Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-01 Minutes1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS October 1, 1974 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on Tuesday, October 1, 1974, in the Director's Room of the City Administration 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. Absent: None Others Present: Representatives of the news media, Giles Addition property owners, and members of the audience. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES After the call to order by Mayor Russell T. Purdy and a brief moment of respectful silence, the Mayor asked if there be any corrections or additions to the minutes of the September 17, 1974 meeting. Copies of the minutes had been distributed to each Board meumb"e-rr prior to the meeting. Director Orton requested that the minutes reflect a statement made by the City Building Inspector during discussion concerning the ordinance amending Section 12-2 of the City Code. The following was approved by the Board to be inserted in paragraph 154.3: "In answer to a question, the property inspector said the intent of the ordinance was not to cut down woods, natural areas, and bird sanctuaries." City Attorney McCord requested amending the second sentence of paragraph 155.3 to read: "Also, he suggested to the Board that if the new sign ordinance were ever contested, the final decision on appeal might influence the court's decision in such a case " No further amendments or corrections being necessary, the Mayor de- clared the minutes approved as amended. PRESENTATION OF PETITION Dr. Robert D. Hay presented petitions signed by persons interested in having the Board investigate the possibilities of the City purchasing the Paradise Valley Golf Course presently owned by Mr. Ellis Bogan. Dr. Hay explained that Mr. Bogan was interested in selling the facility, and rather than the course being sold to land developers, he (Dr. Hay) and many other people interested in maintaining the quality of life in Fayetteville through recreational facilities, were petitioning the Board to investigate the possibilities of the City purchasing and maintaining the facility as a public golf course. The petitions, containing over 600 signatures, were presented to the City Clerk. 157 1 157.1 157.2 157.3 157.4 157,:5 158 158.1 Director Stanton made a motion to acknowledge receipt of the peti- tions and to refer the study of possibilities of purchase by the City to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee for recommendation to the Board. Director Carlson suggested that the Advisory Committee coordinate their study with the City Attorney and City Controller so as to investigate any legal and financial problems that might be involved in such a purchase,and that they be asked to report theirrecommendations and findings to the Board within two months. Stanton's motion was seconded by Director Noland and passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION 158.2 The petition to rezone a 7.7 acre tract of land located on Giles Road and 150 feet south of Dorothy Jean Street from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) was rejected by the Planning Commission on September 10, 1974. The petitioner, A. E. Bowen for Leo Thomas, represented by Marshall Carlisle, appealed that decision to the Board. 158.3 City Manager Grimes reminded the Board that a portion of the tract had been rezoned some eighteen months ago as C-2 and that the current request seemed almost identical to the request made at that time. 158.4 Mr. Gene Washburn, an area property owner present in the audience, asked the Board about the requirements for public notice of hearing on rezoning requests and asked why he had not been informed of the rezoning request. The Board and Mr. Carlisle informed him that written notice must be sent to adjacent property owners, a notice published in the local newspaper setting the hearing date, and a sign posted on the property to be rezoned. Mr. Washburn was informed that since he was not an ad- jacent property owner he would not have received written notice of the rezoning request. 158.5 The City Attorney then read a proposed ordinance which would rezone the property C-2. A motion was made by Director Stanton to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. Following the second reading, Director Noland motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion, seconded by Director Stanton, passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. The ordinance was then read for the third and final time after which Mayor Purdy asked for discussion fronNthe Board. 158.6 Director Noland stated that he believed that an arrangement for the dedication of a street to the west of the property had been made during a previous request for rezoning. Mr. Noland said that until there is a proposed road to handle the heavy traffic in the area, the traffic problem would remain and indicated that he would not favor the rezoning until such a road was provided that would relieve the traffic conditions in the Giles Addition. 158.7 Directors Utley and Stanton reminded the Board that the agenda item was for the purpose of rezoning and not for the purpose of approving a Large Scale Development Plan. Director Utley said that at such time an LSD plan is submitted for approval and it lacked sufficient ingress and egress, then the Board could address itself to the traffic conditions. Until then, Director Utley said the Board should address itself to the question of rezoning the land in accordance with the long range land use plan. 158 1 1 • 1 Director Orton said she could not see any change in the situation since the .previous request for rezoning and could see no readon why the additional land 'should be zoned for commercial purposes. She felt the real question before the Board was how much commercial zoning woulddbe desireabld. Director Murray was in agreement with Noland and Orton and said he saw no information from the State Highway Department about plans for helping to alleviate existing traffic congestion problems. Mayor Purdy then called for favorable comments from the audience. Mr. Marshall Carlisle, representing the petitioner, said that since the last rezoning request some changes had been made in that (1) the Land Use Plan for the City had been altered to include the property as commercial, and (2) the Board had recently passed an ordinance giving the Planning Commission and the Board the authority to deny a Large Scale Development plan if the plan failed to provide sufficient ingress and egress or if the plan compounded an existing traffic problem. He was of the opinion that the Board should not deny the rezoning request on the basis that traffic congestion was a problem in the area since the Board could use that basis for denial of the LSD plan. It was Mr. Carlisle's opinion that the rezoning of the property would be the 6frs.'t•tstep in solving the traffic problems. In commenting Mr. Carlisle said, "I propose that we are not going to solve the problem unless in my planning I .include a way to solve the traffic problem as a part of the Large Scale development of this particular piece of . land." Mr. Carlisle said that Mr. Thomas had been informed by the local highway department engineer that the State Highway Department was planning to build an overpass that would help alleviate the traffic congestion and that the project would soon be let out for bids. Mr. Carlisle was of the opinion that the proper and orderly way in which to solve the traffic problems would be to zone the property commercial and for ever one involved to workutew5rdsaa•solution of the problems. Opposing comments from the audience included those of Mr. Charles Couch, Mr. Gene Washburn, Mr. Joe Leming, Mrs. Alice Ludwick, and Mr. Forrest -Lane. Their opposition was based on their opinionstthatt:the rezoning would permit additional commercial use and would compound existing traffic congestion. Mrs. Ludwick asked the Board what recourse the £illestAddi',tson property owners would have if the rezoning was granted and the Mayor said that when the LSD plan were submitted the property owners would have the opportunity to express their opposition if the plan did not meet their approval. Director Carlson felt the zoning request was a continuation of C-2 and asked Mr. Carlisle why the additional zoning was required. Mr. Carlisle informed Director Carlson that the additional zoning was needed to prdv deothennecestarjredbpth togaccommodate the building as designed by the architect. He stated that he did not know what other businesses other than the motel might be located on the property. Director Carlson then addressed the Giles Addition property owners and said that if the development were allowed to progress as planned the developers could be required to provide a north -south road. She told the property owners that a motel would be a mote desireabie at the location since it would, in her opinion, attract less traffeosthan most other types of businesses. Director Noland asked the City Manager if he had had any information indicating that the construction of an overpass was imminent and the City Manager said he had had recent correspondence pertaining to the matter but that there was:no indication that the project was close to being let for bids. 159 159 159.1 159.2 159.3 159.4 159.5 159.6 160 160.1 Director Noland was of the opinion that a road further west of the development would be more desireable and felt that if the rezoning were denied the road would have to be located west of the development. Mr. Carlisle agreed that the road should be located further west than 250 feet from the intersection but indicated that the road would be located where the planning consultants of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Plan- ning Commission and other traffic experts suggested. 160.2 Director Noland expressed his concern that if the tract were rezoned it would ultimately result in two LSD plans being submitted and would leave the Board with no flexibility in disapproving either LSD on the basis of insufficient ingress and egress. 160.3 In answer to a question about the willingness of the developers to pave a street that might be dedicated by Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carlisle said he understood that the developers would be willing to pave such a street. 160.4 Director Stanton again reminded the Board that the only problem to be considered at this meeting was the rezoning of the land to allow the developers to submit an LSD plan, then, if the LSD plan did not provide the necessary ingress and egress, the Board could deny the LSD plan. 160.5 Discussion being completed, Mayor Purdy asked if the proposed ordi- nance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board, Directors Utley, Carlson, and Stanton voted "Aye" and Directors Orton, Purdy, Noland, and Murray voted "Nay". There being three "Ayes" and four "Nays" the Mayor declared the ordinance failed. 160.6 In further discussion following the recording of the vote, Mayor Purdy told the property owners that the denial for rezoning would not eliminate the possibilities of commercial business being located at the intersection. Director Carlson, in explaining her "yes" vote to the property owners, felt the development of a motel would represent the most desireable alternative, and said, "I believe this Board should take up the proposition of rezoning any C-2 that is out there at the present time to something else and we should not perpetrate the mistake of even letting any commercialism start there, because I think we would ruin hundreds of residents between the bypass and town." Director Carlson continued her comments, saying, "I think that our planning is wrong to put any kind of commercialism out there...and I think we should reverse track and take commercialism off of that corner." She requested that the Board ask the planning commission to reconsider the commercial zoning at the intersection and requested the City Manager to place the item on the agenda 66 the next Board meeting for the Board's discussion and action. ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Wal Mart Properties, Inc. 160.7 The proposed ordinance was tabled at the September 17, 1974, Board meeting following the third and final reading pending the dedication of additional right-of-way and proposed negotiations between the City and the petitioners. 160.8 The City Attorney informed the Board that he had met with repre- sentatives of the property owner and Wal Mart, the prospective owner, concerning the dedication of the right-of-way and said he would want the present owner to be a party to any dedication of right-of-way and easement grants. In view of the fact that none of the dedications had been made, the City Attorney suggested that the Board notconsider approv- ing the plan at this meeting but should discuss with the developer the details of the dedications. 160 1 1 r i i 161 At the September 17 meeting, Director Orton had questioned the effects 161.1 of the development on the future extension of Sang Avenue south to Highway 62 West. Mr. McCord reported that even though Sang Avenue extension was not included in the Master Street Plan, the developer would probably be willing to dedicate a roadway in order to permit traffic from nearby schools to have a safer access to Highway 62. Mr. Ervan Wimberly, engineer for the development, told the Board that .161.2 Wal Mart would be willing to dedicate the additional five feet of right-of-way north along Old Farmington Road to bring the road up to Master Street requirements. He said Wal Mart would also be willing to pay for half of the paving of Old Farmington Road or would be willing to participate in a street improvement district.. It was also his belief that Wal Mart would be willing to dedicate a 50 foot utility and roadway easement on the east side of the property but would not be willing to pave the roadway immediately. Mr. Wimberly said the eastern portion of the proposed development was part of a second phase development and that Wal Mart, even though it would be willing to prepare the roadway and bring it to proper elevation, would not want to pave the road immediate- ly because of the pending second phase of the development. Mr. Wimberly said he believed Wal Mart was willing to "dedicate the 161.3 easement and arrange the parking lot such that we will not have any park- ing backing into the 35 foot drive. When Wal Mart finishes the (entire) project and all the buildings are built, they will pave it all the way to the end if it isn't paved by then (upon completion of the eastern phase)." Mr. Wimberly continued by saying, "If the school wants to come in and put base on it in the meantime or if the City and school wants to come in and put a seal coat on for the meantime that is fine and dandy." Mr. Wimberly reminded the Board that the Wal Mart LSD plan was submitted on August 19, 1974 previous to the passage of the amend- ment to the LSD ordinance that requires an LSD plan to provide suffi- cient access and that the Board should not delay the LSD plan for that reason. Mr. B. A. Shamblin, representing the owner of the property, and 161.4 Director Stanton told the Board that the school district was interested in having Sang extended to Highway 62 but would not insist that the, ex- tension be completed if it would deprive Wal Mart of necessary parking space. A letter from Mr. Henry Shreve, president of the school board, was read by the Mayor and stated that the school district would cooperate in any way with property owners in helping develop the area. Mr. Jim Walton, representing Wal Mart, expressed his dismay at the 161.5 extensive requirements made of developers in Fayetteville and said he had not encountered such requirements in other communities where they had located businesses. Mr. Paul Jamesonn, legal representative of the property's present 161.6 owner, explained the arrangements for Wal Mart's purchase of the land and said that the vendor's lien on the west portion of the development would be released January 1, 1975, whereas the lien on the east portion of the'ddevergptteitwould still be effective where the proposed utility easement would exist. Any grant of An easement, he told the Board, would have to consider the present owner and any deed of right-of-way on Old Farmington Road would have to include the owner. Mr. Jameson. said that as he understood his client, she would be willing to join in a deed with Wal Mart to the City for the dedication of five feet of right-of-way on Old Farmington Road but that she was not willing to 161 62 enter into any agreement for any construction or improvement of Old Farmington Road. His client, he said,would be willing to join in a grant of a permanent easement across the east end after January 1, 1975 if the contracted payment from Wal Mart was made. Mr. Jameson said the owner would be willing to join in a temporary easement grant to be effective until approximately March of 1976 and after the initial payment is made would be willing to join in a permanent easement grant. 162.1 After some further discussion, the Mayor suggested that the Board, by resolution, go on record that it is willing to enter into an agree- ment whereby the City would approve the Wal Mart LSD plan if: (1) Wal Mart Properties, Inc., and the present property owner join in a street deed conveying five feet of equal and uniform width along the north side of the property; (2) Wal Mart grants a fifty foot roadway and utility easement across the eastern portion of the property to permit the extension of SangAvenue to Highway 62; (3) that the present property owner grant a temporary easement in conjunction with an ease- ment from Wal Mart to be in effect until February 1, 1975, and that the property owner would grant a permanent easement upon payment by Wal Mart of the contract installment due January 1, 1975; and, (4) that Wal Mart would support the formation of an improvement district to pave Old Farmington Road. 162.2 Director Stanton made a motion that such a resolution be adopted by the Board and Director Carlson seconded the motion. In roll call vote of the Board, the motion was passed unanimously. Director Carlson then motioned to table the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and was passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. RESOLUTION NO. 71-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 87 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUIION BOOK IV ORDINANCE CLOSING AND VACATING TWO ALLEYS - Parksdale Addition 162.3 The proposed ordinance, read for the first time by the City Attorney, would close and vacate two alleys located in the Parksdale Addition, east of Brooks Avenue, north of Walker Street, and south of Fifteenth Street. Petitioners were Dorwin L., Marie, Russell F., Oma, Edwin R., and Carolyn Kilgore and Rosie Spurlock. The ordinance would vacate the alley with the provision that the City would retain an easement for utilities and drainage systems. 162.4 Following the first reading, a motion was made by Director Stanton, and seconded by Director Murray, to place the ordinance on second read- ing. The motion was passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. The second reading completed, Director Carlson motioned to further sus- pend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed unanimously by the Board. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 162.5 Following slight discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote, seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were re- corded. Mayor Purdy declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2054 APPEARS ON PAGE 199-200 OF ORDINANCE F RESOLUTION BOOK IV 162 1 1 1 REPORT FROM BOARD NOMINATING COMMITTEE Director Stanton reported that the committee had nominated the following people to serve on committees. COMMITTEE Board of Housing Appeal Community Appearance Pollution Control NOMINEE Neal A. Albright Victor Watts Mrs. Carl Malone Ruth Rich Lois Imhoff 163 TO REPLACE:...] EXPIRES Marcus Walden reappointment Bruno Kirsch 1-1-79 1-1-76 1-1-76 1-1-77 1-1-76 During discussion, Director Carlson expressed that she did not approve of the prat.tircecofspie§entdnrgmnoininat_ions'and voting' on them at the s°am'e.Boar'.ditee'ting,:r.itaWasnCarisonds, roppntenrthdti thecnbmit ationsdbe presented Suffdd iitay lnca'dvanderofcvoiung':to-•alrhowtfor-consideration by the Board before the Board voted on the nominations. 1, 163.1 163.2 accept the Board Nono minating committee's nominations. )irector utTherg iey to seconded the motion which passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. ORDINANCE -VACATING AND CLOSING AN ALLEY - Mitchell's Addition City Attorney.McCord read the ordinance for the first time which would vacate and close an alley in the Mitchell's Addition west of Gregg Street. Petitioners are: R.- L. and Mary Lou Wommack, L. D., Nellie, and Mertle Wagnon, and Wood and Lois Cunningham. The first reading completed, Director Stanton made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordi- nance on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed unanimously by the Board. Following the second reading, Director Murray motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordi- nance on third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and was passed unanimously by the Board. The ordinance was then read for the third and final time. During discussion, the City Manager told Mr. Wommack, one of the petitioners, that he preferred having the request to close the alley reviewed by the Plat Review Committee. Mr. Grimes said that, in view of a proposed development that would include the alley, he would prefer the Plat Review Committee be able to consider the request in order to be certain the utility and drainage easements would not be needed. Mr. Wommack said he had been told by the utility companies that the easement would not be needed but agreed to the City Manager's recommendation for the request to be considered by the Plat Review Committee. The ordinance was left on third reading. ORDINANCE APPROVING FINAL PLAT - Hyland Park, Phase II The proposed ordinance would approve the final plat of a replat of Lots 17-20, Block Two, in the Hyland Park Subdivision, Phase II and would accept and confirm the dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements contained therein. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time after which Director Murray made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance 163 'c 163.3 163.4 163.5 (11 163.6 163.7 163.8 164 on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and was passed by a unanimous vote of the Board Following the second reading, Director Murray motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Director Carlson seconded Murray's motion which passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. 164.1 There being no discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the ordinance should pass. Upon roll call vote of the Board, seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded. Mayor Purdy declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2056 APPEARS ON PAGE 101 OF ORDINANCE g RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXERCISE AN OPTION 164.2 The resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to exercise an option to purchase property for a portion of the Fletcher Avenue extension. The property involved is an 80 foot wide swath through the property of Dr. Robert D. Hay, located south of Mt. Sequoyah and north of Huntsville Road and is approximately 600 feet long. The option agreement calls for a purchase price of $5,604.00 plus installation of a chain link fence along the east side of the right-of-way and reloca- tion of a rock corner post. 164.3 After some discussion concerning remaining property to be secured for the Fletcher Street extension, Director Noland moved that the resolution be adopted. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and was passed unanimously by a roll call vote of the Board. RESOLUTION NO. 72-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 89 OF ORDINANCE g RESOLUTION BOOK IV PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARD OF:;BLDS 164.4 Bid No. 264-3/4 Ton Crew Cab Pickup: The City Manager recommended the bid for one crew cab pickup, a replacement of an existing Street Department pickup, be awarded to Whit Chevrolet, Inc., Fayetteville, in the sum of $5,143.64. He also recommended an appropriation in the amount of $843.64 be made from the 1974 Revenue Sharing Contingency Account Code 7443 to the 1974 Revenue Sharing Account Code 7438 to be combined with the 1974 Revenue Sharing appropriation of $4,300. 164.5 A resolution was read by the City Attorney which authorized the appropriation of $843.64 from the 1974 Revenue Sharing Contingency Account Code 7443 to the 1974 Revenue Sharing Account Code 7438. 164.6 Director Stanton made a motion to accept the City Manager's recommendation and award the bid to Whit Chevrolet. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was unanimously approved by the Board. Director Noland then made a motion to adopt the resolution appropriating the necessary funds. The motion was seconded by Director Stanton,and, upon roll call vote of the Board was passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 73-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 90 OF ORDINANCE 6 RESOLUTION BOOK IV 164 1 1 1 r 1 CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW REQUEST FOR ADJUDICATORY HEARING The City Manager had been authorized to request an adjudicatory hearing for the purpose of stopping the time frame regarding the EPA dis- charge permit until negotiations with the EPA could be held. Mr. Grimes said that since the hearing request, agreements have been reached to the satisfaction of those involved and that the interim discharge permit had been issued and will be effective until May, 1977. Director Orton moved that the City Manager be authorized to with- draw the request for an adjudicatory hearing and Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unani- mously. RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS City Manager Grimes reported that a previous appropriation of $21,825 from the 1972 Revenue Sharing Contingency Account for the acquisition of vehicles for the sanitation, street, and fire departments was an error in that the appropriation should have been made from the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund Interest Account. Therefore, the City Manager had requested, and the City Attorney read, a resolution appropriating $21,825 from the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund Interest Account to the 1972 Revenue Sharing Budget in order to provide sufficient funds to cover the purchase of the previously approved replacements for the departments. There being no discussion, Director Utley made a motion that the resolution be adopted and Director Carlson seconded the motion. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 74-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 91 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK•IV ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Director Stanton made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was unanimously approved by the Board. Mayor Purdy declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: L Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk APPROVED: 165 165.1 165.2 165.3 165.4 165.5