Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-05-01 Minutes1 47 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, May 1, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayette- ville, Arkansas. .PRESENT: Directors John Todd, Paul Noland, Richard Osborne, David Phil Colwell, Ann Henry, Ernest Lancaster, City Manager City Attorney Jim McCord, Administrative Assistant David and City Clerk Angie Medlock. ABSENT: None. Malone, Don Grimes, McWethy, OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call the Mayor called for 47.1 consideration of the first item of business. REZONE PROPERTY / Nancy Ault / South Gregg The mayor opened discussion on further consideration of an ordinance 47.2 rezoning property, as requested in Rezoning Petition R 78-8, submitted by Nancy J. Ault, for a .47 acre tract of land located on the west side of South Gregg Avenue, 900 feet south of West Center Street. The petitioner had requested the zoning be changed from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial to R-3, High Density Residential. At a previous Board meeting, however, the petitioner had amended the petition to request R-2 zoning, and the petition was left on third reading. Director Colwell, seconded by Todd, moved that the item be taken from the 47.3 table. The recorded vote was: Ay: Todd, Noland, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. Absent: Osborne. The mayor declared the motion passed. - Director Osborne arrived at 7:32 P.M. Petitioner Nancy Ault said she is not opposed to the other property owner's 47.4 petitions to be presented later in the meeting requesting their property be re- zoned to R-1 and noted that if the property next to hers is rezoned to R-1, she could not use her property as I-1 (the present zoning) at all due to the required setbacks. She said also that she should be allowed to rely on the land use plan as adopted by the Board during the past summer, which indicates high density residential for that area. Attorney Lynn Wade, present representing several property owners who also 47.5 had submitted a rezoning petition asking that their property be rezoned to R-1, said he feels to grant the R-2 zoning would destroy the single-family residential area of the neighborhood. He said these are individual homes and he feels the residents are entitled to some protection, and to allow a higher density would increase the traffic problems in the neighborhood. He suggested that it might be premature to rezone the property to R-2 or R-3, since 1) there is a blind intersection at the corner of Gregg & Center; 2) the street is very narrow and has a lot of pedestrian traffic; and 3) there are no sidewalks or street lights. Ernest Jacks, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said the Commission 47.6 still stands by its recommendation of high density residential for the area-- 48 48.1 they had recommended R-1 for the additional properties only as an interim step for the high density future use of the property. 48.2 Buddy Zisner stated that he is in objection to the rezoning because it would create more traffic, and the property is in a position that it could not have a safe ingress and egress. He said as a resident and homeowner, he feels he has a right to try to maintain the property to the best of his ability so his family can live there safely. 48.3 Director Todd questioned if the property could be developed with R-1 zoning and City Attorney Jim McCord stated the owner could build en the property with R-1 zoning. Mayor Malone said someone owning property south of this which is zoned I-1 has indicated he may develop it with the I-1 zoning. 48.4 Director Todd agreed with Mr. Jacks and Mr. Wade. He said he doesn't frel the services are there, especially streets, to serve an R-2 development and does not feel high density or medium density residential is conducive to what is available in the area now. He said it appears it may be spot zoning to zone most of the property R-1 and in the middle of that have a piece of property zoned R-2. Todd said he does not see R-1 and R-2 as being compatible zoning in a single-family residential area and his inclination would be to deny the petition. Todd also pointed out that they are dealing with a "timing" question. Director Henry agreed. 48.5 Director Colwell said he did not feel anyone would ever develop the property as R-1. 48.6 In response to Director Osborne, Mr. Jacks stated that when the Planning Commission originally discussed the rezoning petition, they discussed at some length the problem of the traffic situation. He said he thought the Planning Commission felt if they waited for the services to be there before they approved a rezoning, the services would never get there, but with development, the property owners could build their portion of the street. Director Todd pointed out that this property is not a large scale development and thus the developer would not be required to install off-site improvements. 48.7 Nancy Ault pointed out that the City already owns the lot next to her property, which they had purchased to try to straighten out the "s" curve. She said also that she has no immediate plans to develop the property --she merely wants to get away from the I-1 zoning. 48.8 Director Lancaster asked Ault if she would consider R-1 zoning and Ault said she would not because it would totally decrease the property value of her lot. 48.9 Lynn Wade, noting that the property owner had indicated she has no immediate plans to develop the property, said the rezoning request may be premature. 48.10 Hank Mahler pointed out that since most of the lots are small, the R-2 zoning would come closer to being in compliance with the lot sizes needed to meet the requirements of the zoning district. 48.11 Mary Grace Sinnott, owner of one of the properties requesting R-1 zoning expressed concern about the traffic problems and said she is against the rezoning because she did not feel it could be developed safely. Sinnott said if the City installed improvements for this development she would also demand improvements (sidewalks) for her property. Someone in the audience commented that 1.88 acres recently rezoned to R-3 is already increasing the traffic problems and there is no reason to make the situation any worse. 48.12 Anita Zisner asked how many units could be built on the property and Nancy Ault said Bobbie Jones had told her she could get 8-10 units. Zisner stated that the street, at that point, is less than 30 feet wide and could not handle two-lane traffic. 48.13 Mayor Malone pointed out that the property directly north of the property' in question is R-2 and the property north of the R-2 is zoned R-0. He said the question seems to be where they should cut off the R-2 zoning. 1 1 1 0 COQ Q 1 1 49 There 'being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should 49.1 pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes• Osborne, Colwell. Nays: Todd, Noland, Malone, Henry, Lancaster. The mayor declared that the ordinance had failed to pass. REZONE PROPERTY / Gregg Street The second item for the Board's consideration was an ordinance rezoning ten 49.2 tracts of land located on the east and west sides of South Gregg Avenue, from I-1 to R-1, Low Density Residential. Mayor Malone said the Planning Commission had recommended R-1 zoning as an interim measure. The City Attorney read for the first time an ordinance rezoning the property 49.3 as requested. Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the ordinance was read for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended 49.4 and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vnte was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion for the third and final time. Attorney Lynn Wade commented that the property owners would like to have the 49.5 property rezoned to R-1 in keeping with the present use of the neighborhood. There was no public opposition expressed. Mayor Malone asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: 49.6 Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 2525 APPEARS ON PAGE 87 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII. Mayor Malone said he feelsthe Board needs to look at the other properties 49.7 in the area which have not been recently rezoned. Director Osborne moved the Board ask the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to look at the zoning of the other properties in that area. Director Todd seconded the motion. Planning Commission Chairman Jacks said i:fsthe Planning Commission is called upon to hold public hearings for that area, they need to have a land use plan which they can conform to and asked if they can assume the Board agrees with the adopted Land Use Plan. .Jialone said the Board had indicated they agree with the long-term zoning of R-3, even though the action they have just taken rezoned property to R-1. Director Lancaster stated that he can't see anyone (building a new house in the area,.but can understand zoning the existing houses to R-1. The Mayor said hp did not feel a recorded vote was necessary, but the Board should request the . Planning Commission to hold public hearings and submit a recommendation on rezoning other properties in the Gregg Street area. REZONING APPEAL / Duane Nelson The Board heard an appeal of a Planning Commission decision regarding rezoning 49.8 of property located on the west side of Highway 71 North, near Stearns Road, 50.1 50.2 50.3 50.5 50.6 50 submitted by Duane Nelson. Mayor Lpt cne ?lanning Commission had in March recommended a denial of o.i.:_ a 7-1-1 vote; a re- hearing was granted in April, and after the rehearing there was a recommenda- tion of denial on a 5-2-1 vote. Malone said following the latest denial, the petitioner had filed an appeal with the Board of Directors. Attorney Tilden "Chip" Wright was present representing Mr. Nelson. He noted that there is acutally 44.5 acres which they are requesting to have rezoned commercial and 7.5 acres to the north of this for which they are requesting R-0, rather than the 79.2 acres indicated in the agenda. Wright stated that on February 12, the petition first came before the Planning Commission and it was based on an overall C-2 zoning for the entire piece of property. At this time Planning Consultant Larry Wood had recommended there be no additional commercial zoning in this vicinity until such time as a coordinated traffic plan could be worked out. Wri-gh-t said -Wood had commented that he -felt the request would be reasonable if it -were tied to the already commertia-lly-zoned General Growth property.' --Wright said he didn't feel *Mr there were any valid objections expressed by the Planning Commission as to why the property should not be rezoned to C-2,and noted thawthe commissioner's had commented at the first meeting that 1) there might be'"an oversupply of C-2 in the Fayetteville areahhl; i al --property is -going -to be -one of the commissioners commented "if there is any- thing we can do to stop it, I would like to"; and` this property lies in the Springdale school district. Wright said the request was tabled at this time so there could be a "meeting of the minds" to work out the traffic problems. Wright said he had asked the Planning Commission for a clarification on whether they expected Duane Nelson to work with all the other property owners in the area to rezone the entire area and one of the commissioners indicated this was not a requirement. The commissioner had explained, 4if the Board amendedthe master street plan to reflect a street in a/f6datibiC the City could require egveryone who builds in that area to conform to the master street plan.0 he''rtioted that the petitioner had offered amendments to the master street plan which were approved by both the Planning Commiddion and the Board of Directors. Then, on March 26, Nelson came back to the Planning Commission for rezoning. Wright noted that Consultant Larry Wood had recommended either 1) rezone a reasonable depth west of the new road (Wright said the petitioner had recommended rezoning about 100 feet west of that); 2) rezone C-2 to the edge of the existing R-0 property on the General Growth tract; or 3) a comgination of the first two recommendations. Wright stated that one of the commissioners had stated at this meeting that the rezoning request should be denied because the property is "indefinitely located in relation to the other property in the area" as well as to the master street plan roadway which Wright..) at that time,was just a line across a piece of paper. Wright stated that another objection was that there was "enough C-2 property in the City" but none of the commissioners clarified where the C-2 was or if it was being utilized. Wright said the commissioners also commented that there shouldn't be any more C-2 in the area until the roads set out by the master street plan are actually put into being; and finally, it is not in the Fayetteville school district. Wright said one of the commissioners objected to the rezoning because he was opposed to any increased C-2 around the mall because it would have an adverse affect on downtown Fayetteville; and "he would vote against 1 50 60.1 submitted by Duane Nelson. Mayor Malone noted that the Planning Commission had, in March, recommended a denial of the rezoning by a 7-1-1 vote; a re- hearing was granted in April, and after the rehearing there was a recommenda- tion of denial on a 5-2-1 vote. Malone said following the latest denial, the petitioner had filed an appeal with the Board of Directors. 50.2 Attorney Tilden "Chip" Wright was present representing Mr. Nelson. He noted that there is actually 44.5 acres which they are requesting to have re- zoned commercial and 7.5 acres to the north of this for which they are re- questing R-0, rather than the 79.2 acres indicated in the agenda. 50.3 Wright stated that on February 12, the petition first came before the Planning Commission and it was based on an overall C-2 zoning for the entire piece of property. At this time Planning Consultant Larry Wood had recommended there be no additional commercial zoning in this vicinity until such time as a coordinated traffic plan could be worked out. 50.4 Chip Wright contended that there were no valid objections expressed by the Planning Commission as to why the property should not be rezoned to C-2, and noted the commissioners had commented at the first meeting that 1) there might be an over -supply of C-2 in the Fayetteville area" 2) speaking against more commercial property in the mall area "if there is anything we can do to stop it, I would like to"' and 3) this property lies in the Spring- dale school district. Wright said the request was tabled at this time so there could be a "meeting of the minds" to work out the traffic problems. Wright said he had asked the Planning Commission for a clarification on whether they expected Duane Nelson to work with the other property owners in the area to rezone the entire area and one of the commissioners indicated this was nota requirement. The commissioner had explained if the Board amended the master street plan to reflect a street in a certain location, the City could then require everyone who builds in that area to conform to the master street plan. 50.5 Wright noted that the petitioner had offered amendments to the master street plan which were approved by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. Then, on March 26, Nelson came back to the Planning Commission for rezoning. Wright said Consultant Larry Wood had recommended either 1) rezone a reasonable depth west of the new road (Wright said the petitioner had recommended rezoning about 100 feet west of the new road); 2) rezone C-2 to the edge of the existing R-0 property on the General Growth tract; or 3) a combination of the first two recommendations. Wright stated that one of the commissioners had stated at this meeting that the rezoning request should be denied because the property is "indefinitely located in relation to other property in the area" as well as to the master street plan roadway which Wright said, at that time, was just a line across a piece of paper.. 50.6 Wright stated that another objection was that there was "enough C-2 property in the City" but none of the commissioners clarified where the C-2 was or if it was being utilized. 50.7 Chip Wright said the commissioners also commented that there shouldn't be any more C-2 in the area until the roads set out by the master street plan are actually put into being; and finally, it is not in the Fayetteville school district. Wright said one of the commissioners objected to the rezoning because he was opposed to any increased C-2 around the mall because it would have an adverse affect on downtown Fayetteville; and "he would vote against 1 1 51 any extension of the mall that might be considered in the future". Wright 51.1 said the vote at that meeting was also to deny the petition. Wright further noted that the petitioner then requested a rehearing which was granted, and came back before the Planning Commission on April 23. Wright stated that Nelson's engineer, Ervan Wimberly, had designated the exact location of the proposed roadways as required by the Master Street Plan and Planning Consultant Larry Wood recommended the Planning Commission rezone a portion of the property to C-2 and a portion to R-0. Wright stated that the petitioner had cut the amount of C-2 requested 51.2 to 44.5 acres. Wright noted objections expressed by the audience were 1) this property is not within the Fayetteville school district; and 2) the developer should build the streets to alleviate the traffic problems first, and then request a rezoning. Q) Wright noted a commissioner absent from the meeting, had his opinion 51.3 0 read into the recording indicating "there shouldn't be any additional C-2 development until the traffic problem is solved and until the property owners Q cancome,together with a plan that would connect all of the property to the frontage roads". Wright said the petition was subsequently denied. Q Chip Wright summarized that he does not feel Duane Nelson, as a 51.4 Q property owner in the City of Fayetteville, has received "fair treatment" at the Planning Commission level. He said Nelson has been asked to do some things'which he has done to the best of his ability, and apparently this has not been enough. Wright noted the petitioner had been told to wait until the master street plan has been amended, which has been done. He said the Planning Commission had indicated the petition as submitted, was not definite, and the petitioner then submitted a plat showing the property and the proposed road. Wright said the petitioner cannot change three things: 1) the school 51.5 district which the property is located in; 2) they can't physically move the property to downtown Fayetteville; and 3) they cannot be expected to control all of the property owners in the area. Wright said all of these things are apparently what is going to be asked of the petitioner and pointed out that it was admitted by Larry Wood and most of the Commission members that if C-2 is not approved, nothing will be built there. Wright contended that the only legitimate concern expressed by the Planning Commission has dealt with the traffic problem. Wright said he would assume that this is why the Planning Commission and City Board amended the master street plan. Wright stated that it is unlikely to ask the developer to spend money to install streets and then come in and request a rezoning. He noted that it would be virtually impossible for the developer to borrow funds to build the road without having the appropriate zoning. Chip Wright said he understands the Planning Commission has in effect 51.6 said if there are no streets, there will be no zoning--however, if there is no zoning, there will be no streets. Wright said it appears the City treasury cannot afford to improve the streets. Ervan Wimberly explained that the major collector street proposed would 51.7 abut the mall commercial property and a small tract zoned R-0. He noted that if the street is put through, General Growth would probably request the R-0 be rezoned to C-2. He said he has laid out the road and it will fit the topo- graphy of the area and will be feasible to build. Wimberly said the developer could not build anything on the property until city streets are built and the developer could not afford to build city streets if the property remains asA-1. Wimberly said he feels any commercial development in the area will not generate new traffic, but will draw on the trade already going to and from the mall. 52 52.1 52.2 52.3 52.4 52.5 52.6 52.7 52.8 52.9 52.10 Harry Vandergriff pointed out that the ;.lain source of revenue for Fayetteville schools is property tax. He said if this property is rezoned commercial, commercial property will move from the Fayetteville commercial district into this area (the Springdale school district) or commercial development that could take place in the Fayetteville school district will go to the Springdale school district to set up their businesses. Director Osborne stated that he would abstain from voting on this issue, as his law firm represents the Fayetteville school district. Someone in the audience indicated she was in opposition and her comments were the same as those expressed at the Planning Commission meeting. Ken Lazenby said he did not see the significance of the property being located in a different school district. In response to Director Todd, City Attorney McCord said the primary purpose of zoning is orderly growth in connection with the proper use of the land. He stated further, that you could not deprive any property owner of reasonable use of the land and if there isnot any other reasonable use of the land other than the way the petition is requested, it would be very difficult to uphold a denial. McCord said traffic safety is an important aspect, but said he does have some difficulty with the importance of the school district in which the property is located. He noted that preservation of the property value is another consideration. Director Lancaster asked City Manager Don Grimes if the proposed road conforms to the master street plan and Grimes indicated the street, as shown, does conform to the general location proposed on the master street plan map. Director Noland stated that there is a very severe traffic problem in the mall area and he is not willing to further compound traffic problems until they see some definite signs that a bridge will be built across Clear Creek, or there is another entrance provided into the mall from an overpass over Highway 71. Noland said he hates to see additional traffic generated on top of the 31,000 cars per day in that area. Noland said for these reasons, he would be forced to vote against the rezoning petition at this time, as he could not see this much more C-2 added to what they presently have. Ervan Wimberly commented that with the master street plan, piece -meal at a time you could get rights-of-way for streets, and as development proceeds, you could get the road built. H e pointed out that this has worked on Township Road and will work on this proposed road. Director Noland commented that this road is different, since there is an impediment of a creek on both the south and the north sides. Noland said until more exits are provided either down to the south frontage road or north to Johnson Road, he could not vote in favor of the rezoning. In response to questions from the directors, Planning Commission Chairman Ernest Jacks explained that he felt the Planning Commission's main concern was the traffic problem. Director Henry suggested that perhaps the growth at the mall has not been as orderly as they had originally thought. She said she feels until the highway department starts working to take care of some of the problems, she feels the rezoning request should be denied. She stated that if in a year, substantial progress has been made, she would be willing to again look at the request. Mayor Malone said the most probable way of funding this street would be to request urban systems funding, which is 75% federal and 25% local. Malone said also that he didn't feel the City would get even the 25% local funding if they don't work with the developers. He noted that there is no 1 1 economic incentive for a developer to participate in street building programs unless the developer has property which he can sell. Malone said he would be inclined to rezone C-2 back to the depth of the R-0 zone. He said this would help get Stearns Road built and would provide a useful outlet for traffic at the mall. Malone said he feels the Board should support the Fayetteville school district, but they shouldn't tell a land owner that he can't rezone his property because the property is located in someone else's school district. Malone stated that if the Board is not willing to rezone the property because it is located in someone else's school district, they should de -annex the property. Director Noland responded that he feels within the next year there will be new developments in regard to alleviating the traffic problem, and Q) if so, he felt the Board would be in a better position to grant the rezoning; however, at the present time, he feels they are compounding an existing CO traffic problem. Chip Wright agreed to amend their petition to request 27.8 acres of C-2, to line up with the existing R-0. Wright said if the City wants Q the road built and the traffic problem alleviated, they would have to start somewhere and the developers would have to be permitted to develop the property. Ervan Wimberly said he felt an overpass in the proposed location would not be any less expensive than one at the Stearns Road intersection. He said if the overpass was built at Stearns road, it would open up Stearns Road all the way from Highway 265 to Highway 71, since the right-of-way is already dedicated. Mayor Malone said he had received a letter from Arkansas Western Gas saying they would be willing to pay the local share of improving II/ Stearns Road through their property. Ervan Wimberly said if they build the overpass at Stearns Road it would help everyone in the area and not just General Growth. Malone commented that the highway department had made the determination of where the overpass should go. Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved the rezoning request be denied. The recorded vote was: Ayes• Todd, Noland, Henry.. Nays: Malone, Colwell, Lancaster. Abstain: Osborne. The City Attorney expressed the opinion that the abstention would go in favor of the proposal, thus the motion to deny the request would fail. Following a brief recess, the mayor called the meeting back to order. He told the Board that the City Attorney has an opinion issued to the Planning Commission which says the abstention would be determined to be a favorable vote for the proposal. Director Osborne stated that, based on a discussion with the city attorney, he would withdraw his abstention and would vote on the issue. The City Attorney then read an ordinance rezoning 27.8 acres to C-2, thoroughfare commercial. Director Colwell, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Colwell, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: 53 53.1 53.2 53.3 53.4 53.5 53.6 53.7 53.8 53.9 53.9 53.10 54 54.1 Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 54.2 Director Todd questioned what the land use plan shows for this area and ErvanWimberly said, according to the land use plan map, all of the property in question appears to be in the area shown as shopper goods. 54.3 The mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Lancaster. Nays: Todd, Noland, Henry. The mayor declared that the ordinance had passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2526 APPEARS ON PAGE 90 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII. CD STREET PRIORITY LIST / 1977 Program 54.4 The Community Development committee had recommended the following priority list be adopted for construction under the 1977 Community Develop- ment Block Grant Program: 1. Alta Avenue, from Greenwood to Montgomery; Greenwood Street, from Alta to Irene; Irene Avenue, from Green- wood to Montgomery; Montgomery Street, from Irene to Alta. 2. Sligo Street from Vale to Ashwood. 3. E. Farmers Avenue, south from Highway 62 West to the end of the street. 4. Whillock Street, east from Highway 71 South to the end of the street. 5. Combs Avenue, from Mill to Fifth Street. 6. Sycamore Street, from Gregg to Woolsey. 54.5 Marcia Mclvor, chairperson of the CD Committee explained that the committee did not have all figures they would have liked to have had when they met --their recommendations were based on trying to give maximum feasible priority benefit to low and moderate income families. She explained that the first recommendation has many people who have a great need for assistance and the residents have faithfully attended CD meetings discussing the needs for their streets to be paved. Mclvor noted that there are six houses on the portion of Sycamore to be improved; 14 homes, one church, and one vacant lot on Whillock; on E. Farmer's there are 15 homes. McIvor noted that although they did not have statistics, they felt both Whillock and E. Farmers have a large number of low and middle income families. 54.6 Mclvor stated that on Sligo Street, there was a distinct impression all ten homes are low and middle income families; and on Combs Street there are 16 houses, and the current street is not wide enough for a fire truck to pass. 54.7 Ish Benton clarified that the portion of Combs Street they are recommending is from E. Huntsville south to the portion CD has already built. 1 1 Ken Lazenby spoke in favor of paving East Farmer's Street. Steve Jackson, Montgomery Street, spoke in favor of having Montgomery paved. He noted that there are many houses on the street who do not have air conditioning and in the summer, there is quite a dust problem. Mr. Grimes asked if the property on the west side of East Farmer's Street is vacant and CD Director Rick Mason said it is. Mayor Malone said there is a serious question as to whether that is public right of way. Rick Mason said it is shown as right of way on the city plat book, but the street has not been built. Alice Ludwick said she, as a member of the CD committee, feels a moral obligation to the residents living on Alta, Greenwood, & Montgomery, because they have appeared at CD meetings since the 1977 program was originally adopted, requesting their streets to be paved. She noted also that school buses travel on these streets. Director Todd said one of the items which should be considered is CO the traffic volume and said he had asked the city manager to request the Q traffic superintendent to l.istthe streets needing improvements, based on volume. Todd said the traffic superintendent's recommendation was: 1) Sycamore Street; 2) Alta/Greenwood, Irene & Montgomery; 3) Sligo; Q 4) Combs; 5) Whillock; and 6) E. Farmers. Todd said he feels the traffic volume should be given consideration and apparently was not, as Sycamore was ranked sixth on the priority list. Director Noland asked Rick Mason if Sycamore Street is eligible for CD funding and Mason said there are six houses on Sycamore and it is either 4-2 or 3-3 low and middle income families. He pointed out, however, that houses located on the street are not the only consideration since Sycamore is a through street and the benefit will be to others besides those living on Sycamore. Mason said he would get a determination on whether Sycamore Street would qualify within the next few weeks. Mason noted that they can use 25% of their money for other projects, as long as 75% of the total projects benefit low and middle income families. Rick Mason stated that Greenwood/Alta/Irene/ Montgomery are also "borderline" streets. Alice Ludwick stated that she felt at the time these streets were put into the program they did qualify as low and middle income. Director Lancaster asked if they have received cost estimates for construction and Rick Mason said they do not have, but they feel they will have enough money to do about half of the streets, even though all of the streets will be engineered. Director Colwell asked what would happen if they ran out of money and Rick Mason said they would have to stop construction. He said they could amend other years' programs and put the remaining streets into another years' program, or conceivably, they could take part of the repayment money and apply that towards paving the remaining streets. Director Colwell stated that he felt the "left -over" streets should have at least equal priority to be completed in the following years' programs. Director Osborne moved the priority list be amended as follows: 1. Alta Avenue, from Greenwood to Montgomery; Greenwood Street, from Alta to Irene; Irene Avenue, from Greenwood to Montgomery; Montgomery Street, from Irene to Alta. 2. Sligo Street, from Vale to Ashwood. 3. Sycamore Street, from Gregg to Woolsey. 55 55.1 55.2 55.3 55.4 55.5 55.6 55.7 55.8 55.9 56 56.1 4. Combs Avenue from Huntsville to the portion CD has already completed. 5. Whillock Street, east from Highway 71 South to the end of the street. 6. E. Farmers Avenue, south from Highway 62 West to the end of the street. Director Noland seconded Osborne's motion. 56.2 Mayor Malone said if any of the streets are determined ineligible, the Board would like to know about it and have it removed from the list. 56.3 There was discussion concerning E. Farmers Avenue and it was determined that there are 17 homes, 12 owner -occupied, and most of which are low and moderate income families. 56.4 Ish Benton stated that he did not feel Sycamore Street would qualify for funding. Mayor Malone said he feels the City should look at other ways to pave Sycamore Street. Director Noland said he would like for HUD to make the determination if Sycamore is eligible. Director Todd stated that he feels the improvement of Sycamore will more positively affect more low and moderate income families than any other streets on the priority list. He pointed out that Sycamore is a link between the hospital, the university, and Highway 71. Director Osborne agreed with Director Todd. 56.5 The Board asked Rick Mason to get a determination on each of the streets and Mason explained that he would have to have documentation on each of the streets to how that the street improvements would benefit low and middle income families. Mason said, however, he would request a written recommendation from HUD for both Sycamore Street and the Alta/ Greenwood area since they are "borderline" low and moderate income streets. 56.6 The recorded vote on Director Osborne's motion was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. 56.7 Mayor Malone noted that he had received a letter from HUD stating that the $55,000 set aside for a contingency fund on Urban Renewal can be released and should be reprogrammed. He said they are also saying they need a more detailed description of the proposed solid waste study to prove that it will be different from the one being done by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission on the 701 program. City Manager Grimes noted that they do not have any money programmed for right of way acquisition and suggested they consider setting aside about $15,000 for acquisition. He suggested the balance could be set up into street and sidewalks construction, distributed proportionately into the project. 56.8 Director Noland moved that the $55,000 to be reprogrammed be spent as follows: $15,000 for right-of-way acquisition; and $40,000 for streets and sidewalks Also, if Rick Mason cannot obtain satisfactory documentation needed to prove the merits of the solid waste survey, then that amount should also be added to streets and sidewalks. Director Lancaster seconded the motion. 56.9 Director Noland, noting that there are two separate categories for streets and sidewalks, amended his motion to reflect the $40,000 would be added to streets. Director Lancaster seconded the amended motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. 1 1 May 1, 1979 57 Director Osborne moved that the Street, Sidewalks, Sewer, and 57.1 Drainage Committee review the City Board's concerns that streets not built with the present year funds be moved into the following year's program and make a recommendation back to the Board. SIGN APPEAL / Whitfield Motor Company Gerald Jones was present representing Whitfield Motor Company on an 57.2 appeal from the provisions of the sign ordinance for property located at 3535 North College, zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The petitioner was requesting that he be allowed to use an existing free-standing sign, 121 square feet, set back 42 feet from the street right of way, and the sign ordinance allows a maximum 75 square foot sign at the 40 foot setback line. CD Gerald Jones said they would like to move their existing sign to 57.3 0 their new location at 3535 North College. He said they can live with the CO 30 foot heighth restriction by having the sign company, at an expense of $4,600, lower the sign. Mr. Jones stated that there is another sign of Q this same size on College Avenue and the property in question is the last lot before the bypass and the sign ordinance provides for a 200 square Q foot on the bypass. Jones pointed out also that the sign had cost $30,000 and if it cannot be moved, it will result in a financial hardship on him. Mayor Malone questioned when the sign was originally installed and Sign Inspector John Dietzen said the Board of Adjustment had granted the original variance in October of 1970. Mr. Whitfield said he could move the sign further vack from the road, but it still not meet the requirements of the ordinance. II/Director Todd noted that the provisions of the sign ordinance con- cerning non -conforming signs would go into effect in 1980. City Attorney Jim McCord said if the variance were granted, it would run with the land. Director Noland pointed out that one criteria for granting the variance would be the financial hardship on the petitioner. Director Lancaster asked what would happen to the sign if the variance were not granted and Whitfield said that he presently leases the sign from General Motors. If the variance were denied, Whitfield said General Motors would charge Whitfield for the salvage value of the sign and would give them a new lease on a smaller sign, meeting ordinance requirements. Mayor Malone stated that Fisher Buick was also given a variance for their sign. Director Osborne, seconded by Colwell, moved the variance be 57.5 granted as requested. Director Osborne said he is considering that the petitioner is the northern -most business before the bypass, and said he feels they would be putting Whitfield at a competitive disadvantage with Fisher Buick if Fisher was allowed a variance and Mr. Whitfield was denied a variance, when they are basically the same business. City Attorney McCord said the criteria for granting a variance is 57.6 "practical difficulty", and the variance cannot violate the intent of the ordinance. He said the cost of the sign and the economic loss of the sign has to be balanced against the economic welfare of the community. The recorded vote on the motion to grant the variance as requested was: 57.6 Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Lancaster. Nays: Todd, Henry. The mayor declared the motion passed. TAXI CAB RATE INCREASE The City Attorney read an ordinance increasing the maximum taxicab 57.7 rates by 25‘ per zone, and specifying that a cab driver may charge up to double normal rates when there are tire chains on the cab and the passenger has been notified in advance of the higher rates in effect. 58 58.1 Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the ordinance was read for the second time. 58.2 Director Osborne then moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 58.3 The mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2527 APPEARS ON PAGE 91 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING VARIANCE FROM ELECTRICAL CODE 58.4 City Attorney McCord explained that this ordinance was proposed due to problems encountered by two property owners. He said they have since resolved the problems,and asked the Board if they still would want to have a procedure for a variance from the electrical code. 58.5 City Manager Grimes explained that the problem has been that the down- town district is located in the fire zone and when old buildings are converted into offices with only a wall between them, the building has difficulty in meeting the electrical code requirements. Grimes suggested the City Board allow the Board of Housing Appeals and Construction to grant the variances. 58.6 The City Attorney read the ordinance establishing a variance procedure from provisions of the electrical code. 58.7 Mayor Malone, seconded by Director Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Lancaster moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the ordinance was read for the third and final time. 58.8 There being no further discussion, the mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2528 APPEARS ON PAGE 93 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII. ELECTRICAL CABLE 58.9 The City Attorney explained that the proposed ordinance would allow the Electrical Inspector to determine whether electrical cable could be used in cases where there is some question about the practicality of metal conduit. 1 1 59 City Attorney Jim McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Malone, seconded by Director Osborne, moved the rules be 59.1 III suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Mayor Malone moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance 59.2 placed on third and final reading. Director Osborne seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. Q) The mayor declared the motion passed and the ordinance was read for the Q third and final time. CO There being no discussion, the mayor asked if the ordinance should 59.3 0 pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. IC Nays: None. Q The mayor declared the ordinance approved. ORDINANCE NO. 2529 APPEARS ON PAGE 94 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII. ORDINANCE AMENDING HOURS TO SELL BEER OR LIGHT WINES City Attorney Jim McCord explained that the proposed ordinance would 59.4 incorporate the state statutes. McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Malone, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be suspended and the 59.5 ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Todd, seconded by Lancaster, moved the rules be further 59.6 suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Someone in the audience in favor of the proposed ordinance . explained 59.7 that at midnight, you would have to either go home or go to a private club to drink beer. He said he feels the current ordinance penalizes those who sell beer. Following discussion, the mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. 59.8 The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Osborne, Malone, Colwell. Nays: Noland, Henry, Lancaster. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE N0. 2530 APPEARS ON PAGE 95 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII. The mayor called for a vote on the emergency clause. The recorded 59.9 vote was: Ayes: None. Nays: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. The mayor declared that the emergency clause failed to pass. 60 AUTHORIZATION TO DESTROY OLD RECORDS The City Attorney explained that the proposed resoluti authorize the destruction of certain old city records, most have been microfilmed. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the Ci be authorized to dispose of the old records listed in the -di agendas. The recorded vote on the motion was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Nays: None. The mayor declared the resolution passed. on would of which ty Clerk rector's Henry, Lancaster. RESOLUTION NO. 37-79 APPEARS ON PAGE 136 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII. PROPERTY ACQUISITION A resolution was proposed adopting a Real Property Acquisition Policy and Relocation Plan for the City. City Manager Grimes recommended the following amendments to the resolution: Section 1 after 1970 add "for projects which utilize CD Block Grant funds, also in Section 2 after 1970 add "for projects which utilize CD Block Grant funds." He pointed out other places in the policy itself which would require the same amendments, page 11.02, in the heading & page 11.05; and "Springdale" in the heading should be changed to Fayetteville on 11.05 and 11.25. Director Henry, seconded by Director Osborne moved the resolution be adopted with the amendments specified by the city manager. Director Noland asked if CD can comply with this policy and Rick Mason said they are already complying with it. He explained that the proposed resolution came directly from the Federal regulations. The recorded vote on the motion was Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Call: Colwell. The mayor declared the motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 38-79 APPEARS ON PAGE 141 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII. OTHER BUSINESS The city manager asked the Board to approve a resolution authorizing the condemnation of approximately ten easements or rights-of-way parcels on Highway 71 South business route. He said they don't anticipate filing these until approximately May 10. Mr. Grimes noted that the condemnation does not include utility easements. D. M. Patton was concerned about his parents' property located on South 71 and one of the properties to be condemned. He said there is some question• about an easement given in 1929. City Manager Grimes said the Highway Depart- ment has stated that they will defend those easements. Patton was concerned also that there was no formal notification of the proposed condemnation and City Manager Grimes said he thought the City right-of-way agent had been talking with Patton's parents. Director Noland said he would like to get the "straight story" on whether the property owners had been notified and there had been a legitimate negotiation attempted. Mr. Grimes said the right of way agent had talked to him several times about the Patton property and he felt he had also talked with the Pattons. D.M. Patton said he thought someone from the City had talked to his parents about a temporary construction easement. He noted that the stakes for the easements have already been put up. Director Todd moved that no condemnation proceedings will commence until the City Manager has determined that legitimate negotiating procedures have been conducted with the property owners. 1 1 Director Lancaster seconded Todd's motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that the condemnations be authorized, with the provisions set out in the previous motion. Director Osborne seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. Q) RESOLUTION NO. 39-79 APPEARS ON PAGE 176 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VII COPOLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION ®City Manager Grimes explained that a former police officer, Captain Bud Dennis, had resigned a year ago to run for sheriff and is now asking to get back the police department. He said the Civil Service Commission Q has agreed to set up a special civil service exam, and Dennis would be willing to join the force as a patrolman. Grimes explained further that there is another problem with the nepotism policy which states that no person shall be employed within the same department as someone in his immediate family. Grimes explained that Bud Dennis' brother has been with the City police department for over twenty years. Grimes said they are requesting a waiver of the nepotism policy in this instance. He said both of these men have shown themselves to be good officers, and he personally, has no problem with the request. Director Todd, seconded by Henry, moved the city manager's recommendation be approved. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Todd, Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Call: Lancaster. The mayor declared the motion passed. FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING City Manager Grimes informed the Board that he has Carter Schell working on a space needs study for the City so they will be in a position to talk with First National Bank. City Manager Grimes noted that there is a revenue sharing breakdown which shows the funds which are uncommitted, $477,000, which can be rebudgeted. He said the Public Works Fund has had a cash flow problem and suggested they put part of the $477,000 in that fund. Mr. Grimes explained that this money is unexpended funds from prior years so they have this money, in addition to the 1979 budget. PRIVATE CLUBS Director Lancaster asked if it is legal for someone to operate a private club under someone else's name. Mr. Grimes said he would check on this. Lancaster also asked if all the private clubs have paid their license fees as required by Section 3-114 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, and if the 5% gross receipts tax for private clubs is being collected. Mr. Grimes said the license fees are being collected and he would check to see if the 5% is being collected. He noted that the 5% is difficult to enforce. 61 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 61.5 61.6 61.7 62 MINUTES 62.1 The City Attorney requested the following amendment to the minutes of the April 17 meeting --paragraph 45.1 should read: ii . . . Department. He pointed out that the Board of Directors had amended the Building Code to delete the requirement that an architect or engineer serve on the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mayor Malone . . . " With this correction, the minutes were approved as submitted. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 P.M. 1 1 1