Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-21 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday, January 21, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT•Newton Hailey, Melanie Fred Hanna, Barbara Crook, Sue Madison and Trey Trumbo MEMBERS ABSENT: None Stockdell, Joe Tarvin, Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Noland, Don Grimes, David Lashley, Beverly Melton, Y.O. York, Chuck Yarbrough, Rodney Ryan, Charlie Sego, Connie Edmonston, Dale Clark, Bill Waite, Bob Emerson, George Faucette Jr., Bobbie Jones, Patrick McKeehan, Terry Taylor and Paula Brandeis This special session of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hailey who recognized Mayor Noland and City Manager, Don Grimes and then introduced Planning Commission members as well as the Planning Office staff. David Lashley introduced members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. STATE LAW — GENERAL PURPOSE OF PLANNING Hailey invited Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Consultant Larry Wood to speak on Arkansas State Law in planning and the overall purposes of planning. Wood stated that, by virtue of State Statute, the Planning Commission has the ability to prepare plans for the City but they are not obligated to do so. For example, he said, if the Commission wished to be involved in zoning, they would need to develop a comprehensive plan. He said that everything the Planning Commission does is based on and governed by State Statute by an act that was passed in 1957 (which amended an act passed a great deal earlier). Wood said the Commission is created by Ordinance which prescribes the number of members along with terms of office and regulations. Wood said that the Commission may adopt a community facility plan which would govern schools, parks, hospitals and other community facilities He said that Commission action is to adopt a recommendation to give 15 • • • Planning Commission January 21, 1985 Page 2 to the governing body (City Board) and added that everything the Commission does is subject to the governing body with the exception of the planning area boundary including an area up to five miles from City limits. Wood said that the Statute allows the Commission to decide how Master Street Plans, zoning, community facilities, capital improvements, etc. can be adopted through public hearings. He said the State Statute determines the length of time for notices given and prescribes a Board of Adjustment which must exist if there is a zoning ordinance. He added that the Statute prescribes that the Commission may attach penalties to ordinances for non-compliance. Once the City has adopted a plan, Wood said, public bodies (schools, utility companies, etc.) must defer their plans to the Commission for review to see whether, they do comply. In answer to Stockdell's question, Wood said that if the Commission did not adopt a Master Street Plan, there would be no subdivision regulations and without these regulations, the entire LSD platting process would not exist; there would be no control over development. Wood advised that he had copies of the Planning Statutes to hand out and he agreed with Jones that part of the basis of regional planning are health, safety and general welfare. He added to that list; morals, order, convenience and prosperity. Green asked for the relationship between Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning and the Fayetteville Planning Commission and Wood replied that it is based on contractual agreement between, not only Fayetteville but Bentonville, Springdale, Rogers, Siloam Springs, Washington and Benton Counties as well. He said the plan was to tie together all the. -various planning elements of these areas and have each member pledge a certain amount as an operational membership fee to NWARP. Wood gave some background to the NWARP; he said that in 1966 HUD was very involved in planning and had sufficient funds to operate. When HUD financed (in part) the raising of the elevation of Beaver Dam, providing potential for expansion of the community, they advised that a regional planning department would be necessary. He indicated that this time frame co -existed with Fayetteville's request for assistance for subdivision planning and zoning regulations and a separate contract was executed between the NWARP and the City of Fayetteville. Wood mentioned four elements of planning; organize and co-ordinate; public and private, which in part describe what planning is. He said that the Planning Commission's main thrust was in "public" realm and within this catagory several interests may be are represented such as residential, commercial and industrial. He said it is the Planning Commission's aim, as representatives of the City, to try to guide the development of these different aspects. Although some of these useages were already in existence when the Commission was formed, Wood said it is the Commissions job to decide what Fayetteville will 16 • • • Planning Commission January 21, 1985 Page 3 look like in the future. He said that leaving placement of certain aspects to developers can lead to conflict of interest and destruction of property values, such as the case of constructing a filling station in a residential subdivision. Wood said, in considering the private sector, the Commission needs to determine where business and industry shall be located and to then determine transportation to serve all of the various interests. Wood stated that the City does not need streets which lack design or are poorly constructed and that it is the City's responsibility to maintain such facilities which become a burden (to tax payers) if they are constructed below standards. In answer to Stockdell's question, it was determined that the first evidence of the existence of a Planning Commission in Fayetteville was September 12, 1949 and the first zoning ordinance was passed in September of 1959. PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Lashley said that, because of recent controversy, he was prepared to address his discussion specifically to the Green Space Ordinance which has been worked on very hard and has been met with problems when application has been made. Lashley said that the Advisory Board feels that the Green Space Ordinance is an equitable plan which, although not pleasing to everyone, is very beneficial to the City and the general population. He said that his group has had a difficult time obtaining funds for parks and that they have found that the single most potential producer of revenue for long-range park plans is this ordinance. Lashley stated that the long range park development indicates areas in which the Board believes parks will be needed (contingent on resi- dential development and growth). He said specific sites are not selected until needs are eminent and funds are available and that sites are currently being sought in both the northeast and northwest areas of Fayetteville. Lashley said it is the Planning Commission's respons- ibility to make recommendations to the City Board, after consultation with the PRAB on park development matters. He said he didn't expect the Commission and the PRAB to always agree on issues but that he also didn't feel the PRAB should be told how to interpret or what answer to give. Lashley said the PRAB appreciates having guidelines and that they have an awareness of policy in the course of their deliberations. He advised that the PRAB has no authority to grant exceptions or waivers and that they do carefully examine each case individually. He said 17 Planning Commission January 21, 1985 Page 4 he takes exception to the allegation that the PRAB has been acting in an arbitrary manner. He said that the PRAB has denied the granting of waivers because they do not feel that waivers are the intention of the ordinance and that, further, the PRAB has the responsibility of making a choice for recommendation to the Commission on the exaction of cash in lieu of land dedication where, in the PRAB judgement, they have reasoned that the land is not suitable for park needs, is not in an optimum location to serve the district, is too close to an existing park, or is not of an amount of land which conforms to PRAB criteria for sizing neighborhood parks (found in the master plan that the City Board adopted for parks planning). Lashley said he felt the PRAB is the body best suited to interpreting the intent of the Green Space Ordinance because they were instrumental in initiating it, leading to its drafting and adoption. He said the PRAB does not believe that all land should be developed nor that the determination of what land we use for parks be left to those who have vested interest. Lashley stated that the Parks Board has enough flood plain land. He said part of their plan is to prevent congestion in overpopulated sections of town without green space buffers or recre- ational areas. He added that there is some land that is just not suitable for parks and that to acquire that land would require additional responsibility for maintenance without having any value as park space. Jacks, an original member of the committee that formed the Green Space Ordinance, said that when the ordinance was drafted the intent was that, in the majority of cases money would be requested in lieu of land. He said in order to avoid little pieces of land scattered all over town they put a minimum acreage requirement in the ordinance. Lashley said that a developer voluntarily constructing recreational facilities at a multi -unit apartment complex does not seem to meet the intent of the ordinance which is to serve the public with public parks or green space. Crook said she thought the question of granting waivers of subject Ordinance began with Butterfield Trail Village who volunteered to provide recreational areas for their residents whom are all 65 years or older. She said the Commission was advised by City Attorney McCord that they did have the right to consider a waiver. She said she feels, in retrospect, that a mistake was made because it has set a precedent which has led developers to believe that waivers are possible. Stockdell said that she had voted in favor of granting a waiver in the case of Butterfield Trail and that part of her thinking was that this was a case of serving unique needs which ties in with a comment made by Jacks that a waiver had been granted in the case of complex housing only handicapped citizens, also with special needs. 18 • • • Planning Commission January 21, 1985 Page 5 Jacks said that when the ordinance was developed, the issue of giving credit for private development was discussed many times and a decision was made that parks should serve the public, not private developments. Hanna said that if the ordinance states that a credit may be given for recreational facilities that there will be questions asked by developers as to why they have to pay the full amount and Stockdell responded that unless the recreational area or land given by the developer is open to the public then it is not a public facility. Comment was made that those developments with recreational facilities are including a charge for those facilities in the rent to tenants. Lashley advised that there is a difference between recreational facilities and parks or nature land and that people using their private recreational facilities will also use green space and parks in other areas. Charlie Sego said that the PRAB thought they had made a valid decision in the case of Butterfield Trail Village but regret that it has opened it up to many developers requesting exceptions. Discussion ensued as to various individuals feelings on how the Green Space Ordinance should be interpreted. Crook said she felt that if the Planning Commission was consistent in the way they apply this ordinance, that waiver requests will stop coming in. Lashley said, although he would probably never see a tract of donated land that was worthy of a waiver, that he and the PRAB can only make recommend- ations and do not have the final say on this matter. Jacks said McCord has advised that, an ordinance, unless it was written exclusively, is permissive and that the waiver clause is written into the ordinance to provide for that possibility. He added that the ordinance states "may" grant a waiver, not "shall". Crook suggested that Section 5, which states that " may waive or vary the requirements provided..." needs to be thought out if waivers are to be considered. OFFICE PROCESSING AND FEES Planning Administrator, Bobbie Jones, explained that there are various deadlines to be met in the Planning Office in order for a petitioner to present his appeal at any one of four meetings that may apply at the time. She said that, at times, it is difficult for the staff to complete the (sometimes complex and tedious) preparations on time because of the amount of detail that goes :Lnto each case. Jones said that the Planning Department is also responsible for preparing newspaper notices, mapping out the property (which is usually in metes and bounds) and preparing the sign for the property (which she relies on the Inspection Department to place and pick up). She said the deadlines for the various meetings are written up and Crook suggested 19 • • • Planning Commission January 21, 1985 Page 6 mailing a copy of it to certain engineers and developers. George Faucette, Jr., Realtor, commented that most developers would not have any use for the handout more than once or twice a year and that the list would probably end up in the trash. Jones added that it would be almost impossible to hand someone a short, concise, easy to understand list of requirements and deadlines, as there are so many things that would need to be on it some, of which will not apply to what a particular developer is trying to accomplish. Jacks noted that the situation was somewhat relieved by the formation of the Subdivision Committee who approve (or recommend approval) of a large scale development which does not require any waivers, before the Planning Commission reviews it. He added that he has received a manual from Texas that streamlines zoning procedures in that state most of which centers around meetings between the Planning Commission and certain members of the Board who have power of the Board approval. Jacks suggested that this measure could eliminate the one week between the regularly scheduled meetings of these two groups. Jacks commented that during the recent recession, there has usually been not more than three items on an agenda, but that, in the last year, with the economy growing stronger, there have been many three page agendas which tend to create more time pressure. Jones indicated that the making of maps is the most time-consuming chore because of a great amount of unplatted property which means platting out metes and bounds descriptions. Stockdell asked if there is personnel in the office to do just that and Jones replied that she has requested an additional full-time person this year but it is as yet undecided. Jones stated that the fees charged by the Planning Department does not always cover costs. She explained that a re -zoning petition cost the petitioner $60 but if it entails publishing a long legal description in the newspaper, it can cost as much as $90 which will usually be made by publishing several shorter notices. In answer to Hailey's question, Jones said that if the amount of time spent in the office preparing maps is included, the cost of a re -zoning is not recovered. Stockdell asked if there were any plans to correct this deficiency and Jones said that, although some have suggested leaving the publishing of the notice to the petitioner, she did not think that would work. Jones added that the Planning Office also puts out a full agenda for the Board of Adjustment meetings and a full set of minutes for the Plat Review Committee, the Subdivision Committee, the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission. 20 • • • Planning Commission January 21, 1985 Page 7 Note was made that the minutes from the Planning Commission reach the Board of Directors before additions and corrections, if any, have been made by Commissioners. Because of this, Hailey said he preferred that consideration of a re -zoning by the City Board be delayed for three weeks between a Commission recommendation and two Board of Directors meetings. Faucette said that that would not work well for the petitioner who is waiting to begin a project on a property that is up for re -zoning. Crook suggested having a Commissioner at the City Board meeting to present Commission actions taken the Monday before or that a City Board member attend the Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Noland advised that a problem occurs when the Commission takes an action on a petition and sends it on to the Board where, subsequently, residents of the neighborhood in question will all appear to speak because they feel it is their last chance to have any say-so in the matter. Jones suggested that Board members refer these issues back to the Planning Commission because the point of a Public Hearing is to listen to these people at that time. Hanna said he would like to hold a Planning Commission meeting every week in order to avoid the lengthly meetings that have been occurring lately and he suggested that speakers could be asked to limit their speaking time. Jones added that having a "sign -in" register of citizens who wished to speak on an issue would be helpful. She said a Commission in California has tried grouping items on the agenda that had already been reviewed by the staff and were sent on to the Commission with a "do pass" recommendation for the Commission to rubber stamp. Crook said she felt that every citizen had a right to say what was on their mind to which Stockdell agreed. Madison supported the idea of those wishing to speak registering at the door with the register being brought to the Chairman who would then call on those registered. Jones said a previous Commissioner, Morton Gittleman, had said that the Commission should study for consistency and conformity to the plan and not let politics influence thein, leaving the politics of an issue to the Board. Jones went on to advise that, in her personal experience, it takes a full half day to prepare a re -zoning appeal or a Board of Adjustment request. She also explained that the Planning Office attempts to verify complaints that are received but that if staff cannot visually verify a problem from the street, someone will be required to testify that there is a violation and most people hesitate or are afraid to give their names or testify. Wood commented that the amount of information provided in Commissioners packets appear to be burdensome to staff. After some discussion of what might be omitted from agendas, it was decided that nothing would 21 • • • Planning Commission January 21, 1985 Page 8 be culled as information of no importance to one Commissioner was valuable to another. DISCUSSION OF PREVIOUSLY PLATTED PROPERTY Crook said there seems to be some question as to whether the Green Space Ordinance applies to property which was platted prior to the adoption of this ordinance. She advised that the Chestnut Apartments property was not replatted even though it is being developed other than the way in which it was originally platted. Jones said that subject plat was filed in the 1920's and none of the improvements were ever put in. She said that there are two very large and very old plats in Fayetteville that are in a similar situation; Evins Farm Addition and Parkers Plat of Valley View Acres. Jones said that McCord had, at one time, advised that there was no clarification and that it applied to previously platted properties but that money received should not be refunded because the decision was not retroactive. She explained that the ordinance applies to lot splits, re -plats and large scale developments. Jones said that: since that time, McCord, McWethy and Grimes have conferred and decided that the money should be refunded. Noland said that the Board is not aware of these old plats and that they would probably be receptive to receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission as to a cut-off date for plats to which the Green Space Ordinance shall apply. Crook suggested that the Commission accept a recommendation from the Planning staff on this issue to be discussed at the Commissions next meeting, as the staff would have more history on subject plats. It was agreed to place further discussion of the Green Space Ordinance on agenda for the January 28 meeting. DISCUSSION ON PREPARATION FOR MEETINGS The land use map was discussed and Jones indicated that the updated version is nearly complete and will be replaced in the Board Room soon. Jacks said that it would help to have visual aids at meetings and suggested using an overhead projector for presentation. Noland said he might be able to work that out. Those present decided unanimously to hold a second orientation meeting in February to discuss items on this evening's agenda which had not been covered and to add a discussion of drainage studies to that list. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. 22