Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-09-22 MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Directors and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 22, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 326 of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas: PRESENT: Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Kelley, Lancaster, Marinoni and Martin; Commissioners Dow, Farrish, Green, Hanna, Jacks, Madison, Robertson and Seiff; City Manager Pennington, City Attorney McCord, Planning Administrator Carlisle, City Clerk McWethy, members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Commissioner Nash 313.1 City Manager James Pennington began the meeting by saying he thought the meeting was necessary for the two groups to come together and talk about some problems. He said Board and Planning Commission actions are highly interrelated for the future development and control of growth of the community. He said following the last Board meeting he received a number of phone calls from various segments of the community. 313.2 Pennington said this was not a meeting to argue the merits of the Polarbek situation one way or the other. He said it should be noted that the City Board has requested the situation be referred back to the Subdivision Committee and, whether it occurs will not be a matter for discussion at this meeting. 313.3 Pennington said it was apparent to him there were questions of philosophy and procedure which should be addressed. He noted there were around 37,000 governmental entities in the United States doing planning and zoning projects, and probably none of them are doing it the same way. He said there was no pat answer. 313.4 He asked both groups to talk about how they look at a project - as just a project or in relationship to the comprehensive plan, and is the plan up to date. He noted that there is a procedure in the City's existing ordinance. He raised the question of whether the procedures are adequate for this City, such as making the process open so a situation will not occur such as that which happened recently, when citizens felt they were not being heard. He asked the groups if they wanted to establish a notice period, such as seven days, whether it should be followed up with a letter to property owners. Pennington asked who should be 1 1 1 3 4 September 22, 1987 notified. He said in some cases there is a question of how many people are affected by a project, and where should the line be drawn.. He asked whether large subdivisions and developments should be forwarded automatically from the committee to the full Commission. He noted the current ordinance is very clear that the Subdivision Committee has the final say, with appeal processes built in. Pennington said he thought both groups had a chance to talk among themselves about the direction they want to take. He said the last thing he wanted was an argumentative situation and he asked that the discussion get away from the Polarbek project. He asked for a discussion of procedures. Pennington asked that everyone realize that in every community there will be pro -development and anti -development factions. He suggested a middle ground be found called "a controlled growth program". Mayor, Johnson said the City Board was not pleased with the notification process. She asked how the commissioners felt about this. She said the staff followed the letter of the law in the Polarbek case, but it didn't really follow the spirit when the notice was published thenight before.. 1 Commission Chairman Ernest Jacks explained the Planning Commission was in the middle of redoing the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Subdivision" regulations: He said the notification process is being changed, and a sign will be required to be posted on the site. i Director Martin asked what notices were sent out in the Polarbek case. Sandra Carlisle said there was an' ad placed in the legal section of the newspaper on August 19, with Subdivision Committee meeting on August 20. B. J. Dow said although the notice was legally timely, the ad stated those wishing to speak should appear at the Planning Commission meeting on the 24th, but the final decision was made ,at the' Subdivision Committee meeting on the 20th. Dow said the Planning Commission tried to vote to table the issue because they were concerned about it. eee City Attorney McCord said the SubdivisionmCommittee did not refer the development»to the Planning Commission but approved it, as it has the authority to do under the ordinance. Commissioner Green said three noticeswere made - a legal notice on August 19 which gave five days notice before the Planning Commission meeting, copies of the Planning Commission agenda were 314.1 314.2 314.3 314.4 314.5 314.6 314.7 314.8 314.9 r v c) September 22, 1987 315.1 mailed to all adjoining property owners, and the agenda was published in the newspaper the day before the Planning Commission meeting. 315.2 Commissioner Madison said the Planning Commission thought it could take up the issue of Polarbek at its last meeting, but found out it could not. She said as a result of that they didn't really hear from the property owners. Green disagreed, stating that everyone at that meeting who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Madison said the Commission did not discuss their concerns, but tabled them. 315.3 Commissioner Farrish, Chairman of Subdivision Committee, said if the committee's deliberations will be brought before the Planning Commission, there was no need to have the committee. He said he thought the present procedure streamlines the process, and that subcommittee actions should have some sort of finality to them. Farrish said it was important that "we don't make up rules as we go along" and he said he thought the Planning Commission had a tendency to do that. He said if the rules say it's a one -day notice, "that's the rule we should play by." 315.4 Commissioner Seiff expressed concern that the Directors brought up things at their Board meeting which happened at a Planning Commission meeting the night before, and there was no way the facts were known at the Board meeting because they could not have had a copy of the minutes. He remarked that some of the things mentioned at the Board meeting were not facts, but were hearsay. He asked how Planning Commission could meet at a time far enough in advance of the Board meeting so that Directors can have the facts. 315.5 Director Bumpass said in the Polarbek case where there was to be such a massive change to the character of the neighborhood, the shortness of the notice period compounded the problem. Bumpass said he didn't -know if there was serious consideration of the substantive points raised in Gunderson's appeal on behalf of a property owner. 315.6 Commissioner Madison said the Subdivision Committee reviews large scale developments (any over one acre) over which they have the power to give final approval. She said they also review subdivisions which they are required to recommend to the Planning Commission. Madison said she would like to see the Subdivision Committee's work go on to both the Planning Commission and to the City Board. She said she worried that the Planning Commission has too much power, when two people can approve a development which will have an impact of 500 cars on a neighborhood. 1 1 1 September 22, 1987 316 Commissioner Farrish commented that City staff addressed the 316.1 traffic situation. He asked if there was an adequate review by the City staff. City Manager Pennington said that was a question he would address to the staff - whether all the necessary information is being given in the degree that it's necessary for the committee. Farrish said the staff are the experts and the committee relies on them for certain information. Commissioner Madison asked what the purpose of the committee is 316.2 if the staff checks the requirements. She said she thought the committee has to address things like impact on the neighborhood. She asked if the committee could require more than the ordinance specifies. Farrish said he would be opposed to making ordinances as you go along. Green said there were parts of the ordinance that aren't black and white, with things that require judgment such 'as off-site improvements. Green said he agreed with Farrish's point of abolishing the committee if issues are going to be rehashed by the Planning Commission. Dow disagreed, commenting that it didn't offend her if others want to refer developments to the Planning Commission. Director Hess said a crucial point is there is no integrated 316.3 planning between the City Board and the -Planning Commission. He said the City has probably done nothing for the Polarbek property because there is no planner on the staff who integrates projects and promotes communication between the board and commission. Hess said he thought seven days ought to be the minimum amount of 316.4 notification. He said Polarbek wasnot in the wrong on the notification, but he thought the Planning Commission should have the authority to say :they- don't think the notification was handled properly. Hess said the City Board did away with committees because they 316.5 thought they were too time consuming and somewhat redundant. He said if the Subdivision Committee's work will always go to the Planning Commission, it. makes it somewhat meaningless, and a waste of time. He said it bothered him that .only three members have the authority to make a final decision. He pointed out the Board's committee recommendations always went before the whole Board. • • Director Bumpass said the key issue of what off-site improvements should be implemented under the "rational nexus" theory should ultimately rest on the shoulders ofelected officials. He said the City Attorney was preparing some alternatives "for us to reconsider that earlier -decision of the City Board." He said the Boardmembers don'taccept everything that the City staff recommends, sometimes asks the staff to go further, and sometimes 316.6 u i'% September 22, 1987 317.1 bends over backwards to allow people to speak who it turns out "are a waste of our time to even listen to in public hearings." 317.2 Martin said he thought the sole question was one of balancing the public's right to orderly development and the individual's right to use his property. He said making a political decision is patently unfair, and people will not be attracted to develop property in Fayetteville. 317.3 Martin said Hess was implying that the City should hold up developers to accommodate the City's failure to plan. Hess disagreed, stating he wasn't talking about the Polarbek project at all. He said the City should consider off-site improvements and rational nexus prior to Polarbek. Martin asked Hess what the basis of his appeal was. Hess said it was based on four concerns, most of which have been addressed to his satisfaction, except for the time issue. Hess said the proper place for planning to come from is from the City. He said the Planning Commissioners were volunteers, and there was no office or person from which direction was emanating. Hess said it was not the developer's fault that the City does not have the proper procedures. 317.4 Commissioner Hanna said most of the things Hess was discussing were already addressed by the City staff and Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission. He said he would hate to see the process changed and felt it has worked well. He said he felt the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission were getting adequate information. He said he didn't see the traffic impact being a problem on other streets with a great number of apartments, such as Leverett, Sycamore and Garland. He said getting developments such as Polarbek increases the tax base. 317.5 Hess said he thought the City should have a process which would anticipate what might happen in certain areas rather than reacting to situations when they come up. Farrish said he thought the City had such a process, in that there was a Master Street Plan and a zoning ordinance which defines the density of development. He pointed out the Planning Commission has gone to extreme lengths to protect the public interest in residential zoning districts. He said the Planning Commission was not a tool of the developer. 317.6 Commissioner Madison said she did not think the Commission was getting enough information from City staff. She said she has requested over and over again that the Traffic Superintendent attend Plat Review Committee meetings and he does not. She asked, in the interest of streamlining the process, "are we just whizzing [the developments] through as fast as we can" just because "time is money". She said she thought there were very 1 1 1 1 • September 22, 1987 ti l0 few communities in the country where you could submit a plat on 318.1 the 7th of the month and have it approved on the 20th of that same month. Director Lancaster commented that the Planning Commission's 5-4 318.2 vote at its last meeting meant to him that "the Planning Commission's not set on what they're doing". He said it has been the same situation with the City Board. He said he wondered if the staff looked at the surrounding area for the Polarbek development. He said he resented the fact that there is this much confusion over this large a deal where two people can have the final say, although he admitted the City Board created the ordinance that allowed that to happen. He said he resented the fact that a Board member appealed this and can't be heard unless he goes to Circuit Court. Commissioner Jacks said anytime there is a perception that public 318.3 input has been thwarted, "we have a problem." Commissioner Dow said she thought the development was only part of an area. She .said the area is discussed at Plat Review meeting, and she thought it important that the staff look at the big picture, and she thought this was not being done. Commissioner Green disagreed, pointing out the Master Street Plan to him was intelligently developed. He said there was a lot of input from the staff, as evidenced by the minutes from the Plat Review Committee. He said the bigger problem is that the City has not provided an adequate infrastructure in Fayetteville. He said it should not be solely the developer's responsibility to provide the major streets. • 318.4 318.5 Bumpass said the increasing of the City's tax base needs to be 318.6 looked at very closely: He expressed concern over the pedestrian traffic situation -- he said it seems like regardless of your socio-economic status, the kids are still playing in the streets instead of walking on sidewalks. Commissioner Green said although it may have appeared the process was speedy (in Polarbek), he said the process for determining what should be done by developers on James Street started about 2 1/2 or:3 years ago when other groundwork was done in the past and which was relied on in making the Polarbek decision. Pennington said, a middle position, where the City works together with the developers in a mutually beneficial program, may be what Fayetteville should move to. • Farrish talked about a situation on Stubblefield Road where a subdivision was recently approved, completing the development on 318.7 318.8 318.9 319.1 319.2 319.3 ti 1 September 22, 1987 that road, which is about a mile long, 17 feet wide and has no curbs, gutters and sidewalks, but has two bridges. He said the developer was required to deposit the cost of improvements (to the road) into a fund, along with others who have done the same. He said there is not enough money in the City budget to take advantage of the money which has been contributed, because other individual property owners on the road will not contribute anything to the improvements. The Mayor asked what happened after it was discovered the City did not have enough money in the budget to fund the rest of the cost needed for the improvements. Green said he assumes the City Board read the minutes of the meetings at which the matter was discussed. Johnson said she thought one of the problems was that there is no communication between the City Board and the Planning Commission. Farrish pointed out the problem was discussed in the Planning Commission minutes. Green said he thought Transportation Improvement Program priorities are not always in "sync" with development. 319.4 Bumpass asked that the City Manager go to the Planning Commission meetings and report to the City Board on a regular basis. The Mayor suggested he should choose someone on the staff to attend those meetings. 319.5 Seiff said it was felt there was a lack of communication between the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment, and they established, on a rotational basis, the policy whereby a planning commissioner attends Board of Adjustment meetings, and the Board of Adjustment has assigned a delegate to attend Planning Commission meetings. He suggested a City Director should attend the Planning Commission meeting and report back, and the Planning Commission could do the same. 319.6 Commission Chairman Ernest Jacks told the Board that Planning Administrator Sandra Carlisle is present at both Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee meetings. He said this works very well, but the trouble is that some things at Subdivision Committee do not go on to the Planning Commission. Jacks said the Planning Commission initiated a dialogue with the City Board on the subject of off-site improvements, but it " died on the vine" because there was no obvious answer, and nothing seemed equitable. 319.7 Madison said she thought the City just needs to figure out where to get some more money. She suggested we "give up rational nexus and go to an impact fee similar to the parks fee." 1 j 1 4'f September 22, 1987 0 Pennington summarized some of the points raised at the meeting: .� U 320.1 Communications between the Board and Commission, between the 320.2 Commission and the staff, andcbetween the staff and Board. He said the staff can deal with this issue. He said he was looking at the "planner" concept for future 320.3 reference during budget time. Timing of notices, yopportunities for public to speak- 320.4 Pennington said recommendations for change are being reviewed right now. 4 The City has to know what the rules are and be able to tell the developers what the rules are and what the philosophy is for administering those rules. The City staff should be doing a thorough job. He said that is one thing he wants to make sure happens Better planning for infrastructure; staff looking at the "big picture" - Pennington said the Board, the Commission, the staff and the citizens can control and direct development. He said staff can only do so much and then the question falls back onto the "policy makers". The meeting adjourned at about 6:45 p.m. 320.5 320.6 320.7 320.8