HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-22 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARRS AND RECREATION BOARD A joint meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Board was held on Tuesday, February 22, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: PARKS BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Phyllis Hall Johnson, Robert E. Reynolds, Tom Suchecki, Jana Lynn Britton, Joe Tarvin, Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, and Kenneth Pummill Bill Waite, William Kimbrough, Susan Driver, David Savage, Greg Anderson, and Dee Wright Kevin Crosson, Jerry Rose, Larry Wood, Alett Little, Connie Edmonston, Lisa Cox, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others Mr. Tarvin called the meeting to order. He advised the meeting had been called in order for the two boards to discuss items which needed clarification so they could work more efficiently. He advised they would take public comment at the end of the meeting. MASTER PARKS PLAN Mr. for the Bill Waite stated they had developed the Master Parks Plan and had submitted it the Planning Commission's consideration. He advised it needed to pass through Planning Commission prior to going forward to the City Council. Mr. Suchecki stated Item 2 under "Goals and Objectives" covered maintenance items. He asked if green space fees were spent on maintenance items. Mr. Waite explained this was not a budget plan, but a long range plan for parks and recreation. He stated green space money was just one input into the budget. Mr. Suchecki asked if the green space funds were used to purchase the land, maintain the land, purchase equipment, etc. Mr. Waite stated the money could be used for the development or purchase of lands. He explained the money had to be tied to the dwelling units coming on line and divided into quadrants in which it was collected. Ms. Britton asked if the funds could be used for maintenance. Mr. Waite stated the funds were to be used for acquisition or development but not maintenance. Larry Wood, Regional Planning, summarized the Master Parks Plan, noting they had been working for two and one-half years on the plan. He advised the purpose of the plan was to give guidance on acquisition of park lands. He stated this plan did update the 1978 plan. He further stated they had expanded the policies and goals and assessed the needs of the City of Fayetteville. He advised there had been only three classifications of parks: neighborhood, community and regional but the recommendation was to expand the classifications into six: sub -neighborhood, neighborhood, community, regional, special use, and parkway. He went on to say that in terms of acreage there were numerous acres of park lands dedicated to the city but found that 85% were in three lakes plus a great deal of, park land which had not been developed. He advised there were several neighborhoods which had either no park lands or sub -standard park lands. He advised their first priority was to provide park lands in the developed areas; secondly, acquire park lands in developing areas; and third, acquire lands beyond or at the edge of the city limits. • • • Planning Commission February -1-47 1994 Page 2 Mr. Wood explained the preferred way of acquiring land was to acquire it prior to development of the area. Mr. Tarvin asked the plans for Gulley Park. Mr. Wood explained the plan did not address specific parks. He advised it was up to the Parks Board and the City as to what should be done in each park. Mr. Waite explained they were still operating under the old Master Park Plan. He advised that, since the public meetings on Gulley Park requesting the park lands remain passive, the plans had remained on hold. He stated there were no additional activities planned for Gulley Park other than the construction of rest rooms. William Kimbrough requested Mr. Wood to review the definitions of neighborhood parks and sub -neighborhood parks. He stated he believed the Parks Board had placed more emphasis on these two types of parks recently. Mr. Wood explained a sub -neighborhood park was a new classification for Fayetteville but not nation-wide. He stated it would cover small park facilities close to developments with 2 or 3 small parks within a small subdivision. He stated a neighborhood, in the planning sense, was approximately one mile by one mile with an arterial street on all four sides, with a school and a park in the center, making it one-half mile walking distance. Mr. Wood went on to say a community park served several neighborhoods, with more activate facilities and larger open areas for soccer, softball, baseball, etc. He pointed out there were neighborhoods that were not served by either a neighborhood nor community park. He advised he believed the introduction of sub -neighborhood parks, specifically for the developed areas, would satisfy the void in the park facilities. He explained the sub -neighborhood park was not intended for a developing area nor a substitute for a neighborhood park. Mr. Wood stated regional parks contained large open areas with camp type facilities, walkways between schools and parks, etc. Mr. Suchecki noted their number one priority had been to provide parks in established areas. He asked if the Parks Advisory Board had received requests from residents for such parks. He explained a number of people wanted parks in developing areas but he had heard of no requests for parks in established areas. Mr. Wood stated the idea of putting a sub -neighborhood park in the plan was the overall concept that they were trying to provide facilities within a reasonable distance and attempting to fill a void. Mr. Waite stated they had received requests from residents when there was hope of acquiring such land. Ms. Britton advised there were a number of residents at the Vision project hearings wanting parks. Mr. Suchecki pointed out that, when the City wanted to make improvements to Wilson Park the neighborhood was opposed to any improvements. He stated people who had lived in the community for a long time did not want a park next door with the associated parking problems and additional people in the neighborhood. Mr. Waite agreed it was a mixed blessing to have a community park in the neighborhood but some people viewed it as an asset. • • • Planning Commission February,l4-, 1994 Page 3 Ms. Britton stated the residents preferred passive parks in their neighborhoods, not ones with lighted courts, etc. Ms. Driver stated the priorities given to parks in areas of town already developed would depend on the Planning Commission's philosophy for the future in terms of whether they adopted the village concept of developing outlying areas or if they decided to build on the infrastructure already existing. She stated that, if they choose to populate further the areas already developed, the need for additional park space in developed areas would be greater than if they continued to build in an outward direction. Mr. Suchecki stated whether they adopt the village concept or not had nothing to do with areas already developed. Ms. Driver disagreed stating one philosophy was to continue to population an area of town already developed. Ms. Britton stated that was not the village concept, just infill. Ms. Driver stated the two concepts were opposite. Mr. Allred stated it stood to reason they would have both the village concept and infill. Greg Anderson stated he had strived for small (1 to 2 acres) parks in the middle of new neighborhoods. He advised such a park might have some swing sets and a cleared area where the children could play football. Mr. Pummill agreed with Mr. Anderson. He stated he had a problem with acquiring land when they did not have funds to maintain the land they had already acquired. He stated the parks were not being well maintained and parents were having to assist in maintaining the lands. Mr. Anderson stated the method for maintaining the parks had been taken away since they could no longer spray the weeds but had to pull them up. Mr. Pummill contended there were fences falling in, back stops falling over, etc. Ms. Wright stated they had discussed a millage for parks maintenance. Mr. Waite stated the argument presented by Mr. Pummill could always be made He advised there needed to be a balance between maintenance and land acquisition. Mr. Nickle advised he would like to see the Master Park Plan for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Wright asked if the Planning Commission had wanted included in the Master Parks Plan POA maintained parks (similar to Barrington Parke Subdivision). Mr. Allred stated he believed there could be an addendum to the Master Parks Plan so that type of park could be incorporated. Ms. Britton stated that could work as long as maintenance of the park was not considered fulfillment of the green space requirements. Mr. Pummill asked if she meant the Property Owners Association could not maintain their own park. Ms. Britton stated she meant the maintenance could not fulfill their greenspace obligation. She advised she believed land and equipment could be used but not maintenance. • • • • Planning Commission February .k4', 1994 Page 4 Ms. Driver stated that, in terms of acquisition of parks land, money for maintenance would always come up short. She stated that, if they did not try to stay ahead of development and growth in acquisition of park lands, by the time the development had taken place the ability to purchase park lands in those areas would be exorbitant. She stated she believed they should take the land while they could afford it. Ms. Britton pointed out the city built streets without worrying about maintenance. Mr. Waite advised the Parks Board was anxious about the Master Parks Plan and wanted to be assured it would be on the Planning Commission agenda at the next meeting so it could be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Allred pointed out it would be forwarded assuming it was approved by the Commission. Mr. Waite stated it did not have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Allred and Mr. Pummill asked why they had been reviewing it for over an hour if they did not have to approve it. Mr. Waite stated the Parks Board was recommending it to the Planning Commission and, if they wanted changes, the Board was willing to assess their requests. He advised the Planning Commission was only making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Kimbrough advised they did want the Planning Commission's input and guidance in any area which they felt was important to the long term plan. He further stated the plan needed to be approved by as many people as possible in order to be successful. He encouraged the Planning Commission's input, guidance, suggestions and assistance wherever appropriate. TIMING OF REQUIREMENT FOR GREENSPACE Mr. Tarvin explained often developers did not know how much land would be required for a park until a plat was presented. He stated that, if it was the Parks Board recommendation that a park be included, it was difficult to do it at that point because it would require the developer to re -plan the development. He suggested the earlier the Parks Board made their recommendation, the better for the developer. Mr. Anderson stated he thought most of the developers were aware of the greenspace requirements and believed it would be in the developers' best interest to start thinking ahead. Mr. Suchecki stated the developers knew the requirements but did not know if the Parks Board wanted money or land. He explained they spent time and money developing the plans and then had to re -do their plans. He asked if there was some way to have the determination made prior to submission of a plat. Mr. Kimbrough stated he believed that would be a good idea. Mr. Waite asked about the process of plat approval. Ms. Britton explained the plat was filed and went through plat review and subdivision prior to being reviewed by the entire Planning Commission. She explained if the Parks Board had not met and made a decision on the property before the Planning Commission meeting, it held up approval. She suggested the Parks Board could select areas they were interested in acquiring land and make notification of those areas to the Planning Commission. Ms. Driver stated many of their decisions depended upon the density of the development, regardless of the area. • • • • Planning Commission February k�4�1, 1994 Page 5 8491 Mr. Allred asked if the plat was not reviewed by the Parks Board after plat review but prior to Subdivision meeting. Mr. Nickle suggested requiring the plat be reviewed prior to -Planning Commission review. Mr. Kimbrough stated it would be nice if they could require the developer to submit a concept plat prior to submission of the preliminary plat. Mr. Waite stated he did not see anything they could require the developers to do but would be happy to talk to any of the developers prior to submission of the plat. Mr. Nickle advised they could change the ordinance. Ms. Britton noted the Parks Board met only once a month. Mr. Waite stated in the past they had met twice a month but now only met once a month. He stated he did not believe they had held up any subdivisions more than once or twice over the last 10 years. He pointed out they had called special meetings if there was some urgency. Mr. Tarvin stated the Parks Board apparently sent a representative to the plat review meeting and informed the developer whether the Board wanted land or money. Ms. Edmonston explained a staff member went to the Plat Review meeting and explained the requirement would be either so much land or money but the decision was not made until the Parks Board meeting. Mr. Anderson explained their decision was sometimes based on what part of town the subdivision was in, the density, what parks were available in the area, etc. Mr. Tarvin asked if it would be possible to have a small committee from the Parks Board to meet with the developer on a preliminary basis. Ms. Britton stated the Board met routinely and, if the developer would meet with the Board before he submitted a plat, there would be no hold up. She advised she believed it was the developer's responsibility to determine the Board's wishes prior to submitting the plat. Ms. Wright explained there were usually no problems except in developments containing over 75 lots. Mr. Waite explained the land dedication was a Cres per lot so it was clear on the smaller subdivisions that the Board would require money in lieu of land. He advised they could set something up for developers of larger subdivisions. He stated they could even call a special meeting if necessary. Mr. Tarvin suggested staff could advise the developer to schedule a meeting with the Parks Board in advance of preparation of the preliminary plat in order to determine whether the Parks Board would want land or money. Ms. Johnson suggested providing the developers with the guidelines used by the Parks Board so they would not have to have individual meetings. Mr. Waite stated they had their guidelines for parks and the Planning Commission had their guidelines for zoning and, if they posted them, they would never have to meet. Ms. Johnson explained she had understood the Parks Board to say they had guidelines which often had to do with the size of the development and the area of the development. She asked why that information could not be in writing and given to the developers. • Planning Commission February 3.4; 1994 • Page 6 • • Mr. Waite stated the information could be written up as guidelines but they would not be binding. He agreed that 98% of the time the guidelines would work but advised it would still take a vote of the Board. Ms. Driver explained it was also a constantly changing dynamic, giving the example that if a 5 -acre park was established for one subdivision, an adjacent development might have different considerations. Mr. Waite also explained the Parks Board needed to coordinate with various developers, determining when each subdivision would be coming in and, if possible requesting land from each developer in order to construct a park. He stated they had tried that a number of times but the coordination was too great. Mr. Reynolds stated the Subdivision Committee had made recommendations regarding parks lands on Barrington Park; that there had been no recommendations from the Parks Board. Ms. Driver stated they had a recommendation from the Parks Board which had been made the week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. She asked if the developer had failed to mention the Parks Board recommendation. Mr. Allred stated he did not believe the recommendation had been made prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting. He advised the Subdivision Committee had sent a recommendation to the Parks Board and had received no feedback. it was determined the Plat Review meeting had been January 27, the Subdivision Committee meeting had been February 3 and the Parks Board meeting had been February 7. Ms. Johnson suggested the Parks Board could have a Subdivision Committee similar to the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee which could meet more frequently than the entire Parks Board. Mr. Waite advised that, if there was such a need, they would be receptive to having either additional meetings of the full Board or a committee. In response to a question from Mr. Rimbrough, Mr. Tarvin explained once the Commission had approved a preliminary plat the developer was approved to proceed with the subdivision. He stated the design was usually complete when the plat was presented to the Commission. Mr. Allred advised the Plat Review meeting was a technical design meeting with utility company representatives and city staff. He explained that, after the Plat Review meeting, the plat was reviewed at a Subdivision Committee meeting composed of three Planning Commissioners. He went on to say the Subdivision Committee reviewed the plat as presented and recommended either approval or denial to the full Planning Commission. Mr. Nickle pointed out a parks representative was present at the Plat Review meeting. Mr. Tarvin stated the City did have written procedure which was basically a roadmap for submitting a development. He further stated he appreciated Mr. Waite's comments regarding the size of the development dictating land or money for green space requirements. He went on to say it appeared to him the procedures could be revised to include a recommendation that, for a development of a certain size, or larger, it would be prudent for a developer to contact the Parks Board before he got very far into the design process. Mr. Waite stated he was hesitate to schedule such a meeting on a regular basis but would rather have staff call special meetings, explaining he did not think there was sufficient business for regular meetings. • • • • Planning Commission February 14--x(( 1994 Page 7 20I., COMBINATIONS OF LAND AND EQUIPMENT Mr. Tarvin stated the next item was combinations of land and equipment, which was a very similar issue. He asked if it would be acceptable to donate land and equip a small park in lieu of monies. Mr. Waite explained the green space ordinance was being interpreted that they either accepted money or land, but not equipment. He explained he believed that, since there was a parks department with competent staff, they were more knowledgeable about the type of equipment needed. He advised that, individually, he would be very receptive to a developer providing both the land and equipment but, as a general case, he believed the parks staff would be more knowledgeable. Ms. Driver expressed concern they would run into questions regarding liability on equipment installed at the discretion of someone other than the city. Mr. Allred stated he believed it could be done similarly to the way streets were accepted -- the developer would complete the work and then city staff signed off that the park was constructed in a manner that complied with the ordinance. Ms. Johnson stated she believed the green space ordinance specifically authorized that. She referred to subsection (K) (5) of Section 159.30 that, if upon recommendation of the planning commission it was determined there was a unique circumstance or there would be hardship otherwise, the developer could designated land for a private park and provide recreational facilities. She stated the facilities might not mean equipment but she had read that as authorization. Mr. Waite disagreed and stated the ordinance specifically stated that, after consultation by the Commission with the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, the City Council had to vote in order for an exception to apply. He advised neither the Parks Board nor the Planning Commission could handle something of this nature. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Little advised that subdivision plats did not normally go to the City Council. Mr. Anderson stated the Parks Board could look at each individual case. He advised they had recently been talking to a developer who wanted to donate land for a park which needed walkways. He stated the developer could put in the asphalt walkways much cheaper than the Parks Department, so they were working with that developer and getting much more done for much less money. Mr. Waite advised they could look at each development individually and could, by vote of City Council, look at certain subdivisions as special cases. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Jerry Rose stated that, if land were truly dedicated to the city for a park, the city would have some liability. He pointed out, however, the city could require a developer to put in equipment which would be safe and could also monitor the equipment, being sure it was up to city standards. He stated he could not see any additional liability from the developer putting in the equipment as opposed to the city putting in the equipment. There was discussion regarding previous subdivisions in which developers desired to provide park lands, equipment and maintenance. The matter of whether private parks land could be used for green space was also discussed. Mr. Kimbrough advised he believed they should explore those issues. Mr. Tarvin stated it was the Parks Board's decision as to whether they accepted equipment or not but he believed it was a good idea to review each subdivision on a case by case basis. • • • • Planning Commission February .4', 1994 Page 8 „Aa DECISIONS OF THE PARES & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Mr. Tarvin stated they often had a recommendation from the Parks Board which the Planning Commission would like to change. He asked if the Commission had latitude to make such changes. Dale Clark stated he believed anytime the Planning Commission had suggestions or recommendations relating to Park Board decisions, they should contact the Parks staff. He advised they were open to any recommendations. Mr. Tarvin explained the Commission often had the Parks' recommendation but then the developer would make an alternative offer at the Planning Commission meeting which the Parks Board had not had an opportunity to review. He went on to say many times the Commission would like to approve the developer's idea but they did not know if they had the authority to approve such changes. Ms. Little advised the ordinance called for a consultation with the Parks Board prior to making a decision. She went on to say the ordinance read "...no land...shall be accepted unless the Planning Commission determines, after consultation with the Parks and Recreation Board..." Mr. Rose stated the ordinance was confusing and he believed it would behoove them to come to some type of agreement clarifying the ordinance. Mr. Waite pointed out the ordinance gave a formula for land and another for money, one or the other. He stated the problem came with subsection 5. Mr. Rose agreed and stated the problem came in when the developer wanted to do something different, to offer an in-kind contribution rather than cash. He advised they needed to change the ordinance. Mr. Anderson expressed his belief that, if a developer presented an entirely new concept which had not been presented to the Parks Board, the matter should go back to the Parks Board for review. Ms. Britton agreed and stated she believed decisions regarding parks should be deferred to the Parks Board. Mr. Nickle asked if the developer had a choice whether to give land or money or if the Board made the decision. Ms. Driver stated that, according to,the language of the ordinance, it could be determined to be at the discretion of the developer. She advised the language missing was that the developer be required to dedicate land or dedicate money as directed by the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and Parks Board. She pointed out if they allowed the developer to make the choice it would create havoc with any parks system. Mr. Rose agreed with Ms. Driver and stated the ordinance appeared to say it was the developer's choice. REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE Mr. Allred asked if the green space ordinance would be reviewed along with the other ordinances under consideration. Ms. Little explained the green space ordinance was in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Nickle advised he would support a change in the ordinance. • • Planning Commission February ,1RF; Planning Commission February..1-47 1994 • Page 10 as Mr. Waite explained they would have new members in the very near future and give staff a list as soon as possible. Ms. Fran Alexander, an area resident, advised often the general public were not aware a development was taking place until after the subdivision was approved. She pointed out that, when a property was rezoned, a sign went up on the property notifying the surrounding land owners. She advised there was no such notification for developments, that only the adjoining property owners were notified. She contended the area residents were directly paying the price for the new developments. She asked the area residents be able to have additional input into developments so they could be a part of the planning and a part of the result. Ms. Roseann Gonzoles, an area resident, advised the greenspace ordinance was very important to the area, explaining she grew up in an area with no greenspace. She stated they should not allow the developers to decide whether it was economically feasible to build a park. • • The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.