Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-08-16 Minutes1 • 61 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 16, 1977 The City of Fayetteville Board of Directors met in regular session on August 16, 1977, at 7:30 p.m., in the Director's Room of the City Administration Building. PRESENT: Administrative Assistant David McWethy, City Attorney Jim McCord, City Clerk Darlene Westbrook; and Directors Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, Paul iloland, Al Hughes, David Malone, Philip Colwell, and Ann Henry. ABSENT: City Manager Don Grimes CO 1) OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media. U CALL TO ORDER r The meeting was called to order by Mayor Lancaster. Following a moment of 61.1 respectful silence and roll call, Mayor Lancaster called for consideration of the first item of business. REZONING APPEAL - R77-24 / Elm Street & Green Acres Road / John E. & Terry Box Appellants had requested rezoning a 1.2 acre tract, located on the northwest corner of Elm Street and Green Acres Road, from R-1 Low Density Residential to R-0 Residential Office. The City Attorney read an ordinance the first time to rezone the property as requested by the petitioners. Speaking in behalf of the petition, Mr. John Box said the rezoning was re- quested to allow construction of a professional office building. Mr. Box told the Board that the parcel's south property line extended west from Green Acres Road 280 feet on Elm Street. Mr. J. D. McFarland, 58 East Elm, stated he favored the rezoning. Speaking in opposition was George Curme, 2016 Erstan, who represented a significant number of opposing property owners who reside on Elm, Erstan, and Baker streets. The opponents feared that the rezoning would infringe upon the character of the neighborhood and would create a trend of rezonings on Elm Street. The opponents were also concerned about additional traffic which the development would create in an area of relatively little traffic volume. Mr. Denver Hutson, 108 West Elm, stated that the concensus of the opposition is that they do not de- sire any commercial construction that touches Elm Street; that they preferred the commercial activity cease at the southwest corner of Elm. In reply to a statement by Director Hughes that a new development would generate additional tax revenues, Hutson did not feel that the generation of revenues on the basis of rezoning was applicable. Hutson disagreed that additional commercial and professional zoning was needed to serve as a buffer between Highway 71 and Green Acres Road. Mrs. Christine Bailey also opposed the rezoning and stated that property owners were in opposition because they wanted to protect the neighborhood they had chosen to live in and could afford to live in. Dr. J. B. Hays supported the petitioner's request stating he felt the property owner should be able to use his property without a great deal of opposi- tion. He favored rezoning the entire block R-0 and believed that the proposed development would greatly improve the area. 61 61.2 61.3 61.4 61.5 62 62.1 Although definite plans could not be made until the property is rezoned, Mr. Box stated that tentative plans provide that the building would be placed in the corner of the property towards Green Acres Road with parking facilities being located behind the building. Current plans provide that ingress will be from Green Acres Road with egress onto Elm Street. He said the petitioners would be satisfied to have R-0 classification at the corner of Green Acres to extend west on Elm Street to a depth matching the zoning depth of property across the street while leaving the rest of the property residentially zoned. Such zoning would provide adequate room for the building and parking and would provide protec- tion to the residential section. 62.2 Dr. Terry Box acknowledged concerns about the possibility of future rezonings on Elm Street but that the only alternative might be to rezone closer to town in order to halt peripheal locations of professional offices and provide centralized areas for services. 62.3 During discussion from the Board, Director Noland stated his main concern was that the rezoning would extend rather deeply towards the Elm Street residential area. Director Henry assured the opposition that the Board is interested in main- taining the residential character of Elm Street by providing R-0, rather than commercial, as a buffer. She did not think it practical that a property owner should be expected to leave the property idle when there is no use for residentially zoned property along Green Acres Road. 62.4 Director Malone felt the remaining residentially -zoned property along Green Acres, north of Elm Street, should also be considered for.rezoning in view of the fact that Green Acres would eventually be extended to Township in conjunction with the commercial development of 40 acres to the north. He moved that the Planning Commission be requested to consider rezoning property from Elm Street north to the end of Green Acres Road in order to establish a depth for R -O. Director Todd seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd Nays: None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was left on first reading. REZONING APPEAL - R77-25 / Deane Street & Porter Road / Gordon Houston, petitioner 62.5 The petitioner had requested rezoning a 5.3 acre tract, located southeast of the Deane Street/Porter Road intersection, from R-1 Low Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential. The City Attorney read an ordinance to rezone the property as requested by the petitioner. 62.6 Mr. Ray Neeley, 1717 Sang, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Stating he had recently purchased his home across from the property in question, Neeley expressed concern for providing high density uses across the street from a single-family residential section. Ms. Gail Allen, resident of Porter Road, also opposed the request inferring that the proposed rezoning would permit construction of unappealing apartment facilities. 62.7 Mr. Gordon Houston was present but only commented that Ms. Allen had purchased her home with knowledge that existing apartments were under construction. 62.8 Director Hughes, seconded by Todd, moved rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd Nays: None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 62.9 Director Hughes, seconded by Todd, moved rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd Nays: None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the final time. 1 1 62 i There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes Nays: Noland, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd The Mayor declared the ordinance failed. 63 63.1 LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION At its July 19 meeting, the Board had tabled consideration of the Library 63.2 Board request for an election to approve capital improvements millage to finance construction and expansion of the library facilities. Director Todd stated the Library Board had adequately answered questions 63.3 (V regarding the operations and contributions of the Ozarks Regional Library. CO Director Noland strongly supported investigation of possibilities of whether or not ID Community Development funds could be used for the project. The City Attorney advised U that he did not interpret the statutes as authorizing CD funds for the library Q project. He also informed the Board that the CD administrator had been advised by the Little Rock HUD office that the project would be ineligible for CD funding. Q McCord advised the Board of the election procedures and wording of the ballot. He recommended that, if the Board chose to issue bonds, the bond ordinance should be considered at the next meeting. Director Colwell, seconded by Henry, moved that an election be called for 63.4 the library improvements.. In reply to Director Todd, Colwell stated that the intent of his motion was to proceed with the election and general obligation bond millage. Directors Todd and Malone, while not opposed to library improvements, felt other alternatives and capital needs should be considered. Director Noland felt there should be a vote for generation of funds to finance the improvements but was not sure whether a bond issue or another alternative should be recommended. With the concurrence of Director Henry, Director Colwell withdrew his motion. Director Noland, seconded by Todd, moved that it is the spirit of the Board 63.5 that it support the library expansion plan and move forward as soon as possible (prior to year-end) to generate revenues to finance the expansion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd Nays: None The motion was declared passed. The Directors also heard a request of the City Hospital Board, represented 63.6 by Mr. Harry Vandergriff, for the City to aid in financing capital improvements to the hospital. Vandergriff stated that the improvements would cost about $2 million of which $500,000 might come from contributions. City Hospital Administrator Kenneth Sanders stated that the improvements would provide addi- tional long-term and post -acute care beds. Sanders said that a primary problem in a recent unsuccessful attempt to issue bonds was that an extremely high percentage of medicare patients create a large imbalance for which subsidization cannot adequately cover. In order to receive more detailed information regarding the hospital needs, 63.7 and at the request of the Directors, Mr. Vandergriff stated he would arrange a joint meeting between with the hospital board of trustees. The Directors took no formal action. 63 64 SIGN ORDINANCE VARIANCE INTERPRETATION - 2217 North College 64.1 The Inspection Department had requested an interpretation to clarify a variance granted by the Board at its September 2, 1976 meeting which permitted Lumberjack Building Supply to erect a free-standing sign closer to the highway than allowed by the sign ordinance. A recent request by the White Dog, retail audio outlet and co -tenant at the location, for permission to attach a 14 square foot sign to the Lumberjack sign had prompted the Inspection Department to ask if the Board's variance was intended to also allow a joint identification sign. 64.2 The Board concurred that the variance was to permit erection of a 75 square foot sign on an existing sign base provided it would be no closer than 15 feet to the highway right-of-way. The Board noted that heavy rock formations would have preventejlocation of the sign at the required setback thus creating a hard- ship on the applicant. They also noted that the applicant at that time had stated that there would be no other businesses in the building. 64.3 In discussion of White Dog's request for a sign, Director Todd felt it would be unthinkable to allow a larger sign without proper setbacks. Mr. Hervie Houser, representing White Dog, felt his business should be entitled to have a sign. The Board informed Mr. Houser they would consider a variance if he and the other tenant could agree for modifications to be made to the existing sign to allow placement of an additional sign -- the two not to exceed 75 square feet. The Board informed Houser that they had always referred the tenant to the landlord when the two must share the same sign facilities 64.4 Director Malone moved that the Board indicate that the 1975 variance was not intended to allow a joint -identification sign, but that the Board would grant a variance up to 75 square feet at the location specified in the materials with the agenda that could be a joint identification sign at the existing setback from the street. The motion was seconded by Todd. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd Nays: None The motion was declared passed. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING ASSURANCE TO HUD 64.5 The City Attorney read a resolution expressing the City's assurance that it will complete sewer system improvements for Project WSF-AR-06-37-1001 in the Highway 16 East area and that the City will install a 24" water main from Cato Springs Road to Eighteenth Street within 12 months from adoption of the resolution. Also, that the Directors assure HUD that the water main extension will be paid for with Community Development funds. 64.6 Following slight discussion, Director Noland, seconded by Malone, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd Nays: None The motion and resolution were declared passed. RESOLUTION NO. 71-77 APPEARS ON PAGE 193 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V OTHER BUSINESS CROSSOVER ROAD FIRE STATION 64.7 The Administrative Assistant reported that, in order to construct a proposed fire station on Crossover Road using Revenue Sharing funds, the City would be re - 64 1 i 65 quired to hire an Arkansas licensed contractor who would be required to pay prevailing wage rates if the project cost were to exceed $70,000. In order to avoid compliance with Revenue Sharing regulations, McWethy said the -City could fund the project from the General Fund Surplus Fund and reprogram Revenue Sharing funds at a later date; however, if the bid was over $70,000, the project would still require a licensed contractor. Another alternative would be to hire an entire contractor's crew as city employees on a full-time, temporary basis for the purpose of constructing a fire station. McWethy stated that it was recom- mended that the former recommendation be accepted. Since it was noted that only one of fifteen residential contractors is licensed, Director Todd favored consideration of the second alternative since it would give more contractors an oppoturnity to bid. Director Henry moved the City advertise for bids for construction of the fire station. Malone felt the record should reflect that the Board authorizes use of General Fund Surplus Revenue not to exceed $70,000. The motion to adver- tise for bids was seconded by Noland. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd Nays: None The motion was declared passed. 65.1 65.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES There being no amendments to the minutes of the August 2, 1977 meeting, the 65.3 Mayor declared them approved as submitted. MISCELLANEOUS 1 Director Malone, seconded s.tructed to lot to and r turn the recorded vote was: ayes: 2. Director Hughes expressed by Todd, moved the Administrative Assistant be in- 65.4 chairs tht had been removed from the Board Rm. Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, owe Henry, Todd considerable concern about the City's efforts to 65.5 convert to a cycle water billing system. After some discussion, Director Malone requested that the City Manager submit a report on cycle billing at the September 6 meeting. 3. Director Todd, seconded by Colwell, moved that a special meeting be held on August 23 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering rezoning items considered by the Planning Commission t its August 15 meLomeli,ting Threcorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Mlaone, Lancaster, Henry 4. H- dto?oPRRlone moved that the Street Committee meet to consider Highway Department projects that may be under consideration to discuss which projects should be priority items. Following their discussions, Malone felt representatives of the Board should meet with regional or state representatives"of the Highway Department to discuss Fayetteville's highway needs. The motion was seconded by Todd. Malone stated he would also like the Street Committee to look into Frisco matters concerning right-of-way and crossing conditions. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Henry, Todd Nays: None The motion was declared passed. 5. Mayor Lancaster appointed Director Henry to fill the Board committee vacancies created by Director Orton's resignation. He also moved that Director Henry be appointed to complete Director Orton's term on the Northwest Criminal 65 65.6 65.7 65.8 66 Justice Planning Council. The motion was seconded by Director Todd and the recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Todd Nays: None Abstain: Henry The motion was declared passed. ADJOURNMENT 66.1 Director Malone, seconded by Noland, moved the meeting be adjourned. Mayor Lancaster declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: OlgtA-64w "OAL4licitudr 66 APPROVED: iew_oe_creteei‘arr.et 1 1 1