Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-07 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A speoial meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, May 7 at 3:30 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Stan Green and B. J. Dow Street Committee Chairman Marion Orton, Mayor Paul Noland, City Attorney Jim McCord, Contracts Maintenance Administrator Clayton Powell, Wade Bishop, Ervan Wimberly, Planning Director Sandra Carlisle and Secretary Paula Brandeis Jacks advised this meeting was called to acquaint those other than the Subdivision Committee members of a problem in the ordinance that has been ongoing for about 10 years. He said this ordinance came to the Planning Commission's jurisdiction through the City Board and was meant to have those that cause a need help pay for same, particularly with regard to subdivisions and large scale developments. Jacks explained that a developer is currently required to bear that portion of the cost which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by his development. He said the ordinance declares acreage as the primary method of determining rational nexus unless it is an unfair situation. He said the Commission has been charged with the job of making the determination of cost which has gradually shifted into requesting the developer to improve one-half the street. Jacks said, at this time, some comments have been made that this is not a fair way of determining that cost to which he he agreed. He noted that City representatives make certain requests for improvements and the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission say those requests are not necessary which results in confusion on the developer's behalf. Jacks said he felt subdivisions were not as big a problem as were large scale developments because they occur as smaller lot developments on existing streets. Green pointed out that the current ordinance also applies to "...any commercial, industrial or multi -family development...on any street...not constructed according to existing City standards. Jacks said he felt the acreage basis of determination is equitable only under certain conditions. He added that use entered into the picture. He explained the difference between a winery with a restaurant and a large apartment complex or shopping center which would be of greater magnitude than the winery. With visual aids, Jacks explained �aq Planning Commission Special Meeting May 7, 1986 Page 2 the difference between two apartment complexes in the same general vicinity with the smaller complex having been required on to contribute more than the large one because of its location on two street frontages. He said other factors currently considered are the depth of a property and traffic counts, which he didn't feel was a good method because collectors and arterials carry different percentages of traffic depending on location and the further out the development occurs, the more one would have to contribute for the same amount of need created. Jacks questioned whether the City was locked into this particular method of building streets and what the City Attorney would be able to defend in court. Jacks suggested eliminating collectors and arterials from the ordinance requirement, perhaps creating a better chance of administering the ordinance to local streets. Orton said Jacks' suggestion seemed like a possibility and added that it was desirable to have subdivision and apartment complex driveways backing into local streets. She agreed that collectors receive the most use needing the most upkeep and repair. Green agreed it may be easier to ask a developer not to exit his drives onto collectors if he were not paying for the street development. Orton advised that many apartment complexes were built with gravel drives before the present ordinance was in affect. She said she received many calls from residents of those areas because apartment owners told the renters that the streets were the City's responsibility. She noted that these streets had had very little use before the complexes were built but the City wound up paving the streets. Orton said she felt there was some obligation when it is obvious that the developer is creating the impact. Jacks said there have been very few problems lately because the developers understand the existing ordinance. McCord advised that an alternative would be to change the rational nexus standard which is based on the New Jersey Supreme Court upholding. He said, in other states, the requirement is upheld only if it is specifically and uniquely attributable to the development. He also said that in New Jersey the requirement is for immediate construction with no banking allowed by the municipality. Madison questioned whether bills of assurance, as generally accepted by the City, are considered as banking. McCord explained that banking applies to projected, but unscheduled, construction plans. • • • Planning Commission Special Meeting May 7, 1986 Page 3 Green said he felt the present ordinance gives the City less ability to control growth in town because developers have a tendency to avoid those streets that they might be required to improve. He said they look, instead, for a State Highway or a City constructed street where they will not have to make any contribution to street improvements. Green noted there are vacant lots surrounded by sub -standard streets in the middle of town possibly because of this reason. He said there may be some advantage to the City, in terms of cost, to keep developers closer in listing lower costs for police and fire protection. He agreed with Jacks' suggestion to drop arterials and collectors from the requirements. Green said it may give the City more control over growth to encourage builders to develop close in on streets improved by the City. Wood reported that Springdale uses the same basis for subdivision improvements, as Fayetteville although this ordinance was recently adopted and has not yet been applied. Wood said Rogers requires a developer to build one half the street whether it is collector, arterial or local street, to their requirements. He said they also require a developer to address any drainage problems they create. Wood said Bentonville does not have any off-site improvements requirements and requests only drainage improvements. He said Little Rock requires the developer to pay one-half of the improvements although this is not written, it is just policy. Wood said he had found a complete policy statement from Santa Clara, California regarding on and off-site subdivision improvements. He said the policy spells out a schedule of exactly what the City, as well as the developer, will participate in. He further explained that the policy calls for liens against property in some situations which McCord has advised oan not be done in Arkansas. Orton spoke of an unimproved street near the university where a large apartment complex was built, noting that it would have been fair for the developer to improve that street. In comparison, she said she thought it would be difficult to justify that same improvement along a collector street. Orton suggested the possibility of requiring street improvements to other than full City standards. McCord agreed that one resolution to the problem was to drop collectors and arterials from the ordinance requirement. He advised this was acceptable from his standpoint and questioned whether the Board would agree. Jacks advised that any revision to the ordinance should be well thought out. Orton advised that the City Board has a real dedication to obtaining sidewalks and they would probably not waive that requirement. She said any street requiring additional right-of-way should still meet that obligation. gal \�� Planning Commission Special Meeting May 7, 1986 Page 4 Wood said it bothered him, from a planning standpoint, that a development should post the City anything at all, as the City's cost comes in the maintenance of that development. He questioned whether the City would want to continue to recoup some of that expense by having the cost of paving, curb and gutter taken care of by the developer. Green said streets in subdivisions were integral to the development and the developer should havee to build streets without any cost to the City. Wood asked if the committee felt that a subdivision on a collector street, such as Old Wire Road, was considered on or off-site. He said he felt it was on-site if the development abuts that road. Members of the committee noted that many people use Old Wire Road and had a difficult time considering its improvement a single developer's responsibility. Discussion continued regarding this issue. Orton asked if eliminating collectors and arterials would encourage builders to develop on those streets. She expressed concern that driveways would then be exiting onto these busy streets rather than onto side streets and suggested avoiding this situation as much as possible. Dow suggested the developer pay for that their driveways do exit onto. situation is sometimes a safety are sometimes required to have more improvements to those busy streets Madison noted that this type of issue and added that developments than one access point. Jacks commented that eliminating collectors and arterials from the ordinance requirement would change things drastically and with the City improving these streets to sub -standard, some pressure would be eliminated which now exists in the current "leap -frog" situation. He reiterated that a fair and consistent solution is being sought. Orton agreed but added that impact needs to be considered and to not expect that, within that same City budget, major improvements can be made to a street just because a development is there. She agreed that sub -standard improvements held some possibilities. Powell said the cost of eliminating collectors and arterials would be expensive. He said he agreed with Wood in that the existing situation, which took 16 years to evolve, is ideal. Madison asked about changing the ordinance to require that everyone pay for improving the street frontage of their property. McCord said he felt that idea was too broad. Madison expressed concern that in abandoning collectors and arterials from the requirements, they would never be improved. She also expressed distress at only one member • • • • Planning Commission Special Meeting May 7, 1986 Page 5 of the Street Committee attending this meeting. Orton agreed that it would probably take as much as ten years to get the improvements. Madison suggested that building streets to local standards, no matter what classification they are, would be fair to everyone. McCord said he could draft some possible amendments to the ordinance to be presented, with or without recommendation, to the Planning Commission followed by recommendation to the City Board. Jacks replied he would like to see what the Street Department and the Board's reaction to this issue is. Orton said she would like some feedback from staff as to what the financial impaot on the City would be. McCord agreed to prepare a letter summarizing this meeting to send to the Board and to the Planning Commission requesting feedback and inquiring whether any of the avenues discussed should be pursued. Green noted that, during a meeting addressing the update of the General Plan, Deryl Burch advised a plan is being made for a public street inventory. He suggested a request for input be made directly to Buroh, as well as City Board members, as Burch is the staff expert. • Orton agreed, noting she would like to have a report from Burch before a letter is sent to the Board so that they may be presented together. • Madison inquired into deleting the rational nexus basis from the code of ordinances and an ordinance be codified requiring improvements from anyone abutting a sub -standard street along that development's street frontage. McCord said he could not say for certain what the Arkansas Supreme Court would uphold. He said there is no law in the Arkansas Supreme Court on the laws which are being addressed today. He added that his sources are decisions made by other appellant jurisdictions which are often conflicting. McCord advised that the Arkansas Supreme Court has been more protective of property values than other appellant courts and are less likely to uphold stringent land development regulations. He said he felt the City needs some standard whether it be rational nexus specifically and uniquely attributable or some another standard. Orton questioned the difference in traffic impact depending upon the development. She pointed out that without a definite standard, there is room to be more fair. Green added it is also easier to be arbitrary. Wimberly, of Northwest Engineers, said in the example of an addition recently presented for approval on Old Wire Road, the City would be left with a stretch of 600' widened and improved to arterial street standard for 10 years or whenever the City could afford to widen the remainder of the street. Madison said this situation is not approved of and the Subdivision Committee usually requests the developer to Planning Commission Special Meeting May 7, 1986 Page 6 execute a bill of assurances which states they will contribute their share of the expense at the point at which the City improves the entire street. Green compared the above situation with that of those people who live along Old Wire Road who did not happen to bring in a development plan before the City had the money for improvements which means that portions of the street would be improved by the City and portions by developers. Wimberly suggested banking the funds with the street improvements installed at one time instead of piece -meal. Madison advised it is the developers option whether the improvements be installed immediately or delayed. Zion Road was cited as an example of a street that has been partially improved and will need to be torn out when the entire road is improved. Jacks concluded by expressing his hopes that the Street Committee and the City Board will address the issues discussed at this meeting today. Orton added her hopes that the staff will present some helpful information. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. • • •