Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday October 13, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish and B.J. Dow MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: SdttMateks'ot and Julie Nash Larry Wood, Ken Lazenby, Bill Lazenby, Ervan Wimberly, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86 -1S WILLIAM A. LAZENBY EAST SIDE OF EAST FARMER DRIVE AT THE SOUTH END The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-15 submitted by William Lazenby for 1/2 acre located at the east side of East Farmers Drive (at the South end). Request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Wood did not recommend R-2 zoning at this time but R-1.5 was recommended for the following reasons 1. The General Plan does not recommend R-2 District as far south as requested in this application, however, with the R-2 District to the east and the C-2 District to the west existing at the depth they do, it is likely that R-2 District will someday be recommended as this area redevelops; 2. The existing single-family development should be protected from random placement of higher density multi -family development; and, 3. With the existing mix of single-family and duplex development, the R-1.5 District would permit a similar development pattern. Madison asked if the property replied yes and those duplexes Ken Lazenby presented a plot to build on this property. to the North of this was R-1 and Carlisle have a conditional use in an R-1 District. plan of the proposed duplexes they intend Farrish asked if the petitioners would be as happy with R-1.5 rather than the R-2. Ken Lazenby replied yes R-1.5 would suit their needs as far as what they were planning. • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 2 Robertson asked if they could do this in the A-1 District under a conditional use request. Carlisle stated the bulk and area could not be met for the lot. She said each residence would have a 2 acre minimum. Ken Lazenby said they had gone before the Board of Adjustment and were referred to the Planning Commission for rezoning. NOTION Madison moved to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-1 to R-1.5, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 7-0-0. DISCUSSION OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The second item on the agenda was a discussion of the Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Jacks said the Planning Commission had to come to some agreement and then they need to send some sort of a package to the Board of Directors for their comments. From all that they could then put together an amendment or ordinance to the Subdivision Regulations for the City Attorney. • Jacks said the Commissioners had before them a Substantive Subdivision Regulations Revision which they had discussed 2 or 3 meetings ago. • Jacks said the first one was Section 1. to change street definitions, pavement widths, ROWs, and specify by "Structural Number". Jacks said the Collector had 60' of ROW and 31' pavement back to back which left 14-1/2' on each side. Jacks said the reason that was done was a Collector street was more likely to change to an Arterial. Ervan Wimberly stated the Master Street Plan already had Collectors and Arterials and the ROWs were already dedicated. They could fall into the lower category of just plain Collectors rather than major collectors. He said they already had 60' of ROW on a number of streets. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, said NWARPC were currently looking at Fayetteville's Master Street Plan and there was strong sentiment on the TAC committee to look at a functional idea of highway develop- ment or as a functional use, as opposed to the standard planners approach which would lay it out in neighborhoods with collector streets being on the interior of the neighborhoods. He said the technical committee was saying "look we have a lot of streets out there that are classified as collectors but functionally they act as minor arterials". Wood gave an example of Rolling Hills and perhaps the new extension of Township. He said a number of the streets which are collectors have heavy traffic volumes. Wood recommended for at least the next 1-1/2 to 2 years that the ROW widths not be changed too much until they can get a good look at the Master Street plan again. Zoe • • • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 3 Green said he saw no point in separating collectors from major collectors if they were not going to make any distinction between the two in terms of what they require or what the potential might be over the long run. Green said the developer would be responsible for the cost of the local street so it would not matter to the developer if the City was going to put in 31' or 41'. Madison said the current paving on collector was 36' so 31' would be less than the current collector. Madison understood Larry Wood to be saying that ROW was needed because they cannot accurately gauge the traffic on a street before it was built. Green stated he disagreed with that because they should be able to make a quorum decision and live with it rather than tie up extra ROW where it may never be needed. Farrish said the thing he would be concerned about would be the ROW and not the paving. Green said if they had a category called major collector then use it where they thought it should be put and if they were not going to use it then do not have another category. Green said what they would end up with would be 31' of street, 10' of space between the sidewalk and the street and sidewalk at the property line which would not be very functional. He said if they were going to do this then they should cut out 10' of the ROW requirement and put the sidewalk closer to the street where they belong. Ervan Wimberly said one other thing on collectors was that they could end up with turn lanes at the end of certain intersections. He said additional ROWs would be needed at Old Missouri Road for instance. Madison asked Green if he was saying they do help direct, guide and determine traffic by the types of streets they put there and if they had a collector designated for 60' of ROW then they are funneling traffic ideally down that street at a certain intensity. She said if people count on that and then they decide to bump it up to a wider situation then they have been misled. Green replied essentially that was what he was saying, theoretically that was the way it should work. Farrish said collector streets were built with a 80' dedicated ROW. Madison said the ROW on Rolling Hills seemed wider than 31' and Wimberly said it was about 40'. Madison said then it was built that wide and may have the volume of traffic that it does because it was a nice wide street. Wimberly said it was not because the street was that wide that it carried the volume of traffic it does but because it 0 • • • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 4 was the only street that went straight through from College over to the Highway. Madison then said Rolling Hills may have no more traffic than North Street did, that it was just better accomodating. Green said that was a good argument for not approving the street defini- tions because he did not think Rolling Hills ought to be used like it was used. He said it was a residential neighborhood and that street was never intended to carry that amount of traffic. NOTION Green moved to change the ROW on a collector street to 50' on the new classification, seconded by Hanna. Following further discussion, Wimberly said if it was changed to 50' then it would be the same as a major local. Green said then they would not need a major local. Farrish stated if they changed collector to 50' then they have made it the same as major local which was the same classification. Farrish asked if Commissioner Green would like to make his motion to eliminate the collector. Green withdrew his motion and said what they could do was eliminate collectors and change major local to local collectors and have local collector and major collector. He said that would make sence to him. Farrish asked what the ROW would be for a major local. Green replied exactly what was shown, they would just change the name to major collector. Green said one would have 50' of ROW and 31' of pavement and the other would be 60' of ROW and 41' of pavement. NOTION Farrish moved to recommend the 60' ROW for all collectors as submitted, seconded by Madison. The motion passed 6-1-0, Green voting "nay". Jacks stated they would proceed with Section II of the Substantive Subdivision Regulations Revisions. Jacks said Section II covered insurance and assurance requirements, performance bond to performance and payment bond, fee structure and requirements for preliminary plat submittals. Jacks said he had talked with the Director of Public Works, Deryl Burch and he said the fee structure study should be resolved in November. In answer to a question from Madison, Jacks said he thought they had standardized all the various types of notifications. Madison said currently LSD notification of adjacent property owners was only required if they abutted different zoning and asked if they changed that or not. She felt all adjacent property owners should be notified, period. Dow said on the general revisions throughout, notification requirements (Subdivision, LSD and Conditional Uses) Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 5 should be standardized with registered letters. In answer to a question from Jacks, Ervan Wimberly said they had not addressed the notification. Madison noted one of the standard ways of in the newspaper and she said that had never sion. She thought legal notices did not get notification was a notice been a policy for Subdivi- the message across. Wimberly asked if the full Planning Commission wanted a standardized list. He said the committee that worked on this felt like it should be standardized down to a set substance for all procedures whether it be by legal notice, notice in the paper, or knocking on doors. Madison suggested notifying all adjacent property owners regardless of zoning for LSD, Subdivision and Conditional Uses and would not want a legal notice in the newpaper to be one way of notification. Jacks said it was almost impossible to find out where owners of the property lived or have them available for a signature on the plat. Jacks said about the only way would be to have the legal notice in the newspaper. In answer to been that the therefore the a question from Madison, Carlisle said the problem had box holder would not pick up the notice intentionally, subdivider has to find another way of notification. Madison suggested putting a sign on the property. Green said he did not have a problem with newpaper notification and thought they ought to allow legal notices in the newpaper for subdivisions also. Jacks noted there might be some legal requirement along that line for a legal notice being a legal notification. Green said people should be notified but did not know what they 'could do to protect everyone in every circumstance. He said a legal notice was the best thing they could do. In answer to a question from Madison, Carlisle said the in the newpaper had not been a problem for Large Scale in the Planning Office as to people coming in and complaining. legal notice Developments Jacks said the best thing they had going was the agenda being advertised in the newpaper. Farrish said a combination of the legal notice in the newpaper and posting a sign on the property would ensure people in the area were 20� • • • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 6 aware of a development MOTION Madison moved to recommend notification requirements for Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments and Conditional Uses would be the same throughout for owners within 300' to be notified either by; 1) registered letters; 2) signatures on the plat; 3) public notice notice in the newspaper and a sign on the property, seconded by Farrish. The motion to recommend passed 7-0-0. Jacks stated the recommendation from the committee on Section III was in the case of a Large Scale Development where the only exclusion would be single family residences and additions where ingress, egress were unchanged. He said a question came up where there could be a situation where the egress, ingress would not change but the traffic count in terms of a standard parking lot would change considerably. He agreed with that and his suggestion was to add where it was unchanged "or not more than 15 parking spaces". Green asked if they were eliminating the one acre exclusion, if it was less than one acre it would make no difference. Jacks said he would like to eliminate the one acre also because it was not a logical way to make a decision about a LSD. In answer to a question from Madison, Jacks said he would take out any reference to a size. He said right now anything less than an acre was excluded. Green said he had a problem with eliminating the one acre requirement. He said there were regulations governing the amount of parking and minimum requirements for distance between the intersection and driveway. He said the one acre requirement made sence because there would not be a chance of anybody doing much damage in less than an acre. Madison stated Large Scale Developments are defined in the zoning ordinance as more than one acre and anything less the Planning Commission would not see. Jacks said his suggestion was to eliminate that requirement and Madison said then they would have to change the zoning ordinance and the subdivi- sion ordinance. He said anything less than the acre requirement the Planning Commission did not see and had no real knowledge or control over the ingress, egress other than the regulations Commissioner Green was refering to. Farrish said he would like to streamline the process regardless of the acreage. He suggested all new development with more than 25 parking spaces be looked at. 2�� • • • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 7 Jacks stated the curb cut ordinance which was adopted by the City really came to them from the State. He said it was not adequate on all cases because it requires 40' back from an intersection and in some cases it really needed to be further away from the intersection than 40'. Farrish said if someone was going to build a low impact development and the City has standards for ingress, egress, why would the Planning Commission have to see that. Madison stated the Commission could not specifically see everything that was built in town. She suggested looking at everything that was new except single family and fewer than 25 parking spaces. Farrish said if someone went out on a 5 acre tract and built a 5000 sq.ft. building with 25 parking spaces they do not need to come to the Planning Commission for approval. Hanna said there was a difference between how this would affect a retail establishment and office building. He felt the one acre limitation and the 10,000 sq.ft. works out well in most instances. Green said he would like to hear some examples of problems if there were any with the current LSD requirments. Hanna said he personally liked the limitations as they are right now. MOTION Hanna moved to leave the requirements for an LSD as they are in the current ordinance, seconded by Robertson, followed by further discussion. Madison said she had one more point on LSD that did not have anything to do with exclusions. She noted under reasons to refuse a LSD there were 6 reasons that the subdivision committee could deny an LSD. Under number 4 it says if the proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic situation. For the purpose of this section, a "dangerous" traffic situation shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volumes. She said she had spoken with Marty Coates and he felt this was very insufficient. She noted that not just traffic problems that would lead to a wreck between cars should be considered but also just plain congestion should be considered. The motion to leave the require- ments for an LSD as they are in the current ordinance passed 5-2-0, Jacks and Dow voting "nay". Madison stated the appeals procedure was not included in the new draft • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 8 of the Reynolds version. MOTION Madison moved to keep the current ordinance on the appeals procedure to the City Board, seconded by Dow. The motion failed to pass 5-2-0, Farrish, Hanna, Jacks, Green and Robertson voting "nay" and Madison and Dow voting "yes". Jacks moved on to Section 4; 1) require connection to City water system when within 500'; 2) Allow pavement cuts only in extreme and unusual circumstances, which decision would be made by the Public Works Director; 3) Require connection to City sanitary sewer system when within 300'; 4) change street light spacing to average 300' through- out a subdivision. Green suggested an upper limit to average 300' but not over 450'. MOTION Green moved to recommend the street light spacing to average 300' but not over 450' throughout a subdivision, seconded by Madison. The motion to recommend passed 7-0-0. Jacks said the last item in Section 4 was; for off-site street improvements with all family, regardless of size. He said the ordinance to require street improvements Jacks suggested to incorporate Section J ordinance. 5) incorporate requirement development, except single City Board put together a regardless of the size. into the main body of the Jacks noted Section J was separated from the rest of the ordinance and developers had a hard enough time keeping track so why not put Section J in the Large Scale Development Section. Green asked if a developer had any avenue to appeal it now if it was less than one acre and not a Large Scale Development and someone made a determination that they needed to make off-site improvements. In answer to a question from Green, Carlisle said they could appeal before the Board of Adjustment. Green then said if they incorporated Section J into that part of the ordinance would that make the appeal come to the Planning Commission rather than the Board of Adjustment. Jacks was not clear on where they would appeal. In answer to a question from Madison, Jacks said if it was less than an acre then that one acre exclusion does not obtain off-street improve- • • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 9 ments. Grimes pointed out if the Acres Road), and a lot of could then call the Bills difference. MOTION City had a long stretch of street (Green Bills of Assurance were issued, the City of Assurances and the City would pay the Green moved to recommend that the wording in Section A-4 dealing with required off-site improvements be incorporated into Section J, seconded by Dow. The motion to recommend passed 7-0-0. Jacks moved on to Section 5; require all lot split requests to be heard by the Planning Commission regardless of the acreage involved. MOTION Madison moved to recommend that all lot split requests be heard by the Planning Commission, seconded by Hanna and followed by futher discussion. In answer to a question from Green, Carlisle replied the Planning Office had administratively done 2 splits a month because they would have to have a quarter section to get 3 acres, 5 acres and 5 acres for an administrative split. Green stated he did not see any need to see all lot splits because the requirements now are so big. Green said the way he read the ordinance was if someone was trying to subvert the ordinance, the Planning Director could refuse the lot split even if it met the 3 acre, 5 acre and 5 acre requirement. Jacks asked Carlisle if she had ever refused someone a lot split because of that reason and Carlisle replied "no", because normally it was someone who wanted their children to have a parcel of their property so he could build, live and farm on the property. Green asked if there had been a problem that they were trying to address on lot splits other than the fact that they were not looking at every- thing. Jacks said one of the problems they get into was if the property was split before the ordinance or after the ordinance. He said they were always discussing the matter of was it 3 acres and 5 acres or if it was a fourth split it goes to the Board of Directors. Carlisle stated the Planning Office saw a lot of older people who have acres and acres of land and they would like to leave some of • • • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 10 that land to their children and are unable to do that without lot splits. Jacks said rather than formal lots splits, it would be done by metes and bounds. • Farrish stated one thing he would like added to this was if someone had a recorded deed regardless if it was a legal split or not that they not be seen after the fact. MOTION Madison amended her motion to require all lot splits be heard by the Planning Commission with the exception of those that have already been recorded, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 4-3-0, Farrish, Madison, Hanna and Dow voting "yes" and Jack, Green and Robertson voting nnayn% Madison said at some point they had discovered the green space ordinance did not apply to mobile homes and they wanted it to apply. She said this was the time to have the ordinance apply to mobile homes. Jacks moved on to Appendix A; Require development proposals for street grades in excess of 12% to be heard by the Planning Commission. In answer to a question from Farrish, Ervan Wimberly said grades were 14% in Park Place. Wimberly said in his opinion that was not overly steep but in a lot of other people's opinion it was overly steep. MOTION Farrish moved to not change the present ordinance of 15% grades, seconded by green and followed by further discussion. Dow said the safety aspect of this worried her. Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief said a 15% grade was too steep for the fire trucks and he would like to see the grade at a maximum of 12%. Jackson said if they had their way they would like 10% but 12% was not unreasonable. Madison asked if fire trucks had problems with 15% grades, would ambu- lances also have the same problem. Jackson said that might be possible but what they have to live with in the City of Fayetteville was somewhat unique as to the large number of inclines they have and the seasonal problems (winter). He said he did not know what the percentage grade of some of the hills are around here but they have some grades they think they can't get to. Fattish said some of those were in excess of 15% and would invite • • Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 11 them to drive up the grades at Park Place. Jacks asked if they had tried Rockwood Trail. Jackson said that road was in excess of 15% and it would depend on how bad the icing problem was. He said the weather in this area was severe enough so they could not get to the top of Rockwood Trail. Jackson said if someone made a proposal on a development for 15% then the fire department should get a chance to review their plans. Madison asked why was that not done at plat review right now. Jacks said the fire department had representation at the plat review meetings. Dow said servicing by fire truck seemed significant and if that concerned the Fire Chief then it concerned her. She said it seemed more reasonable to state that 12-15% should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and if they could prove it was reasonable that would be better than to say anything under 15% was all right. Madison stated she would vote against leaving the grade at 15% because she felt it needed to be lowered. She said if the public safety people wanted to make plat review comments and say 12% was too steep for certain areas then she would like to hear them say that. Green asked if Rockwood Trail got treated in any shape, form or fashion in snowy weather. Wimberly replied "yes," they took a big City Truck up Rockwood to spread chat. Madison said a chat truck was not in a hurry like a fire truck would be. Green stated the safety question should certainly not be taken lightly but we live in a place that has a lot of hills and there will never be flat streets. Wimberly stated he would take the City contour map and scale off some approximate slopes for the next meeting so they would have some idea of the grades in the City. MOTION Robertson moved to table this item until the next meeting, seconded by Hanna. The motion to table passed 6-1-0, Madison voting "nay". Jacks moved on to the second item in Appendix A; Allow street jogs as close as 100' on local streets carrying residential traffic. MOTION • Farrish moved to recommend that the ordinance not be changed, seconded by Madison. The motion to approve passed 5-0-0, with Farrish and Planning Commission October 13, 1986 Page 12 Hanna out of the room. Jacks moved on to the third item in Appendix A; Allow rolled curbs only by special approval of Public Works Office. MOTION Madison moved to recommend rolled curbs with the addition of a drawing and the typical driveway inspection would not apply where rolled curbs are used, seconded by Dow. The motion passed 6-0-1, Hanna abstained. Jacks said they would put the revisions to the Subdivision Regulations back on the next agenda. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks asked if the version of the By -Laws was the new revised version. Carlisle replied "yes". Green added the Scope of Work Committee would have a meeting in the next 2 weeks. MINUTES The minutes of the September 22, 1986 meeting were approved with the following correction: Page 14, paragraph 2, line 4; Change "acreage" to "age". There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.