Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-12-04 Minutes220 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING The Board of Directors met in regular session on Tuesday, December 4, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Director's Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor David Malone, Directors Richard Osborne, Phil Colwell, Ann Henry, Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, City Manager Don Grimes, City Attorney Jim McCord, City Clerk Angie Medlock, and Administrative Assistant David McWethy. ABSENT: Director Paul Noland. OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER 220.1 The mayor called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the mayor called for consideration of the first item of business. NOISE ORDINANCE 220.2 The mayor opened discussion on further consideration of an ordinance pro- hibiting "excessive, unnecessary, or unusually loud sounds" in the city. The mayor stated that a committee consisting of a board member, representatives of the University and area citizens had drafted another noise ordinance for the Board's consideration. 220.3 Director Osborne stated that the committee had met once and he had then drafted an ordinance as recommended by the committee. This ordinance was then submitted to the committee for further consideration and amendments and following amendments, was being submitted to the City Board. Osborne stated that there should be two additional minor changes to the ordinance submitted: 1) at the request of Dr. Bishop, extend the cutoff time for loud noises on week nights to 11:00 P.M. to correspond with the University's policy; and 2) add that the noise must be clearly audible 50 feet from the source of the sound "or the property owner's boundary, whichever is further". 220.4 The city attorney then read the proposed ordinance. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. 220.5 The mayor asked if there was any discussion on the motion to move the ordinance to second reading. George Blackwell suggested the ordinance should be more specific on vehicle noises, such as noisy mufflers. Director Lancaster asked if there would be a problem encountered if there was a disaster and you would need to use chains saws all night. The city attorney noted that there is a variance procedure which would handle that type of situation. Director Lancaster suggested they add a section which would say "except in the case of a general disaster or emergency" to cover thatlype of problem. Director Todd, in response to Blackwell's concerns, noted that there is a section in the ordinance which covers noisy mufflers and the mayor noted that there is also a state statute covering that type of noise. 220.6 A university student asked how the City would treat the situation during times such as "Beat Texas" week when all the students drive around honking their horns. The mayor indicated that he, personally, would like to see this type of noise stopped. 1 1 vat 12-4-79 221 Bart Verden asked if the ordinance is ambiguous in saying things such as "reasonable" and the city attorney explained that it would be up to the courts to decide if something is "reasonable under the circumstances". A gentleman in the audience asked if the noise ordinance would also apply to persons working during the night during hay season, and the city attorney responded that if the person felt his neighbors would complain that he was violatin the ordi- nance, he could apply for a variance from the city manager. The city attorney pointed out that the police department would be responding to complaints by area property owners on violations of the noise ordinance. Paul Weingart spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. Bart Verden asked if the fraternaties could apply for a variance on the weekend when they will be having a big party, and the city attorney responded that Q) anyone could apply for a variance. The city manager commented that if the parties 0 would cause the kind of problems they have caused this year, he would not approve a variance. Q The mayor stated that he is not satisfied with the proposed ordinance, as there are too many vague places, and too many places where the ordinance is left up to selective enforcement. He said he feels this would leave the City open to Q criticism in enforcing the ordinance. Malone indicated he felt the best type of ordinance would be one in which you would use scientific meters to register the the noise. He said he feels the City needs a noise ordinance, but is not ready at this time to go to one which would use scientific instruments to enforce it. He said he did not feel this proposed ordinance is the solution to the problem. Director Todd stated that the ordinance does address a definite problem in the community which the City has not been able to deal with since since they do not have an ordinance. The city attorney commented that Norman, Oklahoma has received an EPA grant to write a noise ordinance for their city and said he could write to the City of Norman and get a copy of the ordinance they are considering if the Board would like to look at that ordinance. Director Osborne noted that the proposed ordinance was taken from one of the NIMLO model ordinances. Mr. Weingart commented that some of the extensive ordinances seem to deny the "common sense" of the community, because they are so specific. The mayor agreed that this is a problem in that the more extensive ordinances are so complex that only two or three people can read them. Director Osborne said the committee had considered the decibel type' of ordinance but felt the proposed ordinance would be adequate. - 221.1 221.2 221.3 221.4 221.5 221.6 221.7 221.8 221.9 Director Todd asked if school bands would be required to obtain a variance 221.10 for parades, and the city manager responded that he felt they should. Richard Hipp asked if the City could amend the state statute on disturbing the 221.11 peace to delete the portion which requires criminal intent and the city attorney said he felt they could. He noted that the problem the city prosecutor has had in the past is the difficulty in showing criminal intent. The city attorney stated in response to Mr. Weingart that the maximum fine 221.12 for disturbing the peace is $1,000 and the maximum fine for violating a city ordinance is $500. Director Todd noted that the proposed ordinance should enable the staff or board to handle some of the problems, but if a person were charged with disturbing the peace, the violation would qo directly to the municipal court. The mayor called forTh vote on the motion to move the • ordinance to second reading 221.13 with an amendment.. to exclude the requirement for a variance when there is a general emergency. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 12-4-79 222 222.1 Director Osborne moved an amendment be added to eliminate the remainder of the sentence in Section 2 B following the word inhabitants; also in Section 2 B amend the time for other than Friday and Saturday nights to 11:00 p.m., and add in Section 2 B . . . . from the source "or the property boundary, whichever further". Director Todd seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the amendment passed. 222.2 Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 222.3 Director Todd commented that he a very vague disorderly conduct ordin 222.4 The mayor then asked if the ord Ayes: Osborne, Colwell, Henry, Lanca Nays: Malone. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the ordinance 222.5 Director Colwell, seconded The recorded roll call vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. feels this ordinance has some advantage over ance. inance should pass. The recorded vote was: ster, Todd. passed. by Osborne, moved the emergency clause be adopted. Henry, ORDINANCE NO. 2580 APPEARS ON PAGE 57 Lancaster, Todd. OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. DIRT STREET STANDARDS 222.6 The mayor said the City Board had briefly discussed the standards for dirt streets in Fayetteville, at the Board Retreat. He said the Community Development Committee has asked that the Board clarify the standards to be used for improving dirt streets in the Community Development areas. 222.7 The city manager stated that recent bids for improving dirt streets in the Community Development areas to current city standards came in between $86 and $100 per foot and at that cost, the City could not get many streets paved. He said they are concerned that Community Development funding may be terminated and all of the dirt streets in the CD area may not yet be improved. Grimes said they have been discussing some type of lesser standards so that they could get many more streets improved. He noted that CD regulations require a minimum of engineering, a good base, and 2 inches of asphalt. Grimes said the City or CD would hope to come back later and add some type of storm drainage and curb and gutter. Grimes indicated he felt they could serve more people by allowing lesser standards. 222.8 The mayor noted that allowing the lesser standards would be a variance of City policy, but noted that the cost of constructing streets is so high that they would not be able to improve many streets should they be required to construct them to existing standards. 222.9 The mayor was concerned that developers might object to the City allowing CD to build streets to lesser standards and the developers still being required to abide by the stricter standards. Director Lancaster commented that if the City had required stricter improvements years ago when areas were being developed, there would not be so many dirt streets. 12-4-79 223 Mayor Malone said he personally would be in favor of lesser standards for dirt 223.1 streets all over town and suggested the City could explore ways of using some city funds to improve those dirt streets not in the CD areas., Director Todd noted that they had discussed earlier the possibility of setting up some type of maximum density regulation for the dirt streets, and noted that improvements would only be considered for those dirt streets located in existing neighborhoods. Planning(: Commission Chairman Ernest Jacks asked if the lesser standards would 223.2 apply to subdividers developing on existing dirt streets and the mayor responded that he is not saying that subdividers should not be required to install other off- site improvements. George Blackwell expressed his opinion that "everyone should pay their own way". He said he had paid for improvements to his street and felt other property owners should do the same. 0) Wayne Jones suggested the Board should consider each street individually. 223.3 Mayor Malone said the Board has indicated they are in favor of lesser standards 223.4 CO in order to improve more streets, and if the Board decided to consider anything 0 broader, such a change in policy, he felt the street committee, the street superinten- dent, and the Planning Commission should be consulted for recommendations. Q Malone said the Board is further indicating to the CD Committee that the Board Q will look.at variances.forindividual streets and there would need to be a recommenda- tion submitted by the engineer on how close they can come to standards. Rick Mason asked the Board for permission to exceed the maximum amount 223.5 allowed for rehabilitation of a house to $8300. He explained that when they started working on the house, they found that termites had eaten the wood on one of the floors, and they need to replace that floor. City Manager Grimes recommended the Board approve the request. Director Todd asked if there are $1100 worth of improvements which could 223.6 be deleted in place of the new floor and Rick Mason indicated they could not. Director Todd moved the city manager's recommendation be approved. Director 223.7 Lancaster seconded the motion. The recorded vote*was:,- Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd, Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. The mayor commented that the Board had at the Board Retreat, discussed 223.8 additional insulation and other energy factors for rehab houses, and said he felt the Board may be receptive to some type of energy conservation additions to rehab houses. 1 SIGN APPEAL KMCK The first sign appeal for discussion was further consideration of an appeal submitted by KMCK, Inc.; 2650 North College. The mayor explained that this appeal had been tabled at the previous meeting, at the request of the attorney representing the petitioner.i'David Brandt, asked that the request again be tabled, as the petitioner's attorney was ill and unable to attend the meeting. Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, moved the request to table be granted. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Disqualified himself from voting due to a potential conflict: Osborne. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. 223.9 223.10 224 12-4-79 SIGN APPEAL / Motor Lodge Motel 224.1 A sign appeal had been submitted by Dale and Lois Slaughter doing business as the Motor Lodge Motel. The petitioners were requesting authorization to install a free-standing sign in a residential -office district, property located at 18 Trenton Boulevard. 224.2 Mr. Slaughter stated that he had submitted pictures of the signs to be removed and a drawing of the proposed sign for which he is requesting a variance. He noted that the sign which he has proposed would be conforming in a commercial zone. The mayor noted that the R-0 zone in this location has been a problem. He stated that Slaughter and the property owner north of the Motor Lodge Motel had both re- quested rezoning to commercial, but the appeals had been denied. Slaughter noted that the reason given for denying the rezoning was the traffic hazard in the area. 224.3 In response to the directors, Mr. Slaughter stated that the free-standing sign would be the only sign he would have, except for possibly an "enter" sign. Todd noted that the proposed sign would serve as identifying the place of business, rather than advertising, and the petitioner would be removing three large signs to put the proposed sign up. Director Henry said the petitioner had also indicated that the sign may not even be as large as proposed, due to the cost involved. 224.4 Director Henry moved to approve the sign variance as requested. Director Osborne seconded the motion. 224.5 Director Osborne, seconded by Colwell, moved the variance be in effect as long as the use is restricted to a motel. Director Todd commented that the proposed sign does appear to be in the spirit of the sign ordinance. 224.6 The mayor called for a vote on the amendment to restrict the variance to a motel. The recorded roll call vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. 224.7 The mayor then called for a vote on the amended motion to approve the variance as requested. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the variance granted. SIGN APPEAL / Art Langley 224.8 Attorney Richard Hipp was present representing Art Langley on three appeals from the sign ordinance for Texaco Service Stations located at 101 West Dickson, 508 North College, and 1501 North College. Hipp noted that he had submitted a memorandum which sets out the reasons for the variance. He stated that for the signs to comply, it would mean they would have to be placed in the middle of the driveway and would affect traffic flow. Hipp stated that it would cause an extreme burden on the tenant to be required to move the signs. He noted that the signs were in compliance with city regulations when originally put up. Hipp stated that the estimate for moving the signs to comply with city ordinance is about $3,000. 224.9 Director Lancaster asked how long Langley has been leasing the property and Langley said he had been leasing it since March of this year. Lancaster asked Langley if he was aware of the city sign ordinance and Langley responded that he knew there was a sign ordinance, but had not checked into it. 1 1 1 11-4-79 225 Richard Hipp requested that the Board grant Mr. Langley a variance to 225.1 allow the signs to remain and said Langley would be willing to install signs in compliance with the sign ordinance, if the current signs deteriorated and needed to be removed. Director Todd asked how far the gasoline pumps are from the right-of-way 225.2 and the petitioner indicated he did not know. Todd noted that in one case, the Board had allowed the sign to be moved back in line with the pumps. Director Lancaster suggested that the sign could be set in the pump 225.3 island and go up through the canopy. Langley said he did not feel a person traveling west could see the sign. Lancaster stated that he has a problem with the existing sign since the setback is currently 0 feet. CD Director Henry asked who the sign belongs to and who would be responsible 225.4 O for removing the signs. Langley indicated that Texaco owns the signs, but he CO would be responsible to bear the burden of relocating them. Langley noted that Texaco had placed the signs in their current location several years ago. ❑ Langley explained further that he is leasing the property and owns the equipment, Q however, Texaco has the first rights to buy the signs back from him. Langley el said, though, that he did not feel Texaco would buy the signs back. Director Henry read the criteria by which a Board can consider granting 225.5 a variance to allow a sign to continue in existence after the amortization period: cost of removal or alteration, the extent of bringing the sign into conformity, the extent to which business losses would be experienced, the remaining useful economic life of the sign, the depreciation already taken for income tax purposes, and the salvage value. She explained that these are the factors the Board must take into consideration in arriving at a decision on a variance. Hipp responded that the cost of relocating the signs would be about $3,000. He said the hardship for bringing the signs into conformity, is that the signs would need to be relocated onto the driveway of the service station and would be in the flow of traffic. In response to Director Todd, Langley stated that the $3,000 relocation 225.6 estimate does not include relocation of the Dickson Street signs. Director Todd moved the variance request be denied. He said he understands 225.7 the financial cost involved, but looking at the age of the sign and economic usefulness that has already been gained from it, he feels the request should be denied. He said he also feels this would be a very positive move toward improving the Dickson Street area. He noted that some of Langley's neighbors on Dickson Street have already brought their signs into conformance. Lancaster seconded the motion. Hipp stated that when someone erects a structure in conformance with the 225.8 laws, he does not feel the Board should require him to continually change his operation or structure to be in conformance with the new laws, until the time that the structure becomes a hazard in some way. Director Osborne responded that he feels the sign ordinance should be enforced against everyone equally. He said the sign ordinance was adopted in 1973 and many businesses have complied witn the ordinance already. The mayor noted that the signs in question have been allowed to continue since the ordinance was passed in 1973. Director Colwell agreed that to approve the variance requested would not 225.9 be fair to those other businesses who have been required to abide by the sign ordinance. Director Henry suggested that Langley could put signs on the mansard roof of the building. Richard Hipp then requested the Board give the petitioner an additional year to work something out on the signs. 225.10 12-4-79 22C 226.1 The mayor called for a vote on the motion by Director Todd to deny the variance. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the appeal denied for the property at 101 West Dickson Street. 508 North College 226.2 The Board next considered the second appeal submitted by Art Langley for a Texaco station located at 508 North College, for two signs not in compliance with the ordinance. 226.3 Following a brief discussion, Director Lancaster, seconded by Todd, moved the variance be denied. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the appeal denied. 1501 N. College 226.4 The Board considered the third appeal submitted by Art Langley for two signs at a Texaco Station located at 1501 N. College Avenue. 226.5 The mayor noted that the ordinance would require additional setback and would decrease the size of the signs. 226.6 Richard Hipp asked that Langley be given the opportunity to continue the roof sign on the building. Director Todd said he felt this could be considered in place of a free-standing sign. Director Henry agreed that she would be willing to consider allowing the roof sign to continue in place of a free-standing sign. Hipp stated he did not feel the property owner would want to exchange the roof sign for a free-standing sign. The Board discussed tabling this item to give the property owner time to decide if he would like for the Board to consider allowing continuationof the roof sign in place of a free-standing sign. Langley suggested the Board go ahead and deny this variance and he would try to work something out for all of the signs at the three service stations in question. 226.7 Director Todd, seconded by Colwell, moved the request for a variance be denied. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. STREET WIDTH UNION SPECIAL SUBDIVISION 226.8 The city manager explained that a request had been made to construct a street in the proposed Union Special Subdivision to residential street width (31') rather than the 44' shown on the Master Street Plan. The city manager said he and the street superintendent are recommending the Board approve the lesser width in this location. He explained that Bob Mayes, owner of property in the area of the proposed street had put the City on notice that the City had one year to acquire the right-of-way across his property and the City had not been in a position to acquire the right-of-way at that time. He explained that since the City had not acted on Mayes' notice within the one-year period- thio City could not now go back and require Mayes to give the right of way as shown on the Master Street Plan. 1 1 12-4-79 227 Mr. Grimes said Union Special Subdivision is going to dedicate 54 feet of 227.1 right-of-way and if the property to the north subdivides, that property owner would be required to dedicate the additional right-of-way to bring the street width up to standards. He said the street would be constructed to the east side of Bryan Street at this time. Grimes noted that there are two other four -lane streets running east/west from Highway 71 to Garland --Sycamore and North Streets, and he and the street superintendent feel it will be a long time before this proposed street will be developed. He noted also that this street is only designated as extending from Gregg to Garland, and is located directly south of the University Q) farm. 0 Ernest Jacks, Planning Commission chairman, stated that the Planning 227.2 CO Commission had not amended the Master Street Plan to allow the lesser street Q width, but are indicating approval of the lesser width for this particular area of street. Q Mayor Malone, seconded by Henry, moved the city manager's recommendation 227.3 Q be adopted. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. CENSUS The city manager had asked for permission to hire a full-time person for 227.4 6 months to serve as coordinator for the 1980 census. The administrative assistant noted that there are several programs associated 227.5 with the 1980 census which he feels the City should participate in because the census figures obtained in the 1980 census will be used to determine the state turnback funds and once the figures are confirmed, those figures will be used until the next census is taken. In response to the mayor, the administrative assistant indicated one alterna- 227.6 tive would be to hire a graduate student but said he was concerned about the amount of time they would have to spend on the project. He said another alternative would be a local townsperson, well-known in the community, who could speak to various City groups. Mayor Malone asked if a salary for this person is included in the 1980 budget 227.7 and the city manager said it is not yet included. Grimes said the salary would be approximately $5,000 for the 6 months, and said he felt this salary could be spread throughout the street and general fund. Grimes said the staff feels this will be a good investment. Director Osborne moved the city manager be authorized to hire a person for 227.8 6 months to serve as the City's coordinator for the 1980 census. Director Lancaster seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT The city attorney explained that an ordinance had been drafted amending the 227.9 procddure for subdivision plat approval. He said the ordinance had been recommended by a subdivision committee of the planning commission, with the assistance of the planning consultant. • 228 12-4-79 228.1 The city attorney suggested an amendment to provide that the final plat will be approved by the Planning Commission. He explained that under State Statute, the Circuit Clerk cannot record a plat until it is approved by the Planning Commission. He recommended under Section 3, striking the first paragraph; strike Alternate Procedure A, and the designation of Alternate Procedure B. McCord further suggested the following wording for Section C 4 1 as follows: "A contract with the city which contract shall grant the City a lien on the property within the subdivision to guarantee installation of the required improvements and shall provide that no Certificate of Occupancy for any structure erected within the subdivision shall be issued by the City until the lot on which the structure is located has been released by the aforesaid lien." 228.2 The city attorney then read the ordinance with the above amendments, for the first time. Director Todd, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Call: Osborne. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 228.3 Director Todd, seconded by Lancaster, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Malone, Colwell,Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Call: Osborne. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 228.4 Director Todd asked if the fee is relative to the cost of handling the concept plat and the city manager responded that the fee was recommended by the Inspection Superintendent. 228.5 The mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2581 APPEARS ON PAGE 63 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. ZION ROAD SEWER LINE 228.6 William Giese, property owner on Zion Road, said he had appeared at a City Board meeting to ask the City to try to save a tree which was near where a sewer line would be installed. He said they had taken that tree and four more trees from his property when the sewer line was installed. 228.9 Giese noted that when the sewer line was put in, the road to his property was closed off for about two weeks, which caused him to lose about $100 per day from not being able to sell produce. He expressed dissatisfaction with the way the ditch had been backfilled, and noted that there is still a very large hole about 3 feet deep where this ditch has been backfilled, in front of his house. He asked also when they would be repaving the street to correct the damage done. The mayor asked the city manager to check on this complaint and report back to the Board at the next meeting. 1 1 12-4-79 229 PUD REGULATIONS AMENDED The city attorney stated that the proposed amendment to the Planned 229.1 Unit Development Regulations had been proposed by a subcommittee of the Planning Commission with input from engineers and developers. He then read the ordinance for the first time. Director Henry, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be suspended and the 229.2 ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. Q) The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for 229.3 0 the second time. CO Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be further suspended Q and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote 229.4 was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. < Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance 229.5 for the third and final time. Following a brief discussion, Mayor Malone made a motion to add that 229.6 "a variance shall be valid unless overruled by the Board of Directors within 21 days after the action•by-th&-,¢1_anni,ng Commission. The variance shall be stated in written form either on the plat or a signed document to be recorded II/ with the plat". Director Henry seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the amendment passed. Director Todd asked if traffic laws can be enforced on the private streets 229.7 within a PUD and the city attorney said he and the municipal judge agree that they can be enforced. Director Todd asked if there was any concern expressed about allowing bar ditches and Mr. Jacks noted that the incentive: for PUD's is allowing lesser standards for developments. Director Lancaster asked if there is any minimum proposed for houses or lots 229.8 and Jacks said there is not. He said, however, that he felt the cost of develop- ment would be high enough to prevent a"slum-type" development. Todd asked if the PUD regulations would apply outside the City and Jacks said they had furnished copies of this ordilnance to the County and are encouraging them to adopt some type of similar regulations. Todd asked if ditches and the sides of the roads would be allowed to be 229.9 counted as open space and Jacks indicated it would. He said property outside of the right-of-way and not belonging to an individual property owner would be considered in figuring open space, if it meets minimum requirements. The mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: 229.10 Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2582 APPEARS ON PAGE 69 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. 229.11 230 12-4-79 BULLDOZER REPLACEMENT / Water/Sewer 230.1 The next item for consideration was a request by the City Engineer for authorization to advertise for bids for the purchase of an unbudgeted new bulldozer. The city manager noted that the bulldozer currently being used has been in operation for several years, and is in need of $6,000-$7,000 worth of repairs. He asked that they be authorized to advertise for bids so they can decide whether they should repair the bulldozer or purchase a new one. 230.2 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved the City Engineer be authorized to advertise for bids for a new bulldozer. The recorded roll call vote was: Ayes• Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. BIG TOY / Root School 230.3 The mayor stated that the Board had, at the previous meeting, waived competitive bidding requirements for the purchase of one SB -1 School Yard Big Toy for Root School, but had failed to award the bid. 230.4 Director Henry seconded by Osborne, moved the bid be awarded as requested. The recorded vote on the motion was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT / Happy Hollow School 230.5 The city attorney read an ordinance waiving competitive bidding requirements for the purchase of playground equipment for Happy Hollow School. The school administration would contribute $1,000, the Happy Hollow PTA $1,800, and the City $2,700 (approximately). 230.6 Director Colwell, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 230.7 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 230.8 The mayor then asked if the ordinance waiving competitive bidding require- ments should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2583 APPEARS ON PAGE 85 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. 230.9 Director Henry then moved the bid be awarded to Bergfeld Recreation Inc. Director Todd seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. 1 1 • 12-4-79 231 SALT The city manager stated that Dawson Trucking Co. was the only place the 221.1 superintendent had found salt available at any price, and asked that the Board waive competitive bidding requirements to allow the purchase. The city attorney read the -ordinance for the first time. Mayor Malone, 221.2 seconded by Director Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance 221.3 O for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be further suspended 221.4 QJ and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Q Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Q Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance 221.5 for the third and final time. The mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2584 APPEARS ON PAGE 87 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, moved the bid be awarded as 221.6 recommended. The recorded vote on the motion was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS The city attorney recommended an ordinance be passed clarifying the variance 221.7 procedure for the sign ordinance, and read the ordinance for the first time. Director Colwell, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance 221.8 be placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for 221.8 the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended 221.9 and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll,call vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance 221.10 for the third and final time. 1 232 232.1 12-4-79 Following a short discussion, the mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2585 APPEARS ON PAGE 88 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. COMPUTER SYSTEM 232.2 City Manager Grimes called attention to informational item A, in the directors' agendas concerning a computer system for the City. Todd said the Finance Committee has reviewed this and were impressed work which has gone into the project so far and recommends the Board to the next step, advertising for proposals for a computer system. D Henry seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent: Noland. The mayor declared the motion passed. MINUTES 232.3 The city attorney made the following corrections to the minutes of the November 29, 1979 Board meeting: paragraph 202.8 . . . by which to allow non -conforming "free-standing signs in an R District" to continue after the amortization period.; paragraph 202.9 . . . has advised in the past with regard to the granting of a variance for the erection of a new sign"; paragraph 202.10 "double -tests"; paragraph 203.4, Director Todd asked if the "ordinance could eliminate the prohibition against free-standing signs in the R-0 district and the city attorney stated that the amendment would not change that prohibition,". With these corrections, the minutes of the November 29, 1979 meeting were approved as submitted. included Director by the proceed irector 232.4 There being no further business, the mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. 1