Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-11 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 11, 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, Jett Cato, and Bob Reynolds MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Allred and Chuck Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others Mr. Suchecki advised item number 9, a preliminary plat for Boxwood Subdivision had been withdrawn for 2 weeks and would be heard on October 25. He further advised that, on item number 10, a lot split for David Hollman, the petitioner and his attorney were unable to be present but the Commission would take comments from any adjoining property owners present. CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were considered on the consent agenda: MINUTES The minutes of the September 27, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. FINAL PLAT - BROPHY ADDITION, PHASE I The final plat for Brophy Addition, Phase I, submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of Ralph Brophy for property located on the west side of Brophy Circle, north of Township. The property is zoned R- 3, High Density Residential, and contains 1.27 acres with 5 proposed lots. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HANNA WAREHOUSES, PHASE II A large scale development for Hanna Warehouses, Phase II, submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Burt Hanna for property located on the southeast corner of 15th Street and Fred Hanna Drive. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - KWIK KAR LUBE & TUNE A large scale development for Kwik Kar Lube & Tune Leonard Gabbard on behalf of Kwik Industries, Inc., located on the west side of College Avenue, south of (2897 N. College Avenue). The property is zoned C-2, Commercial. submitted by for property Appleby Road Thoroughfare Ms. Britton requested the Large Scale Development for Kwik Kar Lube and Tune be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the consent agenda minus the Kwik Kar Lube & Tune large scale development. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. 3q1 • • • Planning Commission -September-2-7-, 1993 Page 2 OCT. N LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - KWIR RAR LOBE & TUNE KWIK INDUSTRIES, INC. - 2897 N COLLEGE The next item was a large scale development for Kwik Kar Lube & Tune submitted by Leonard Gabbard on behalf of Kwik Industries, Inc., for property located on the west side of College Avenue, south of Appleby Road (2897 N. College Avenue). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained there had been no significant comments by any of the utility representatives at the Plat Review meeting. He stated staff comments had included statements on the need for a fire hydrant, sidewalks, and the entryway and exit to the site, and the need to show the drainage and sewer easements. correctly on the plat. He further noted there had been some discussion at the Subdivision Committee regarding some of the dimensions on the plat and corrections were to be made. Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks along College Avenue; submittal and approval of a grading plan; approval of the detailed plans for the water line extension and fire hydrant installation; and the easement required for the water line extension be filed as a separate document. Ms. Britton expressed concern regarding the sight line from the northern driveway if used for an exit. She pointed out the crest of the hill was in close proximity to the driveway. She asked if they could restrict the drive to entry only. Me. Little stated it was staff's understanding the driveway would be entry only but they had not asked for it to be restricted. Mr. Sid Hollingsworth, KWIK, Inc., stated both approaches had been reviewed by the city and by the State Highway Department. He advised the engineer for the traffic department of the State Highway Department had not felt it was a traffic. hazard. He further stated he did not have a problem with cutting the drive down for an entrance as long as they had an exit drive on the south side of the property. Ms. Britton asked if it would be possible to shift the driveway so it would not be so close to the edge of the property. Mr. Hollingsworth advised they had met the minimum requirements of the State Highway Department. He pointed out the approach to the north would be serving the lube center and the other approach would, at some time in the future, be serving two tracts. He stated if they shifted the north drive, they would have to shift the other drive also and, it would not be adequate as far as traffic circulation. He also noted they had to maintain the 35 -foot island in the middle. In response to a question from Me. Britton, Mr. Hollingsworth assured her the other tract would not be a car wash. Me. Britton stated she was looking for a solution in trying to alleviate the eight problem for anyone exiting from the northern drive. She further stated the crest of the hill had been a problem for some time and explained if they moved the drive further way from the crest, drivers coming over the hill would see someone pulling out of the driveway. Mr. Hollingsworth stated he could shift it to the south approximately 10 feet. 3qg • • • Planning Commission SegtefbeE-33, 1993 Page 3 OCT. 11 Me. Little advised this item had been discussed at plat review and the southernmost drive had been widened as a result of that discussion. Mr. Hollingsworth advised he would prefer to restrict the driveway to an "entrance only" and leave it located where shown. Mr. Tarvin asked if the Highway Department reviewed sight distances for acceseways. Mr. Hollingsworth stated the Highway Department had standard designs but he was not sure if they checked for sight visibility. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Hollingsworth advised his engineer, Leonard Gabbard, the State Highway Department engineers and the company's engineers in Texas had all looked at the access and did not believe there were any problems. Mr. Tarvin asked if anyone had looked at the sight distance as being a problem. He asked if the hill blocked vision for anyone trying to pull onto College Avenue. Mr. Hollingsworth stated he did not believe it was a problem. Mr. Tarvin advised that, if they needed to determine if this was a problem and, if it was, address it. He further stated that, if someone who was qualified had already looked at it and concluded it was not a problem, the Commission needed to know that. Mr. Hollingsworth stated he would assume his engineer was qualified and had addressed the site of the approach. He also pointed out the Highway Department would also address the matter. Mr. Springborn asked if the staff could address the question. Me. Little stated she and Mr. Bunn had just discussed the matter and did not believe they should speak for the Highway Department. She further stated they believed it was a criteria the Highway Department should have looked at but neither she nor Mr. Bunn could guarantee they had looked at it. Mr. Springborn stated he would have hesitated to pull out onto College because of the short sight distance. Ms. Little stated staff would contact the Highway Department to see if that was part of their criteria. Mr. Floyd Ferguson questioned if there would be a back entry to the property. Mr. Hollingsworth stated there was none planned at this time. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to approve the large scale development subject to the north entry being restricted to entry only and other staff recommendations. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. 549 • • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 4 PRESENTATION OF TRAIL PLAN Ms. Little introduced Kim Hesse, a summer intern for the Planning Department. She stated Me. Hesse was a senior landscape architect student and was presenting a feasibility report. She reminded the Commission of the many requests received for bike trails within the City and the recommendation in the land use plan to look at alternative modes of transportation. She explained the report did give' staff the facts and figures needed to put a trail plan into effect. She further stated there would be a presentation on a pilot project area. She advised they were not asking for action from the Commission at this time. She stated staff believed there was a need for public involvement and also the park department's involvement since it would ultimately be a parks department responsibility to maintain the trails once constructed. She further advised the City had received a grant from the federal government (funneled through the State Highway Department) which had to be transportation related to partially fund a trails program. She noted the next step would be to form a citizen committee to get input. Ms. Hesse explained the main objective of the report was to provide the City with a feasibility study. She stated there had been interest expressed in the past in developing a master plan for a bikeways system. She advised there were several findings from the report which she wished to review with the Commission. She stated the three main issues she wanted to discuss with the Commission were: (1) the need for a bikeway system within the City; (2) the benefits of a bikeway system; and (3) what was involved in establishing a bikeway system. She stated the question of whether Fayetteville needed a bikeway system was a very subjective question because there were so many different reasons why people used bikeway systems. She pointed out people of different age groups and lifestyles used bikeways for different reasons. She advised a survey had been done in 1978 and several groups were organized to discuss implementation of a bikeways plan. She stated it was obvious there was an interest and need for a bikeways trail within the city. Ms. Hesse pointed out children were the number one users of such a trail. She advised that nationally, bicycling had become a more popular sport and a more popular mode of transportation. She stated a 1978 survey had shown that 35% of all children rode their bikes daily. She advised she had taken a quick survey at the beginning of summer, right before school was out, by going to all of the elementary schools within the City of Fayetteville to find out how many children walked or rode their bikes to school. She informed the Commission 378 of all children did walk or ride their bikes and it had been indicated more children would do so if they had a safe trail. She stated teenagers also used bicycles, usually as their only means of transportation. She noted adults rode mainly for recreation and some for transportation. She pointed out many adults in the area would ride bicycles to the university. She stated it also combined fitness with commuting. She advised statistics showed 38% of the people who did not ride bicycles did not ride because they believed it was too dangerous. Ms. Hesse informed the Commission that, if a bikeways system was implemented, it had to be designed comprehensively so that users would get a benefit. She pointed out there were three basic benefits of bicycling: (1) recreation and fitness; (2) more people would park their cars and ride bicycles for short distances, which lowered automobile emissions, lowered air pollution and noise pollution, and lowered the congestion of traffic and parking; (3) protection of cyclists and establishment of more direct routes. kp0 • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 5 She explained a bikeway system was the incorporation of many facilities in a way which would best benefit the entire community. She advised there were three main topics which they needed to look at: (1) location - where the bikers would be riding; (2) what facilities were best to use in certain situations; and (3) how much money would be involved. Me. Hesse advised the Commission the first step was to develop a committee where the general public and professions could become involved. She explained all of the above listed factors came together and involved value judgments and technical situations. She went on to say there were basically three facilities: (1) bicycle route, bicycle lane, and the bicycle path. She stated bicycle routes were shared right- of-way with other vehicles on the road and were designated only by signs. She pointed out this provided very little protection for the bicyclist and was not safe. She noted this was the most inexpensive facility since the only cost would be the signs and installation of the signs. She suggested they could use bike routes in the very low traffic areas, such as residential areas. Ms. Hesse explained bicycle lanes provided a separate lane for bicycles which was exclusive for the cyclists, delineated by pavement markings. She showed the Commission examples of bicycle lanes. She advised one of the problems with bicycle lanes in the City of Fayetteville was on -street parking and the streets were not wide enough to provide for both the parking and cyclists. She stated that, if the street was wide enough, they would provide a 4 to 5 foot lane for the cyclist. She stated this did provide, somewhat, more safety for the cyclist but there was nothing (no curbs, fences, etc.) separating the cyclist from the motorist. She further stated if the streets were wide enough to incorporate a bike lane, the only expense would be to remove existing stripping and put in new stripes and signs. She pointed out that it would obviously cost more if they had to remove curb and gutter and widen the road. She further stated this was the best system for providing areas for bicyclists since they would be using existing facilities. She noted that, with comprehensive planning, they could incorporate this plan into any new roadways planned for the future. She stated the bike path was a separate area for bicyclist, away from motorists and the most safe of all facilities. She noted this was also the most expensive method because they would have to acquire easements to set up the paths. She advised this method was the most effective because residents became involved and it also increased tourism and revenues from tourists. Me. Hesse explained that, in planning for bicyclists, both location and facilities were main issues. She stated that, once they found out where the bicyclists wanted to go and where the main traffic generators were located, they could decide the route. She pointed out they would need a lot of public interaction to determine where the cyclists wanted to go. She advised she had completed some very preliminary plans for the city on bike routes in order to show how such routes could cover the city. She explained the first need was to provide for the schools, then parks to parks which would also correspond with the schools, major shopping centers, and plans for recreational riders. She reviewed the conceptual plan with the Commissioners. She also pointed out there were numerous constrains to a bikeway system in Fayetteville, including steep grades, widths of roadways, the condition of the surfacing on the streets, on -street parking, etc. Me. Hesse advised she had been asked to provide direction for a pilot program for the Butterfield School District area. She reviewed the proposal with the Commission, showing a map of the area. She explained this particular school Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 6 district had been chosen because there parents of the school. She stated in summary the city did need need and the cost would become higher. report which contained information bikeways. was the most interest and most input from a bikeway plan and, as the city grew, the She requested the Commission review the from communities that had established Mr. Pummill stated it was his understanding a lot of the cost would be paid for with grant monies. Me. Little stated the city had received $400,000 and the city would be required to come up with $100,000. She informed the Commission the city could use in-kind support from citizens groups which could help the city in clearing or laying timbers, etc. She advised the only other way to fund it would be through the Capital Improvements Program and money was budgeted for 1994. Mr. Suchecki asked if the match had to be made before using the $400,000. Ms. Little stated that was correct. Mr. Tarvin stated there were collector streets around the city which were built 36 feet wide (Rolling Hills, Township, etc.) where they could paint a bike lane in order to implement the program He expressed his belief if they could find a route which would minimize the cost, it would get people to thinking about bike lanes and routes. He advised he had been to other college towns that had bike lanes all over town and most of the students rode bikes. He pointed out the motorists got used to seeing the bicyclists and watched out for them. Ms. Little stated there was a need for a lot more public education, both on the part of the motorists and also the bicyclists. She advised the Planning Department had received a tremendous number of calls from people who were interested in working on committees to establish the bike trails. She noted they would advertise in the paper for the committee and the Council would be the selecting entity to make the appointments to the committee. Mr. Suchecki asked if the pilot program for Butterfield was ready to be implemented. Me. Little expressed her belief the grant money needed to be used in one area so they could gain experience and so the community could work together. She pointed out if they scattered it throughout the city, she did not believe the funds would be used as well. She advised she hesitated to be the person to designate the pilot project area; that she would like the proposed committee to have input on a location. Mr. Suchecki stated it was his understanding that the subdivision code would be amended to require new streets to be 8 feet wider. Me. Little stated it had been discussed the city could trade out part of the sidewalk requirement for a trail requirement. She pointed out that could be accomplished for the same amount of money. She stated that instead of requiring sidewalks on 2 sides, they could require a sidewalk on one side and a trail on the other side. Mr. Springborn asked how bike trails ranked priority -wise with city monies for parks. *0- Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 7 Ms. Little explained that, at the present time, they were separate funding sources in the Capital Improvement Program. She pointed out the City Council was responsible for ranking the priorities. She also noted they did need to figure into the priority that they were receiving grant funding which made the money go 5 times further. Mr. Springborn stated $100,000 could be very well used on parks improvement. He asked how it ranked with undertaking a new project, leaving out the $400,000 grant. He asked if they should give up parks improvement in order to get $400,000 of grant monies. Ms. Little stated she did not believe that was the case but she could not speak for the Council. She pointed out they did collect $225 per lot for every new subdivision lot platted for parks improvement. She stated they had not chosen, at this time, to tap any of that money for the trails. She advised the prioritization was left to the City Council members. Ms. Britton advised another source of funding could come from tourism. She told of a tourist that had come to Fayetteville during spring break for bicycling riding because the weather was pleasant. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained she wanted the Commission to be aware of the direction the Planning Department was taking on. this project. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to recommend the City Council look into the pilot project for bicycle trails and the formation of a citizens committee. Me. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1-0 with Commissioners Reynbolds, Pummill, Britton, Suchecki, Cato and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Springborn voting "no". 40' Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-46 DANNY VILLINES - W OF CROSSOVER RD., S OF MISSION BLVD. The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R93-46 submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Danny Villines for property located on the west side of Crossover Road, south of Mission Boulevard. The request is to rezone 1.51 acres from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently vacant and the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to develop retail and mini -storage uses. He noted the applicant had offered a Bill of Assurance to limit the development along Crossover Road to retail use only (150 feet back from Crossover Road) and the remainder of the site (150 feet back from Crossover Road to the property line, approximately 267 feet) for use as mini -storage facilities. He explained the applicant owned the adjacent property to the north which had been approved for mini -storage on August 9, 1993 as a large scale development. He further explained the applicant proposed to redesign the large scale development to the north and utilize both lots in order to place more aesthetically pleasing buildings along Crossover Road and place the mini -storage in the rear. He advised development of the property would require a large scale development plan at which time on-site and off-site improvements would be addressed. He noted the adjacent zoning was C-2 to the north, C-1 to the south, R-2 to the east and R-1 to the west, with the property to the north and west being vacant, to the south being single family with a bakery, and to the east being single family/duplex development. Mr. Conklin stated the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the subject property as medium density residential. He recommended approval of the requested rezoning subject to the Bill of Assurance being offered by the applicant and accepted by the City limiting the development to retail use only along Crossover Road and 150 feet to the west for the subject property and limiting the remaining property to mini -storage use only. He explained that, accepting the bill of assurance would provide an alternative to having mini -storage units adjacent to Crossover Road. He advised staff recommended consideration of a condition limiting access to the site to one curb cut to provide for traffic control and to avoid strip development. Me. Britton asked why the frontage had to be rezoned if it would not contain the mini -storage units. Mr. Conklin explained it was the applicant's intent to place mini -storage at the back of the property and had petitioned the entire property to be rezoned. Mr. Cato asked if the Bill of Assurance had been offered. Mr. Conklin stated he had talked with the applicant and he had offered the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Dave Jorgensen provided the Commission with a sketch of the plans for the property. He explained the petitioner and Planning staff had reviewed the plans and agreed it would be beneficial to have commercial lots along Highway 265. rather than the storage units. He stated, if the rezoning was approved, they would be submitting a subdivision plat and a large scale development plan for the storage units. He stated the Bill of Assurance was being offered subject to a successful rezoning. Ms. Britton asked if the subject property encompassed that portion already platted. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Jorgensen stated it did. He explained the applicant had purchased additional adjoining property. Ms. Britton asked if the storage area would have to provide screening from property to the west. Mr. Conklin stated it would have to be screened and that would be reviewed at large scale development stage. Ms. Little stated the new General Plan did provide for access to internal lots so curb cuts could be limited. She pointed out this site would have excellent potential to limit the curb cuts, providing only one access to Highway 265. She stated they would work with the developer at the subdivision and large scale development stage. Mr. Springborn moved to approve the rezoning subject to the Bill of Assurance and staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING - R93-47 BARRY BARER - N OF 24TH, E OF S. SCHOOL The next item was a public hearing for R93-47 submitted by Barry Baker for property located on the north side of 24th, east of South School Avenue. The request is to rezone 1.51 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Conklin duplexes on pointed out property to to the west advised the applicant had requested the rezoning in order to develop the subject site. He noted the site was currently vacant. He the property to the north and east was zoned R-1 but was vacant, the the south was zoned R-2 and contained apartments, and the property was zoned C-2 but was vacant. He stated the 1970 General Land Use Plan designated the site as medium density residential. He noted there was a 24 -inch and an 8 -inch water line along 24th Street and a 6 -inch sewer line west of the subject site along 24th Street. He further stated 24th Street was classified as a local street. He advised both on- site and off-site improvements would be required at the time of preliminary plat approval. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested rezoning. He explained staff would support a mix of single-family homes and duplexes on the site with no more than 50% of the lots being developed for duplexes as a conditional use. He stated the conditional use would have to be granted at the time of preliminary plat approval. Mr. Suchecki pointed out the tract contained 1.51 acres and asked why staff believed a mix of single family homes and duplexes would be better than just duplexes. He asked how they could do a mix on one and one-half acres and do it well. Mr. Conklin explained R-1.5 would allow a total of 18 units and R-1 would allow 7 units per acre or 12 - 13 units. He stated staff had believed this was a good location for a transition area. Mr. Suchecki stated he did not understand how anyone could be successful in selling single family homes adjoining a commercial area with an apartment complex across the street. Ms. Britton stated the General Plan suggested mixing housing with no more than 20% of the housing being of another type. She suggested 20% be single family homes. Mr. Pummill asked if this was the new village concept. Ms. Little explained the subject area was a difficult area and reminded the Commission this tract was on the same street as a previous subdivision which had been denied. She stated that, from a density standpoint, staff did not believe they could support the R-1.5 request but also believed that, due to apartments in the area, duplexes would not be incompatible. She further stated there was a way to mix some single family homes into the duplexes in order to begin a transition to the subdivisions on Country Club Hill. Mr. Cato asked if less density of duplexes would serve the same purpose. Ms. Little stated it could. Mr. Pummill again asked if this was the village concept. ;Foto • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 11 Ms. Little explained this was a modified village concept. She explained the village concept included more than just housing. She advised they needed to look at the area as a whole. Mr. Pummill stated this pointed out the problems he had with the village concept in that it was not market driven. He advised that the Commission, as regulators, dictated how they wanted people to develop land and he had a problem with that. Ms. Little pointed out the current zoning, R-1, allowed only single family homes. She agreed they eat as regulators but noted the zoning for R-1 was existing and they had to assume good land use principles had been used when establishing that zoning. She explained that, with the inclusion of duplexes on the tract with a conditional use, they were beginning to implement and allow some of the mixing of uses set out in the general plan. Mr. Reynolds asked if they did not have the same problems with this project as they had on the top of Country Club Hill with The Masters. Ms. Little stated the water pressure would not enter into the decision on this project. Mr. Suchecki also pointed out this development would be before the hairpin curve on 24th Street. Mr. Berry Baker explained the 1.5 acres was a part of a 7.25 acre lot which he owned. He stated he would only be developing 20% of the tract as duplexes. He further stated he would only be creating 6 lots. • In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised that, under R-1.5, the applicant could develop 12 units per acre (18 unite for the subject project). Me. Britton asked if the applicant was offering a Bill of Assurance that only 12 living units would be constructed. Mr. Baker explained that, under R-1.5, the minimum lot width was 70 feet so he only had room for 6 lots along 24th Street. Mr. Tarvin verified Mr. Baker could construct 7 units per acre under R-1. Ms. Little explained if the zoning remained at R-1, the applicant could construct 7 unite per acre with a conditional use for duplexes; otherwise, he could construct 4 single family units per acre. Ms. Britton asked if the petitioner would object to leaving the land zoned R-1 and constructing the duplexes with a conditional use. Mr. Baker advised he would object to that. Mr. Suchecki asked what off-site improvements the applicant would have to make to the road if the rezoning and development were approved. Ms. Little stated they did not normally look at the off-site improvements until the large scale development or subdivision plat was approved. She explained that the applicant would be responsible for running all of the necessary water and sewer lines, installation of street lights and fire hydrants, and improvements to one-half of the width of the street for the length adjacent to the subject property. • Mr. Baker noted the land use plan designated the subject property as medium density. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 12 Mr. Pummill asked Mr. Baker's plans for the other 80% of his land. Mr. Baker stated he would be leaving it as a single lot and was considering building his home on the tract. He also pointed out the area already contained mixed uses with commercial on one side, single family on one side and apartments on another side. NOTION Mr. Pummill moved to grant the rezoning request R93-47. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Suchecki, Springborn, Cato and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Reynolds and Britton voting "no". Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R93-48 MIKE PENNINGTON - E OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD., S OF WEDINGTON DR. The next item was a public hearing for R93-48 eubmitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington for property located on the east side of Double Springs Road, south of Wedington Drive. The request is to rezone 14.8 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, and R -O, Residential - Office, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the subject tract had been rezoned from A-1 to R -O and R-1 in February of 1992. He stated the applicant had requested the R-2 zoning in order to develop duplexes on the entire site. He further explained R -O zoning did allow duplexes as a use by right and R-1 zoning allowed duplexes as a conditional use. He noted the applicant had submitted a 50 lot preliminary plat that was the next item on the agenda. He stated the property to the north was zoned C-2 but was vacant and the remainder of the surrounding property was zoned A-1 with property to the south and west containing single family homes and property to the east being vacant. He further noted water and sewer were available to the site and both on-site and off-site improvements would be discussed along with the preliminary plat. Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the request rezoning. He pointed out the Planning Commission had previously indicated a desire to focus multi -family development north of Wedington Drive and focus single family development to the south. He reminded them they had recently looked at the appropriate zoning for the subject property which was reflected in the current zoning classification of the property. He further stated it should be noted that the proposed plat (next item on the agenda) would be unacceptable as presently configured if the zoning changes were denied. He recommended that, in that event, the following item should be tabled. Mr. Mike Pennington stated it was his understanding that, with the present zoning of R -O and R-1, duplexes could be constructed on the site. He asked what the harm would be to rezone the property to R-2 since duplexes could already be built on the tract. Mr. Suchecki advised it was a question of density. Mr. Conklin explained that under R-2 zoning up to 24 units per acre would be allowed and under R-1 zoning the minimum lot size for a duplex (approved as a conditional use) was 12,000 square feet. Mr. Tarvin pointed out that would be approximately 350 unite versus 60 unite. Mr. Pennington stated it was their intention to construct duplexes with approximately 1,000 to 1,200 square feet on each side of the duplex. He advised these would be upper scale duplexes. Mr. Suchecki stated the preliminary plat showed 50 lots. He asked if that meant 100 units. Mr. Pennington explained he believed he would be losing 3 lots due to the placement of the creek so there would only be 47 lots or 94 unite. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Pennington explained that, if the Planning Commission did not approve the rezoning, he would not be able to develop the property as shown on the plat. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 14 Ms. Britton asked the average square footage of the lots shown on the plat. Mr. Ron Petrie, Milholland Engineering, stated the interior lots were approximately 8,500 square feet. He explained the lots to the south were larger because of the creek. He further stated the lots to the north contained approximately 9,800 square feet. Mr. Tarvin pointed out the 7 units per acre (allowed in R-1 with a conditional use) times 15 acres allowed 105 units. He stated the applicant was only asking for 94 units. Me. Little stated the minimum lot size in R-1 with a conditional use for a duplex was 12,000 square feet per lot and the applicant's plan was 8,000 square feet per lot. She also expressed concern regarding the property in the flood plain. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised R-1.5 would meet the applicant's requirements. Me. Becky Thomas, an area resident, expressed concern regarding the traffic on Highway 16 West stating the road was very narrow, there was not an adequate shoulder area, and there had been numerous accidents. She also stated this development would affect the Farmington School District which was becoming overcrowded. She asked the Commission table this item so other area residents could be notified and have an opportunity to speak on this development. Ms. Jean Hill asked what size of homes the developer planned and if the development would be accessed from Double Springs Road or Highway 16 West. Mr. Pennington showed Ms. Hill the preliminary plat. Mr. Suchecki stated it appeared there Springs Road. He further advised the be from 1,000 - 1,200 square feet per would be two accesses, both from Double applicant had stated the buildings would side. Mr. Pennington stated the cost would range from $150,000 to $190,000 per duplex. He explained the buildings would be constructed toward the front of the lots, not back toward the creek. Ms. Mary Cling expressed concern over a duplex development due to the density. She explained she could not imagine the number of vehicles generated by this development accessing Wedington. She also expressed concern regarding the affect the development would have on the overcrowding of the Farmington School District. Mr. Dennis Smith stated he was surprised staff had not recommended approval of the rezoning. He contended the City needed duplexes and believed the development would be an asset for the area. He pointed out R-1.5 zoning would be adequate density for the development. Ms. Little explained one of the reasons staff had chosen not to support the rezoning was because the Commission had considered a rezoning in this area on February 10, 1992 for duplex development and had denied the same. She further stated staff was upholding the direction given by the Planning Commission. Ms. Britton stated the density did concern her. She also reminded the Commission the consultant hired for the general plan had warned them against checkerboard development. She stated she did not see the need to intensify the density of the subject area. • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 15 MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to deny the request. Me. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-3-0 with Commissioners Reynolds, Britton, Springborn, and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioners Pummill, Suchecki and Tarvin voting "no". • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 16 PRELIMINARY PLAT - STERLING ESTATES (FORMERLY HILLSIDE TERRACE) H. L. CORNISH - E OF CROSSOVER, S OF ZION RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Sterling Estates (formerly Hillside Terrace) submitted by David Cox, ESI of Springdale, on behalf of H. L. Cornish for property located on the west side of Hillside Terrace, the east side of Crossover Road and south of Zion Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 6.81 acres with 15 proposed lots with a total of 24 units. Mr. Bunn advised the plat went to the Plat Review committee on August 5th and to the Subdivision Committee on August 12th. He explained the Planning Commission• did not hear the plat because of the failure of the developers to make property notification to the adjacent property owners. He stated the development was reviewed again by the Subdivision Committee on September 30th and, at that time, the plat was considerably different from that reviewed by the Plat Review Committee. He explained that, after some discussion on the proposed parks land within the cul-de-sac, the Subdivision Committee voted to send the plat on to the Planning Commission subject to further review by the plat review committee on October 7th. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; resolution of the parks issue; construction of sidewalks in accordance with the city ordinances and the city's Master Sidewalk plan; approval of the detailed plans for streets, water, sewer, and drainage; approval of grading and drainage plane. He further advised there had been some discussion regarding the developer making improvements to Hillside Terrace. He explained the Planning Commission had rezoned this tract in 1980 with the stipulation that the distance along Hillside Terrace be divided into no more than three lots and that the developer be required to pay their fair share of improvements to Hillside Terrace. He advised Mr. Cornish owned the property in 1980 and the tract had not been divided. He stated the Board of Directors had approved the rezoning and had noted, in the minutes, that the Planning Commission had approved no more than three lots along Hillside Terrace but the Board indicated the Commission had approved the rezoning based on no off-site improvements to Hillside Terrace. He further stated the Planning Commission minutes, however, noted the owner should be assessed a fair share for improvements to Hillside Terrace. He advised an additional recommendation was that the owner or developer be required to provide off-site improvements to Hillside Terrace. He noted they had not decided what those improvements would be. He stated the city might ask for cash in lieu of improvements at this time. Mr. Suchecki asked how the purchasers would get to the lots without improvements. to Hillside Terrace. Mr. Bunn pointed out a gravel road. Me. Linda Bebe, ESI, advised they would agree with the need for off-site improvements to Hillside Terrace. Mr. Tarvin asked which property was R-1 and which was R-2. Mr. Bunn explained the R-1 property was next to Hillside Terrace. He pointed out all of the R-2 would exit, through the cul-de-sac, onto Highway 265. Ms. Britton stated she had reviewed the property and did not believe the topography allowed for a cul-de-sac. She reminded the Commission the first plat 4( • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 17 they had reviewed showed access from Hillside Terrace rather than Highway 265. She expressed her believe the road should go from Highway 265 to Hillside Terrace, offering better traffic circulation. Me. Little explained that at the 1980 offered restricting the R-2 property explained the only way the R-2 property Bill of Assurance, was Highway 265. rezoning a Bill of Assurance had been from accessing Hillside Terrace. She could be accessed, from the terms of the Mr. Carl Ledbetter, Sterling Development, explained they had redrawn the plat to comply with the Bill of Assurance. He stated they planned on having three single family residences fronting on Hillside Terrace and duplexes on the R-2 property. He advised they were concerned about the ingress/egress on Highway 265 but had been told they could not use Hillside Terrace for access. He further advised he did have a problem with off-site improvements to Hillside Terrace. He stated that, if they were required to comply with the Bill of Assurance he did not believe they should be required to do off-site improvements. He further stated it was his understanding the neighborhood did not want the street improved. Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Ledbetter would be willing to improve Hillside if the access to the subdivision was from Hillside. Mr. Ledbetter stated he would be willing to improve Hillside if access was from Hillside. He pointed to the original plat and advised they had planned to improve the street at that time. Mr. Robert MacArney, an adjoining property owner, explained the Bill of Assurance had been made restricting the ingress and egress to Hillside Terrace and the number of lots along Hillside Terrace because the owner had not wanted to make any improvements to Hillside Terrace. He contended the issue of access to the highway should not be an issue because there were plans to make Highway 265 a 4 - lane road. He further stated he did not believe safety was an issue since there was sufficient sight distance at Highway 265. He further stated that, if was agreed the developer needed to contribute his fair share to the improvements on Hillside Terrace, he would like to see curb and gutters, etc. He pointed out this development was going in next to estate size lots and large homes. He expressed concern a developer would build on the tract in order to make money and devalue the adjoining homes. He stated this area contained one of Fayetteville's nicest and most exclusive additions. Mr. MacArney discussed the placement of the fire hydrant and requested it be placed at the top of the hill, at the south end of lot 13. He pointed out it would then protect adjoining property owners. He also requested there be some control on the single family homes as far as staying compatible (owner occupied) and size (minimum of 3100 square feet) with the existing neighborhood. He further requested a six foot permanent fence be constructed along the southern border of the proposed development. He explained it would provide noise control, dust control during construction, animal control from the pets belonging to the new families, keep others from trespassing, and remove the threat of fire potential. He further stated he believed to approve the subdivision would be to jeopardize the integrity and beauty of the most exclusive neighborhood in Fayetteville. Mr. Suchecki stated that, in regard to Highway 265, a few weeks earlier the residents of Old Wire Road and Highway 265 had told the Commission (for 2 hours) how dangerous Highway 265 was. He further stated the plan to widen Highway 265 A‘3 • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 18 to a 4 lane was just that -- a plan -- and it would be many years, if at all, before the Highway was widened. Mr. MacArney agreed the highway was dangerous but stated they could lower the speed limit to make it safer. Ms. Bebe advised the fire hydrants were placed so the MacArney's home would be covered. Mr. Bill Wallace, an area resident, advised they had made an agreement in 1980 and the residents had believed they could depend on that agreement. Ms. Patricia Quinn appeared before the Commission and spoke on the beauty of the area and expressed hope the trees and wildlife would be saved. She stated she would prefer owner occupied single family homes. She also expressed concern that children from the duplexes would get into their stock pond. Ms. Jane Morton, a neighboring resident, agreed with Ms. Quinn's assessment of the area. She suggested to the developer that, in order to get top dollar for the land, he develop the property with larger homes. Mr. Randall Oates, an adjoining property owner, agreed the development would destroy the area. He asked that as many trees as possible be saved. He further stated an access road on Hillside Terrace would destroy the value of their homes. Ms. Britton asked the percentage of trees that would have to be saved. Mr. Conklin stated that in the R-1 area they would have to save 25% and in the R-2 area they would have to save 20%. He advised the developer had presented the tree preservation plan and the only trees to be removed were those in utility easements. He advised they would be saving approximately 80% of the trees on the site. Mr. Tarvin asked if anything in the proposed development was contrary to the 1980 agreement. Ms. Little advised the land, as re -platted, was in compliance with the 1980 agreement. Mr. Tarvin stated they could put in 24 units per acre under R-2 (or over 100 units). He further noted he believed the developer was trying to not impact the area adversely. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to accept the preliminary plat on Sterling Estates subject to staff comments. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. Mr. Tarvin asked about the off-site improvements to Hillside Terrace. Mr. Bunn explained the need to either construct or provide money in lieu of off- site improvements would not be negotiated; it would only be whether the city asked the developer to give the city the money or do the street as a part of the development. He stated staff's recommendation was for off-site improvements on Hillside Terrace. He reviewed the improvements the city would require. Mr. Tarvin asked if that was part of the original agreement. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 19 Mr. Bunn explained when the agreement had been made the Planning Commission had indicated that the property adjacent to Hillside Terrace would be developed into no more than 3 lots and that a fair share of off-site improvements would be assessed. He further explained that when the Board of Directors approved the rezoning they had noted in the minutes that the Planning Commission had approved no more than 3 lots with no off-site improvements. He advised either the Planning Commission minutes or the Board of Directors minutes were in error. Mr. Tarvin stated he believed Mr. Ledbetter of Sterling Enterprises had said if they were not allowed access to Hillside, he had a problem with improving Hillside Terrace. Mr. Bunn stated they would be accessing Hillside Terrace with 3 lots. One of the area residents advised all of the residents preferred leaving the street like it was at the present time. Mr. Suchecki advised the motion included staff comments. He asked if the motion included the off-site improvements. Mr. Pummill advised it did. The motion carried unanimously. 4' • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 20 PRELIMINARY PLAT - JUSTIN ADDITION DUB DUNAWAY - E OF CHERRY, N OF HUNTSVILLE RD. The next item was a preliminary plat for Justin Addition submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Dub Dunaway for property located on the east side of Cherry, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains .97 acres with 5 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn pointed out the lots were slightly smaller than that required by city. ordinance but the Board of Adjustment had approved the lot size. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the Plat Review meeting other than a request for one easement to be changed which had been agreed to by the owner. He noted staff remarks had included comments on the parks fees, setbacks, and the need for additional right-of-way on Cherry Lane and the requirement for off-site improvements on Cherry Street. He stated the off-site improvements would include improvement of one-half of Cherry Lane to city street standards, curb and gutter and drainage. He advised the Subdivision Committee comments centered around the location of the sidewalks. He stated it had been concluded that the sidewalks were to be on the west side of Cherry Lane and therefore no sidewalks would be required for this project. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; submittal of a grading and drainage plan; and payment of parks fees in accordance with city ordinance; and the off-site improvements to Cherry Lane. Mr. Dub Dunaway stated he had no comments. MOTION Mr. Reynolds moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 21 WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REGG:.ATIONS - LOT SPLIT 11 DAVID LYLE ROLLAN - 2700 ROSEWOOD DR. The next item was the first lot split on property located at 2700 Rosewood Drive. Mr. Suchecki advised the petitioner and his representative had been unable to attend this meeting and had asked that this item be tabled for 2 weeks. He further advised that, if any of the neighboring residents were present, the Commission would hear their comments. Mr. White, an adjoining property owner, reminded the Commission he had been presentthe first time this item had been heard and had brought a petition in opposition signed by all but one person in the subdivision. He advised he had also been joined by one neighbor that lived outside the subdivision. He further reminded the Commission they had unanimously voted against approving the lot split. He further stated that in a legal maneuver the applicant then sued the city and immediately offered an out of court settlement. He noted that settlement offer was to put up 3 maple trees immediately to the north of the proposed driveway. Me stated this was to block out any view from the north and would also leave the axisting trees up in the front of the lot. He advised he did not see anything to settle. He went on to say the City Board sent the item back to the Commission and he had not been notified of that meeting. He reminded the Commission they had voted to accept the settlament. He advised that had amazed him. He further stated it was his understanding that, at the last meeting, Commissioner Reynolds had said he had talked to every resident of the subdivision, less one. He stated Commissioner Reynolds had not talked to him. He stated he too had talked to every member of the subdivision, less one. He advised the neighbor who had written the letter approving of the lot split had moved out of the neighborhood. Mr. White stated the neighborhood was still opposed to the lot split. He stated he had two telephone calls, one from Mr. Undem and one from Mr. Holtman, and had been advised the applicant planned on building the house whether the neighborhood wanted the lot split or not. He further stated Mr. Holtman had already been given a building permit to construct v.nother house. He pointed o:.r with the lot split each lot would be approximately half the size of any other lot an ton subdivision. He also informed the Commission Mr. Hollman had taken a bulldozer and removed trees from the lot and then had left the lot. Mr. Suchecki commended Mr. White for appearing the first time this item had been heard and for getting a petition signed by the neighbors. He pointed out Mr. White was the only person from the neighborhood that had taken the time to come to the meeting and express hie point of view. He explained that, when the settlement offer was made to the Board of Directors, no one from the neighborhood appeared to express their point of view. He advised the Commission did the best they could witn the information they had. He pointed out when the Commission reviewed the settlement offer of the lawsuit none of the neighbors were present and, based on that information, some of the Commissioners believed if the neighbors did not care, why should the Commission. He advised that, when the Commission had facts, they could make a good decision. Mr. Reynolds stated he had been in Mr. While's neighborhood four different times and had done a lot of footwork. He advised he had spoken to many of the neighbors and found the neighbors were tired of dealing with the matter) that they didn't care. Ho stated he had passed that information on to the Planning Commission and Me. Little. 0 Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 22 Mr. Suchecki advised the Planning Commission was getting conflicting information. •He informed Mr. White he needed to get other neighbors to tell the Commission what they wanted. Mr. White stated hie neighbors were busy people. Mr. Tarvin stated he had voted against the lot split because he believed that was what the neighbors had wanted. He further stated he was offended by the lawsuit ano even more offended by the idea that, if the city would allow Mr. Holtman to split the lot, he would drop the lawsuit. He stated it had been distasteful to vote in favor of settling the lawsuit but, when he had been told none of the neighbors cared, he voted in favor of settling the lawsuit. He asked if this matter was still an open matter. Ms. Little explained neither Mr. Holtman nor Mr. Jndem had been able to be present and had requested this matter be tabled. She advised the reason the Planning Department brought the item back to the Commission was because, after the Commission had voted to accept the settlement of the lawsuit, she had received Lelepho a calls from neighbors stating they were opposed to the lot split. She further stated she believed that was information the Commission had not had when they made their decision. She also pointed out that, if that information was to come forward, the proper place for it to come forward was the Planning Commission and not the City Council. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained that, at the present time, the Commission had made a recommendation to the City Council to settle the lawsuit and the item was scheduled to be on the October 19 Council meeting. She advised that, if the Commission wished to change their recommendation to the Council, they should make that decision at this meeting or it could be tabled. or. Reynolds asked if the neighbors had been advised of the meeting. Ms. Little stated they had been notified. Mr. Reynolds pointed out they only had one person present. He explained that when no one showed up from the neighborhood and he had received information from the neighbors that they did not care, he had voted to accept the settlement offer. Mr. White stated the neighbors had decided the lot split would occur anyway and they were tired of dealing with it. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Me. Little explained that she had spoken with both Mr. Undem and Mc. Holtman ari they were both quite concerned with the Commission's action but had bc'n unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Suchecki reviewed the actions which could be taken .1 the Commissiont they could take no action and let their recommendation to the ruuncil stand or they could make a motion which changed their action. He asked If the neighbors would have an opportunity to speak at thn Council meeting. Ms. Little stated the neighbors did not get direct notification of Council meetings like they did Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Springborn pointed out they had • third alternative. He stated there appeared to be some confusion In regard to communication between the city and the residents. He stated hi had no objection to tabling the item to give everyone one more chance to appear and give their views. • w • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 23 Mr. Pummill asked if the covenants had not restricted lot splits. Me. Little advised that was not a condition of the covenants of the subdivision. There was discussion as to whether there had been other lot splits in the subdivision. It was determined there had been a property line adjustment but not a lot split. NOTION Mr. Cato moved to recommend to the City Council that any action be postponed until the Planning Commission had the opportunity to hear both sides of this issue. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Commissioners Reynolds, Pu®ill, Suchecki, Springborn, Cato and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton abstaining. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 24 LAND USE PLAN Me. Little explained staff was bringing the Land Use Plan before them with the request that the Commission pass a resolution which would send the Plan to the city Council for adoption. She stated the city had been working on the Plan for 7 years and it was time a general plan be approved. She further stated staff did have some reservations about the plan, especially in regard to population projections. She advised Washington County was undertaking a land use plan and the city and county planned to work together to have a special census taken. She further stated staff also realized there was a need for some annexation studies. She reminded the Commission the Plan recommended annexation but staff was not comfortable in giving out that information until they had time to give the Commission a good assessment as to what was in the area. She pointed out some of the information on the transition areas had been questioned. Ms. Little also informed the Commission staff was working on amendments to the zoning ordinance which would be an implementation device for the plan. She stated they hoped to address the transition areas more thoroughly at that time. She stated the transportation element also needed further work in terms of access. management strategies. Ms. Little advised the staff wanted the Commission's direction on the subdivision regulations, the zoning ordinance, the overlay zones, etc. She stated this was an area that needed additional work and staff wanted the opportunity to work with the Commission on those items. She stated that, in saying the Plan was not perfect, did not affect staff's recommendation to the Commission that the Plan should be considered and should be brought forward as a policy document at this time. She explained these were overall policies to divide the land into general areas for development and to direct the way the land should be developed. She informed the Commission these were general policies and the Commission had the opportunity to shape those policies and the implementing regulations. She recommended the Plan be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Tarvin stated he had been through the Plan and could understand her concern regarding population projections but he did not see how that had anything to do with policy or how development would be directed or how certain types of development would be viewed in certain areas. He stated the population would be whatever it was going to be. He further stated he had read the attachments in the agenda packets and was trying to understand the purpose of the Plan. He stated if the purpose of the Plan was to develop policy which the staff would use in viewing development, he would like to know staff's policy. Ms. Little explained there were a number of policies. She stated population was very important because it was projected to determine the amount of land required to service the area. She explained the policies were that they needed to establish central commercial areas and they needed to direct transportation around those areas and be particularly sensitive to those areas. She stated another policy was that there were environmental areas with which they needed to be concerned about restricting development. She explained they needed to be so restrictive in some areas as to not allow but one house per five acres. She went on to say the area was rapidly growing but the growth should not be considered a trend at this point. She stated they should look at a growth rate of 2% per year and, in doing so, they should look at filling up the entire planning area of 66 square miles by the year 2010. She further stated that, in filling up that area, they needed to be very concerned in the transition areas. 4-2° • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 25 She further stated the transition areas in the report were where most of the policy guidelines were set forth. She stated she had seen the Planning Commission struggle with this on a weekly basis -- the development they had and how to incorporate new development (which was needed and market driven) in line with the development already in place. She stated a lot of thought had been given to transition areas, to neighborhood concepts, to providing the transportation structure which went along with those areas. She advised those were the general types of policies established by the Land Use Plan. She pointed out the major difference between the proposed plan and another general land use plan was this plan left the decisions to the Commission as opposed to drawing squares on maps and attempting to designate the future of the city for 20 years on the basis on one population study and one land use study. Mr. Tarvin explained one of the things that bothered him was there were things in the plan, for instance some of the designations of collector streets, that were now minor arterial and minor arterial that were now major arterial. He stated he thought there was an ordinance which designated the classification of streets and the only way it could be changed was by ordinance after public hearing. He further stated that, if the people realized the impact the plan had on their neighborhoods, they would be present to talk about it. He contended no one knew about it and that concerned him. Ms. Little explained the General Land Use Plan had to be adopted by ordinance. She stated there were three elements in a land use plan: land use, community facilities and transportation. She explained the transportation element was one of the elements which would be adopted. She further stated the Master Street Plan, as a part of the transportation element, would be adopted by ordinance. She informed the Commission there were not major changes in the master street plan. Mr. Tarvin street. Ms. Little Mr. Tarvin Me. Little would have portion of street. stated he was looking at Township. He asked if it was a collector. stated she believed it was a minor arterial. asked when that had changed. stated it was currently shown on the plan as a minor arterial but she to check to see when it changed. She reminded the Commission the new Township from Old Wire to Highway 265 had been developed as a 4 -lane Mr. Tarvin stated that from Old Wire Road west to College Township had been designated as a minor arterial but from Old Wire Road east to Highway 265 it was designated as a collector street. He noted the Plan showed Township to be extended east all the way to Highway 45. He stated he believed, if the people living along the street knew the plan would four -lane their street and turn it into a major thoroughfare which carried more traffic than Mission, they would object. He advised there were many little things in the plan that people did not know about. Ms. Little agreed that was probably true and noted she had been disappointed about the amount of public turnout they had. She pointed out there had been three public hearings on the plan. She stated she would give the Commission a comparison of the current Master Street Plan and the proposed. Mr. Tarvin asked staff to determine when the classification had changed on Township. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 26 Ms. Little stated she would do her best to find out but Master Street Plan changes had been brought to the Planning Commission in the past by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Springborn stated he believed there had been a meeting approximately 2 years earlier in which there was a three part proposal - (1) leave Township as it was, (2) make it a three -lane street and (3) make it a four -lane street. He stated he did not remember the outcome. Ms. Little stated that had been when Township from Old Wire to Highway 71. hearing held in regard to the widening the city had discussed improvements to She explained that had been the public of the street. Mr. Springborn stated he had gone through the Plan and had spoken with Ms. Little regarding hie concerns on some faulty arithmetic. He further stated there was a lot of logic which was difficult to follow, if at all. He explained that when he read staff wanted them to recommend the proposal as a policy document, he believed he could go along with it with certain additions to be put in by staff. He stated they had RM Planners working on the document for 7 years and, if the proposed plan was the best they could turn out after 7 years of effort, he believed it was a waste of time to do anything but accept what they had given to the city for what it was worth. He further stated he did not believe it was worth a whole lot. He stated he would be prepared to endorse the plan for whatever benefit they could get out of it and rely on staff to go forward with all of the changes which they saw as required. Mr. Jerry Sweetser stated he had recently become interested in the planning process. He explained he had reviewed a copy of the Land Use Plan and believed it had some great information but it also had some items about which he was concerned. He contended that for the Commission to vote on the Plan after only a 2 week review could possibly be disastrous in some areas. He explained he had a problem with make such a drastic change in such a short time and did not believe they had given adequate time for the bad things in it to come out. He asked they consider the Plan further before adopting it and allow input from specific neighborhoods. He recommended the Commission take their time in going through the Plan and make sure they understood it. Mr. Suchecki stated he did not disagree with Mr. Sweetser but pointed out the Plan was a lot like a bill in Congress, they could not please everyone and, as soon as it was adopted, someone would find a loophole. He further stated that, getting public input had been a real mystery, pointing out the City had The Vision project and only 500 people participated. Mr. Richard Osborne stated he was there on behalf of Robert Westfall of Fort Smith. He agreed with Mr. Tarvin there had not been sufficient notice to the public. He pointed out he was aware city staff had worked on the Plan for 7 years but the general public had not; that Mr. Westfall had only heard about it 5 days earlier. He advised the Commission Mr. Westfall's property was on Highway 62 adjacent to the new Wal-Mart property. He explained he had reviewed the portion of the Plan which affected Mr. Westfall's property. He advised Mr. Westfall had purchased the property because it was zoned commercial and it would lose its value if it were not zoned commercial. Mr. Robert Westfall stated he had purchased the property over 20 years earlier and was concerned with the portion of the Plan that would affect his property. He explained he had been told by a potential developer that the Plan would limit development on Highway 62. He then pointed out the portion of the plan that he claimed would be disastrous to him, "...this change (referring to Highway 62) is not conductive to an action center and commercial development should be discouraged from its present position on the western side of the freeway." He • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 27 pointed out the reference to the freeway was Highway 71 which would run from Kansas City to Houston. He also noted Highway 62 was a U. S. Highway. He contended the small towns located to the west of Fayetteville on Highway 62 did need to be serviced by commercial enterprises. He stated discouraging development on Highway 62 West would be detrimental to the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Suchecki asked the current zoning on Mr. Westfall's property. Mr. Weetfall advised it was zoned R -O and C-2 with 2/3's of it being commercial. Mr. Suchecki explained the Land Use Plan was just a plan and decisions would still be made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sweetser advised he too had purchased certain tracts of land because of the zoning. Mr. Suchecki stated the Plan did not change any zoning. He explained it still would require individual action to change zoning. He noted the plan made recommendations for the growth of Fayetteville but any rezoninge had to be done individually and would still be heard by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ms. Little agreed with Mr. Suchecki. She advised the main change being incorporated into the zoning ordinance was for the perimeter areas around the city to enable some transition areas. She pointed out there were some older areas within the city that were zoned Industrial but had never been developed and staff would be recommending those areas be changed. She explained such changes did have to go through 2 public hearings. She also pointed out a zoning ordinance consisted of two pieces - the zoning regulations and the map. She advised staff was just now beginning to work on the zoning. She stated that on Mr. Westfall's land, the statement in the Plan read, ' ..this change is not conductive to an activity center and commercial development should be discouraged beyond its present position on the western side of the freeway." She explained that meant that where there was commercial zoning now, the zoning should stay but it should not be a policy to zone any more large tracts of land commercial in that area. She explained they needed to concentrate the commercial areas to the interior part of the city and encourage revitalization along West 6th Street (Highway 62). She further advised the policy said it should be discouraged; it did not say it was forbidden and would never be permitted again. Mr. Tarvin expressed his belief that was the opposite of what it said. He. pointed out it talked about the village concept, developing neighborhoods, and developing commercial areas next to neighborhoods. Ms. Little agreed the plan did say that. She asked that the Commission take into consideration the difference between a major retail center (regional centers) and neighborhood commercial established to service neighborhoods. Mr. Tarvin asked if the purpose of the Plan was to give them a tool. He expressed his belief that, if the Plan were adopted, it would become an obstacle because it would be used as a basis for recommendations. He contended if the decisions were going to be made by the Planning Commission, they should be made by the Planning Commission and there should not be anything in the way of them making those decisions. Me. Little explained a General Plan and and development of the city. She stated foresaw as it's future and what/_ the city advised it was not an indivi 2ual plan a Land Use Plan was to guide the growth it took into consideration what the city needed to provide for its citizens. She and there were times that individual • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 28 requests and individual wants and needs would be at variance from the plan. She stated the Plan was the guideline but did not prohibit the Commission from deciding something differently than what was recommended in the plan. She explained that, as a matter of policy, the Land Use Plan was the most important document that could be developed for the city. She reminded the Commission she had told them, at their first meeting, that the Plan was the most important document that the Commission would adopt in terms of guiding the growth and development of the City. She advised she believed the Planning Commission needed to be most concerned with those policies which guided the growth and development of the city as a whole. Mr. Tarvin expressed his belief none of the Planning Commissioners understood what the Plan said. He asked how they could adopt something that was so general and had such an impact when they didn't understand it. Me. Little asked at what point the Commission wanted to make the decisions. She explained the Plan was structured so the Commission made the decisions at the regulation point. Ms. Britton explained a policy plan like the proposed Land Use Plan guided the Commission so there was consistency in decisions. She pointed out the Plan addressed city-wide needs versus the needs of a particular person. She stated that, if a particular person had a need, they could petition the Planning Commission to make a decision. Mr. Springborn stated he needed some clarification. He stated Mr. Sweetser and Mr. Tarvin had re -enforced his concern about the Plan and what they needed to do with it. He advised if they recommended it go to the Council and they adopted it, would it become an ordinance. Ms. Little explained the plan itself did not become an ordinance but was adopted by ordinance. She stated it became the policy which guided growth and development. Mr. Springborn stated they currently had a Land Use Plan on a map which showed all of the zoning within the city limits. Me. Little explained that was the zoning map, not the Land Use Plan. She stated there was a Land Use Plan that looked very similar. Mr. Springborn stated the enabling act for the Commission to operate required they have a Land Use Plan. Me. Little advised they could not enact subdivision regulations, zoning regulations or any other type of land development regulations in the absence of a general land use plan. Mr. Springborn explained he did not regard the proposed plan as a Land Use Plan. He contended it was vague, ambiguous and he did not believe it could be adopted as a land use plan. Ms. Little explained it was a policy document that established the guidelines. She pointed out it gave the Commission more freedom since it was a performance, based document, giving more flexibility than the former type of plan. She explained this type of plan was what high growth communities had come to realize they had to use in order to have the flexibility to guide and direct that growth. She agreed it would be difficult for communities to implement. She asked the Commission to compare the current zoning with the village concept and noted they would be able to see the flexibility offered under the proposed plan. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 29 Mr. Springborn reminded Me. Little he had pointed out to her the growth projections were inconsistent and could not support the village plan. Ms. Little agreed they had discussed the matter. She pointed out they had heard a case earlier in the meeting which the village concept principles would apply to -- the rezoning which accessed 24th Street. Mr. Springborn stated there was an error in the document by RM Planners. He stated he had asked Mr. Raby the minimum number of people required to implement the village plan and Mr. Raby had told him 500. Ms. Little stated she had spent quite a bit of time talking to Mr. Raby, ascertaining basically the same information. She advised she had asked the minimum number of acres and was finally convinced that, with the current ownership pattern they would have to take the area as a whole, make it compatible and try to make sure the services needed for the residential neighborhood were included. She stated they would not get the luxury of taking a 40 -acre tract from the beginning but would have to take what they had and try to make it work better. Mr. Springborn stated that re -enforced his concern. He stated he had found an inconsistency in the document and had pointed out the inconsistency to Ms. Little. He further stated she had agreed with him. He advised she now had made an interpretation which made it possible to apply. Mr. Pummill pointed out the entire plan zeroed in on the village concept by policy. He advised he saw no market drive for the policy. He stated it appeared the Commission would have to deny subdivisions unless they could direct what businesses were to be placed in the area. He advised he believed the city had done a good job in putting commercial establishments at major intersections to bring neighborhood commercial to residential areas. Mr. Cyrus Young stated the Plan was brought about through state law. He noted the plan was for the Planning Commission, not just the staff. He asked when the proposed subdivision and zoning ordinances would be changed to conform to the plan. Me. Little advised they would be presented to the Commission sometime within the first quarter of 1994. Mr. Tarvin explained he was having a problem justifying, if they were not empowered to pass ordinances but yet the Plan was being adopted by ordinance, how could the Commission go against the Plan when reviewing matters on a case by case basis. He also asked if there were specific things in the Plan they did not like, why they should pass it. He pointed out they were going to do their job whether they had a plan or not. Me. Little stated it was true the Planning Commission was not empowered to pass ordinances but it was their responsibility to develop those ordinances and to pass them on to the Council so they could be adopted by ordinance in order to implement the plan. She further stated if there were things in the plan the Commission did not like, she needed to know what those items were. She noted she had received comments from only 2 Commissioners. Mr. Springborn suggested the 2010 Plan be recommended for acceptance for reference only and that the staff use the document as a reference, taking into consideration comments made by the Commissioners and staff's concerns. He stated that, after all of the comments were included in the document, they could use the 2010 Plan for reference and then look at it from the standpoint of adopting it. • • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 30 Mr. Tarvin asked if that meant the City Council would look at the plan by reference and say, "Okay, Township is now a minor arterial all the way to Highway 45. Mr. Springborn stated it would be used solely for reference to come up with an acceptable document. Mr. Cato asked if it was Mr. Springborn's intent to bypass the ordinance portion. Mr. Springborn stated that was correct. He explained that would stop RM Planners from doing any more work and staff could use what they could out of the exiting document. He explained that, after staff incorporated everything they could get from the public and the Planning Commission, including staff's concerns, they could look at it as a document they could recommend to the Council. Mr. Tarvin stated it appeared Mr. Springborn did not agree with the plan and he knew he did not agree with the plan and he did not believed Mr. Pummill or Mr. Cato agreed with the plan. He asked why they should approve the plan if they did not agree with it. Mr. Sweetser asked each Commissioner if they understood the plan. Me. Britton stated she understood most of the plan. Mr. Suchecki advised he understood parts of it. Mr. Tarvin stated he did not understand most of it but the things he did understand, he did not like. Mr. Pummill advised he understood the plan. Mr. Sweetser asked why they would consider approving something as important as the General Plan when they did not understand it. Mr. Cyrus Young stated one of the parts of the plan was a goal of what Fayetteville would look like and be like in 2010. Ms. Little explained that was what was shown on the future land use plan. She advised there was a great deal of residential land shown because the plan embodied the neighborhood concept plan. She advised Mr. Springborn was correct in that they needed to give some type of direction to Mr. Raby as far as his work. She stated the city still owed Mr. Raby $1,000 out of the $6,500 contract. She further stated Mr. Raby had asked for any additional comments by October 14 so he could complete the work on the Plan. She advised staff was completely willing to take any guidance the Commission wanted to give. She reminded them she had requested, at the meeting 2 weeks earlier, the Commission's guidance on the Plan. She informed the Commission staff would need to know what it was they, did not like about the plan, what it was they were not comfortable with in the Plan, and who was willing to work more on the Plan. She suggested a committee should be formed from members of the Planning Commission to work further on the Plan. Mr. Springborn stated he believed it was time they cut off RM Planners. Mr. Cato stated he believed Mr. Springborn had some very valid points in adopting the Plan as a reference material, not as guidelines. He suggested field testing the Plan and find where the problems were located. Me. Little agreed she was ready for the Commission to test the plan. She stated she believed that would be a good way for any problems to surface. She advised she was aware there were some areas of the new Plan which the Commissioners were not comfortable with and possibly they needed some time to work with the plan. Mr. Suchecki stated he did not know if the public was ready for the mixing of the uses. • • Planning Commission October 11, 1993 Page 31 Mr. Pummill stated he was impressed with Mr. Raby's ability to collect data and tell them what had happened in the City of Fayetteville for the last 100 years. He further stated from that point on, they had a document which gave the rationale for a village concept. He expressed his believe that Mr. Raby had spent too much time in Houston and not in Fayetteville. He stated he did not think the village concept would work in Fayetteville because it was not market driven. Ms. Little advised the Commission she had two videos regarding the village concept which she believed they needed to review. She explained these videos were the best educational tools she could offer them. She suggested a workshop in order for the Commission to review the videos. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved the 2010 Plan be accepted as a reference only with no specific acceptance of any recommendations in it. He stated it could be put on the shelf and used to go forward with but would not be used as a document to guide the city. Ms. Little stated she did not believe they needed to take an action to say the Plan should not be used as a policy document. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to not accept the Land Use Plan in its present form. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. Mr. Springborn advised he wanted to be sure they also were stopping RM Planners from doing any further work on the plan and amended the motion to stop work by RM Planners. Mr. Pummill seconded the amendment. The amendment to the motion carried 7-0-0. The motion carried 7-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. el