Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-19 MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Thursday, August 19, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Kenneth Pummill, J. E. Springborn, Chuck Nickle, Jett Cato and Jerry Allred Joe Tarvin, Tom Suchecki, and Bob Reynolds Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Kevin Santos, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others Mr. Allred, as Chairperson of the meeting, called the meeting to order and explained it was a special meeting to obtain comments on the General Land Use Plan. He advised the Commission would first hear the staff report, then public input, and then an overview of Commissioner comments. Ms Little advised this was a public hearing to present the first draft of the General Plan for the City of Fayetteville. She explained the plan was for a target period of twenty years or until the year 2010. She stated that, as a general plan, the document was intended to establish the growth policies and strategies for the planning period; however the document was intended to be updated regularly - the usual custom being every five years. She further stated the plan was also intended to be supplemented and further defined by additional detailed studies which were needed to implement policies established by the plan or studies which might be needed to keep the plan current. She explained the document was intended to be a working document, something that would be referred to by the Planning Commission in every decision which was made for the city. She informed the Commission that, without a general plan, by state statute, a community could not implement growth controls such as zoning or subdivision regulations. Ms. Little stated the document was the most important tool that the Planning Commission would develop in determining the future of Fayetteville. She advised staff had worked with a consultant, Al Raby of the RM Plan Group of Nashville, TN, in defining some of the growth pressures and development patterns which have emerged since the last update of the general plan in 1985. She further stated Mr. Raby had been associated with various projects in Fayetteville for the past seven years, giving him a good basic knowledge of the community, and also the perspective of distance in seeing some of the changes occurring within Fayetteville in the last seven years. She reminded the Commission those areas had been studied, and at a previous meeting held on April 16, and 17, 1993, the Planning Commission heard from the consultant, the background data upon which development of the growth policies was based. She further stated that, after the subject presentation in which the overall plan would be presented and comments from citizens received, the Planning Commission would study the first draft document taking into account comments and staff recommendations to develop a final draft which would again be presented to the �q\ Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 2 public on September 27, 1993. She advised the final plan would then be revised with a target date of City Council adoption of October 19, 1993. Ms. Little then reviewed the background data which was gathered for the basis of the plan development. She explained the studies could be broadly classified in three categories: population, existing land use, and growth trends. She stated the current population within the City of Fayetteville, using U.S. Census Bureau Data, was slightly over 42,000. She advised the modest mountainous terrain had greatly influenced the development of the city as it existed and continued to contribute to the unique identity of the city as a tourist destination. She further stated Fayetteville was known not only for its beauty, but also as the main campus of the University of Arkansas, another key factor influencing economy and growth. She noted the present city occupied 43.2 square miles. She explained the incorporated area was significant as it represented a 150 percent increase from the 17 square miles incorporated in 1860. Ms. Little advised that, since 1970, Fayetteville's population had been growing at the fairly steady rate of 1.8 percent per year. She stated the population estimates were those developed by Mr. Raby and went through the year 2010 and included the entire planning area, bringing the planning area population to 67,800 by 2010. She noted the 1970 plan overestimated population growth, estimating a 1985 population of 55,300. She advised the city was developed with an overall density of only 1.6 persons per acre. She pointed out the urban core was highly influenced by the university population with a density of 14 persons per acre. She noted a moderate shift in population density was expected within the planning period and overall density was expected to increase to 1.9 persons per acre, particularly to the west of the city, where there was a lot of growth. Ms. Little informed the Commission there were nearly 19,000 housing units within Fayetteville presently and, under the general plan, they must plan for an additional 6,800 housing units by the year 2010, bringing the total to 25,635 within present City Limits. She noted that, within the combined City of Fayetteville and the planning area, a total of 8,520 new housing units would be required, bringing the total number of housing units to 30,680. She stated staff understood provision of housing was largely a market driven issue; however, the study had revealed the average selling price of a home in Fayetteville in 1991 was over $89,000, pointing out the need for more affordable housing for young married couples, single parent households, retired persons on fixed incomes, and lower scale workers. She advised there had also been a land use inventory taken of the 43.2 square miles currently contained within the urban limits, and it was determined about 52% was developed or committed for development. She noted the remaining 48% was vacant, agricultural or open space. She stated that, within the planning area, only approximately 10% was developed with about 90% agricultural or open space. She advised that, of the 90% which was open, about 60% was suitable for future urbanized development. • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 3 Ms. Little stated that her presentation, up to this point, had been largely factual data gather in order to give a basis to make estimates for the future. She advised the studies had evaluated Fayetteville in terms of how it was presently developing and identified several needs which the plan would be responsible for addressing. She explained the first issue was how need for additional land was to be provided. She noted that, in the past, a detailed map (attempting to show with great predictability and precision) had shown 10-12 segregated land uses into small increments and planned specifically where those units would need to go. She explained the current plan presented the opportunity for the Planning Commission to choose land use which evaluated uses on impacts rather than simply by broad categories of use. She further explained the plan seeked to define conditions under which various land uses and intensities could occur. She stated better, more detailed policies which empowered the Planning Commission with the ability to make reasonable choices should be established. She went on to say the policies in particular should seek to preserve the character of Fayetteville as it was known today. Ms. Little contended emphasis should be placed on integration of activities and design. She explained that, in developing those, there were five issues identified which affected policy development for management of growth She stated the first of those issues was management of multiple commercial centers. She stated there were presently 4 commercial centers in Fayetteville. She defined a commercial center as one which served a regional market. She stated the second issue was the revitalization of older areas; third, relating natural and built environment thru better community design, fourth, increasing transportation efficiency; and last, increasing affordable housing. Ms. Little advised the 4 commercial centers had been identified as the downtown area, the university area, the regional mall, and the developing center at the Expressway/Highway 62 area She noted that, as a policy, Raby recommended the city guard against development of additional large commercial centers. She went on to say he advised of the need to provide free flowing traffic corridors to link the four and pointed out a need to develop characterization of Fayetteville at those points which coincided with entryways into Fayetteville. She stated Mr. Raby had also pointed out a need to improve and stabilize the area between the university, the city hospital area, and the mixed use area along Highway 71B generally between Highway 16 and 6th Street. She advised these areas had been identified as areas in transition - changing uses and, in many cases, successfully mixing uses. She stated Mr. Raby had recommended conservation, infilling and preservation techniques with the city being the major catalyst by implementing performance standards. Ms. Little stated that, on the issue of relating the natural and built environment through better community design, Mr. Raby saw the mixing of uses as a positive - one that was largely responsible for Fayetteville's character. She advised however that, on the less positive side, he had noted strip commercial development had little character and did little to contribute to the overall city image. She further stated • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Raby had recommended development of some incentive provisions such as mixed use and denser development patterns as a trade off to promote better community design. She pointed out that, with regard to community facilities, he had recommended that parks and schools continue to be co -located and linked to create community -wide greenways. She advised Mr. Raby recommended incorporation of, greenways which would not only link the community, but would provide an opportunity to protect environmentally sensitive areas including streams, wildlife areas and scenic views. Ms. Little advised that, on the increasing transportation efficiency issue, Mr. Raby had felt many of the early pedestrian pathways which were developed early in Fayetteville's history had been destroyed with the over use of automobiles and recommended a detailed study and plan to integrate a system of pedestrian, private auto, and mass transit services to minimize the commuting impacts. She further stated he had recommended a multi -modal approach, expansion of the present mass transit system, and development of east -west corridors. She explained he had tied this to newer development patterns with a recommendation that the Planning Commission allow mixed uses which would minimize external trips. She advised the land use projections upon which Mr. Raby provided uses for the City of Fayetteville proved the city would need approximately 5,000 additional acres by the year 2010. She stated there was currently an additional 12,000 acres in the planning area so there would be room to accommodate the additional expansion required, however the Planning Commission would have to make some distinctions and choices regarding when to transition between the urban and rural characters. Ms. Little then showed the Commission the overall process used in developing the plan. She explained that in the activity centers, the urban design, the target areas, and community character protection areas they had identified some items which should be community objectives. She explained of the four land use classifications, three of them, residential, regional employment centers and university areas were suitable for the development but environmentally sensitive areas were not suitable for development. She pointed out they should share a common objective to concentrate uses of intensity in the identifiable centers. She explained that was what was meant by activity centers. She further explained those centers could then be effectively served by transportation systems and achieve greater economies of scale. She advised that, for urban design target areas, Mr. Raby believed there should be a general goal to improve design on all site locations and there be specialized areas in which overall design enhancement would be desired. She explained these were specifically identified as gateways and corridors into the City. She explained that, on the objective of community character protection areas, due to tremendous development in Fayetteville, much of it on the urban fringe or within the growth area, some techniques for transitioning from the urban (dense) character to the rural character would be required and Mr. Raby did give the Planning Commission several options from which to chose. • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 5 Ms. Little went on to say that, from the community objectives and four types of land use designated, the development policies emerged. She explained that, for the downtown activity center areas, Mr. Raby suggested preservation of existing retail uses, urban design characteristics such as putting retail or public uses on the ground floor and having office spaces above or incorporated residential areas above, and providing for parking only to the rear of buildings; encouraging residential uses not only above or behind buildings but in nearby areas in order to lessen the impact of commuter patterns. She advised that, for the university area activity center, Mr. Raby felt there was a great need to revitalize the area between campus and downtown. She reminded the Commission Mr. Raby had been a part of the Dickson Street Improvement Plan and had seen some of this taking place. She stated he had also recommended a formal. entryway at the Dickson Street and Arkansas intersection identified as the entryway to the university and suggested that, with some of the parking conflicts being experienced, both the city and university share joint parking areas. Ms. Little stated that, for the regional mall activity center, he believed it was the major regional center but there was a lot of development yet to take place. She pointed out it had excellent transportation access and there could be a mixing of some industrial uses in the area. She advised Mr. Raby had noted the freeway/ Highway 62 interchange was the area with the greatest need for design controls and possible preservation as a corridor. She further stated that, within the urban design target areas, Mr. Raby believed gateways and corridors were extremely important to Fayetteville in order to maintain an identity. Ms. Little advised that, for community character protection areas, Mr. Raby felt there were three specific areas: urban areas, suburban areas, and rural areas. She explained there were some specific transitioning guidelines which Mr. Raby suggested to assist in solving some of the problems the Commission was having in. developing subdivisions on the fringes of the city. She stated the City was having development pressures for additional housing units since there was a very low vacancy rate and a very high growth rate. She further stated there was a need to develop additional housing units but the problem was finding available land on which to put. She noted in many cases it has been on urban fringes which were more rural in character. She pointed out Mr. Raby had spent quite a bit of time and effort on providing transition guidelines and the time when the transition area should change in character. She stated that, within the four land use categories and policies for development, were residential land use policies which governed the location of the residential areas with regard to roadways, the alternative transportation mode, community amenities (open space, schools, environmental areas) and some neighborhood retail and commercial services nearby. She advised that, for design policies, Mr. Raby greatly favored the village scale - grouped placement of units. She advised he had suggested grouping of housing, mixed uses and community facilities. She noted that, for architectural design, Mr. Raby believed they should blend but there should aq5 • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 6 not be a strict design control. She further noted infrastructure would need to be available before the areas were developed. Ms. Little stated that, within the Regional Employment Centers Land Use Policies, Mr. Raby had recommended roadway accessibility should be to very large highways and there should also be alternative transportation modes such as public transit, or car pooling. She advised the regional retail and services locations should be concentrated with suburban office locations being grouped to form business parks and could be used as buffers in some of the transition areas. She pointed out light industry could also be grouped along major streets with governmental locations remaining concentrated in the downtown area. She explained that for design policies, Mr. Raby felt building visibility was very important and that only the front of the building should be visible from roadway or, if fronting two streets, dual fronts should be provided. She stated that uses commonly associated should be grouped to promote economy of movements by citizens. She noted Mr. Raby favored large-scale developments as a way to integrate uses together and to provide some control over appearance. He had recommended parks and mixed uses should be approved as large scale developments in order to assure uniformity of design and uses. Ms. Little advised Mr. Raby believed individual lots should be used to supplement circulation in the form of frontage roads or cul-de-sacs. She further noted Mr. Raby felt parking should be encouraged to locate at the side or rear of buildings and there should be development incentives for developments which did not include front parking and included landscaping. She went on to say Mr. Raby believed some architectural design features could be accomplished by the City during the large scale development process but that building placement in particular should be placed to protect the views. She further noted infrastructure should all be available at the start of a project or under contract. She explained Mr. Raby had encouraged a very particular worded policy regarding drainage of on-site retention of runoff unless adequate public off-site provisions were available. She pointed out that within environmentally sensitive areas the land use policies would be used to protect from development drainageways, water resources, wetlands, unsuitable soils or slopes, wildlife habitats, or currently designated open spaces. She noted Mr. Raby had also recommended placement of no more than one unit per five acres in environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Little explained that, for university areas land use policies, they needed to recognize the university was separate land use within the city so the policies would integrate the university within the community. She advised the university did not conform to the City of Fayetteville zoning rules and regulations and, therefore, the suggested recommendations had to do with the boundaries. She noted Mr. Raby felt the campus boundaries were extremely irregular and the city might be able to work with the university to realign to a more uniform shape. She explained that would promote better traffic circulation around the university. She further stated Mr. Raby had noted deterioration of older housing areas adjacent to the campus and believed the city should encourage rehabilitation with renewed infrastructure and rehabilitation financing by the city. She advised one of the recommendations • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 7 presented by Mr. Raby was for relocation of the fairgrounds. She reminded the Commission that property was owned by the County. She stated Mr. Raby had seen the area as a desirable site for university location since the fairgrounds were not used throughout the year and could be used by the university more on a yearly basis and the fairgrounds could seek a more outlying area for their activities. She stated that would have to be negotiated. She stated that for residential areas Mr. Raby foresaw development west of the expressway and north of Wedington as the main area experiencing growth and street improvements would be needed to support that growth to the west. She further stated Mr. Raby had noted the eastern portion of the city planning area would need some additional commercial uses to support the residential population already located in that area. She explained Mr. Raby was concerned the City concentrate uses in currently developed areas for regional commercial uses and noted the expected development of a research park in the Industrial Park North with good access made it possible to support additional light industrial development. She pointed out the environmentally sensitive areas on a map and explained these areas were subject to either being a developed open space owned by the City or having severe topographic and flooding constraints. She noted this area was primarily along the eastern and southern margins of the planning area. She also pointed out the university area on the map mentioning again the city's growth trends had to integrate and mesh with that area. Ms. Little advised that one of Mr. Raby's recommendations in making the areas work together was residential locations with supporting commercial centers . She noted he recommended that, in order to maintain proportionality, development scales be used and showed the Commission a chart showing the following data: regional facilities community facilities neighborhood facilities convenience facilities 30,000 population or 5-10 miles 10,000 population or 3-5 miles 3,000 population or 1-3 miles 500 population or 1 mile She advised another tool he had recommended were use impact adjustments which would mitigate the impacts where the four broad categories of impacts met each other or were contiguous. She stated the three areas quantified by Mr. Raby were low impact, medium impact, and high impact. She pointed out a chart within the plan which gave the impact of one use upon another and gave the mitigation measures prescribed to make the uses work well with each other. Ms. Little stated that, under the community amenities options, Mr. Raby believed the city should seek opportunities to enhance the area's natural aesthetics, recreational and cultural enjoyment, and preservation of special resources. She advised the three broad categories were parks, recreation and open space; schools; and environmental areas. She explained community amenity options included such items as open space pedestrian trails; establishing linkages between all developments; requirement of 50% of the area on ridgetops as open space; viewsheds and 9 GO • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 8 viewpoints; views not being blocked by building placement; development of cluster buildings and/or locating two story buildings at the base of hills; wildlife and native plant protection areas, designation by the city of protection areas; buffering of significant protection areas; incorporation of landscaped and monumental features into developments (where development is adjacent to public areas of tribute or solace, open space should encompass adjacent developments); identified parks and recreational facilities/cultural, educational and entertainment facilities (when park sites are identified, adjoining uses should be compatible with future residential developments providing linkage). She advised another development tool was providing affordable housing bonus options . She stated Mr. Raby had recommended Fayetteville should seek to integrate affordable housing with new residential developments and scatter them in a manner which integrated well with other units in the development. She advised he had given the City several conditions which could be used for approval and for incentive for the developers: any unit which was publicly subsidized could qualify for an on-site bonus of one additional dwelling unit above the permitted density of the zoning district; any unit which met the income, age residency or tenure requirement of the city could qualify for an on-site bonus of one additional dwelling unit above the permitted density of the zoning district; with city approval, affordable housing could be constructed in both urban and suburban areas; with city approval, a development could contain up to 25% of its total dwelling units as affordable housing (Ms. Little noted she believed this was a high percentage and requested the Commission review that percentage, suggesting 10% to 15%); and affordable housing developments could be permitted, but in groups of no more than ten dwelling units, including any permitted bonus. Ms. Little advised there were also six areas which contributed to capacity for growth which included environmental constraints which were basically soils, slopes and flood areas. She noted the southwest quadrant of the planning area had moderately restrictive soils in the area between Wedington and Highway 62 and the extreme southeast portion of the planning area had restrictive soils around the Country Club and the West Fork of the White River. She went on to say the eastern edge of the existing city limits had restrictive soils between Mission Boulevard and Crossover Road with the northeast edge of the city having restrictive and moderately restrictive soils in triangle area of North College, Old Wire Road and Township Road. She further pointed out the western and northern most portions of the planning area contained soils with few restrictions. She then reviewed the areas within the region with restrictive slopes : the southwest quadrant of the planning area paralleling both sides of the route for Highway 71 from Alma; the southeast extreme of the planning area had a solid line of severe slopes; the northeast quadrant of the planning area paralleling and to the east of Old Wire Road had severe slopes. She advised Mr. Raby recommended slopes of 18% or greater should be restricted or retained as conservation areas with commercial and industrial uses being restricted to areas with slope of 8% or less. • She advised that, with regarding to flood areas, the West Fork of the White River along the southern city limits was subject to flooding together with Scull and Mud Creeks which flooded a narrow area in the northern portions of the city. She �q� • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 9 explained the environmental constraints prohibited development so additional concern and care would have to be taken in the mentioned areas. Ms. Little advised there was better news in regard to treated water resources since Beaver Lake Water District had been created in the 1960's as a water source for the city. She advised the Joe M. Steele Water Treatment Plant had a design capacity of 50 mgd and expansion of the plant would generate a capacity of 80 mgd which was sufficient to supply Fayetteville's water needs until the year 2007. She pointed out the delivery capacity was presently one 36" water line delivering water from Beaver Lake and the city was installing an additional line to serve the anticipated growth. She noted the storage capacity was presently 7 tanks which stored 15,325 2000 gallons and 2 additional tanks were planned at completion of the transmission line to add 12,000,000 gallons, bringing total storage to 27,325,000 gallons. She stated the Fayetteville sewer treatment plant, located east of Fayetteville, had a maximum design flow of 12 mgd, adequate to meet the city's treated wastewater needs to the year 2005. She explained sewage must be pumped from the western part of the city which could necessitate a second water treatment plant within the planning period. Ms. Little explained that, within the transportation system, there were several streets which were currently in need of improvement in the very near future to accommodate growth and adequately serve the existing population. She informed the Commission one of the criteria used were the streets reaching 89% of their capacity. She reviewed the list for the Commission and noted several of the streets were State Highway projects. She advised they had been working with the State to get approval. She noted that by the year 2010 the following street segments would also require improvements: Rolling Hills Drive and Happy Hollow Road. She advised the improvements would be adequate to service the area within the planning period provided they continued to get funds under the Capital Improvement Program to make the street improvements and they continued to get some state funding. She also noted there was a need to develop alternative modes of transportation including integration of mass transit, pedestrian and trailways. She stated that, with regard to community facilities, the City of Fayetteville did have a greenspace ordinance in effect which had provided funding for park areas. She pointed out that, if there was a deficit, it was in the area of maintenance. She informed the Commission they were looking at the possibility of more parks being located within the neighborhood and be responsible to the neighborhood for the maintenance. •She noted that, to be consistent with the development objectives of providing trails and a village setting, more emphasis would have to be placed on narrow linear, linking parks. She informed the Commission school facilities would need to be improved to serve the population. She noted the two new schools planned (one to the east of town and one to the west of town) would be to serve the areas of most recent growth. Ms. Little advised the Commission that, in the area of historic preservation, the city had two national register listed historic districts - Washington Willow and Mt. Nord. She noted the Planning Department had recently completed the Wilson Park survey area which would be nominated as a new national register district in the near future. • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 10 She pointed out all development which would affect these areas should occur at a scale which was complementary to the existing resources and redevelopment of older areas offered unique opportunities in both the residential and commercial sectors to preserve Fayetteville's character by utilizing available resources. She stated that, once the development policies were set by the Planning Commission, there would be a need for specific additional plans to be developed. She explained these would include the implementing plan (zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, etc.) She reviewed the plans currently on file in the Planning Department. She announced the Highway Department had recently made her aware that the City of Fayetteville had received a grant of $400,000 for development of trails, which would be a great help in implementing one guideline. Mr. Nickle asked how the current Planned Unit Development ordinance fit within the new concept. Ms. Little stated it fit fairly well with the residential category. She explained they did not currently have a very good planned unit development for the commercial category. She pointed out that was one of the strong recommendations made by Mr.. Raby. She informed the Commission Mr. Conklin was re -working the zoning ordinance and had portions of the requirements in place within the draft and hoped to bring it to the Commission very soon. She also pointed out Mr. Raby recommended a unified development ordinance but staff was not recommending that to the Commission at this time. She stated the current zoning ordinance was very workable and staff was undertaking some major changes in the policies and would work it into a unified development ordinance at some time in the future. Mr. Springborn asked Ms. Little to confirm if the city limit boundaries and the growth area boundaries were frozen for the purpose of the subject report. Ms. Little stated that, for the purposes of the report, they had not expanded the growth area so all of the figures were confined within the growth area Mr. Jeff Demerest, group chair of the Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club, complimented the city for coming up with the plan. He requested there be an additional public hearing over and above what was scheduled. He pointed out the plan had evolved over a long and arduous process by the city and he believed the public should have additional opportunity to comment. He pointed out there were. less than 20 people present. He requested they accept more public input. Ms. Little suggested setting up some specific times for interested citizens to talk to the Planning staff. She asked if that would suffice. Mr. Demerest advised he would prefer to see more publicity and more public involvement. He noted a lack of public involvement was not the fault of the Planning Commission nor the city. He stated he would prefer to see another public hearing in addition to the one scheduled. He also pointed out this meeting had been scheduled in direct conflict with a hearing by the four county solid waste district regarding the watershed protection ordinance. 300 • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Larry Tompkins stated he also would have appreciated more time to review the document. He congratulated the staff and consultant on the general approach of the plan. He advised the emphasis on policy was excellent even though he did not agree with all of the policies. He noted he did find a clear definition of terms had been absent from the report and gave examples. He further stated he did not agree with the concept of looking at the rural areas as a reservoir of expansion for the city, noting the rural or agricultural area could become very important to the entire urbanized area. He suggested expanding the transition guidelines. Mr. Wilson Kimbrough stated he did have a concern regarding effectiveness of communication with the public in regard to the plan. He further stated he did not have a solution to the problem. He advised he was sure there were numerous people quite concerned regarding the transition areas but they were not present. Mr. Dean Young stated a plan was what was planned for the future and he hoped the community would decide how the City of Fayetteville would develop. He asked if they were going to develop the central city and, if so, to what percentage would they develop. He pointed out if the central city was not developed, then the city would continue to expand outward, creating urban sprawl. He pointed out there was no thought for greenspaces for the community as a whole. He recommended having a target to approach for greenspaces. He asked if they wanted numerous small greenspaces, one large one or a mix. He also discussed establishment of commercial enterprises within residential areas. He advised he would like to see those matters addressed in the general plan so whenever a development came before the Commission they would have a guide. Mr. Tom Muccio complimented the plan and asked if there would be more zoning classifications as a part of the plan. Ms. Little advised staff was currently working on the zoning ordinance. Mr. Conklin stated there had been a suggestion to incorporate transition residential districts. He explained the proposal was to provide larger lot sizes adjacent to those larger county lots. Ms. Little stated they were currently working on one residential unit per half acre and one residential unit per 1 1/2 acres, which would be substantially larger lot sizes. Mr. Muccio stated he supported that type of transition. He also requested the city work with the County Planning Commission on the plan. Ms. Little advised the County had issued an invitation to the City recently to work in developing some growth policies for the county and possibly doing some land use studies as well. Mr. Richard Shewmaker stated he believed the plan was a very good one. He requested another zoning classification for the Dickson Street area stating it was very difficult for anyone to work on revitalizing the property within the current 30 • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 12 zoning ordinance. He pointed out the area was developed prior to zoning within the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Allred expressed concern regarding the Highway 71 corridor. He advised he would like to see an overlay or an intensive landscaping plan applied to the area. He pointed out they were seeing areas of growth along the Bypass and, if they did not enhance the area, it would become like any other strip. Mr. Pummill stated he had not much time to digest the document but he was extremely interested in the new zoning ordinance that would accompany the document. He advised he believed the plan was only as good as the zoning rules that would accompany it. He noted he was encouraged by the larger lot sizes and believed they should look at higher density on the affordable housing areas. Mr. Cato congratulated staff and Mr. Raby for the document. He stated he believed it was a very comprehensive general plan and stressed it was written very well as a general plan and not a specific plan. He further stated he noticed several comments and references to items which had come before the Planning Commission that had been highly controversial. He advised he did believe they needed further public comment and thought Ms. Little's idea to allow comments to Planning staff on a one-on-one basis was very good. Mr. Nickle agreed they needed additional public comment. He pointed out this was a comprehensive change to the current zoning. He advised he had seen the village concept in larger cities but did not know how Fayetteville would receive that. He asked on what amount of acreage staff believed the village concept would occur. Ms. Little stated it would take a minimum of 10 acres to work well or several 5 acre tracts provided there were community amenities which would be located in the center of the development. She pointed out that it would not work for the in -filling of the current lots. Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission they had been considering some large developments recently and stated he would like to see if Mr. Raby could come up with what a village concept would look like in a 40 -acre tract as far as commercial development and green spaces. He advised he thought it would be a nice change. Mr. Springborn stated he was most grateful to see the document finally come together. He complimented staff on the report. He advised he would like to see an inclusion of a projection of where the city limits were expected in 2010 and the 5 miles showing the growth area. He noted this could be done either in 5 year increments or at the end. He stated another specific request was a traffic count giving insight as to the influx and exit on a daily basis by the hour. He pointed out that would let them know how many people were coming into Fayetteville to work and how many were leaving the city to work elsewhere. He suggested north -south and east -west. Ms. Little advised they had that information on a daily basis but it could be broken down on an hourly basis. • • • Planning Commission August 19, 1993 Page 13 Mr. Springborn stated he would like that included in the plan under transportation. Ms. Britton stated she was delighted to see the document but was concerned about the title 2010. She stated she did not want to wait until 2010 to revise the plan, which had been the situation over the last 20 years. She further stated she was excited about some of the suggestions but would like to see more detail on how some of the items could be worked out. She particularly commented on the village concept stating she had always believed in mixing uses. She noted at the present time everyone complained about traffic but that was because everyone had to drive so far to get a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas. She also asked if there was a way to get a better projection of growth in the area in the last 2 years. She suggested it might be done through utility hookups. Ms. Little advised the county had recently approached the City regarding a special census and stated the city would like to participate. She noted she did not believe it would slow the process down but it might cause staff to adjust some of the. projections. Ms. Britton stated she believed the protections were conservative. She noted she was concerned about the infrastructure being out of date. She also requested a few more roads added to the master street plan. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.