Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 13, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin, Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, Gary R. Head, Jerry Allred, Kenneth Pummill, Jana Lynn Britton, Phyllis Hall Johnson, and Charles Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Traci Paul, members of the press and others iFVVkC +r4:!k The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of May 23, 1994 were approved as written. PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Ms. Alett Little explained a Unified Development Code would put all the requirements for development into one place as opposed to the present requirements being separated into zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations and various other ordinances such as the tree ordinance and the grading and excavation ordinance. She noted the staff had provided the Commission a rough draft for discussion. She stated the Commission would not be expected to take a vote on the ordinance at this meeting. She noted the process for public involvement would also be discussed which would allow the public time to give comment and suggestions. She asked for suggestions from the Commission in regard to public involvement. Ms. Little noted a table of contents and an index had been included to help in locating portions of the Code. She stated the first section, General Provisions, was an entirely new section of the Development Code which set out in precise language the reason for having a Development Code, how the Planning process tied in with the State Legislation, and the persons responsible. She expressed her belief the would help inform the public and potential developers of the duties and authorities of the various entities. Ms. Little advised the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission were specifically set out in the State Legislation area. She noted that, in regard to the Board of Adjustment, state law required a General Plan and zoning Regulations must be enacted. She reiterated this would help explain exactly what the governmental bodies were, how they were created, how they were appointed, and what their duties and responsibilities were. Ms. Little advised the Definitions section would help make the requirements in the development process as simple as possible to understand. She noted the section attempted to pull most of the definitions throughout the Code into one place. She stated there were also definition sections such as in the Flood Plain section which had very specialized definitions and the Commission needed to make a choice to leave them there or move them to the Definitions section. She requested the Commission look through the list of definitions and make whatever suggestions or additions they felt were needed. Ms. Little advised that, in the current codes, the zoning regulations were located behind the subdivision regulations but the new Code proposed to place the zoning districts in front of the subdivision regulations because zoning was one of the first things that had to be checked prior to proposed development. She noted the four new residential districts approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council as well as another district, the Extraction District, which was not currently mapped, were shown on Page 23. She noted the Extraction District Planning Commission June 13, 1994 Page 2 did exist in the current code. She stated four other zones which were not currently mapped were RE, Residential Estate; RA, Residential (Acre Lot); RL, Residential (Large Lot); and RS, Residential (Small Lot). She noted that these zones would be options to choose from in the future when land was brought into the City or rezoned. She stated that, in addition to the new zones created, there were some overlay zones which were also listed. She noted those included the Historic District Overlay, the Design overlay district, the Floodplain overlay District, and the Hillside Management Overlay District. She explained the overlay district maps would be like a transparent page placed on top of the regular zoning map and explained areas which had special physical characteristics would have certain additional development standards. She noted there had been an Historic District Commission in Fayetteville for approximately 10 years which had been working on an Historic District regulation which had not been passed yet. She advised the Design Overlay District was created by a committee of three Planning Commissioners, the staff, and the City Attorney's office and was developed for the purpose of designing and protecting the Bypass corridor. She explained the Flood Plain Overlay District incorporated many of the flood plain regulations already established in the City of Fayetteville with some additional development standards to give the Planning Commission more flexibility in reviewing proposed developments on hillsides and in flood plains. She stated both the Hillside Overlay District and the Flood Plain District imposed more restrictive standards for those areas. Ms. Little advised the Rules of Interpretation on Page 24 were the same as in the current ordinance. She noted the Rules of Interpretation where similar uses were • permitted was new and was intended to provide better guidelines for the staff and administrators to determine when a use was similar and how it was similar. She noted the official zoning map on Page 26 and the Agricultural Zoning on Page 27 were the same. She advised the sections on Page 28 in regard to the RE Residential Estate (2 acre lot), RA Residential Acre Lot (1 acre lot), RL Residential Large Lot (1/2 acre lot), and RS Residential Small Lot were all new sections and should be reviewed carefully. She explained the Dimensional Requirements on Page 29 referred to the table on Page 29 which was an accumulation of the data within the current Code with the addition of the new districts. She pointed out the Location of Mobile Homes under 3.b.(1) on Page 30 had a minor change in that "the owner of three acres or more of land having no permanent residence and zoned A-1 may install one mobile home on his property". She explained the old Code had a provision restricting the use of the mobile home to personal use only and did not allow the mobile home to be rented; but, since the zoning ordinance dealt mainly with uses and not ownership, the staff felt it was not appropriate to keep that provision in the Code. She further stated 3.b.(2) had a restriction to be used only for the owner's use and never be rented which had also been omitted. She advised on Page 31, the Prefabricated Construction section was the same as in the current Code. She noted there had been some questions about allowing the Prefabricated Construction in any zone and asked for some input from the commission on whether this should be a conditional use in any zone or whether they wanted additional design review. She explained in the current Code if it met the building codes of the City; had a permanent foundation and permanent water and sewer connections; and met the zoning requirements, a building permit would be issued. Mr. Suchecki pointed out an error on the Dimensional Requirements Table which stated the maximum building height for A-1 and RE was shown as 15'. Ms. Little advised it should read 351. 295 Planning Commission June 13, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Tarvin referred to Page 28 and asked if they proposed to allow two-family dwellings in R-1. Ms. Little noted it would only be allowed by conditional use as it was in the current Code. Mr. Allred suggested there be a definition of prefabricated. She noted they did have a definition whereas one which was not built on site and portions were brought in from other areas was considered prefabricated. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised that it would not include a mobile home moved onto a concrete foundation and noted mobile homes were a separate category and designed separately. Mr. Allred noted he had been involved with homes in East Oaks which were unloaded and assembled with prefabricated materials. Ms. Little agreed that would be prefabricated. Ms. Britton asked about a modular home and Ms. Little noted it would be considered prefabricated. Mr. Pummill asked if a prefabricated structure met all the codes, why did they need a separate unit for it. Ms. Little noted that she was putting it to the Planning Commission for their decision because with the current Code if it met all the requirements, it was allowed in any district. Mr. Pummill asked what they were trying to accomplish. Ms. Little noted she was putting the question to the Commission as to whether they wanted to further review this in addition to the three conditions notated or whether they wanted • to have a design review or have it as a conditional use. Mr. Allred contended if a structure were prefabricated and met all the requirements and the materials used were better quality than what could be purchased at the local lumber yards, it would be a better constructed home than some of the local spec homes. Mr. Nickle suggested the prefabricated section be left in the ordinance as it was written. Ms. Little noted Accessory Commercial Uses on page 31 was not a new section, but asked them to review the list which included laundry, convenience store, shoe shine shop, cafe, storage lockers, post office, news stand, and copy shops. Ms. Little asked for input from the Commission as to whether they would prefer the page numbers to be large as shown in the draft. Ms. Little noted Riding Stables on Page 32 had minor changes from the old Code in that the old code required a minimum area of 40 acres and this new code required a minimum of one undeveloped acre per horse which corresponded closely to the current ordinance which required the number of horses to be one horse per 3/4 of an acre. She pointed out the setback requirements had been left up to the discretion of the Planning Commission and noted the setbacks used to be 250 feet from any residential property or riding paths had to be located 100' from the property line whereas this new Code proposal was to locate them 20' from the property line. She read the statement "The Planning Commission may require additional setbacks from residential properties based on the impacts of noise, odors, topography, runoff, erosion, and similar conditions". She noted that the staff's feeling had been that the setbacks should be left at the discretion of the Commission to be set depending on the land characteristics. . In answer to a question, Ms. Little stated they had considered allowing a riding ;?,qtpl Planning Commission • June 13, 1994 Page 4 stable in the R-1 zoning but the stabling of the horses was more appropriate to the A-1 district. Mr. Tim Conklin asked the Commission if they would like to see the possibility of allowing a couple of horses or other animals for recreational uses in residential since there would be a 2 -acre residential district. Ms. Little noted the staff was aware that currently there were cows and other animals kept in residential districts or adjacent to residential districts within the City and advised there had not been any incompatible issues in the way of complaints. Mr. Suchecki asked for clarification as to whether this section in the Code was referring to commercial riding stables or horses for personal use and if so how would it affect the persons who live in A-1 zoning and have horses right up next to residential areas. Ms. Little advised that the operation of a riding stable "shall be limited to the boarding of horses, the providing of riding lessons, the renting of riding horses, saddles, bridles and other accessories for use on the premises. No horse racing or horse shows shall be permitted on the premises; provided, horse shows displaying only those horses used in the daily operation of a riding stable may be permitted". She stated in regard to how this would affect those people who already had horses, she referred them to the Use Unit Schedule behind page 48 where under "Agricultural Uses" it stated "animal farms for show, breeding and training" were allowed only in A-1 and I-2 as permitted uses. She added that animals for recreation or educational use were allowed in A-1 and as conditional • uses in RE or RA(the two larger residential type districts). She asked for input on any changes or modifications deemed necessary. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little noted if a developer of 1/2 acre lots wanted to have horses in a common area he would have to provide the stabling as a separate type use from the half acre lots. Ms. Little advised the Home Occupations section on Page 32 was the same. She stated one of the most frequent questions asked of the staff when they were administering this was in regard to the requirement that no person may be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing on the premises. She noted applicants frequently asked if they could have someone come into their home to answer the phone. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated she did see it as being different than a catering business where someone comes in to help prepare the food. She stated the difference she was seeing was that the new Code was trying to integrate smaller type businesses into neighborhoods and probably the presence of one employee would not make a great deal of difference in how the neighborhood functioned, but it might make a great deal of difference to someone who was trying to start a business. Mr. Suchecki contended allowing one person to come in would not cause a problem in a neighborhood. Ms. Little advised the ordinance would have to be structured to give them the authority to do that since the current ordinance was not structured that way. Ms. Britton contended that a home occupation with only one employee but 10 deliveries per day wouldn't be appropriate. Ms. Little noted the Commission • could limit it when the request was approved. She reminded the Commission there were hours of operation set forth (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) under the Conditional Use Planning Commission . June 13, 1994 Page 5 aspect of it and that the current ordinance did give the Commission the authority to waive that. She noted, however, the current ordinance did not allow them the authority to allow employees. Mr. Tarvin contended there was a fine line between a home occupancy and a business and stated employees coming to work at that residence would infringe on the neighborhood. Ms. Britton asked if they could set it up to be able to waive it under certain circumstances. Ms. Little noted that would be possible if the standards were set in writing so that there were reasons for doing that. The consensus of the Commission was to leave the home occupation ordinance as it was written in the current Code. Ms. Little advised the Cluster Subdivision Option on Page 33 was a new option in the new Code. She noted the intent of this section was written into the ordinance. She stated the staff felt it was very important and fair to developers where because of land characteristics, development would infringe upon natural waterways, floodplains, and hillsides. This would give the developer the option of clustering the housing and it would allow the density that would have existed over the entire parcel to be clustered into one area. She stated open areas would be left if clustering occurred and it required a minimum of 10,000 square feet of open space since it would be creating parcels that would either be under private or public care and it would not be practical to expect people to keep up an area smaller than a quarter of an acre. . Mr. Allred asked who would assume the legal ownership of the open area in regard to real estate taxes and liability. Ms. Little stated there were exemptions to taxes on the creation of open areas in some states. She added there was also an option to give conservation easements which were accepted by non-profit agencies who took the taxing responsibility. She noted the staff would like the Commission to make that decision at the time the development was proposed with four options for the open areas: to be owned and managed by a home owners association; to be accepted as part of the park land dedication which the City would maintain; to remain a part of private lots, but not included in the minimum lot area; or to be dedicated to a conservation easement. She stated the staff had not researched the taxing issue, but would do that. She added this type of development would be available as a 1008 developer option. She noted it was not as critical as they might think because the floodplain and the hillside management sections had some requirements which would take care of those two types of physical land characteristics of which they had experienced problems with. Ms. Little stated the two following additions were made to the Cluster Development section as a result of the workshops: the same street standards would apply in cluster development as anywhere else or waiver conditions would be set up for that, and that the Planning Commission would have the ability to waive any of the requirements of that section. She asked for input on the idea that if it were considered as a part of park land dedication and they didn't feel it should be a one-to-one trade since it would be physically limited land, the requirement would be that for every one acre of regular park land, possibly two acres of the physically limited land could be considered. Ms. Little stated Conditional Use standards on Page 34 were the same as the current ordinance except it had been moved to one section to enable the reader to see the Conditional Use standards and how they apply to home occupations, • tandem lots, limited neighborhood commercial uses, and an additional one which was a "second dwelling unit(granny unit). She noted earlier discussions had Planning Commission Is June 13, 1994 Page 6 caused them to come to the consensus that a condition should be added which noted that any one of the conditions could be revoked if the conditions set forth were not met. Ms. Little noted Tandem Lot development on Page 35 had a change from the current ` code in that currently the Code did not address whether the drive had to be paved and the new code would require it be paved. The initial draft included a minimum width of 12' for the entire length, but it was determined that 10' would be adequate. She added under Paragraph (e) an addition was made as far as the minimum lot width and lot areas in that the current code did not include the drive area in the lot area required and the new code noted if a tandem lot was created the lot area of the width of the drive area must be subtracted from the parent tract from which the tandem lot was created. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated the minimum square footage for a tandem lot in R-1, not including the drive, would be 8,000. In response to a request for clarification, Ms. Little advised the drive would not be included because it was not allowed to be used as setback or buildable area and this change would simply be to make sure the minimums were maintained for compatibility with the existing residents. In response to further questions from Mr. Pummill, Ms. Little noted the current ordinance did not reference whether the driveway was to be paved or not, but the proposed ordinance did require it be paved for a minimum of 10'. There was discussion as to whether a driveway with the two tire tracks paved with • grass up the center would be acceptable. Ms. Britton noted they had discussed accepting alternatives to paving and possibly the two tire tracks paved would fit into that category. Mr. Nickle contended the 10' minimum distance would be more appropriate for emergency vehicle access. Ms. Little pointed out a condition for a tandem lot approval was that the terrain of the area was such that installation of standard city streets and subdivision of the area in accordance with the Development Code was not feasible so this would be an area that was already limited in terms of access. Therefore, the staff felt the paving 10' would be appropriate. Mr. Conklin advised the City Fire chief had expressed concern in the past that tandem lot driveways be paved. In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little noted the ordinance would be proposing that the driveway be paved up to where the tandem lot ceased and the regular lot began. She suggested the Commission give them additional comments on that after they had reviewed it further. Ms. Little advised another change in the tandem lot ordinance would be that the garbage can holder would have to be located along side the regular street because garbage would not be picked up at the tandem lot. Ms. Little noted Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses on Page 36 was a new section which set out the types of services. She noted there was a proposal that the maximum floor area of a commercial establishment in a residential area could not exceed 3,000 square feet and stated that requirement had been moved to 4(a) • on Page 38. She explained that stated that any building which was created in a residential district for commercial property should be the same type building Planning Commission • June 13, 1994 Page 7 mass(height and bulk of structure, type and angle of roof line) and the materials should reflect what was permitted within the zoning district and reflect existing conditions within the neighborhood. Mr. Tarvin advised that none of the uses listed under Limited Neighborhood Commercial were listed in the tables which began after Page 48. But Mr. Conklin stated instead of putting those uses within that table he created a section called "Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses" under Residential Zoning Districts to help establish that there was a difference between certain conditional uses. Ms. Little advised at the workshop they had made two additions to the Limited Commercial Uses list: restaurant was added under #2 and engineering office was added under #3. Ms. Little advised there had been some additions under the conditional use criteria for granting bed and breakfast inns in residential areas: the location of parking; consideration of traffic flow; and noise, odors and other factors. Ms. Little stated in regard to the Neighborhood Scale Development option they had discussed how allowing the residential uses in commercial districts and allowing the commercial uses in residential districts implemented the General Plan. The question was asked as to whether they didn't need a separate district for that. She advised the General Plan basically sets out the regional commercial areas and leaves the rest of it residential. She noted what they were proposing rather than a new zone, was a neighborhood scale development option which would be • allowed in any residential district. She noted this could be compared to a Planned Unit Development and it was the staff's proposal for creating the neighborhood scale or the traditional neighborhood or the village concept. She added they did feel that an acreage of about 20 acres would be appropriate. She advised that it would allow commercial to be installed in reference to neighborhood services and stated the staff did feel that scale was very important and had included the standard that individual businesses should not exceed 3,000 square feet of area. Ms. Little advised the rest of the development standards were fairly similar to Planned Unit Development with the exception of walkways. She asked that the Commission look this over and determine whether they felt like it would meet their requirements for implementing the General Plan. She noted that this portion would probably go under the Subdivision Regulations, Mr. Tarvin contended the idea of Limited Neighborhood Commercial Uses would work well in St. Louis, but he can't see it in Fayetteville. Ms. Little noted they had discussed the evolvement of neighborhood over time and limiting the numbers of commercial establishments allowed in residential areas. She noted the idea was to create the sense of neighborhood and community that the General Plan set out and to allow that type flexibility with those options available. She pointed out they were not uses by right, but conditional uses which had to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Commission. Mr. Conklin explained it was hard to get a piece of property zoned commercial near a residential zoning district and this would allow an applicant to do a commercial use with the Planning Commission making sure it would be compatible. He stated the idea was to try to get more accessible commercial development into the residential neighborhood. Ms. Little advised the idea was that if it were rezoned to commercial, then any use • would be allowed. But the conditional use would allow only that specific • Planning Commission June 13, 1994 Page '8 use. Mr. Conklin advised the current ordinance did not allow this, but they wanted to propose it as a option. Mr. Suchecki noted this would allow for trying to eliminate the possibility of doing speculative commercial zoning and the Commission would get to review each one. Mr. Conklin noted it would require that the petitioner give the Commission information as to what the building would look like and how it would impact the neighborhood and the conditional use approval would be based on that. Mr. Tarvin asked if the Retail Liquor Stores section on page 46 contradicted the potential for a liquor store in a residential neighborhood since it stated no retail liquor store could be located on any property with two or more sides abutting or area across the street from and perpendicular to property zoned residential. In response to further concern, Ms. Little pointed out the neighborhood bar would not be a retail store. In answer to a question, Ms. Little advised dance halls was a separate section on Page 48. She noted dance halls would not be allowed in any residential district and retail liquor stores would not be allowed in residential districts or adjacent to residential districts. • Ms. Little stated the Non-residential Development Standards on Page 43 were new standards they needed to review. She added the Specific Non-residential Development Standards on Page 44 were in the current Code under Use Conditions. She noted they would be in a new location within the ordinance and there would be a change in the child care/nursery school which would require that the outdoor play space area be fenced. Mr. Conklin advised the Second Dwelling Unit Standards on Page 39 was new and would be allowed as a conditional use in a residential zoning district. He noted they were limited to 1,000 square feet and would be required to be designed to match the existing structure on the site. He explained the principal structure would have to be owner occupied to give some assurance it would be maintained and not developed into two rent houses. He noted they would also have to have a covenant with the land that the second dwelling unit could continue only as the second dwelling unit as long as the properties were occupied. He noted this was in response to trying to provide additional housing as affordable to residents of Fayetteville. Mr. Allred asked what happened after the dwelling was no longer needed for the family member. Mr. Conklin advised as long as the main structure was owner occupied, the second dwelling could be rented out. In answer to further questions from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little reiterated one of the conditions would be that the primary structure be owner occupied and it couldn't be used if the owner wasn't living there. Mr. Allred contended this would create a problem after the second dwelling was no longer needed for the relative. • Ms. Little reiterated it could still be rented out as long as the owner lived in the primary structure. She noted there weren't a lot of affordable options • Planning Commission June 13, 1994 Page 9 for housing in Fayetteville currently and this would be one way a person could have a primary structure and supplement the cost of the primary structure by having the smaller rental unit on the same lot. She referred to Paragraph #10 under the Second Dwelling Unit heading which stated prior to the issuance of a building permit for the second dwelling unit, a covenant of restriction to run with the land should be recorded which specified that the use of the second unit as an independent dwelling could continue only as long as one unit on the property was owner -occupied. She noted they had also added that once that unit was established, the property could not be split and sold separately. Mr. Allred contended there would be problems with the owners of the property after the first land owners and advised that the City wouldn't have the necessary staff to enforce that. Ms. Little noted it would be a deed restriction and anyone buying the property would be informed of that restriction when they purchased it. She added they had discussed the evolution of families and the need for these types of structures from time to time. Mr. Suchecki advised it could be a problem when there was a subdivision with covenants which didn't allow a second dwelling, and the Commission would be making the decision on whether or not to enforce covenants. Ms. Little stated that was a good point and they •had made the following additions: the covenants of the subdivision in which the structure was to be located would have to be furnished by the applicant at the time of the conditional use application; and that setbacks should be the same as for the lot • as a whole, however, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit would not be required. She explained so long as the perimeter setbacks were observed, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit would not have to be observed in granting this conditional use for the second unit. Ms. Little advised the next major change was in the requirements of Dance Halls on Page 48 which had already been adopted by the City Council and were the requirements they were operating under currently. Ms. Little noted in regard to the Use Schedule, the current ordinance was structured with the use units under each zone with the uses allowed in each use unit. She noted this schedule would be more typical of the zoning ordinance in that there were zones and the uses permitted and uses allowed as conditional uses in that zone in a tabular format. In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little reiterated the Dance Hall regulations had already been adopted by the City Council and noted that the Commission would be free to propose modifications to it in the way of limiting uses adjacent to Dance Halls and so on. Mr. Tarvin expressed his opinion that a retail liquor store would be less offensive to a neighborhood than a dance hall and liquor stores were limited in their proximity to residential units. Ma. Britton pointed out Dance Halls would be a conditional use and any requirements could be requested when an application was reviewed. There was more concern expressed from other Commissioners in regard to dance halls and retail liquor stores. In response to that, Ms. Little asked if the consensus was that the same • standards listed for Retail Liquor Stores on Page 46 should also be added to the Dance Hall standards. She noted that some of the changes would be subject to • Planning Commission June 13, 1994 Page 10 review by the legal department. The consensus of the Commission was to adopt the same standards for both. Ms. Little advised the purpose of the Administration section beginning on Page 49 was to pull all the requirements for administration together into one location. She added there was a current requirement for several different types and periods of notification. Ms. Little advised the Non -conforming Uses and Structures section had not changed. She noted that the Annexation Procedure section on Page 60 had been added to inform the public of the rules. She pointed out the proposal would be to take the properties into the City as the Residential Estate District and the staff was researching this to determine if there was a state law which required it to be zoned in as Agricultural. She noted the Development and Subdivision Regulations section beginning on Page 64 took the current Subdivision Regulations and gave a rather lengthy introduction section which discussed the applications and fees required, the meetings required, and the types of approval required. She stated the Neighborhood Scale Development option had been added in on Page 68. She noted that the types of plats were set out including the large scale development plat and the three types of subdivision plats(concept, preliminary, and final). She advised there were some changes within the Plats section and they had put is together a chart located on Page 76 which expanded the type of information which was required under the current Code to make it clear to the developers what type of information was needed. She advised the current Code didn't have the require to show the location of floodplains or floodways on the final plat and the new Code would require that. She advised there was a new section on Page 73 requiring the developer to submit an auto -cad drawing to create compatibility with their files and to be able to furnish the utility companies the plats electronically which would eliminate some of the paperwork. Ms. Little stated the current ordinance did not give a standard signature block, but this new Code would require that. She added that the Parks Department had asked to sign off on all final plats to ensure the land dedications had been given as required and the utility companies had asked to sign off on the final plats to ensure that the easements were shown as agreed. She noted page 74 was the same as the conditional uses for lot splits, but it had been reworded to make the lot split ordinance more clear. She noted on Page 76 the number of plate required to be submitted had been updated from the current ordinance. She stated in the current code there were requirements for urban subdivisions and suburb subdivisions and under the new ordinance as shown on Page 79, there would not be any differentiation between the two. Also, there were separate standards for On Site Improvements which had been moved to the standards section. She added the Waivers section on Page 81 was the same as the current Code. She stated there was a change in the wording under the Off-site improvements to state highways and highways maintained by the State Highway Department and Transportation Department to state "when deemed necessary, the Planning Commission may require improvements to state highways which shall also require • approval of the State Highway and Transportation Department" whereas the current • Planning Commission June 13, 1994 Page 11 Code stated improvements may not be required. She noted the Maintenance Guarantee in the current Code was not included on Page 82, but it would be added back in. She noted the Administration section on this page would be moved to the other administration section. She stated they would work on developing a comprehensive list of the types of things that the Planning Commission had the authority to waive under subdivision regulations. Mr. Nickle questioned whether there was a statement in the new Code regarding where the money went when a deposit was required from a developer as a portion of improvements to be made to or adjacent to the development within 5 years. Ms. Little advised Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements was listed on Page 82. She noted this section had not been changed from the current Code and the Delayed Improvements on page 80 had not been changed. She noted, however, there had been a suggestion that a notation be removed which stated the money which was placed in an escrow account would be refunded after 5 years, with accumulated interest, to the developers who made the contributions because at that point if the developer had sold the lot, he had recouped his investment cost and should distribute the money in the escrow account to the current property owners. She added the idea was that if the street was to be improved and for some reason the City did not make those improvements, then the money had to be spent to benefit the owners of lots in that subdivision. In response to a suggestion that the 5 -year limit be extended, Ms. Little advised that case law apparently supported the 5 -year time limit. . Mr. Allred and Mr. Pummill both expressed concern that it would not be fair to the developer who put the money up to have to give it to the property owners in that case. Ms. Little advised that decision would go back to the Commission's initial decision as to whether there was a needed improvement or not. She noted this was a provision where if that needed improvement did not get made, certain procedures were set out for the money's use. In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated she wasn't aware of any money in escrow being paid back to the developer because there was also a provision that if the improvement hadn't taken place within 5 years, but was likely to take place within the foreseeable future, the time period could be extended. Mr. Allred stated he had a major problem with that. Ms. Little pointed out this was not a new requirement, but what was currently required in the subdivision regulations. She advised the Commission it was their decision initially what improvements were required improvements. She noted the development was supposed to make those improvements, but if he put the money into an escrow account, that was how it would be dealt with. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki in regard to situations where improvements on state highways were determined to be necessary, Ms. Little stated some examples would be a turn lane at a major intersection or the installation of a traffic signal. She advised the current regulations required that no improvements on state highways could be required, but the new Code would allow when the development created a need for a turn lane or a traffic signal, that the • developer could be assessed a portion of that cost. She noted it would have to be required by the Planning Commission and approved by the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department. • Planning Commission June 13, 1994 Page 12 Mr. Suchecki contended the wording left it open ended and he expressed concern that developers would have to start building the state highways. Ms. Little stated in those cases, the highway would provide access to the site so she didn't see it as being markedly different than improvements to the city streets if the development was creating the need for that type of improvement. She pointed out the developer could only be assessed his proportionate share of the need created by his development. She noted the majority of the streets in Fayetteville were state highways. There was further discussion and concern expressed by some of the Commission members that the wording was very ambiguous and needed to be more specific. Ms. Little suggested the Commission give some thought to that and give their input and ideas. Ms. Little stated that all the Land Development standards had been pulled together in one section which was made up of pieces in the current Code and some new sections. She advised the Antennae section on page 86, the Bridges and Culverts section on page 87, the Curbs and Gutters section on page 87, and the Dust and Dirt section on page 88 were all new. She noted also the Fences and Walls section on Page 88 had been changed somewhat. She advised that the Fire Hydrant section on Page 90 was new and had been separated out from the Water Supply Standard so that it was very clear what the requirements were. She advised the City Fire Chief had proposed the changes to that which she would relay to the Commission. • Ms. Little stated that the intersections section was being worked on to be explained better and the staff also had a drawing in relationship to that which would be furnished to the Commission. She added that the Street Lights section on Page 93 had some changes. She noted the Lot Stakes and Monuments sections were the same. She pointed out the staff was considering incorporating the Noise Ordinance into the new Code. Ms. Little noted the Parks and Open Space section on Page 94 had the new requirements recently passed by the City Council which required creating a parks fee for any newly constructed units and changing the formula for assessing the parks fees and adding a new section of Parks of Open Space, Additional Requirements for Major Development. She advised the Parking Lots and Parking Lot Standards had been pulled together into one section and new standards had been developed for parking areas as shown on pages 98 through 100. Ms. Little pointed out the provision under #4 on Page 100 in regard to Public Transit Stops which stated that "parking lots containing over 150 spaces shall be required to provide a designated area for present or future public transit stops". She advised this was a totally new requirement. She noted on Page 103 the standards for Radioactivity had not been developed and it was up to the discretion of the Commission as to whether they wanted to develop those standards. Also, the Safety Sight Area -view Triangle section on page 103 had all been pulled into one location. She added that the Screening section on Page 104 did incorporate some of the current requirements and does attempt to give more flexibility. She stated the Sewer System section on page 105 was the same and the Sidewalks section on page 106 had a few additional requirements contained in Section 98 of the current Code which had not been incorporated. • Mr. Tarvin stated he felt they should consider sidewalks on both sides of the street and that they should be placed against the right-of-way with approximately • Planning Commission June 13, 1994 Page 13 a foot of clearance for power poles. Ms. Little advised requiring the 4' of separation would leave 1 1/2' at the edge of the right-of-way line for most standard right-of-ways and she noted the power poles were usually closer to the street than that. She stated they would try to diagram correct placements for the utilities such as the water meter and the gas meters and request information from the utility companies on that. She noted that the Signs section on Page 106 could be incorporated from the Sign Ordinance. She noted the Commission would need to determine if they wanted the Solar Energy standards incorporated as shown on page 106. She noted the Street Design Principles on page 107 incorporated the current ordinances. She noted standards for private drives had not been developed and asked for input on that. Mr. Tarvin expressed concern that the format of the information regarding Standards for Street Design needed to be improved for a better understanding. Ms. Little noted that would be taken care of. She stated the swimming pool standards had been pulled from the Council of American Building officials and was new to the Code because of the number of citizen complaints in regard to fencing around pools. Mr. Tarvin stated there would need to be clarification as to whether the fence would be required to be placed next to the pool or whether just a fence around the yard would be sufficient. Ms. Little stated there would be a new section on Utilities furnished to the Commission with all the requested changes. She noted there were no standards for Vibration on page 111 and requested the Commission supply input on that. She pointed out the sections which they had listed but not developed were items which other codes they reviewed had listed and were put to the Commission for their decision as to whether they wanted those kinds of standards or not. Mr. Nickle suggested the 111989 edition" under D. on page 111 be replaced with "latest edition" to eliminate problems later on. In answer to a question from Mr. Suchecki in regard to toxic substances on page 111, Ms. Little advised there were requirements to report use of toxic substances to the State, but the staff was not currently collecting any information on that. In response to a question in regard to toxic substances, Ms. Little advised that no use(homes or commercial uses) may operate that utilized toxic substances or produced toxic substances. It was proposed the section on toxic substances be reviewed more carefully to determine if there needed to be some exceptions made. Mr. Tarvin suggested they close their discussion on this new Code at the beginning of the Flood Plain Overlay District Section on page 112 to be continued at another time. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.