Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF TBE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 27, 1993 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana Lynn Britton, Joe Tarvin, Kenneth Pummill, Tom Suchecki, J. E. Springborn, Chuck Nickle, Bob Reynolds, and Jerry Allred MEMBERS ABSENT: Jett Cato OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Al Raby, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were considered on the consent agenda: MINUTES The minutes of the September 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. FINAL PLAT - CMN PROPERTIES NANCHAR, INC. - N & S OF MILLSAP, W OF COLLEGE AVE A final plat for CMN Properties submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Nanchar, Inc. for property located on the north and south sides of Millsap, west of College Avenue. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 33.82 acres with 19 proposed lots. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - GREGG PLAZA A large scale development for Gregg Plaza, submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Kenneth and Mary Lou Evans, for property located on the northeast corner of Township and Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 3 acres. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. 31` • • N Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - R93-39 & R93-40 HOWARD & DI%IE CAIN - S OF OLD WIRE, E OF CROSSOVER The next item was a public hearing on rezoning requests R93-39 and R93-40 presented by Rick Osborne on behalf of Howard and Dixie Cain for properties located on the south side of Old Wire Road, east of Crossover Road. R93-39 is a request to rezone 3 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-0, Residential - Office. R93-40 is a request to rezone 5.3 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Me. Little stated that, prior to the meeting, she had been informed by the petitioner that part of the uses requested needed to be changed. She advised the petitioner was willing to offer a Bill of Assurance on at least one of the items.; Mr. Rick Osborne advised the staff report had been incorrect -- that the offices would be located in the R-0 zoning and duplexes would be in the R-1.5 zoning (the request was amended from R-2 to R-1.5). He stated the requested R-0 was at the northwest portion of the property and that was where they wanted to place professional offices. He stated the petitioners were willing to submit a Bill of Assurance that only duplexes would be constructed. He further stated they had envisioned a fast-food type restaurant but were withdrawing that request. He advised the area was at a very busy intersection and he shared the neighbors concern that there was no stop light. He stated it was his understanding stop lights were going to be installed at Township and at Joyce. Mr. Conklin reminded the Commission the subject property had recently been a part of a larger rezoning petition for C-1 and R-0 zoning which had been denied by the Planning Commission on June 14, 1993. He stated 14 residents living in the general vicinity had spoke in opposition to the requesting rezoninge at that time based on traffic and drainage concerns. He noted the site was located in a growing residential area of Fayetteville. He stated the General Plan had designated most of the site as low density residential with the eastern third designated as medium density residential. He reviewed the adjacent zoning (R-1 to the north and west and A-1 to the south and east). He reminded the Commission of the uses by right in R-0 zoning. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested rezonings. He reminded the Commission they had, in the past indicated their desire to limit development of the subject tract to residential development. He advised that, as an alternative to denial of the petition, the Planning Commission could table the request and pursue a case study of the parcel utilizing the neighborhood scale option as presented in the Draft Land Use Plan. Mr. Nickle asked if request R93-40 was from R-1 to R-1.5. Mr. Conklin stated that was correct. Mr. Osborne once again advised they would only be constructing duplexes on the R-1.5 property. He stated he was sure the Commission was familiar with the subject property and, from the west side of the Calloway property, a resident would start picking up highway noise. He expressed hie belief that development of the property would have to be similar to what the petitioners were proposing. He further stated that it was his understanding at the last hearing on the subject property some of the neighbors had been concerned regarding the drainage. He advised that would be properly addressed at the time the Planning Commission reviewed the large scale development. He also pointed out the drainage did go to the south and west, away from the neighbors. �1a • SO Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Suchecki asked if they knew the density of the property they were requesting. to be rezoned R-1.5. Mr. Osborne explained they would be trying to make a nice area with a privacy fence. He stated they did not want the development to be offensive to the neighborhood. He stated he did not know the density. Mr. Conklin explained the maximum density under R-1.5 was 12 units (6 duplexes) per acre. In response to a question from a member of the audience, Mr. Suchecki advised he would assume the petitioner was proposing rental property. Mr. Osborne pointed out the subject property was rental property at the present time and was not nearly as nice as the applicant was proposing. In response to a comment from Mr. Suchecki, Ms. Little advised the applicant could put 30 duplex units on the subject property. She cautioned the Bill of Assurance would run with the zoning and the land. She stated that, whatever type of agreement that might be reached as to the type and number of units, would not run with the land. Mr. Charles Pentz, 2880 Crossover Road, spoke in opposition to the rezonings, reminding the Commission he had spoke in opposition in June. He cited heavy. traffic as a major concern, telling the Commission of an accident which had occurred the previous Saturday. He advised the traffic needed to be slowed down but traffic lights at Joyce or Township were not the answer. Mr. Danny Wright, an Old Wire Road resident, stated the residents of the neighborhood had spoken in opposition on the same matter earlier in the year. He stated their objections then were their objections now. He advised the area was a neighborhood with larger tracts and the residents wanted to maintain the character of their neighborhood. He pointed out professional offices and duplexes would significantly change the neighborhood. He further advised 6 units per acre was 6 times the density of any other tract in the area. He also stated the majority of the property in the area was owner occupied, not rented. Mr. E. S. Lawbaugh, 2916 Old Wire Road, expressed concern regarding flooding in the area. He pointed out the higher the density of the area, the higher the water would come. He stated the cost to handle the additional water flowing into Mud Creek would be tremendous. He reminded the Commission they had heard specifics on the drainage problems at the last meeting on the subject tract. He also stated Old Wire Road had become a nesting area of red-tailed hawks and habitat for other wildlife. He requested the Commission deny the rezoning requests. Ms. Little advised staff had received a letter from Mr. Albert Baltz, 3502 Skillern Road, in opposition to the rezonings. She read the letter which expressed concern regarding flooding along Mud Creek, traffic hazards and congestion on Old Wire Road and Skillern Road, and the sewer smell in the area. Mr. Baltz advised he and his family "...receive none of the benefits that goes to the developers and investors but we are stuck with a lowering quality of life because of it. We cannot afford to move." Mr. James Rimbey, 2870 Crossover Road, reminded the Commission he had spoken against rezoning this area three months earlier and he was still opposed to rezoning the property. He expressed his belief the rezoning was not needed nor planned for. He stated the subject tract had been before the Commission numerous times and rezoning had been turned down each time. He further stated the neighboring residents had been assured the area would remain R-1 and, as a result 373 • N Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 4 of that assurance, they had done home improvements and invested funds in their. properties. He pointed out the Williams Dance Studio was zoned R -O, but no one would mistaken that for a professional office. He also reviewed the traffic problem and flooding in the area. Mr. Rimbey also stated the change of time in the meeting had caught the residents off -guard and more would have been present if the meeting time had remained at 5:00. In response to a question from Mr. Pentz, Mr. Suchecki explained the meeting had been moved up an hour because of the length of the agenda and the time it would take to discuss the land use plan. He further stated the decision to change the meeting time had been made the week earlier and had been advertised in the newspaper. Ms. Calloway, an adjoining property owner, advised the Commission all of the homes in the area were privately owned homes and she was very opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Don Baker, an area resident, stated families needed a stable area to grow and making any change to their neighborhood would change the stability of the family structure. He also expressed concern regarding potential instability of the economics of the houses in the area. He requested the area remain the same. Mr. Leo Van Scyoc, 2910 Old Wire Road, spoke in opposition to the to the rezoning, citing traffic concerns. Mr. Calloway, an adjoining property owner, advised the Caine had purchased the property for rental purposes and had no feelings for the other residents of the area. Ms. Marilyn Rimbey, an adjoining resident, reviewed the neighbor's objections to the rezoning requests and stated the area was a very nice neighborhood and they. wanted to keep the area as a residential area. She advised there was plenty of land designated as commercial where the petitioners could build. Mr. James Skillern, an adjoining property owner, told the Commissioners of times water ran over the roadway, 3 to 4 feet deep, and wanted to be sure the developers were warned of that condition. Mr. John Williams, a resident of Skillern Road, advised they had purchased their property because they wanted a country setting. He stated each year the traffic problems became worse and there was now traffic congestion in the area. He further stated he was opposed to the rezoning requests. Me. Connie Williams told of an accident which had occurred 6 months earlier at the intersection. She stated she hoped they would not allow any businesses to occupy the intersection, making the traffic worse than it was currently. Ms. Ina Broadway, 2430 Magnolia, stated they had raw sewage coming out of the manhole by the creek. She expressed concern that further development would complicate the problem. Ms. Calloway complained about the existing houses on the subject property, stating no improvements had been made to the houses since they had been moved onto the property. 3`'t Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Osborne agreed with Ms. Calloway that the houses were an eyesore and stated this development would remove those houses. He advised the city was encouraging cluster zoning at intersections, not strips like along Highway 71B. He stated this development would be similar to the professional offices along Green Acres Road, but with far less in number. He further stated his clients were willing to agree to not construct more than 4 duplexes per acre. He advised he believed this was the highest and best use for the subject property. He stated that R-2 zoning was existing on the east side of the property so they were reducing the density of the property. Ms. Lawbaugh, 2916 Old Wire Road, advised they had purchased their property for retirement but had not plan on spending the beginning of their retirement years at rezoning hearings. She stated they had been assured, when they purchased the property, that the area would remain low density residential. She expressed her belief that the beet use for the property would be to grow trees and bushes to absorb the toxic fumes coming from the traffic. She requested some type of proposal to keep the subject property zoned R-1 so they would not have to keep coming to hearings to oppose the rezoning. Ms. Britton asked the density allowed in R -O. Ms. Little stated the density would be the same as R-3 zoning for residential use. She explained the density of offices was limited by the width of the lot - - 100 feet -- and a lot area minimum of 1 acre. Ms. Britton pointed out they could have a number of offices within one building. She asked what mix of uses were allowed in a Planned Unit Development. Ms. Little stated uses other than residential were allowed, determined by the amount of open space. Mr. Allred stated the petitioner had offered a Bill of Assurance for 4 duplexes per acre. He asked what the normal density was in R-1. Me. Little advised 4 single family units or 7 units for duplexes per acre. Mr. Springborn stated he did not see where the City had any need to put in cluster development at every busy intersection. He further stated that, at the subject intersection, if they allowed commercial development the southeast corner would be the only one which could be developed. He pointed out the properties at the southwest and northwest corners were owned by the City and there was residential development to the north. He stated this would be an isolated southeast corner of the intersection for commercial. Mr. Allred pointed out the 2010 Plan was recommending going to the village. concept which would have mixtures of zoning. He suggested they table this item until they had worked more on the 2010 Plan. MOTION Mr. Springborn stated he had listened to this a number of times, not just at this particular location but to the east also. He further stated he had always been opposed to destroying the nature of development in that area which was R-1. He further stated he had not heard anything at this meeting which would change his mind. He moved to deny R93-39. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. 315 s Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 6 MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to deny R93-40. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. It was determined the next item, Conditional Use CU93-29, CU93-30 and CU93-31, was withdrawn. 311 • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-42 CLIFFORD CLEVENGER - 796 N. 54TH AVENUE The next item was Clifford Clevenger is to rezone 1.43 Residential. a public hearing for Rezoning Request R93-42 submitted by for property located at 796 North 54th Avenue. The request acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently developed with one single family home. He explained the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to develop the property with additional duplexes. He advised the applicant was not planning on subdividing the property. He noted the site was entirely surrounded by A-1 zoning and had been annexed into the City in 1982. He further pointed out to the north, south and east were duplexes and to the west was single family homes. He stated there was an 8 -inch water line and a 6 -inch sewer line along 54th Street and the applicant would be responsible for the extension of those lines to serve additional development on the site. Mr. Conklin pointed out R-1.5 zoning allowed one to three family dwellings as a use by right with a maximum density of 12 units per acre. He recommended denial of the requested rezoning and approval of R-1 zoning with a conditional use for duplexes. He explained the minimum lot size for duplexes under R-1 zoning was 12,000 square feet and under R-1.5 zoning was 7,260 square feet. He further noted that R-1.5 was not necessary to construct duplexes and the granting of R- 1.5 might establish a higher density in the area which would not be compatible with the existing large -lot, single family developments. Mr. Lamar Pettus, representing R-1.5 rather than R-1 with a willing to sign a Bill of constructed on the property. the subject property. the petitioner, asked that the Commission consider conditional use. He advised the petitioner was Assurance that nothing but duplexes would be He pointed out there were duplexes on 3 sides of In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Pettus advised his client did not want R-1 zoning with a conditional use but would prefer R-1.5. MOTION Me. Britton stated she believed staff's reasoning for the recommendation to R-1 with a conditional use made sense and it would be compatible with existing uses. She moved to zone the property R-1 with a conditional use to allow duplexes. Mr. Suchecki asked if the Bill of Assurance included the number of duplexes. Mr. Pettus advised they would work out a number with the city staff. He advised his client had advised they would build two duplexes. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated a conditional use would allow up to 6 duplexes. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-0. 311 • ars Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-43 ATLAS CONSTRUCTION - OFF MAGNOLIA DR., E OF AZALEA TERRACE The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R93-43 submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Atlas Construction for property located off Magnolia Drive, east of Azalea Terrace (part of Creekside Estates). The request is to rezone 11.88 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the subject tract was a part of a larger tract of land which had been petitioned to be rezoned from A-1 to R-1 in 1989. He explained the Planning Commission, at their October 9, 1989 meeting, had denied the request and approved a modified request which recommended rezoning all of the property outside of the flood plain to R-1. He further stated that, on October 19, 1989, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Directors. He noted the Board of Directors tabled the item based on the fact they needed more information regarding drainage in the area. He went on to say that, at the next Board meeting, they decided to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission based on the new information that the owner would offer to have an engineer certify that the flood plain elevation would not be raised in the development of the subdivision. He explained the Planning Commission, on January 8, 1990, reheard the petition based on the new information and approved the request to rezone the entire tract of land to R-1 by a 5-4-0 vote. He stated that, at the Board of Directors' meeting on February 6, 1990, the motion to approve the rezoning failed 6-1-0 because of the concerns expressed by the adjoining residents regarding drainage. Mr. Conklin advised that, under R-1 zoning, the density allowed was 4 single family homes per acre but, under A-1 zoning, only one single family home or duplex per two acre parcel was allowed. He further noted A-1 zoning did allow numerous agricultural uses. He informed the Commission staff believed the development of single family homes in the subject area would be more appropriate than agricultural operations as long as drainage was appropriately addressed. He noted the subject site was surrounded by R-1 zoning to the west, north and south and A-1 zoning to the east. He stated there was a 4 -inch water line at the end of Magnolia, a 6 -inch water line at Magnolia and Azalea, an 8 -inch water line along Old Wire Road, and a 12 - inch line at Crossover Road. He further noted there was a 12 -inch sewer line running through the property. He pointed out Magnolia Drive was classified as a local street, explaining the primary function of a local street was to provide access to abutting land and access to a higher order street. He further noted the 1970 General Land Use Plan had designated the subject property to develop as single family residential. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested rezoning. He explained that, from a land use standpoint, rezoning the property would be compatible with zoning and existing land uses in the general vicinity. He further stated staff believed the drainage concerns could be adequately addressed through the subdivision process. Ms. Britton stated the City Council, when denying the previous rezoning request, had expressed concern regarding the drainage and asked if the development engineer knew how the drainage would be addressed. Mr. Harry Gray stated grading and drainage plans would be submitted at the appropriate time with the subdivision plat. He further stated they were only requesting 12 acres be rezoned but there was 1,200 acres upstream which contributed to the flow into Mud Creek. He further noted approximately 3/4 of the 1,200 acres was already developed. He advised the Flood Plain maps allowed 3rig • • a Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 9 for a floodway, which had to be maintained. He further explained the Corps of Engineers regulated what could and could not be done in the flood plain and they would comply with those regulations. Mr. Nickle asked if the city would require a drainage easement across the property. Mr. Bunn stated the city would require a drainage easement across the floodway and require the developer to meet the flood plain regulations in their development. He further stated the city would ask that the flood plain not be altered in any development. Me. Britton advised the concerns were still present. Mr. Gray stated those concerns should be addressed at the plat level. He further stated that to say they could do development and not raise the flood plain elevation was impossible. He explained that was why he had referred to the 1,200 acres upstream and when the remaining 200 - 300 acres up stream was developed, it would increase the flood level down stream. He advised the FEMA maps did take that into consideration and had established a flood plain and did have an allowance for development. Mr. Allred asked if the concerns by the Board of Directors had not been prior to the adoption of the grading ordinance. He stated that ordinance should alleviate some of those problems. Mr. E. S. Lawbaugh, 2916 Old Wire Road, advised Mud Creek could not handle additional run off. He expressed hope the city engineer would look at the drainage into Mud Creek and determined whether it could handle additional run off from high density housing. He stated he had seen Mud Creek up to the top of the banks and contended that, with additional run off, it would overflow. Mr Tim Clark, 2558 Ferguson, stated he was not opposed to rezoning the property to R-1 but he was concerned regarding the density. He stated Ms. Dorothy McGuire had asked him to express her concerns regarding disruption of the banks of Mud Creek, causing the creek to change its course. He advised Ms. McGuire had photographs showing such change already. Mr. Leo Van Scyoc, 2910 Old Wire Road, asked the proposed density for just the property being considered for rezoning. Mr. Conklin advised it would probably be less than the 2.8 units per acre because of the larger lots sizes due to the floodway and flood plain. Mr. Van Scyoc urged the Commission to leave the property zoned A-1 because it. would be lees intrusive to the area. He mentioned other problems associated with development of the property -- traffic, additional run-off, sanitary problems. He further stated A-1 zoning kept their quality of life better than the R-1 zoning. Ms. Dorothy McGuire, 2672 Ferguson, expressed concern there would be 55 houses in the lowest part of the valley. She advised the bank of Mud Creek had eroded a minimum of 4 1/2 feet in the last five years due to additional development. She stated the density was the problem. Ma. Barbara Bulla, 2833 Old Wire Road, concurred with Mr. Van Scyoc regarding the proposed density which added to the traffic problem on Old Wire Road. She expressed concern this development would affect her property values. Ms. Jodie Swope, an adjoining property owner, spoke in favor of the rezoning. 311 • D • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Dave Tackett, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern the subject development would devalue his property due to additional traffic. He advised they presently had a nice, quiet neighborhood. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Mr. Bunn stated the proposed drainage easement would be an 80 -foot easement. He further stated it was the intention of the easement to cover the floodway. Mr. Springborn asked if that easement was consistent with the outline of the lots. He stated it appeared the easement would split the lots. Ms. Little stated that page 5.05 was a previous subdivision of the area and did not reflect the proposed subdivision. Mr. Bunn explained the city routinely asked for drainage easements across the floodway because it gave the city the right to maintain the channel. He stated the drainage easement did not necessarily have anything to do with the flood plain area. Mr. Tarvin asked how much of the acreage was not suitable for development. Me. Little stated it appeared that approximately 75% of the 11.88 acres was in. the flood plain. Mr. Bunn explained that, under FEMA regulations, development of property in the flood plain was not necessarily prohibited. He further explained land in the floodway (approximately 10 to 15% of the land) could not be developed. Mr. Tarvin stated that would only leave approximately 3 acres of this tract plus 7 acres of the Montez property made 10 acres. He pointed out the developer was proposing 55 houses on 10 acres. Mr. Bunn explained there were 12 or 13 lots shown in the flood plain. Mr. Tarvin pointed out they could have a large tract of land but, if part of it could not develop, the density seemed low when, in reality, it was not. Mr. Bunn explained the lots on the north side of the plat were minimum sized lots but the lots in the flood plain were much larger. MOTION Mr. Allred agreed there was a problem with drainage in the area but believed the drainage, density, etc. needed to be considered at the subdivision plat stage. He moved to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Reynolds, Britton, Allred, Suchecki, Winkle and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Springborn voting "non. ago • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT - WHITE OAKS MANOR RICK TORNATORE - E OF HARVEY DOWELL RD., S OF WYMAN The next item was a preliminary plat for White Oaks Manor submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Rick Tornatore for property located on the east side of Harvey Dowell Road, south of Wyman. The property is outside the City Limits and contains 43.9 acres with 27 lots. Mr. Bunn explained the developer planned to construct 27 single family lots on 43.9 acres. He stated that, at the plat review meeting, there had been several easements and utility crossings requested by the utilities and agreed to by the owner. He further stated it had been indicated that neither the gas company nor the cable company had lines in the area of the subdivision. He noted the Fire Chief had indicated that, because of the lack of fire protection for the area, he would oppose annexation of the property in the future. He stated the Fire Chief had suggested installing fire hydrants as tanker fill points and the engineer had indicated he would check into the possibility of fire hydrants. He stated the Subdivision Committee had considered the preliminary plat on September 2nd and there had been one adjoining property owner present at the meeting to comment on the development. He noted there had been a question on the cemetery and whether the excluding of the cemetery from the adjacent lots created. lots which were undersized. He advised there were also questions raised about drainage from the site possibly impacting the adjacent property owner and whether the soils in the subdivision were suitable for septic tanks. He explained it had been noted that the engineers would have to submit a detailed drainage plans to the City for approval. He advised the adjoining property owner had been assured he would be notified in time to comment on the drainage plane. Mr. Bunn stated there had been considerable discussion regarding the advisability of requiring percolation tests prior to the approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission. He explained it had been the final recommendation of the Subdivision Committee that the Planning Commission not review the preliminary plat until completion of percolation tests within the Subdivision. He recommended that, subject to a decision of the Planning Commission to consider the plat, that the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the detailed plans for water, streets, and drainage, and all conditions imposed by the county at the time of their approval. Mr. Allred, as Chair of the Subdivision Committee, advised he had no further comments. Mr. Nickle reminded the Commission that at the September 13 meeting, staff was directed to find out what authority the Commission had in the growth area. Ms. Little informed the Commission they had the authority to require everything in a suburban subdivision except street lights and fire hydrants. She further noted curbs and gutters could not be required unless the subdivision was adjacent to the City Limits. Mr. Nickle asked if not requiring fire hydrants had anything to do with the minimum size of the water line. Ms. Little stated water lines and water pressure were separate. Mr. Nickle asked if they could require a water line large enough to support fire flows but could not require fire hydrants. 3�� Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 12 Me. Little agreed and stated they could also require off-site improvements for the water line. Mr. Reynolds asked if this was the subdivision Chief Jackson had referred to regarding disapproval of annexation at a future date unless the water lines were enlarged. Mr Bunn explained the Fire Chief had, for the last several meetings when discussing rural subdivision, made the statement he would not recommend annexation unless the means for fire protection was present. He further stated. he believed the Chief was talking about adequate water lines in the subdivision. Mr. Gray stated the Fire Chief had also requested the small fire hydrants. He pointed out that, whatever they put in at the present time, there would not be enough water pressure to fight a fire. Ms. Little pointed out the firefighters could fill their trucks from those smaller hydrants. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Gray stated the minimum lot size was one and one-half acres. He pointed out the cemetery stating it measured approximately 30 feet by 40 feet. Ms. Britton asked the terrain between the flood plain and lots 7, 8 and 10. Mr. Gray stated there was a hillside with several large oaks. Ms. Britton asked how that area would be accessed. Mr. Gray advised it would be accessed by from Road "A". He stated it was dashed owner still owned approximately 30 acres the right-of-way shown extending east in on the plat. He further noted the to the east. Mr. Bunn explained it had only been since the construction of the water lines to the Wheeler area that the city had allowed fire hydrants outside the city. He further stated that, up until that time, it had been a specific requirement that no fire hydrants be allowed outside the city limits. He advised it had only been recently that the city had gone to the idea of providing fire protection in developments outside of the City Limits. He further noted that normally if there was a 4 -inch line to the site, that was the size required for the subdivision. He further stated that, in only one other subdivision, had the city required the developer to put in water lines which would support fire hydrants eventually. He stated the recommendation was to require the lines in this subdivision to be 6 -inch so they could support fire hydrants at a later time. He further advised the city had also normally worked with the developers in cost sharing in getting a water line to the area. He pointed out the proper size line, in this case, was quite a distance from the subdivision. He recommended requiring the proper size lines within the subdivision and they work out something with the developer on the off-site lines. In response to a question from Mr. Gray, Mr. Bunn advised they would try to work something out on the off-site improvements. He further noted they would require 6 -inch lines within the subdivision. Mr. Britton asked if staff still wanted to require fire hydrants. Mr. Bunn stated staff recommended a fill -station type hydrant, which he believed was required by state law. He further stated he would object to the standard size fire hydrants because it gave the illusion the subdivision had fire protection from the hydrants when there was not adequate flow. • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 13 Ms. Little asked the status of the percolation tests. Mr. Gray stated they had not been done. He explained they would have to be approved by the Health Department. He advised the developer did not feel it was justified to spend $1,500 to $2,000 to meet the percolation requirements until the preliminary plat was approved. Me. Britton suggested making the motion subject to approval of the percolation tests. She also stated she wanted to commend the subdivision committee on the time they took to review this plat. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments and recommendations including the approval of the percolation tests by the Health Department. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. 353 • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 14 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HAMM ESTATES DOYNE & GELENE HAMM - W OF HUNT LANE, S OF HUNTSVILLE The next item was a preliminary plat for Hamm Estates presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of Doyne and Gelene Hamm for property located on the west side of Hunt Lane, south of Huntsville Road. The property is outside the City Limits and contains 100.76 acres with 49 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility. company representatives other than several easements and crossings which had been agreed to by the owner. He advised sewer was not available to the site and, therefore, the minimum lot size would be 1.5 acres to accommodate on-site sewer disposal systems. He noted there had been considerable discussion at the plat review meeting regarding the need or advisability of providing fire protection for the area. He explained the Fire Chief had stated his department would advise against annexation of the area if the water lines were not adequate to provide fire flows. He went on to say there had been discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting on the standards that a suburban subdivision should be held to by the City. He noted the ordinances allowed the City to require the same standards as inside city developments, however, those standards were routinely waived for developments when they were located some distance from the City Limits. He further stated there had been discussion on the need for the subject development to provide fire protection. He explained that, until recently, fire hydrants outside the City were not allowed and the provision of fire protection in general was not required by the City. He stated that, at this time, the City encouraged the installation of fire hydrants along with the size lines which would support them. Mr. Bunn advised the Subdivision Committee voted to recommend the approval of the preliminary plat with the following provisions (1) a 6 -inch water line be installed to provide for future fire protection; (2) that curb and gutter be waived in favor of county standards; and (3) the waiver of the length of the cul- de-sac. Mr. Bunn then recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review committee comments; submission and approval of a grading and drainage plan; county requirements for the improvement of Hunt Lane; and the specific recommendations of the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Milholland advised he concurred with staff comments. Ms. Britton pointed out the cul-de-sacs touched the property line and asked if they would provide access to the adjacent property. Mr. Milholland stated access would be given to the adjoining property. He further stated Dr. Hamm owned the property. He pointed out the terrain was quite steep. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Milholland explained the right- of-way went to the west property line. He stated there had been considerable discussion regarding development of the land to the west. Ms. Little verified there would be dedicated right-of-way on Hamm Drive, Stage Lane and Jann View Drive to the edge of the subdivision. Ms. Britton stated she would feel more comfortable if the access was shown on the • plat rather than showing a street ending in a circle. 3$'t • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 15 Mr. Milholland advised on the final plat there would be the full 60 feet going to the boundary. Mr. Reynolds asked if there was anyway they could get 8 -inch water lines in the subdivision. Mr. Milholland explained there was no benefit to 8 -inch lines without fire protection. He stated the 6 -inch line would go through the subdivision over to the Goff property. He advised they would like to stay with 6 -inch lines. Mr. Bunn explained staff proposed an eventual water line on Hunt Lane, which would come down from Highway 16, and the subdivision would have a 6 -inch loop. He advised that normally a 6 -inch line was adequate for fire protection. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. �g5 • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 16 CONCURRENT PLAT - ELKS ADDITION BENEVOLENT BUILDING CORP. - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ZION & CROSSOVER The next item was a concurrent plat for the Elks Addition submitted by Kurt Jones on behalf of the Benevolent Building Corporation for property located on the southeast corner of Zion Road and Crossover Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains 4.2 acres. Mr. Bunn explained this subdivision and a large scale development were being submitted on behalf of the Elks Lodge. He went on to say the development consisted of a one lot subdivision and the construction of an Elk's Lodge building. He advised the development was originally submitted as a lot split, however, due to the fact that three splits had already been taken on the original tract, the development had to be submitted as a subdivision. He stated all the utilities appeared to be available to the site. He noted there had been an additional easement requested by the telephone company which was agreed to by the owner. He stated staff remarks included comments on the need for a sidewalk along Highway 265, the need to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way along Highway 265, and the need for a grading plan. Mr. Bunn advised discussion at the subdivision committee involved the fact that this was a combined subdivision/large scale development and how it would need to be handled at the Planning Commission meeting. He recommended approval of both the Elks Subdivision as a final plat and the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; submission and approval of a grading plan for the site, dedication of 10 feet of additional right-of-way along Highway 265; dedication of the additional easements requested by the utility company representatives; and the construction of sidewalks along Highway 265. Mr. Bunn stated the previous discussion had been a one lot subdivision but the plat was showing a two lot subdivision. Mr. Kurt Jones explained it was not the intent to have a two -lot subdivision, that Tract B should be shown as an outlot. Mr. Bunn stated he had no problem with that. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the gravel driveway which apparently would become permanent. Mr. Jones explained the access off the highway (approximately 12 1/2 feet) would be paved at the request of the city. Ms. Britton asked if it was a temporary driveway. Mr. Jones stated it was an existing driveway which the Elks wanted to maintain. He further noted the existing house would be removed after the new lodge was completed. Me. Little stated they did want to keep the gravel at the house as overflow parking and also keep the drive. Ms. Britton explained her concern was based on how close the gravel drive lined up with Zion Road. Me. Little stated it did not line up with Zion Road. • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 17 Mr. Jones advised Zion Road came in to the south of the drive. Ms. Britton stated that, if the drive was to be used she would feel more comfortable with it being at least 100 feet from the centerline of Zion Road so it would not conflict with the traffic at the intersection. Me. Little explained the gravel drive was existing and it was staff's understanding it would be used for over -flow situations. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 18 WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 MELISSA DELP - S OF ZION RD., E OF CROSSOVER The next item was a request for a first lot split submitted by Melissa Delp for property located on the south side of Zion Road, east of Crossover Road and. outside the City Limits. Mr. Bunn advised the proposal was to split 1.5 acres off of an existing 10 acre tract. He noted water was available to the site off of Zion Road. He further stated other utilities were available from Zion Road as well. He advised there was not sewer in the area but the proposed lot was sized for an on-site disposal system. He stated Washington County had approved the split on September 9, 1993 and it was the recommendation of staff that the Planning Commission approve the split. Ms. Britton asked if there was no requirement to improve the roadway. Mr. Bunn stated he was not sure what the county requested but the City would accept the same conditions as approved by the county. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the lot split subject to staff comments. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. The meeting recessed for 15 minutes. 3�� • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 19 OTHER BUSINESS: Sidewalk Discussion Mr. Suchecki advised this item had been tabled for 2 weeks. Discussion of General Plan Mr. Suchecki advised this was the final public hearing before the Planning Commission on the general land use plan. Ms. Little introduced Mr. Al Raby, R -M Plan Group, the consultant for the general land use plan. She explained the Plan was initiated by the City in 1987 but was discontinued for a period of approximately 3 years. She stated they had started working on the Plan again approximately 1 year ago and had made amazing progress. She further stated Mr. Raby would give the Commissioners the overview of the. plan. She explained the Plan was a "policy plan" which deviated from a "map plan". Mr. Raby asked the Commission if they really wanted all of the growth the City of Fayetteville was experiencing. He explained that, with the growth, came many changes in the community and tough decisions for the Planning Commissioners and staff. He expressed hope the land use plan would assist the Commissioners with the process in setting out guidelines. He stated they had attempted to prepare a management system in the plan. He explained the plan was a combination plan with both a map and a policy plan. He stated in the past maps had been prepared that attempted to be very specific regarding location of land uses. He advised that had served the community well in the past when there had not been so much growth and so many new types of development. He pointed out they were now in a different situation and he believed new direction was needed. Mr. Raby stated this was a blended or hybrid plan in terms of having conventional aspects and also performance based approaches. He contended performance based approaches brought quality to a community and preserved the items which were important to the community. He explained the plan would guide the growth and manage land use. He informed. the Commission the plan was not a zoning element and did not change the zoning map. He pointed out they already had a zoning code. He explained that, if they adopted the plan, they might make some changes in the zoning map to conform to the recommendations in the plan. He further stated he wanted to make sure they understood land use as a policy issue and zoning as an implementation. Mr. Raby stated there were three items he had focused on as keys to the plan: (1) timing - which related to the community character and specific provisions for infrastructure. The three basic characters in the community are: urban (majority of the built-up community), suburban (areas currently undergoing growth) and rural. He explained the plan provided a means to identify and preserve the character of those specific areas until the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate timing to change those characters. (2) density/intensity management - with density identified for both residential development and floor area ratios for intensity of non- residential development to guide the Planning Commission as to what level they should develop in the three areas. 3�q s s Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 20 (3) impacts for development - establishment of development policies to guide the Planning Commission in understanding and attempting to deal with various impacts. Mr. Raby explained he had focused on the impact of the use rather than the use itself. He went on to say many of the things they had heard earlier in the meeting dealt with how residents viewed specific uses. He advised they needed to look at the impacts of those uses and how they could mitigate the impacts to improve the quality of the dream. He stated those impacts related to accessibility, drainage, location of commercial support for residential areas, etc. He further advised they had identified four major categories of land use. He stated that was very simple as opposed to what they had done in the past. He further stated that normally, cities the size of Fayetteville had a very finely defined, very specific land uses. He explained it then became the challenge of the Planning Commission and City Council to apply the very specific uses. He went on to say that, by sifting out the many uses, they had failed to recognize the commonalities of certain characteristics in the community and played more on the distinctions. He stated he considered that to be too much separation. Mr. Raby reminded the Commission that many years ago there was often commercial uses they needed for their daily lives in their community; small neighborhoods that the residents felt a part of. He pointed out that was very successful but, once zoning codes started being refined, they came up with more and more distinctions which were very difficult to regulate. He stated one of the more important concepts in the Plan was the village concept. He stated he had reviewed the historical trends of Fayetteville and the historical trends of the region overall in trying to establish the growth and direction of the population He further stated he understood there was some thought in the community that the population figures were too conservative. He explained they had looked at the region as a whole in terms of what it was doing. He further explained the growth that was occurring in the region was a'result of substantial increases in employment. He pointed out the impacts were felt regionally and all of the surrounding communities were sharing in the growth. He stated they were also starting to see a leveling out of the increase in population. He explained employment drove population and that was how he came up with the proposed future population. He further noted there were some off- setting factors such as natural increases (with fewer births and a decreasing rate of children within the city). Mr. Raby further explained they then went to housing using the densities normal for the community (the number of persons per household). He stated they estimated the number of housing units required of the community. He pointed out they had indicated 7,000 housing units demanded during the tenure of the plan. He stated that, if they multiplied that by the densities, they would have the land use projections. He pointed out they were looking at approximately 2,500 acres of land required for the additional housing. He stated with that many more residences they would need additional commercial activities and used a standard formula to see how much commercial space would be needed. He noted the bottom line projection was they would require an additional 4,400 to 4,500 acres. He explained if they measured that against how much area was currently in the city and the planning area, it would take up 80% of available land with much of the remaining 20% being unusable due to topographic, soil and flooding problems. He stated his projections showed the planning pointed out if his projections were wrong, they put the people. He stated that would lead decisions. He stated their options included a area would be full by 2010. He would have to determine where to to some very difficult policy dispersal pattern. He asked if, 39° • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 21 as new development occurred, they allowed a dispersed pattern. He explained if they allowed the dispersed pattern, they would consume all of their available land. He advised an alternative to that pattern was a conservation plan where they clustered development, concentrating higher densities into smaller areas leaving as much open spaces as possible. He explained the third option was in- fill which took some of the undeveloped areas and encourage their use. He stated this applied to areas which had been passed over for development. He advised it would probably take some incentive from the City to get that land developed. He stated the next option was re -development and gave Dickson Street as a good example. Mr. Raby stated he had looked at the development patterns going on in the community and the zoning and came up with five main issues. He reminded the Commission they had reviewed those issues at their last workshop. He advised there were four activity centers within the community and they needed to focus their attention on how to use those to a maximum and manage use within those centers without creating additional activity centers. He explained they needed to concentrate their growth in areas where they already had activity centers. He went on to say the second issue was the revitalization of older areas where he recommended re -development and in -fill. He stated that the village concept related natural and built environment through better community design and emphasized connectively which was the third issue. He further stated the fourth issue related to increasing transportation efficiency. He pointed out there were very difficult east - west connections in Fayetteville but agreed there were no easy solutions to that problem. He recommended they look at better east - west connections and at alternative forms of transportation. He stated they also had the issue of affordable housing. He pointed out that, since the housing market. in the community was very tight, it was also a very expensive market. He stated he had identified some opportunities to provide affordable housing. He contended Fayetteville could not and should not try to be all things to everyone. He stated it was important to recognize the city's strengths and weaknesses and what they could offer to the community. Mr. Raby reminded the Commission they had, at their last workshop, discussed industrial development. He stated they had determined they did not need to get all of the industrial development, that there were other things good for the community which should be recognized, such as a regional service center. He pointed out that being a regional service center was a major strength of the city and distinguished Fayetteville from the other cities in the area. He expressed concern that Fayetteville would grow in a checkerboard fashion. He explained that was an inefficient use of land and was very costly to provide an infrastructure. He stated they needed to look at some means to concentrate and cluster development. He explained he had offered to them the village concept as a part of the plan. He stated that, when new developments came into the community, instead of the Commission having to make decisions regarding whether a commercial development should be on a certain corner, they would try to install commercial developments into the new residential areas. He stated he was not suggesting they retrofit such developments into the existing areas. Mr. Raby stated the uses needed to be mixed in order to reduce the trip generation so people did not have to go extreme distances to get their basic living needs. He further advised the elementary schools needed to be within neighborhoods. He contended properties placed around a recreational area would maintain their value much longer than those properties without a recreational area. He stated the uses could be mixed with certain buffers. He further advised that, in using the cluster development plan, they placed houses closer together on smaller lots, leaving more open land. He also • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 22 suggested placing the houses closer to the street so there would be interaction with the street, encouraging more development to be toward the front of the house rather than the back of the house. Mr. Raby stated one of the assumptions he made was that the area would eventually become largely urbanized. He further stated he hoped some of the agricultural lands would remain since it was needed, not only for production of crops, but also as open space. He further noted that property could be used as a holding zone in the community until it was really needed for growth. He stated that, if they found his growth projections were wrong and growth was really higher 5 years from now, then they could start taking rural land and assign it to suburban character, allowing densities to increase together with the infrastructure. He explained that was the way to preserve the land. He further stated the city did need to adopt some incentives to encourage infill and redevelopment. He compared the existing land use map with the proposed map. He pointed out the city currently had 8 different categories and reviewed those uses. He advised the proposed map had only four areas. He stated in the residential areas they would have homes together with support commercial services (not major retail centers). He further stated the second category was regional employment centers located in non-residential areas. He explained this category included both shopping centers and medical centers which served the entire region. He noted the downtown area, the mall, and the medical center were all included as regional employment centers. He further stated these areas had greater accessibility to the transportation system and were highly buffered from the surrounding residential uses. He advised the third category was environmentally sensitive areas. He explained this had to do with the slope of the land, potential of flooding, Boil conditions, etc. He stated these were the areas where he felt there were significant environmental constraints. He further stated this category contained lands that should not be developed but could be used for agricultural or open space purposes. He also pointed out there might be some areas they did not want to develop due to protection of wildlife or native plant life. Mr. Raby stated the fourth area was the university area. He explained it was a major use and needed recognition as its own area. He also informed the Commission they could use different uses as buffers, giving an example of an office complex as a buffer between residential and high intensity commercial use. He also recommended using community amenities such as parks to provide buffering. He suggested putting parks and recreational facilities in the residential areas in order to have quality developments. He further stated that, in connecting all of the parks and schools together with the trails and bikeways, they were increasing the quality of living in the community. Mr. Raby then discussed affordable housing, stating not everyone could afford a large lot or a 2,500 to 3,000 square foot house. He explained there were various methods they could use to achieve some affordable housing within the City. He stated one of the methods was to use scattered housing by asking developers to put in a certain percentage of affordable housing within the development. He noted they could offer incentives to the developer in the area of density. He pointed out the affordable housing would need to be designed identical to the other housing in the development. He also suggested developing some affordable housing neighborhoods containing up to 50 units. He explained the way to achieve this type of development was for the city to provide infrastructure to the area 392- • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 23 rather than the developer. He also suggested reducing some of the development requirements such as street width, lot size, etc. in order to reduce the cost of development. He stated the last part of the plan dealt with the concerns for capacity of growth. He explained the items reviewed in this phase were: environmental constrains, water, waste water resources, transportation, community facilities, schools, and historic preservation. He stated there were some environmental constrains and he had provided a map to show those areas. He further stated the city was fortunate to have a good regional system for water. He noted the city did have capacity in its waste water resources for growth. He expressed concern regarding the transportation system and stated it was very limited at this time. He advised there was enough park lands but the city needed to start developing parks lands. He further stated it was obvious the city needed some more elementary schools. He recommended protecting some of the historic resources the. city currently had. Mr. Raby presented a map showing those areas with environmental constraints, pointing out areas within the community where the soils were restrictive as far as development. He stated he had been asked to address the future of the community with respect to annexation. He explained the waste water system had to be able to meet the projected growth. He pointed out the greatest amount of growth would occur on the west side of Fayetteville. He stated the lift station, the lines, etc. were poised on the west side to meet that growth. He reiterated the growth would be to the west and, more specifically, the northwest. He further stated there could be some growth to the northeast. He went on to say that, as a part of his annexation recommendation, to control the planning area they would need to get extraterritorial powers with respect to zoning. He suggested they try to get that power as a special act rather than general legislation. He pointed out the second approach was simply to annex the land but, in that case, the city would have to provide immediate infrastructure. He stated there had to be a tax base to pay for that infrastructure. He also suggested there would be growth to the southwest, which would be the second potential for annexation. Mr. Leo Van Scyoc asked for an expansion on Mr. Raby's comments regarding his projection of the main arteries within the City. Mr. Raby stated he did have a companion major thoroughfare plan which had not been shown. He explained it did show those corridors along which he anticipated major growth. He advised the Highway 71 corridor, Gregg, Wedington, and Razorback would all shown major growth areas. Ms. Heather Daniel, City Alderpereon, stated it was her previous understanding that the city preferred to not initiate annexation actions. She asked the reasoning behind that decision since it was in opposition to Mr. Raby's recommendation. Ms. Little stated she believed Ms. Daniels was referring to one area which had been proposed for annexation by the owner of the property. She explained the question that had been considered at that time was whether to annex more land than that proposed by the property owner but staff had believed the city should not initiate the annexation in the absence of the plan. She further stated staff did believe there would be a need for annexation, especially within the 20 year time period. 3q 3 Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 24 Mr. Nickle advised he had seen the village concept work very successfully in an area to the north of Houston. He pointed out those developments were much larger than the ones presented to the City of Fayetteville. He stated those areas included schools, medical facilities, etc. He noted the Planning Commission usually reviewed very small tracts of land, 1 acre, 5 acres, 20 acres. He advised he was at a loss as to how to implement such a plan when they had a 5 or 10 acre development. Mr. Raby pointed out the scale was increasing. He recommended indication to the development community that the Commission wanted to give some direction to where such entities needed to go. He expressed his belief the City needed to tell the developers where they wanted specific amenities and have developments constructed around those amenities. He explained the city could use infrastructure improvements to attract such development. He stated they recently had a developer present a subdivision and offer a school site as part of the subdivision. He pointed out there was an awareness of developers that such amenities could be provided. He again explained the city needed to be aware of where they would like certain amenities and where they wanted to place the infrastructure. He informed the Commission that, if they allowed the checkerboard pattern to be created, they would lose the efficiencies of clustering development. He again said they would need to work with the developers. Mr. Springborn asked the minimum city size and growth rate to make the cluster concept work. He pointed out the City of Houston had grown at the rate of 10,000 people per month when they started using the cluster concept. He stated Mr. Raby was projecting a growth of 3,200 people in five years or 600 people per year. He expressed his opinion it would be difficult to use the village concept with that few additional people. Mr. Raby explained one small subdivision did not support the concept but contributed to it. He stated the city needed to tell the developer they wanted to develop a certain area. He further stated one school could be incorporated into a number of small subdivisions together with a park and support commercial facilities. He further stated 500 people would support a village concept. Mr. Springborn pointed out that with a projected growth of 600 per year, they could be looking at one project per year. Mr. Raby stated that, if they looked at the entire area including the planning area, the population projection was 1,000 per year. He further stated that was a good, healthy growth rate -- approximately 2%. He stated that a growth rate of 5 to 6% became unmanageable. He agreed with Mr. Springborn that the growth rate would not enable the city to have cluster developments located all over. A member of the audience stated he liked the idea of increasing the density in downtown Fayetteville and asked for more specifics. He also requested more information on the transportation system, asking what type of incentives would be given to get people to use mase transportation systems. He further stated he liked the village concept plan. Mr. Raby explained the City had taken an important step in increasing the density in the downtown area with the Dickson Street project. He noted the city had made a public investment in order to increase the tax base, creating a catalyst for services. He also recommended the City go to the university and encourage them to establish a corridor flowing between the university and the downtown area. He also recommended attracting people back downtown by condominium units, stating they worked on a limited scale. He pointed out there had to be some amenities • • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 25 to attract people. He stated the downtown area needed to be opened up by improving traffic flow. He further stated the city and university needed to work together to enhance the transit system. He also stated he had recommended not allowing development to scatter but be placed in "transit corridors" so residents had the option of taking the bus to the university. He recommended the City look at the transportation management plan which suggested to employers the creating of car pooling, etc. He further stated bicycles had a place in the community also and bike trails needed to be designed into the trafficways. Mr. Jim Gattis stated he would like to see some of Mr. Raby's suggestions occur but people did need to realize there needed to be more government involvement, and more government activity. He advised he was a transportation engineer by profession. He handled out a summary of his comments on the plan. He contended the major arterial streets needed to be more than 4 -lane streets. He further stated they needed at least four lanes plus a median and minor arterials and some collectors needed to be four lane with a center two-way left turn lane (or 5 -lane designs). He also explained the plan should recognize that current streets classified as collectors or minor arterials were limited by a percentage of the total system. He stated they were limited to the number of miles of collectors and minor arterials they could have. He pointed out that, as they developed more roads, they would have a greater number of total miles and, therefore, they would end up with collector becoming a minor arterial or a minor arterial might become a major arterial. He contended the plan should explicitly mandate provisions that set aside enough right-of-way so that collectors and minor arterials in undeveloped areas could be upgraded and widened. Mr. Gattis then reviewed his hand-out regarding street design. He stated that, for the downtown area to be viable, better roads, more safety, more capacity, was required. Mr. Dub Dunaway then appeared before the Commission stating he was involved in developing the infill lots within the City. He stated it was, at the present time, attempting to develop a 5 -lot subdivision for affordable housing but was required to go through the same procedure as someone developing 50 lots. He informed the Commission that, if they did not use the infill lots for affordable housing, the affordable housing would go to Elkins or Farmington or West Fork. He advised the Commission the first quarter of 1991 the average home in Fayetteville sold for $77,255 and in Springdale Bold for $75,940; in 1992 the cost in Fayetteville was $82,524 and in Springdale was $75,665; in 1993 the cost in Fayetteville was $90,050 and in Springdale the cost was $69,393. He asked what type of incentives other cities had to develop the infill lots. Mr. Raby stated that, as far as residential development on the infill lots, they deserved to have a different set of development standards than those applied in new residential areas. He further stated they needed to be careful, there had to be a balance. He informed the Commission other cities updated the infrastructure within the city providing an incentive for developers to use the infill lots for affordable housing. He further stated that, in order to get affordable housing, they would have to reduce the development standards which might relate to the lot size, sidewalks, etc. Ms. Little stated the city had, for new development, allowed a lesser street width and the acceptance of a rolled curb. She asked how, once an affordable housing unit was established, they could keep that house in the affordable range. 595 • • Planning Commission September 27, 1993 Page 26 Mr. Raby advised they needed some type of certification program similar to the Section 8 program. He stated this might include drawing up a covenant with the developer which would go with the structure. Mr. Paul Justice advised he had a background in city planning as well as a masters in urban design from the University of Kansas. He congratulated the planning staff for developing the plan. He stated he particularly liked the village concept. He pointed out a number of long-term residents missed the small town quality of Fayetteville when they had not been concerned with traffic or crime. He stated they needed to encourage responsible development and believed the guidelines of the plan did that. He reviewed other communities which used cluster development. He asked how it could be insured that the suggested policy came about. He also warned against Planned United Developments which created checkerboard patterns. He also suggested radio dispatched mini -vans for transportation of citizens. Ms. Little asked Mr. Justice to address the radio dispatched vans further. Mr. Justice explained it was a concept presented by Chris Alexander that a mini- bus had a radio dispatch eo it could pick up callers within 5 minutes after the call. He further stated the people would not have to walk over 300 feet to a pick up site. Me. Little stated the area did have the Ozark Transit which picked citizens up at their homes. Mr. Wilson Kimbrough then appeared before the Planning Commission and stated he appreciated Mr. Raby being present and providing expert information. He further stated he did believe the consultation with experts had a problem of combining what the citizens' will was and the citizens' hopes and aspirations. He stated there was citizen input but they were not present at this meeting. He further stated those citizens had been present at numerous meetings on land use to the west. He asked if the decisions which had already been made had contributed to the land use direction in the northwest a "done deal". Mr. Raby advised there were numerous factors which pointed to the northwest as a growth area including the growth of Springdale, the opening of Highway 71, the availability of land, and the general accessibility of the area. He stated the community needed to recognize growth would occur and there would be development pressures. Me. Daniels asked Mr. Raby to explain his comment regarding a special act of the legislature. Mr. Raby stated they to assist the city in its planning area to would be asking the local members of the State Legislature writing legislation which would empower Fayetteville within be given extraterritorial powers with respect to zoning. Ms. Little asked the Commission to think carefully about the plan and give staff further guidance. She stated the General Plan was scheduled to go before the City Council on October 19. Mr. Springborn urged anyone in the audience wanting to make further comments to contact the Planning Department staff. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 346