Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-14 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on October 14, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, John Harbison, Bob Reynolds, Conrad Odom, John Forney, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, Mark Sugg and Jerry Allred. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Tim Cocklin, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Minutes were approved with corrections. NEW BUSINESS • AD96-23.00: REPORT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING Presentation by James Nicholson, Community Development Division, on current City programs. James Nicholson defined affordable housing as the loan amount including the principal amount, interest, taxes, and insurance equal to the persons annual income times 2.5. The average income of Fayetteville's program recipient is $11,246.00 in household of less than two people; for homes with three members the average income was $13,675. The main focus of Fayetteville's program has been rehabilitation of existing home for owners. They have attempted to help low income residences keep their existing homes affordable and well maintained. The average rehabilitation cost approximately $18,000 (the maximum allowed is $20,000). The program had just received approval for an acquisition project that would allow the City to buy older, rundown homes and then renovate them for resale. This effort would not only help preserve and stabilize older neighborhoods, but would allow low income residents to purchase homes within their budget. Other community development programs could be used with this program. Mr. Forney questioned if Mr. Nicholson perceived a need for any new ordinances from the city or if any ordinances had prevented the development or the rehabilitation of affordable housing Mr. Nicholson replied he did not know of any, but he did know there was a definite need for low to moderate income housing. • Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1996 Page: 2 John Lewis, president of the Bank of Fayetteville, on Community Development Corporation, Mr. Lewis stated the Bank of Fayetteville had organized the Community Development Corporation and was owned and governed by the Bank. He added the CDC goals were acting as a catalysis to help spur economic growth in the downtown residential district and not the business district. They were interested in expanding the core housing stock in the area restoring the sense of community within Fayetteville. They were presently working with the Credit Counselors of Arkansas to offer classes on budgeting and on how to buy a house. They had been working on a feasibility study with the University for the development of an eight -acre tract of land near the downtown area. The development would have 52 units and would be priced from $65,000 to $80,000. This type of development would greatly affect the surrounding area because of the high density. Ms. Johnson questioned if the City or the Commission could help him in his endeavors. • Mr. Lewis stated they had consulted with Jan Simco, Community Development, and had felt the City had played a role. Mr. Harbison questioned if any of the existing ordinances had presented problems for them. Mr. Lewis stated there had been no conflicts. Ms. Johnson questioned if the Commission specifically needed to do something. She stated affordable housing was something that they favored. The low income projects that had been through the process had passed without obstacles. She added, they were willing to help, but did not feel they needed the Commission to study this issue. She asked Mr. Lewis to keep the Commission informed of their studies. The Commission decided not to pursue the item any further. They requested Mr. Lewis to keep them informed and if there were specific needs with which the Commission could help to notify them. • 295 • Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1996 Page: 3 AD96-23.00: REPORT ON ORDINANCES GOVERNING SEXUALLY ORIENTED Presentation by David White, City Attorney of Hot Springs. Mr. White outlined the rights of topless bars and how Hot Springs could regulate them. Rights of Topless Bars or Adult entertainment: 1. The Supreme Court of the United States had granted topless dancing first amendment protection. Topless dancing is considered an artistic form of expression. 2. The City could not band adult businesses, but they could restrict their location. 3. The City did not have to create space for adult businesses, but they had to allow enough useable space for a topless club to operate. They must make 5% of the City's area available for adult business, but they would have to compete in the open market for the space. Hot Springs Regulations: is 1. The ordinances did not allow sexually orientated businesses near schools, churches, parks, or residential areas. Distance measurements were made from a straight line. 2. Non -conforming sexually orientated businesses were considered a non -conforming use and they had three years to move to outside the restricted areas. The only exception was if they had created or spent a considerable amount of money pursuant to their lease. 3. A $500 find and additional $250 per day for business operating in violation of ordinances. 4. A person who operates or causes to be operated a sexually oriented business in violation of the ordinance will be subject to a suit for injunction and prosecution for criminal violation. 5. The 21 st amendment of the constitution allowed the ABC not to grant liquor license to topless dancing establishments. 6. The Alcohol Beverage Control Division has concluded there is no such thing as "brown bagging it", in the State of Arkansas. He cautioned the City, if they were going to enforce this with topless bars, they would have to enforce it in all public places, such as parks and lakes. Ms. Johnson questioned Mr. White, if he believed that they had regulated sexually orientated businesses as stringently as possible, pursuant to the constitution. Mr. White replied they had also passed two more ordinances, a public nuisances ordinance and ordinance requiring dancers to wear pasties. He added they were relying heavily on the three- year amortization, which would then reduce the available commercial space for the clubs to 6.6 %. He stated Hot Springs had gone from 11 clubs to four and all of those were within • restricted areas. • Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1996 Page: 4 Ms. Hoffinan questioned if they had planned to create a red light district. Mr. White stated they had not considered it because the town was so small that there was no place for one. Redlight districts were usually in the low income areas of larger cities. The Committee agreed by consent to ask City Counsel if they could pursue an ordinance regulating sexually orientated businesses. • is 75 i Sap • Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1996 Page: 5 AD96-24.00: REPORT ON PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS Richard Wood, City of Little Rock Planning Department, on how the planned zoning district functions in Little Rock. Mr. Wood presented a brief history of Little Rocks land use and growth problems. The City of Little Rock has had only one significant legal suit, because they did not clearly outline the difference between the single use planned development and a multi use planned development. They now had eight zoning districts, entitled Planned Zoning Districts. They tied the application process into the subdivision public hearing process which took approximately six weeks at planning level. The total process would take about ten weeks, from staff, committee work, planning commission, and the city board to an ordinance adoption. He added that all the developer had when he received his ordinance was preliminary approval. He then had to provide all the final plats and other materials required. The required materials were processed at staff level and did not go back to the Planning Commission. He advised he believed this had helped the development community and had not held it back. The City monitored every step until the pouring of the footings for the buildings then the building inspectors would take over. • The importance of developing a PUD ordinance was involvement. The PUD ordinance dealt with everything: types of businesses, height of structure, colors scheme, buffering, separation of uses, terrain, drainage, water detention etc ... Mr. Tucker questioned if they had the replication process in other districts. Mr. Wood stated the replication process was only in the PUD ordinance where they had three years to begin the project. Mr. Tucker questioned what changes the National Homes Centers case had caused in the ordinance. Mr. Wood explained the basic change was the creation of separate districts to deal with single use development. Some had argued that, since the business had several facets it was mixed use. The way the City dealt with single use now was as a single business. Single use also means type of use and name of use. It allows change of ownership but the zoning would run with the land and name on the building could not be changed. The use of PUD's had increased in areas where they had special zoning districts. This allowed developers to bring the PUD's before the City in an attempt to modify the zoning standards so they could place their use on premises. It put the developer in a position where was he having to justify his development completely. The PUD 0 probably represented about 45% of land use request • Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1996 Page: 6 Ms. Hoffman question the time required to complete the process. Mr. Wood replied there was a prefiling meeting to identify the proposed project and what it would involve. They were then directed to file a short form (less than 5 acres) or a long form or single use or multi use. Once they decided the direction, they could begin designing. Then they had to file for the agenda that they held every six weeks. A subdivision committee would meet mid way during the six-week period. There would be a technical review where they worked out problems with the developer before any public hearings. After the planning commission meeting depending on the schedule, it would take three to four weeks to get it to an ordinance hearing. The entire process would take nine to ten weeks. Mr. Conklin explained one advantage to PUD's was that it tied the zoning and the project together. The City would know what they were getting at the time they rezoned the property. The developer had the option of entering the process but, in doing, would have to provide more detailed information to the commission and to the public showing exactly what they planned for the site. He added that knowing what the property was going to used for was beneficial before they rezoned it. • Mr. Forney questioned the difference between Fayettevilles PUD and Little Rocks. Mr. Conklin stated Fayetteville's ordinance did not change land use; Little Rock's allowed flexablity with the project setbacks and would overlay the zoning in place. Developers could use this when they felt they would not pass conventional rezoning at the proposed location. With this process, they could show the public, commission, city council exactly what the project would look like. If the project was not approved, the site would remain as it was, unlike Fayetteville's where the site would remain rezoned. Mr. Odom commented Fayetteville's ordinance did not allow the Commission to consider the proposed project in the rezoning, although it often influenced decisions. The committee voted by consensus to take the item to City Council. CI Planning Commission Meeting October 14, 1996 Page: 7 AD96-25.00: REPORT ON HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION Mr. Conklin questioned if the Commission was interested in pursuing an ordinance that would regulate hillside development and, if they were, what direction and purpose would they like to pursue. Ms. Johnson stated they should regulate hillsides differently or the City could have several problems with drainage, mud slides etc. Mr. Conklin stated the City did have a storm water management, drainage and erosion control ordinance that should take care of drainage problems on hillside developments and the grading ordinance should regulate retaining walls. He added that current engineering practices should address the drainage and slope stability. The Planning Department had received complaints about alteration done to a hillside, high retaining walls, steep streets, etc. Ms. Johnson questioned if the City had any ordinances that would limit the density on hillside developments. WMr. Conklin stated there were no ordinances were regulating density; zoning controlled it. Sugg suggested the City should adopt regulations protecting the natural slopes of the area, adding they were a valuable asset to the community. Ms.Hoffman commented other cities had adopted ordinances regulating the development of hillsides, protecting the natural slopes and limiting buildable area. In exchange the cities had offered density incentives. The commission voted by consent to forward to the City Council to pursue hillside regulations. W 30 ti