Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-30 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Thursday, August 30, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Kenneth Pummill, J. E. Springborn, Chuck Nickle, Tom Suchecki, Bob Reynolds, Jett Cato and Jerry Allred MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tarvin OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others Mr. Suchecki called the meeting to order. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS & DENSITY JERRY ROSE - CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Rose advised he had been City Attorney since 1989 and, in that time period, the Planning Commission had never been sued. He explained that, at the present time, they were experiencing tremendous growth in Fayetteville and, when there was such rapid growth, the decisions were going to be hard and would not please everyone. He stated he appreciated the work they were doing and he believed they had made some good decisions. He informed the Commission Mr. Springborn had brought to him a piece of unsettled law and asked how much discretion the Planning Commission had in dealing with density requirements under R-1 zoning. He stated Mr. Springborn believed there might be some legal means of having some discretion regarding reducing the density, depending upon the neighborhood, etc. He stated Mr. Springborn had looked at the. Application of District Regulations which read: "The regulations set by this chapter within each district shall be minimum regulations and shall apply uniformly for each class or kind of structure or land, except as hereinafter provided." He noted Mr. Springborn had also looked at the general provisions of the ordinance which talked about the interpretation of application of the statutes, "In there interpretation of application of provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements for promotion of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Whenever the requirements of the chapter are at variance with the requirements of any other ordinance, the highest standard shall apply." He stated Mr. Springborn had also looked at the zoning ordinance, which read: "This ordinance shall designate districts or zones of such shape and size or characteristics as deemed advisable." Mr. Rose stated he had discussed the matter with Mort Gitelman, University of Arkansas Law School professor, and had researched Arkansas law. He advised that, while he agreed Mr. Springborn's interpretation had some legal merit, he did not believe it was the best legal argument. He advised the best legal argument was that they had a zoning ordinance setting forth the particular standards for development and they had to stick to those standards. He noted this was the most conservative approach and the one both he and Professor Gitelman believed the most defensible 33S Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 2 approach. He went on to say he believed, if the Planning Commission had the discretion advocated by Mr. Springborn, they would lose in court. He then reviewed the Richardson case of 1988. He stated all of this might become moot since there would be some new zoning classifications between A-1 and R-1 which could eliminate some of the problems. He stated the Richardson case dealt with subdivision plat approvals. He advised he did not agree with the case but it was reality. Mr. Rose explained the Little Rock Planning Commission had denied a preliminary plat to a subdivision. He stated the issue before the Court was whether the Planning Commission had discretionary power to disapprove a subdivision plat which met all of the minimum qualifications. He went on to say the Court found when a subdivision ordinance specified minimum standards to which a preliminary plat had to conformed, it was arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which met those standards. He stated the case inferred that the decision as to whether or not subdivisions could or could not exist in a particular zoning district was made at the time of zoning, not at the time of plat approval. He advised the only decision was what the subdivision was to look like, what needed to happen to have a subdivision, what requirements were needed. He went on to say that if the plat was within the use permitted by the zoning classification and met the developmental regulations set forth in the subdivision ordinance, then the plat was, by definition, in harmony with the existing subdivisions . Mr. Rose explained the argument in the Richardson case was that the subdivision had marginal development potential. He explained the developer wanted to construct the subdivision on land the Planning Commission believed had marginal development potential because it would be hard to get good roads, good sewer, etc. He stated the Planning Commission denied the subdivision. He further stated the Court said they could not do that. He explained if they denied a preliminary plat for a subdivision, they had to tell the developer how they could change things to get the subdivision approved. He went on to say the case talked about the Planning Commission's function, reading: "The Planning Commission is not a legislative body but an administrative body." He stated it emphasized administration, not interpretation. He stated their function, at the subdivision approval level, was an administrative function, almost a checklist function, according to the Richardson case. Mr. Rose stated the Richardson case limited the Planning Commission's discretion. He advised if they wanted more discretion, while they could not be arbitrary or capricious, they could set some standards providing more discretion. He further stated he did not believe the Court's decision limited the application of words like "adequate" or "safe" which gave the Commission some discretion. He stated some of those words could be built into the ordinance. He warned them that, by using a vague term, they would have to be very specific as to what the developer needed to do to met their requirements. 33q • • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 3 He advised the Richardson case was about preliminary plat approval. He noted that, on final plat approval, the developer could be denied final plat approval but it would be very rare when that occurred. He explained the developer was given basic approval to do his project upon approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Springborn stated he had referred to the terms in the enabling act that said "health, safety and welfare" and, when he had sat in Mort Gitelman's class, Professor Gitelman had referred to those features a great deal. He further stated that in the enabling act the term "uniformity" was used quite a bit. He stated he believed those terms were uppermost in his mind when he started reviewing the matter. He asked if the Richardson case was based upon the Little Rock ordinance or the enabling act. Mr. Rose stated it was based upon the Little Rock ordinance but did cite to the statute the enabling legislation of the Arkansas Code of Statutes. Mr. Springborn expressed his belief that, under the enabling act, the city would have the right to draft an ordinance which would provide for more uniformity in density with respect to plat approvals. Mr. Rose agreed. Mr. Springborn stated the proposed new zoning regulations appeared to solve the problem of uniformity, making his question moot. In response to a comment from Mr. Springborn, Mr. Rose stated they did have some negotiating force which could allow them to do things by force of their opinion. Mr. Rose further stated Alett Little was the interpreter of the zoning ordinance as planning administrator. He went on to say that, if someone did not like her interpretation they were to appeal it to the Board of Adjustments; if they did not like the Board of Adjustment determination, they could further appeal to the Circuit Court. He explained it was presumptuous of him to give an opinion on zoning, that was Ms. Little's job. Mr. Suchecki stated Mr. Rose's statements were indicative that they needed more zoning classifications. Mr. Paul Spencer asked when an area had been zoned R-1 for years, if the Planning Commission did not have the right to determine if a person could apply for a rezoning year after year. Mr. Rose explained the ordinances set out a rezoning could be brought up for the same tract once a year. Mr. Spencer advised that was a waste of time and taxpayers money. 3'� • • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 4 TRAFFIC GENERATION PLAN PERRY FRANKLIN - TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT Mr. Perry Franklin presented a handout from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's catalogue describing the trip generation manual. He explained the manual was the culmulation of thousands of traffic studies (volume counts) in different land uses. He noted ITE upgraded every 3 years. He advised the Commission that was the best planning tool for impact that a type of land use would have prior to being constructed. He advised he had been using this system via computer for the last 7 or 8 years. Mr. Franklin reviewed other types of uses where the trip generation software became valuable. He also noted they had purchased new traffic counters that were now in use. Mr. Nickle asked if Mr. Franklin had a guideline regarding the capacity of existing streets. Mr. Franklin stated that would be addressed in the new plan. He explained the Highway Capacity Manual reviewed capacities by level of service. He stated Level A was totally unobstructed traffic, Level B was being able to drive comfortably, Level C (design criteria) was traveling at the speed limit but surrounded by other vehicles, Level D when a vehicle was surrounded by vehicles and were traveling slower than the speed limit with frequent stops, and Level F when a vehicle came to a complete stop. He gave some examples of each level. He informed the Commission in the new plan there was a functional class definition of arterials, principles, collectors, etc. He explained that, after much research, they had come up with a definition and a cross-section, the number of vehicles a street would carry, etc. He noted there were numerous streets in Fayetteville carrying more traffic than they were designed for. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Franklin stated the State Highway Department had adopted basically the same classification as proposed in the 2010 plan. Ms. Little explained the street classification plan had been completed based on the traffic count. She stated it matched the Master Street Plan. Mr. Reynolds asked how many highways within the city were at Level F. Ms. Little explained the state highways within the city were generally in worse shape than the city streets because they were the most heavily used routes. She stated giving the traffic counts to the State Highway Department had been useful to encourage improvement of the highways. She asked Mr. Perry to explained Average Daily Traffic. Mr. Franklin explained the Arkansas Highway Department released a combination Springdale -Fayetteville map which counted approximately 200 locations on a regular basis. He stated the ADT was a formula which considered all of the counts and came 3I' • • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 5 up with a count location. He noted the count was seasonally adjusted. He advised it took over a year to get an accurate ADT. Mr. Springborn pointed out it was not 10 miles from Fayetteville to Springdale which was out of perspective to major metropolitan areas. He reminded the Commission he had asked Ms. Little at the last meeting for information regarding morning influx and. evening afflux both north and south and east and west. Ms. Little advised Kevin Santos of the Planning Department was working to gather that information. Mr. Franklin stated if the information was not available, he could do those counts. He stated he believed that information was available. SIDEWALK ORDINANCE REVISIONS TIM CONKLIN - PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Conklin advised the Commission the Subdivision Committee, at their July 29 meeting, had directed staff to immediately revise the current subdivision ordinance sidewalk requirements. He stated staff had drafted a revision which would now require sidewalks to be placed on both sides of all streets and cul-de-sacs and require all sidewalks be installed concurrently with streets, curbs, and gutters. He noted the three reasons why these changes had been requested were gaps if sidewalks in existing newer subdivisions because some lots were not be developed immediately; most individuals using sidewalks would like to be able to walk on both sides of the street; and sidewalks constructed on one side of a street created a safety problem because children, elderly individuals, and others living on the side without the sidewalk must cross the street to get to the sidewalk. He informed the Commission that currently sidewalks were the responsibility of the individual lot owner at the time the building permit was issued and were required along one side of local streets and along both sides of collector and arterial streets. He explained that, with these revisions, the developer would be responsible for construction of sidewalks at the same time streets, fire hydrants, street lighting, and other improvements were installed. Mr. Pummill stated he believe the ordinance was very ill-conceived. He further stated he was not in disagreement that the developer should put the sidewalks in but was in disagreement that the sidewalks should be on both sides. He advised he believed they were ignoring the general terrain of Fayetteville. He stated requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street would create a backlog of appeals. Mr. Conklin stated the Planning Commission was able to waive certain subdivision requirements. Mr. Pummill stated if the sidewalk was required on both sides of the street there would be a problem of the developer trying to figure out the best location of the sidewalk. He suggested the ordinance be written to give the developer some discretion to put the sidewalk on the most level side of the street. He stated he did • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 6 agree it would be safer to have sidewalks on both sides of the street but it would be running up the cost of subdivisions containing affordable housing. Ms. Little stated developers could request a waiver of the sidewalks being on both, sides of the street at the time the plat was presented to the Commission. She gave as an example Woodfield Subdivision had requested a waiver regarding the curb, requesting a rolled curb rather than a standard curb. Mr. Pummill stated the ordinance appeared absolute to him and any variance would have to be an appeal. Mr. Conklin stated there were certain standards set out for streets and there were occasions when a developer had requested a width less than minimum, etc. He stated that developer then requested a waiver of that requirement. Mr. Cato asked if the plan was to pour the sidewalks with the curbs and streets and then, as the lot was developed, the sidewalk would be busted out for the driveway. Ms. Little stated that was correct unless they adjusted the grade. She explained the developers were currently doing that with the curb. Mr. Suchecki pointed out the developer did not have to replace the curb but would • have to replace the sidewalk. • Mr. Pummill pointed out very few subdivisions in Fayetteville were flat and when the roads were cut, one side was usually flatter. He stated that, when the sidewalk master plan was created staff had looked at the areas and determined which side of the street would be best. He also asked if the ordinance superseded all other sidewalk ordinances. Ms. Little explained it amended the current ordinance. She advised the placement of sidewalks on both sides of the street had not been a staff recommendation but had been requested by one of the Planning Commissioners. She stated staff did not disagree with the request. Mr. Nickle asked if other cities in the area had a requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Ms. Little stated she had not researched to see what Rogers and Springdale did She noted Bentonville did not have any sidewalk requirements. She further stated staff had just attempted to address the problem. She advised that construction of the sidewalk was the responsibility of the lot buyer at the present time. She explained it became an issue at the time the owner was getting a building permit; an issue at the same time staff was asking the owner to pay the $225 parks fee. She also pointed out the property owner would have to make special arrangements to have the concrete truck come out to pour the sidewalk when it had already been there to pour the curb. She also noted that, by having the sidewalk on only one side of the street, one lot owner incurred approximately $800 to put in the sidewalk while the lot across the street had no sidewalk costs but the value of the lots were not adjusted. vet Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 7 Mr. Nickle stated he strongly believed the sidewalks should be put in at the same time the streets and curbs were put in. Mr. Allred stated it was his suggestion that sidewalks be placed on both sides of the street in order to get some uniformity in the subdivision regulations. He suggested that subdivisions with steep terrain on one side of the street could apply for a waiver. Mr. Pummill suggested staff could make the decision on which side of the street the sidewalk should go on. Mr. Allred stated that could be done as long as they had competent staff. Ms. Britton stated she was supportive of the developer putting in the sidewalk but was opposed to sidewalk on two sides of the street. She explained one of the reasons for her opposition was the expense. She also expressed her belief there would be a number of people applying for a waiver. She pointed out an area of affordable homes was where sidewalks were need the most due to the higher density. She stated she believed there should be a sidewalk on both sides of the street on a cul- de-sac. Ms. Little explained the current standard was that sidewalk be on both sides of the street except local streets. She pointed out local streets were usually subdivision streets and that was where children would be. She asked if they wanted the children to cross the street to get to the sidewalk. She noted the other consideration was traffic. Ms. Britton stated her neighborhood did not have sidewalks but the kids would still play in the street. She stated the adults would use the sidewalks. She also pointed out there were neighborhoods where many families walked and when there was a child in a stroller, a child on a bike and another child or two on bikes, the sidewalk would not be wide enough. She stated traffic in such neighborhoods was not heavy and. most people drove 25 mph or less. Mr. Cato stated the society had become so walking oriented that sidewalks on both sides of the street was a nice idea. He further stated in reality that, when there were mailboxes stuck in the sidewalk on one side all of the way down the street, the sidewalk did no good because you could not roll a stroller down the sidewalk. Mr. Springborn asked if they had the authority to waive sidewalks. Ms. Little referred to Section 159.046. Mr. Conklin read the section allowing the Planning Commission to grant waivers. Mr. Springborn stated his preference would be to have sidewalks covered by impact fees so the city could undertake construction of the sidewalks. Ms. Little stated that in both Missouri and Kansas there were sidewalk impact fees. She explained impact fees could not be assessed until the need was created. She 544 • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 8 stated impact fees were assessed lot by lot and typically paid by the person who acquired the lot. Mr. Springborn stated there was nothing to stand in the way of collecting impact fees in connection with assessing the developer. Ms. Little agreed that was where it properly should be placed. She stated the courts had upheld that there had to be a direct relationship from the money collected and the place it was used. She explained she believed they would be on firmer ground just to require the improvement just like they did the streets and other subdivision items. Mr. Harry Gray stated he did not see the need for sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of the street. He advised it would be fairly easy to build the sidewalk adjacent to the curb but setting it back would cause problems since the lots were not graded. Mr. Nickle advised he believed the grade should be established at the beginning rather than each owner grading his lot individually. Mr. Gray pointed out the developer would not know whether the house would be constructed on slab or with a crawl space. Mr. Nickle stated the sidewalk should set back from the curb. Ms. Little explained this item had been placed on the City Council agenda for September 7. She stated they could either take action on the item at this meeting or, if they wanted to work on it further, they needed to get with staff. She further noted it had been advertised and she had expected more people present to talk about it . Mr. Allred stated the city had granted some Bills of Assurance in the past to construct sidewalks. Ms. Little stated there were over 300 such Bills of Assurance. She advised there was an inventory of those sidewalks and knew where they were located. She stated she had suggested to Mayor Hanna there were some funds available under the CIP and, in those areas where they could have continuous sidewalks by collecting on the Bills of Assurance, she propose the owner of the lot pay half and the city pay the other half. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the proposed ordinance amending Section 159.33. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. sks • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 9 MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to amend the ordinance to read "...along one side of all streets and cul-de-sacs..." He advised he wanted the sidewalk to go around the end of the cul-de-sac. He stated they needed to take the word "both" out and replace it with the word "one". Ms. Little pointed out that was requiring less than that currently required. Mr. Pummill stated they would be having the developers put in the sidewalks; that he believed the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to get sidewalks in at the time of development. Ms. Little explained currently sidewalks were required on one side of local streets but two sides of collector and above. Mr. Pummill stated he did not want to change that. He suggested "along one side of all local streets". He also requested the statement "All sidewalks shall be set four feet back from the curb" include "where practical". Mr. Nickle asked if there was a problem with the definition of "local". Ms. Little explained in the Master Street Plan she had said all other streets not designated by this plan are local streets. She suggested "on both sides of all collector and above streets". After discussion, it was determined the proposed ordinance would read "Sidewalks shall be installed, according to existing City Standards and specifications as adopted by the City Council. All sidewalks shall be set four feet back from the curb where practical. The construction of all sidewalks shall be inspected by the street superintendent to insure compliance with city specifications. All sidewalks shall be installed by the developer(s) /owner(s) of the subdivision at the time streets, curbs and gutters are constructed." Mr. Allred asked if the sidewalk could be meandered in order to avoid trees, etc. Ms. Little stated the ordinance would read "where practical". Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Nickle and Mr. Reynolds accepted the amendment. The motion carried unanimously. RATIONAL NEXUS CALCULATIONS TIM CONKLIN - PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Conklin reminded the Commission they had asked staff to explain the Joyce Boulevard/71B intersection improvement fees collected from Remington Place. He stated staff had developed a formula used to determine the developer's proportionate. 3,Lb • • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 10 share of the costs of off-site intersection improvements. He explained the area was based on a radius of 1933 feet out from the center of the intersection. He noted using this radius the area extended to the north almost up to Zion Road and to the south to the By-pass interchange. He pointed out this radius was just over a 1/3 of a mile. He explained staff used the radius because it encompassed an area that was accessed primarily through the subject intersection. He noted the existing intersection capacity currently was at its maximum capacity with existing development located within the designated area. He stated any additional development in the area designated would have a direct impact on the intersection which would result in needed improvements. He noted future development in the area would not be paying for any improvements to rectify any existing shortfalls in the existing capacity of the intersection, nor would existing development be required to contribute to intersection improvements unless they did so voluntarily. Mr. Conklin advised only new development would be paying its proportionate share of the needed improvements which were directly attributable to the development. He stated off-site improvements were based on the total acreage in the designated area that would directly benefit from the intersection improvements and would be based on a per acre cost. He advised that, in order to the improvements to be made, the City would also have to bear a proportionate share. He pointed out Spring Park Subdivision contained 67.35 acres and the amount assessed would be $25,000, while Remington Place Subdivision contained 8.84 acres and the amount assessed would be $3,281. He stated the total impact area contained 269 acres at a cost of $371.20 per acre. Mr. Suchecki asked why would people who owned undeveloped land in the impact area not have to pay for any improvements when in a year or two they could develop and not have to pay for any of the improvements. Mr. Conklin stated under rationale nexus theory or principle they could not assess any impact fee to make up any existing shortfalls. Ms. Little explained the need for off-site improvements had to occur at the time the capacity of the road, intersection, etc. was reached. She further explained that any new development had to contribute their proportionate share to keep the facility at its capacity level. Mr. Suchecki stated if there was a property owner that owned 10 undeveloped acres and decided two years from now to develop his property because there was a nice intersection, he would not have to pay his proportionate share. Ms. Little stated the developers that were paying for the cost of improvement were not bringing the capacity of the intersection up to serve anyone else; they were only bringing the standard up for their proportionate share of what they were creating. • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 11 After discussion, Ms. Little explained the developers were being charged their proportionate share to serve their development. Mr. Nickle asked how long the fees could be collected. Ms. Little stated it depended upon the improvement. She explained it had to be done in a timely manner. She noted the city assumed the deficit. She read the regulation: "...Where the need is created in whole or in part by the proposed subdivision. For purposes of this section an off-site improvement shall mean any improvement listed in Section 159.30 or 159.31... The subdivider shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off-site improvements which bears a rationale nexus to the need created by the subdivision..." Mr. Suchecki stated he did not have a problem with the rationale but he believed that not only should the people involved in the current development be required to pay but also undeveloped land should also be required to pay. He pointed out that once the improvements were made, the value of the undeveloped land was improved because the area was improved. Ms. Little stated staff could asked if they were allowed to do that but she believed they would run into some problems. • Mr. Pummill pointed out there was a possibility the same intersection might have to be improvement again in the future. Ms. Little agreed. Mr. Springborn stated he had a problem with only a portion of the $100,000 being assessable against the present developers. He stated that point was inconsistent with the point with the point that all they were doing now was what was being required to take care of new development. Ms. Little stated the city was recognizing there were problems at the intersection now, before the new development. She agreed this was a gray area. She reviewed the proposed improvements. APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL ALETT LITTLE - PLANNING DIRECTOR Ms. Little advised the Commissioners there were a number of items on appeal to the City Council. She then reviewed those items as follows: Appeal of R93-34, an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to rezone .41 acres located at 2406 Old Wire Road from R-2, Low Density Residential, to R -O, Residential -Office, as submitted by Jim McCord on behalf of Ron and Linda Wallace and Marilyn Shoffit; Appeal of the Planning Commission decision not to approve the preliminary plat of the Masters Subdivision submitted by Wright -Pence, Inc. , Dallas Wright, Dee Wright, Eldon Pence and Drydon Pence; a settlement offer made by the plaintiff in David Lyle • Hollman vs. City of Fayetteville in an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to deny a lot split; and the sidewalk ordinance amendments. She further stated she had been contacted by Mr. & Mrs. Atkins regarding the appeal process. • • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 12 She reminded the Commission they had denied the rezoning requested by the Atkins for property located at Garland and Wedington. She stated those items would be reviewed at the agenda session the following day. She advised that sometimes she was uncomfortable at the appeal processes because staff recommendations did, at times, conflict with Planning Commission action. She asked if the Commission wanted to have a representative present to give another viewpoint. Various commissioners agreed to be at the meeting. Mr. Allred advised it might be prudent for the Vice Chair to attend those meetings. PROPOSAL REGARDING REZONING & CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTS PAUL SPENCER Ms. Little advised Mr. Spencer lived in the neighborhood of the Shoffit rezoning (Township and Old Wire Road). She explained he had some interesting ideas regarding the amount of staff time taken with rezoning requests. Mr. Spencer expressed his belief a petitioner for a rezoning be required to make a feasibility study and obtain 25 signatures from adjacent property owners to submit to the Planning Commission with the rezoning application. He explained at the present time the neighbors had to do all of the leg work and appear at the meeting just to keep the zoning as it should be. He explained that every year from one to two people came in to attempt to rezone the corner of Township and Old Wire from residential zoning. Mr. Allred asked what happened in areas where there were not 25 people. He pointed out that would be making the rezoning a popularity contest and not relying on staff recommendations and the land use plan. He further stated it was a property owner's right to ask for property to be rezoned. Mr. Nickle asked why the time period was a year. Mr. Conklin stated Jerry Rose had suggested extending the time limit to two or three years. Mr. Nickle stated he had no problem with extending the time but did agree with Mr. Allred that it was a right the property owner had. Mr. Pummill asked if this was not a unique situation, that it was uncommon for the same area to keep coming back before the Commission. Mr. Allred pointed out it kept coming back because the area was a transition area. Ms. Little asked the Commission to think about the timeframe for rehearing rezonings that had been turned down and consider combined uses. She also advised the ordinance currently stated the adjoining property owners were to be notified. She. reminded the Commission they often heard from property owners that said they had • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 13 not been notified. She stated other areas required notification of property owners within 300 feet. She stated once the computer program was in effect, staff would be able to notify those property owners within 300 feet. She explained the Planning staff's workload was presently at capacity. There was also discussion regarding raising fees to cover the cost of notification. CONDUCT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ALETT LITTLE - PLANNING DIRECTOR Mr. Nickle stated he had been thinking about limiting the number of agenda items which would assist staff. He pointed out they were sitting through 4, 5 and 6 hour meetings and meeting more often than any other Planning Commission in the state. He suggested limiting the meeting to a reasonable number of items or to a certain timeframe. Ms. Little asked if they liked having the final plats on the consent agenda. Ms. Britton stated it worked out okay but she had not had adequate time to look at it to see if she wanted to pull anything off. She further stated they normally had. their agendas earlier. • Mr. Allred pointed out the final plats had been through preliminary plat stage, plat review and subdivision committee. • Ms. Little stated she checked with Little Rock and they used a consent agenda for both final and preliminary plats. She advised Mr. Rose had not believed they should have a consent agenda because he did not believe they were meeting the spirit of public hearing. She stated she believed final plats could be placed on a consent agenda. Mr. Dean Young agreed and stated the final plat was basically cut and dried. There was discussion regarding asking for public comment regarding the consent agenda. It was determined the Subdivision Committee or staff would know if someone was opposed to an item on the consent agenda and it could be pulled for discussion. The Commission also discussed limiting the number of items on the agenda. Mr. Allred suggested after approximately 20 minutes of discussion on a subject the Chair could announce they would be taking public comments for another 10 minutes before turning it over to the Commission. They all agreed they would have heard all issues from the public in 30 minutes on a specific item. There was also discussion regarding staff deferring an item for a time period before allowing it back on the agenda. Mr. Suchecki summarized the directions to staff: consent agenda for final plats; staff attempt to limit the number of items on each agenda; and the Commission would limit the amount of time for public comment. 35U • • Special Planning Commission Meeting August 30, 1993 Page 14 Ms. Little asked for direction on the Planning Commission tours. She stated she realized it took Planning Commission time but she believed it was a valuable tool. She asked if there was a better time for the tour. It was determined noon on Thursday prior to the meeting would be set for Planning Commission tours. LAND USE PLAN DISCUSSION Ms. Little stated only one person had come into the office to discuss the Land Use Plan. She further stated the next public hearing would be at a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 27. She asked they review the Land Use Plan closely because it would be their plan. She gave the Planning Commission an example of application of the plan. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. 35`