Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 24, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, Room 219,113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, John Forney, John Harbison, Gary Head, Charles Nickle, Conrad Odom, and Bob Reynolds. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jana Lynn Britton and Phyllis Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Alert Little, Janet Johns, and Beth Sandeen The minutes of the June 26 and July 10, 1995, Planning Commission meeting were approved subject to revision of the Members Present section to reflect that Mr. Nickle was present for both meetings. Ms. Little introduced Beth Sandeen as the new Landscape Administrator. LOT SPLIT #1 - MARCUS WALDEN 1134 CROSSOVER ROAD Ms. Little reported this item had been approved under the Consent Agenda at the July 10, 1995 Planning Commission. Subsequent to that, Mr. Walden informed staff he was not in agreement with the condition that, "the granting of additional right of way from each lot sufficient to make the total right of way 50 feet on the east side of • Highway 265." As a result, he asked the Commission to reconsider this item. Mr. Walden made a statement regarding the situation resulting in his request for rehearing of the matter. He expressed concern regarding the amount of time he spent in talking with staff to resolve the problem and stated he had received erroneous information from staff. Ms. Little stated staff recommended approval of the lot split without dedication of right of way. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated she was in receipt of new guidelines from the Arkansas Highway Department requiring more dedication of right of way. Discussion ensued regarding procedure for approval of item under a Consent Agenda and Ms. Little stated items on the Consent Agenda were usually approved only if the applicant was in agreement with staff recommendations. Mr. Walden stated he might consider donating right of way at some time in the future. Discussion ensued regarding requirements for dedication of right of way within subdivisions. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the lot split without dedication of 50 feet of right of way. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-2-0. Mr. Forney and Mr. Harbison voted against the motion. 0 ar I Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1995 Page 2 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FLEA MARKET/GARAGE SALE/AUCTION ORDINANCE Ms. Little gave an overview of the changes incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding current permits for intenerate merchants and whether or not these merchants were required to pay sales taxes. Ms. Little stated there was not currently a permit required by the city but the county requires one. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not garage sales should pay sales tax and the penalty for not obtaining the required permit. Mr. Head requested that hanging garage sale signs on utility poles have a penalty. Mr. Harbison stated that was illegal under state statute. Mr. Odom objected to sales tax for occasional garage sales. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of occasional garage sales and garage sales as fund raisers. Further discussion ensued regarding section 5.d and section 4. No consensus was reached regarding wording of same to restrict the number of days and zones in which these were allowed. Mr. Allred requested a revised draft is E a�3 Planning Commission Minutes • July 24, 1995 Page 3 DISCUSSION OF GENERAL LAND USE PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Mr. Harbison gave the Land Use Subcommittee report and stated there had been 6 meetings. He stated the document spoke for itself. Further he stated the subcommittee had discussed annexation but it was not included in the Plan. He stated the implementation was the lease substantial but had the most impact and stated discussion had ensued regarding fleshing same out. He stated the Unified Development Ordinance went hand in hand with the Plan. Mr. Conklin presented the Plan and stated the Council resolution would be met. He stated the population and growth data had been obtained from Regional Planning and the densities had been achieved through mapping. Discussion ensued regarding the map and undeveloped and underdeveloped area. He stated the city limits were adequate if the owners developed at the maximum allowable density. He discussed infill development and stated that parks land had been unable to provide a map of parks areas. Mr. Conklin stated that flood plains and hillsides and been identified and development of these areas should be held to strict standards. He stated infrastructure was being addressed and would allow for growth. He stated there was a need for transition zones. Discussion ensued regarding population growth . Mr. Conklin stated there would be a public hearing on Monday, July 31, 1995 and the Plan would be presented to the City Council on August 1, 1995. Little responded it would breakdown as follows: Mr. Forney thanked the staff and stated he would like to see more of the 2010 Plan incorporated if the 2020 Plan is was to replace same. He stated he would like to see more clustering and objected to simply responding to the Council's resolution and would rather have a new working document. He stated he would submit copies of his notes. He noted that zones were not developed to the intensity allowed. Mr. Harbison stated the 2020 Plan did not supplant the 2010 Plan. Discussion ensued. Mr. Forney noted there were direct conflicts between the 2010 Plan and the 2020 Plan. Discussion ensued regarding implementation of the Plan. Mr. Nickle stated the 2020 Plan was an update to the 2010 Plan. He inquired regard the mixed use category and Ms. Little responded it would breakdown as follows: 25% - Multi -family 25%- Single family 5% - Industry 45% - Commercial Mr. Nickle inquired if the project area would accommodate the future population projections and whether or not there was an excess of commercial and industrial. He stated if more was zoned residential it could be rezoned to commercial to be on the safe side. Mr. Conklin stated he would address same at the next meeting. Discussion ensued regarding acreage per zone and total area calculated. Mr. Head expressed concern regarding notification to property owners and the effect the map would have on property owners. Further he stated they were rushing and urged that the time be spent to do it right. Ms. Little responded the map would be published in both local Sunday papers and the next cycle of water bills would have • notification of availability of the map in the planning office. Mr. Reynolds thanked the staff. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1995 Page 4 Mr. Allred urged worked to be done on the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Odom stated it was his opinion the 2020 Plan was a supplement to the 2010 Plan and he stated he felt there were problems with mixed use zones. Ms. Little stated there were 3 section of the 2020 Plan including the Guiding Policy, the Public Service Element, and the Environmental Element. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the 2020 Plan was a supplement or whether or not the 2020 Plan replaced the 2010 Plan. Discussion ensued regarding undeveloped and underdeveloped land and limiting flood plain and hillside development. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to present the 2020 General Plan Use Land to the City Council. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. • 0 any • • FLAKNIMG (lmm nstctJ VOTING LOG FOR 2� MR= MOTION own SECOND �4� ALLRED P �T �l BRITTON FORNEY HARBISON HEAD l mveP JOHNSON esemT sarF NICKLE ODOM REYNOLDS A MR=