Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION An administrative meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 22, 1996, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Head, Jerry Allred, John Forney, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Bob Reynolds, Mark Sugg, and Gary Tucker MEMBER ABSENT: Phyllis Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Rich Lane, Tim Conklin, Scott Caldwell, And Janet Johns APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 8. 1996 MEETING The minutes were approved as distributed. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE.CONCERNING DESIGN STANDARDS ALONG PUBLIC ROADS At the request of several aldermen, standards were proposed to regulate multifamily residential developments, commercial developments, and industrial developments which have frontage along public streets. • Ms. Little reviewed the current requirements and new items stating that same was a "laundry" list for consideration and determination as to whether or not all associated items would need to be included under Design Standards. She stated many of these items were being discussed as a part of the Unified Development Ordinance procedure as well as being considered by the City Council's Ordinance Review Committee and sponsored by Kit Williams. Further, she stated the proposed ordinance had garnered support from the opponents of the overlay district. Mr. Williams stated he had proposed the subject ordinance late in 1995, and his draft was not the comprehensive under consideration. He stated the important factors were 85% maximum lot coverage standards, commercial only because there was no problem with multi family and industrial, and, less than 50% of the structure could be covered with steel siding. He stated that during drafting of his proposed ordinance, he had attended several meetings with the Chamber of Commerce and their concerns and considerations had been included in his draft as well. Mr. Head stated that in light of the need for affordable housing, it would be prudent to leave out residential zones. Mr. Harbison noted that the UDO Subcommittee was addressing design standards in their research and proposal as well and he invited Mr. Williams to join with that committee in drafting design standards. Discussion ensued regarding steel siding and the consensus was that it was not desirable. Mr. Schaper suggested a design review committee might be established to administer the ordinance. Regarding lot coverage, he stated that 100% coverage in C-3 and C-4 might be okay and that it might be better to establish a minimum lot size in commercial districts. Further he urged the Commission to prohibit all outdoor storage. The Commission referred the proposed ordinance to the UDO Subcommittee. • :D61 060 • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 Page 2 AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS The first proposed amendment to the By -Laws was as follows under Article III, Section F, 2: "A simple majority of those present (assuming a quorum) shall be needed to carry the following items: a. Large Scale Developments, Preliminary Plats, Final Plats, Lot Splits b. Easement & Rights of way vacations C. Rehearings d. Adoption of any other motion (except for By -Laws) not covered under (I) above. The second proposed amendment would enable the Subdivision Committee to approve Large Scale Developments, final Plats, Lot Splits, and Planning Commission Rehearings if no waivers were sought amended at Article IV, Section C: "A Subdivision Committee consisting of at least three Planning Commissioners shall serve as a standing committee that review development items after Technical Plat Review and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission. The developer is required to give notice to adjacent property owners and provide proof of same to the Planning Administrator at least seven days prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting. • 1. The Subdivision Committee shall approve, disapprove, refer back to the developer for more information, or refer to the Planning Commission development items. 2. For final approval, it shall require a majority vote of those present to carry the following items: A. Large Scale Developments B. Lot Splits C. Rehearings In addition, a unanimous vote will carry the following items D. Final Plats E. Sidewalk variances No development item can receive final approval at Subdivision Committee level if waivers are being sought. Any development with a waiver request (except for sidewalk variances) must be forwarded to Planning Commission. All preliminary plat shall be referred to the Planning Commission for action." Mr. Sugg inquired as to why the Subdivision Committee had been forwarding large scale development to the Commission if they had the power to approve them. Discussion ensued. Ms. Little explained that large scale development approval at the Subdivision Committee level would facilitate reducing the number of item on the Planning Commission Agenda. She stated large scale development are generally small and don't have a great impact. Regarding final plats, she stated the reason those were required to • obtain to approval was to make sure they were in compliance. Further, she stated that staff was in favor of the Subdivision Committee approving the above referenced items. Discussion ensued regarding why the proposed items should be approved at the Subdivision Committee level and the history of why those items are currently not • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 Page 3 being approved at that level. Mr. Odom inquired as to whether a unanimous vote would approve the By -Law amendment effective immediately and Ms. Little stated that unanimous approval of the By -Laws would allow the Subdivision Committee to approve items at their meeting of May 2 and would reduce the number of items on the next Planning Commission Agenda. Further, she stated in the event the amendment to the By -Laws was not passed another meeting prior to the regular of May 13 might need to be called. Mr. Sugg stated Le would prefer that large scale developments be removed from Article III and Mr. Tucker agreed. Ms. Little stated that the Subdivision Committee already had the power to approve those. Discussion ensued regarding the need for public comment on controversial items and Ms. Little stated that staff would recommend controversial items be brought to the Planning Commission. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to amend the proposed By -Law amendment to require for final approval, a unanimous vote of the total membership of the Subdivision Committee to approve large scale developments, lot splits, rehearings, final plats, and sidewalk variances. Mr. Head seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-0-0. Ms. Johnson was absent. • Discussion ensued regarding quorum issues and the effect that membership of the current Subdivision Committee would have on approving items at the Subdivision Committee level. Ms. Little read § 159.54 (C) regarding the authority of the Subdivision Committee to approve large scale developments. hKI) IRI Mr. Head made a motion to approve the By -Laws as amended above. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-2-0. Mr. Sugg and Mr. Tucker voted against the motion and Ms. Johnson was absent. Mr. Allred requested that staff obtain the City Attorney's opinion. • • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 Page 4 DISCUSSION OF PROGRESS ON THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Ms. Little stated the 2020 General Plan was adopted and work on the Unified Development Ordinance was initiated in December. She stated the three subcommittees originally appointed to work on the UDO were dissolved and there was now one committee chaired by Mr. Harbison and Mr. Conklin. Mr. Conklin stated there were five distinct areas in the draft and these areas included classification of land use, zoning districts which include design standards, committee establishment and procedures, plans and permits and approval requirements, as well as definitions. Mr. Conklin invited any interested parties to the next UDO meeting scheduled for April 29 at 5:30. Mr. Harbison thanked Mr. Conklin for his hard work involved in producing the working document • 0 • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 Page 5 AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN ALLOWING KULTI USE TRAILS At the request of Alderman Stephen Miller, the draft amendment would allow for 6' bike lanes on newly constructed or reconstructed collector streets, and 6' multi -use trails (10' trail on one side when feasible) on minor and principal arterials. In the interim, the Street Committee recommended 6' multi -use trails in lieu of 6' bike lanes, be required on newly constructed or reconstructed Collector Streets and same was approved by unanimous vote of the Trails Advisory Committee. Staff requested discussion regarding who should pay for the additional costs associated with the multi use trails. A concensus opinion was reached that the city should expect developers to pay the cost for 5' sidewalks in commercial zones and 4' sidewalks in residential zones with the city picking up the cost of the additional I' and 2' respectively. Staff recommended the proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan be forwarded to the City Council with a positive recommendation. Mr. Miller stated this issue was one of safety and specifically for providing a general trail system. He urged the commission to support a change from 4' sidewalk to 6' multi use trail in area where possible. He stated there would not be any difference in the amount of right of way to provide a 6' multi use trail on both sides or a 10' multi use trail on one side. He noted that under current ordinance, it was illegal to ride on sidewalks. • Mr. Odom inquired as to whose expense the construction of the multi use trails would be and Mr. Miller stated he had proposed a cost share arrangement between the City and the developer. Mr. Allred inquired if the multi use trail might be confused with an additional lane for traffic and Mr. Miller stated barricades at trail entrances would signal automobiles traffic to keep off. Mr. Odom inquired if this was for new development only and discussion ensued. Consensus was reached that this consideration would be made whenever a street was reconstructed or a new street planned. Mr. Harbison suggested omitting the "where possible" language and he supported 6' multi use trail on both sides or one 10' multi use trail if only on one side. Discussion ensued regarding changing language with (tie result that anytime the 4' greenspace was not provided a waiver would be required between the curb and the sidewalk/multi purpose trail. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to amend the language under Collector Streets, Sidewalks to strike the words, "where possible" and under Multi Use Trail as follows, "6' minimum multi use trail on both sides with a minimum 4' clearance from curb." He further motioned to amend the language under Minor Arterial Streets, Sidewalks to strike the words, "where possible" and under Multi Use Trail as follows, 'W minimum multi use trial on both sides with a minimum 4' clearance from curb" (note: 10' trails on one side was removed from the draft ordinance with the requirement being the 6' multi purpose trail on both sides and a 10' multi purpose trail only being allowed as a wavier.) • Mr. Harbison seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous of 5-0-0. Ms. Johnson was absent. • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to amend the section on Principal Arterial Street under Sidewalks to strike the words "where possible" and under Multi Use Trail as follows, "6' minimum multi use trail on both sides with a minimum 8' clearance from curb" (note: 10' trail on one side language was removed from the draft ordinance.) Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Ms. Johnson was absent Discussion ensued regarding whether or not sidewalks would be replaced by this ordinance and Ms. Little clarified that if the subject ordinance was approved, it would require trails to be considered, and that if the trails were not desired by the Trails Advisory Committee and the Street Committee, the sidewalk would be required. Discussion ensued regarding who is responsible for payment of the construction costs and Ms. Little stated staff would recommend that the city share the responsibility for trail development in proportion to the extra width which would be provided. MOTION Mr. head made a motion to amend the Master Street Plan to reflect that the City would be responsible for any costs • incurred over and above the normal cost of a 4' residential sidewalk or a 5' commercial sidewalk. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Ms. Johnson was absent. 0 • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 Page 7 AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE HIGHWAYS The following addition was proposed to § 159.33 Required off site improvement. (E): "...where it abuts a state highway is such that installation of a sidewalk is not practical. Any other improvements required of the developer by the planning commission shall be coordinated with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department." The following deletions were proposed to § 159.33 Required off-site improvements. (E): "...The subdivider shall be required to install a sidewalk adjacent to that portion of a state highway abutting the proposed subdivision; (delete italics) provided, the subdivider shall be permitted to make a cash contribution in lieu ofactual installation, which construction shall be an amount equivalent to the estimated cost of constructing the required sidewalk as of the date offrnal plat approval; and, provided, further, ...No other improvements to state highways shall be required of the subdivider unless required by the state highway and transportation commission or by Chapter 98. " Ime)[Iffero Mr. Head made a motion to amended the code as set forth above. • Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Ms. Johnson was absent. 0 • Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1996 Page 8 AMENDMENT TO THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES The next item on the agenda was submitted by Jim McCord on behalf of Goose Creek Subdivision that the subject tract be removed from the territorial planning area of Fayetteville based on Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-56- 413(a)(1)(A) and (B). Ms. Little explained that part of the subject area was claimed by Fayetteville and part was claimed by Farmington. Mr. McCord explained that based on equidistance and Arkansas state law, Fayetteville would not be able to include the subject area in it's planning boundaries. Discussion ensued. MOTION Mr. Head made a motion to approve an amendment to the Planning Boundary reflect that the subject area is not included in same. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Ms. Johnson was absent. • 0 e -.