Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-23 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday, September 23, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey Jr., Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Fred Hanna, Stan Green and B. J. Dow MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Tarvin and Frank Burggraf Consultant Larry Wood, Preston Ferguson, Kim Fugitt, W. H. Reynolds, Street Superintendent Clayton Powell, Ervan Wimberly, Wade Bishop, Bud Tomlinson, Ruben Liner, Bobbie Jones, Sandra Carlisle, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others Chairman Hailey called the meeting to order and the minutes of the September 9th meeting were considered. MINUTES There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as distributed. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PRESTON FERGUSON - 2897 EAST WYMAN ROAD The second item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations submitted by Preston Ferguson for property located at 2897 East Wyman Road; zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Hailey noted that the request is to waive the minimum size of 3 acres required for a lot split and Jones added that a parks fee of $105 will be required as well as some additional right-of-way on Wyman Road. She noted that water and sewer are available at the property and that she will accept a Bill of Assurance for sidewalk which is also required along Wyman Road. MOTION Jacks moved to approve the request with the above mentioned requirements. Stockdell seconded and the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. Mr. Ferguson advised that he understood the requirements as specified. • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1985 Page 2 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS KIN FUGITT - 1754 N. COLLEGE (NORTH OF SYCAMORE) The third item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations submitted by Kim Fugitt on behalf of J. C. Enterline for property located at 1754 N. College and zoned both C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-1, Low Density Residential. Jones, Codes Technician, advised that the petitioner plans to submit an application to rezone the portion of the property which is currently classified R-1. She added that there will probably be a r/w requirement and a Bill of Assurance for sidewalks if new buildings are constructed. In answer to Madison's question, Jones advised that the R-1 portion of the property fronts on Sycamore and she added that water and sewer exist at this location. Stockdell asked why the petitioner has chosen to leave a portion of the property in a "t" shape with the long narrow portion fronting College. Fugitt replied that the development group he represents has several uses in mind for the property. In answer to Hanna's question, Fugitt replied that the portion of the narrow piece of property fronting on College is 71+' and will primarily be used as access to the rear of the property which will be self -storage concern. MOTION Jacks moved approval of the request with r/w required as stated by Jones. Stockdell seconded and the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The fourth item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed revisions to the City's Subdivision Regulations. It is suggested that a decision be reached as to whether the proposal will be further addressed by the entire Planning Commission, the Subdivision Committee or a new committee yet to be named. Jacks, along with Stockdell, expressed thanks to Planning Consultant Wood for his efforts in compiling comparison material to assist members of the Commission in examining the proposed regulations. Jacks also advised that the Subdivision Committee is overloaded and requested that another committee be formed to address the proposed regulations. Stockdell stated that she wished to have some discussion this evening. She said she felt the comparison material answers many of the questions raised by Commissioners on their review, but added that she needed additional time to examine the information. She said she didn't feel a new committee was necessary and that she wished to review the proposal, in full, with fellow Commissioners at their next meeting in two weeks. a 1.5 • • • Planning Commission September 23, 1985 Page 3 Jacks noted that there is an engineer on the Commission whose input would be valuable in determining whether the material is reasonable from the standpoint of development in the City. He added that he would like some input from local developers as well. Jacks said he wondered whether the proposal obviates the need for street classifications on the Master Street Plan. Reynolds noted that his classifications in the submitted material refer to design specifications and that, particularly from the State Highway's position, Commissioners may need to retain present street classifications. Jacks asked if the proposal was based on anticipated traffic and Reynolds explained that it is based on truck traffic as it is trucks that make the greatest impact. Stockdell asked Powell if he views streets with the design specifications as spelled out by Reynolds or in terms of what Commissioners have considered collectors or arterials. Powell said he basically views it in terms of the functional classification of the street. He said review of a minor residential street ending in a cul-de-sac would include the average vehicle -per -day count as well as the wheel weight load of the axles. He said a low-volume street will not need to meet the street section of a collector street which is what he felt Reynolds was trying to establish in the classifications noted in his proposal and which he thought does correlate with the Master Street Plan. Hailey gave some examples of vehicle counts on residential streets which would result in those streets being four -lane classification according to Reynolds' plan. Powell noted that, when the Master Street Plan was first adopted, it followed the Federal Highway Administration guidelines for collector and arterial streets based on spacing. He advised that, although the City has adopted the Master Street Plan, it still needs to comply with Federal guidelines to continue receiving Federal grants which comprise 80% Federal/State monies and 20% local. He added that there have been many amendments to the MSP since its adoption in 1970 and he pointed out that, if a residential street has acquired a high traffic count, it is obvious that it is the most desirable street in the neigh- borhood for residents to use. Hailey noted that according to traffic flow, it appears that 90% of the streets in Fayetteville need to be four -lane if Reynolds plan is adopted. Powell advised that new subdivisions will be included in the Class I and II streets of Reynolds' plan. He commented that the City, thus far, has never required a developer to build anything other than a Planning Commission September 23, 1985 Page 4 residential street and that the City participates in construction of streets that they desire to be built to collector status. Hailey said he thought this new ordinance would give the City the right to require a four -lane street from a developer. Powell advised that the plan is still a proposal. Hailey said he had a problem with including standards within the ordinance itself because it cannot be changed without a Public Hearing. Powell said that if alterations without Public Hearing was a desired factor, it could be arranged as part of Reynolds plan. Stockdell clarified that Powell would be willing to put forth a set of standards without it being included as part of the ordinance. Powell noted that there is already an ordinance (1966) which states that the City has the authority to adopt street specifications. Jacks said he still felt he would like additional advice from engineers and developers. He said, although he agreed that appropriate preparation needs to be considered in street construction, he would not want to increase standards beyond the point that would discourage development and added that he still had questions regarding street widths. Powell said that a consulting engineering firm will not agree with increasing street standards because it will ultimately increase the cost passed on to their clients. cost. Ervan Wimberly, Northwest Engineers, said that he agreed with the proposed standards of street construction although he recognized the will questcost theions tdevel persmore butthatitis oners ersgbasicallia the proposal ood Wimberly said he thought it would be helpful to separate ythe construction standards from street widths. He said he felt the City will like streets built to the new proposed standards more than what currently exists. He noted that while older City streets have been experiencing problems, the streets built in subdivisions in the past 10 years have held up very well. Wimberly said that, while he would like to retain the construction standards put forth by Reynolds, he would like more consideration to be given to drainage standards. He said, in particular, he disagreed that cross drains were necessary at every intersection. Madison said she had a problem interpreting the technical data on construction standards and would like to have someone give an explanation in layman's terms. Wade Bishop, a local developer, said he was not sure what the minimum standard would be and added that his main concern was that consideration be given to the fact that the existing standard of 6" of base material and 2" of asphalt was still appropriate in some locations within the City. He said that the cost of construction in Fayetteville was already considerably higher than in neighboring cities and he expressed concern et? 19 Planning Commission September 23, 1985 Page 5 that the new proposed standards will further increase costs. Bishop requested that the Commission keep economics in mind. Bud Tomlinson, Engineering Contractor, agreed that 6 & 2 material was appropriate in some cases and added that he felt that some of the discussion on soil in Reynolds' proposal are poorly done in that there is some degree of overkill. He said that the decision to install French drains on the uphill side (of streets) should be left to the engineers. Tomlinson said he thought the proposal includes most of the details an engineer would ordinarily consider. Jacks, speaking to Powell, noted that Reynolds proposal has been worked on for over a year and that almost one year ago over 50 interested people received a first draft of the proposal while the Commission did not receive word of it until the meeting of September 9th. Powell replied that he has been working on this proposal for two years prior to the date the Board of Directors issued a resolution to proceed on the plan. He apologized for his chosen course of action which he had felt would be appropriate. Jacks said it probably would have been a smoother operation if Commissioners had had some idea of the plan right along. Hailey noted that Reynolds had sent the City some material regarding the plan last October. Ruben Liner Jr., McClinton Anchor, stated that he thought 6 & 2 for street construction is barely adequate in many cases. He said Reynolds' set of specifications addresses the type of soil and conditions that are present in this particular area as well as the type of material that is available to deal with. He said it may need some modification, but that it does set up a rigid set of standards of acceptance and rejection which he felt this area needs and has been lacking for a long time. Liner said he felt the end result of the proposed standards will a benefit to this area. Jones advised Commissioners that they had been furnished with a copy of the Board's 1984 resolution authorizing this study. She said she felt as much at fault for the delay in Commissioners receiving their relevant material as Powell. She said she was never specifically asked to deliver the documents to the Planning Commission and felt that she should wait until she received the engineering technicalities to forward the recommended draft to Commissioners. Hailey advised that he will form a committee to work as expeditiously as possible in the further study of the proposal presented by Reynolds. He noted that developers have expressed compliments regarding construction specifications in Reynolds' proposal. Powell said he had no personal preference regarding widths of streets and was willing to go along with whatever the City decides is best. He pointed out, however, that reducing the amount of space between driveways tvl0 Planning Commission September 23, 1985 Page 6 from 12.5' to 5' from property line, as was recently adopted, eliminates street parking at that location because ten feet between driveways is not enough space to park a car without blocking the drive. He said that, based on his 15 years experience in the Street Department, the drainage requirements spelled out in Reynolds proposal are the minimum that is needed. Hailey said he would keep Powell informed as to meetings addressing the proposal and added that he felt Reynolds should be reimbursed for all additional and necessary visits to Fayetteville not included in the original contract. Reynolds noted that he had tried to provide for additional traffic anticipated for the Fayetteville area in the next 20 years. Stockdell asked if fully constructed streets were considered capital improvements and Powell replied that he would personally consider them as such. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Hailey reminded and Board of Directors Room 326 at 7:00 P.M. adjourned at 6:00 P.M. Commissioners of the joint Planning Commission meeting to be held Tuesday, September 24 in There being no further business, the meeting L 9