Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-11-20 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOVEMBER 20, 1973 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in regular session on Tuesday, November 20, 1973 in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building at 7:30 P.M. Present: City Manager Donald L. Grimes, Administrative Aide David McWethy, City Attorney Jim McCord, City Clerk Helen Young, and Directors Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. Directors Absent: None. Others Present: Representatives of the news media and members of the audience. Minutes of the November 6, 1973 meeting had been distributed to the Board members prior to the meeting. Director Carlson requested that the following statement be inserted on page 348 near the center of the page: "Director Carlson said that the Farm Service Cooperative was essentially asking for merely a building permit and not a develop- ment with street easements and so forth, and, therefore, for the City to insist that the Coop give part of their land so the City could avoid imminent domain process has all the appearance of extortion." Director Utley suggested that the statement reflect that "in Mrs. Carlson's opinion it amounts to extortion." Director Carlson stated that the statement does reflect that it is her opinion. "When every Director speaks it is that Director's opinion," Mrs. Carlson said. Director Utley then stated, "If I can make that assumption then I withdraw what I said." Director Carlson requested the following insertions on page 349, first paragraph: 1. "City officials are held accountable for their official acts. The Constitution provides that...(as originally quoted in the minutes).... A State Statute provides that elected officials who knowingly fail, refuse, or neglect to carry out the laws in accordance with their oath of office can be removed from office." Director Carlson explained that the thrust of her comments was lost by picking out only one item. 2. Mr. T. C. Carlson, Jr., from the audience, interrupted, "Do each of the Directors understand what you are voting upon?" Director Stanton replied, "Yes, we do, Mr. Carlson." (This conversation occurred immediately before the roll call vote.) Mayor Purdy asked, "These things were said?" Mrs. Carlson replied, "Yes, they were said." Director Utley said, "I specifically recall Mr. Carlson from the audience making his comments and the response. The preliminary to that I have no recollection of." Director Carlson stated, "Well, for everyone's information, the Springdale News reported the meeting quite accurately and very thoroughly and both of the corrections that I wish to have put in were stated in the news account the following day." Director Utley commented, "I would agree on the statement from the audience. The elaboration upon the preliminary statements I can't recall and I would assume that our secretary is as capable of recording the minutes of the meeting as is the Springdale News." Mrs. Carlson then said, "As we all know, our secretary tries to condense the minutes and she doesn't always put in everything and that is why we have this moment of correcting the minutes." Director Orton said, "I see no reason why we can't include what Director Carlson wishes to have in the minutes....If this matters to Director Carlson I am willing to approve what she suggests." 355 Mayor Purdy commented, "My personal feeling is that it shouldn't go in the minutes unless it was said and not because it is desired at this time. I do not remember." Director Noland said, "We all make statements we could add to the minutes as we go through. If the individual director wants to add minutes I am in agreement with Marion (Orton)," Director Stanton commented, "It is not like a court transcript. It is the thought and not necessarily verbatim." Director Carlson further stated, "The minutes are your legal record of what happened....I don't ask for things to be placed in, the minutes unless I feel they are important to the historical record." Director Utley then said, "I have no objections, Mr. Mayor, to amending the minutes except that I don't feel that it is right and proper that we come back subsequent to a meeting and insert elaborations, and as far as I am concerned, I would like the record to reflect that in my opinion the insertion as requested is an elaboration upon the statement that was made, and consequently I object to the elaboration because the elaboration taken in toto could influence the reaction of an individual to that." Mayor Purdy said, "I had a similar feeling." Director Stanton commented, "I think that as long as the thoughts are con- veyed generally speaking, if they know what took place, that is the basic thing. I don't think all the conversation has to be recorded." Director Utley requested that the minutes reflect that the amendments inserted, in his opinion, are an elaboration upon the original statements made. Director Murray expressed concurrence with Director Utley. "I think it is an elaboration. I cannot totally recall, but it appears to me as though it is an elaboration on what was said." Director Utley moved that the recommended insertions be accepted and that the amended minutes be footnoted that Director Utley feels that it is an elaboration upon the statement as originally made. Director Murray seconded the motion. Mayor Purdy asked that his name be added in the footnote also. Upon roll call vote the motion made by Director Utley passed unanimously. Director Stanton suggested that if some Director has something which he wishes to be quoted verbatim in the minutes; that he inform the secretary at the time he makes the statement. STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - THIRTEENTH STREET/DUNNNAVENUE City Attorney McCord read a proposed resolution expressing findings of fact regarding the Thirteenth Street/Dunn Avenue improvement district. Director Orton asked why the approximate, assessments for the improvements are so high. City Manager Grimes replied that in many cases the property frontages are quite lengthy. Bill Beckett, owner of property along the proposed improvement route, was present at the meeting to state that for one parcel of his property which is rental property, he would not be willing to pay the assessment for the improvements. For the other parcel of his property, Mr. Beckett said that he would want to hear from his other neighbors before making a decision on that. City Attorney McCord explained that the improvement district will never get off the ground if the petition does not contain the require♦ number of signatures. If the petition is found to be sufficient and the assessments are made, then is the proper time to voice objections to the assessments. 356 0. U. Green, owner of property along the proposed improvement route, was present at the meeting to voice opposition to the street improvement district. "At this rate we don't want it," Mr. Green said. Mr. Green added, "That piece of property of mine has paving on the front and on the side and I don't want any more paving. I can't see any point in tearing that up and putting in some more." City Attorney McCord explained that this proposed resolution does not levy any assessments. The City Attorney will prepare a petition as the next step and if the petition does not get the required number of signatures within 60 days the district will not get off the ground. Mr. Beckett expressed appreciation for the City's interest in making the estimate, whether or not the property owners agree with the cost. City Manager Grimes commented that the City did not initiate the street improve- ment district - it was initiated by the property owners. "This is a legal process we are obliged to go through when the property owners express an interest in improvements," Mr. Grimes added. Mr. Green said, "We appreciate your efforts and thank you very much, but we don't want it." Director Murray moved the resolution be adopted. Director Orton said that it is for the good of a]1 the people in Fayetteville to get more streets in better condition, "...but when we come up with prices like this you can't blame anyone." If the prices are like this on level land I just wonder whether we will get any more streets done," Mrs. Director Carlson stated, "We have no background on how this figure was arrived at." City Manager Grimes explained that the total estimated cost is the estimated cost to the City, and in the estimate there is probably a five percent factor figured in for inflation. When the prcgpect is completed, a computation of the cost to the City will be made and possibly the assessments would be lowered, Mr. Grimes added. In answer to Director Stanton's question, Mr. Grimes said that the estimates are based upon the City's cost per running foot of $25.94 for Dunn Street and $23.55 for Thirteenth Street. These costs include curb, gutter, and drainage. Director Noland seconded the motion to adopt the proposed resolution. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 101-73 appears on pages 201 through 204 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. BICENTENNIAL DESIGNATION Bob McKinney was present at the meeting to ask the Board of Directors to express support of Fayetteville's becoming a "Bicentennial Community". Mr. McKinney explained the three basic themes which have been chosen for the American Revolution Bicentennial Celebration. The basic themes are: Heritage '76, Festival U.S.A., and Horizons '76. Mr, McKinney further explained, "We are not asking for money, just for endorsement." Director Carlson moved that a resolution be adopted requesting the United States government to designate the City of Fayetteville as a hBicentennial City. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 102-73 appears on page 205 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. 357 FINAL PLAT - JOHNSON ROAD SUBDIVISION Upon request of the Mayor, City Attorney McCord read a proposed ordinance to approve the final plat of Johnson Road Subdivision located on Johnson Road north of Highway 71, and accepting and confirming the dedication of street right-of- way and/or utility easements contained therein. City Attorney McCord explained that as a result of discussion at the November 6 meeting, this ordinance is conditioned upon the execution of the contract, among other conditions placed upon the approval of the final plat. City Manager Grimes announced that he has met with the developers and they have agreed to dedicate an additional five feet of right-of-way. However, the developers want to go before the Board of Adjustment to request a five-foot variance on the setback requirements on the side street which is Johnson Road in view of the fact that they have already developed Wren Circle and cannot slip their lot lines down, Mr. Grimes said that he had agreed to ask the Board for authorization to support the developers' application before the Board of Adjustment. Director Orton said that she does not like the Board of Directors' directing the Board of Adjustment on this matter. Mrs. Orton added that the developers have several alternatives other than single-family dwellings for this property - planned unit development, duplexes, etc. "I don't see how we can recommend something to the Board of Adjustment, If we recommend to the Board of Adjustment, we have made a deal," Mrs. Orton said. City Attorney McCord said that the additional five feet of right-of-way is not conditioned upon the granting of the variance. Mr, McCord further explained that Mr. Grimes is merely asking that he, as a citizen, be allowed to point out the equities of the situation to the Board of Adjustment. Director Utley said that since the City has approved this development and construction has actually begun, and since the rules were changed after the original approval, ",,.it seems we have a moral obligation to support their requests." In answer to Director Orton's questions, Mr. Grimes explained that after a preliminary plat is approved, the developer may begin site improvements. When the site improvements are substantially completed, the developer then requests approval of the final plat. The period of time between preliminary plat approval and final plat approval varies. Mayor Purdy commented that he feels that the developers are being very generous in this case. Director Carlson pointed out that the preliminary plat approval authorizes the developer to start building the streets and sidewalks. "Approval of the preliminary plat is tentative pending submission and approval of a final plat. Such preliminary plat does not constitute authorization to proceed with construction until plans have been approved," Director Carlson said. Director Carlson went on to say, "I think all that Marion (Orton) has in mind is her questioning whether or not the Board should make any recommenda- tions concerning whether or not they get a waiver. I don't think we have to. Just leave them to go ahead and get their adjustment. I think what Marion (Orton) would like is to voice the opinion that if Manager Grimes has any influence or can speak up as a good executive to point out that there are alternative solutions to this and if these alternative solutions are thought of by Manager Grimes he can ask them to go through the Planning Commission again and ask for that front two lots to be R-2 or to be conditionally accepted as a duplex site," 358 1 Director Noland commented that he feels that the additional five feet of right- of-way is a superior solution to the solution discussed at the November 6 meeting. Director Carlson agreed that the five feet of additional right-of-way is just fine. She added,"The developer should know that perhaps it would be a better development if he would ask for a conditional duplex site." City Manager Grimes suggested that some member of the City staff appear at the Board of Adjustment meeting to state the fact that the right-of-way situation has been worked out to the satisfaction of the Board. None of the Directors expressed disapproval of that suggestion. Director Carlson moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance the second time. Director Murray moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance the third and final time, after which the Mayor asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1956 appears on page 231 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. MODIFY_SIDEWAEKAR£QUI^REMENTSN4SROSEWOOD ESTATES (TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1973) City Manager Grimes reported that he and the developer, David M. Rose, had discussed various methods of providing sidewalks in Rosewood Estates. The Directors were handed a copy of a map showing the proposed location of meandering sidewalks. Mr. Grimes said,"'Prsonally, I am very much in agreement with it... I think what he is proposing will serve this area very well." David M. Rose, the deve&oper of Rosewood Estates, was present at the meeting to request a "modification" rather than a "waiver" of the sidewalk requirements. The proposed modification of the sidewalk requirements for Rosewood Estates was reflected in the map handed to the Directors. Director Stanton moved the proposed ordinance be amended to read "modify" rather than "waiver". Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance as amended. Director Utley moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance as amended be placed on second reading. Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance as amended the second time. Director Orton moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance as amended be placed on third and final reading. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance as amended the third and final time, after which the Mayor asked the question, "Shall the 'Ordinance pass'?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, UtleyA Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1957 appears on page 232 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. 359 REZONING - O.K. HOLLAND City Attorney McCord advised that since no appeal was filed of the Planning Commission's decision to deny rezoning petition R73-34, no action is necessary by the Board of Directors. REZONING - D, J. LAND Upon request of Mayor Purdy, the City Attorney read a proposed ordinance to rezone a 0.2 -acre tract located at 275 East Huntsville Road. Proposed change is from R-2, Medium Density Residential District; to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Petitioner is D. J. Land, Director Stanton moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on second reading, Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the second time. Director Stanton moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance the third and final time. Director Orton commented that the staff report does not recommend this change in zoning since it is not in keeping with the comprehensive plan. There is a C-1 area within a short distance from this area and a neighborhood grocery store about a block away, Mrs. Orton pointed out. Mrs. Orton said, "I had the impression at the Planning Commission that the Commissioners thought there would not be a grocery store in the area and, therefore, because this was a problem, they voted to rezone this." Mr. Land was present at the meeting. He said that originally he had thought the other grocery store was going out of business, but "I don't see how this would have any effect on my business. I have to make a living too. I bought this property for commercial property....It is hazardous for cars to park on that highway the way it is. I want to put in a parking lot and give the store a face lift." Mayor Purdy agreed that it would be desirable to have parking facilities for the store so cars and trucks would not have to park on the street. Director Noland asked if Mr. Land could not construct a parking lot under the present zoning, R-2. Mr. Land replied that if he did not remodel the store there would be no use for the parking lot. Director Carlson spoke in favor of neighborhood grocery stores, stating that Mr. Land's store is important to the people in the neighborhood since many of them do not have automobiles. Mrs, Carlson added that localized grocery stores will become more important in the coming months and years. In answer to Director Orton's question, Mr. Land said that he understood that he will have to go before the Board of Adjustment to request a variance of the setback requirements. Just prior to voting, Director Orton stated, "As far as good planning, I don't think it is the thing to do, but I vote 'Aye'." There being no further discussion, Mayor Purdy asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays"the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1958 appears on page 233 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. 360 1 1 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH LARGE SCALE -DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FRED HANNA City Attorney McCord advised that since the large scale development plans for the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church property located at the intersection of Old Missouri Road and RollingsHills Drive, and for Fred Hanna's property located on Government Avenue north of Highway 62 West (Sixth Street), do not require the dedication of streets and/or utility easements, it is his opinion that the procedure of passing an ordinance to approve the large scale development plans is academic. The City Attorney said that large scale development plans not involving the dedication of streets and utility easements are not required to come before the Board of Directors and he asked the Board if they wished to approve such plans anyway in order to keep informed about the developments. In answer to questions from Board members, Mr. McCord said that any development plans for a tract of land larger than one acre must be presentednin the form of a large scale development plan. Mayor Purdy asked whether the Board of Directors could disagree with the Planning Commission on the matter of approving a large scale development plan such as these. Mr. McCord said that he would have to research that question. Director Carlson commented that once the original development plan for a property has been approved, if there are no changes in alleyways, easements, or streets, and the developers only want to build more buildings, the Planning Commission should be entrusted with carrying out the ordinances the City Board has adopted. "I am for letting them do it," Mrs. Carlson said. Director Utley asked why even have the ordinance requiring it to go to the Planning Commission since once a large scale development plan has been approved further development must conform to the setback requirements, City Building Code, Southern Building Code, etc., before a building permit can be issued. City Attorney McCord replied that the City ordinances require that any addition to a development on a tract of land of one acre or more be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. City Attorney McCord added that he would get the opinions of the staff in the Planning Office and then render a legal opinion on the matter of whether or not, if the additionaitself does not encompass an additional one acre, it would be considered a large scale development. City Manager Grimes stated, "If you are operating with the ordinary set of ordinances, some developments could be detrimental....Some limitgs need to be placed upon it as to where it will be applicable....One fellow can put a stumbling block for future development if the City doesn't have something to say." Director Utley said that he agrees with having the original large scale development plan approved by the City Board, but a developer should not have to go through the same process to make an addition to the original development. Director Carlson concurred that the first time development occurs on a piece of property that the plans should be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Board. City Attorney McCord recommended that the Board approve the large scale develop- ment plans listed above upon the advice of the City Attorney that an ordinance is not required, because the large scale development plans have been approved by the Planning Commission and the plans do not involve the dedication of streets and/or utility easements, or the vacation of public streets and/or alleyways. Director Stanton moved that the large scale development plans submitted by Good Shepherd Lutheran Church and Fred Hanna be approved per City Attorney's recommenda- tion. Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Purdy expressed reluctance to accept the above procedure for all large scale development plans. City Attorney McCord said that he would expect that the large scale development plan ordinance would be amended after some research on the matter. 361 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DAYTON STRATTON Upon request of the Mayor, the City Attorney read a proposed ordinance to approve the Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Dayton Stratton for property located on 19th Street east of Highway 71B, and accepting and confirming the dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements contained therein. Director Stanton moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed an second reading. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the pro- posed ordinance the second time. Director Noland moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the third and final time, after which the Mayor asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass'?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1959 appears on page 234 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. LOT SPLITS - MRS, KATHRYN STUBBLEFIELD City Attorney McCord recommended that this item be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board since Mrs. Stubblefield is unable to be present at this meeting and City Manager Grimes has indicated that he does have some objections to approving a waiver of the subdivision requirements (lot splits). Director Orton moved that this item be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN BROPHY ADDITION, PHASE II City Attorney McCord read a proposed resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract guaranteeing that the contractor/developer will install certain improvements (streets) in the Brophy Addition, Phase II, located on Karyn and Jimmie Avenues, as extended, if and as the final plat of said subdivision is approved by the Board of Directors. Director Utley moved the resolution be adopted. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 103-73 appears on page 206 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. FINAL PLAT - FINAL RE -PLAT OF PARTS OF BLOCKS 1, 2, AND 3 OF BROPHY ADDITION Upon request of Mayor Purdy, City Attorney McCord read a proposed ordinance approving the final plat of Brophy Addition, Phase II, located on Karyn and Jimmie Avenues, as extended; and accepting and confirming the dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements contained therein. City Attorney McCord explained that one of the conditions placed upon the acceptance of the final plat is that the developer and the City Attorney work 362 r y out the terms of the contract. The developer originally asked for a three-year term, rather than the one-year term written into the form contract. The ordinance, Mr. McCord said, does not specify a time limit. Mr. McCord further reported, however, that the developer has now decided that he does not need three years. Director Stanton asked how the grade of Westview Street compares with the grade of Township Road since Westview Street will run parallel to Township. A person from the audience reported that Westview will be not quite as steep as Township. City Manager Grimes questioned why we were requiring this steep street, and suggested as an alternate that a waiver be granted on the length of the street and require cul-de-sacs at the end of Karyn and Jimmie Avenues. A person from the audience reported that this alternative had been suggested by the developer, but the idea was met by opposition from both Mr. Mattke, City Engineer, and Mr. Powell, Street Superintendent, because they felt that for the purposes of fire trucks, trash trucks, etc. the tie-in was needed. Director Carlson said that for the amount of traffic that will be using the street, "...I don't think it will be that bad." Mayor Purdy commented that if the property north of the Brophy development were ever developed, a street would be useful. In answer to Director Stanton's question, a person from the audience stated that the reason they are requesting a waiver of the sidewalk requirements for Westview Street is because there are only three lots on that street and the street is steep. Director Carlson said, "I think the steeper the street, the more essential the sidewalk is." City Attorney McCord reported that the third stipulation placed upon final plat approval is that the easement be corrected on the final plat, which the developer has agreed to do. The developer reported that the name of this development has been changed to "Final Re -Plat of Parts of Blocks 1, 2, and 3 of Brophy Addition". Director Carlson moved that the proposed ordinance be amended to include this statement in Number 3: "That sidewalks be shown on the final plat on one side of Karyn and Jimmie and Westview Street." Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance as amended. Director Stanton moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance as amended be placed on second reading. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance as amended the second time. Director Carlson moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance as amended bg placed on third and final reading. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance as amended the third and final time, after which the Mayor asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call vote the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1960 appears on page 235 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. BICYCLE PATHS -PETITION City Manager Grimes announced that a petition bearing more than 1100 signatures has been'presentedrt to the Mayor. The petition pertains to bicycle safety in the 363 City of Fayetteville, The petition read: "Recognizing bicycles as the most efficient mode of transportation ever devised, and the fuel shortage, the undersigned petition the city of Fayetteville, to: 1. Alter or replace all storm sewer gratings on streets and remove impediments that may cause damage to bicycles; 2. Construct sidewalks and bicycle paths or routes in present and future streets and highways (specifically where pedestrians are numerous); 3. Advocate bicycle safety and acquire educational programs and present these via classroom or mass media to motor vehicle drivers and bicycle riders; and 4. Form a committee of bicyclists, pedestrians, concerned citizens and transportation experts (from U of A and planning agencies) to develop a bicycle path network for the city and region." City Manager Grimes reported that steel straps have been welded across most of the sewer gratings in the City already. In answer to Director Utley's question, Mr. Grimes said that there is new Federal highway legislation which enables the highway department, in conjunction with Federal aid highway projects, to construct bicycle paths. Assistant City Attorney Malone added that perhaps the City would have to participate in the right-of-way acquisitions for such bicycle paths, but otherwise there should be no cost to the City. Director Carlson said that it might be a good idea for the Planning Commission to enlist some help from bicycle enthusiasts to plan a network of bicycle ways through the City and then the City could work toward a goal as funds became available and as development occurred. Mrs. Carlson further suggested that the City ordinances could be revised to require bicycle paths, as well as sidewalks, in new developments. Director Utley said, "To separate out a means of conveyance and completely disregard all other conceivable types of conveyance and to suggest that we go into a program, I can't see anything other than tremendous cost to the City to accomodate a very small element." Director Stanton said that he sees nothing wrong with planning the program Director Orton pointed out that our City has many students of all ages, and the more who ride bicycles, the more relief there will be for our traffic problems and parking problems. Mayor Purdy suggested that the bicycle enthusiasts themselves form an organization and get some ideas together to present rather than have the Planning Commission step in and do it themselves, Director Carlson moved that a resolution be adopted to acknowledge receipt of the petition regarding bicycle safety, to express appreciation for the petition, and to invite interested parties to present to the Planning Commission a definitive plan for proposed location of bicycle paths. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" Utley. There being six "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 104-73 appears on page 207 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. Mayor Purdy suggested that the bicycle enthusiasts form an organization to work out the plans, otherwise, Mr. Purdy surmised that one person would work out a plan and present it to the Planning Commission. Directors Carlson and Orton replied that such a plan would be a place to start and indicated that they would prefer to leave that consideration to the petitioners. 364 7 1 WATER AND SEWER'AUDIT REPORT City Manager Grimes suggested that the minutes reflect acknowledgement of the receipt of the Water and Sewer Audit Report. Director Noland moved that the Board acknowledge receipt of the Water and Sewer Audit Report. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. CITY LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE Director Carlson opened discussion regarding the insurance coverage the City carries, saying that the automobile liability seems much too low. Director Stanton concurred that it does seem low and it might be well to discuss this matter. City Manager Grimes said that he will call this matter to the attention of the Controller. Mr. Grimes explained that the City has had some difficulty with insurance in the past; however, recently the City has experienced a slight reduction in premium and has incorporated an educational safety program for City employees. "It could be that this was all we could get," Mr. Grimes said. In answer to Director Carlson's question, the City Manager said that the City acquires its insurance coverage from various sources. Director Carlson commented that she would like to see the City acquire bids on insurance coverage. ANIMAL LEASH LAW Director Carlson asked what progress has been made on the animal leash law. Mr. Grimes reported that he has worked on a proposed ordinance but he wishes to go over it with representatives of the Humane Society and Director Murray before presenting it to the Board. HOLLEY-OGDEN ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Assistant City Attorney David Malone was present at the meeting to address the Board regarding the pending case of Holley -Ogden Enterprises, Inc. vs. City of Fayetteville. City Attorney Malone stated the facts of the case, which involves the matter of a water and sewer line rebate. Mr. Malone recommended that the case be settled out of court for the sum of $20,000, which the Controller has said is available should the Board decide to settle the case as recommended. The $20,000 settlement includes interest and attorneys' fees, Mr. Malone said. Mr. Malone said that he tould probably work out an arrangement whereby the City would be allowed to pay $10,000 this year and $10,000 next year. City Manager Grimes stated that he agrees with Mr. Malone's recommendation. Director Stanton moved that the City Manager be authorized to settle the case of Holley -Ogden Enterprises, Inc. vs. City of Fayetteville for a sum not to exceed $20,000 to be paid from the current Water and Sewer Budget without exceeding the revenues received. Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. WAIVE STREET GRADE REQUIREMENTS - BROPHY ADDITION Upon request of Mayor Purdy, the City Attorney read a proposed ordinance to waive the street grade requirements of the subdivision ordinance in the Brophy Addition. Director Noland moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the second time Director Carlson moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon 365 roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the third and final time, after which the Mayor asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1961 appears on page 236 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. AMEND ORDINANCE #1917 Upon request of Mayor Purdy, the City Attorney read a proposed ordinance to amend Ordinance #1917. In typing Ordinance #1917 which rezoned property, the phrase describing the previous and new zoning classifications was omitted. Director Stanton moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the second time. Director Murray moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance the third and final time, after which Mayor Purdy asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1962 appears on page 237 and 238 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. TRAPPING AT LAKE FAYETTEVILLE AND LAKE SEQUOYAH City Manager Grimes called attention to the fact that in the past trapping of muskrat and mink has been permitted at Lake Fayetteville and Lake Sequoyah, The City ordinances prohibit trapping in City parks. Since Lake Fayetteville has been designated as a park, the ordinances should be amended in order for trapping to be continued. Mr. Grimes stated that since Lake Fayetteville has an earthen dam and muskrats will weaken a dam, he would like to see the trapping continued. Director Orton expressed concern about the safety of persons in the park if trapping is allowed. City Manager Grimes explained that the trapping is done in the winter time and the traps are placed under water. City Attorney McCord read a proposed ordinance to amend Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1594 to permit trapping of muskrats and other burrowing animals at Lake Fayetteville and Lake Sequoyah upon approval by the City Manager. Director Stanton moved that the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance the second time. Director Murray moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the third and final time. 366 r 1 Mayor Purdy asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1963 appears on page 239 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Director Stanton moved the meeting be adjourned. Director Murray seconded the motion which passed unanimously, whereupon the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTESTL 367 APPROVED: At441-1107094,(444