Council Reverses Planning Commission Decision

FARMINGTON -- Farmington City Council voted 5-3 last week to overturn a decision by the Planning Commission and allow the developer of Farmington Heights subdivision to amend the preliminary plat for Phase 2 and pay money in lieu of setting aside land for a community park.

Ferdi Fourie of Civil Design Engineers Inc., presented the request to pay money in lieu of park land at the Planning Commission's Aug. 24 meeting.

Fourie said the developer, Indian Territory Inc., wanted to delete the proposed one-acre park land and replace it with four additional building lots. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to turn down the request and Fourie appealed the vote to the City Council.

With the council's decision, the developer will pay $54,600 in lieu of park land, $600 per lot for 91 lots in Phase 2.

Farmington Heights has two phases with 125 lots in Phase 1 and 91 lots in Phase 2. The Planning Commission approved the final plat for Phase 1 in November 2018. The development is located along South 54th Street and Woolsey Farm Road.

Phase 1 already has park land set aside, and the park land proposed in Phase 2 was to be adjacent to this, with the plan to have one larger community park for the subdivision.

City officials recommended allowing the developer to pay money in lieu of park land for Phase 2.

In an Oct. 12 memo from Mayor Ernie Penn, City Attorney Steve Tennant and Floyd Shelley, public works manager, recommended approving the request because "there is plenty of dedicated park land (1.06 acres) to serve the needs of this subdivision for Phase 1 and 2 and the city does not need any additional land to maintain."

The memo said the $54,600 could be used for park related expenses at any location in the city.

Penn, in the council meeting Oct. 12, said the city could use some of the $54,600 to add more amenities to the land set aside for a park in Phase 1.

Many residents living in Phase 1 of Farmington Heights spoke at Monday's meeting through Zoom, asking council members to keep the land in Phase 2 to provide a larger park for families to go to with their children, even if the land was only a big grassy area.

Daniel Law told council members that the "promise" of a park was one of the main reasons they moved to Farmington Heights. He said he thought a one-acre community park would be too small for a subdivision with more than 200 homes.

Another resident, Josh Young, said residents want more green space.

"We'd like to fight for that extra space," Young said.

Jason Dawson said that with all the houses being built in that area, including a development off Broyles Avenue, the city's Creekside Park will be busy.

"It's only a one-acre park," Jason Dawson said. "It's not really that big...I'd like for it to be a two-acre park for the family and kids here and for the amount of houses."

Council member Sherry Mathews, who chairs the city's Parks and Recreation Committee, pointed out the city requires very little from developers for land set aside for a community park.

"I feel certain the builder will go with the minimum," Mathews said.

Instead, she proposed adding amenities to the Phase 1 park, as suggested by Penn.

Mathews said if it were her, she would prefer quality over quantity for the park.

"He's not required to put that park in. He could have said up front, money in lieu of," Mathews said. "That's our ordinance. They have that choice."

Planning Commission member Judy Horne spoke in favor of keeping the land. She said the commission has dealt with the developer since November 2018, and made several concessions for Phase 2 of the subdivision.

Horne said in researching other communities, she has found that many towns smaller than Farmington have more parks.

"It seems to me we can do better in Farmington with our park system," Horne said. "If we need more employees to maintain parks, then get another person."

City Council member Keith Lipford noted the city would not be able to get the land back in the future to expand the park.

"I think we're looking really small-minded at this," Lipford said. "Once we allow that to close down, it can't be expanded unless we tear down houses."

Looking at the city's finances, Lipford noted money is available to add amenities to the community park in the future.

However, after all the discussion, Tennant addressed the council saying the city's ordinance on the issue gives developers the right to come back and ask for a payment in lieu of park land before the final plat is approved.

"They brought it up before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission decided they didn't want them to be able to do it," Tennant said.

He was not at that meeting and noted, "We probably shouldn't have let it go as far as they did. I'll take the blame for that."

Looking at the ordinance, Tennant said the developer, for a two-acre park, would be required to put in four benches, 10 shade trees, perennial grass and two "active-use enhancements."

"You look at that ordinance. You've got what you've got. You get very few amenities for two acres," Tennant said, adding the city probably needs to review the ordinance in the future.

Tennant said he believed the developer had the right to request the change.

"I love parks. Do not misunderstand me," Tennant said. "But we have an ordinance we have to live by."

Council members Sherry Mathews, Linda Bell, Brenda Cunningham, Bobby Morgan and Shelley Parsley voted in favor of the motion to allow the developer to pay money in lieu of dedicating park land. Bell made the comment that she was voting yes based on Tennant's statement that the ordinance allowed the developer to make the request.

Council members Hunter Carnahan, Keith Lipford and Diane Bryant voted against the motion.