Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-22 Minutes0 MINUTES OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION An administrative meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 22, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Jana Britton, John Forney, John Harbison, Gary Head, Phyllis Johnson, Charles Nickle, Conrad Odom, Bob Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Jim Beavers, Rich Lane, Alett Little, and Janet Johns. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were approved as amended at pages 3, 5, and 21. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR REHEARINGS. The proposed procedure for rehearing was set forth as follows: I . Applicant must make a request in writing addressing why he considers that a factual error, omission, or oversight has occurred. The letter will be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda and the Planning Commission • will vote as to whether or not they wish to rehear the matter. 2. If the vote is to rehear the matter, a full staff report will be prepared and the item will be placed on the next available agenda. Public notification will be made and and the Commission will conduct a public hearing. Staff recommended in favor of adopting the above procedure. Further staff provided copies of Roberts Rules of Order regarding reconsideration of motions and such a motion can be moved only by a member who voted on the prevailing side and said motion to reconsider required only a majority vote, even if the motion to be reconsidered required a different vote. Ms. Johnson stated a rehearing would require two meetings. The first meeting would be to determine whether or not the Commission would rehear the matter and the second meeting would allow for proper notification and public hearing. Ms. Johnson amended the proposed amendment to read... "If the Planning Commission grants a rehearing, such rehearing will be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission meeting..." Ms. Johnson stated the amendment required 5 affirmative votes. • • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 2 MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the amendment as set forth above. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • r�L l's Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 3 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 159.34 - GUARANTEES IN LIEU OF INSTALLED The item was introduced October 9, 1995 and was a regular agenda item on October 23, 1995, November 13, 1995, and December 11, 1995. Staff recommended forwarding the ordinance to Council with a positive recommendation. Mr. Head requested that instead of a letter of credit the ordinance should be amended to reflect "irrevocable letter of credit." Mr. Harbison inquired if designating the state from which a bank could submit a letter of credit was constitutional and Mr. Head responded it worked the same way as workers compensation. Ms. Johnson suggested that the City Attorney look at the proposed ordinance. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little stated that Mr. Rose would comment on the proposed ordinance when it was addressed by City Council. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the proposed ordinance subject to the amendment in language to reflect "irrevocable letter of credit" and further subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1. Mr. Head abstained. • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 4 ORDINANCE REGULATING GARAGE SALES This item was introduced at the July 10, 1995 Commission meeting. Staff recommended discussion to assist with drafting provisions of Auction Houses and Temporary "Outdoor" Trailers and whether or not same should be conditional uses to be approved by the Planning Commission. Further staff recommended that discussion to assist with drafting provisions for current temporary sales activity in effect and whether or not same should be subject to the provision of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Little presented the proposed ordinance. She suggested that two uses (i.e. garage sales and itenerate merchants) be addressed as separate issues. Ms. Johnson requested a correction to Section 5 (A) Location to read as follows "(A) Location. Outdoor merchant activities shall be located entirely within a permanent covered structure which is so located to be no closer than 150 feet from the nearest dwelling unit.." Consensus of the Commission was to work on the ordinance as too separate issues and begin with Itenerate Merchants. Discussion ensued regarding the condition that outdoor merchants be located within a permanent covered structure. Ms. Little summarized that essentially there would not be outdoor merchants if the proposed ordinance was passed. • Mr. Nickle inquired as to the effect the proposed ordinance would have on the Farmer's Market. Ms. Little suggested that the proposed ordinance provide for conditional uses or administrative approval of occasional sales. Mr. Nickle inquired as to the effect the proposed ordinance would have on the barbecue trailer located in the North College IGA Parking Lot. Ms. Little stated it would only be allowed if the structure could meet set backs. Mr. Harbison stated he would support regulations on itenerate merchants but not banning them. Mr. Reynolds objected to outdoor merchants because he felt they posed unfair competition with other businesses and they did not pay sales tax. Ms. Little noted the request for a draft ordinance had arisen as a result of the t -shirt tents which pop up during collegiate sport tournaments. She further stated that the intent was to regulate not ban those businesses. Discussion ensued regarding enforcement issues. Ms. Little stated she had not discussed enforcement with the Police Department. Ms. Johnson directed Ms. Little to do so. Discussion ensued regarding the Itenerate Merchant licensing procedure at the county clerk's office. Mr. Reynolds suggested the nonprofit organization be exempt. Ms. Britton suggested that they be exempt from taxes but that they meet health and safety requirements. No action was taken on the proposed ordinance at that time • • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 5 ORDINANCE REGULATING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES This item was an introduction requested by the Commission at a couple of prior meetings. Staff included in the agenda packet two articles from City and Town Magazine and an issue paper from the American Planning Association regarding this ordinance. Further staff recommended that a subcommittee be appointed to study the matter and bring forward a draft for consideration by the Planning Commission and hearing before the public. Ms. Johnson noted that the City of Little Rock and the City of Hot Springs had already adopted Ordinances regulating sexually oriented businesses. Ms. Little noted that first amendment issues were involved and therefore it would be advisable to determine the effects of sexually oriented businesses on adjoining properties and regulate those effects. She stated any regulations should be with the intent to prevent "skid rows" She suggested that distances between locations had two theories. One theory was to cluster into a "red light" district and another theory was to disperse these uses. She requested that the Commission come to consensus on whether or not they wanted to undertake this type regulation. Ms. Britton suggested that a subcommittee be formed to study the matter. Discussion ensued. Ms. Johnson appointed the following to the Subcommittee to draft regulations for sexually oriented businesses: • Conrad Odom, chair Bob Reynolds Ms. Johnson further requested that the subcommittee enlist the guidance of the City Attorney's office. 0 • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 6 LIjaIWiljI1II1 P/1118T0U1�1k $JR -110 This item was introduced and discussed at the June 13, and June 27, 1994 Commission meetings and the UDO is a part of the General Plan 2020 and Master Street Plan. At a prior meeting regarding the General Plan 2020, Mr. Harbison suggested utilizing law students from the University of Arkansas to draft the document and staff requested discussion of that option and further requested a determination as to what extent the Commission would be participating in the process and set a schedule of meetings to facilitate same. Ms. Little explained that a unified development ordinance was one in which all ordinances regulating development were compiled under one ordinance instead of in sections as was currently the case. She further stated there would be only one section of definitions to simplify the regulations by everything being in one place. She stated it would require cooperation among the various divisions and would take 9 to 12 months to complete. She stated the UDO would be a better tool if it was illustrated. Discussion ensued regarding formation of a subcommittee. Further discussion ensued regarding the use of University of Arkansas law students to write the ordinance. Mr. Harbison stated there was a class which could help draft the ordinance and he volunteered to work with and closely supervise the students. Ms. Little expressed reservations about accepting their help due to the nuances involved in planning and further expressed concern as to the degree of clarity which could be achieved. Discussion ensued. Mr. Nickle suggested that a list of issues to consider be compiled and prioritized and schedule of meetings be set to is address same. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little inquired as to what point public comment would be taken and she suggested that the law students could be moderators for same. Discussion ensued regarding the main focus of the UDO and limiting of development items at meetings where the UDO would be considered. Ms. Johnson appointed all members of the Commission to the UDO committee. She stated the meetings would be one hour long from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday of each week. Further she stated the items would be divided up among the members and staff. A showing of six hands affirmed the consensus. Ms. Johnson stated the committee would begin meeting Wednesday, January 24 at 12:00 p.m. and each Wednesday thereafter. The secretary was directed to provide lunch and notify the press, the public, and the City Council of the meeting but to specify that no public comment would be taken. • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA COMPILATION Staff requested discussion of the following items 1. Limiting number of items on agendas 2. Hearing rezoning requests on a quarterly basis 3. Establishing an Ordinance Committee similar to the Subdivision Committee 4. Holding a Planning Commission Agenda Session prior to site tour Regarding option one, Ms. Little suggested limiting the number of items to 10 but requested input on a procedure to handle hardship cases. Regarding option 2, Ms. Little stated she had no opinion on hearing rezoning requests on a quarterly basis. Regarding option 3, she stated she supported establishing a committee to address proposed ordinances prior to public hearing on same but she felt it would not be useful at this time because of the UDO committee being established. Regarding option 4, she stated she supported this measure because she felt it would give the commission a chance to get additional information and clarification on the issues involved within a project. Discussion ensued. Mr. Nickle suggested that development issues be considered at the first meeting of the month and rezoning issues be considered at the second meeting of the month. Further he stated he did not want to establish another meeting to consider agenda items. Discussion ensued regarding limiting the number of item included on the agenda. Mr. Head suggested that final plats, lot splits, and large scale developments be approved administratively which • would reduce the number of items included in an agenda. Discussion ensued. Discussion ensued regarding reinstating the consent agenda. Ms. Little suggested that staff could provide the applicant with a list of conditions and the applicant would be required to sign same if they agreed to comply with the conditions. Ms. Johnson stated that any Commissioner could remove any item. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed agenda session. By a showing of four hands, the proposal to limit items on the agenda was not accepted. Discussion ensued regarding establishment of an agenda session. By a showing of six hands, the proposal to instate an agenda session was accepted. Ms. Johnson stated the agenda session would held at 3:30 on the Thursday prior to Planning Commission meetings at the currently designated tour time. Any same would continue on a trial basis for the remainder of the first quarter. Discussion ensued regarding consideration of rezoning issues only on the first meeting of the month on a trial basis for the remainder of the first quarter. By a showing of seven hands, the proposal was accepted. Discussion ensued regarding the effect the above adoptions had on the By-laws. Ms. Johnson stated that same could be adopted by a unanimous vote. r 1 L J • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 8 MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to establish an agenda session at 3:30 p.m. on the Thursday prior to Planning Commission meetings at the previously designated tour time on a trial basis for the remainder of the first quarter. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Ms. Johnson directed the secretary to make the necessary changes to the By-laws and distribute a draft copy at the next meeting. • r1 LJ • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 9 ORDINANCE ON DESIGN STANDARDS ALONG PUBLIC ROADS This item was referred from the City Council Ordinance Review Committee at the request of Kit Williams. Staff supported the idea of uniform development standards throughout the City but considers the subject draft as a starting point from which to develop those standards. Ms. Johnson inquired if the ordinance would affect any structure along a city street and Ms. Little responded that it would. Ms. Little stated the ordinance as proposed only addressed commercial structures and questioned as to why these were segregated from the overlay district, single family homes. She stated that the proposed ordinance contained regulations on outdoor storage. She stated all these items could be addressed within the Unified Development Ordinance. Ms. Little stated the proposed ordinance contained provisions including site review, lot coverage, landscaping, signage, curb cuts, lighting, exterior appearance of buildings, utilities, optional fencing, outdoor storage, structures not in compliance, and waivers. Discussion ensued regarding the UDO and parking ordinance. Ms. Little stated no action was required on the proposed ordinance at this time. Ms. Johnson added that the Planning Commission would need to act before the City Council and she requested a listing of specific items to be addressed. Mr. Nickle advocated design standards and suggested ajoint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council along with the City Attorney. • Ms. Johnson appointed a subcommittee to work on design standards as follows: Charles Nickle, chair Jana Britton Gary Head Jerry Allred Mr. Nickle directed staff to contact the chair of the Ordinance Review Committee. • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 10 PROPOSED ORDINANCES CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION BY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE The following items were currently under review by the City Attorney's office: 1. Raze and removal of houses, buildings, and/or structures constituting a nuisance (Sponsored by Alderman Len Schaper.) 2. Securing abandoned property (Sponsored by Alderman Len Schaper.) 3. Clean up of debris, soil, or mud from development sites transported onto public streets (Sponsored by Alderman Heather Daniel.) 4. Development review for multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial development (Sponsored by Alderman Kit Williams.) 5. Standards for Entryways (Sponsored by Alderman Len Schaper.) 6. Adoption of the Arkansas Mechanical Code (Sponsored by Inspection Division.) 7. Amendment to guarantees in lieu of installed improvements (Sponsored by Planning Commission and Alderman Cyrus Young.) • 8. Facilities emitting odors and manufacturing explosives as a conditional use (Sponsored by Alderman Kit Williams.) 9. Outdoor music as a conditional use (Sponsored by Alderman Len Schaper.) 10. Registration of homebuilders (Sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce.) H. Amendment of current building code to include accessibility guidelines (Sponsored by Mayor's Task Force.) 12. Amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to provide for appeal of Planning Commission decisions to the City Council (Sponsored by Alderman Len Schaper at the request of Julian Archer.) 13. Amendment to the Subdivision Regulation to provide for certain variances for established neighborhoods (Sponsored by Alderman Len Schaper.) At a prior meeting, staff was directed to inform the Commission of actions taken by the City Council which could affect the Planning Commission process. Ms. Little stated that eight of the thirteen items listed above were planning issues. Those items include clean up of debris, design standards, entryway standards, guarantees in lieu of installed improvements, odors ordinance, outdoor music as conditional use, city council appeals, and variance procedures in established neighborhoods. 0 • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page l l ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 161 - STREET CLEANUP This item has been placed on the February 6, 1996 City Council Agenda at the request of Heather Daniel. Essentially, the ordinance set forth standards in dealing with dirt and debris carried onto public streets. Staff supported the proposed ordinance and requested no action from the Commission. Ms. Little stated the ordinance was a part of the erosion control ordinance at chapter 161 of the Code of Ordinance. Ms. Little stated the Council would consider the proposed ordinance at the February 6 meeting and the Commission was invited to attend that meeting and present their opinions. She further stated the administration of the proposed ordinance would not be the responsibility of the Planning Department or Planning Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the wording of"immediate removal." • • • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 12 AMENDMENT TO MASTER STREET PLAN This item was introduced at the request of the Trails Advisory Board. The item will first be considered by the Street Committee on January 23, 1996 and will then be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for action. Final adoption must be obtained from the City Council. Staff requested no action from the Commission at this time. Ms. Little stated that if the amendment was approved the Master Street Plan map would reflect the right of way and location of the trails. She stated the amendment if approved would provide one way trails with 6' of width and if the trails were two way, they would require 10' of width. Discussion ensued. • I • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 13 ORDINANCE REGULATING SUBDIVISION ENTRYWAYS This item was introduced at the request of the City Council to direct the preparation of an ordinance requiring the Planning Commission to review structures within the City's right of way as a direct result of construction of an archway at the entrance to the Cliffs. Staff hesitated to recommend the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: Overlapping of duties between the Commission and the Board of Adjustment, which normally considers this type of request. 2. Generally, this detailed information is not presented in plat or large scales considered at Planning stage. 3. The sign ordinance is administered by the Inspection Division. Ms. Little stated the proposed ordinance would be an amendment to the sign ordinance and approval procedures would be the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals. Discussion ensued. Mr. Nickle left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. • • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 14 PROPOSAL TO LIMIT ROADWAY CONNECTIONS ACROSS MT. SEOUOYAH This item was sponsored by Steve Parker and it was introduced to the Council at their agenda session on January 9, 1996. Ms. Little stated the proposal was to have ajoint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission. Staff did not support the proposal citing concerns with conflict with the General Plan 2020, infringement on property access rights, establishment of Mt. Sequoyah as substandard, unnecessary commit of city resources, environmental concerns, social consequences, and objections from emergency services. Mr. Parker made a statement in support of the proposals citing concerns with neighborhood harmony and property rights of existing residents. He suggested that the Council relieve the Commission of the discomfort in resolving connectivity issues. He further stated it would not remove any of the "normal" functions of the Commission. He stated he had prepared a map and presented same to the Commission. Mr. Parker read the proposal as follows: "WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville recognizes and protects area within the City deemed of special historical, ecological, or social significance through such protective measures as historical districts, parks, etc. And, WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville recognizes and the small interlocking neighborhoods and Methodist Assembly Center on Mt. Sequoyah are an area of special beauty and value worthy of preservation which would be detrimentally affected by directing additional traffic through these neighbor- hoods. And, WHEREAS, the people of Mt. Sequoyah have repeatedly demonstrated their collective will to prevent through street from being built over the mountain. The City Council hereby resolves that a geographic line running from Highway 45 to Huntsville Road is established." Mr. Parker addressed the staff comment regarding the legality of the proposal by stating that it does not involve identification of a prejudicial group and therefore would not be illegal. Further Mr. Parker stated the Council would give the Commission guidance on policy and they would not interfere with the locations of proposed streets. Ms. Johnson stated she perceived Mr. Parker's proposed map would be the same as a concrete barrier from Mission Blvd to Highway 16. She noted that generally all the streets to the east of College had considerable grade. She stated that to the west of College streets were built at every opportunity. Mr. Odom stated he was concerned with Mr. Parker's proposal. He stated Mr. Parker's proposal was not appropriate due to the fact that the Master Street Plan and the 2020 General Plan addressed the issue. Further he stated the issue was not a City Council issue. He stated the issue was not a political one but rather was a planning issue for the future developers and landowners who should have their right to access protected. Ms. Britton commented on the extension of North Street years ago an what would have happened had that street not been extended from College Avenue to Mission Boulevard. Mr. Head expressed concern with other special interest groups following if the proposal is approved. Further he • stated it was the job of the Commission to look at connection opportunities. He stated that there had been similar opposition to the Township project and the same was approved. • Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 15 town. Mr. Forney stated he appreciated Mr. Parker offering his assurance that Council was not trying to do the Commission job. He noted the problem in the eastern section of the City was the fact that there is only one route to circulate traffic. Mr. Reynolds expressed concern with the proposal not providing access for an area which will eventually develop. Mr. Allred stated connectivity was not a political issue and Ms. Johnson urged the Council to focus on the transportation issues and keep politics out of it. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little noted that the General Plan 2020 would be discussed again in five years and these issues could be dealt with at that time. Discussion ensued. Ms. Johnson appointed a Subcommittee to address circulation needs east of 71B as follows: Charles Nickle, chair Jana Britton John Harbison John Forney • Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 0