Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-15 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 15, 1975 The Board of Directors of the City of •Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on April 15, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Director's Room of the City Administration Building. PRESENT: City Manager Donald L. Grimes; Administrative Assistant David McWethy; City Attorney Jim McCord; City Clerk Darlene Westbrook; and Directors Marion R. Orton, Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, Paul Noland, Al Hughes, Russell Purdy, and Morris Collier. ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mssfs. Lynn Wade, Rip Lindsey, Al Williams, and Ron Knight, representing Warner Cable Company; Mr. Richard Osborne representing Donald Johnston; Mr. Tom Keith, representing Skelton Street Committee; members of the Skelton Street Committee; members of the audience and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Marion R. Orton called the meeting to order. Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor asked if there be any amend- ments to the minutes of the April 1, 1975 meeting. Mayor Orton requested the City Clerk to review tapes of the meeting to clarify a statement appear- ing in paragraph 266.5 concerning pre -construction public hearings in regard to construction of the proposed overpass at Highway 16 West and the Highway 71 Bypass. (Note: Mr. Nichols' recorded statement was: "If and when we do get into a full-fledged project to renovate and add all the features to the bypass, then we will have public meetings --public hearings --and discuss all the features. We are limited at this time just to this (project) to look at now.") In regards to the proposed overpass at Highway 16 West and 71 Bypass, the City Manager reported that a public hearing had been requested and would be conducted at the Asbell School on May 20. Mr. Grimes requested the Board's authorization to attend the hearing for the purpose of express- ing the City's approval and support of the overpass construction. Director Hughes motioned that authorization be given and that the City Manager do whatever possible to assure that the State Highway Department continue to pursue the project. The motion was seconded by Director Todd and was passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. There being no amendments or additions to the minutes, the Mayor de- clared them approved as submitted. ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - Leon Edens, petitioner The proposed ordinance, read by the City Attorney for the first time, wound rezone a 1.86 acre tract of land located on the north side of Wedington Drive west of West End Avenue from R-1 Low Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential. 271 271 271.1 271.2 271.3 271.4 272 272.1 Director Purdy, seconded by Director Hughes, motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll ca -1 vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Noland, seconded by Director Lancaster, mot motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 272.2 There being no discussion or comments regarding the request, Mayor Orton asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded whereupon the Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2097 APPEARS ON PAGE 282 OF ORDINANCE Y, RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - Donald W. Johnston, petitioner 272.3 The proposed ordinance would rezone a .35 acre tract of land located on the east side of Garland Avenue south of Holly Street from C-1 Neigh- borhood Commercial to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial or C-3 Central Business District. 272.4 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time after which Director Purdy motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion, seconded by Director Noland, passed unani- mously in roll call vote of the Board and the City Attorney read the ordi- nance for the second time. Director Noland, seconded by Director Lancaster, motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unani- mously whereupon the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 272.5 Speaking in behalf of Mr. Johnston, attorney Richard Osborne opened his supporting remarks by stating that the did not believe that the Board of Directors was the proper forum for a liquor store "battle". He stated that the petitioner planned to restore and remodel an older vacant house into a liquor store and that the shopping center near which the house was located is the only shopping center zoned C-1. He stated that traffic generated by the liquor store might eventually be routed through a nearby shopping center but that immediate plans did not envision that possibility. 272.6 Mr. Jamie Jones, 1633 North Garland, was present in the audience to speak in opposition to the rezoning request. His reasons for opposing the rezoning were based on the fact that a liquor store would be undesireable in an area that is primarily residential. He also noted the location of churches and schools in the area and current congested traffic conditions. 272.7 Mr. Ray Trammell, legal counsel for the University of Arkansas, was also present and stated that he had been instructed by the President of the university to attend the meeting and voice opposition to the request in the behalf of the university. Mr. Trammell cited a local agreement made several years ago whereby no liquor outlets would be located west of the railroad tracks. He also cited recent legislation prohibiting liquor stores from locating within 600 feet of churches or schools and stated that the university did not wish to become surrounded by liquor stores just outside the boundary. 272 1 1 1 Zj Also speaking•:inroppo"s`ition to the rezoning request were Mr. Pete 273.1 Petty, superintendent of the Washington Madison Baptist Association, who stated that the offices of the Association are located within 600 feet of the proposed liquor location. The high concentration of children in the area was cited by Mr. Grover Kirksey who felt the location of a liquor store in the neighborhood would be undesireable. Mr. Ernest Jacks, Secretary of the Planning Commission, explained 273.2 that planning consultant Larry Wood had advised that the C-2 classification was the most logical zoning for the parcel. Those speaking in favor of the rezoning cited the distance people in 273.3 the area must drive to purchase liquor and felt that a more convenient location would be practical. Ms. Nancy Wagonner stated that it would be much better to:have a liquor store conveniently located than to have one so far away that persons buying liquor would tend to open the liquor while making the return trip to their home. Mr. Osborne then presented the Board with petitions bearing an estimated 273..4 2,000 signatures favoring the rezoning request and correspondence from the Arkansas Beverage Control Commission stating that they were not familiar with the "gentlemen's agreement" concerning location of liquor stores west of the railroad tracks and that the agreement should not have any bearing upon the approval of the location on Garland Street. Mayor Orton acknow- ledged receipt of the documents. Director Hughes stated that he had observed the area recently and 273.5 that liquor store traffic during school hours was minimal and that school children usually cross the street before reaching the area of the proposed liquor store. He felt that no valid reason had been presented for rejection of the rezoning request other than it would allow the location of a liquor store. Director Todd stated that the neighborhood in the area was in the process of changing but that there were a number of private residences in the area whose valdesbwoiildabedaatagedeas!a result of the installation of a liquor store. Director Purdy addressed the audience and stated thatthe Board had 273.6 no authority to approve or disapprove the location of a liquor permit but that it did have the authority to approve the zoning. Mr. Tom Keith, was present in the audience and was of the opinion that the particular . problem at hand was indicative of aheexisting problem in the community; i.e., the citizens do not have a voice in the location of liquor stores. Following further comment and discussion, Mayor Orton asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board no "Ayes" and seven "Nays" were recorded whereupon the Mayor declared the ordinance failed. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 1747 The proposed ordinance would amend Ordinance 1747 by allowing offices, studios, professional offices,, and related services to be located in I-1 Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial zoning districts. • The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance for the first time after which Director Noland motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Hughes and was passed in a unanimous vote of the Board. The ordinance was read for the second time after which Director Purdy motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reaidng. The motion was seconded by Director Hughes and unanimously passed in roll call vote of the Board The ordinance was read for the third and final time by the City Attorney. 273 273.7 273.8 274 274.1 Mr. Ernest Jacks, Secretary of the Planning Commission, commented that the Planning Commission had had petitions for the location of offices in I-1 districts, and that, although the requests seemed proper, they could not be granted because the code did not allow the use. 274.2 Following slight further comment, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded whereupon the Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2098 APPEARS ON PAGE 283 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV REQUEST BY WARNER CABLE FOR RATE ADJUSTMENT 274.3 Warner Cable had requested that the Board approve an increase in rates from the present charge of $5.00 to $6.25 retroactive to March 1, 1975, and, effective July 1, 1976, to $7.50. 274.4 Mr. Lynn Wade, legal counsel for Warner Cable, presented the request to the Board and cited that the request was primarily based upon the fact that the company was experiencing losses under the current rate structure. He stated that Warner Cable would be willing to provide the main and sub fire stations with Star Channel at no charge and that the company would be willing to negotiate an increase in the franchise tax to a maximum of 3% -- excluding revenues from the Star Channel system. He said that a recent request to the FCC for additional channels was denied but that the application had been resubmitted. Mr. Wade stressed that increased rates were also necessary in order to institute a rebuilding program and con- cluded his statements by saying: "We need money to rebuild the system, to maintain and improve the system. We are having substantial losses and they will continue unless we are granted this request." 274.5 Mr. Rip Linsey, local station manager, gave a brief history of the cable system in Fayetteville. He said the cost of the rebuilding would be $700,000 and that the rate increase would be necessary in order to cover the cost. A lengthy discussion and question period ensued during which representatives of the company were questioned extensively about financial data of the company. Mr. Ron Knight, Senior Vice -President of Warner Cable, stated that the alternatives to no rate increase would be a cut of services and operations. 274.6 Dr. Bill Hardin of the University of Arkansas Finance Department, reported that, based upon the financial data available to him, the first rate increase based on revenue -cost basis would be justified but that the second increase would not, in his opinion, be justified based on Warner's forecast of projected revenues and expenditures. He said it was obvious from the data that the local system has been making contributions to the corporate headquarters' expenses. Director Todd stated that the financial data did not indicate to him that the increase was necessary in order to rebuild the system and that he could not see any urgent need for the increase. 274.7 Mr. Jerry Simpson was present in the audience to speak in opposition to the request and cited better service and lower rates received by other area cities. He stressed that people living on fixed incomes, particularly the elderly, would be hardest hit by an increase and that many would have to dis- continue the service. 274.7 The City Attorney then read the ordinance for the first time. Director Todd motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Collier and passed unanimously by the Board. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, motioned to amend the ordinance to stipulate that, in the event the 274 1 275 first rate increase is approved by the Board, the second increase would be considered by the Board when additional information and data is received by the Directors. Directors Hughes, Purdy, Collier, and Noland voted "Aye" on the motion; Directors Orton and Todd voted "Nay", and Director Lancaster abstained. The Mayor declared the motion passed. The City Attorney then read the ordinance for the second time after which Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, motioned to place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Mayor Orton then asked if the ordinance should pass as amended and the roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier; "Nays": Hughes, Orton, Todd, Noland; "Abstain": Lancaster. Mayor Orton declared the ordinancefailed. Mr. Wade stated that Warner's offer to extend Star Channel service to the fire.stations free of charge was made at a request from either a member of the staff or Board. He said the company would have no alternative but to reduce services in the form of employee reductions and operational cutbacks. 275.1 275.2 REQUEST BY SKELTON STREET COMMITTEE In regard to the location of a liquor store at Skelton Street and High- 275.3 way 71 South, the Skelton Street Committee, through their legal representative Tom Keith, had asked the Board to take action to oppose the location. The Board, by resolution, had requested the Planning Commission to study the possibility of making liquor stores a conditional use in C-2 and C-3 zones or the creation of a special zoning classification for liquor stores. The Board had deferred any action to formally oppose the liquor store permit until an Attorney General's opinion could be obtained on the question of whether or not the City could make liquor stores a conditional use in C-2 and C-3 zones. Included with the agenda was a copy of an informal and unofficial opinion received from Mr. Robert S. Moore, Jr.; Assistant Attorney General, in which he stated that making liquor stores a conditional use under C-2 and C-3 zoning "_would appear to be a proper exercise of municipal power..." In comments to the Board the City Attorney indicated his disagreement with the opinion and stated that in his opinion, regardless whether there is a use by right in any district, the concept of making liquor stores conditional would not be upheld in a court of law. He informed the Board that the Planning Commission wished to meet jointly with the Board to discuss the zoning of liquor stores. Mr. Keith was then yielded the floor and stated that the Skelton Street 275.5 residents wished the Board to take some type of action. He said he was in agreement with the opinion received from the Attorney General's office and further stated that the .C -2L and C -3L zoning concept was an acceptable approach. Mr. Keith stressed that only through the local governing body did the people have any voice'in the matter of liquor store locations. Director Noland, seconded by Director Purdy, motioned to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission for the purpose of discussing proposed zoning classification changes for liquor stores. In roll cail vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously and the joint meeting was tentatively scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on May 6, 1975. 275.4 275 275.6 276 ORDINANCE AMENDING SIGN ORDINANCE 276.1 The proposed ordinance would, among other amendments, establish the Board of Directors as a Board of Sign Appeals to hear requests for sign variances. 276.2 Director Purdy motioned to refer the ordinance to the Planning Commission for their recommendation since he did not feel the Board should adopt any major amendments without their consultation. The motion was seconded by Director Collier and unanimously passed in roll call vote of the Board. 276.3 Director Todd listed additional changes which he felt might be incorporated and Director Purdy stated that any Board member having further suggestions could submit them to the Planning Commission for consideration. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS FOR AIRPORT LIMOUSINE SERVICE 276.4 The proposed ordinance would establish the annual license tax, specify the maximum fare, designate parking areas and fees, and would specify liabi- lity insurance requirements. 276.5 The ordinance was read for the first time by the City Attorney after which Director Noland, seconded by Director Hughes, motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. A motion by Director Purdy to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading was seconded by Director Todd and unanimously passed in roll call vote of the Board. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 276.6 In discussing the points of passenger deliveries, Mr. Cole, operator of the limousine service, stated that deliveries to the northernmost section of the city were frequent and expenses for such deliveries were barely covered by the current $2.00 charge. He suggested that a $3.00 charge would be more reasonable. He also stated that the stalls reserved for the limousines were not marked and that a problem existed in trying to keep unauthorized vehicles from parking in the rented stalls. Mr. Grimes assured Mr. Cole that the stalls would be properly marked. 276.7 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, motioned to amend the ordi- nance by increasing the maximum fare to $3.00. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Orton then asked if the ordinance should pass as amended and in roll call vote of the Board the ordinance passed unanimously. • ORDINANCE NO. 2099 APPEARS ON PAGE 284-285 OF ORDINANCE 8 RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE- Plumbers Examining Board 276.8 The proposed ordinance would specify the qualifications for membership on the Plumbers Examining Board, and, as stated by the City Attorney, would bring the code in compliance with state law in regards to this subject. 276.9 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time after which Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, motioned to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. A motion to further suspend rules and place the ordinance 276 1 1 • on third and final reading was made by Director Purdy, seconded by Director Todd, and passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Mr. Harold Lieberenz, Building Inspector, was present in the audience and discussed with the Board the qualifications set forth in the ordinance. After slight discussion and comment, Mayor Orton asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote of the Board was unanimous whereupon the Mayor de- clared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE N0. 2100 APPEARS ON PAGE 286 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV 277 277.1 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2095 The proposed ordinance would amend Ordinance 2095 by adding a severability 277.2 clause. The City Attorney explained that when Ordinance 2095 was drafted the severability clause was inadvertently deleted and that the clause would state that if any part of Ordinance 2095 is declared by the courts to be invalid, the decision would not invalidate the entire ordinance. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Purdy, 277.3 seconded by Director Todd, motioned to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unani- mously whereupon the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously in roll call vote of the Board and the City Attorney read the ordinance foxpe third and final time. There being no discussion, Mayor Orton asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2101 APPEARS ON PAGE 287 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING QUIET TITLE PROCEEDINGS The quiet title proceedings concern a parcel of land .located at June - way Terrace at Elm Street which the city acquired an undivided one-half interest in. Mr. Phillip Bensonen, citing the unkempt condition of the lot, requested that either the city acquire title to the lot so that he might purchase it or that the city assume the responsibility for maintaining the lot. 277.4 During discussion, Directors Lancaster and Purdy stated that they did 277.5 not believe the City should dspdseof property that in the future could be needed for the construction of a street. The City Attorney advised the Board that quiet title proceedings would be futile and expensive since he believed the court would rule that the City owns an undivided one-half interest in the lot. Following further discussion and comment, City Manager Grimes recommended 277.6 that the City negotiate with Wilkins Corporation, also owning undivided one-half interest in the lot, to acquire the lot. If the corporation did not wish to negotiate such an acquisition, Mr Grimes said the Board could authorize condemnation procedures. The City Manager stated that he could see that the city would :have to assume construction of the portion of Juneway to connect with Elm Street and that if the negotiation is successful the construction could be budgeted intxhe 1976 Budget. 277 278 278.1 Director Purdy, seconded by Director Hughes, motioned to accept the City Manager's recommendation. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously. REPORT FROM BOARD NOMINATING COMMITTEE 278.2 Director Todd, Chairman of the Board Nominating Committee, recommended the appointment of Mr. Jack Ray to the Planning Commission to serve the un- expired term of Mr. John Lineberger. Mr. Ray's term would expire January 1, 1978. Director Todd then motioned that the appointment be made and Director Lancaster seconded the motion. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously. 278.3 Director Todd then discussed the proposed policy statement, included with the agenda, which recommended procedures that might be followed to correct excessive absenteeism among members of the various boards and committees. 278.4 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, motioned to accept the policy statement. In discussion some Board members commented that the policy should not be too rigid nor should it be a source of alienation of volunteer committee members. The final vote of the Board on the motion by Hughes was seven "Ayes" and no "Nays". The Mayor declared the motion passed. 278.5 Director Todd then moved to confirm the appointment of Mr. Bill Gould to the Housing Authority. The motion was seconded by Director Purdy and unanimously passed in roll_ call vote of the Board. REVIEW OF AMENDED PRIORITIES OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 278.6 Due to a recent ruling by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the social services projects proposed to be funded by Community Development Block Grant Program funds were declared ineligible and had to be striken from the program Principal changes in the program resulted in the following addi- tional allocations: Housing Assistance Sewer taps Parks and Recreation Sewers $20,000 additional 20,000 " 30,000 16,800 278.7 Following slight discussion, the City Attorney read a resolution authoriz- ing the City Manager to submit an amended application for the Community Develop- ment Block Grant Program funds. Director Hughes motioned for the adoption of the resolution and Director Todd seconded. In roll call vote of the Board the vote was unanimous in favor of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 28-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 147 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV 278.8 Director Todd then stated that he felt the Board should go on record as being in opposition to the HUD decision to delete social services projects and that a statement be drafted and forwarded to representatives in Washington expressing this opposition. CD Administrator Chuck Hoffman stated that the CD Committee had requested him to draft such a statement in their behalf to be mailed to the representatives and Senators. He said the statement would be signed by those members of the committee wishing to sign the statement. 278 1 1 1 CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS LIQUOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS The City Manager informed the Board that a beer license application had been filed with the Arkansas Beverage Control Commission for 2012 West 6th Street and that the proposed location is within 400 feet of public school property. Mr. Grimes stated that he would contact the school board about the application and the possibility of the city joining in appetition to oppose the permit if the school chose to oppose the permit. A motion was made by Director Hughes to join the school board in protest if necessary and Director Lancaster seconded the motion; however, no vote was taken on the motion. WATER AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION BIDS The City Manager informed the Board that a special meeting would be necessary in the following week to award construction bids on the water and sewer improvement projects. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Board's consideration, Director Collier, seconded by Director Hughes, motioned that the meeting be adjourned. The motion met with the Board's approval whereupon the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST; CD rlen ae Clerk APPROVED: Marion R. Orton, Mayor 279 279 279.1 279.2 279.3