HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-11 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday,
June 11, 1984 at 5:00 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Admini-
stration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Newton Hailey, Jr., Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks,
Barbara Crook, Fred Hanna, Stan Green, Sue Madison
and Dr. David Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tarvin
OTHERS PRESENT:
Larry Wood, Jim McCord, David Mix, Bruce and Joan
Johnson, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members
of the press and others
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission
was called to order by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr.
MINUTES
The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the
meeting of May 29, 1984. The minutes were approved as distributed.
JIM McCORD - CITY ATTORNEY
GREEN SPACE ORDINANCE
The second item on the agenda was a discussion led by City Attorney,
Jim McCord, on the interpretation of Fayetteville's Green Space Ordinance
as amended by Ordinance 2998.
Hailey asked Jacks to clarify where the request for this discussion
originated.
Jacks stated that the need for discussion grew out of the Commissions
ability to grant a waiver of the Ordinance under particular circumstances.
He added that there have recently been two cases brought before the
Commission with need of clarification. These two developments are
Windsor Townehomes and Butterfield Trail.
Jacks said that the Planning Commission would like to have some additional
direction as for criteria in granting variances or waivers of the
ordinance.
Williams requested assistance in interpreting Section 3(a) of Ord. 2998.
He recited a part of the Ordinance and McCord corrected a portion
of it to read "...land for private park area..." instead of "...private
work area..."
/29
•
•
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 2
McCord stated that there are five criteria set forth in Section 3
and the question is whether or not the Commission or City Board has
the authority to deny a waiver (or request for a variance) if these
criteria are met.
McCord recited from a court ruling passed in California that is similar
to the Fayetteville Ordinance. "...If a legislative body were required
to give credit for private recreational areas furnished by a subdivider
in his proposed subdivision, the viability of the master plan would
be destroyed and the subdivider would be substituted for the City
as the arbiter of the community's park needs...." He told Commissioners
that they (and/or the Board of Directors) have the authority to grant
waivers or variances and he suggested that if there were a case in
which the developer met certain requirements (but not others) that
the Commissioners may make adjustments in the amount of cash or land
required. In answer to Jack's question, McCord reported that it was
alright for Commissioners to set the figures in such a case.
McCord said that, with the Commission's approval, he would prepare
a paragraph to be added to the Ordinance that would clarify the waiver
mechanism and he said that the Board of Directors has the authority
to approve such an amendment without Public Hearing. He added that
if the Planning Commission wished, instead, to hold a Public Hearing
on this matter, he was agreeable. McCord said that to remove any
ambiguity in the Ordinance, he would suggest including wording similar
to that of the California Green Space Ordinance. He added that the
California court held that this type of language did prescribe sufficiently
defined standards and so we have a legal precedent.
Madison was concerned that, with the addition of the suggested paragraph
it would be a rare incident in which the Planning Commission could
grant a variance. McCord assured her that the authority does exist
and may be exercised.
McCord said that his suggestion was to remove the possible argument
that the Ordinance does not define sufficient standards.
Jacks said that Commissioners are called upon to judge the request
for waivers in light of the master plan and must use their discretionary
power in these judgements. McCord affirmed this thought.
Williams inquired as to what the interpretation of "adequate" means
in Section 3.(d). He said he thought it could mean reduced demand
on public facilities or it could mean that "adequate" is equivalent
to, or better than, what is provided by public parks and facilities,
or some other standard of which Williams is unaware.
• McCord said that a normal, reasonable meaning would need to be placed
on the word "adequate" and applied on a case to case basis to developments.
•
•
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 3
Crook stated that this had been a consideration of hers as well and
her feeling was that it would be difficult for any developer to provide
complete facilities to serve everyone in a development. She explained
that there may still be a need for residents to use public facilities
as well as their own private facilities.
Green said that he questioned the point of whether the Ordinance is
to provide new parks or to support existing facilities. He said he
felt that after examining the master plan there would never be enough
funds to be able to build facilities which will serve all of the needs
of all of the residents of any area. As an example he cited the case
of a resident in a development with many facilities who may still
have need of the Youth Center or the Senior Citizens Center, or the
tennis courts and swimming pool at Wilson Park. Green said the way
he understood the Ordinance was that it would provide that the new
parks that are being developed specifically for a particular part
of town are being contributed to adequately by the residents who will
be generating most of the demand on those parks. He added that if
a developer was providing facilities that were comparable to what
one might expect in a new park, then that developer might apply for
a waiver.
McCord said to keep in mind that any contribution by a developer has
to be used for facilities to serve that subdivision. He added that
the facilities would not need to necessarily be within the subdivision
but within reasonable proximity. He explained that reasonable proximity
depends on the facts of any given case. He added that the Ordinance
originally said the money could be used to purchase land or provide
facilities, but has been changed to be used to purchase land.
Discussion between Fred Hanna and McCord determined that this section
of the code addresses private facilities provided by the developer
for a particular subdivision.
Madison said she didn't think the City would ever be able to serve
all of the citizens' needs. McCord responded that, because of this,
Commissioners might consider a variance of the Ordinance instead of
a total waiver.
Hailey asked what the basis was for setting the contribution at $85
for multi -family units and $105 per single-family unit.
Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, said he thought that these figures
were based on the number of anticipated lots in the neighborhood based
on the cost of providing a basic 5 -acre park for that neighborhood.
Stockdell asked if there were any formula to follow in regard to the
fourth paragraph of Section 1.(1) (an amendment of Appendix C, Article
III, Section A(1)(k)(1) in particular "...based upon actual density".
/26
9,,
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 4
McCord said that the developer would restrict the density of his project
based upon the lot size and/or a Bill of Assurance.
Williams stated that he was in favor of a Public Hearing because his
understanding of the intent of the Green Space Ordinance was as follows:
to secure and protect green space, parks and recreation areas for
the citizens of the City of Fayetteville. He said it appears that
the operating policy of the City is to give the first option to developers
to provide private green space and if that option is not acted upon,
by virtue of these minimum standards then the responsibility reverts
to the public to provide green space at $85 (or $105) per unit. Williams
stated that the felt that the operating policy was a diversion from
the Green Space policy intent.
Stockdell agreed with Williams saying that the amendment seems to
sidestep the Green Space that should be preserved for public use.
McCord stated that he thought the purpose of the Green Space Ordinance
was to insure that adequate recreational facilities are provided to
the residents of Fayetteville. He said that this particular provision
was included in the Ordinance to recognize that some developers could
provide quality recreational facilities on their own.
Stockdell cited the example of people paying school taxes even when
they do not have children in the public school system. She said that
the effects of having an educated child are greater than the amount
of tax paid. Stockdell compared this situation to that of public
parks having a positive effect on everyone's property value whether
or not they take advantage of those parks.
Green stated that everyone still supports public parks by paying taxes.
Jacks stated that there had been a version of this Ordinance that
said "...the developer shall receive credit.." and was replaced by
"...may grant a credit..." as a safety valve to be used in unusual
cases in which the Commission felt that a need for variance was valid.
Jacks clarified at Madison's request that the original Ordinance did
make a large distinction between private and public parks.
In answer to Madison's question, McCord stated that the Ordinance
would have to be administered as written. He pointed out that the
Ordinance does not require that any waiver or variance be granted.
He said it is totally discretionary with the Commission after considering
the five factors as well as the principal objectives of the master
plan.
Williams stated that, because several of the developments that have
recently come before the Planning Commission do meet all the criteria
for a waiver request, he would have to approve all of them except
•
•
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 5
for a lot split. He said it seemed like a "catch 22" situation in
that if the request for waiver were turned down it could be taken
to court where someone could demonstrate that they met all of the
criteria for providing adequate parks as well as, if not better than,
the City.
Jacks referred Williams to a section of the Ordinance "..providing
areas for community or public facilities based on a plan or plans
as set..."
Crook asked McCord if, even without the suggested amendment, Commissioners
should still take into consideration in their deliberation, the principles
of the Parks plan. She said she thought that the amendment would
add clarification.
McCord quoted Section 1.(1) of Ordinance #2998, the amendment to the
Green Space Ordinance and said that he could defend Section 3 of this
amendment without the additional paragraph but that as a matter of
clarity, he recommends said paragraph be added.
Green asked whether using these suggested guidelines, the Commission
would be setting precedent for all future cases or would it, instead
be completely discretionary as to each individual case.
He said he thought that even though two cases may be very similar
there would probably still be differences that would need to be considered.
NOTION
Williams moved that the Planning Commission request of the City Board
to add clarification to the consistency of the Parks Master Plan as
suggested by McCord.
Ernie Jacks seconded the motion, motion passed 7-1-0 with Sue Madison
voting in the minority.
MOTION
Williams made a motion that the Commission advise the City that the
operating requirements of Section 3 places the Commissioners in danger
of a series of precedent decisions that could lead to "parks for some
and parks for none" and to advise the Board to reconsider the public
intent of the Ordinance.
Melanie Stockdell seconded the motion followed by discussion.
Green requested to have the principals and objectives of the Parks
Plan read.
McCord read the following Principles and Objectives:
/21
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 6
PRINCIPLES
1. "Make possible recreation opportunities for all"
2. "Make possible great variety of recreation activities"
3. "Distribute throughout the city - based on population"
4. "Provide areas for longer periods of use - preferably at outlying
urban areas"
5. "Consider needs based on thorough study and survey"
OBJECTIVES
1. "Maintain a long range plan for the development of an adequate
parks system which will meet the demands and needs of the community"
2. "Anticipate and formulate recreation programs of interest to
the community thus providing areas for families to play together
and to enjoy their leisure time"
3. "Coordinate the activities of parks and recreation with other
agencies bidding for our time and resources"
McCord pointed out that while these are the existing Principles and
Objectives, they could be modified as the Planning Commission or the
Board of Directors deem appropriate. He inquired of Williams as to
whether the intent of his motion had been to express concern as to
whether or not there should be a waiver or variance permitted at all
providing that private facilities are provided.
Williams affirmed this and stated that another issue he was concerned
about was whether the Commission has would up in a position, by operating
procedures, to grant waivers or variances any time one is requested.
He said that the criteria would be whether or not a developer met
the minimums which are clearly stated and that it was too easy to
set a precedent.
Crook said that Williams had illustrated the danger in trying to set
up a more structured means of making these decisions. She added that
with the new clarification, she thought the Planning Commission presently
has enough basis for making decisions on an individual basis. Crook
said that perhaps the emphasis was being placed on the proposed amendment
and not taking into consideration the information that is being amended.
Stockdell said she had seconded the motion because, in the first paragraph
of Section 1, there is a reference made, that says in effect, if a
developer provides "adequate" facilities for the residents of a particular
subdivision, it may be alright to grant a waiver or variance. She
said this was not alright with her.
McCord responded that a waiver or variance is not required, it is
still discretionary.
)21
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 7
Green proposed the question of what could be done with what he thought
would not be much of a dollar contribution. He said he wasn't sure
if the Ordinance was written to accomplish what the Principles and
Objectives say it can do and that he would vote against the motion.
Green added that, in the case of Windsor Townehomes, he felt that
the developer's plans for recreation within the subdivision would
serve the residents better than if the donation was made to the parks
fund.
Crook advised that there are other funds that are used for parks and
recreation along with the fees collected from developers.
Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, stated she thought the Ordinance
wording had been changed from "...funds are to be used for the acquisition
of parks facilities" to "....parks land". (February 7, 1984).
McCord said, that in his view, the statute requires facilities and
that a park ought to be equipped.
Williams said his major concern was to keep and maintain the public
parks and green space as the City grows. He said he felt that instead
of having a dynamic, well -endowed, serious investment program to make
public parks and recreation continue into the future, what exists
is a very minuscule assessment that no longer makes enough difference
for a judgement as to whether the public needs are served as long
as there would be some private space for some people to play in.
Madison requested to know if this motion would remove the Commission's
discretion to act on individual need.
Williams said he would simply like to advise the Board of Directors
that whatever had been resolved at an earlier date, has come up as
an issue once again.
The motion was re -read and failed 2-4-2, David Williams and Melanie
Stockdell voted "yea"; Hanna, Hailey, Green and Crook voted "nay";
Jacks and Madison abstained.
RECOMMENDATION OF P b R ADVISORY BOARD
RE: REQUEST OF WAIVER OF PARKS FEE FOR
WINDSOR TOWNEHOMES - HWY. 45 & CAMBRIDGE RD
The third item on the agenda was the consideration of a recommendation
by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board concerning the waiver of
the parks fee for the large scale development of Windsor Townehomes
located at Highway 45 and Cambridge Road.
No one was present to represent the petitioners.
•
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 8
Jacks said that there has been no definite proposal for recreational
facilities presented on this project.
MOTION
Jacks moved to deny, seconded by Stockdell.
MOTION
Madison's motion to table this item superceded. Dr. Hays had requested
that Dewit Smith be present at the discussion and he was still absent
at this meeting.
Williams seconded, followed by discussion.
Crook said that the developer hase not meet the first requirement
contained in Ord. 2998, which was that they furnish the facilities
within one year and she felt this was grounds to deny.
Motion passed 5-3-0, Stockdell, Jacks and Crook in the minority.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF MINIMUM
LOT SIZE FOR LOT SPLIT BY DAVID
MIX FOR ROBERT PORTER — PORTER RD.
SOUTH OF SYCAMORE STREET
The fourth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the minimum
lot size for a first lot split submitted by David Mix for Robert Porter,
property located on Porter Road south of Sycamore Street.
Jones explained that Mix has advised her that he wishes to make this
property 10 feet deeper to the west because when the first proposal
to sell was drawn up, he was not aware that 30 feet off the original
description would be required for street right-of-way. She said Mix
and the buyer had agreed upon a certain amount of property ewxclusive
of the right-of-way for Porter Road. Jones said it still will not
meet the 3 acres required for a lot split to be approved administratively.
Jones advised that, in 1968, a Warranty Deed was executed that dedicates
...a strip of land fifty (50) feet in width along the south side
of the (above) described lands, for street and roadway purposes to
serve lands of grantors and grantees herein and the general public,
grantor to bear expense of laying out and constructing street to conform
to requirements of City of Fayetteville Planning Commission." She
said that this deed covers the tract to the north of this lot split
and is the tract on which a duplex conditional use was recently approved
by the Planning Commission. Jones reported that, as yet, no street
has been constructed here and the above mentioned 50 ft. strip of
land and (unimproved) Sycamore Street will be the only access to the
balance of the property from which the lot split is requested.
/3l
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 9
Jones said that in order to do anything else with the balance of this
property, it will probably require additional right-of-way for Sycamore,
participation in the construction of Sycamore, construction of the
50 ft. street dedication, right-of-way set aside for the collector
street (to serve as a service road along the by-pass), and possible
construction of this collector street.
Jones advised that, in addition to the above considerations, the lot
being split off can have access to public sewer by crossing Porter
Road but there will be no sewer access to the portion being retained
by Mr. Porter because the sewer line goes only part of the way down
Sycamore (but not as far as his property line). She said it appears
to be between 250 and 300 feet between his northeast property line
on Sycamore to the sewer manhole. Jones suggested, that if the grade
were right, Porter might run a sewer line along the unimproved street
to Porter.
Jones said that the portion of the property being retained is more
than the acre and a half that is required for a lot that does not
have access to a public sewer. She added that the portion being split
off does have that access.
Crook clarified the size of the lot after the additional 50 feet is
accounted for.
Jones said this parcel will be subject to the $105 parks fee based
upon a single-family residence.
David Mix said he had no questions regarding any of the information
imparted by Mrs. Jones.
Madison asked for clarification of the 50 ft. strip of land that was
dedicated as City street.
Jones stated that there was no date indicated as to when the street
should be constructed. She added that the grantors are believed deceased
and that Robert Porter is a son of the grantors. Jones said she was
unaware of the legal implications of this situation.
Crook asked if the dedication of the 50 ft. piece of property for
street purposes goes with the land and Jones said she didn't know.
Mix stated that when title passes to Robert Porter (as an heir) that
the responsibility of improving the 50 feet of roadway would also
pass to him.
MOTION
Stockdell moved to approve the request for waiver, seconded by Madison
the motion passed 8-0-0.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
June 11, 1984
Page 10
OTHER BUSINESS
WHITERIVER HARDW0ODS
Hailey referred to the Commission's concern at the meeting of May
29 for the suitability (as per code) of an operation known as White
River Hardwoods located at 1159 Happy Hollow Road. City Attorney,
McCord, as advised that question should be addressed by the Board
of Adjustment. Hailey wished to know if Commissioners would like
the Board of Adjustment to examine this use (approved by Jones).
Williams said he thought this item needed to cleared up as soon as
possible and he suggested that it needed to go to the Board of Adjustment
so that the Commission could proceed with the next request. Bruce
Johnson handed out recent received information regarding this item.
SHARED HOUSING WORKSHOP
Jones reminded Commissioners of a letter sent to them by her on April
1, 1984 in regard to a workshop on shared housing and asked if there
were any representatives interested in attending. Hailey, Crook,
Stockdell and Williams indicated that they had other plans which conflicted
with that date.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M.
133