FAYETTEVILLE — It’s not just the big stuff such as water lines and street construction the City Council has to think about when it approves construction of a subdivision.
Sometimes, they even get to debate the size of a porch.
Architectural features such as building heights and porch sizes could easily come up at future meetings of the City Council as the aldermen begin deliberating the Oakbrooke Phase III neighborhood in west Fayetteville next to the Bridgeport subdivision.
Debating such detail is usually handled well before a proposed development reaches aldermen. But they will be part of the Oakbrooke discussion because the council, despite receiving new information in developer Tracy Hoskins’ request for a planned zoning district, decided not to return the matter to the commission.
Hoskins is arguing against certain conditions of approval made by the Planning Commission. Those include requirements that buildings be no taller than two stories, porches be at least six feet wide and no smaller than 60 square feet, among others. Meeting some or all of those requests will surely be part of the council granting approval.
“We feel that government should leave ‘specific’ architectural design features to design professionals and homeowners,” Hoskins wrote in his arguments to the council.
At issue for the council — beyond the question of the size of a porch or how tall a fence and building should be — is whether the council is the right place to debate the detail in the first place.
“In my experience, it would be atypical of the council to begin going through numerous, detailed conditions of approval,” said Jeremy Pate, director of Fayetteville’s Development Services. “This is typically accomplished through the review process up through the Planning Commission.”
Pate, the person responsible for reviewing development projects, noted he had not seen the new information Hoskins submitted to the council. At that same City Council meeting, only Ward 4 members Sarah Lewis and Shirley Lucas voted to return the project to the Planning Commission.
“The public process was not used the way it is intended,” Lewis said, who explained she does not want developers to circumvent that process by waiting until a matter reaches the council before presenting new information.
“It is a deliberate and public process intended to give ample opportunity for public comment, as well as ample opportunity for review of compatibility with city code,” Lewis said.
Hoskins contends the staff and public review process are geared toward making the city’s job easier rather than helping developers who propose qualified projects, particularly in the deadlines it sets. Developers are sometimes left with little option than to debate details at the City Council level, Hoskins said.
“You see, (the planning) staff gets weeks — sometimes — to craft their report to the commission or council,” Hoskins said. “We get only a few days.”
The planning staff report to the Planning Commission is sent to developers on or before the Thursday preceding a Monday night meeting of the commission, Pate said.
But this still leaves only a few days to draft responses, Hoskins rebutted.
“So, if we are fortunate enough that staff remembers to e-mail the report to us on Thursday afternoon, we have a couple of hours Thursday to review the info and plan responses,” Hoskins said. “This takes time. More time than would permit for distributing our responses sometime between Thursday afternoon and Monday.”
Planning Commission meetings begin at 5:30 p.m. on the first and third Monday of each month.
“Look, the problem is not necessarily staff,” Hoskins said. “The problem is the system itself. Though I’d think in these economic times with almost nothing going on, staff could be more timely and more transparent in their discussions with applicants.”
Several aldermen said the Planning Commission is obligated to table a matter if documents and reports come forward on the day of a meeting. On the day the commission was set to vote on the Oakbrooke zoning district, Hoskins handed out a 12-page document addressing certain conditions of approval set by the city. Even though the document represented new information, the commission voted 5-1 in favor of Oakbrooke, sending it on to the City Council.
“It’s not an opinion that the commission could have tabled the issue, it’s a fact,” said Matthew Petty, an alderman from Ward 2, who supported keeping the project at the council level. “I know that might be nitpicking, but it's important.”
Porter Winston, a planning commissioner who voted in favor of Oakbrooke, said the 29-acre, 175-unit project is a good one, and he was confortable forwarding it to the City Council.
“They (the developers) have shown that they respect their neighbors by presenting their project, both at Planning Commission meetings and POA mettings and adjusting the plans to neighbors concern's,” Winston said.
“I was convinced that City Council was and is the appropriate body to decide the remaining issues,” Winston added. Winston also said he could easily weigh in if the council wanted or needed thoughts and comments from the planning commission.
Sean Trumbo, Planning Commission chairman, who was absent on the night the commission approved Oakbrooke, would likely have been a voice to table the matter.
“If documents were handed out to me during a meeting and it pertained to a project as large as Oakbrooke, I would never vote to forwarded the item,” Trumbo said. “Mr. Pate’s recommendation to send the project back to the planning commission is absolutely correct.”
The Oakbrooke project is scheduled to next appear before the City Council at its regular meeting Jan. 5. An nonvoting agenda session to discuss matters for that meeting is scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Tuesday at the City Administration Building.