Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-30 Minutes• • • • MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Thursday, January 30, 1986 at 5:00 P.M. in Boom 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, AR. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, B.J. Dow, Paul Skwiot and Frank Farrish "Butch" Robertson and Julie Nash Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Sandra Carlisle, Bobbie Jones and Paula Brandeis MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman, Ernie Jacks, noted that special meetings of the Planning Commission have been held in the past to introduce new Commissioners to policy and for general discussion. He advised that handouts of general information had been distributed, including "Modifying Zoning Requirements" and a review from the enabling legislation for Planning Commissions which addresses such mandatory duties as promoting safety; morals; order and convenience of the citizens; and, promoting the public's interest and understanding of long range planning. Jacks said it seems the Commission "puts out brush fires" and he wished to see more of policy, promoting efficiency, economy and development, best use of land, convenience and traffic. Jacks commented that problems areas. The ordinance requires clustered at approximately one artery and he said there has more commercial "strips" like pressure to create strips has among Commissioners are sometimes presented in commercial "...retail sales and related uses be mile intervals or near a major traffic been determination to not develop any Highway 471 North. Jacks said constant sometimes been the root of disagreement Hanna expressed his support of the Highway 471 "strip" and added he felt Highway 62 West was also better suited to commercial uses than residential development. He said it was better to cluster commercial uses in this location rather than string them throughout the community. He pointed out that, although there have been many objections from neighbors in the area of Highway 16 East, there have been no complaints addressing commercial re -zoning requests on 62 West. Madison asked what, ideally, should be placed between the commercial intersections and Jacks replied residential, particularly apartments. He said Highway 45 was an almost ideal condition where buffered commercial cj • • • Planning Commission Special Meeting January 30, 1986 Page 2 has been planned and implemented at the corner of Highways 265 and 45. Jacks noted that the Commission has been pressured to rezone additional property to commercial district in this area and has resisted. Other Commissioners expressed hopes for resisting re -zonings .along Highway 265 as well. Skwiot expressed concern regarding cleaning up the area of Highway 471 South and asked what could be done to encourage citizens to use this location for commercial concerns. Hanna said businesses locating in this area have never done very well. He reiterated support of the Highway 62 West area, pointing out that the bottle -neck of the railroad overpass needs to be widened, to allow a better flow of rush hour traffic. He expressed concern regarding the possibility of Highway 62 West being re-routed, resulting in another Highway 16 East situation. Possible expansion of the University of Arkansas was discussed. Wood said their plan in the late 1960's had been to progress north to Cleveland between Gregg and Razorback Road. Jacks said he thought the university has grown to its maximum and will not try to grow any more. Jacks next commented there has always been some disappointment in the Planned Unit Development ordinance (PUD). He said he thought it allowed a developer much freedom but he has not yet seen an example of a good PUD. Hanna noted there have been some neighborhood objections. Jacks, referred Commissioners to a hand-out from City Attorney, Jim McCord, advising that the highest and best use of a parcel of property is not always based in financial gain. Madison asked to have Commissioner's zoning packets updated and Jacks requested new copies of Commission by-laws. Madison also requested reduced copies of the Master Street Plan and zoning maps Jacks requested an accurate Fayetteville -Springdale map and Wood agreed to make the changes necessary to bring said map up to date. Commissioners expressed hope that new maps would be included as part of the current land use study. Jones noted that aerial maps are also helpful. She noted that there are several errors in the current zoning map which may be misinterpreted. Jacks and Dow requested accurate and clear maps be included in Commission packets, including a north arrow and clear street identification. Jones suggested keeping a list of problems as they occur through the year to be addressed at an annual meeting rather than waiting until a new general plan is ready to implement. Jacks noted an Update Committee had, at one time, been formed to deal with this. He said he felt the new plan would take care of most existing problems. Planning Commission Special Meeting January 30, 1986 Page 3 Farrish said he had no problem with addressing undeveloped property but expressed concern regarding requests submitted by property owners for changes in existing circumstances. He said it was difficult to find guidelines and his sentiments would lie with the property owner. Jacks also noted absence of guidelines regarding the size of clusters to be allowed at intersections of commercial property and how large those intersections should be. Wood replied that some guidelines exist in old planning materials. He said when a city is laid out evenly, it is based on a square mile with four to six thousand people and a commercial development at each corner surrounded by office and multi -family. He added that the rule of thumb is approximately 5 acres per thousand population putting about five acres at each corner. Jones distributed hand-outs regarding lot split criteria and Jacks advised that lot split regulations were to address subdividing land without off-site improvements. He suggested tying off-site improvements to something other than subdivision regulations but had no advise on how to accomplish same. Skwiot inquired into criteria for tandem lots and Jacks explained that tandem lot regulations were created because of the mountainous terrain in Fayetteville which sometimes makes it impossible to build a street up the side of a hill. He said, in place of development of a subdivision with normal parceling of lots, it seemed reasonable to reach some of the depths on the hillsides through tandem lots. He added that criteria is tied to hardship in topography and that extremely deep lots were considered, but not included, although the committee that preformed the study felt they should have been. Madison noted a factor in not allowing corrections regarding deep lots was developers building culs-de-sac and not dedicating the right- of-way to the property line which limited accessibility to some lots. She indicated that this was sometimes corrected through subdivision Committee review. Jones suggested close examination of surrounding property of a proposed subdivision. She said a protective measure to is require street stub -outs in all directions. Jacks agreed with that consideration but added that culs-de-sac can also be some of the nicest streets in a neighborhood. Farrish commented that a property owner at the end of a stub -out will benefit from a developer having improved a length of street up to his property line and Jones noted that property owner would only recoup on whatever proportion he is willing to extend the street while the first developer usually has developed lots on both sides of same. Jacks said the problem lies in large areas where development is just beginning and the only streets in place are collectors. He said there Qieo • • Planning Commission Special Meeting January 30, 1986 Page 4 is no mechanism to assure the construction of a series of small, through streets. Wood reiterated that stubbing in all four directions is somewhat of a solution. Green said he felt the more important issue was to decide where the City might grow and where to designate streets to encourage that growth. He pointed out that a developer might be inclined to build near a collector street that was planned but not yet developed, if he knew that the City would improve that street, but may also be hesitant to build near that collector if he thought he might get stuck with paying for improvements. Green said he felt very uncomfortable with abiding by the twenty year old Master Plan because there are things in it that make no sense. Jones addressed procedure, advising that it is important to voice a reason when stating a motion, especially a motion of denial as a well-founded reason which ties in with the General Plan is necessary. Jacks noted that the City Attorney has offered the same advice. Madison questioned ex -City Board member's, Frank Sharp, comment made at the Planning Commission meeting of January 27th, that there are funds set aside to plant trees along City -built Joyce Street. She requested that this be looked into. Jones next advised that in creating the present Master Plan, she thought small committees had been formed who then pooled their findings and suggestions. Jacks said he felt Commissioners, at the time, did not work closely enough with the Consulting Planner regarding the plan. Support was expressed by Commissioners for touring neighborhoods pertinent to items of business prior to a Commission meeting. Jones commented that other assists available to members are a slide projector, an overhead projector and a video tape machine all installed in the meeting room. She said maps are also installed in the room. Jones suggested, when considering a request for conditional use, to examine use conditions that which may be applicable for that use, as well as criteria for granting the request. Jacks expressed a request for these use conditions to be noted along with each use unit. Jones also suggested a blanket note be added to the section dealing with use conditions stating that, unless otherwise specified, how said conditions may be varied if at all. She gave, as an example, the setbacks required for a tandem lot. Commissioners requested updated by-laws, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M.