Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS November 4, 1975 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on November 4, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors 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 Orton, Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, Paul Noland, Al Hughes, and Morris Collier. ABSENT: Director Russell Purdy CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36.1 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Orton. Following a brief moment of respectful silence, the Mayor asked if there be any amendments to the minutes of October 21, 1975. 36.2 City Attorney McCord requested that the third sentence of paragraph 27.4 be amended to read: "He also reported that the ordinance..."; and that the first sentence of paragraph 35.3 be amended to read: "...the state has pre-empted most areas...". There being no further amendments necessary, the Mayor declared the minutes approved as amended. PETITION TO CLOSE ALLEYS - Farm Service Cooperative, et al. 36.3 The petition requested that several unopened alleys and street rights-of-way be closed and vacated in an area bounded by Government Avenue, South School Avenue, Sixth Street, and Eleventh Street. Peti- tioners were Farm Service Cooperative, Jack and Carol Budd, Marjorie Budd, M. Ray Adams and Mcllroy Bank (Trustee), Nora B. Adams Estate, Stewart B. Fugitt, Argil and Emma Bell Bartholomew, and George Jr. and Joann Davis. 36.4 The City Attorney reported that the City Engineer had advised reten- tion of several utility easements crossing some of the alleys for which there seemed to be no legal descriptions of record. Mr. McCord advised that the Board might table the consideration of an ordinance to close the alleys until the proper method for retaining the easements could be determined. 36.5 Mr. Wayne Ball, present in the audience and representing the petitioners, stated that the petitioners would be willing to consent to leaving utility easements and provide a record of the legal descriptions at a later date should the Board choose to consider adoption of an ordinance at this session. 36.6 Director Hughes moved to table the matter. In discussion, the, City Manager expressed reluntance to close all of the alleys explaining that the intersection of Sixth Street and South School Avenue was included in the Highway Department's five-year plan adopted in 1973 and was scheduled to be widened. He said that School Street from Sixth to the 71 Bypass would be four -lane within the next two years and if problems were ex- perienced in acquiring right-of-way for the intersection, the alleys could possibly be used to circumvent the intersection. "I think we would be 36 1 giving away something here that could be of future use to the City if we can't straighten out traffic congestion at this intersection," Mr. Grimes stated. Upon advice of the City Attorney, the Mayor opened the public hearing regarding the petition to close the alleys. Commenting in opposition to the alley closings was Mr. George Blackwell who did not believe the alleys should be closed because of their potential use by the City and that closure would adversely affect traffic flow. However, after consultation with Mr. Ball, Mr. Blackwell learned that the alleys in question were not in the area he was speaking of. The Mayor then asked for comments from those in favor of the alley closings and there were none expressed. After further slight comment, Director Noland seconded the motion to table further consideration of an ordinance until next meeting. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The Mayor declared the motion passed. ORDINANCE ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY - Edgehill Drive The ordinance would accept and confirm the dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements contained in the lot split of Bill Graue for property located between Edgehill Drive and Mission Boulevard. The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time after which Director Hughes, seconded by Director Collier, moved that rules be sus- pended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the.ordinance was read the second time. During discussion, the City Manager reported that Mr. Graue had received a deed for a 10 -foot strip which had been in question. He also informed Mr. Graue that property owners of the Lakeridge Drive area enter into a covenant whereby they agree to contribute annually towards the maintenance of the lake area. He felt Mr. Grape should consider the covenant when the property is developed for lots. Director Noland, seconded by Director Collier, moved that rules be further suspended and the -ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board, was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland,Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2158 APPEARS ON PAGE 19 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 37 rj 7 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 37.5 ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - Western Sizzlin' Steak House 38.1 The ordinance would approve the large scale development of J. B. Hays and Jim Lindsey for Western Sizzlin' Steak House to be constructed on property located at 2890 North College Avenue conditional upon the following: (1) that the developer satisfy the City Sanitation Superinten- dent regarding provisions for grabage truck turnaround area; (2) that the developer satisfy the City Street Superintendent regarding provision of catch basins; and, (3) provisions be made for stabilizing the hillside to the east of the proposed structure 38.2 The City Attorney explained that no street or utility easement dedi- cations were required for the development. He then read the ordinance the first time after which Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed crthird reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The ordinance was declared passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2159 APPEARS ON PAGE 20 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V TASK FORCE REPORT 38.3 Mr. Jim Lindsey, Chairman of a task force appointed by the City Manager to review and recommend changes in planning and permit procedures to result in simplified procedures and alleviation of long waiting periods, stated that the task force did not feel that the City had good supervision or control over what was built after approval and that it took a prolonged period of time to obtain building permits. One problem, they felt, was that the Planning Administrator had a great deal of responsibility with- out a proportionate share of authority. The group felt that, in an ideal situation and when a complete set of building plans were presented, a building permit should be obtained within 10 days to two weeks. 38.4 In order to assure that structures are built as approved by the City, the group proposed that building plans be posted at the construction site with any changes or alterations to be approved by a City official and the final "as built" plans being filed with the City. The group also suggested that large scale developments be processed as always, and once all requirements had been met, to submit the plans to the Subdivision 38 t: flb CC 1 Committee of the Planning Commission. If the Committee found that the plans fully complied with.all regulations and dedications executed, then the Inspection Department could issue the permits. The dedications could then be taken to the next City Board meeting for approval. The task force felt that procedures could be expedited if only those developments not meeting requirements or posing special problems be referred to the Planning Commission and/or the Board. The latter suggestion drew comments from Director Todd who felt that the interest of the general public might be forfeited if the sugges- tion were adopted. Mr. Hughes expressed disagreement with Todd comment- ing that if the plans met all requirements the general public would have no discretion in the matter. Mayor Orton felt that the property owners in the area of a proposed development should be informed as to what is planned. The City Manager suggested that adjacent property owners could be notified of Subdivision Committee meeting three days in advance. In further discussion, Director Lancaster indicated his concern that plat review proceedings did not include comments from the Fire Chief and felt it important that structures be reviewed by the Fire Chief to assure that proper fire prevention measures were provided. Planning Commission Secretary Ernest Jacks stated that the Fire Chief reviewed subdivision and large scale development plans to make certain that proper water supply was provided and that the building code specified what specific measures must be taken to provide fire protection. Director Todd stated that he was still not sure that the Subdivision Committee should be so removed from the public and suggested that the Committee be appointed by the Planning Commission chairman and approved by the Board. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Collier, moved that the recom- mendations be referred to the Planning Commission far public hearing. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed. SIGN APPEALS - Southland Corporation, United Freight Sales, A/C Electric Southland Corporation d/b/a 7 -Eleven Stores; United Freight Sales; and A/C Electric had requested appeals regarding variances from the Sign Ordi- nance provision. Mayor Orton reported that she had received letters from each of the appellants requesting that their appeals be tabled until Novem- ber 18, 1975. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved that the appeals be tabled until the November 18 meeting. The motion and second were amended to table the appeals until December 2, 1975 after Director Todd expressed a desire for hearing the appeals on that date. There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the motion should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": Collier Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed. 39 :3y 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6 PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION REQUESTING FORMATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - Cline Avenue 40.1 A petition requesting the formation of a street improvement district for improvements to Cline Avenue, located in McClinton's Second Addition to the City of Fayetteville, was filed with the City Clerk on October 10, 1975. On October 30, 1975, a letter from Mr. James Dickson was filed with the City Clerk requesting the removal of his clients' names from the petition. Those requesting removal of their names were: Mr. Charles R. Ledbetter, Mr. Larry Freedle, Mrs. J. S. Clark, Mr. Michael Flannery, Mr. Len Roger Lewis, and Ms. Eula Billings. 40.2 The City Attorney explained to Mr. Wayne Ball, representing those requesting withdrawal from the petition, that the City Clerk had no authority to remove names from petitions filed in her office and that the removal of the names required approval of the City Board upon presentation of good cause. The Mayor then asked Mr. Ball to present his clients' reasons for requesting removal of their names. 40.3 Mr. Ball introduced Mr. Michael Flannery, 2036 Cline, who stated that he had been contacted by Mrs. Winona Sanders concerning the petition and had signed the petition after Mrs. Sanders had told him the petition was just a request for the Board to consider the matter. He said he later found out that the petition was acutally a request for the Board to form the district and that each property owner would be assessed for payment of the improvements. He said he did not approve of having to help pay for the improvements and requested his name be removed from the petition. II/40.4 Mr. Charles Ledbetter addressed the Board and stated that he felt certain facts were misrepresented by those circulating the petition. He said he was told that all of his neighbors were in favor of the improve- ment district but later learned that all were not. He also told the Board that he was told that improvements to the paved portion of Cline Avenue would involve only curbing and guttering when in fact he learned that the paved portion would be removed and the entire street rebuilt with part of the cost being assessed against his property. He said he also understood that the purpose of the petition was an effort to require the seller of the lots to pave the remainder of the street without obligation to the property owners. 40.5 Mr. Ball then stated it was his understanding teat some of his clients had not been shown thecover sheet of the petition and that they had signed upon representations by Mrs. Sanders. Mrs. Winona Sanders, 2012 Cline, had initiated the peti- tion and stated that signers of the petition were shown the cover sheet as well as the ordinance governing the establishment of improvement districts at the time they signed the petition. Mr. Sanders told the Board that he felt the problem was one of economics and that the ordinance should be explained to the people. 40.6 The City Manager stated that he felt one problem was that people signing petitions for street improvement district formations did not know what the cost would be and suggested that in the future a per-foot cost based upon past street construction costs be provided with the petitions to provide a "ballpark" figure from which the petitioners could figure their approximate cost. He recommended that Mr. Ball's clients be allowed to withdraw their names from the petition and that another attempt to form the district be initiated. 40 Director Lancaster; seconded by Director Cbllier, moved that the requests for withdrawal of names be granted. .The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed. The City Attorney then read an ordinance expressing the Board's findings that the petition was insufficient. Mr. Sanders objected to the ordinance but was informed by the City Attorney that the peti- tion was in fact insufficient due to the removal of the names request- ing withdrawal. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved that rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final read- ing. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. Upon suggestion of Director Todd, the City Attorney stated that he would amend the form of petition for street improvement district formations. ORDINANCE NO. 2160 APPEARS ON PAGE 21-22 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 41 41.1 41.2 ORDINANCE LEVYING REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX FOR THE YEAR 1975 The City Attorney read an ordinance levying 1975 real and personal 41.3 property tax of seven mills for the following purposes: General Operations Fire Pension Police Pension 5 1 1 Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be sus- 41.4 pended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 41 42.1 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Collier, moved that rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2161 APPEARS ON PAGE 23 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 42.2 In further discussion concerning the tax levy, Director Lancaster stated that one area of the General Budget most affected by the decreased levy was fire department operations. He stated that he had become aware of the fact that some cities charge a fire protection fee for tax-exempt properties that do not provide their own fire protection. He felt that the City might pursue the possibility of charging tax-exempt properties, such as the University of Arkansas, such a fee so as to alleviate some of the burden placed upon the residents of the City who pay taxes to support the fire department. AWARD OF BID - Recreation Construction Projects 42.3 The award of the bid for construction of street and parking areas at the Fayetteville Youth Center and two tennis courts at Walker Park was recommended by the City Manager to be indefinitely tabled because bids received exceeded the budgeted amount. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved that award of the bid be tabled indefinitely. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed. OTHER BUSINESS PRIVATE CLUB LICENSE APPROVAL - Brass Monkey 42.4 The City Manager presented the Board with the application of the Brass Monkey, a private club to operate at 22 South College, and recom- mended its approval. Director Todd, seconded by Director Hughes, moved that the application be approved. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy The motion was declared passed. 42 SPECIAL CENSUS The City Manager recommended that all paperwork to conduct a special census be readied for the census to begin January, 1976 if university enrollment has not dropped drastically. The Board indicated approval of the recommendation. ARKANSAS AVENUE The City Manager informed the Board that there seemed to be question as to responsibility for maintenance of the Arkansas Avenue median and submitted the following recommendations: (1) that there be a division of maintenance responsibilities between the University of Arkansas and the City; or, (2) the City relinquish Arkansas Avenue and its right-of-way to the State for maintenance purposes. He stated that he would pursue the second recommendation if the Board had no objections. Mayor Orton questioned whether the State might close the street at a future date and how it would affect the traffic pattern. Mr. Grimes stated that he did not hink they would close the street without provid- ing an alternate route. City Attorney McCord suggested that, should the City relinquish the street, a provision might be made whereby the street would automatically revert to the City should the State desire to close the street. The City Manager stated that he would express the Board's feelings when he met with university officials. INFORMATIONAL SIGN APPROVED - First National Bank City Attorney McCord reported that the First National Bank proposes to erect informational time -and -temperature signs at its banks in Fayetteville and that the Building Inspection Department requested clari- fication of whether or not the devices would violate the "fluctuating sign" provisions of the sign ordinance. Mr. Freeman Wood, of the Building Inspection Department, stated that the devices would be for informational purposes only and would not display the bank's name. He further stated that the devices would not interfere with traffic signalization. Director Todd stated that his only reserva- tion would be that approval of the devices would open avenues for service stations to use similar devices for advertisement of gasoline prices. Mayor Orton stated that even though the ordinance did not specifically allow the devices, the Board's intent was that they would be allowed. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Lancaster, moved that the informa- tional signs be allowed. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None Absent: Purdy PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS Ms. Kathryn Corley, present in the audience, presented petitions to the Board which stated: "We the undersigned, residents of Watson Street and vicinity in Fayetteville, Arkansas, do hereby agree that we are opposed to plans to demolish residences between St. Charles and Thompson Streets on Watson Street; and the construction of apartment complexes which would degrade the fine quality of our neighborhood; and create high 43 43 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 43.7 population density which would increase traffic that would jeopardize the safety of all neighborhood children; and dispossess residents who could not afford the high rents of the new apartments; and also lower the standard of living of future tenants by causing crowding, the downfall of the major cities and civilization." 44.1 Ms. Corley stated that those signing the petition were aware that there was no legal recourse available to them but they did want to ex- press their concern that the proposed development would be detrimental to the neighborhood. 44.2 Mayor Orton acknowledged receipt of the petitions and informed the group that the City had no course of action it could take since the property owner had fulfilled all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY PROSPECTIVE WATER SERVICE CUSTOMER 44.3 Mr. Keith Weir, a resident of the Oakland/Zion Road area, expressed his complaint that he had made a water connection deposit in July, 1975, but had not been connected to the city water line recently installed near his home. 44.4 The City Manager informed Mr. Weir that connection dates were unknown and that connections could not be made until the pipeline had undergone pressure tests and sterilization. He assured Mr. Weir that the City will continue to encourage the contractors to complete the job as soon as possible. PROCEDURES FOR BOARD MEETINGS 44.5 Director Hughes expressed a desire to see procedures adopted for conducting city business and for the placement of items on the Board agenda. He stated that he would personally undertake the project and would accept suggestions from other Directors for recom- mendation to the full Board. ADJOURNMENT 44.6 There being no further business for the Board's consideration, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: Sarlene Westbrook, City Clerk APPROVED: Marion R. Orton, Mayor 44 1