Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-03 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 3, 1991 in Room 326 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, and Charles Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jett Cato Scott Linebaugh, Kevin Crosson, Jerry Cooper, Dan Coody, Alett Little, Clark McClinton, Mike Faupell, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others DISCUSSION OF THE FAYETTEVILLE VISION REPORT Mr. Allred called the meeting to order and explained the only item on the agenda was receiving the report from the City staff on the Vision report. He reminded the Commission that, on July 9, 1991 at a joint meeting of the Board of Directors and the Planning Commission, it had been voted to return the document to the staff for a cost analysis and then have the report come back to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Board of Directors. He explained they were now receiving the report back from the staff, making any alterations and then either rejecting it, accepting it or modifying it in order to send it to the Board of Directors. Mr. Nickle stated he would like to have someone from staff summarize the expenditures that were planned. Mr. Linebaugh introduced Jerry Cooper who had worked on the projections. He explained that implementation of the entire report would amount to $19,000,000 over a four year period. Mr. Cooper explained the document was broken down into two major sections. He stated the first section was the executive summary and was primarily an overview of the other sections. He explained they had listed the goals and recommendations submitted by the Vision Steering Committee, identified the cost and staff hours required to accomplish the recommendations as staff had interpreted them. Mr. Cooper then reviewed the report, explaining the cost breakdown figures - the first column represented the maximum funds to meet the recommendation, the second column represented the minimum funding required by using innovative ideas to achieve the recommendation at the lowest cost, and the third column representing the funds planned for expenditure in 1992. He gave as an example the recommendation of creating a citizen advocate position. He explained that if they hired a person as a citizen advocate it would cost the city $22,775 (as represented in column 1) for 1992 but, if they used a volunteer to fill the position, it would cost $2,160 (as represented in column 2). Mr. Cooper further explained that some of the cost projections were estimates since they did not have the actual figures and gave as an example resolving the odor problem at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Director Coody stated members of the Vision Steering Committee did not feel they had received adequate time to review the report. • 76/ • • • • Special Planning Commission December 3, 1991 Page 2 Mr. Faupell, a member of the Vision Steering Committee, explained the Committee had reconvened the previous afternoon and agreed there were some items they would like to clarify. He stated there were a few points where there had been a lack of communication between the Committee's perception of the public comment and the way the staff interpreted it. He further explained time had not allowed the Committee to review those points and notify city staff. In response to a question from Director Coody, Ms. Little explained Planning staff had adequate time to review the report. Director Coody asked if the decision on the report had to be made immediately. Mr. Allred explained that when he called the meeting, in reviewing the notes from the combined meeting, the report was just to come back to the Planning Commission without going back to the Steering Committee. He explained he was under the impression that the staff was reporting back to the Planning Commission and the Commission was to decide upon what was presented to them. He stated that it did not go back to the Vision Committee for their recommendation. He stated the Board, in the joint meeting, had already accepted the document as presented. He explained all the combined boards wanted a cost analysis on the report. He stated the reason this meeting had been set was to try to get the report approved before getting into the holiday season. Director Coody stated it seemed that, if the Vision Steering Committee wanted more time to review the report and the Planning Director could use more time to review the report, it might behoove them to digest the report more fully. Mr. Allred stated that would be up to the entire Planning Commission. Mr. McClinton explained that he had thought the Steering Committee was finished with the project but they had received a cover letter with the report that said: "As members of the Steering Committee you may wish to individually review the document and individually comment at the Planning Commission and City Board meeting. Alternately, you may wish to reconvene as a group to develop a formal position and present that position at the forthcoming meeting." He explained that was the reason the Steering Committee reconvened. Mr. Allred explained he had not been privileged to that letter and had no input into it. He stated no one had asked the Planning Commission their opinion. He stated the letter had been written behind the scenes and without proper notification to the Board of Directors or the Planning Commission. Mr. Linebaugh explained the letter had been written by a staff member on behalf of herself. He further stated that his office had not known the staff member had written the letter. He explained they did not appreciate what she had done but it was not his intention to go around the Planning Commission or Board of Directors. Mr. Hanna stated it was his understanding that the reason for the Vision process was to receive input from the citizens of Fayetteville. He further stated the Steering Committee's report had been made and city staff had projected the costs of implementing the goals. He expressed his belief that the Planning Commission's acceptance of the staff's report completed their portion of the Vision process. He further stated it was the City Board's duty, through city staff, to implement that portion of the report the Board felt the City could afford. Mr. Hanna expressed his belief that it was not the Planning Commission's job to implement the plan nor was it their job to accept the report on the provision that it be enforced. Mr. Linebaugh explained the City Board just wanted a recommendation from the • • • Special Planning Commission December 3, 1991 Page 3 Planning Commission on how to proceed on the report. He stated it was his understanding from the Steering Committee meeting held the previous day that there had been some misunderstandings by the staff. He explained staff had been made aware of three of them and were working to revise what needed to be revised. Mr. Nickle stated he thought the report was well prepared and presented but he wanted to know how much it all would cost. He stated that was the information the Planning Commission had asked for and that was what they had received. He stated staff had done a good job in pulling the report together. Mr. Allred explained the Vision project was for goal setting, not establishing policy. He further explained that just because the Planning Commission accepted the report did not mean everything in the report would be implemented. He expressed his hopes that many of the goals would be achieved but also explained that some of the goals were not cost effective. Mr. Allred emphasized the Board of Directors set policy, not the Planning Commission. Mr. Springborn stated when he reviewed the report he looked at it from the same standpoint that Commissioner Hanna had set forth. He stated he thought the report was extremely well done and satisfied the request as made by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. Mr. Cleghorn stated that, if the Vision Steering Committee felt there was a miscommunication, he didn't feel good about passing the report on to the Board without the Vision Steering Committee having adequate time to review it and make their recommendations. He stated that, if the people involved wanted to take the time, they needed to be given time to correct whatever was perceived wrongly. He stated the report needed to be like the citizens meant it to be. Ms. Britton stated there were a couple of instances in the report that things were slightly misinterpreted. She further stated she did not believe that the input would be necessary to the Planning Commission. She explained the Vision Committee goals would not be changed but the suggested implementation would be. She felt the Vision members needed an opportunity to respond wherever they found misinterpretation. She expressed her belief there should be an opportunity for Steering Committee members that wished to speak before the Board. Mr. Springborn asked if the additional work was documented in the shape of errata to accompany the report. Ms. Britton stated she did not know. She explained she personally had planned to write up her responses because she did not want to speak for the entire Steering Committee. She suggested others could do the same. She further explained they could not get the entire Steering Committee together and therefore did not know the consensus of the group. Mr. Nickle asked if they had to act on the report at this meeting. Mr. Linebaugh stated action on the report could be delayed. He stated that, if the Planning Commission wished, staff could set down with the steering committee. He stated it was his understanding there was even disagreement among steering committee members as to what was stated and how it should be. He stated they could try to get an consensus from the steering committee. Mr. Allred stated the Planning Commission would have to recommend the report go back to staff and the steering committee. Mr. Nickle suggested that, since there had been some identifiable differences in opinion about some statements, he would like to see them resolved, if they could be, before the Planning Commission passed the report to the Board He explained he believed that would be a much stronger statement to the Board. He asked at what point the documents would be made available to the general public. • • • Special Planning Commission December 3, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Linebaugh explained the reports were currently available to anyone that wanted one. He further explained that it was not an official document until the Board of Directors took action on it. Mr. Hanna explained there was a problems of getting the Steering Committee members interested in coming to a meeting. He stated it appeared there were a number of members of the Steering Committee that did not believe there was any need to reconvene since they had gone through the process of hearing the public. He suggested that, if the Planning Commission believed the Steering Committee members needed to make further comment, they could make their comments either in writing or by contacting the Planning Division. He further stated he did not believe a Vision Steering Committee meeting would accomplish very much because each member would give their personal view. He explained the Committee wasn't the input source for the report - that had been done by the public. Mr. McClinton stated the Committee's duty was not to establish policy but goals mentioned by the public. As an example of misinterpretation of the goals by city staff, he explained that the public had requested restrooms at Walker Park. He explained city staff had included soccer fields and showed an expenditure of $600,000. He also noted there were goals which the city could do nothing about, giving as an example the educational goals. He explained those goals had been included because the general public had felt strongly about the quality of education in Fayetteville. He recommended staff write each Steering member for any comments they might have regarding the report. Mr. Allred suggested the staff could send a letter, review the comments, and present their findings to the Planning Commission. He reminded the Commission that goals were just goals, not etched in stone as to policy, and they could be changed and altered as situations demand. He explained that one of the reasons he had called this meeting was to try to get a consensus, get the report implemented and completed in 1991 so they could stay on track with all of the goals and objectives. He suggested that, should the steering committee have any additional comments they would like to make, they do so by January 1. Ms. Britton stated she believed the deadline needed to be sooner. Mr. Allred suggested the report be referred back to the steering committee. He stated it was the prerogative of the chairman of the Vision Steering Committee to call a meeting. He further stated the Planning Commission could set a deadline to receive those comments and suggestions. Ms. Britton stated she wanted to defend Ms. Bryant for sending the report to the Steering Committee. She explained that, as a member of the steering committee, she was very anxious to see the response from staff. She agreed that it was not the committee's job to make the decisions about policy or the cost effectiveness of the goals. She expressed her belief that each of the steering committee members needed an opportunity to respond if they felt there was a misinterpretation. She also stated she believed it would be better to have Steering Committee members contact the staff rather than attempting another Steering Committee meeting. Mr. Tarvin stated a lot of effort had gone into the project and it was important that it be protected. He expressed his opinion that they did not need to set a deadline in the immediate future for comments. He stated he believed it was important that if there were differences between the goals and the staff report they be clarified. He explained that, once those differences were brought out and clarified, then there might be a need to revise some of the numbers. He stated too much energy had gone into this project to not complete it properly. Mr. Robertson stated he basically agreed the project had been a group project and should come from the group rather than with Mr. Tarvin. He further stated that he believed any suggestions or comments individuals. He further stated that, • • • Special Planning Commission December 3, 1991 Page 5 while the individual members were entitled to an opinion, he did not believe that would be as relevant as the committee's comments. Ms. Little stated it was very important for the public viewpoint to be properly represented. She explained that the goals that had been set were not incorrect, however the interpretation of the goals might need some refinement. Mr. Allred stated that to send the report back to the committee would just open everything back up again. He asked if that was productive. He asked if they wanted to go through all of the months of committee meetings again, or if it was just refining the goals, that should be something done and accomplished without a lot of meetings. Ms. Britton stated none of them wanted to change any of the goals -- just the way some of them were being implemented. MOTION Mr. Nickle suggested passing the report back to staff to obtain the steering committee's comments regarding accuracy of the report and then present it to the Planning Commission at the next convenient meeting. He stated his comments were in the form of a motion. Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion. Ms. Britton suggested getting written comments prior to the meeting. Mr. Allred suggested having the report back to the Planning Commission at the second meeting in January. After discussion it was determined the steering committee would have their comments and recommendations back to the Planning Commission in a timely manner. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.