Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A.SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ( A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 6, 1995, at 5:30 p.m., at the City Administration Building, Room 219, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Allred, Jana Britton Robert Reynolds, Ken Pummill, Gary Head, Charles Nickle, and Tom Suchecki MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tarvin OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Kevin Santos, and others PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARKING LOT ORDINANCE Mr, Jerry Allred convened the special meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission and stated the agenda for public hearing and Planning Commission recommendation on the Parking Lot Ordinance, Flood Plain Ordinance, Second Dwelling Units, and Limited Neighborhood Commerical. He then asked for the staff to give an overview of the Parking Lot Ordinance. Mr, Tim Conklin explained the changes to the Ordinance which included changes in page 2, (A)(3) the statement was added, "to protect adjoining properties from adverse impacts associated with parking lots such as noise, lighting, appearance, drainage, and effect on property values." Page 3, (C)(1), was amended, "... except as provided for in section (F)(1)(b)." He further added that section (F)(1)(b) allows the vehicle overhang in the landscape area by 2 feet and the vehicle cannot encroach into any landscaped areas. Continuing, he covered the changes to page 4 consisting the addition of, "Only high pressure sodium lighting or energy equivalent are allowed." Further he stated that does exclude lighting that may be inappropriate for uses in parking lot based on research done that questions whether or not high pressure sodium lighting should be the only lighting that should be allowed in parking lots in Fayetteville. Continuing, he noted changes on Page 5 under Internal Aisle Design to include aisle widths of 12 feet wide at a minimum and this sets the exact standards of how wide the aisle should be and which lane should be enter lane. Further on Page 6, the standards were changed to 12 feet wide. On page 7, the Single-family, Duplex, Triplex to two parking spaces per dwelling unit and this is consistant with what we require now. The Multi -family or Townhouse is one space per bedroom. On page 8, Golf Course, the change was from 2 per tee and we changed that to 1 per tee. On golf driving range, we clarified that to 1 space per driving range. o1 EV Page 2 Special Meeting of City Planning Commission 41 February 6, 1994 Mr. Head suggested amending Golf driving range to 1 space per tee box. Mr. Conklin noted on page 10 under Shared Parking that this would be utilized and no more than two users are sharing that parking in order to avoid conflicting uses. Mr. Head inquired as to what would happen if the completion of landscaping was in Fall/Winter and the impact on the seasonality of plants. Discussion ensued regarding temporary vegetative coverage and the impact of the grading ordinance. Mr. Head stated it was imperative that the ordinance provide a waiting period and suggested amending the language to include "temporary" or "subject to inclimate weather policy." Ms. Little suggested bonding as the solution. Mr. Pummill suggested referring to the grading ordinance to see how it handles temporary erosion control and to make sure that some type of erosion control is in place. Ms. Little read the changes as follows, "d. Timing and Size of Plant Material. Landscaping shall be provided within 90 days • from the date the ceritificate of occupancy is issued subject to limits of weather. Landscaping shall reach the required screening height within three years from planting. Applicant shall post bond to assure the installation of landscaping. Landscaping that dies or is damaged shall be removed and replaced by the current owner of the property. The owner shall have 30 days from receipt of written notice issued by the City of Fayetteville to remove and replace any required landscaping that dies or is damaged." MOTION Mr. Head made the motion to adopt the language as read. Mr. Nickle seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conklin continued to page 13, stating changes in the language concerning off street parking and parking lot enlargement. Mr. Allred questioned what constituted and who determined substantial enlargement. Ms. Little responded that was defined by 108 of the value of the structure. Mr. Allred requested that • the 108 valuation be included in the language. Page 3 • Special Meeting of Planning Commission February 6, 1995 Mr. Allred then opened the floor for public comments. There were no comments. Mr. Allred next turned the matter back to the Commission for recomendations. Ms. Britton had questions concerning the entrance medians how the 10 feet median would allow for future entrance lane expansion. Ms. Little responded that 11 feet per lane would work. Ms. Britton requested a 15 feet median by reason that if additional lanes were needed there would still be a median left for a safety island for pedestrian crossing. Mr. Allred requested a motion. Ms. Britton made a motion for changing the 10 feet median to 15 feet. There was no second and the motion died. Mr. Suchecki inquired how this relates to convenience store curb cuts and the ingress and egress lanes and if they would require medians. Discussion ensued. • Ms. Johnson stated that two way driveways must be 24 feet wide therefore if a parking lot that parks 5 cars the driveway must be 24 feet wide. Ms. Little clarified that was correct if there was two way access and 12 feet wide for one way access. Discussion ensued regarding entrances and throat radii. Ms. Little explained these measurements were based on AASHTO. Mr. Nickle inquired about the impact this ordinance could have on residential developments. Discussion ensued and Ms. Little stated this would be covered under conditional use provisions. Code enforcements are a problem. Mr. Nickle inquired about intermittant use. Discussion ensued and Ms. Little explained that would be something we could take a look at and determine if the occassional use was causing a problem. Mr. Nickle requested a simple waiver for intermittant use. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allred inquired why the Planning Commission was authorized to waive off street parking in C-3 and C-4 district only. Mr. Conklin responded that the other zones were stricken from the original ordinance due to conflict with current regulations. 1] H Page 4 • Special Meeting of the Planning Commission February 6, 1995 Ms. Johnson inquired as to the definition of "semi -permeable soil pavers". Ms. Little explained it was a material which can be covered with grass but still allows the water to pass through it, constructed from such materials as concrete block with holes, textiles, plastics allowing the surface to be somewhat rigid but allowing water percolation. Discussion ensued regarding purposes of use and expenses of installation. Ms. Johnson inquired as to the meaning of the language at the, bottom of Page 9, "...proposed parking lot will be harmonious with adjacent residential use." Mr. Conklin responded this language was included to minimize the impact on residential developments by including such standards at lighting, etc. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little read the language as follows, "The Planning Commission shall make a finding based upon the size, scale, and location of these activies that the proposed parking lot shall not adversely affect adjacent residential residential uses" and asked for a vote. Ms. Britton inquired as to what constituted the definition of "landscaping or landscaped"? Mr. Conklin responded that we had • not set forth the definitions in the Parking Lot Ordinance but that the it was generally accepted to define landscaping to be grass. Further Ms. Britton referred to the Options on Page 11 of the Ordinance and the choices contained therein concerning planting of trees and inquired if trees could be substituted for grass. Mr. Conklin responded affirmatively. Ms. Britton asked for clarification. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allred recognized Ms. Johnson who inquired about present requirements for landscaping in front of parking lots. Ms. Little responded that this requirement was at 25 feet minimum and Mr. Conklin added that some had variances for as little as 15 feet. Discussion ensued regarding the effects of rezoning and protection of residential areas with screening requirements as clarified by Ms. Little. Mr. Nickle stated his understanding to be the conditional use of parking lot construction in residential area and the standards for said parking lot standards. Further he inquired about parking structures such as high rise facilities. Ms. Little responded that the parking decks were not addressed in this ordinance and explained the parking lot definition contained in the beginning of the Ordinance. Mr. Nickle requested that at some point in time the issue of parking structures be addressed • perhaps by amendment of this Ordinance. Page 5 • Special Meeting of the Planning Commission February 6, 1995 Ms. Johnson inquired about Shared Parking. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little clarified that the total number of parking spaces to be shared would have to be equal to the number of users. Mr. Allred inquired if the intent of this section was to create more parking lots or diminish them. Ms. Little responded the intent was to diminish parking lots. Mr. Nickle suggested changing the language to include "at the same time". Ms. Johnson requested a reading. Ms. Little read, "Formal arrangements which share parking between intermittent uses with non conflicting parking demands (eg. a church and a bank) are encouraged as a means to reduce the amount of parking required. Such arrangements are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Individual spaces for shared uses shall be identified on a site plan and may not be shared by more than two users at the same time. Such uses subject to approval of the Planning Commission." Mr. Allred inquired if this needed to be brought to a vote. Ms. Johnson left decision to the chair. Ms. Britton inquired about landscaping between building and parking lots. Further she suggested striking this section. • MOTION Ms. Britton made a motion to strike section H. Landscaping Between Building and Parking Lot, Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION Mr. Allred recognized Mr. Reynolds who moved that the Ordinance be adopted as amended. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Page 6 Special Meeting of Planning Commission February 6, 1995 Mr. Allred requested a brief discussion and staff comments on the Flood Plain and with permission, the staff set a Public Hearing on said Flood Plain, Second Dwelling Units, Limited Neighborhood Commerical at the regular meeting on February 27. Mr. Head inquired if the proposed ordinances were available to the public and Ms. Little responded that would be available in the planning office. Further Mr. Head inquired if the Ordinance followed with FEMA requirements for insurance purposes. Discussion ensued. Meeting adjourned at 6:30. • •