Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-13 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on January 13, 1997 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Allred, John Harbison, Conrad Odom, Gary Tucker, Lorel Hoffman, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, and Mark Sugg. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Rich Lane, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. OLD BUSINESS AD96 30 00 PRESENTATION OF DESIGN THEME FOR LSD96-25.00 ✓ GLENNWOOD SHOPPING CENTER Minutes from the June 24, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting were provided to the commissioners. They detailed the agreements made by Cozart concerning the design theme of the center. Ms. Amirmoez presented a plan along with several elevations of the Glennwood Shopping Center. The drawing illustrated how the shopping center would be visually connected. All of the sidewalks adjacent to the buildings would be covered. Mr. Reynolds asked if there would be two or three restaurants. Mr. Cozart stated there would be one Taco Bell, one McDonalds, and one sit down restaurant with a patio. Mr. Reynolds asked if McDonalds and Taco Bell would resemble the rest of the center. Mr. Cozart responded they would be required to blend into the center. He added they would also be required to come before the Planning Commission because they were buying their own lots. Ms. Johnson listed the items Ms. Amirmoez had presented: 1. All the walks would be covered. 2. There would be spaces for outdoor seating. 1 • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1997 Page 2 3. All the sidewalks would be of a similar material and pattern. She asked if there were any other specific items the Planning Commission could list. Ms. Amirmoez stated they would be using would be a combination of brick, colored brick, standing seam metal (teal green in color), and textured concrete block. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Amirmoez if the Planning Commission could count on the multiple tower shapes. Ms. Amirmoerz stated there would be at least one clock tower. Each store front would have its own individual character with smaller store fronts varying in design Mr. Harbison asked if the outlying lots would be developed by a third party. Mr. Cozart stated six Tots would be sold and developed by individuals. Mr. Harbison asked Mr. C07ar1 if he intended to include a covenant with the deeds requiring conformity with the centers design theme. Mr. Cozart stated he intended to, but had not done it yet. He believed McDonalds and Taco Bell would still have their design insignia. Mr. Harbison hoped Mr. Cozart would include specific language in the covenants requiring conformity to the design theme. Mr. Cozart stated he was not going to tell Taco Bell they could not keep their insignia. Mr. Odom stated Mr. Cozart could inform the buyers that the Planning Commission would require them to be consistent with the rest of the development. Ms. Johnson listed eight items the Planning Commission could require everyone in the development to have, (including the six out lots): 1. All sidewalks adjacent to the buildings would be covered. 2. There would be outdoor seating areas along and in conjunction with the covered walks. 3. All the walks would be made of a similar material (pattern differently from regular concrete walks) 4. Tower shapes would be utilized. There would be at least one clock tower. 5. Small store fronts with various designs would relate to the overall context of the project. 6. The primary building materials would be: brick, colored brick, stucco, textured concrete block. • • • Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1997 Page 3 7. All roofs would be standing seam metal. 8. There would be no one dimensional roof facades. Mr. Forney expressed concerns that the development did not have a covenant. Ms. Little explained that the development would have to be built exactly as approved on the large scale development plan by the Planning Commission or it would have to come before the Planning Commission again. Mr. Cozart stated the Bank of Fayetteville was going to exceed the square footage allotted for their building. There was no public comment. MOTION Mr Allred moved to approve the item subject to staff comments and the 8 items discussed during the meeting. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson asked if he meant to include the drawings. Mr. Allred stated it was his understanding that the drawings would go with the approval. Mr. Tucker asked if this would apply to the out buildings. Mr. Allred stated it would apply to the out lots. Ms. Johnson stated the drawings and the eight items discussed would apply to the entire large scale including the six freestanding buildings. The roll was called and the item was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. 5 • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 4 PP96-8.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CANTERBURY PLACE N. OF JOYCE BLVD AND W. OF CROSSOVER RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Northwest Engineers for property located north of Joyce Blvd. and west of Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 20.19 acres with 23 lots proposed. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of the final street names. The main street shall be Taliesin Lane. (A future connection to the existing Taliesin Lane south of Zion Road is planned). 2. Due to the proposed park land of lot no. 6 and the potential for the city to also acquire lots 5 and 7, the street design and lot layout should be flexible. A. In the event that the western street (lots 5-7) is not constructed then the developer shall dedicate a 50 ft. right-of-way in the general location that the street is currently proposed. B. The main street (constructed) will be Taliesin Lane and shall have a 50 ft. right-of-way, 28 ft. Street and sidewalks on each side of the street. The minor street (constructed) will be a "Residential" street with 40 ft. ROW, 24 ft street and sidewalk on one side. 3. Dedication of 0.53 acres to the City Parks system at approval of final plat. The Parks Board has requested the property which includes the drainage channel to the west (lot 6). Lot 6 has been proposed by the developer (lot 6 needs is 0.51 acres and needs to be adjusted to 0.53 acres or accepted by the Parks Board). 4. If the plat changes form the plat presented at the 9 December 1996 Planning Commission Meeting (number of lots and street layout) then the plat must come back through the Planning process, starting with "in-house" plat review. 5. The developer will be required to contribute $29,991.28 toward the improvements to Joyce Boulevard. 6. Verification that a separate residential drive will be permitted as shown for lot no. 19. 7. Staff approval of the final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks parking lot (s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the LSD review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 8. Plat review and subdivision committee comments, including the written plat comments mailed to the applicant. Please note that this includes the Public Utilities ( AWG, SWEPCO, OZARK, TCA, SWBELL) and City Staff. 9. Dedication of 25' of right-of-way across the northern property boundary. Mr. Beavers stated the revised plat had not gone through the plat review process. The street • changes would also affect the water, sewer, and drainage. ‘,\ • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Johnson asked if the plat was ready to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds did not want to discuss the item after reviewing the minutes from the last Planning Commission Meeting, when the item was tabled. Ms. Johnson stated this was a different plat than what had been presented at the previous meeting. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to send the item back to the Subdivision Committee for further review. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Jones stated the Planning Commission had wanted to table the item until they had seen a revised plan showing the street eliminated. The street did not change the infrastructure, rights- of-way, or easements. • Ms. Johnson stated the Planning Commission did not have an interest in viewing items that were • not definite. Mr. Jones stated he was willing to have the original plat voted on. He asked why the item had been tabled at the first meeting. Ms. Johnson explained it had been tabled because of the pending sale of several lots, which would cause the streets to be reconfigured. She asked if the Planning Commission should see the revised plat first or if the Subdivision Committee should. Mr. Allred was in favor of the motion. He stated the Subdivision Committee needed to look at the street alignment. He expressed concerns about the 90° turns and street names. Ms. Johnson commented the first plat had a straight street running north and south which would be the major traffic flow. Now they had a street with three sharp 90° turns as the main street. Mr. Beavers, referring to the minutes, commented the item had been tabled until an agreement could be reached to purchase the land. He asked Mr. Jones if the agreement had been made. Mr. Jones stated the agreement had been made. He requested the Planning Commission revisit the original plat and approve it. If the developer decided to eliminate the north -south street then they could go back to the Subdivision Committee. • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Little commented neither the staff nor the Planning Commission had asked him to change the plat. The Planning staff had concerns about eliminating the north south road, a necessity for good circulation. She did not like the three 90° turns. Mr. Harbison asked if a different lot configuration would make the north south street possible. Mr. Jones asked if the Planning Commission would review the original plat. Ms Johnson stated it would be a disservice to the Commission and to the public because they would not know what the final project would look like. She believed it would be a waste of everyone's time. Ms. Little referred to the staff report item #4, "if the plat changes from the plat presented at the 9 December 96 Planning Commission, number of lots, and street layout, then the plat must come back through the planning process starting with the in-house plat review." She continued that Mr. Harbison had changed #4 slightly to read, " if lots 5, 7, and 8 were sold then they would bring the plat back into the process for plat review." • Ms. Johnson commented the Planning Commission wanted to see the best plan a developer could • design. They also expected the developer to be committed to it. Mr. Jones stated they were committed to it. He would be willing to go to Subdivision on Thursday. Mr. Beavers asked if an agreement had been reached to sell the lots. Mr. Jones stated they had sold lots 5, 7, and 8 and he had a signed agreement. Lot 6 had been dedicated to the City. The roll was called and the item was sent back to the Subdivision Committee by a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 7 NEW BUSINESS LSD96-41.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR DENNY'S S. OF HWY 62W AND W. OF SHILOH DRIVE The next item on the agenda was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Steve Mitchell for property located south of Hwy 62 west and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 1.32 acres. The project is subject to Commercial Design Standards and to the Design Overlay District. The staff recommended approval with the following conditions: The applicant requested a waiver for an entry drive to be placed closer than the 250 feet from an intersection. Conditions of approval: 1. A six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten feet of green space is required along Hwy 62 West. The sidewalk shall meet current City sidewalk standards. 2. A letter from the owner stating the number of employees per shift in order to more accurately calculate the parking requirements. 3. Approval of waiver request for placement of entrance drive on Hwy 62 W. See attached letter. The drive cannot be located 250' from either the curb cut to the east or to the west which already exists. 4. Plat review and subdivision comments. 5. Revision of plat to reflect easements requested at Plat review. -modify 20' Utility easement on west property line. 6. Signage to meet requirements of the Overlay District including a max. Height of 6' for monument sign. 7. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations, for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets,( public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for LSD review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 9. A permit from AHTD for curb cut on Hwy 62 W. For the entry /exit will be required. 10. Dedication of additional right-of-way as shown on plat 55' from centerline. 11. Provide for possible future access to the drive to the east of the property. This curb cut will require a variance of the Overlay District requirement of 250' between curb cuts. 12. The median shown at the entry drive shall be a 10' wide landscaped median with one 12' aisle for ingress and one 24' for egress. 13. The turning radius for the entry / exit needs to be changed to 45' or 50' in order to accommodate delivery truck traffic. 14. Submittal of easement plat prior to building permit being issued, any necessary revision of • • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 8 easement plat to be completed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 15. The drainage will be privately owned and maintained by the applicant. An agreement to such, as required by the Stormwater Management Ordinance shall be required. This agreement must also include the proposed box culvert to be built on the adjacent property to the east. 16. The LSD approval will be valid for one calendar year. Ms Little stated Cal -Ark Homes, the owners to the south, would not agree to allow access onto their private street. They did not object to foot access to the street. Mr. Tucker asked if the private drive could become a public street in the future. Mr. Beavers stated the City would have to purchase or condemn the land. He did not believe it would happen. Ms. Johnson asked if the street could be reconstructed to City Standards. Ms. Little stated as long as the street was a private drive the maintenance and/or construction would be undertaken by Cal -Ark Homes. Mr. Allred stated they had discussed, at Subdivision Committee meeting, a stub out to Denny's property line to make arrangements for future access, if there should ever be a use change at the trailer park. He added, they could not require that the access be opened up at this time, but they could provide for the future. Ms. Johnson asked if the applicant had agreed to the stub out to the east. Mr. Jorgensen stated they had agreed to all of the conditions. They preferred the southeast corner of the parking area for access. Ms. Johnson asked the staff if they felt it would be a good location for the potential access. Mr. Forney asked if they needed to grant a waiver for the Hwy 16 entrance, if this was the only point of access. Ms. Little thought they needed to provide a waiver. The Overlay District stated the roads needed to be located 250 feet from intersections, and drives were to be located no closer together than 200 feet. The proposed drive way was 130.3 feet from the existing private drive to the east and 132 feet from the driveway to the west. It did not meet the criteria. The staff supported the request for the waiver because it was the best place for an entry. Mr. Forney did not want to approve a waiver if there was another access possible. • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 9 Ms. Little stated the staff felt the access the developer was requesting was reasonable. They were not asking for two curb cuts. They had looked at the curb cut including the location of other drives across the five lane highway. Ms. Johnson asked the distance between this curb cut and the intersection with Hwy 62 and Shiloh Mr. Jorgensen stated it was approximately 280-300 feet from the corner of the property. Mr. Reynolds asked how four to five feet of fill would affect the trailer park to the south. Mr. Beavers stated he had reviewed the preliminary drainage report, and he did not believe it would have a negative impact to the property to the south. Mr. Reynolds stated there were no street lights. He asked if they were going to install one. Mr. Jorgensen stated they would install a street light. • Ms. Little referred to the Plat Review minutes which stated, "if there were no street lights within 300', one needed to be installed." Mr. Tucker, referring to the curb cut waiver, questioned which intersection (Shiloh or the private drive) they would use as a reference. • Ms. Little stated the intention of the ordinance was "street intersection." She believed it was any way that carried significant traffic. They had decided to place the drive basically in the middle, a little to the east, to off set the entry from the drive directly to the north of it. Ms. Johnson asked where the drive was in relation to the pet store. Ms. Little thought the entire front of the Pet Store site was open to the highway. Mr. Jorgensen stated most of the front of the property was open to the Hwy. Mr. Reynolds believed they should use the Shiloh intersection, because the private drive did not have a name. Ms. Little asked if the Planning Commission wanted to support the entry drive at the proposed location by approving the waiver. She added they would need a waiver no matter where they placed the entry. 0\ • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Jorgensen stated they had tried to locate the driveway where it did not conflict with the drive to the north. This was the best solution. Mr. Harbison asked if they had spoken with the pet store about sharing access. Mr. Jorgensen stated they had not. Mr. Jorgensen stated they did not locate the drive further to the west because they were trying to preserve the green space and did not want to crowd the pet store. Mr. Odom commented they were beginning to micro manage every project and these types of questions should have been asked during Subdivision Committee meeting and not at this stage in the process. He thought this piece of property appeared to be landlocked. He was going to vote in favor of the waiver with the staff recommendations. MOTION • Mr. Odom moved to approve the large scale subject to the conditions of approval. Including the waiver for the entry drive and item #17, "a street light would be placed at the entry drive." • Mr. Reynolds seconded motion. There was no public comment. Mr. Tucker thought they were premature in making a motion. There were other issues regarding parking and signage he wanted to discuss. He asked how many signs would be on the building itself. Mr. Jorgensen stated there would be one standard monument sign out front which would abide by the Overlay District requirements. The sign on the front would be the standard "Denny's" sign. He stated they would not ask for any waivers from the signage requirements. Mr. Tucker pointed out the graphics presented showed signs on three sides. Mr. Jorgensen stated there would be one sign on the north elevation facing the highway and one on the east. Ms. Little stated the staff recommended signage be in compliance with the Overlay District. One wall sign not exceeding 20% of the wall area or 200 square feet, which ever is less. There would also be one free standing monument sigh with a maximum height of 6 feet and 75 square feet. • • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 11 Ms. Johnson commented there would be a maximum of two signs: one a monument and one wall sign Mr. Jorgensen stated they would abide by all the sign regulations. Mr. Tucker asked if the thirty employees would be a peak shift or total number of employees. Mr. Jorgensen replied it was 30 per shift. Ms. Little stated there was a parking chart on the face of the blue print. It showed 59 spaces would be required for 19 employees. They were asking for 61 spaces. The Planning Commission had eliminated 2 of the spaces by requiring the stub out. They would be at the required 59 spaces. Ms Johnson thought the motion should include item #11, " the future access would take out two parking spaces when built." The roll was called the item was approved by a vote of 6-2-0. 1� • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 12 RZA96-19.00: REZONING AND ANNEXATION OF STONE BRIDGE MEADOWS E OF DEAD HORSE MTN. AND N. OF STONE FARM RD. The next item on the agenda was submitted by James McCord on behalf of Bill Meadows for property located east of Dead Horse Mountain Road and north of Stone Farm Road. The property is in the county and contains approximately 765.00 acres to be annexed (243 acres of the 1,008 acres is currently in the City Limits). The request is to annex the property as A-1 (agricultural) and to rezone 37.97 acres to R-1 (Low Density Residential). ANNEXATION The staff recommended approval of the annexation request due to the parcel's proximity to Fayetteville City limits and conformance to General Plan 2020. Ms. Little presented a map showing the current City Limits. The map illustrated some of the property was already in the City Limits. • Ms. Johnson commented this parcel completely surrounded a piece of property that would remain in the county. Ms. Little agreed. She thought the size of that property was approximately 100 acres. Ms. Johnson asked if part of this project was within the City Limits. Ms. Little stated a portion of the Goff Farm was in the City Limits. The Planning Commission did not have to take action on that portion. The applicant was requesting to annex the remaining land. Mr. Jim McCord presented a map illustrating the portion of the property he was requesting to be annexed. He stated all of the Goff Farm property was proposed for annexation. He added 243 acres was already in the City (the western most portion). They were now asking for the remainder to be annexed (this would include the golf course.) Ms. Johnson asked if there were any questions about the proposed annexation. Mr. Sugg asked if there was a master plan for the golf course and the surrounding the residential area. Mr. McCord stated Meadow Enterprises had submitted a concept plat for the land that was not • being developed at this time (303 acres). • • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Sugg asked if the concept plat was all residential or did it contain any commercial developments or churches. Mr. McCord stated it was all residential. He had submitted a Preliminary Plat for a 78 lot subdivision, which would be presented Thursday to the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Reynolds did not think it was appropriate to talk about the preliminary plat during the annexation process. Ms. Johnson commented the parcel was bounded on two sides by the City Limits and appeared like it would be annexed eventually. Public Comment Jeff Erf, 2711 Woodcliff Road, asked how the annexation would benefit the City. He expressed concerns about the public services going out to the property. Mr. Odom responded the main benefit to the City would be the stricter covenants. The streets, water, and sewer would be built to City standards If they were built to county standards, later the City would annex substandard streets, sewers and water systems. Ms. Little added there would be some tax benefits. The City was also concerned about the amount of septic tank development within the county, which could lead to ground water pollution. If they could put the development on City sewer systems then the ground water would not be polluted as much. There had been some reports and concerns about the water wells in the county and the amount of pollution associated with them. Mr. Erf asked if the increase in the tax base would cover the additional cost of city services. Ms. Little responded as a general rule, residential development did not pay its way in terms of tax base. Mr. Erf commented the City would be subsidizing the development. Ms Little replied it would be subsidizing the development as it subsidized every other residential development in town. Mr. Reynolds expressed the fear of 78 septic tanks going into the White River, which was our water supply. Mr. Erf asked if there was a way to connect sewer service to the development without annexing it \1J • • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 14 into the City. Ms. Little replied the City had a policy against that. There were no other comments from the public. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the annexation. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Mr. Odom stated he would support the large tract of land being annexed into the city. Mr. Sugg asked if the city had the sewer capabilities to handle the influx. Mr. McCord stated Meadow Enterprises only owned 303 acres of the 700 acres being annexed into the city. Only 65 acres was not included in the golf course or in phase one. There were no plans to develop the remaining properties of Goff Farms. Ms. Little stated the purpose of Subdivision Regulations was to make sure there were adequate facilities. The fact that the property might be annexed or rezoned was no guarantee that it would be developable without certain improvements being made. Each part of the development would have to be assessed in terms of all infrastructure needs. Mr. Allred stated the motion was to annex 700 acres and no other discussion was appropriate at this point. Mr. Forney was not comfortable rezoning portions of the parcel. He thought the Planning Commission needed to see a proposal for the entire parcel. He suggested the developer should submit a PUD. Mr. Harbison asked if the golf course would be regulated by the city's drainage ordinance. Mr. Beavers stated the project was already under construction. In his opinion the golf course would help the drainage by the additional top soil; the architectural design of the course would help reduce run off. Mr. Harbison expressed concern about pesticide runoff. The roll was called and the item was approved by a vote of 7-1-0. Mr. Sugg voting nay. • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 15 REZONING Ms. Johnson stated the rezoning request was for 38 acres from A-1 to R-1. Mr. Sugg asked if it was in the annexed portion. Ms. Little stated it was in the portion that would be annexed upon City Council Approval. Ms. Johnson stated the Planning Commission action sent the request to City Council with the recommendation of approval. Mr. Forney was not in favor of the rezoning. He was afraid it was the beginning of a piecemeal process. He thought this property would ultimately develop, but he did not believe this was the most effective way to go. Mr. Reynolds stated he would like to see a concept plat. Ms. Little stated the first phase was in the process and would be going before the Subdivision Committee Thursday Ms. Johnson asked how many acres. Ms. Little stated it was approximately 300 acres. Mr. McCord stated they were presently asking for the rezoning of 38 acres of the 303 acres that they owned. By leaving the remainder A-1 the Planning Commission would have more control over future developments. He reminded them the land would have to be rezoned before it could be further developed. Mr. Forney understood his argument, but was concerned about working on such a small scale He added it was rare that such a large tract of land was developed as a whole. Mr. McCord pointed out this was a rezoning, land use, decision. He needed to rezone 38 acres now and when he decided to develop more land then he would rezone again. He would be presenting a concept plat before the Subdivision Committee on Thursday. Mr. Allred agreed with the applicant. They were discussing land use; by ordinance the Planning • Commission could not require the developer to present more. • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 16 Mr. Jorgensen presented a map illustrating property and the location of the golf course. Mr. Harbison commented 200 of 300 acres would be the golf course, which was already under construction. Mr. Forney expressed concern that the rezoning would cause the Planning Commission to lose control of the project. He did not want to approve the rezoning on a bill of goods. He added there should be no tie between the rezoning and the concept plat. Mr. McCord stated he was going to present an R-1 concept plat. He could have asked to rezone the entire 100 acres, but he thought it would be better planning to only request rezoning of 38 acres. The City would have more control over the remaining land. He would have to come before the Planning Commission again to rezoned before developing more. Ms. Johnson commented this was an irregularly shaped parcel. The east, north and northwest sides were his property lines. She asked why the southwest boundary was located where it was • Mr. Jorgensen responded the southwest boundary was Stone Farm Road. They were going from the highway to the north to the county road to the south. They discussed a map and concluded the eastern boundary was set because of the golf course. Mr. Allred suggested postponing the rezoning until after the Planning Commission had looked at the concept plat. They might want to look at larger lots, estate lots. He asked if it was procedurally proper to postpone the rezoning request and approve the preliminary plat subject to the rezoning. Mr. McCord stated he would not submit a plat without the proper zoning. Mr. Allred thought the rezoning would be denied. Ms. Johnson stated this parcel was going to stand alone. It included all the land the applicant had east of the golf course. She did not believe it would be a piecemeal rezoning and thought the Planning Commission needed to deal with the rezoning tonight. Mr. Jorgensen presented map illustrating the location of the remaining land scattered around the golf course. Mr. Sugg stated he could not make an informed decision, by looking at such a small portion of the over all development. He expressed concern that the Planning Commission would be losing control of the entire development. They needed to see how this development would impact the • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 17 roads, access etc. Mr. Odom stated they had several tools for making informed decisions about the overall "big picture": the 2020 general land use plan, consistency with surrounding land, and their judgement. He did not think the Planning Commission had the authority to ask for a concept plan when they were considering a rezoning request. He believed the rezoning request was consistent with the 2020 plan and the surrounding neighborhood. MOTION Mr. Odom moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Allred seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker stated he would be voting against the rezoning in hopes it would come back to them as a PUD. Mr. Forney asked if a PUD was typically associated with a rezoning. Ms. Little stated they typically were not. She explained a PUD laid over the underlying zoning. The zoning had to be in place. Mr. McCord stated the developer did not want to develop the entire 100 acres. It would be more expensive than developing 38 acres. He did not want to put that many lots on the market at this time. If the 38 acres was developed successfully then he would develop more of the land. To force the developer to develop the entire 100 acres did not make sense. He was only asking for the rezoning of 38 acres and had submitted a plat for only 38 acres. He only wanted to put 78 lots on the market at one time. The only impact to the street system would be from those 78 homes. He was minimizing the impact and preserving the Planning Commission's development control by leaving the balance of the property zoned A-1. Ms. Johnson observed the 38 acres would be served by Hwy 16 E and Stone Bridge Road. She was puzzled by the Planning Commission's reluctance. She added this part of town would greatly benefit by the development. This part of town also had better transportation access than a lot of other areas where they were seeing heavy development. There would not be any residences built to the west along the golf course, which would benefit the city. Mr. Tucker asked if the present ordinance allowed a PUD to come before them as A-1. • Ms. Little stated the PUD ordinance laid over the existing zoning. PUDs were authorized in the R, R -O, C, and I zones. A PUD would not be allowed in an A-1 zone. • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 18 Mr. Forney did not believe the applicant was served well by the development ordinance nor was the City. He was disappointed the ordinance did not provide a better scenario. Ms. Little responded she thought the City had very good set of Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations would govern this development. Although the staff thought that a level of comfort would be achieved by adopting an additional type of zoning which tied the development to the rezoning, the staff was recommending the zoning. She added the Subdivision Regulations had served them well in the past and would serve them well when they reviewed this preliminary plat. Mr. McCord reminded the planning commissioners the issue before them was whether or not to recommend the rezoning of the 38 acres. That was the only issue before them tonight. It was all the developer owned, the staff had recommended the rezoning, it was consistent with the land use plan and the surrounding area.. PUBLIC COMMENT • Mr. Jeff Erf, 2711 Woodcliff Road, asked if they had a map of the proposed rezoning. Ms. Little replied they did and it included a legal description. • Mr. Erf expressed concern about traffic. He asked if the developer would be required to set aside some money for off site improvements. Mr. Odom stated Thursday at the Subdivision Committee meeting would be the appropriate time to discuss the issue. There were no other comments from the public. Mr. Sugg stated he did not have enough information. He thought the development was urban sprawl. He hoped this could become a community in itself, if they were able to see the entire picture. The roll was called. The rezoning was approved by a vote of 5-3-0. Sugg, Fomey and Tucker voting nay. \Qb • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 19 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Ms. Johnson had submitted a letter to the City Council in November of 1996 requesting they consider an amendment to the PUD ordinance relating to density bonuses in exchange for additional open space. The Council had sent the request to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. She read her proposal for amendment to section 160.121 (E) (2). Proposed: In addition to the dwelling unit density otherwise permitted, a density bonus for additional open space may be allowed at the option of the Planning Commission up to the following maxims... in the R-1 District or setback area in all districts; Present: In addition to the dwelling unit density otherwise permitted, the following density bonus is provided for additional open space... in the R-1 District or setback area in all districts; She believed the PUD ordinance was intended to have this flexibility, but the amendment would clarify the ordinance. • MOTION Mr. Forney moved to approve the recommendation. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. The roll was called and the item was approved by a unanimous vote. • \°\ • • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 20 AD96-35.00 DISCUSSION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Ms. Johnson asked the Planning Commissioners if they believed the staff should be consistent with their recommendations for approval or denial. Mr. Forney preferred the staff not offer recommendations. He believed they unduly influenced them. He thought they were asked to make decisions and they should not use the staff recommendations "for" or "against" as the basis for their decisions. He requested that they not have recommendations. Mr. Odom thought the Planning Staff should make recommendation as paid professionals. Mr. Sugg thought they should always have a recommendation. Mr. Reynolds also wanted to see the recommendations. He liked to support staff where they could. Mr. Tucker stated he liked the "staff's finding" sheet without a specific recommendation. Mr. Harbison stated it was the Planning Commission's job to make decisions. Developers were often suspect of Planning Commission decisions, if they went against staff's recommendations. Mr. Reynolds stated he wanted the staff to state on paper, if there was something wrong with a project. Mr. Allred stated the staff should make recommendations as paid professionals. Mr. Harbison stated they were not talking about the information provided to them, but the one word recommendation of "approval" or "denial." Mr. Forney stated the staff presented the information in such a way it was easy for them to make an informed decision without a recommendation. Ms. Johnson agreed the Planning Commission needed to make the calls and it was their responsibility to handle the political fall out. She did not think they were unduly influenced by staff. She thought their recommendations were helpful. Mr. Forney thought he was being supportive of staff. He did not believe they should force them to make a recommendation. Mr. Allred suggested leaving it as it was. ?U • • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 21 Mr. Tucker asked if the recommendation meant good planning or simply they had met the requirements. Ms. Little stated a recommendation did not represent just Planning; it represented all the divisions of the City. She added, they had never asked the Planning Commission to look at Just at the recommendation. There was always a page with the background information and surrounding information with the staff's findings in it. Staff included all of the information in the packet. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to ask the staff to make recommendations to the Planning Commission on all items. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The roll was called the motion was approved by a vote of 4-3-0. 2� • • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 22 DISCUSSION ADDING REGULAR ITEMS TO THE AGENDA OF ADMINISTRATIVE MT Ms. Johnson stated administrative meetings in the past have had short agendas. She asked if the Planning Commission really needed to have exclusive administrative meetings. She asked if they should work regular items into the agenda. She felt that they did not need administrative meetings. She asked the staff if they needed the time to do other things. Ms Little stated they had reduced the number of administrative meeting to two for 1997. Development had also slowed down. They had created administrative meetings to cover the items they could not get to during the regular meetings. Ms. Johnson asked Ms. Little if she saw a need to have exclusive administrative meeting. Ms. Little stated it was helpful to focus on those items. She believed with the reduction in number they probably had the right number of meetings. Pp- • • Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 23 AD96-37.00 : APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEMBERS. Ms. Johnson appointed Commissioner Odom as first alternate to the Subdivision Committee. She appointed herself as the second alternate. She explained if a Subdivision Committee member could not attend, then they were to call Mr. Odom. If he could not attend, they were to call her. The regular member was also required to notify staff, so they could distribute the packets. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35pm. • PLANNING COMMISSION 1997 ALMON, VALERIE- 9 S. SCHOOL STREET (CU97-2.00) 50 AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS 147 AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS 180 ANDREW FISHER (VA 97-9.00) 327 APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATION COMMITTEE 74 APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE (AD96-37.00) 23 BAPTIST STUDENT CENTER (CU 97-9.00) 213 BEVIS, DAVE -670-672 (VAC 97-1.00) 42 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO RIGHT-OF-WAY (AD 97-13.00) 334 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO (LS 97-12.00) 239 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO (LSD 97-12.10) 250 BOIS d' ARC (PP 97-4.00) 191 BRIDGEPORT SUBDIVISION, PHASE III (AD 97-8.00) 206 CANTERBURY PLACE, (PP96-8.00) 4 CARBAJAL, RAFAEL (CU96-31.00) 33 CARLON BASSETT (RZ 97-16.00) 275 CARY ARSAGA (AD 97-9.00) 255 CHANDAN BECKER (CU 97-11.00) 234 CHARLESTON PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP96-6.40) 80 • CHLOE HOWELL (RZ 97-3.00) 101 CIRCUIT CITY (LSD 97-18.00) 281 CLAY BASS (CU 97-19.00) 373 COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION 272 CRYSTAL SPRINGS PHASE II, MASTER STREET PLAN RECON (AD 97-16.00) 336 DAVID KYLE VACATION (VA 97-7.00) 290 DEERFIELD - GORDEN WILKINS- (PP96-7.20) RESUBMITTAL 72 DEERFIELD PLACE PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP96-7.20) 76 DENNY'S (LSD96-41.00) 7 DISCUSSION OF AGENDA FOR ADMINISTRATIVE MEETINGS 22 DISCUSSION OF REQUIREMENT FOR SURVEY FOR BUILDING PERMIT 62 DISCUSSION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (AD96-30.00) 20 DISCUSSION OF PUD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 19 DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (AD 97-11.00) 311 DOLLAR GENERAL (LSD 97-14.00) 342 DONALD STATON/ ANIMAL CARE CLINIC (CU 97-12.00) 288 ELECTION OF OFFICERS 75 FAYETTEVILLE WAREHOUSE (LSD 97-5.00) 116 FAYETTEVILLE WAREHOUSE (LSD 97-5.00) 120 FRANCIS HOLCOMB (AD 97-6.00) 227 FRANCIS HOLCOMB (AD 97-6.00) 170 • GARY ATHA (RZA 97-17.00) 367 GARY ATHA (RZA 97-20.00) 368 • GLENNWOOD CENTER (AD 97-5.00) 144 GLENNWOOD SHOPPING CNT, DESIGN THEME (LSD96-25.00) 1 GREG RILEY (VA 97-10.00) 329 HARPS/GLENNWOOD SHOPPING CNT (AD 97-5.00) 107 HENRY TUCK (PLA 97-9.00 AND LS 97-17.00) 188 JIM BOB WHEELER (VA 97-4.00) 259 KEATING ENTERPRISES (VA 97-3.00) 178 KEN SHIREMAN (CU 97-17.00) 325 KINTER, KATHLEEN- 1723 GARLAND, DETACHED DWELLING UNIT (CU97-3.00) 69 KIRKWOOD ADDITION (PP97-1.00) 55 MARK SUGG, TANDEM LOT S. OF 7TH ST. AND W. OF WOOD ST. (CU97-1.00) 45 MAY CONSTRUCTION (LSD 97-11.00) 162 MCDONALD'S (LSD 97-10.00) 153 MCDONALD'S/GLENNWOOD CENTER (LSD 97-10.00) 182 MEADOWBROOKS APARTMENTS (LSD 97-6.00) 134 MEADOWBROOKS (LSD 97-6.10) 244 MICHAEL AND JOY URWILER (CU 97-8.00) 149 MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES (RZ 97-21.00) 331 MID -SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES (RZ 97-21.00) 364 NEILL/MCKENZIE/SKILLERN (RZA 97-10.00) 196 NEILL/MCKENZIE/SKILLERN (RZ 97-11.00) 291 NEW HOPE GIRLS HOME (CU97-5.00) 89 • NORTH PARK PLACE, PHASE II (LSD 97-15.00) 349 OZARK BUILDING (VA 97-5.00) 296 PACESETTER PROPERTIES (RZA 97-5.00) 128 PACESETTER PROPERTIES (RZ 97-8.00) 130 PANELS BY MIKEY (LSD 97-1.00) 111 PINE TREE INVESTMENTS (CU 97-7.00) 124 PRESTIGE PROPERTIES (RZA 97-4.00) 93 PRESTIGE PROPERTIES (RZ 97-5.00) 95 PUBLIC WORKS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM OVERLAY DIST. (AD97-4.00) 77 RAY ADAMS TRUST (VA 97-6.00) 301 RECOGNITION OF JERRY ALLRED 75 RICHARD MAYES AUTO (CU 97-15.00) 359 RIO BRAVO CANTINA (LSD96-42.00) 38 ROBERT SCOTT HOMES (CP 97-1.00) 166 ROBERT DOWELL TRUST (RZ 97-6.00) 105 ROMANS, FREELAND- 230 EAST TOWNSHIP (RZ97-2.00) 65 SALEM VILLAGE (FP 97-1.00) 265 SALVATION ARMY (LSD 97-8.00) 151 SERENITY PLACE P.U.D. (PP 97-7.00) 304 SHAHRYAR KHAJEHNAJAFI (RZ 97-22.10) 379 SHAHRYAR KHAJEHNAJAFI (RZ 97-22.00) 361 • STAFF/MARK (LSD 97-22.00) 371 STEFFAN SARKIN (CU 97-6.00) 102 • STEVE & KARLA CARAWAY (CU 97-16.00) 322 STONE BRIDGE MEADOWS (PP96-9.00) 26 STONE BRIDGE MEADOWS, ANNEXATION AND REZONING (RZA96-19.00) 12 STONEYKIRK SUBDIVISION (PP 97-6.00) 260 SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT PARKING WAIVER (AD 97-14.00) 312 SUNRISE MOUNTAIN CENTER (PP 97-3.00) 209 TOM JANUARY (LSD 97-13.00) 221 TOM JANUARY (LSD 97-13.00) 230 TOM JANUARY (LS 97-18.00) 218 TOM JANUARY (CU 97-10.00) 216 US POST OFFICE- LOT SPLIT (LS96-41.00) 60 WAL-MART SIGN (AD 97-10.00) 237 WANDA SIMS (RZA 97-24.00) 380 WANDA SIMS (RZ 97-25.00) 381 WAYNE KELLER (LS 97-32.00) 337 WEDINGTON PLACE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC WAIVER (AD 97-15.00) 315 WEDINGTON PLACE (CCP 97-1.00) 318 WEDINGTON PLACE (RZ 97-15.00) 215 WILKINS, ROGER- 3181 IDLEWOOD WAY (VA97-2.00) 48 WILLIAMS & LANE -SYCAMORE AND GILES (RZ97-1.00) 63 ZION VALLEY (APPEAL 97-1.00) 43 • • / - 1 1 1 MOTION ala 4zniel 001h -p. dila, oceeinN SECOND 1977wit 747 /47/44 /frath 1 a levee- 11 q ! V /V 7GSGLed? e 0400/7-1 , I 1 q q (1 1 s04,,,,,) q tf it q 9 CJs q y i Al 11) ti y '1 17 4. erwatOs • • �L/9NN)/v4t Corm S/pvJ VOTING LOG FOR ///3 • to y-3 MOTION 7079 Q. __fib SECOND ®Mill .v/Nsanl 1uC/CO y All \ 0 Cern l 11 rorti0 y N hptso,.) y 11 V GI_ PSV l "l sss y filled/5 rJ y N i . y-3 • • • 1) aHnw VOTING LIrG FOR ,427 57Lx e& ineweetos 6.50 96-0[ Pb eso Priekok /a,9/pe)Z 2/062yv0 p9aemps Sn� I 1 1 ,o _„ MOTION OE 'rn eOGNE� Pa -4W 6,2011appm SECOND l -l}9, gilS0.J /gable- , yt, w5 eel/WOWS lfo15.77ThW Lhl 7 y IV 41 y irL I ( /v / y Cl 0 2 Ai AY r AY y y!/el. v y 4, y Y 4 q r e A/ 7 hk, v g Ai V an, Y Al if it r 3-‘-0 60-3-D C sd-F0 • • A VOTING LOG FOR /297 • Osie 97-1 1909707 Zioit) //Nap • r -o 9--0_6 I -6 i 1 MOTION PG S 0012n1 Oppm SECOND Ooon-, lie—0 6 agto a ( q q Al /11 m (I (7 r 4na V r y .S� , 7 y iii ,a.� y q Al g J//fes • r -o 9--0_6 I -6 • • • VOTING LOG FOR 02/0 Cu 97 -Ire 9,5Dttn. I -- ' 1 ( 1 MOTION 0D9M SECOND Foe.tow. k.i.ve-y q ��ce 9 open l //r Aisad 11 I9tc 'etc (1 F-0-0 J ' MOTION b3� 415,19,,311\ ' ��C/ ItX�n/SdN / J a,(xicX// SECOND p6GQ4--Z? OPO,. G�s:Ji'C44 j "' l of 4,6„. GI n ! q LP it' q /,i (1 727,(4 �I N.V. q G1 4,./..-„,7., 7iy< 41 i q -4-7,7,�44.1 q V AI 1 • • VOTING LOG FOR 3 93C • 1 1 MOTION COO t->-• Worn Folio), SECOND )2,e„Los accej- _I vtc C ,�t�� -Jii. ' 'i aa -r,„, q g 11 g " i ,f,„z4 )i„,‘,,, (1 g ly' Nk!t /1) k cant- c"vt, 111 fty /742 GI 4 4 .8 MOTION ��� y,� f I braid SECOND // GLt�Gfi1 tinii vl /C/ fi- %`- q ,1//9// r ailed il -1,6-4-% q Aid.,,,,„ 1 evil r -v 7,„,p ei Y 4,,a iv 7t QA il - I (1 _� / rt r) u I 4 MOTION xaisibi 9.7,,,,#) s jw, rev" - SECOND6St,tcs A,,,50.J, I�1Z�fyY • `7ot�r• /�/ ////i✓SO �l q i 1 Y Ic (yr d q l/� t --/ace_ y q i q LI Vc2-deel9 (I 1 O. q 114 (.1 11 q (-1 V 14 mm 'I - i IV. v( I c( l Id l l f"oitv Aprmi q q. l,1 q ti #0,A,,.) ri cl 77) 70 Sia 'Y6-70 3,0 Pc VOTING LOG FOR • • • Q) / I / 1 1 MOTION al Aso") SECOND .21r%» 2 YC(0402- 1 , II SASS U OCD rvN tl 9 trhl r0 N`)NO P-ISp9J. 1 7 -o -b. 1 / '1 / 4 MOTION � fait? pi,v(01 SECOND p,/^40.4m) II / 1 } I 1 1 1 q -7ii ck-or I II q 11 N 9, ./Ji/Sol% 1 (I 11 11 1 6Q2ni 1 q l `I `it 2. .vOG/�S /V q 1 I StiC I < 11LII 1\-) J Al 'I (1 tit mbp.,-„,„) 0 q c L For)e--), 14 (4 `i 1 1 N. J 1 0 1 MOTION terii )#Ar 5o» gmair /'c77-/17, 0J6)5o9 SECOND 00/ASr 7-6”. �rj/1 tv56✓J Ms %I,C I Ajtrnil y 1 (1 qr /729)eisiLsoAl g 1 ti ( I q n9orn 1 I 1 1 lit/ ‘ v q iti 1 /1/ 11 z,,,,,,c0 y II cl iii I y g v (4 1, MOTION 47/7/4 /Gt) 4%4 , rook., SECOND 444,yonan, `chid' ..J7n q 1 ef r ,/nwL il y y 7 azi4 /(/ y ? y an 9 9 1 y /1,4 11 (/ (1 V y (-7y Li /77 9 7-1-d F-0.-0 2-®-d F-0-6 9 1 .1, , MOTION 4,774 es, 44 frinL iv 44,42-• SECOND frbS`n- 47 Jaff 421 rfi^tr�G6 iii. n/ r y y 6/ ,17; V V V y G/ 4.r r Y V 1 V Sr1 4) V r y / ,,na V e V r (1 in,.h y y V 11 4,6i724 7 V .y r q 7/-(e) s --3-a 7_,,,, f -o -D 7 e -a / .I • 1 MOTION 44/1/ 47heig (J4 /7L v "-1 ,4,440-1 SECOND WindX /Zf • Sii14 . 4/ /G (At 7) »n2 1 ( Ai I g 4L,T,/ q UG` V 7 A 67 Lr �6,/ y Gf q y `r /,yti - V 4/ 4/ y-, 9/ z%.,.. -v V g v Y zif.,„„,,z. .v /2/ g K7 5,7 4' 9 (/ v ?_cro. 5 -ot 5-3-o. ?_o.-0 a7 --o. VOTING LOG FOR 7k A% • • / ! / 1 4 MOTION SECOND Z -16r4 0/011/7 i E- Z.S0../.% -( /v/ fit )4,, !`/l q . �/ I/ 1 / 1 1 Y V MOTION //e�n•.� O1„cc.r. / �G d60 v SECOND in,divi-,. �: (fO/4S'-J 4—" 1 Al V. , it E 6;)t-4,-- V g Al Al 1 7A cie-2.- 42 Al V - 1! 11 i.ear,;. y e , ii /u (.1 i>.," . 4 , a44. y- /i /4 `' 2/„ yi 1 /t) V 11 (p_ /-a, 3-3 v 3-30 yam._ 0,0 114.E 71 VOTING LOG FOR 4v 1 / I 1 MOTION toely.t...." / A SECOND /7/1_ AfrulAGti"9 /97/1 q V ' p,A%2 g I q d� % 4, I y 6( y V -0 -0 ©-cD 1 / .I 1 MOTION ,)Gh // / t Zile/ SECOND v) _ 4 z vQ Y Al ii dfi - ov10vm y Y il 1 MOTION "/6141-/ iO )--) 4.1a4 rU SA SECONDm, w� �7 7<l_cite A it9 7/Z mi.c, • V (I .r" q . €l' ptcy J9 S ifg q Al K300. 77 4/ ei ut Y (7./,_ Al (1 1 V 4//s7-4.±- r . (1 I I/ d 91t, 47( V \ t 9 417 VOTING LOG FOR 41/441 N C1/4\ )\ I 1 1 MOTION / � / ' /� / `6 fry. SECOND / Ai/�� " ,,, my,,,,„ S y I" /2.27„,,A), 111 y A; g oon, v g g gni,,,,,,, g g ,./.pan v Y ' ///in,i, y q v zi- 'Y 44 Y ei ,,,,, ii i /0 . (4-Q, 7-- Z -o. b 03 -7,"l b P C VOTING LOG FOR (0/Z 7 i MOTION /Jr DiNj Pa SECOND I hg / 9J' Ci//9.i7 1 I 74 ce tie 11 q 11 /NfJ7/G/.v5 vi AtsoAi el y 1 oo:)M V 7 V I�vrPr+gnJ ` 1 / 1 i -6-D1 -3-043 , (9-2-6. 1 ' 1 / MOTION 'CAA" Z J, ��w frr6anJA4144-11 SECOND f/vA=/ny„l Zd/7. tie rh✓'4 IOW. tia". /1/42D y e a y 1 7r�c,e y v y y 1 Ayirx„vs ti v r t-( alvsaAl V 4/ g 1/ Ga, (1 q V V L( greEy,,,ii, ns LI V 7 Y I \iit' n �(1 /V h X -Ut 1 e MOTION ��✓� w -o � ,i 5ti •1 ^ i i5 SECOND NOtes r-��� 4 .0402 d /i� OLt? frao Y ( \ Y alp q At 7 (/ sh V `1 Y Y azzz,it/S v I A 1 / 47,A% V I it V iji V RFyirJc)11x 1 J` `1 - v • .43 • BYLAWS CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Revised and Adopted December 9, 1996 ARTICLE I. MEMBERS AND TERMS A. The members and terms of service shall be as stipulated by ordinance. Any member who is absent for three (3) consecutive regular meetings, except in case of illness or extraordinary circumstances, shall tender his resignation. ARTICLE II. OFFICES A. The chairman shall appoint three (3) members from the Planning Commission to serve as a nominating committee for the positions of chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The nominating committee shall present its slate to the Planning Commission who shall elect, by secret ballot, the chairman, vice-chairman and secretary annually at the first regular meeting in the month of April. An officer of the Planning Commission may serve in any one position for no more than two consecutive terms. B. The chairman shall preside at all meetings and public hearings of the Planning Commission and shall decide all points of order or procedure. All plans, plats, etc., requiring the signature of the Planning Commission shall be signed by the chairman (or vice-chairman) and the secretary; when authorized by the Commission these officers or either of them shall sign all other documents on behalf of the Commission. The chairman (or any other member of the Commission, when specifically authorized by vote of the Commission) shall transmit reports and recommendations of the Commission. C. The vice-chairman shall assume the duties of the chairman in the chairman's absence. D. In the event of the absence or disability of both the chairman and vice-chairman at any meeting, the oldest appointive member in pointof service shall act as chairman during such meeting. E. The planning staff of the City of Fayetteville shall be responsible for the minutes of every meeting, shall send out mail notice of regular meetings of the Planning Commission at least four days in advance of the meetings, shall give all telephone notice of special meetings, and shall cavy on routine correspondence and maintain the files of the Commission. All notices of public hearings and similar notices requiring the legal publication shall be signed by a member of the planning staff of the City of Fayetteville. F. Should any unusual circumstance prevent the election of officers at the regular annual meeting, officers shall serve until their successors are elected. • • • • ARTICLE III. MEETINGS A. All meetings of the Planning Commission shall be public and no meeting can be held without full compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. B. The regular annual meeting of the Planning Commission shall be held at the first meeting of the month of April each year, at 5:30 p.m. on the second Monday of the month or on such other day of the month as may be fixed by vote of the Commission. C. The regular meetings of the Commission shall be held at 5:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Mail notices of such meetings shall be given at least four days in advance of each such meeting. D. Special meetings may be called by the chairman at any time and shall be called at the request of any three members of the Commission. At least four days notice of special meetings shall be given each member, if possible, but under extraordinary circumstances special meetings may be called by telephone and without other notice. E. A quorum shall consist of five members. No formal business may be conducted without a quorum and no vote shall be cast by proxy. F. 1. It shall require five positive votes to carry the following items: a. Zoning Changes b. Amendments or changes to the Master Plan c. All Conditional Uses d. Amendments of the Planning Commission Bylaws. 2. A simple majority of those present (assuming a quorum) shall be needed for adoption of any other motions. An abstention from voting on a matter by a commissioner shall not be construed as a vote either for or against the matter under consideration. The order of business at all regular meetings shall be as follows: 1. Reading of minutes of previous meeting (except reading of minutes may be dispensed with by unanimous vote or copy of minutes as mailed to Commission members may be approved without reading); • • • 2. Unfinished Business 3. New Business; and 4. Other Business. H. Public hearings shall be conducted formally, and the chairman shall make all rulings and determinations regarding the admissibility of evidence; the scope of the inquiry; the order in which evidence, objections and arguments shall be heard; and other like matters, except that when in doubt, he may refer to staff, the city attorney, or to any member with knowledge of the problem. Any member shall be privileged to make inquiries personally and to call for a vote on any ruling of the chairman with which he does not agree, whereupon the vote shall determine the effective ruling. It shall be the purpose of the chairman to expedite all hearings, confining them to the presentation of only essential matters in the interest of saving time, but entertaining the presentation of sufficient matter to do substantial justice to all concerned Official action shall be taken only in regular or special session of the Planning Commission. A rehearing shall be called for only if there was a factual error, omission or oversight in the first consideration or at the request of the City Council A request for a rehearing must be made in writing and must state the factual error, omission or oversight asserted as the basis for a rehearing. A request for a rehearing must be filed with the Planning Administrator within thirty (30) days from the date of final action on the matter by the Planning Commission. During Planning Commission meetings Planning Commission members shall preserve order and decorum and shall neither by conversation or otherwise delay or interrupt the proceedings. Neither shall they refuse to obey the orders of the chairman or the rules of the Planning Commission. Every member of the Planning Commission desiring to speak shall address the Chair and, upon recognition by the Chairman, shall confine herself or himself to the question under debate and shall avoid all personalities and indecorous language. A Commissioner, once recognized, shall not be interrupted while speaking unless a point of order is raised by another member or unless the member chooses to yield to questions from another member. If a member is called to order while he/she is speaking, he/she shall cease speaking immediately until the question of order is determined. If ruled not to be in order, he/she shall remain silent or shall alter his/her remarks so as to comply with the rules of the Planning Commission. All members of the Planning Commission shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to city employees and to members of the public appearing before the Planning Commission, and shall refrain at all times from rude or derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments and statements as to motives and personalities. Commissioner shall confine their questions as to the particular matters before the Planning Commission and in • • • • debate shall confine their remarks to the issues before the Planning Commission. K. All submittals for hearings regarding jurisdiction of lands shall be by the owner thereof or a duly authorized representative. L. All meetings shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order. ARTICLE IV. COMMITTEES A. The Planning Commission may establish such standing or special or advisory committees as it deems advisable, and may assign to each committee specific duties or functions and establish the terms of members of each such committee. Members of such committees may be persons other than members of the Planning Commission, but a member of the Planning Commission shall be named as chairman, either active or ex -officio, of each such committee. The chairman of the Planning Commission shall name the chairman and members of each such committee subject to approval of the Planning Commission and any vacancies on such committee shall be filled in the same manner. C. A Subdivision Committee consisting of at least three Planning Commissioner shall serve as a standing committee that reviews development items after Technical Plat Review and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission; two alternates shall be named, one or both of whom shall sit with full voting rights in lieu of a regular member or members who are absent from the meeting. 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 unanimous vote of the Subdivision Committee to carry the following items: a. Large Scale Developments b. Lot Splits c. The right to have a rehearing before the full Planning Commission. d. Final Plats e. Sidewalk variances for projects other than large scale developments or subdivisions. 3. 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 plats shall be referred to the Planning Commission for action. • • D. No member of the Planning Commission shall be required to serve on more than two committees. ARTICLE V. RECORDS • • The Planning Staff of the City of Fayetteville shall maintain a file of studies, plans, reports and recommendations made by the Planning Commission in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities. ARTICLE VI. ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE A. Consideration of Proposals for Changes to Zoning Districts. Before considering a request or proposal for the change of a zoning district, the Commission shall determine that it has before it the following: 1. A map of the parcel of land for which rezoning is proposed or requested indicating the current zoning of the property and the current zoning of the property in the immediate vicinity; 2. A vicinity map indicating the location of the parcel of property, the major thoroughfares and collector streets in the area, and the zoning of property within an approximate one mile radius of the parcel of property in question. If there is a proposed subdivision within a one -mile radius of the parcel for which the preliminary plat has been approved, the vicinity map should show the streets in the proposed subdivision. 3. A map indicating the planned land use and public facilities in the area as indicated in the comprehensive land use plan; and 4. A staff report from the City's planning consultant or staff planner containing the following information. a. General Information 1. The name of the applicant 2. The nature of the proposed rezoning and a brief description of the property. b. Findings of the Staff 1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principals, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. • 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. c. Recommendations of Staff ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS a. These By -Laws may be amended or repealed by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the full membership of the Planning Commission Any proposed amendment shall first be presented in writing at a regular meeting and placed on the agenda of a subsequent regular meeting for action unless ten days written notice of the proposal has been given to all Commissioners, in which case action may be taken by any regular or called meeting; or amendment may be made by unanimous vote without notice. Reyi$ed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, on the day of (�QyX Qiy1,)1996. ATTEST: ADOPTED: November 11,1959 REVISED: January 16, 1962 Robert Reynolds SECRETARY • February 16, 1965 May 6, 1969 February 6, 1973 March 6, 1973 January 27, 1976 February 28, 1977 November 1, 1977 April 24, 1978 December 12, 1983 September 22, 1986 November 25, 1991 May 22, 1995 May 6, 1996 December 9,1996