HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-25 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday,
February 25, 1985 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board of Directors' Room of
the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Barbara Crook,
Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Stan Green and Joe Tarvin
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Newton Hailey and Trey Trumbo
Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Warren Cotner,
Philip Moon, A.I. Graves, James Sandlin, David
Lashley, Jeremy Hess, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis,
members of the press and others
The regularly scheduled meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair
Stockdell and the minutes of the February 11 meeting were considered.
MINUTES
Stockdell made the following addition: Page 7, next to last paragraph;
"...to their property if it is in keeping with the existing standards."
With this correction, the minutes stood approved as mailed.
PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING APPEAL R85-5
WARREN COTNER - HWY: 112 NW OF BYPASS
•
The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on rezoning appeal
R85-5 submitted by Warren Cotner for property located on Hwy. 112
northwest of the bypass. This item was tabled at the meeting of February
11 for lack of sufficient information and a request to reduce the
size of the area requested for rezoning. Upon a motion by Jacks and
a second by Green, this item was removed from the table for discussion.
J
Cotner stated that he has reduced the size of the area in question
from 7.27 acres to 2.92 acres including the existing house and barn.
A. I. Graves, Route 2, Fayetteville spoke in favor of this petition.
He stated he sold Cotner the property in question. He also stated
that he has no plans to leave the area but, in fact, has recently
made a considerable investment in his new home on property which abuts
Cotner's. Graves said he did not feel that the proposed development
poses any threat to his property especially if the green belt idea
40
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 2
is developed, being far superior to anything existing in this neighbor-
hood now. He noted that the City has rezoned all of the property
on the east side of Hwy. 112 without notifying him, an adjacent property
owner. Graves said he does not understand the difference between
allowing "strip" zoning on one side of the highway but not the other.
Jimmy Terry, representative of the Commonwealth Theatres (112 Drive-in
Theatre - 6 acres), said that his organization thinks what Cotner
has planned will be a compliment to the neighborhood and he added
that he has spoken with Brian McBride of Ozark Windows who said he
is also in favor of this petition, particularly the greenbelt.
Jim Sandlin, the neighbor abutting Cotner's property on the west side,
wished to express his opposition to this petition. He said he bought
his property 10 years ago from Graves and thought at that time that
Graves would probably never sell any more. He said if and when Graves
decides to sell any more of his property, he felt the Planning Commission
would have a difficult time denying a commercial (C-2) zoning to that
parcel if requested. Sandlin said he would like to know where the
access to the proposed winery/restaurant will be; where the parking
will be; and if the old house be made into a restaurant. He said without
answers to these questions, he is not sure if he is for or against
the project and he felt the Commission should have these answers before
making a decision. He said if parking is adjacent to his property,
the lights will shine into his backyard and it will be impossible
to block the noise coming from the restaurant. Sandlin said the old
house on Cotner's property is less than 200 ft. from his house.
Stockdell advised that she has received a letter from Denise Nemec,
who states that her parents live in the vicinity of Cotner's property
and request that the Commission view this request favorably. Stockdell
then closed the public hearing to Board Discussion.
Crook said she understood that the Commission had requested Cotner
return with an overall plan in addition to a reduction in size of
the requested rezoning to aid in their decision. She noted that an
overall layout has not been presented at this time.
Cotner said he did not think the Commission wanted a detailed plan
and he said he complied with this Board's request in reducing the
size of the area to be rezoned.
Crook replied that only a general plan was requested, not a detailed
plan and Cotner said if Sandlin had been present at the last meeting
he would know that he intends to remodel the barn into a winery and
refurbish the old home. Crook said the Commission had asked for such
information as where the access would be and Cotner advised that he
had said it would probably be across from Ozark Windows.
1/6
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 3
Philip Moon, council for Cotner, stated that Cotner has stated that
the road was to have come in, initially, through the vineyards to
show off the beautification of the area. He added that there could
be another access road on the north side if anyone should request
a second point of access. Moon said that Cotner had pointed out,
on the map, the location of Sandlin's property at the last meeting.
Moon said it was his clients understanding at the end of the previous
meeting, that if the size of the area were reduced and the location
of the buildings were shown that he would be in compliance.
Hanna said the thing that disturbs him is that he did not realize
the proximity of house to be refurbished to Sandlin's house. He said
there is no buffer at all between the two houses. Hanna noted that
Consultant Wood has recommended no change in zoning. Moon said they
have kept the green belt around the restaurant because they want to
insure that the area remain A-1. Hanna said the highway was a logical
dividing place between C-2 and A-1 but that he saw a problem in the
location of the reduced request if the restaurant were to be in the
old house because of cars entering and exiting. He noted that the
reduced request has been moved all the way to the west side of the
property when what he (Hanna) had in mind was something closer to
the part of Highway 112 which runs north/south in front of the theatre.
Moon said that was not brought up last time and Cotner said that Hanna
has stated he is opposed to strip zoning and is reversing himself
at this time. Hanna said he did not say he was opposed to strip zoning
but that what he did say was that Cotner's idea was a good one but
he was not aware of the proximity of Sandlin's house at the time.
Moon stated that this business will not be a "neon sign atmosphere"
but a nice subtle atmosphere compatible with the A-1 district.
Stockdell asked if Cotner had received any further word on the feasibility
of turning the old house into a restaurant. Cotner replied that he
has not because it does not seem logical to him to spend the tens
of thousands of dollars for planning the restaurant until he has approval
from the City. He added that the restaurant can be put in the winery.
He also said he thought it would be a shame not to keep the historic
home. Cotner said is not particularly in favor of being in the restaurant
business, but that it would merely add to the other areas of what
he is proposing. He said he did not understand why Planning Consultant
Wood had recommended a green belt plan and then opposes the rezoning
on the grounds of "spot zoning in interiors".
Madison clarified that the request for C-2 district is to operate
a restaurant from the old house, but noted that the practicality of
doing so still remains in question. She said she expected that when
Cotner appeared at this meeting, he would have engineers (or equivalent)
plans for the house and if the house cannot be used, the area to be
rezoned might not need to abut Sandlin's backyard. Madison asked
if a determination was made as to whether C-2 is the zoning required
for a restaurant. Moon said that C-2 was least intrusive for this.
4q
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 4
Crook noted that a restaurant is allowed in C-1 but C-2 is necessary
for dancing or entertainment and Moon said it might be desirable to
have entertainment such as a piano bar or classical music.
Crook asked about the road access situation and Cotner said although
there is an existing road on the north side of the property, he sees
it as a road to only the vineyard as trees would have to been removed
to use it as anything else. He said he will put a drive wherever
the City or State thinks is best and he thought that would probably
be on the north/south segment of Highway 112. Crook suggested that
parking might be kept to the east of Cotner's east boundary for Sandlin's
comfort but Cotner said that lights would be a problem from any spot
to the east. It was determined that part of the problem is the difference
in elevation between Sandlin's house which is at about 1280 ft. and
Cotner's old house which is at about 1245 ft.
Jacks clarified that the winery could be built without any change
in zoning. He suggested that Cotner go ahead with his winery plans
and, as the feasibility of a restaurant in the old house was questionable,
that it would allow time to develop plans for the restaurant. Cotner
replied that he cannot sell the package and Moon said investers may
not be as interested in a winery alone as they would in the total
package including the restaurant and retail sales.
In answer to Madison's question, Moon replied that Cotner would rather
not have a retail "neon" wine shop but wishes to promote his product
from the planned restaurant as part of a tour.
Green noted that Wood's recommendation advises that the general plan
calls for this land to be A-1 as it is now. He asked if that plan
makes sense over a long period of time. Wood replied that there has
not been much planning done in this area and it has not been amended.
Green asked if Wood had any idea of what eventually might be recommended
at this corner and Wood said he did not. Wood said that he is sympathetic
with what Cotner is trying to do and indicated that he had told Cotner
that he would lean toward recommending Commercial if the Commercial
were totally surrounded by a green belt especially on the eastern
portion of the property because of the C-2 on the opposite side of
the street. He added that when he saw the relationship and direct
contact of the proposed C-2 with the adjoining properties, he changed
his mind and did not submit a favorable recommendation. Wood said
that R-1 would be the least zoning to be recommended, possibly R-1.5
or R-2 but not R-3 especially on the western portion of the property.
Madison asked if Wood knew of any plans to straighten the vicious
curve around Highway 112 and Wood said that he did not. In answer
to Hanna's question, Wood said he felt the same way about his original
recommendation with regards to the green belt surrounding the C -zone.
Wood added that he fears for setting a precedent and the potential
status in court if C-2 is placed immediately adjoining R -zoned property.
N8
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 5
Madison asked how much of a buffer Wood thought was necessary to protect
the property to the north and Wood replied that he thought it was
not the dimension so much as getting the C -zone away from the adjacent
property.
Stockdell asked if Wood's recommendation would be different if part
of the north border of the rezoning proposal were dropped somewhat
southward but it was determined that this plan would make the existing
structure non -conforming. Wood said that his recommendation would
be different if the borders of the proposed rezoning were pulled away
from the adjoining property lines.
Green said he thought Cotner has agreed to do everything he can to
satisfy Sandlin and that an alternative solution would be to accept
a Bill of Assurance from Cotner restricting the use of the C -zoned
district. He said he thought the opportunity existed to make the
area better than it currently is, noting that the subject property
had the potential of ending up as higher density use with apartments
or other more offensive uses. Green advised that Sandlin would be
protected by a Bill of Assurance if Cotner's business failed.
Sandlin stated that, although these measures may solve some of the
privacy problems, but he said he is more concerned about Graves selling
off property to the west which could be rezoned. Green said if there
were a Bill of Assurance with the winery and restaurant, the Commission
should have no problem restricting the next property to the same set
of circumstances. Sandlin said he might agree except that things
change including the members of this Commission.
Tarvin asked if moving the house has been considered and Moon replied
that their desire is to keep things as they are in their natural setting.
Hanna said he would not like restaurant traffic in his backyard; Green
said it could be worse as in 24 apartment units. Hanna said he felt
the same as Sandlin and would vote against the request.
Jacks pointed out that the Commission is being asked to rezone an
area for which they do not know what will happen. He said they are
being asked to assert commercial zoning into what is, at the moment,
agricultural property. He said as long as there is a house, particularly
at the location of Sandlin's, he was reluctant to vote for this appeal
as it would be very different compared to the zoning as is. He said
he has been of the opinion all along that they needed to have a real
idea of where the various components will be located. Jacks said
he is very disturbed about the proximity of Sandlin's house to the
Cotner property.
Green asked if there were any possibility of Sandlin and Cotner working
out a compromise between them and Sandlin said he would if Cotner
would. Cotner said he had visited with Sandlin after the last Commission
gel
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 6
meeting to explain his plans and at that time, Sandlin had expressed
appreciation of the plans as he was worried that higher density develop-
ment would take place at this site. Cotner said he offered to buy
Sandlin's property if Sandlin were concerned about the winery as he
(Cotner) intends to settle in Fayetteville.
Madison said she could understand Cotner's surprise at Sandlin's second
opinion, but she reminded Cotner that the Commissioners themselves
had expressed serious doubts regarding the rezoning, some of which
have not yet been satisfied. Madison said she still thinks it is
a wonderful idea but that it needs some fine tuning.
Stockdell advised that the Commission, in general, is somewhat "goosey"
about rezoning from a very non-commercial usage to a potential intensive
use such as a commercial district and so the more information that
is provided, although the results of which would not always be favorable,
would be more likely to solicit favor.
Moon said that Jacks had stated at the last meeting that he had no
qualms about the rezoning if it were reduced in size. He said now
that it has been reduced, he felt the request was in compliance.
Crook said she saw two possibilities; one would be to work things
out mutually between Cotner and Sandlin; and, the other would be to
rezone the east 200-300 ft. which would keep a buffer between Cotner
and Sandlin's property.
Tarvin said he did not think it would help if Cotner came back with
detailed plans because it would not change the proximity of the Cotner
house to Sandlin's house. He thought it best to work out a compromise.
Moon said that he thought they had worked out a compromise in reducing
the size of the request. He added that it will require an engineer's
study at great expense to work out more plans.
Jacks said he was not interested in elaborate designs but would like
to know whether the house is structurally capable of housing the restaurant
and if it is not, then he thought the door would be open for Cotner
to propose something else and if it is, there might be a problem.
Moon asked if Jacks meant that if the house is not structurally correct
it should be removed from the proposal and Jacks replied that he thought
it might be smart to do so.
Cotner said he felt that the Commission was placing him hostage to
Sandlin as he would be the one to approve the plans and not the Board.
Green said that if the City had done its planning in the subject area,
he did not think it would develop as C-2. He said he was sympathetic
to Cotner's proposal but noted that Sandlin will be more impacted
50
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 7
than anyone else in the City of Fayetteville. He said if something
could be worked out to protect Sandlin's property to his satisfaction,
then the Commission might be willing to go along with the plan.
Jacks said he felt the Commission owed a duty to Sandlin. Madison
said a buffer would aid in not continuing the C-2 zone further.
Cotner asked if the Commission would recommend a buffer of a particular
amount of footage and that he would look at the property in those
terms. Stockdell noted that the setback requirement is 15 ft. from
the abutting residential zone.
Crook said she has visited the old house on Cotner's property and
she would not like to see it torn down as it is very beautiful and
she added that her preference is Cotner and Sandlin compromising.
Tarvin said if Sandlin had not been in opposition to this petition,
the Commission would probably not have any problem approving it, but
as it is, they feel an obligation to protect citizens.
Moon said he needs to know a distance to put between Sandlin's house
and the proposed restaurant and Stockdell offered the suggestion of
moving the house to which Moon responded once again that they did
not want to disturb the present placements.
Stockdell asked if the petitioner would like to have this tabled until
he has an opportunity to speak with Mr. Sandlin. Cotner agreed.
MOTION
Green moved to table this appeal until Cotner had an opportunity to
work out a compromise with the adjoining property owner, James Sandlin;
seconded by Madison, the motion to table passed 7-0-0.
Green noted that given the location of the houses in question, he
did not think it would be possible to get a physical separation that
would be great enough to satisfy everyone concerned and suggested
Cotner find out what else might satisfy Sandlin.
In answer to Crook's question, Sandlin said he has not measured the
distance between his house and his south property line, but he thought
it was about 200 feet.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE
B. R. PEOPLES - 2487 BRISTOL PLACE
The third item on the agenda was a request submitted by B. R. Peoples
to waive the driveway safety zone for property located at 2487 Bristol
Place. The driveway would be 4' from the opposite property line. Madison
51
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 8
noted that there is an ordinance amendment pending that would reduce
the driveway safety zone and she expressed concern that requests would
grow as a result of this. Stockdell and Administrator Jones agreed.
MOTION
Jacks moved approval, seconded by Tarvin, the motion to approve passed
7-0-0.
REVISIONS FOR CHESTNUT II APARTMENTS
The fourth item on the agenda was a report from the Subdivision Committee
on revisions requested by Lindsey and Assoc. for Chestnut II Apartments
located on Chestnut and Ernie Jacks Blvd. Stockdell noted that the
revisions had been reviewed and approved by the Subdivision Committee
and Chairman Green agreed to answer any questions regarding this plat.
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CREEP SPACE ORD.
LIFESTYLES - SYCAMORE WEST OF PORTER
The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the green"
space ordinance submitted by Lifestyles for property located on Sycamore
west of Porter Road.
Stockdell said a member of the Lifestyles organization had spoken
with her prior to this meeting and had indicated that it did not make
a difference to them whether the waiver was approved or not.
Jacks asked if Lifestyles residents were physically capable of using
City park recreation facilities and Stockdell said they were.
Green noted that these residents had slightly different needs than
most and that they usually depended on the company van and traveled
in a group.
Tarvin said he thought Lifestyles facility was more like a hospital
or school whereby residents were shortterm and moved on when finished.
Hanna said he felt any kind of break the Commission could give would
be helpful to this organization because of their financial situation.
He noted that he would feel the same in any other similar situation.
Stockdell advised that there was no recommendation from the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board regarding this development.
Madison noted that when Butterfield Trail Village was granted a waiver
or the Green Space Ordinance it was because the residents would make
no demands on the City's parks due to their age and not because of
52
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 9
the development of extensive recreation. Green said he based his
vote on the latter. (Madison later corrected this statement and noted
that extensive development of recreational facilities had been one
of the considerations in that waiver). Jacks said he had based his
vote on the fact that the senior citizens impact on City parks would
be virtually none. Crook noted that Butterfield Trail Village residents
had special needs for recreation that the City may not be planning
on providing.
Tarvin said he knows of a case in which a young resident of Lifestyles
goes home to live after several months at the facility and he pointed
out that her family has had to pay a parks fee for their home.
NOTION
Hanna made a motion to waive the green space ordinance; seconded by
Tarvin, the motion to waive the ordinance -failed to pass 3-4-0, with
Tarvin, Hanna and Green voting in favor of.
Stockdell inquired of David Lashley, member of the PRAB, why there
had not been a recommendation from that Board with regard to this
development. Lashley replied that by not approving a waiver, the
requirement remained. He said that his Board had a hard time deciding
whether or not to waive the requirement as they basically do not support
the idea of waivers but they also see Lifestyles as a unique program.
He said the impact of the handicapped on the parks system will, this
year, cost a great deal as an updating program is in order for accomodat-
ing the physically impaired.
MOTION
Jacks moved that Lifestyles be required to meet the Greenspace Ordinance.
Madison seconded followed by discussion.
Green wished to clarify that this Board usually receives a recommendation
from the PRAB in terms of land to be donated or cash in lieu of land.
He pointed out that at this time, the Commission has not received
guidance from the PRAB.
Crook advised that any recommendation by this Commission will proceed
to the City Board. The question was called and the motion to disallow
a waiver of the Greenspace Ordinance passed 4-3-0, Green, Tarvin and
Hanna voting "nay".
DISCUSSION AND MEMO REGARDING CUT-OFF
DATE FOR THE GREENSPACR ORDINANCE
The sixth item on the agenda was a discussion, including reference
to a memo issued by Planning Administrator Jones, regarding a cut-off
53
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 10
date for applying the Greenspace Ordinance. Stockdell noted that
three dates have been significant, as per the Planning Office. The
first is September 12, 1960, the second July 6, 1970 and the third
date being January 20, 1981.
MOTION
Crook made a motion that a date for a Public Hearing be set and that
the City Attorney be requested to draft an amendment to the Subdivision
Ordinance stating that the Greenspace Ordinance applies to a parcel
of land for which an approved plat was filed prior to September 12,1960
and to land for a which an approved plat is filed after January 20,
1981. Jacks seconded, followed by discussion.
Crook explained that she choose these dates because there has been
guidance in the codes that refers to the dedication of land for parks
between these dates creating a demand on the developers at that time
while there was no such reference prior to Sept. 12, 1960.
Crook noted that Jones has advised that applying the ordinance, as
per this proposal, would bring some of the very old plats into compliance.
Jones said there has been some question as to whether the ordinance
should apply to large scale developments previously platted.
The motion to hold a public hearing as stated passed 7-0-0.
DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The seventh item on the agenda was a discussion of those ordinance
amendments proposed by the Update Committee and not yet approved by
the Planning Commission.
Commissioners decided that they would prefer to have the proposed
ordinances before them for discussion and elected to postpone this
discussion until the next meeting. Jones advised that she will meet
with Consultant Wood and Street Superintendent Powell to finalize
a recommendation regarding driveway safety zones. She also noted
that Wood has drafted a proposed Use Unit 29 that will be used in
conjunction with Zoning District R-1.5.
51
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 11
OTHER BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN BAILEY'S RECOVERY: Stockdell reported that Chairman
is well on the way to recovery and plans to be back very soon.
Hailey
APPOINTMENT OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Stockdell advised that Hailey
has requested that she announce the members of the Subdivision Committee.
They are Sue Madison, Ernie Jacks, Joe Tarvin and Barbara Crook. She
said Hailey has requested these members select a chairman.
DISCUSSION OF MEMO FROM CITY MANAGER GRIMES REGARDING GREENSPACE ORDINANCE
Stockdell said if there were no objections from Commissioners, she
would like to address each of five points in said memo separately.
1. "There appears to be no appeal procedure for instances where
a developer and the Planning Commission disagree as to whether
a proposed public park site is "suitable" or in conformance..."
Stockdell advised that Art.5, Sec.B of App.0 states that an applicant
may petition the City Board for a review of a plat that has been dis-
approved by the Planning Commission. She cited an actual case in
which a development was denied approval on Stubblefield Road.
Hess said he thought that section of code applied to private parks
and not public parks. Crook pointed out that the section of.code .cited
cited
...... ........... ....
by Stockdell refers to the administration of subdivision regulations.
by Stockdell refers to the administration of subdivision regulations.
Jacks clarified further by saying that anything the Planning Commission
denies may be appealed to the City Board.
Hess said he thought this did not apply to the Greenspace Ordinance
and Stockdell advised that through the platting process the issue
of the Greenspace Ordinance is addressed and if the plat is denied
(for lack of compliance in any area) the petitioner may appeal to
the Board of Directors.
Hess said he understood this process
that the Greenspace Ordinance was a
referred Hess to Sec.I and Sec.II of
Provisions and Required Improvements,
that the Greenspace Ordinance is one of
Improvements.
applying to a plat but thought
totally separate issue. Crook
Subdivision Regulations, General
respectively. She then noted
the items under Sec.II, Required
Jacks reiterated that this section of code meant that if the Planning
Commission disapproved a plat for non-conformance of required improvements
(including Greenspace requirement) then a petitioner could appeal
to the Board of Directors.
55
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 12
Green said he cannot recall a time when this situation has come up
at a Subdivision Committee meeting. He noted the plat of Lifestyles,
stating that the plat was approved when the recommendation from the
PRAB had not yet been received. He said it is often the case that
the contribution to Greenspace has not yet been determined at the
time of the Subdivision Committee.
Crook advised that in her service with the Subdivision Committee,
she has always made it a point to ask the developer if they understand
that their development is subject to the Greenspace Ordinance.
Hess said he has had to go through many sections of a fairly complicated
book to find out if he and the Commission are speaking of the same
issue. He said he is concerned that when a developer comes before
the Subdivision Committee or the Planning Commission and there is
a disagreement, that there be an avenue of appeal. Hess said it did
not seem that one existed with regards to Greenspace.
Crook said she thought this procedure could be made more clear to
developers.
Stockdell referred to a development that Hess brought through some
time ago with a request to modify a driveway requirement. She noted
that Hess and the Subdivision Committee negotiated this issue to a
point of satisfaction but that if Hess had wanted to hold to what
he had originally submitted with the Committee being unwavering, Hess
would have had recourse to appeal to the City Board. She advised
that the same procedure applies to the Greenspace Ordinance.
Green cited an appeal mechanism noted in Art.IV, Sec.I(6) for large
scale developments. He inquired why extra wording is necessary if
Sec.5(A) applies to everything.
Administrator Jones cited another example of a plat being disapproved
by the Subdivision Committee and appealed to the City Board.
For further understanding, Hess inquired if, as part of the plat process,
the requirements of the Greenspace Ordinance are addressed. Stockdell
said that that is correct. Hess noted that within the Greenspace
Ordinance itself, there is no avenue for appeal but expressed satisfaction
in knowing that there is such a mechanism in general for plat denial.
Green said he felt the Subdivision Committee should receive recommendation
from the PRAB before a plat is reviewed by said committee in light
of the process for appeal.
Jones advised that the Plat Review minutes usually reflect comments
made by a representative of the PRAB stating the ratios of land or
cash, and what she thinks the recommendation of the Board will be
and advises of the date and time at which the PRAB will meet to discuss
S6
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 13
that particular plat. She noted that a recommendation would have been
received for Lifestyles from the PRAB if their meeting had not been
called at the last minute because of snow. In answer to Madison's
question, Jones said that the avenue of appeal was a written request
to the City Board. Crook advised that the same situation would apply
to a developer if they refused to install sanitary sewer.
2. "...it was pointed out that several...city parks (Root, Bates,
Hotz,...) would probably not today be found suitable because
they are less than the five acre minimum for "neighborhood" parks...
Should the Plan be updated or amended in some way to establish
a "sub -neighborhood" park category for tracts of less than five
acres?"
Stockdell began the discussion by commenting that these three named
parks were created before the parks plan was developed.
Crook said she thought this item should come before the PRAB for a
recommendation.
Stockdell said that she had viewed the Board meeting at which Hess
had broached the Greenspace Ordinance discussion and that she did
not recall that "a 'sub -neighborhood' park category for tracts of
less than five acres" ever came up. She noted that these words were
included by Mr. Grimes in his memo to the Planning Commission. She
said she felt that this was not an issue for the Commission to discuss.
MOTION
Crook moved to forward item 112 to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board for their recommendation. Motion passed by acclamation.
3. "There seems to be some contradictions in the Master Parks Plan
in that, for instance, "neighborhood" parks are, on the one hand,
supposed to be within easy walking distance for, say, young children,
but yet are supposed to be located on or in the area of collector
streets. Does this --and perhaps other --provisions need to be
reviewed?"
Crook cited from the Parks Plan "...the location of parks and recreational
facilities should avoid streets of heavy traffic or railroad tracks...if
possible, neighborhood parks should be located near the center of
a neighborhood and be accessible (Crook's emphasis) by collector streets.
Stockdell advised that if sidewalks were in existence, children would
be able to walk to the parks without any problems.
• Madison said she didn't think there were any contradictions with regards
to locations recommended for parks and other recreational facilities.
S7
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 14
4. "Suppose that a developer proposes to install a park within a
subdivision, for the use of the residents. If we know this park
will nevertheless be used by other residents of the city, is
it really fair to expect that developer to both put in this 'quasi -
private' (or if you will, 'quasi -public') park and make a Greenspace
contribution?"
Stockdell said there was nothing to prevent that developer from erecting
a fence with a lock and giving keys to that lock only to residents.
Hess explained what precipitated this discussion. He said he thought
there was a great communication gap among the various boards administering
to City concerns and he suggested the formation of a city beautification
committee with representatives from the various boards, as well as
Planning Consultant Wood.
Stockdell advised that a Planning Commission new -member training session
had been held in the City Administration Building during the month
of January expressly for the purposes of discussing issues that might
be unclear to both new and older members alike. She noted that all
of the members of the PRAB attended this meeting and various aspects
of the parks plan was discussed, among other issues.
Hess exclaimed that, although he has been referred to as a developer,
he does not consider himself as such. He said he manages property
and builds apartment houses for himself and has never developed a
piece of property. Hess said his father has been a horticulturist
for 50 years and he (Hess) could never conceive of cutting down a
tree. He added that any visitor to his home would understand his
interest in green space and plants.
Hess expressed his concern regarding a developer who is working with
a great many acres, perhaps 50 to 100. He said if that developer
wishes to create a minimum 5 acre park within that development, it
should suit the City's purposes better than denying them to do that
and asking them for a cash contribution. He noted that since the
Greenspace Ordinance has been adopted, the City has not gained a single
inch of green space. Hess said he felt that the smaller neighborhood
parks are public only in the sense that the City owns them. He said
they are, essentially semi -private, because the use of those parks
is probably by the people who live in the surrounding square mile
of each park. He said a developer who installs a 5 -acre park within
his subdivision is providing facilities for that neighborhood.
He said he was in favor of not keeping out the public in these cases
but Stockdell noted that most developers would use such a park as
a development tool. Hess advised that creating parks in this way
would provide neighborhood parks without cost to the City as the Property
Owners Association would be required to maintain them. Stockdell
expressed doubt that the property owners would care to maintain a
neighborhood park which was open to the public.
58
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 15
Hess advised that he is specifically talking about a private park
in lieu of a cash donation to the Greenspace Ordinance.
Crook replied that she had a problem with Hess' calling a public park
a private park when the distinction is very clear in that the public
is free to use a public park and is not free to use a private park.
She said it is not a matter of who is seen at a public park but who
may use the park if they so desire. Crook added that there are different
parks for different purposes, including picnicing, activities, wilderness
areas and trail -type parks and that people from different neighborhoods
may avail themselves of these different areas.
Crook explained that if she lived across the street from a private
20 acre park, the City would not plan another park at that location
and the developer would be given credit for said park, while she would
have to use a park that may be some distance off because she could
not use the private park across from her home.
Hess said he could see Crook's point but that he thought it was not
a clear cut argument whereby a solution is easily available. He said
he felt this situation needs to be addressed with a lot more thought
than it has been in the past. Hess noted that if a developer comes
up with a reasonable plan and the City mandatorily says that it will
not be accepted and money due instead, it didn't seem fair.
Stockdell said that this Commission addresses not only whether a plan
is reasonable but also whether or not it complies with the ordinances
of the City. She said the Commission exists to uphold those ordinances
and must use their very best judgements.
NOTION
Crook moved to hold a Public Hearing at the same time as that held
for her previously proposed amendment, and that the City Attorney
be asked to draft two amendments to the ordinance addressing Art.III,Sec.
A(5)of App.C. 1. She proposed adding the words "upon determination
that enforcement of the ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship
and that the problems of the developer reflect unique circumstances,
may " into said paragraph 5 immediately following the the words
"...the Board of Directors" continuing on to the end of said paragraph.
2. The second amendment Crook proposed was the addition of (g) which
would state "the special recreational needs of the residents of the
development, due to the uniqueness of the needs, cannot be met by
existing or planned public facilities". Crook said she felt these
additions would clear up questions that developers may have regarding
paragraph 5 and she thought it met the intent of the ordinance that
was originally passed. Jacks seconded the motion, followed by discussion.
Crook said she used the word "unnecessary" but thought that "undue"
might be better.
51
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 16
Hanna said he understood the point Hess was trying to get across and
didn't feel that the fourth question had been answered. He said he
tends to agree with Hess. He wondered if the Planning Commission would
find it acceptable if a developer put in a park that was accessible
to the public and maintained by the POA. Jacks said he thought that
should make everyone happy.
Crook replied that it would still have to meet (f )The proposed park
areas and recreational facilities are consistent with the Fayetteville
Parks Plan.
Green said he thought it was a matter of interpretation and that 90%
of the time, the correct set of circumstances do not exist to qualify
a development for a waiver. He emphasized several of the parts of
paragraph 5 as circumstances for waivers and stated that everyone
"hangs their hat" on (f) as outlined above„ Green said he felt the
issue was a mute point as there would not be enough money collected
between now and 1990 to build any park which is why he felt it was
better to grant waivers to developers who volunteer to put in parks
for the benefit of the residents of their developments.
Crook said her motion was an attempt to make it easier to know when
a waiver shall or shall not be granted. Green said he was not in
favor of that motion.
Madison said she had a problem with the way ordinance is written out
and that, although she personally thought compensation should be given
for developing private parks, that is not the intent of the ordinance.
She said all of the criteria should be met although she would rather
see (f) eliminated. Madison said she felt private parks are preferable
to public parks because they serve the residents closest to it and
do not put a financial drain on City funds. She noted that Director
Martin has commented that the parks fund will never collect enough
money to create another Wilson Park and he indicated that if PRAB
feels that there is a need for a large park such as that, it should
be funded from the Board.
Jacks asked for Lashley's reaction to the money coming to the parks
fund. Lashley said part of the reason that the PRAB does not have
much money is because of the hassles and arguments over the Greenspace
Ordinance. He said prior to 1976, the only source of revenue for
parks was government funds to be used for low-income areas. He said
that as those funds began to dry up energy was spent on a plan for
the development of parks in the City and in 1976 work began on creating
the Greenspace Ordinance. Lashley said that after all these years,
there is still a hassle over it and the PRAB cannot spend what money
they do have because they don't know if they will be required to refund
that money. He said there is a little over $20,000 in the fund at
this time and he thought that $85 per dwelling unit was not a lot
over 40 years which would be $2 per year. Lashley said he thought
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 17
the City wanted to do something about parks as indicated by the adoption
of the PRAB and the creation of the Greenspace Ordinance and added
that there are areas that need to be addressed at this time if the
money could be spent. Lashley said that for a while the sales tax
revenue was the parks salvation but now it is part of the general
funding and cannot be used for future parks plans. He said, as little
as it may be, the Greenspace fund is the only money available to the
PRAB to plan for the future.
Hess said his whole intent is to gain more parks and green space and
added that what Lashley reported about budget restraints is accurate.
He noted that Jones has advised him that the :idea of a privately funded
park which is open to the public was not possible.
Crook said she thought Hess was stating the case as though the Commission
was denying the developers the opportunity to put in a private park
by exacting a greenspace fee. She said that most developers are putting
in private parks and, until Butterfield Trail, were also contributing
to the parks fund. Crook cited J. B. Hays' creating a 20 acre park
regardless of whether the Commission waived the parks fee requirement.
She said most mature developers are developing here in Fayetteville
and making money at it because it is a good place to live and part
of the reason that it is a good place to live is that it has a parks
and recreation system for the public. Hess said he felt Hays' case
was an unfair taxation.
Jacks commented that this discussion was similar to public schools -
verses private schools.
Green noted that the fundamental difference is that everyone supports
the public schools but public parks are supported to different degrees
depending on where one lives. He said he thought most people in Fayette—
ville would be in favor of good parks but he didn't think this ordinance
would provide that He suggested looking for another way to fund
parks, perhaps by putting it to a vote.
Madison said she agreed with Green and that perhaps a millage increase
was in order.
Crook wished to address the first part of her motion. She said that
what the courts have said is that if a variance request does not reflect
unique circumstances, then the entire ordinance is called into question.
She said she thought her proposal would give some guidance to the
persons who were trying to make this determination.
Green said he thought that Crook was attempting to put an interpretation
on the ordinance which is not there at this time.
• Crook amended her motion so that the two additions she proposed could
be drafted as separate ordinances to be addressed separately.
61
•
•
•
Planning Commission
February 25, 1985
Page 18
Jacks said that more than two years have gone into planning the Greenspace
Ordinance and a good portion of that time was spent trying very hard
to write an incentive ordinance, found to be practically impossible.
The question was called and the motion to hold a Public Hearing passed
4-3-0, Hanna, Green and Tarvin voted 'bay".
MOTION
Tarvin moved that the City Board give serious consideration to placing
on a City-wide ballot some (either through property tax, millage or
sales tax or some other means) method of raising monies on a City-wide
basis for financing the development and operation of the public parks
system on a continuing basis. Hanna seconded, followed by discussion.
Crook said she would vote for the motion if Tarvin eliminated the
words "placing on a City-wide ballot" and Tarvin replied that, because
City boards change from time to time, he would prefer the means be
something which will assure the PRAB that the funding would be on
a continuing basis.
Tarvin said the issue didn't necessarily have to be on the ballot
as long as there were some way to provide assurance that the funds
were going to be obligated on a continuing basis.
Green suggested that as a voter, he would like to see a comprehensive
plan for the tax he would be voting for to show him how his money
would be spent.
Lashley said he liked the idea but doubted that the City could come
up with a means. He cited a sales tax that has since been absorbed. He
said his main concern was for capital funds to apply to growth and
expansion and if a tax could be passed that didn't wind up somewhere
else, it would be great.
Jones advised that Cities have maximum millages that they may pass
and she explained the previous mills collected for other purposes.
The question was called and the motion passed 7-0-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50
p.m. upon a motion by Hanna and a second by Tarvin.
62