurrent plat, after
reviewing the covenants and reading the report.
Mr. George Faucette appeared before the Commission and stated three lots were
sold subject to approval by the Commission.
Ms. Britton asked if the adjoining property owners had been notified of the
pending subdivision.
Mr. Faucette stated all adjoining property owners had been notified and the
Planning Office had the mail receipts.
Mr. Bunn explained the owner could have requested three lot splits, waiving the
requirements for a preliminary and final plat. He added the city encouraged the
owner to go through the subdivision process, necessitating notification to
adjoining landowners.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve the concurrent plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion
passed 8-0-0.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 3
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HANNA'S POTPOURRI
BURT HANNA - 417 S. GOVERNMENT
The fourth item on the agenda was presentation of a large scale development for
Hanna's Potpourri, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Burt Hanna. The property
is located at 417 S. Government and is zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy
Commercial. Mr. Allred explained that Mr. Hanna had indicated he would abstain
from the discussion and vote.
Mr. Don Bunn stated the development consisted of an 11,000 square foot warehouse
and additional parking. He explained that at the plat review meeting, the
utility companies had requested an easement to which the owner agreed, if there
was not already an easement at that location. He further stated the matter of
drainage was also discussed but there was to be a drainage plan submitted to the
engineer for approval. Mr. Bunn further stated there had been a request that Mr.
Hanna consider landscaping on the project although it was not a requirement. He
recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and
subdivision comments, subsequent approval of the drainage plans, and the
provision of the requested easement.
Mr. Harry Gray, Northwest Engineers, appeared before the Commission, and assured
the Commission that a drainage plan would be prepared and presented to the city
engineer.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved that the large scale development plan be approved subject to the
staff recommendations. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0-1
with Mr. Hanna abstaining.
WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 41
GREG HOUSE AND BEVERLY BLOCK - N OF VIEWPOINT DR., E OF MISSION BLVD
The fifth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot
Split #1 submitted by Greg House and Beverly Block for property located on the
north side of Viewpoint Drive, east of Mission Blvd. The property is zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential.
Mr. Don Bunn explained this was the first split of .54 acre tract with one lot
containing 3/10's of an acre and one lot 1/4 of an acre. He stated this area
does not yet have water but it is very close; he did not think it would be a
problem. He further explained there was a sewer available at the northeast
corner of one of the tracts and a manhole at the southwest corner of the other
tract; however, the manhole might be available only by pumping. Mr. Bunn stated
there were some drainage problems. He recommended the split be approved subject
to the payment of the required park fees, the sidewalk ordinances and getting
water and sewer to the lots.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Greg House stated all adjoining
property owners had been notified.
Ms. Mara Patterford, residing at 1733 Viewpoint, appeared before the Commission
and expressed concern on the proposed size of the lots. She explained she
believed that splitting the lot would present an inconsistency with the other
houses in the neighborhood. She further stated there would have to be
significant work done on the site regarding drainage.
Mr. House explained that there were quite a few lots to the south that were
similar in frontage. He stated the lot was on an arc, allowing distance between
the homes - more than the minimum setback areas. He stated he believed the
117
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 4
houses they planned to construct would
compliment the area rather than detract
Ms. Britton asked for the address of a
example of his work.
fit in with the neighborhood and would
from it.
particular house in Fayetteville as an
Mr. House stated he had built houses at 689 Willow, 551 Rebecca, and 505 Olive.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. House explained he did not
presently own the property but the closing would be the following week.
Me. Britton asked the square footage of the proposed houses.
Mr. House stated he anticipated a 1,500 to 1,600 square feet, two-story house
with a two -car garage. He estimated the cost of the homes would be $80,000 to
$85,000 each.
Mr. Merrell pointed out that both of these lots would exceed the minimum lot size
of 8,000 square feet. He stated that all setbacks could be met on both lots.
Ms. Britton stated she was concerned because, due to the terrain, these lots
would not accept the typical slab house. She explained the builder would have
to be aware of what he was doing in order to set two houses on this piece of
property.
Mr. Bunn explained that Mr. House specialized in difficult lots.
Mr. House stated he was aware of the problems and they had been taken into
consideration. He further explained he had constructed two houses on Texas Way
where the terrain was much worse than the subject property.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. House explained that not only did
his houses not devalue a neighborhood, other people told him the value of the
surrounding property was increased.
Mr. Tarvin stated he was concerned about the effect on the neighborhood if the
other lots in the area were much larger.
Mr. Allred asked the typical frontage and size of lots in the area.
Mr. Merrell explained staff only done a visual examination by driving through the
neighborhood but could review the area and give the Commission more concrete
information.
Me. Britton pointed out that, according to a map of the area, the lot across the
street was much larger.
Ms. Stephanie Brown, a resident at 1709 Viewpoint, stated her lot as 150' x 150'.
She explained that the houses in the area set back quite a distance from the
street. She further explained that the back of the proposed lot was a sink hole
when it rained, making it impossible to built a house anyplace but the front of
the lot. She explained the houses would then be out of conformity with the other
homes in the area.
Mr. House explained there was a 30 foot setback in the area that he would meet.
He further explained his desire was to make his homes fit in with the rest of the
area. He stated that, in order to sell the homes he built, they did have to be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 5
Mr. Springborn stated he was concerned not only because of the comments made to
this point but also because the location of the subject lot with respect to
traffic movement made this lot highly visible. He further stated he could see
putting two houses at that location could work against the values in that
subdivision.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved that the lot split be
motion. The motion passed 6-1-1 with Mr.
abstaining.
denied. Ms. Britton seconded the
Allred voting no and Mr. Nickle
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 12
E. J. BALL - N OF MISSION BLVD, W OF CROSSOVER RD
The sixth item on the agenda was the presentation of Lot Split #2 submitted by
Kathy Adams on behalf of E. J. Ball for property located on the north side of
Mission Boulevard and west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial.
Mr. Bunn explained this was a second split of the property with the original
tract being 20 acres. He stated the first split of 1.3 acres occurred in 1987
and this split would create a one -acre tract. He explained water was available
on the property but the sewer would have to be extended from the east, and a 15 -
foot easement had been requested in connection with the extension of the sewer
line. He recommended approval subject to extension of public sewer, granting of
a 15 foot easement across the north side of the property, and construction of
sidewalks in accordance with the master sidewalk plan.
Mr. Cato stated he would be abstaining on the discussion and vote on this item.
Ms. Kathy Adams presented the signed sewer easement and stated she was available
for questions from the Commission.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to approve the lot
extending the sewer and construction
motion. The motion passed 7-0-1 with
split subject to staff recommendation of
of a sidewalk. Mr. Hanna seconded the
Mr. Cato abstaining.
EXCAVATION AND GRADING ORDINANCE
Mr. John Merrell reminded the Commission that several weeks earlier they had
recommended to the Board of Directors the approval of the E-1 Extraction
District. He stated he anticipated the Board would review the ordinance at the
April 16 meeting.
Mr. Merrell explained the grading ordinance had been on the Commission's agenda
several times for public discussion and, further, most of the Commissioners had
given staff their comments on the proposed ordinance. He stated staff had spent
considerable time drafting the ordinance and felt they had a good grading
ordinance that would be good for the city. He stated that at a previous meeting
someone had raised the question of legal liability. He gave as an example that
someone had applied and received a grading permit and then, at some later date,
something went wrong. He explained that the City Attorney had stated the City
would have no liability by virtue of approving a grading plan and issuing a
grading permit, provided staff, through their review of the plan, did not review
it so incompetently that a major factor was overlooked.
I7O
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 6
Ms. Bryant stated staff had received quite a bit of opposition to removing the
residential requirement but that staff was comfortable with the compromise.
Mr. Merrell stated they had appreciated all of the comments received from the
Commissioners and general public, because they wanted to encourage quality
development in the City of Fayetteville.
Ms. Britton suggested, since the residential requirement was removed, that the
ordinance be automatically reviewed in one year to see how it is working and see
if the residential requirement should be added.
Mr. Springborn asked if this ordinance would be incorporated into the
comprehensive zoning ordinance or if this ordinance would remain independent.
Mr. Merrell stated staff had considered this matter and viewed this ordinance as
an amendment to the zoning ordinance. He explained that approval of this
ordinance now would "fast -forward" the grading and excavation part of the zoning
ordinance. This would alleviate the problems the city had on Zion Road and the
overall concern about some less than good examples of land development.
Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Bunn if he was comfortable with this draft of the ordinance
from the standpoint of being able to implement it.
Mr. Bunn stated he was reasonably comfortable with the ordinance. He explained
that, even though the residential portion of the ordinance had been eliminated,
there were still quite a number of permits.
Mr. Merrell agreed they were working with an unknown quantity. He stated that
while Mr. Bunn and his staff had numerous and vast responsibilities, they had
recently hired a staff engineer to assist with the workload. He explained that
even with the employment of the new staff engineer, Mr. Bunn would still have a
very heavy workload. He stated staff would still be having discussions on the
sharing of responsibilities and enforcement of the ordinance, etc.
Mr. Hanna asked if a contractor would now have to have two permits - building
and grading - instead of one.
Ms. Bryant explained, if the construction was commercial in nature on over an
acre of land, the contractor would need to file a grading plan along with the
LSD. If the land was a subdivision, they would submit the grading plan when they
submitted the plan for the streets.
Mr. Hanna asked if they were going through the ordinance item by item. He
suggested they talk to some engineers, developers and builders regarding the
technical portions of the ordinance. He expressed concern on the section
requiring a permit for a three foot cut. He stated he believed that restricting
cuts to three feet was too rigid for Fayetteville's terrain.
Mr. Nickle explained that the ordinance did not limit a cut to three feet, but
that if a cut was going to be made over three feet, a permit was required. He
further explained that cuts were limited to 15 feet in vertical height.
Mr. Hanna stated it appeared they were drawing an arbitrary line. He further
stated that all of the problem cuts in Fayetteville were considerably more than
three feet. He explained he wanted to stop the problem cut but did not believe
that everyone doing construction should have to purchase two permits.
Mr. Springborn stated he understood Mr. Hanna's concerns but looking at it from
the standpoint of property owners who could be affected by a three foot cut (such
as they had in his neighborhood), he stated he would rather err on the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 7
conservative side than on the maximum size. He stated three feet might be a
little tight, but he would hate to have to discuss whether it should be three
feet, four feet, etc.
Mr. Hanna stated residential neighborhoods were exempt. He explained he believed
when they got into commercial construction they were making another permit
necessary, another step.
Mr. Robertson stated another consideration was that the ordinance also included
fill regulations. He explained that where cuts might not be a problem, fill
could be due to tie-ins with the slopes tie in and how it would affect the body
of the land. He stated there was an arbitrary line which, if stretched, would
make the ordinance pointless. He further explained they would not be looking at
many extra engineering drawings or architectural drawings with a three foot cut
but, at some time in the future, should it become necessary to blend the site
back to an existing condition with adjacent lots on either side of it, be
believed it was important.
Mr. Nickle stated he agreed with Ms. Britton regarding reviewing the ordinance
in one year. He explained, since the city had never had a grading and excavation
ordinance before, he believed they should start with the proposed ordinance and
then modify it where they saw fit.
Mr. Hanna stated he believed they could set the cut limit at six feet since they
were choosing a figure arbitrarily.
Ms. Britton stated it was easier to loosen an ordinance rather than tighten one.
She further stated they needed to consider the size of the area, not just the
three feet cut. She explained she believed three feet was a good place to draw
the line.
Mr. Springborn stated he had a technical background and had some reservations
about some of the numbers in the ordinance but believed they were good to start
with. He further stated he believed the ordinance needed to be approved. He
complimented the staff on the revised ordinance.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approve and endorse the ordinance for approval by the
City Board, recognizing that it would be reviewed in one year. Mr. Nickle
seconded the motion.
Mr. Tarvin agreed with Mr. Hanna in that three feet seemed very shallow.
He stated he believed five feet would be a more reasonable figure.
Mr. Hanna asked who would be issuing the grading permits on projects that were
under an acre.
Mr. Merrell explained the ordinance would be administered through the engineering
office. He further explained that some of the wording in the ordinance would
give Mr. Bunn and his staff the flexibility to issue the permits.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to amend the motion to have the maximum cut without a permit be
five feet. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
Mr. Harry Gray stated he believed it was a good ordinance. He asked if a
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 8
detailed grading plan had to be approved before an LSD or subdivision plat was
approved. He explained that would hurt the City of Fayetteville if such a plan
had to be approved before an LSD or subdivision plat was presented. He suggested
presentation of a general plan that could be approved subject to the LSD or
subdivision plat being approved.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray explained that the staff
needed to look at each individual situation and make administrative decisions
with the support from the Planning Commission and City Board of Directors.
Ms. Britton stated she agreed with Mr. Gray, that was one of the points she had
also questioned. She explained she believed approval of a detailed grading plan
with the preliminary plat was too soon.
Mr. Gray stated that in the past the city had asked for a general plan and
suggested they might make this a two-part process. He explained it was a burden
on the developer to come in with everything at once.
Ms. Bryant stated the ordinance had been changed at Mr. Gray's recommendation and
it now contained a preliminary grading plan. She explained they had not been
able to drop many of the requirements from the final grading plan but they had
dropped what they could in order to simplify it.
Ms. Britton stated the ordinance called for a preliminary grading plan at the
time of the preliminary plat for subdivision or plat submission for large scale
developments. She stated she understood that to mean the developer would have
to submit two grading plans - a preliminary and a final.
Ms. Bryant explained the preliminary grading plan would have less information
than the final plan.
Mr. Merrell also explained that there would be cases where someone desired
rezoning or a conditional use that would not require an immediate grading plan.
He further stated staff would be as flexible as possible since this was a
learning experience for everyone.
Mr. Allred stated he did not want to create an ordinance that was not enforceable
or understandable, that just created an extra layer of bureaucracy. He further
stated he did believe the city needed an ordinance on grading. He asked what
type of processing the contractor would have to do - would they have to wait two
or three days before the engineering department could issue a grading permit or
could someone walk in with everything in hand and walk out an hour later with all
of the permits to start the construction.
Ms. Bryant explained that, unless the contractor had submitted a grading plan
previously, the city engineer had up to 10 days to approve the grading plan. She
further explained there were other permits - curb cut permits, electrical
permits, etc. - besides the building and grading permits.
Mr. Allred asked if issuance of a grading permit would delay the permitting
process.
Mr. Merrell explained if there were situations that were complex, the permit
could be delayed for a few days.
Mr. Allred stated everyone needed to work so this process would not be
unnecessarily delayed. He explained, if issuance of all of the permits could be
worked smoothly without unnecessary delays, it would benefit the entire
community.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 9
Ms. Bryant explained her office was planning to create a newsletter for builders
and developers in order to communicate information such as this ordinance. She
further explained, with such notice, the developers would realize the grading
plan should be submitted in advance.
Mr. Merrell explained that staff would also write an excavation and grading
manual orientated towards builders and realtors but readable for the general
public.
Mr. Allred stated he believed that was an excellent idea.
Ms. Britton stated she would like to change part of the ordinance, as written on
page 8, on two different items. The first change suggested regarded the
paragraph reading "Plant materials shall be watered or irrigated and tended.
Where irrigation or regular watering is not available, shall be thoroughly
mulched." be changed to require, if there were no irrigation, that only native
or acclimated plant species shall be used since all plants should be mulched.
She also requested paragraph "e" where it was suggested that trees be planted
along benches, the term "plant material" be used instead of trees. Ms. Britton
stated the U. S. Soil Conservation had explained to her that, if trees are
planted on a bench, destabilization would occur.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to change the ordinance per her comments.
Mr. Allred suggested the motion and amendment be withdrawn temporarily in order
to have one new motion.
Mr. Tarvin withdrew his motion to amend and Mr. Hanna withdrew his second.
Mr. Nickle suggested they vote amendment by amendment. He explained he did not
know if they could all agree on one motion.
After discussion by the Commissioners, it was agreed they would vote on
amendments to the motion, amendment by amendment.
Mr. Tarvin reiterated his motion regarding changing the maximum cut from three
feet to five feet. Mr. Hanna reiterated his second.
Mr. Springborn stated he was concerned about the Commission not finding agreement
and approving the ordinance. He further stated if they went through the
ordinance, item by item, picking at words, they would end up tabling it for
another time and it would never get passed. He withdrew his previous motion.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn then moved they stay until they get the ordinance approved.
Mr. Allred explained he would rather take a little bit of time and get the
ordinance right and not have an inferior ordinance.
Mr. Tarvin stated that at only one meeting had a developer addressed the proposed
ordinance. He suggested staff request comments from other developers on the
practicality of the ordinance and the impact on the community. He explained his
main concern was they might pass an ordinance that would make development so
difficult, that it would discourage it to the point that a lot of development
would be moved to other areas.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 10
Ms. Bryant pointed out that public hearings
giving the developers numerous opportunities
had been advertised four times,
to participate.
Mr. Merrell stated staff did not want the Commission to vote on an ordinance they
were not comfortable with and, if input from more people would assist the
Commission, that would be good. He explained staff had tried to get input from
everyone involved. He further stated he had assumed the developers were in favor
of the ordinance because no one had contacted staff to make any suggestions for
changes.
Mr. Tarvin explained he would like to have the opportunity to hear the
developers' comments. He further stated he would feel more comfortable in
approving the ordinance if one or two developers gave him positive input.
Ms. Britton stated the developers had numerous occasions to appear before the
Commission and suggested he should have contacted the developers himself.
Mr. Springborn stated he was not going to withdraw his motion under the present
circumstances.
Mr. Jamie Jones, a resident of Fayetteville, appeared before the Commission and
explained he did not want to create a hardship for the developers but believed
that such an ordinance giving the city control over excavation and grading was
needed. He further stated he would prefer paying a couple of hundred dollars
extra to live in a city that had planned and controlled growth than to let the
developers have carte blanc. He further stated other contractors did not have
that type of liberty, they had to abide by city codes. He stated they needed an
ordinance that protected the developers and the community but he was far more
concerned about the public being protected than any special interest group. He
asked the Commission to not "gut" the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion made by Ms. Britton regarding native plants and
plant material on benches instead of defining trees.
Mr. Robertson stated he had a problem with the term "plant material" because it
would encompass turf, vines, ground cover, etc. He explained that plant material
was all-encompassing.
Ms. Britton explained plant
developer and not on the city.
Department had told her that,
would destabilize the soil.
material would put the responsibility on the
She further explained that the Soil Conservation
unless the bench was at least 20 foot wide, trees
Mr. Robertson stated he disagreed with that.
a lot of compromise on the ordinance and there
see done differently but, as a whole, they all
they review the ordinance in one year and, if
He further stated there had been
were some things he would like to
could live with it. He suggested
needed, reorganize it.
Mr. Allred asked for the vote on the first amendment to change the maximum cut
without a permit from three foot to five foot. The motion had been made by Mr.
Tarvin and seconded by Mr. Hanna.
The motion passed 7-1-0 with Britton, Hanna, Springborn, Allred, Tarvin, Cato and
Nickle voting "yes", Robertson voting "no", and Cleghorn absent.
Mr. Allred asked for the vote on the second amendment, a change in Section $,
regarding use of native plants in non -irrigated areas and substitution of the
words "plant materials" in place of trees on benches. He stated the motion was
made by Ms. Britton and seconded by Mr. Nickle.
16)
Planning Commission
April 8, 1991
Page 11
The motion passed 7-1-0 with Britton, Hanna, Springborn, Allred, Tarvin, Cato,
and Nickle voting "yes", Robertson voting "no", and Cleghorn absent.
Mr. Allred then asked for the vote on the motion on the floor, subject to the
approved changes.
Mr. Merrell suggested they include Ms. Britton's suggestion that the ordinance
be automatically reviewed within one year from the date of the passage of the
ordinance.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to include the review time period in his motion.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
Mr. Allred stated the motion was to approve the ordinance subject to the two
amendments with the provisal that the ordinance be reviewed by the planning
commission within one year of passage by the Board of Directors.
There was discussion as to whether the ordinance needed to be reviewed on an
annual basis. It was determined it would need to be reviewed just once.
Mr. Merrell explained, if the Commission did not approve the ordinance, staff
would ask the Board of Directors for further instructions.
The motion passed 7-1-0 with Britton, Hanna, Springborn, Allred, Tarvin, Cato,
and Nickle voting "yes", Robertson voting "no", and Cleghorn absent.
Mr. Merrell stated the Board of Directors would hear the ordinance at one of
their meetings in May.
OTHER BUSINESS
THE FAYETTEVILLE PLAN
Mr. Merrell stated he wanted to advise the Commission on the progress of THE
FAYETTEVILLE PLAN. He explained they purposely used few consultants but staff
had worked on the Plan. Mr. Merrell stated the media campaign was underway, the
logo had been decided upon and the steering committee had been chosen. He
further explained the steering committee was made up of a diverse group of people
including business interests, environmental interests, and the university.
Ms. Bryant stated there would be an organizational meeting for the steering
committee at 1:00 p.m., April 16 at Mt. Sequoyah Conference Center, followed by
a press conference at 2:30. She encouraged all Commissioners and the general
public to attend the conference. Ms. Bryant further stated the kick-off would
occur on April 30 with the Goals Summit scheduled for May 1.
Mr. Merrell stated there would be an extensive advertising and media campaign,
including targeting clubs and organizations in the area for informational
speeches. He explained the staff had received good support from the city
manager, the Commission, the Board of Directors and various organizations. He
further stated brochures would be ready for distribution in the near future.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
X79