HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-06-04 Minutes78
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
June 4, 1974
The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular
session on Tuesday, June 4, 1974 in the Directors Room of the City Administra-
tion Building at 7:30 P.M.
Present: City Manager Donald L. Grimes; Administrative Assistant David
McWethy; City Attorney Jim McCord; Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk;
and Directors Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson, and
Stanton
Directors Absent: None
Others Present: Representatives of the news media, citizens interested in
preserving the Old Post Office, members of the Audience.
Mayor Russell Purdy called the meeting to order and following a moment of
respectful silence asked if changes needed to be made to the previous Board
meeting minutes. Copies of the May 21, 1974 Board meeting minutes had
previously been distributed to members of the Board.
Director Orton requested clarification on the discussion of the purchase
of right-of-way from Clifton and Vera Wade appearing on Page 76. The
minutes should reflect the purchase as being for the extension of Fletcher
Avenue south to Huntsville Avenue.
Director Carlson requested an addition in the second sentence on Page 76
to cause the sentence to read "...Housing Authority's actions were controlled
by the laws of the State of Arkansas..."
The first sentence of the last paragraph on Page 68 was requested by City
Attorney McCord to read "...constitutional provisions applicable to General
Obligation Bonds do not apply to revenue bonds."
There being no further additions or corrections, the Board approved the
minutes as amended.
PRESENTATION OF PETITION
Mayor Purdy then called for the presentation of a petition signed by
Fayetteville Citizens requesting a joint meeting between the Fayetteville
City Board of Directors, Fayetteville Housing Authority, Representatives of
Downtown Fayetteville Unlimited, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and interested citizens to discuss the possibility of saving the
Old Post Office building which is scheduled to be demolished under the Urban
Renewal project.
Mr. Frank Sharp presented the petition to the Mayor and the Board in behalf
of the citizens interested in retaining the building. Mr. Sharp told the
Board that many of the 5,000 signatures had been secured during the recent
Primary Election and 80 to 90 percent were in favor of retaining the building.
Mr. Sharp expressed the hope for cooperation between the City, Housing
Authority, and business leaders in finding an alternative for the Old Post
Office building. Mr. Sharp then yielded the floor to Mrs. Joyce Stafford.
Mrs. Stafford told the Board she had been raised and educated in Fayetteville
and she and her husband own and publish the STAR SHOPPER. In order to de-
termine'how other citizens felt about modernizing the square, a survey was
78
printed in their paper in which 49 people favored keeping the building and
only two had objected. Mrs. Stafford said no mention was made of the Post
Office, yet many of the people commented that the Post Office should be re-
tained. A second survey netted more response in which over 100 were in favor
of keeping the building with only two from the initial response objecting.
Mr. Ernie Jacks, a member of the Northwest Arkansas Architects Council told
the Board of a statement published by the Council in the June 3, 1974 issue
of the Northwest Arkansas Times in which the Council supported in principle the
development of a mall on the square but believed the exclusion of the Old
Post Office in the plans would mean the destruction of a building of great
value and damage the trees on the square. The Council further believed a
way must be found to bring people to the square for a purpose other than
to lounge and felt the first step in achieving the goal is to retain the
history of the square by keeping the Old Post Office and the grounds as
they are.
The floor was then yielded to Mrs Marceline Meldrum, daughter of the
first Postmaster to occupy the Old Post Office. cShe expressed'her personal
interest in the building and its grounds since her father had planted the
trees that stand there now. Mrs. Meldrum gave a brief and interesting
history of the square and its Post Office. Mrs. Meldrum believed the
Post Office should be retained as several other of the City's historical
buildings had been retained as points of interest.
Mr.EiltfinnDbnaubauer was then permitted to speak. He cited the Board's
willingness to accept the group and its petition as a perfect example of
democracy at work. One reason he gave for citizens missing opportunities
in the past to object to demolishing the Post Office was that many people
had not had the clear vision to see what the ultimate effect of tearing
down the Post Office would have. He thanked the Board for its consideration
and yielded the floor to Mayor Purdy.
Mayor Purdy expressed a sense of gratitude and good feeling for the example
of democracy in action and assured the group of the Board's consideration
of the petition. Mayor Purdy then presented the petition to the City
Clerk for acknowlegement of receipt. (Said petitions are now filed in the
City Clerk's Office and are available for public inspection.)
Director Murray then made a motion for the Board to direct the City Manager
to arrange a meeting with the Housing Authority, business leaders, Depart-
ment of Housing,AndhUrban Development, and interested citizens to be held
within two weeks. Director Orton seconded the motion which passed unanimously
upon a roll call vote.
Mayor Purdy then emphasized that the meeting would be a public meeting and
not a public hearing.
ORDINANCE REQUIRING FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN CERTAIN BUILDINGS
The proposed Ordinance, tabled from the May 21, 1974.meeting, would require
sprinkler systems to be installed in buildings of four or more stories or in
buildings 50 feet or more in height.
The Ordinance had had the requisite three readings at the May 7, 1974 meeting.
City Attorney McCord reported he had drafted a new Ordinance which included
amendments requested by the Board and suggested a vote be taken on the
standing Ordinance as proposed after which he would submit the new version of
the Ordinance. There being no objections from the Board, the Mayor asked,
"Shall the Ordinance pass?" The recorded roll call vote was seven "Nays" and
no "Ayes". Mayor Purdy declared the Ordinance failed.
79
79
80
Mayor Purdy then requested the City Attorney to read the new Ordinance con-
taining the requested amendments. Following the first reading, Director
Murray made the motion to suspend the rules to allow for the second reading
and Director orton seconded the motion. The motion passed in a roll call
vote. After the City Attorney had completed the second reading, Director
Noland motioned to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and
final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and passed in
a roll call vote. Mayor Purdy then called for the Board's discussion.
Director Utley felt the; Ordinance should;state that health care,idstitu-
tions regulated by State and Federal codes be exempt if the codes governing
them met or exceeded the regulations of the proposed Ordinance. The City
Attorney in reply to Director Utley said the present State and Federal
Codes exceeded the regulations in this particular Ordinance. City Manager
Grimes stated his concern about the interpretation of the Ordinance if the
phrase "meet or exceed" were included saying the inspection officials might
understand it to mean that sprinklers were a must.
Director Stanton believed that after three meetings of discussion on the
Ordinance a suitable one had been attained.
Mayor Purdy asked for further discussion and there being none asked if the
Ordinance should pass The result of the roll call vote was: seven "Ayes"
and no "Nays". The Ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor.
ORDINANCE NO. 2011 APPEARS ON PAGE 121 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 1998
This Ordinance, as explained by the City Attorney, would include a fifth
reason or basis for the disapproval of a Large Scale Development if an
LSD would not be in the best interests of the community. Also, the
Ordinance would necessitate the submission of a major modification of an
LSD to the Board of Directors for approval or disapproval. Minor modifi-
cations would be left to the descretion of the Planning Administrator.
In regard to the fifth reason for disapproval, City Attorney McCord said
he was submitting the Ordinance at the request of the Board but did not
feel the restriction would be a clearly defineable one in order to comply
with the law.
The City Attorney then read the proposed Ordinance for the first time after
which Director Murray made a motion to suspend the rules to allow for the
second reading. Director Stanton seconded the motion which passed unani-
mously in a roll call vote. Upon completion of the second reading, Director
Murray again motioned to further suspend the rules to allow for the third
and final reading. The motion, which was seconded by Director Noland, was
passed in a roll call vote. Following the third reading, Mayor Purdy called
for discussion.
In regard to Section I, Subparagraph "e", Director Stanton felt traffic
congestion could not be a basis for disapproval since congestion was
prevalent in most locations. However, Director Stanton commented, creation
of an unusually hazardous traffic situation might be a basis for such
disapproval. As far as air pollution, Director Stanton reminded the Board
that the State Water and Air Pollution Act prohibits such situations. The
original purpose of amending Ordinance 1998, he added, was to streamline the
process for approval of an LSD He felt the amendment for a fifth basis of
disapproval would again result in delays for the developers and called for
the deletion of Section I of the Ordinance.
80
1
80.1
NOTE: The following proceedings were discovered to have been deleted from the
minutes of the June 4, 1974 meeting of the Board of Directors. These proceedings
are hereby included as an addendum to those minutes and are reported according to
the official records of that meeting retained in the City Clerk's office.
Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD STREET COMMITTEE
This item had been tabled from the May 21, 1974 meeting so that Mr. Nelson, a
petitioner for road construction at Highway 71 North and Shepherd Lane, could attend
the meeting. Mr. Purdy notified the Board of a letter from the Attorney representing
the General Growth Properties for postponement of discussion on the matter until the
meeting of June 18, 1974. The letter also included Mr. Nelson's concurance with the
delay. Director Noland made a motion to table the matter until the June 18, 1974
meeting. Director Murray seconded the motion which passed unanimously in a roll call
vote.
ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FINAL PLAY OF HYLAND PARK SUBDIVISION (Phase II, Blk 5)
The ordinance, which would approve the final plat and accept and confirm the dedi-
cation of street right-of-way and utility easements, was read by City Attorney McCord.
The first reading being completed, a motion was made by Director Noland for suspension
of the rules to allow for the second reading. Director Orton seconded the motion and
upon a roll call vote the motion passed. The second reading was followed by a motion
from Director Murray to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and final
reading. Director Stanton seconded the motion which passed in a roll call vote.
Following the third and final reading, Mayor Purdy asked for discussion from the Board
and there being none asked if the Ordinance should pass. The roll call vote was:
Seven 'Ayes" and no "Nays". The ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor.
ORDINANCE NO. 2015 APPEARS ON PAGE 129 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV
80.1
•
81
The City Attorney explained if this type of Ordinance was taken into court
it would not prevail because it was vague, and could be arbitrarily enforced.
Manager Grimes reminded the Board of occasional three-week intervals between
Board meetings and suggested Section 7 state 30 days instead of 15 between
the submission date and the date for presentation of major modifications to
the Board of Directors.
Director Carlson then told the Board of her research of cases involving
restrictions of LSD's on the basis of not being in the best interests of
the community. Her opinion, based on research, showed most cases regarding
arbitrariness were based on the actions of governing bodies unsubstantiated
by overwhelming evidence but when overwhelming evidence existed the courts
did not find the governing bodies guilty of arbitrariness. Director Carlson
could not see the need of a Planning Commission having to be an agency for
LSD plan submissions if clear specifics were set out in the Ordinances.
Director Noland then made a motion to amend the Ordinance by deleting Section
I and amending Section 7 to state"30 days:' Seconded by Director Murray,the motion
passed: findfurtheindiseussion;_DiiectbrlOt=ley b ieved'thekCityetook•a negative
attitude towards Large Scale Developments. He objected to the negative
wording in the title of the proposed Ordinance and asked that it be re -worded.
He further called for a clear definition of "major modifications" and asked
who would be the determining individual or agency whether or not a modifica=
tion would be a major one. City Manager Grimes told Mr. Utley when a modi-
fication was requested to be brought before the Board he would have a
decision factor as to whether it would be considered major or minor. If
the modification were deemed to be a minor one, it would not be added to
the Board's agenda for consideration.
Director Stanton commented that the Board would be irresponsible if it did
not pass Ordinances that were clear and concise with amendments not being
necessary unless there was a compelling reason to do so.
Following brief additional comments, Mayor Purdy asked if the amended.Ordinance
should pass. The recorded vote was seven "Ayes" and no "Nays". Mayor
Purdy declared the Ordinance passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2016 APPEARS ON PAGE 130-131 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
ORDINANCE VACATING AND ABANDONING A UTILITY EASEMENT
The Easement to be abandoned is located in the Prairie View Addition west
of Eva Avenue. The City Attorney read the Ordinance for the first time.
Director Murray motioned to suspend the rules to allow for the second
reading and Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote
six "Ayes" were cast with one "Abstain" being cast by Director Stanton.
The motion was declared passed by the Mayor. The second reading being
completed, Director Orton made a motion for further suspension of the
rules to allow for the third and final reading. Director Murray seconded
the motion and in a roll call vote the results were six "Ayes" and one
"Abstain" cast by Director Stanton. Mayor Purdy declared the motion passed
and City Attorney McCord read the Ordinance for the third and final time.
Mayor Purdy then called for discussion from the Board.
Director Stanton gave a brief explanation why the request for abandoning the
easement was submitted. In his statement he pointed out that the easement
was no longer needed by the City but that it needed to be abandoned before
a lot line could be moved to allow for construction of a house with the
required setback.
There'beng no further discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance should
pass. After a vote of six "Ayes" and one "Abstain" cast by Director Stanton,
the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2017 APPEARS ON PAGE 132-133 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
81
82
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MINIMUM FLOOD ZONE REGULATIONS
This Ordinance is required by the provisions of the National Flood Insurance
Program to make possible the City's application for the federally subsidized
insurance to Fayetteville property owners. The Ordinance would specify
stringent building regulations for structures located in HUD identified
flood -prone areas. Tle insurance had been discussed at the April 16, 1974
meeting.
Following the first reading of the Ordinance by the City Attorney, Director
Noland made a motion to suspend the rules to allow for the second reading.
The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed unanimously in a
roll call vote. The second reading being completed, Director Murray motioned
to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading.
After the motion was seconded by Director Noland, the motion passed in a
roll call vote. Following the final reading, Mayor Purdy called for the
Board's discussion. City Attorney McCord told the Board that the proposed
Ordinance had been patterned after the Little Rock Ordinance that had been
previously approved by HUD.
Director Carlson requested the amendment to Chapter XXIX, Paragraph 2905,
Subparagraph "b" to cause it to read "...be flood proofed up to the level
of the 100 year flood level." She also asked if residents not in a flood
plain would be covered should damage result to their buildings because of
flooding. Administrative Assistant David McWethy explained
that the insurance would be available to all property owners; however, the
rates for those outside a flood plain would be slightly higher.
Assistant McWethy also explained that one insurance company would be designated
as the insuring agent for Arkansas but residents could go to any commercial
insurance company for the insurance. Also he said the insurance would not
be available for new construction in a flood plain. If the new construc-
tion did not meet the specifications set out by the Ordinance, the
developer would not be able to obtain a loan from a government agency or
an institution insured by the federal government.unless the City participated.
Mr. Claude Prewitt asked if the insurance would be available to those
residing within five miles of the corporate limits and Mr. McCord replied
by telling him the five mile jurisdiction applied only to planning procedures.
Director Orton then asked if there were provisions for coverage of rural
areas to which Assistant McWethy replied that there were none to his
knowlege.
Director Murray asked if structures in flood plain areas that might be
annexed to the City would be eligible for the insurance. Mr. McWethy said
that HUD could designate them eligible when the situation arose as HUD had
determined flood plains outside the City Limits.
Mayor Purdy expressed his dismay and resentment at the federal controls he
felt were being placed on cities subscribing to the insurance After
slight additional comment from the Board, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance
should pass.
There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays", the Mayor declared the Ordinance
passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2018 APPEARS ON PAGE 134-137 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE FLOOD INSURANCE APPLICATION
City Attorney McCord read the proposed Resolution to the Board after which
Mayor Purdy asked the City Manager if the present staff could handle the
increased work load resulting from the insurance program. Manager Grimes
82
1
1
r
1
told the Mayor that most of the work would only require referring to a map
and shouldn't cause much additional work once the master map was drawn up.
Then Director Noland made a motion to adopt the Resolution and Director
Murray seconded the motion. In a roll call vote the motion was passed
unanimously and Mayor Purdy declared the Resolution adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 36-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 44 -OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
RESOLUTION INDICATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY'S BUILDING PERMIT SYSTEM
This Resolution would inform HUD of the City's current Building Permit
System and the review procedure for new construction. This would aid in
the enforcement of the National Flood Insurance Program provisions.
Director Stanton commented that the Resolution should cause the City to
seriously consider improving the sewerage system by installing pipe that
would minimize infiltration. Manager Grimes replied by saying he had re-
quested the Water and Sewer Department to take bids on the Truss pipe that
had been discussed at the May 21, 1974 Board meeting.
Director Orton then made a'motion to accept the Resolution and Director
Murray seconded the motion. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays", the
Mayor declared the Resolution adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 37-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 46 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARD OF BIDS
Mayor Purdy asked the City Manager to review the bids for the Board. City
Manager Grimes then requested his assistant, David McWethy, to review the
bids and recommendations.
Bid No. 256: Drake Field Perimeter Fencing - The fencing would be the
four -strand barbed wire fencing as required by the FAA regulations and will
be funded by a 75% / 25% matching grant. The recommendation was that the
bid be awarded to Modern Fence Company, the low bidder, in the amount of
$18,546.56 of which approximately $4,600.00 would represent the City's 25%
share of the cost. It was also recommended that the bid be awarded conditional
upon acceptance by the FAA of the City's grant application and the FAA's
concurrence in the bid award.
Bid No. 257: Water $ Sewer Department Cast Iron Soil Pipe - Items 1,2, and
5 were recommended to be awarded to A. Y. McDonald Company and items 3 and
4 were recommended to be awarded to Master Supply Company of Springdale.
Each company was the low bidder for the particular items.
Bid No. 258A and 258B: Sanitation Containers - These containers (8, 4ccu.
yd. and 8, 6 cu. yd.) are to be resold to commercial customers at the City's
cost plus tax, shipping, and bid advertising costs. The bid award was
recommended be given Truck Equipment Company for both bid 258A and 258B in
the amount of $488.05 for each 4 cu. yd. container and $566.50 for each
6 cu. yd. container.
Bid No. 259: Fire Department Tone -Alert Receivers: The units would enable
the City Fire Chief to selectively contact firemen by radio when necessary.
The Fire Chief had recommended the bid be awarded to Federal Sign and Signal
Corporation in the amount of $5,643.60. A bid from Motorola Communications
of Little Rock was slightly less and met all specifications; however, the
S3
83
84
Federal Sign and Signal quipment was considered to be superior in that it
had 10 tone alert buttons and built-in antenna which made it more
easily transported. Fire Chief McWhorter said each fireman would be held
responsible for his tone receiver as they would be City property. Chief
McWhorter also said the surrounding hills did not affect the quality of
transmission,
Hay Baling Rights at Lake Fayetteville: The bid was recommended to be
awarded to Turner Brown in the amount of 20.1* per bale. Mr. McWethy told
the Board that the lease agreement stipulates the supervision by the Park
Superintendent during the hay baling. Director Orton was concerned that
the baling would interfere with the Nature Trails but was assured by City
Manager Grimes that Mr. Brown's activities would also be coordinated with
the school system's authorities.
Director Carlson then made a motion to award all bids as recommended and
the motion was seconded by Director Stanton. Upon roll call vote there
were seven "Ayes" and no "Nays". The Mayor declared the motion passed.
COMPLAINT REGISTERED WITH BOARD
Mayor Purdy then asked Mrs. Dawn Dunnuck, 835 Rodgers Drive, to come for-
ward and make her complaint known to the Board. Mrs. Dunnuck complained
about the damage done to her fence because of an improperly installed
driveway located across the street from her fence. In her opinion the
drive had been installed too far above the street bed and was causing a
hump in the street that motorists avoided by driving near her fence and
consequently damaging the fence
Mr. Grimes said the current 27 feet of right-of-way was not enough to handle
the traffic and hinders street maintenance and said more could be done if
an adequate right-of-way could be obtained.
Director Carlson felt the driveway in question might be in violation of a
City Ordinance and if a violation was found to exist that it should be
corrected. Director Stanton suggested the property owners file a petition
for estimates to be made on the possibility of paving the street.
City Attorney McCord assured Mrs. Dunnuck that he would check the City
Code to see if there might be an Ordinance violation.
CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE CONTRACT FOR HAY BALING
The City Attorney read the Resolution which would authorize the execution of
a contract with Turner Brown for hay baling rights at Lake Fayetteville.
Director Murray made the motion'to'adopt the Resolution and Director Noland
seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote of the Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 38-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 48 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
ORDINANCE WAIVING BID REQUIREMENTS
Manager Grimes told the Board that Ford Meter Box Company was the only
supplier for the cast iron meter boxes needed by the Water and Sewer
84
1
1
Department. Therefore, he requested a waiver of the bid requirements so the
purchase could be made in the amount of $2,495.72.
The City Attorney then read the Ordinance for the first time. Director
Murray made a motion to suspend the rules to allow for the second reading
and Director Orton seconded the motion. The motion passed in a roll call
vote. The second reading being completed, Director Noland made a motion
to further suspend the rules for the third and final reading. Upon roll
call vote the Board passed the motion unanimously. Following the third
reading, Mayor Purdy asked for discussion from the Board.
Manager Grimes said the price for the cast iron boxes (including yoke
assembly) is about the same as paid for the clay box plus the yoke asseinbly.
The boxes would be installed in one subdivision so close observations could
be made as to how well they function.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance
should pass. Upon a roll call vote there were seven "Ayes" and no "Nays".
Mayor Purdy declared the Ordinance passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2019 APPEARS ON PAGE 138 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
KENWOOD SUBDIVISION CONTRACT
The contract between the City and Mr. Leonard Kendall and wife had been
tabled at the May 21, 1974 meeting to allow for the City Attorney to make
a detailed research as to the legality of the City entering into the
Contract when the subdivision actually was outside the City's limits but
within the five -mile planning jurisdiction. His research indicated to him
that the contract would not be an illegal one and the City would be within
its scope to execute the contract. Mr. McCord distributed copies of a
lengthy letter addressed to the City Manager indicating the results of his
research.
Director Carlson contended it should not be the City's responsibility nor
would it be the City's legal function to enforce the contract.
After a lengthy discussion, Director Stanton made a motion to table the
matter until each Board member had had time to read the written opinion
of the City Attorney. Director Noland seconded the motion which was passed
•unanimdusly by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Director Stanton moved to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed unanimously.
Mayor Purdy declared the meeting adjourned.
ATTEST:
C7`& Pa iMld—
CITY CLERK
85
APPROVED:
RUS
SELL T. PURDY, MAYOR
85