Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-28 Minutes• • • • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 28, 1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Jett Cato, and Charles Sickle OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the October 14, 1991 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-22 JOHN MAY - 2365 OLD WIRE ROAD The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on a request for change of zoning from R-1, Low Density Residential to R -O, Residential -Office, submitted by John May on behalf of Martha Sue Wilson for property located at the southwest corner of Township and Old Wire Road (2365 Old Wire Road). Becky Bryant explained Ms. Wilson was requesting the change in zoning so that her fiance, John May, could operate a law office in the principal structure on the lot. She stated Ms. Wilson also wished to continue operating her monogram/ embroidery business in the accessory building on the lot. She explained that neither R-1 nor the R -O were suitable zoning for the monogram/embroidery business and it was presently operating illegally. Ms. Bryant pointed out the subject property was surrounded by R-1 zoning. Ms. Bryant reminded the Commission that in the past few years attempts had been made to rezone the property to C-1 for a convenience store and to acquire a conditional use for a landscaping business. She stated both of those requests had been denied. She further pointed out that, although the subject property was located at the intersection of two minor arterial streets, all three other corners were entirely developed residentially. She stated there had also been quite a bit of residential development in that area in the last few years. She also stated the subject property was more buffered from the street than the other three properties on the intersection because the structure was set back further and on a larger lot. Mr. John May stated Ms. Wilson desired to continue a sales office on the site but manufacturing would not take place on site. He explained there was no increase in traffic from this enterprise since Ms. Wilson dealt mostly with large companies. He further explained his law office would generate 4 to 6 vehicles per day. He stated he had one employee and Ms. Wilson would have one employee. Mr. Paul Spencer, 2433 Old Wire Road, appeared before the Commission and complained of the traffic congestion at the intersection. He gave the Commission the history of the subject tract. He questioned why the applicant could not go three-fourths of a mile away and rent an office in a district already established as R -O. He further stated that in the last three years 650 houses had been constructed in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to the change in zoning. zirS • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 2 Me. Betty Davis, 1632 E. Township, appeared before the Commission and explained she did not want to live in a multi -zoned area. She stated there were a number of new homes being built in the area. She further stated a number of the homeowners had formed together to improve the area. Ms. Davis complained of the heavy traffic at the intersection, stating an office would add to the problem. She expressed fear that, should the rezoning request be approved, others would want properties rezoned in the same area. Ms. Britton pointed out that, while R -O might not be an appropriate alternative, she did not feel that R-1 was appropriate for property located at the intersection. She expressed her belief that this site would be suitable for neighborhood commercial, for it had been brought out at the neighborhood meetings conducted by the Vision Committee, people wanted commercial properties within walking distance. She stated she did not believe residential office space was in the same category. Mr. Allred stated he understood the applicant was residing on the property. He asked if a home occupation would not take care of the problem. Mr. May stated that, if the request was not granted, residence would continue to be maintained there. He explained he would not be able to use the structure as an office because he had an employee which was not allowed by the home occupation ordinance. Mr. Springborn explained that, when this property was originally subdivided, he did not believe any type of business would be established in the area. He stated he saw no justification for granting the request. Ms. Bryant stated she had received two telephone calls in opposition to the change of zoning, one from Mrs. Gulley and the other from a Ms. Elsie Vinsant. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Allred informed the applicant the decision could be appealed to the Board of Directors. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-23 JIM PHILLIPS & RICK ROBLEE - B SIDE OF OLD MISSOURI RD, S OF ZION The third item on the agenda was a request for rezoning property located on the east side of Old Missouri Road, south of Zion Road from A-1, Agriculture, to R-1, Low Density Residential, submitted by Jim Phillips and Rick Roblee. The property contains 25.61 acres. Mr. Allred stated the applicants had requested this item be tabled. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to table this item. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 246 • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R91-23 DONALD WILSON - SE CORNER OF MOUNTAIN AND SCHOOL The next item on the agenda was a request for a rezoning from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, to R -O, Residential -Office, at the southeast corner of Mountain and School Streets, requested by Donald Wilson. Ms. Bryant explained Mr. and Mrs. Wilson desired to construct a triplex on the subject property, which was use unit 9 - multi -family dwellings, medium density. She further explained that use unit 9 was not allowed either as a use by right or a conditional use in C-2. She explained triplexes were allowed as a conditional use in R -O zoning. Ms. Bryant reminded the Commission that approximately one year ago City Hospital (current owner of the property) had rezoned the subject tract from R -O and C-2 to R-2. She explained that,due to the recent financial problems of City Hospital,the hospital decided to table their plans for a residential care facility and sell the subject property. She stated that other surrounding land uses included single family residences and restaurants. Ms. Bryant pointed out the subject property was a small lot with frontage on two streets. She explained there were numerous design constraints including setbacks and required parking spaces. She stated that, assuming Mr. and lire. Wilson could deal with the constraints, staff recommended the rezoning be granted. She explained a vital downtown area needed to be a combination of both residential and commercial use. She further recommended that R-2 zoning would be a better zoning district than R -O for the subject property because a triplex was a use by right in R-2 zoning and there was other R-2 zoning across the street. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Bryant explained the Planning Commission could modify the zoning request without re-application by the petitioner since it was a lesser intensity of use. Ms. Wilson stated she was willing to accept either R-2 or R -O. Mr. Hanna verified that, should the change in zoning be granted, the planning staff would review plans for parking, ingress and egress. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to rezone the subject property to R-2. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU91-23 - TRIPLE% DONALD WILSON - SE CORNER OF MOUNTAIN AND SCHOOL The following agenda item was declared moot because the previous rezoning allowed triplexes by right. CONDITIONAL USE CU91-24 - TWO FAMILY DWELLING THOMAS MAURER - 231 REBECCA The sixth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a conditional use allowing a two family dwelling in a R-1, Low Density Residential zone. The request is for property located at 231 Rebecca and is requested by Thomas Maurer. Ms. Bryant explained the subject tract had recently been split from a larger tract of land. She stated surrounding land uses included single family 241 • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 4 residential, apartments, vacant land, and high impact commercial uses. She further stated staff had found the request would meet the ordinance requirements as set forth in Section 160.195 for conditional uses. She explained staff believed it would be unreasonable to expect single family construction at the subject site because it backs up to non -conforming apartments and suffers noise and other nuisance factors due to its proximity to Doc Murdock's and other commercial uses on North College. She recommended approval of the conditional use. James Maurer and Thomas Maurer appeared before the Commission to answer any questions regarding the conditional use. Mr. Bob Bradey, an adjoining property owner, appeared before the Commission and presented a letter from Betty Lighton, 603 N. Willow, objecting to the conditional use. He expressed concern that the property would be rental property. He also stated he was worried about the remaining footage between his property and College Avenue. He explained he believed there would be another lot split on the adjoining property and the entire strip of vacant land would change into duplexes, triplexes, and apartments. Alice Kennedy, 232 Rebecca, spoke in opposition to the conditional use. She expressed fear of encroachment into their neighborhood. MOTION Ms. Britton explained she did not feel the conditional use would compromise the integrity of the residential flavor of the neighborhood. She moved to grant the conditional use. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-3-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Allred, Hanna, Cleghorn, Cato, and Britton voting "yes' and Commissioners Nickle, Robertson, and Tarvin voting "no". PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOUSTON MEADOWS ADDITION HARRY GRAY - E OF PORTER RD, S OF DEANE ST. The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Houston Meadows Addition, located on the east side of Porter Road, south of Deane Street presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Gordon Houston. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 5.27 acres with 34 lots proposed. Mr. Bunn explained there were no significant comments by the utility companies at the .plat review meeting. He further explained the main issue raised at both the plat review and subdivision committee meetings was drainage on the site. He stated there was a drainage ditch which ran through the property to the west to a double culvert crossing on Porter Road. He explained there had been several area residents at the subdivision committee meeting expressing concern. He stated the drainage plan had not been fully developed but it appeared that the overall drainage in the area would be improved rather than causing damage. He recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments; subsequent approval of plans for drainage, water, sewer and streets; construction of sidewalks; and payment of parks fees. He further stated the developer would be asking for a waiver of side setbacks. He recommended approval of the waiver. • In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained R-2 zoning had an 8 -foot side setback requirement. He further explained the development was 2441 • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 5 planned as a zero -lot line development, with duplex type buildings constructed across the lot lines. He stated the 8 -foot setback would need to be waived. Mr. Gray explained he had thought there would be protective covenants with the subject development but the owner, at this time, did not propose protective covenants. Mr. Cleghorn stated at the subdivision committee meeting the residents had requested that, should the drainage ditch be paved, it be paved all of the way across the property and road. He stated the residents had also questioned whether the culverts would carry the runoff across the road and, if so, what would happen to the water. He further stated there was an odor problem in the area but Mr. Bunn had explained increased volume would increase the odor. Mr. Gray stated the detailed drainage plan would not be developed until the final plans on the project were completed. He explained the area was very flat and there was a swale going across the subject property. He stated they would have to pave the Swale probably all of the way to Porter Road. He further stated he believed the culverts at Porter Road were large enough to accommodate any reasonable flooding. Ms. Britton asked if this area was a wetland and, if so, was it not feasible to have a retention pond. Mr. Bunn stated he did not believe the subject property fell under the definition of a wetland. He stated a retention pond would depend on the detailed calculations in the drainage plan. Ms. Britton pointed out the surrounding area was not well developed. She further stated they needed to look at the problem of the drainage now, at the beginning of development. Ms. Britton also stated she did not like to see a dead end street with no access to further development. She stated she would like to see right-of-way so that at some future point in time a street could connect to another subdivision. Mr. Gray stated the traffic flow had been discussed at the subdivision committee meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated the surrounding property was R-1. Rev. Russell Kelley appeared before the Commission and explained he owned adjoining property and asked if the developer was going to have covenants. Mr. Bunn stated that, at the present time, the owner did not plan to have covenants. He explained the only requirements would be meeting city code. Mr. Robertson pointed out that Mr. Houston would be developing the property but not constructing any structures. There was discussion regarding whether the Commission could require covenants on the subdivision or if they were needed. Mr. Springborn explained they had received legal advise from the city attorney in the past that the Commission had no control over covenants. He further explained that covenants were between the residents and the developer. Rev. Kelley asked if the subject property was to be rental property. • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Gray explained the subject property was being developed under the townhouse concept. He further explained that someone could own the entire duplex and rent one side or just own one side and someone else would own the other side. Mr. Allred stated the property would probably be a mix of homeowners and tenants. He explained that, since the property was zoned R-2, an apartment complex could have been constructed on the site rather than duplexes. Ms. Britton expressed concern that there were no covenants since the buildings would be attached at the property line. She stated she did not like giving a sideyard waiver without seeing the plans. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Bryant stated there were no requirements as to minimum lot width, lot area or minimum area per dwelling unit for townhouses but they did have to conform to the district densities, yard requirements, parking requirements, etc. Mr. Allred expressed concern that the owner would put five or six units together instead of just two. Mr. Gray stated he did not believe that would occur. He stated they would still be looking at one unit per lot and not exceeding the maximum density for townhouse development. Mr. Springborn stated he shared Ms. Britton's concern regarding the street development. He requested that, before approval of final plat, consideration be given to be sure the subject property would be compatible with other development. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn regarding another access street, Ms. Bryant stated she was not sure where an access street would go. She explained that there was already a subdivision to the east and apartments to the north. Rev. Kelley stated there were two churches to the south. Mr. Cleghorn asked if the request for the waiver should go before the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Bryant explained there were two waivers - one for the common wall between the two properties (which the Planning Commission would rule on) and one for exterior setbacks (which would need to be heard by the Board of Adjustment). MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the application for preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of the plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage; granting of the setback waiver by the planning commission; construction of sidewalks; and payment of park fees. Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2-0 Robertson, Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Ms. Britton voting "no". with Mr. Sickle, Mr. Springborn, Hanna, and Mr. Cato voting "yes" and Mr. Allred, Mr. Mr. Cleghorn and PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTH HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION HARRY GRAY - W OF APPLEBY RD., N OF BISHOP The eighth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for North Heights Subdivision by Harry Gray on behalf of S & T Enterprises. The property is located on the west side of Appleby Road, north of Bishop, is zoned 249 • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 7 R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 6.29 acres with 48 lots proposed. Mr. Bunn explained this development was similar to the one just approved - townhouses with zero lot lines. He stated there were no significant comments by the utility companies at the plat review meeting. He further explained that another access, either north to Appleby Road or south to either Sunny Lane or Susan Carroll had been requested at the subdivision committee meeting. He stated the developer would ask for a waiver of setbacks to allow for the zero lot line. He stated the subdivision committee made a motion to approve the plat subject to a final agreement about access to the south. He recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; final resolution of the additional access; approval of the water, sewer, streets, and drainage plans; construction of sidewalks; and payment of parks fees. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn stated he did not believe there was a limit on the number of townhouses in a row. He explained the intent for this subdivision was two -unit townhouses. Mr. Gray explained that Charlie Sloan was one of the developers on the project. He stated there was tentative plans available for the Commissioners to review if they wished. He further explained that, after subdivision committee, they had changed the plans and provided an extension to Susan Carroll. Mr. Allred asked who would be responsible for developing the extension of Susan. Mr. Bunn explained the developer would be responsible. Mr. Gray stated the developer could pay for the cost of tying into the existing cul-de-sac. He further stated it would be an advantage if the city could help to some extent since it would be an off-site improvement. Mr. Gray stated there was still a problem with the sewer lift station. He explained they were looking at alternate ways to sewer the property. Mr. Cleghorn stated he did not see the need for another access street. He further stated some nice trees would have to be removed to put the access street. He stated it appeared to him the developer was wasting time and money and it was being called proper planning because it added a street. Ms. Bryant explained the subdivision contained 48 lots with approximately 500 vehicle trips per day. She stated she believed that amount was too high for just one ingress and one egress. She further stated she believed they needed to take a firm stand on the issue of traffic circulation. There was discussion regarding additional traffic to the subdivision south of the subject property with Susan Lane becoming a through street. There had been no notification to the residents along Susan Lane because they were not adjoining property owners. There was also discussion of connecting Susan Lane to the north to Appleby Road. Mr. Gray expressed fear that, if Susan Lane became a through street to both the north and the south, it would cause traffic problems for the subject property. !NOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat of North Heights Subdivision subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of water, street, sewer and drainage plans; construction of sidewalks; and payment of park fees. • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 8 Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT - REPLAT OF LOT 30 ROYAL OAKS DAVE JORGENSEN - OFF KANTZ COVE, E OF N. KANTZ LANE The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for the replat of Lot 30, Royal Oaks Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of E. J. Ball for property located off Kantz Cove, east of North Kantz Lane., The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 4.2 acres with 4 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments on the plat at either plat review or subdivision committee meetings. He recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments, extension of utilities, and payment of parks fees. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Jorgensen explained the open space shown was a separate piece of property. Mr. Bunn explained this project was a planned unit development and the open space was joint property. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee meeting comments, the extension of the required utilities, and the payment of the park fees. Mr. Robertson seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0-0. FINAL PLAY - SPRING PARK, PHASE II DAVE JORGENSEN - W OF COLLEGE, N OF HWY 71 BYPASS The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a final play for Spring Park, Phase I, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Duane Nelson for property located west of College Avenue, north of the Highway 71 Bypass. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 19.96 acres with 7 lots proposed. Mr. Bunn stated the main issue raised at the plat review and subdivision committee meetings was the name of the east -west street. He explained there was a four lane street being constructed running east -west which was an extension of Stearns Street. He further explained at the next Board of Directors' meeting they are reviewing a proposal to change the name of Stearns Street to Joyce Boulevard. He stated that, should the Board change the name of the street to Joyce Boulevard, the name of the east -west street in the subject subdivision would need to be changed to Joyce Boulevard. He further stated that, if the Board did not change the name, then the east -west street of the subject subdivision would be Stearns Street, not Spring Park Boulevard. He recommended the final plat be approved subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments, the changing of the name of Spring Park Boulevard to either Stearns Street or Joyce Boulevard, execution of a contract with the city for the unfinished improvements, and construction of sidewalks. Mr. Jorgensen stated he understood their concern regarding the name of the street however, the owner/developer was quite desirous of leaving the street name Spring zso • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 9 Park Boulevard. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - WILLOW CREEK APARTMENTS DAVE JORGENSEN - E OF LEVERETT, S OF SYCAMORE The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a large scale development for Willow Creek Apartments presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill Sweetser for property located east of Leverett and south of Sycamore. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 2.96 acres with 32 units. Mr. Bunn stated the utility companies had requested several easements be provided and the owner had agreed to do so. He explained most of the units were within the 100 Year Flood Plain and, as such, would have to meet flood plain regulations. He stated the site would also require a grading plan. He recommended the large scale development be approved subject to the plat review and subdivision committee comments; final approval of the plans for water, sewer, and storm drainage (streets within development will be private); approval of a grading plan; sidewalk construction on Leverett; and payment of parks fees. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained city ordinance allowed construction within the flood plain. He explained the foundations of any buildings constructed in the flood plain had to two feet above the flood plain. Mr. Jorgensen explained no one could build in the floodway but could in the flood plain with restrictions. He further explained that on the subject property water was not being impeded but did, at times, back up. He stated the project was conforming to the surrounding area. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-1-0 with Commissioners Hinkle, Springborn, Allred, Robertson, Tarvin, Hanna, Cleghorn, and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton voting "no". LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NORTHWEST ARKANSAS WAREHOUSE CHESTER DEAN - W OF N SHILOH DR, S OF MT. COMFORT RD. The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of a large scale development of the Northwest Arkansas Warehouse presented by Jay Berryman on behalf of Chester Dean for property located west of North Shiloh Drive, south of Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial- Heavy Commercial, and contains 6.14 acres. Mr. Bunn stated the main comments on this development concerned the required screening on the north side as it related to the existing utility easement. He explained there was concern that whatever was planted as screening might Zfl • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 10 interfere with the future use of the easement, particularly overhead electric lines. It was suggested at the subdivision committee meeting that upright Cedar or upright Junipers might be more appropriate as screen. The City Horticulturist did review the site and recommended either the "Keteleeri" Chinese Juniper or sheared White Pine. He further stated the other concerns raised at the subdivision meeting were that the drainage around the building did not appear to be adequate. He explained Mr. Dean had changed the plans to address that situation. He stated he would be looking at a grading plan on the site to determine if it was sufficient. He recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan for the development; the planting of screening as recommended by the City Horticulturist. Mr. Jay Berryman appeared before the Commission and explained they were willing to use whatever type of screening recommended by the City Horticulturist. He explained the building would be similar to the one constructed for Arkansas Book on North Shiloh. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Berryman explained that the northwest corner of the subject tract adjoined R-1 property. Mr. Allred asked what the screening requirements were. Ms. Bryant stated the ordinance required screening between R-1 and I-1 districts. She further stated the developer had also requested reduced setbacks which would require screening. Mr. Cleghorn stated that, if Commissioner Robertson had not been at the subdivision meeting, the developer would have planted trees recommended by the city that would have been the wrong tree. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the large scale development subject to the plat review and subdivision comments, City Engineer approval for the grading plan of the development, and the planting of screening as recommended by the City Horticulturist. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VARIANCE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT it HAMILTON COSTON - N OF MT. COMFORT RD., E OF SALEM RD. The next item on the agenda was a request for a lot split on property located north of Mt. Comfort Road, east of Salem Road requested by Hamilton Coston. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had approved a change of zoning on the subject property at their last meeting from A-1 to R-1. He further explained the original tract was approximately 3 1/3 acres and the applicant was proposing to split off .4 of an acre. He stated the remaining property would consist of approximately 2.94 acres and had an existing house. He further stated utilities were already existing to serve both tracts of land. He recommended the split be approved subject to payment of parks fees. He stated there was a sidewalk required on Mt. Comfort Road but he did not recommend construction of the sidewalk at this time. He explained that whenever a building permit was applied for on the subject property, a decision would need to be made 75Z • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 11 as to whether the applicant would need to construct a sidewalk at that time. MOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the lot split as submitted subject to the staff comments, payment of parks fees and construction of a sidewalk in accordance with staff recommendations. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE GREEN SPACE ORDINANCE Mr. Bill Waite, a member of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, appeared before the Commission, presented the new green space fee schedule and requested that it be approved. He explained the proposed fee schedule represented an increased of one hundred percent. As justification for the increase, Mr. Waite explained there had been no increase in fees for 10 years and, in comparison to other communities, fees charged by Fayetteville were well below the national average. He further explained the green space fees were used dominantly either for acquisition of land or development of existing park areas. Mr. Waite explained the Parks Board was also recommending a change in the method of collection of such fees. He pointed out that, in large scale developments, the developer was required to pay the fee in three installments upon approval of final plat and within two years thereafter. He recommended all green space fees be tied to the issuance of a building permit. In response to a question by Mr. Nickle, Mr. Waite explained that none of the surrounding cities (including Springdale, Rogers and Bentonville) had a green space fee. He further explained there were a number of ways to fund parks including the general city budget, a millage, etc. He stated it was difficult to get funds from the general city budget for capital improvement development. Mr. Allred asked staff what action the Parks Board was requesting from the Planning Commission. Ms. Bryant explained they were being asked to make a favorable recommendation to the City Board of Directors that the ordinance increasing the green space fees and changing method of payment be adopted. Mr. Hanna stated the Parks Board did an amazing job with a small budget, but he believed the green space fee was another form of taxation without representation. He further stated he found it objectionable that the Parks Board had to request an increase in fees in a city with a budget the size of Fayetteville's. He pointed out that in 1988 the city retained a one -cent sales tax that raises five million dollars per year for revenue for the city, there had been increases in the sewer, sanitation and water bills (due to mishandling of an incinerator project), the property taxes had been raised recently, and there was $27,000,000 sitting in the capital improvement account from the sale of bonds. He explained he was disappointed that none of that money went for parks or the library. He expressed his belief that the Planning Commission should not recommend the increase in fees in order to send a message to the City Board that the Parks & Recreation Board needed a larger share of the budget. Mr. Allred asked how the cities of Springdale, Rogers and Bentonville supported their parks without a green space fee. He also asked why Fayetteville needed to increase the green space fee when other cities had parks without such a fee. z53 • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 12 Mr. Waite explained it took a certain amount of money in order to build capital improvements. He further explained that capital improvement funds was discretionary income and it eroded very rapidly. He stated capital improvements were the first thing cut instead of line items or salaries. He further stated that;if the parks were going to be improved, the money had to come from someplace and, at the present time, it was not coming from the general budget. He gave as an example the use of green space fees in the development of Gulley Park. He stated an increase in the green space fee was a reasonable way in which to fund parks and park improvement. Ms. Bryant pointed out this particular type of tax was called an impact fee. She explained the idea behind an impact fee was to link the cost more closely with the future user. She further explained the idea behind the green space fee was that the people who move into a new area and build homes would be using the recreational facility in that neighborhood. She stated it was a very common type of taxation found around the country. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Connie Edmonston stated the City of Fayetteville was the only city in the State of Arkansas that had a green space fee. Mr. Waite pointed out there were numerous cities, both large and small, throughout the country that used a green space fee. Mr. Cleghorn complimented the Parks Board on the presentation but stated he wished city management staff was present to find out why the city did not have the money to fund the parks. He explained he did not feel like he had all of the necessary information to make a decision. Mr. Waite stated he couldn't say why the city didn't have the money. He further stated he believed there was the feeling that the parks should not be solely funded by a general tax. He explained the opinion seemed to be that, when new people moved into the community, they created an additional strain on the parks budget which should not be paid for by the community at large. He pointed out that, when the ordinance had been reviewed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, it had been strongly recommended that the city be divided into areas so that the funds would be spent in the area from which it was acquired. Mr. Allred stated it appeared discriminatory to him that new residents were taxed on green space fees and on their new residences. He further stated that was double taxation. Mr. Waite stated he did not believe that was double taxation. He explained the new residents would be using the parks that had been in existence for the last 50 years. Mr. Allred pointed out the residents would be paying taxes for 50 years too. Mr. Springborn stated he was in favor of impact fees and believed the city should have them for sewer and water as city services had to be extended. He expressed his belief that it would also be appropriate for parks. He asked to what extent they received revenues from the city for maintenance and operation of the parks. Mr. Dale Clark explained the Park budget was approximately $750,000 together with the Youth Center budget of approximately $360,000. Mr. Springborn asked if the green space fees were used solely for the acquisition of more land. • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 13 Mr. Clark explained part of the funds were used to acquire additional green space but funds were also used in developing existing parks. Mr. Springborn expressed his belief the green space fee should be used to acquire more green space but that the city should fund all of the maintenance and development of parks. Mr. Clark pointed out the green space funds had never been used for maintenance just for development and acquisition of land. Mr. Steve Alexander, Parks & Recreation Board, explained they would like to acquire more land but could not afford the higher land prices. He stated the Board was trying to help the city be a more attractive place to live. He further stated they needed the funds now to purchase the land and preserve it until development took place around it. Mr. Springborn stated he would support the green space fees, if all of the money was to be used for additional acquisition of land and use of city funds for the maintenance and development of the parks. Mr. Waite explained that in some instances they had the land but had no funds to develop the land, leaving it unusable. Mr. Allred asked how large a budget Springdale and Rogers had for their Parks Department. Ms. Edmonston stated their budget was a lot less but they had a lot less parks too. She further stated those cities had contacted Fayetteville for copies of the green space ordinance. Mr. Alexander expressed his opinion that it did not matter what other cities were doing, that Fayetteville was a progressive town. Mr. Tarvin explained the Planning Commission did not intend to be harsh about the green space fees but they were just trying to look out for what was fair. He expressed his belief that they were putting a burden on future development by trying to develop both existing and future parks and acquire land for parks all funded by future development. He stated he believed it would be more fair for the development of the existing parks to be spread out over the whole base. He also requested more information. Mr. Waite explained there were some capital improvement projects that were funded through the normal budget process which were very explicitly set forth in the CIP plan. He further explained that funds from the green space fees used for development were in an attempt to open up new space. He explained the Parks Board used both the city budget and the green space fees. Mr. Nickle stated he believed the City Board should be making this decision, not the Planning Commission. He explained the Commission did not have all the information on all of the budgets. He suggested sending it to the City Board with no recommendation. Ms. Edmonston explained it had been brought before the Planning Commission because it was part of the subdivision regulations. Mr. Cleghorn stated he believed it should be reviewed by the Planning Commission but they would also need more information from city management to make a decision. Ms. Britton pointed out the best thing about the green space fees was that they • • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 14 could only be used on parks. Mr. Waite explained there had been some thought behind that. He further explained that capital improvement funds eroded very rapidly. Mr. Cleghorn requested that city management be present at the next meeting in order to provide further information. Mr. Clark explained that the projected increase was compiled by Parks staff, not city management. He explained the figures were based upon average lot cost and how much the costs had increased over the last 10 years. He stated he believed they were being fairly equitable in the amount of the increase in comparison with the increase in the price of land. Mr. Hanna stated he recalled when the green space fee was first approved in 1981 and that the developers supported the ordinance. He further stated he did not believe there was any justification in increasing the fee, that the city should be taking care of the slack not the developers. He stated there had been a tremendous increase in the amount of building permits which meant more money going to the green space fees. He further stated the message he wanted to send to the City Board was that additional money should come from another place in the city budget rather than doubling the green space fees. Mr. Waite explained the recommendation to increase the fees was made by the Parks Board. He further explained they could show the Commission the items budgeted for in the CIP, but they were proposing much more than what was in the CIP. Mr. Cleghorn stated he was in favor of the green space fee but, before voting to double it, he wanted to know why the city wasn't doing more. Ms. Bryant stated that another point germane to this was the ideas that came up during the Fayetteville Vision Project. She explained that one of the main ideas was to survey the existing parks, develop a master park plan, and evaluate financing alternatives there were. She stated she supported the green space ordinance but believed it needed to be connected with a master park plan. Mr. Cleghorn stated a finished draft of the Vision Plan would be presented to the Planning Commission within the next week or so. He suggested they review the draft to see what the people of Fayetteville wanted in parks. Mr. Waite pointed out that,while the citizens supported the parks and library, those are the first funds to evaporate. Ms. Britton suggested that the fees be strictly percentages so that they would automatically go up as the price of property went up. Mr. Waite explained that would only work if they had a current appraised value of each piece of property. Mr. Springborn stated the city attorney had indicated that industry and businesses should not be assessed for green space fees because it would be hard to prove that workers of industry or business lived in the same parks district. He asked if the money taken in was allocated to districts. Ms. Edmonston explained the Supreme Court of Arkansas had ruled that the land dedicated or money in lieu must be used to serve the area from which it was collected. • • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Page 15 Mr. Springborn asked if that restricted the use to the people only in that district. Mr. Waite stated it did not. He explained it simply said the city must be districted such that the money was spent at least in reasonable proximity to the area from which it was collected. In response to questions from Mr. Springborn and Mr. Allred, Mr. Waite explained funds from the city budget were not apportioned. Mr. Springborn stated his belief that was an anomaly because land or money received through the green space fee was allocated to a particular district but the city's budget monies were not allocated. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to pass the increase to the City Board without recommendation. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. Mr. Robertson explained he would be abstaining from voting due to a possible conflict of office. He stated he felt very strongly that the Commission needed to make the recommendation to the City Board. He further stated the parks system needed the money, that the city had cut the parks budget. He explained city staff had requested the department to review and assess their fees and to raise them where they could in order to become more self-sufficient in their funding. He stated he did not believe this was an additional tax but a fee that is collected just like fees for other services. The motion failed 4-4-1 with Commissioners Nickle, Allred, Hanna and Cato voting "yes", Commissioners Springborn, Tarvin, Cleghorn and Britton voting "no" and Commissioner Robertson abstaining. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to send the recommendation to the City Board opposing the raise in the fees. The motion died for lack of second. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn stated he believed they needed more information from city management. He moved to table this item until city management staff could be present to provide them with further information. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0-1 with Commissioners Cleghorn, Britton, Springborn, Hanna, Allred, Tarvin, Nickle, and Cato voting "yes" and Commissioner Robertson abstaining. Ms. Britton stated at the last meeting Mr. Robertson had brought up a question regarding the park property dedicated by Paradise View Estates. She asked if the piece of property dedicated was compatible to the parks system. Mr. Clark stated he had not had adequate time to review it. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. •