Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 12, 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 Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Linebaugh, Kevin Crosson, Ben Mayes, Don Bunn, Freeman Wood, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the October 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed. PRELIMINARY PLAT - PINE HAVEN ADDITION GORDON WILKINS - E OF AZALEA TER., S OF OLD WIRE RD. The second item on the agenda was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Pine Haven Addition submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Gordon Wilkins. The property is located east of Azalea Terrace, south of Old Wire Road and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 1.25 acres with 4 lots. Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments either by the staff or utility companies at the plat review meeting. He further stated the subdivision committee had suggested a cul-de-sac be constructed to the east off of Azalea Terrace in order to create more lots and make the development more attractive. He stated the committee had voted to send the plat to the Planning Commission without a recommendation. He recommended approval of the plat as submitted subject to the approval of plans for the extension of water and sewer, approval of a grading plan, and payment of parks fees. Mr. Tarvin explained subdivision committee thought the subdivision might be more attractive development should a cul-de-sac be constructed to the center of the property with the same number of lots. He stated the proportions of the lots were 70 x 276 as shown on the plat. He further stated they had questioned whether it was the subdivision committee's business to suggest the shape of lots. He asked if there was a point where the Commission should get involved with the aesthetics of a development. He also pointed out the proposed lots were narrower than the lots across the street. Ms. Britton expressed concern that at a future date the owners would request lot splits, leaving tandem lots. She explained they could avoid that by having a better design. Mr. Tarvin explained that the engineer had replied that the lots were too narrow for tandem lots. He stated someone could buy two lots and then request a lot split. He explained that,if a cul-de-sac were constructed to the center of the property, the four lots created would be 140 x 140. Mr. Harry Gray pointed out that, after taking out property for a cul-de-sac and street right-of-way, the lots would be smaller and there would be more street for the city to maintain. He stated tandem lots could be done, just like any other subdivision. He further stated he did not feel that tandem lots were a reasonable concern. He explained should someone desire to have a tandem lot it Z S¢ • • • • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 2 would have to come back before the Planning Commission for approval. He agreed the lots were odd angle lots but the developer could put 1,300 to 1,500 square feet houses on the lots. Mr. Gray pointed out the trees at the back of the property and explained with the deep lots the utility easement had been moved in, leaving the trees. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to approve the preliminary plat as submitted. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT - SEQUOYAH MEADOWS SUBDIVISION C. W. COMBS - S OF HUNTSVILLE RD., W OF ED EDWARDS RD. The third item on the agenda was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Sequoyah Meadows Subdivision submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of C. W. Combs for property located south of Huntsville Road and west of Ed Edwards Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 37.9 acres with 99 lots proposed. Mr. Bunn explained the development was proposed in three phases, the first consisting of 9 acres south of Highway 16, containing 32 lots. He stated the utility companies did not have any significant comments. He further stated it had been suggested that, as the property developed, more easements might be required by the utility companies. He explained staff had indicated that the tandem lots might not be acceptable since they did not appear to meet the requirements of the ordinance for tandem lots. He pointed out the ordinance indicated that tandem lots were acceptable only when terrain conditions made a normal subdivision not feasible. He further pointed out that in the past tandem lots had been approved without regard to the stated provision. He further stated staff requested a Bill of Assurance for improvement of Ed Edwards Road and had indicated a waiver of a maximum length of a cul-de-sac would be required for Fescue Court. Mr. Bunn stated the subdivision committee had recommended some changes, including that a right-of-way be dedicated east and west off of Tallgrass Drive between the entrance (Highway 16) and the curve to the east. He explained the developer was in agreement with that right-of-way dedication. He stated other changes recommended were that right-of-way be dedicated off of Fescue Court east to Ed Edwards Road, which would eliminate the cul-de-sac, and the elimination of the tandem lots by the extension of a street east from Tallgrass Drive and by extending Fescue Court to the north property line of the development. Mr. Gray explained he had not revised the plat after subdivision meeting, because the developer had desired input from the full Planning Commission. He agreed that right-of-way to the east and west off of Tallgrass Drive was in order. He suggested he work with the property owners in determining where the right-of-way should be located. He stated he believed the pond was a terrain feature in keeping within the intent of the ordinance. He explained that,should the Planning Commission direct that the tandem lots be eliminated, the developer had requested the two lots just be made larger so they would front on some street. Mr. Tarvin stated Mr. Bunn had summarized the subcommittee statements. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Tarvin pointed out that, by using the 40 foot right-of-way at the northeast corner, it would open the eastern z ss • • • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 3 tandem lot. He explained the subcommittee had thought that, when the property to the north was developed, another 10 feet of right-of-way could be acquired. Mr. Gray explained the developer would rather enlarge the tandem lots so they would front on a street. He pointed out the entry lots were only 80 x 125 feet but the lots in the 38 acre tract were 100 x 150 to 200 feet. He stated he did not believed it was the Planning Commission's duty to weigh the economics of a development. He stated he believed the plan as submitted was a good plan based on a terrain feature. Ms. Britton stated the subdivision committee had believed Fescue Court was too long for a cul-de-sac and that was why they had made their suggestions. Mr. Gray pointed out they would be constructing a street with no lots on either side at a cost of $15,000. Me. Britton stated they were looking a circulation. She further stated another option was to bring it out to the east between lots 75 and 76. Mr. Gray explained that, while he was asking for a waiver on the cul-de-sac because it was over 500 feet in length, the lots were much larger than normal with only 12 lots using the cul-de-sac. Ms. Britton stated she had reviewed the circulation of the entire development not just those 12 lots. In response to a question from Mr. Springborn, Mr. Gray explained it was economically preferrable to have the two tandem lots. He stated he did not understand why the Planning Commission was opposed to tandem lots. Mr. Springborn explained the primary purpose for having tandem lots in the ordinance was to accommodate unusual terrain. He expressed his believe that the terrain on this subdivision was not unusual. Mr. Gray explained that the more lots in a subdivision such as this one, the less street, water and sewer there would be and the less maintenance cost for the city. Ms. Bryant stated planning staff had originally raised the question of terrain but was now satisfied there was a valid terrain issue in this subdivision. She recommended the tandem lots be approved. Mr. Hanna stated he did not believe the tandem lots were a problem in this subdivision. He explained he thought the problem with tandem lots was in estaklished neighborhoods with tandem lots behind existing houses in existing subdivisions. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated he agreed with Ms. Bryant that the pond presented a terrain feature that could be used to support the tandem lots. NOTION Mr. Springborn moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff plat review comments and subdivision comments excepting the elimination of the tandem lot. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. After discussion, the Commission determined Fescue Court would be extended but the tandem lots would remain as tandem lots per the motion. • • • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 4 The motion passed 8-1-0 with Commissioners Britton, Hanna, Springborn, Allred, Tarvin, Robertson, Cato, and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioner Cleghorn voting "no". Mr. Gray stated he was not certain what the Commission had approved. He asked if they had just approved right-of-way dedication. Mr. Bunn stated they had. He explained that, normally when the Commission required dedication from the interior to the border of a subdivision, they expected another developer to tie into the right-of-way. He further explained that in this subdivision there would never be an occasion for another developer to tie on. He suggested they require the right-of-way be required and constructed now or not require the dedication. Mr. Allred stated they needed to clarify how they wanted to deal with the dedication either by having no right-of-way extension or have the street constructed. Mr. Tarvin stated it was his understanding that the right-of-way dedication pertained to the quarter of a mile entrance in order to allow future development to the east and west to have access to the main road. He further stated the question of extending the right-of-way off of Fescue Court was to allow an access there and to eliminate a long cul-de-sac. He further stated the intent was that the road be built. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to rescind the previous motion. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Bunn stated he did not feel strongly that the street needed to be extended. Mr. Allred asked what would be gained by requiring the extension of Fescue Court. Ms. Britton pointed out extending Fescue would allow better circulation throughout the subdivision. Mr. Allred pointed out that, in the past, they had been encouraging cul-de-sacs to reduce traffic through subdivisions with major and minor arterials to carry the traffic. Ms. Britton stated that would put an excessive burden on one route without extending Fescue. Mr. Hanna stated he believed it was unfair to make them extend Fescue since there was only 12 lots on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bunn explained that requiring a road to be built from the end of Fescue Court east 'to Ed Edwards Road would not gain very much. He stated he would not recommend it. He suggested that in order to plan for circulation at a later point they could require dedication of right-of-way from the end of Fescue Court north to the edge of the property without requiring it to be built now. He explained that, in the future, someone developing to the north might tie into it. Mr. Gray agreed that would be a workable solution. • • • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 5 Ms. Bryant stated she did not understand why they were asking the cul-de-sac be extended since there were only 12 lots on the cul-de-sac. Twelve lots would only generate 120 vehicle trips/day and the cul-de-sac could handle 200. Mr. Allred stated he believed they were they should not be getting involved in. plat, the Commission had staff reports what they needed to base their decision MOTION trying to apply design standards which He stated the engineer had presented the and comments, and he believed that was on. Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the preliminary plat with the dedication of the east and west right-of-way off of Tallgrass Drive and the granting of access to the north but not constructing the road at this time. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - McILROY BANK GLEN WOODRUFF - SE CORNER STEARNS & JOYCE The fourth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a large scale development for Mcllroy Bank presented by Glen Woodruff of Wittenberg, Delony & Davidson, Inc. on behalf of Mcllroy Bank & Trust. The property is located on the southeast corner of Stearns and Joyce (1164 E. Joyce) and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The property contains 1.26 acres. Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments by any of the utility companies, staff or subcommittee members. He recommended approval of the large scale development subject to the construction of sidewalks as required and the submittal of a grading plan. Mr. Woodruff appeared before the Commission and, in response to a question from Mr. Nickle, explained the notation on the plat "future sidewalk to be completed by the City of Fayetteville" was because that portion of property was owned by the City. Mr. Bunn stated the sidewalk should be constructed as part of the project by the developer. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 RON OSBORN - E OF DEANE SOLOMON RD., S OF MOORE LN. The next item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations for a lot split of property located on the east side of Deane Solomon Road, south of Moore Lane presented by Ron Osborn. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Bunn explained this was a proposed split of property owned by Donald Williams to the Fayetteville Church of Christ. He stated the original tract was 20 acres S6 • • • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 6 and the proposed tract to be split off was 1.5 acres. He stated this would allow the church to install a septic tank. He further stated water would have to be extended the to the site. He recommended approval of the lot split. Mr. Osborn appeared before the Commission and explained water was available from Shiloh Drive and it was possible to get an easement for the water line. MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE CU91-25 - CHURCH RON OSBORN - E SIDE OF DEANE SOLOMON RD., S OF MOORE LN. The sixth item on the agenda was a request for approval of a conditional use for a church to be located on the east side of Deane Solomon Road, south of Moore Lane presented by Ron Osborn. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-2, Medium Density Residential. Ms. Bryant explained the conditional use request was for the construction of a church. She stated the surrounding property was largely undeveloped agricultural, recreational and residential lands. She further stated that adequate provision could be made for all requirements of the zoning code. She recommended approval of the request. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the conditional use. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 CLIFFORD CLEVENGER - E OF 54TH AVE., S OF WEDINGTON The next item to be reviewed was a request for a waiver of subdivision regulations for a lot split of property located east of 54th Avenue and south of Wedington by Clifford Clevenger. The property is zoned A-1, Agriculture. Mr. Bunn explained the proposal was to split 4.93 acres which contain 10 duplexes. He further explained the duplexes were served by private drive and all utilities were already in place. He recommended the lot split be approved subject to the granting of an additional five feet of right-of-way adjacent to 54th Street. He explained the property was A-1 property and the duplexes were non -conforming use of the property until it was rezoned. Mr. Dave Fulton appeared before the Board representing Mr. Clevenger. He explained the property was in its current use when it was annexed into the city. Mr. Bunn explained the use became non -conforming when the property was annexed. He further explained they were requesting a change in lot size in order to sell part of the tract. Mr. Fulton stated Mr. Clevenger was willing to grant the additional five feet of right-of-way. 251 • • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 7 MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the lot split subject to the granting of five feet of right-of-way adjacent to 54th Street. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PROPOSED CHANGES IN GREEN SPACE ORDINANCE Mr. Scott Linebaugh, City Manager, stated the Planning Commission had a number of questions at their last meeting regarding the parks funds. He further stated his office had forwarded to the Commission a memo showing the operating funds for the Parks Division starting in 1988 with $324,000 through 1992 with $411,000. He explained there was also a separate schedule showing the capital expenditures in 1988 were $18,000 and in 1991 went up to $1,000,000. He further stated the requested amount for 1992 was $600,000. He also pointed out $4,000,000 of capital projects that the Parks Board had requested that the City was unable to fund. Mr. Linebaugh explained the total capital improvements program was approximately $18,000,000 worth of projects for which funding is unavailable. He stated Mr. Ben Mayes, Finance Director, would give a short presentation to answer their questions from the previous meeting. Mr. Mayes stated he had reviewed the minutes of the October 28 meeting and hoped to answer the questions raised at that time. He further stated one of the primary questions had been where the money came from to fund park and recreation, administration and maintenance. He explained that currently one hundred percent of the funding came from the city's general fund. He further explained that the amount dedicated for parks funding had increased steadily over the past five years at an average annual increase of approximately 5 1/2% while most functions in the general fund had been limited to 2 1/2 to 4% increase during the same period. He pointed out the schedule of parks and recreation expenditure history staff had sent to the Commissioners outlined operational funding for parks and recreational transfers. He further noted the city anticipated budgeting approximately $1.1 million for such activity in 1992. He further explained that all but $50,000 of the money would come from the General Fund (the other $50,000 was the transfer to the Air Museum which came from the city's Advertising and Promotion Commission). Mr. Mayes further explained the schedule covered parks and recreation, not parks only. He pointed out some of the functions such as the library were not under the jurisdiction of the Parks Board. Mr. Mayes stated questions had also been posed about monies spent for capital development. He explained the city's General Fund had expended only minor amounts of capital funding during the past five years. He further explained this was not unusual in that the General Fund had not been used to fund capital expenditures in other areas either. He stated maintaining a balanced General Fund had been difficult. He pointed out that approximately $350,000 had been cut from the proposed budget in the General Fund last year before it was adopted by the City Board. He stated they had basically eliminated all capital expenditures out of the General Fund at that time. He further explained that for the city to significantly increase activity in areas supported by the General Fund, either tax or fee increases had to be enacted. He gave as an example the 1992 budget contains a property tax increase for the hiring of additional police and fire personnel. • Mr. Mayes further pointed out that recently the majority of capital funding had come from the 1990 capital improvements bond issue and from excess city sales tax si( • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 8 funding. He also stated that some funding had come from Community Development Block Grant funds and the remainder from greenspace funds. He asked the Commission refer to the schedule of capital projects. He noted there were significant amounts of money that had been spent and were planned in the future through the City's capital improvements program. He drew their attention to the fact that approximately $4.3 million in projects that were still on the city's potential projects list. He stated those projects were considered to be viable, but have no funding source identified. He explained there probably would continue to be more parks projects to do than resources available with which to do them. He noted some of these projects, such as bikeways and the library, were not directly responsible to the Parks & Recreation Board. Mr. Mayes explained if the potential projects were to be funded, the city would need to review the need for placing additional sales tax before the voters or some other source. He stated such a proposal would support various parks capital projects, bikeways, sidewalks, and other items brought out by the public through the Fayetteville Vision project. He also stated excess sales tax and General Fund monies would continue to be used as they became available together with the greenspace funds. He explained the greenspace funds were essential to continuing efforts toward park acquisition and development. He further explained that greenspace funds represented a steady and continuing source of revenue for the city's parks as they continued to grow. He stated the proposed greenspace fee and dedication increase was nota tax in staff's opinion. He further stated the 1992 property tax levy for a citizen of Fayetteville was expected to be in the neighborhood of 47 mills. He explained that the majority of the property taxes were utilized by the schools, county, and library; that the city would only receive 3.8 mills in 1992 for general government operations. He further explained these funds could be used for any lawful purpose. He stated of the 3.8 mills, 1.7 mills was dedicated to hiring additional police and fire personnel. He explained the remaining 2.1 mills (approximately $500,000) was used to assist in supporting all General Fund operations. Mr. Mayes expressed his belief that the greenspace fees should be viewed by all practical measures as an impact fee. He explained the developers were charged a one-time fee for future impact that the development would have on the city's parks and recreation system. He stated the city staff strongly supported the concept of impact fees and believed the current increase in the greenspace fees and dedications was necessary for continued park acquisition and development. He encouraged the Commission's support for the increase. Mr. Mayes stated the budget process was a very complicated and long process but he would be glad to talk about it further should the Commission wish. He explained one of the most confusing things about the budget was that capital funds such as the sales tax, had to be used for capital items only. He further explained those funds could not be used for operational items. He stated that currently all operating and maintenance funds for parks and recreation came from the General Fund. He further stated that greenspace funds could not be used for operations, just acquisition and development. He expressed his belief that the city strongly supported parks and recreation and cited the large increase they had received over the last five years. He stated he believed greenspace fees were an excellent way to supplement the other funds and allow the city to develop some of the land that had been acquired or to purchase additional land. He stated financing alternatives would still need to be explored particularly for the major projects. Mr. Kevin Crosson, Administrative Services Director, explained the General Fund was for funding of operations and maintenance for the parks and recreation • • • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 9 program He the General regulations maintenance Fund. stated that operations for approximately 42 funds were financed from Fund. He explained there were very strict state and federal on how those funds were spent. He noted that operations and for parks and recreation could only be financed from the General Mr. Springborn expressed concern over the difference in the handling of land contributed and money paid in lieu of the land. He stated he liked impact fees and believed they should be used for more than parks and recreation. He explained his understanding was that, if land was contributed, the land had to be within the park district within which the developed was located but money could be used for development city wide. Mr. Crosson explained that the money could only be used in that quadrant of the city where the development was located. Mr. Cleghorn stated his concern at the last meeting was that the city was doing it's fair share for the parks. He also stated he had heard a lot of the parks budget was given to the library. Mr. Bill Waite, Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, stated their budget did not go to the library. Mr. Hanna stated the semantics about whether the money was fees or taxes depended upon who was saying it. He further stated one of the top priorities in the Vision plan was affordable housing. He explained he did not care if they called it a fee or a tax, it would impact affordable housing to double the greenspace fees. He expressed his belief that doubling the greenspace fee was not the proper way to raise more money for the parks and recreation department. He stated he believed they were penalizing the people that they were trying to help the most when they added 110% increase on greenspace fees. He stated the building lot was the foundation of affordable housing. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Crosson explained the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and city parks staff have an agreed upon budget for each year and bring it before the budget staff. The budget staff considers the entire budget, review the needs and wants, and where we stand on funding of various programs, make adjustments and changes from there and then take it to the Board at that point. It goes through a process. Mr. Allred verified the fees were for acquisition and development only and did not include maintenance. He pointed out everytime the city acquired a new park it would cut into the maintenance fund of the existing parks. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Edmonston explained the Parks Administration fund included personnel (Director, Assistant Director, and secretary), office supplies, equipment, van, travel, training. She explained that in 1991 the Ballfield Concessions were no longer under Parks Administration so it appeared on paper that there was a cut. Mr. Tarvin pointed out that, in comparing the funding from the four year period of 1988 to 1992, the parks administration costs doubled and the parks maintenance went down. Mr. Allred expressed his opinion that perhaps the city needed more quality parks and less quantity parks. He stated he was concerned that, as they acquired more parks, they were cutting into the existing maintenance budget. He explained it did not appear they could care for the existing parks and yet wanted to cut the budget to acquire more parks in the future. He suggested taking care of the existing parks, making them class A parks and not having parks that were just • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 10 vacant land called parks. As an example of the problem, he cited the fact that Walker Park did not have restrooms. He stated restrooms were needed at the existing parks before more land was acquired for future parks. Mr. Waite explained that green space funds were for acquisition and development. He stated most of the greenspace funds had been used for capital improvements within existing parks. He explained there were a few critical areas where land was needed. He listed Gulley Park as an example, explaining it was unusable for three years until they used greenspace fees to improve it. Mr. Tarvin stated he believed a decision of this nature was the responsibility of the Board of Directors. He further stated it was his understanding that the Parks Board wanted a recommendation from the Planning Commission in order to perhaps influence the Board of Directors. He asked the Parks Board members if the doubling of the greenspace fees was to generate a certain amount of money. He asked how that compared to the budget. Mr. Waite stated the projections of income $40,000 a year up to $75,000 or $80,000 greenspace funds were restricted in use improvements on existing parks. He stated capital improvements to the parks. Mr. Nickle stated he appreciated Commissioner Hanna's concern for affordable housing but an additional hundred dollars to the cost of a lot financed over 25 or 35 years would never be noticed in the monthly payment. He expressed his belief that the developer should participate in the costs of the parks. Mr. Allred explained the problem was not spreading the fee over a 20 year period. He stated the problem was qualifying the buyer; that sometimes $5 or $10 extra would unqualify the buyer because of the loan to debt ratio equity. He further explained it affected the affordable housing. He stated that was a problem in low income housing. Mr. Springborn stated he understood that the additional monies collected would be spent for development within specific park districts. He explained they would have to hope that the need occurred in the district that the development took place in. Ms. Edmonston agreed with Mr. Springborn. She further explained the fees had to be expended within three years of their collection. She stated they had a long list .of potential projects that could be done immediately if they had the funds. She further stated they were concerned about acquiring land and then not being able to maintain it and they did take that into consideration. Mr. Allred asked if they could reallocate the funds whereby a portion of the fees would go to park maintenance. He explained he would more readily support the increase if the parks could be maintained once they were developed. were funds would go from $35,000 to per year. He again explained the to only acquiring land or capital the bulk of funds would be spent on Mr. Crosson explained the Supreme Court of Arkansas would not allow that. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, fees had been set in 1981. She further doubled, they would still be some of the Ms. Edmonston explained the greenspace explained that, even if the fees were lowest in the nation. Mr. Tarvin pointed out the Commission was not debating the ordinance, they were just trying to find out if the increase in fees was adequate and justifiable. Ms. Britton expressed concern that it would not be enough money. She stated it seemed to her that parks were always the losers. She stated she liked the fact • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 11 that this was an impact fee but would like it better if the funds could only be spent for 50% of the cost and the city had to match funds. Mr. Cato stated his understanding was that this was a very needed fee and the consensus of the staff was that the greenspace fee needed to be increased. He stated he knew affordable housing would be affected but it appeared to him that the development of the parks was part of the "flavor" of Fayetteville. Mr. Cleghorn asked how the Vision project had ranked parks. Mr. Linebaugh stated that in all public hearings the parks had been very important. He further stated the Visions report would be forwarded to the Commission the following day. Mr. Springborn stated he was in sympathy with the increase but he would like to know there would be funds available to operate the parks in the future. He recalled that approximately a year earlier they had been advised that one of the parks had been closed for lack of funding. Ms. Edmonston stated there had been no parks closed for lack of funding. Mr. Crosson stated they had considered closing parks that were under utilized but they had never closed one down due to lack of maintenance funds. Mr. Linebaugh stated there was no question that the funding situation had grown worse. He explained that more city funds were going to provide basic services, leaving less for amenities. He further explained that funding had kept going down and expenses for basic services had kept going up. Mr. Allred explained he was not opposed to increasing funds for parks but he believed they were using the wrong vehicle. He expressed his belief that the parks needed more maintenance and development than new acquisitions. He stated that was his main concern. He explained he would prefer funding be established for maintenance of existing parks. He suggested possibly amending the ordinance to allow funding for maintenance and development of existing parks. Ms. Britton agreed the city needed money to maintain the parks but she hoped the city could come up with some type of funding. She explained if the greenspace fee provided for maintenance also, the city could divorce themselves from the parks. Mr. Crosson pointed out the city was currently contributing over a million dollars to the park system. Mr. Linebaugh agreed there was a lot of park land undeveloped and a lot of parks needed work. He informed the Commission they could make a recommendation to the Board that the greenspace money just be used for development purposes instead of acquiring more land. Mr. Allred expressed his approval of should maintain and develop existing else if they needed to acquire more that type of recommendation explaining they lands and then, in the future, do something parks. Mr. Cleghorn stated he thought the parks system in Fayetteville was a very good one. MOTION Mr. Cato stated he would also like to see the funds used for development rather than acquisition. He moved to recommend to the City Board the approval of the e • Planning Commission November 12, 1991 Page 12 increased greenspace fees and the Commission felt that the preferred use of funds should be development rather acquisition. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. Mr. Waite stated he did not know if they legally could restrict the funds to development only. He explained that in the past 15 years they had acquired only two parks so they had been using the funds more for development. Ms. Edmonston agreed that most of the funds went toward development and would continue to do so but, if the funds were restricted to development only, they would miss the opportunity to obtain greenspaces that, in the future, needed to be neighborhood parks. She stated they must look toward the future. Mr. Cato stated the Commission did not have the authority to pass the resolution. He further stated they were only making a recommendation which included a desire to see either most of the money or all of the money go toward development rather than acquisition. He explained he would like to see quality parks rather than quantity but that did not mean they could never buy another park. Mr. Robertson explained they recently had the opportunity to increase Sweetbriar Park by approximately a quarter of an acre as a result of the greenspace ordinance. He stated he believed there were situations were land acquisition was important and the Parks Advisory Board should have the option to exercise that when necessary. Mr. Allred stated staff could forward the recommendation to the City Attorney to be sure it was legal. The motion passed 6-2-1 with Commissioners Cleghorn, Cato, Tarvin, Nickle, Allred and Springborn voting "yes", Commissioners Britton and Hanna voting "no" and Commissioner Robertson abstaining. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.