Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-21 Minutes• 7 RREZONING/EAST SIDE OF BETTY JO DRIVE, 120' SOUTH OF HWY 16 WEST MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, October 21, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland, Osborne, Sharp, Todd; City Attorney McCord, City Manager Grimes, Administrative Assistant McWethy, and City Clerk Koettel. ABSENT: None CALL TO ORDER Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor Called the meeting to order. The City Attorney read an ordinance rezoning property as requested in rezoning petition R80-22 for 1.29 acres located on the east side of Betty Jo Drive, 120' south of Highway 16 West, by petitioner Bryce J. Davis, The change requested was from R-0 "Residential -Office" to R-2 "Medium Density Residential" as considered in a public hearing before the PlannThng Commission on October 13, 1980. Director Osborne, seconded by Colwell, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously with Director Henry absent upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. There being further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE 2666 APPEARS ON PAGE oo / OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK A( . MASTER SIDEWALK AMENDMENT/BETTY JO !DRIVE. City Manager Grimes recommended an amendment to the Master Sidewalk Phri to move the sidewalk along Betty Jo Drive to the east side as shown in the subdivision plat and approved by the Planning Commission. City Manager Grimes explained that an error had been made on the Master Sidewalk Plan by requiring the sidewalk to be on the west side. City Attorney McCord read an ordinance amending the Master Sidewalk Plan by requiring the sidewalk to be on the east side instead of the west. Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved to suspend the rules and piece the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Henry, seconded by Todd, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the ordinance, which passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2667 APPEARS ON PAGE 002, OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )( 1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 REZONING/EAST OF CURTIS AVENUE, BETWEEN EAST FIFTEENTH AND FAIRLANE STREETS The City Attorney read an ordinance rezoning property as requested in 2.1 rezoning petition R80-23 for 25.14 acres located East of Curtis Avenue, between East Fifteenth and Fairlane Streets, by petitioner Wade Bishop. The change requested was from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-2 "Medium Density Residential" as considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 13, 1980. Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended 2.2 and the ordinance be placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be 2.3 further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the 2.4 ordinance. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE 2668 APPEARS ON PAGE oa3 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )C . SIDEWALK OFFER/COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH WADE BISHOP/HERITAGE EAST SUBDIVISION Mr. Wade Bishop addressed the Board and stated that he had met with 2.5 Administrative Assistant McWethy,and they had reached an agreement where Mr. Bishop would install sidewalks for 180' along Fairlane Street at his expense (from Emily Drive to Happy Hollow Road) and the City would install sidewalks along Curtis Avenue, from Fifteenth Street to Sandy Drive (approximately 750'). However, Mr. Bishop pointed out that since that meeting he and Mr. McWethy had discovered that there are already sidewalks constructed along Curtis Avenue. Mr. Bishop stated that under the original subdivision plans for 2.6 Phase I, the road going out from the Northeast corner on to Happy Hollow Road was not included. However, Mr. Bishop said he decided that it would advantageous to go ahead and construct a blacktop road of approximately 550' out to Happy Hollow Road. Mr. Bishop asked the Board to construct sidewalks for the 180' from Emily Drive to Happy Hollow Road since he had born the cost of approximately $40,000 for the blacktop road, and since the sidewalks the City proposed to construct have already been built. Director Osborne asked Mr. Bishop if he thought two sidewalks were 2.7 needed along Curtis Avenue and Mr. Bishop answered that he did not. A member of the audience, Mrs. Houser, asked if the City had constructed 2.8 the sidewalk along Curtis. She stated they had done their share if this were the case. Director Colwell pointed out that the sidewalk already constructed 2.9 is on the west side of Curtis and it was originally planned for the east side. Mayor Todd stated that part of this area would probably be eligible 2.10 for community development funds. He pointed out that there will be a reed for sidewalks along Happy Hollow Road going toward the school. Director Noland asked how far it is from Fairlane Street up to 2.11 Huntsville Street, and City Manager Grimes answered that it is close to 500'. Director Noland stated that he thinks this area is going to be an important segment of sidewalks, and that if the City is going to spend sidewalk money, he thinks this would be a good place. 1 • 3 (Director Lancaster asked Mr. Bishop if the road he constructed for $40,000 3.1 Is. through his subdivision. He replied that over 300' of the road is down one side of his subdivision, but that he does not own the North side of Fairlane. Director Colwell asked if the road would be used later on to serve 3.2 part of the 25.14 acres rezoned in rezoning petition R80-23, and Mr. Bishop answered that it would. Director Colwell told Mr. Bishop that at this point it might seem that his share of expenses are out of proportion, but that later on when the remainder of the 25.14 acres is developed, the ratio of benefit will .be considerably different. Director Colwell stated that he was concerned about sidewalks from 3.3 Fairlane to Hunstville Street because the school crossings are to the east of the intersection in the vicinity of the shopping center, and the children 0 will walk through the shopping center parking lot before they will use a sidewalk. He said he thought the sidewalk was a good idea, but that one concern would be school crossings at points different from the present locations. Director Lancaster stated that he certainly felt that the 180' of 3.4 Q sidewalk should be built no matter who builds it because the need is obvious. Mayor Todd suggested that the City build a sidewalk from Fairlane to 3.5 Hunstville Street, in addition to Mr. Bishop building 180' of sidewalk from Emily Drive to Happy Hollow Road. Mayor Todd pointed out that this probably could not be done immediately because the community development funds would not be available for this year, but that possibly within two years of a reasonable period of time. Mayor Todd asked City Attorney McCord if this kind of arrangement 3.6 could be made. City Attorney McCord answered that the Board could adopt a resolution expressing the intent of the Board to build sidewalks at a future date. Administrative Assistant McWethy asked Mr. Bishop if he would want to 3.7 construct his sidewalk now in order to avoid two years of price increases. Mr. Bishop answered that at the moment the sidewalk would serve no 3.8 purpose because he is just now applying for the building permits. Mr. Bishop asked to split the cost of the 180' from Emily Drive to 3.9 Happy Hollow Road with the City, and asked the Board members to bear in mind that he is building 300' of sidewalk to the west up to Emily Drive. Mayor Todd stated that he was uncertain if the City could split 3.10 the costs as suggested. He pointed out that community development guide- lines would have to be followed, and that a certain segment of sidewalk would have to staked out for the City to build and another segment staked out for Mr. Bishop. Mrs. Houser asked if Mr. Bishop had not figured the costs of sidewalks 3.11 into his construction costs. Director Colwell answered that this was off- site. Mayor Todd stated that Mr. Bishop had cleared this through the Planning 3.12 Commission and that off-site developments were not required. City Attorney McCord told the Mayor that the City could enter into a 3.13 contract with Mr. Bishop whereby it would be agreed that each party would construct their portion of the sidewalk at the same time, if Mr. Bishop would prefer to delay construction. Mr. Bishop stated he would be glad to enter into a contract where he 3.14 wound construct the west half of the 180' of sidewalk when the City constructed the east half. Mayor Todd answered that in his original proposal Mr. Bishop would 3.15 construct all 180' from Emily Drive to Happy Hollow Road and the City would construct 400' to 500' on up to Huntsville Street. Director Noland stated that he thought this was in the same spirit of 3.16 the original agreement made by Mr. McWethy, in that instead of going to op ol • 4 15th Street they would be going in the other direction, putting a sidewalk where there is no sidewalk on the west side of Happy Hollow Road. Mr. Bishop stated that he would agree to build the section of 180' if he could have something from the City stating when they would build the section from Fairlane to Huntsville Street. Mr. Bishop stated he would build his section before, or at the same time, the City builds their section. City Attorney McCord stated that a resolution authorizing a contract would be needed. Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved to pass a resolution authorizing a contract between the City of Fayetteville and Mr. Wade Bishop stating that within two years the City would intend to construct a sidewalk from Fairlane Street north to Huntsville Street, and Mr. Bishop would intend to construct a sidewalk from the edge of his subdivision east to Happy Hollow Road by the time the City constructs their sidewalk. The Mayor asked if the resolution should pass and upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. RESOLUTION/07-3 APPEARS ON PAGE 44;0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X REZONING/NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE (HWY 71B S) and BIGGER STREET The City Attorney read an ordinance rezoning property as requested in rezoning petition R80-21 for 0.8 acres located at the northeast corner of South School Avenue (Highway 71B South) and Bigger Street, by petitioners Glenn M. and Lynn T. Monahan. The change requested was from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" as considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 13, 1980. Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third aid final reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE 2669 APPEARS ON PAGE OO$ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X . SIDEWALK PARTICIPATION/APPLEBY ROAD ADJACENT TO REGENCY NORTH SUBDIVISION Mayor Todd pointed out that a couple of weeks ago the City Board asked the City Manager to discuss an arrangement for the City's participation in the cost of installing sidewalks along Appleby Road with Mr. Bishop. Mayor Todd stated that an arrangement had been agreed upon by the City and by Mr. Bishop and a copy was included in the Director's agenda. City Attorney McCord stated that a resolution would be needed to authorize a contract in accordance with terms in the agenda. Director Noland asked Mr. Bishop if the sidewalk would be close to the street at the point wiiere the sidewalk would cross the drainage area. Mr. Bishop answered that it could probably be arranged to keep the walk up close to the existing culvert. Director Lancaster asked Mr. Bishop what his plans were for old Appleby Road. Mr. Bishop answered that he has five lots fronting on the road, and that at the present time he has no plans for the lots. Mr. Bishop stated that the plat for these lots had been approved by the Planning Commission. Director Lancaster asked if the Planning Commission proposed that houses could be built on a gravel road, and Mr. Bishop answered that at the present 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 ' 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14111 4.15 0 01 Q) f time the Planning Commission had not required tnat.the street be blacktopped, but that they had required him to build a drainage structure. Director Colwell explained to the audience that three years ago Mr. 5.1 Bishop paid a major part of the expense of improving Appleby Road. It was agreed at that time that Mr. Bishop would not be required to construct the sidewalks. However, since that timethe Master Sidewalk Plan has been adopted requiring sidewalks in the area when it is developed. Director 'Colwell pointed out that this was a compromise with the City paying part of the expense and Mr. Bishop paying part. The Mayor called for a vote onta motion made by Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, to authorize a contract with "lr. Bishop according to the terms in the agenda. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. y RE -215-$o APPEARS ON PAGE `t(030F ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK . SIGN APPEAL/4405 HUNTSVILLE ROAD/R.D. RIGGS Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the 5.3 Sign Ordinance for an existing sign located at 4405 East Huntsville Road; Zoning District: "R-1 Low Density Residential." The variance requested by petitioner R. D. Riggs, is permission to allow a 9 -square -foot free- standing sign, erected without a permit, to remain at a 4' setback from the street right-of-way. The ordinance requirement is that free-standing signs are not allowed in an "R" zoning district unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of character- istics unique to •the property in question. Mr. Richard Hipp was present .to represent Mr. Riggs. Mr. Hipp 5.4 passed out pictures of the sign in question to members of the Board. Mr. Hipp told the Board that Mr. Riggs did contact the City Clerk's 5.5 Office concerning a sign permit and was informed that he would not need a permit. Mr. Hipp stated an attempt was made for the permit, but apparently there was some miscommunication and that Mr. Riggs did not erect the sign in obvious disregard to city ordinance. Mr. Hipp told the Board that this sign is the only identification the 5.6 property has, and that the business is situated approximately two City blocks off of Highway 16 East. He said if the sign is not allowed to stand, the public will not be able to find the business. Mr. Hipp stated that Mr. Riggs is willing to move the sign back by about 4', but that if he moves it farther than 4' a telephone pole will cut the sign in half for the public driving east toward Elkins. Director Colwell asked if the sign could be moved back more than 4' 5.7 to the south and Director Henry stated that the sign looked like it might be on a right-of-way at the present location. Mr. Hipp answered Director Colwell by stating that if the sign was moved 4' it would be right next to the telephone pole, but that if it was moved 5.8 15' the sign would almost be cut in half by the pole. Director Lancaster asked Mr. Hipp.if this business is in the City 5.9 limits and Mr. Hipp answered that it is not. Director Lancaster told Mr. Hipp that he felt there would be no practical difficulty to the City because the property is outside the City. Director Lancaster stated that they were requesting a sign be allowed within an area Where 'it is hot permitted, and that the sign was erected without a permit. He stated that they were discussing a sign inside the City, pertaining to a business outside the City. !Mr. Hipp pointed out that across the highway from the property in question 5.10 there is several hundred feet of commercial zoning and there are a couple of very large signs across the road. Mayor Todd asked if the property where the business is located is owned 5.11 by the sante person all the way up to the highway. Mr. Hipp stated that Mr. Riggs owns an easement back to his property. Mr. Riggs told the Board that the sign is on his easement. 5.12 5 5.2 fr 6 Director Colwell stated that there is an unfortunate situation along 6.1 Highway 16 East in that the City limits run 300' north and south of the highway. He stated that he did not think Mr. Riggs established his business outside the City limits deliberately, and that he would question if the sign would be off-site if it is within the easement used to get to the site. Director Colwell stated that the county could not be expected to build a road to the business so Mr. Riggs could have a sign, and that without a sign there would be no way of finding Mr. Rigg's business. He stated that he felt the question would be where and what kind of sign would be allowed. Mr. Riggs addressed the Board and told them the reason he erected the 6.2 sign the way he did was because a church was located next to him, and he erected the sign so you could see beneath it. He told the Board that if the sign was taken down his business would be wiped out. Director Noland, seconded by Sharp, moved that the variance be granted 6.3 for the existing sign, for as long as Mr. Riggs continues to operate the business in his name, and that the sign be located no closer to the highway than the church sign nearby. Mr. Riggs told the Board that if his sign was moved back more than 4' 6.4 the telephone pole would cut the sign in half. Director Colwell stated that the telephone pole would cut the sign in half only if you were standing still, but that in a moving vehicle the pole would not cut out the sign. The City Manager asked if Mr. Riggs could possibly modify the shape 6.5 of the sign if he did not axceed the existing 9 square feet, so that the pole would not interfere with the sign. City Attorney McCord pointed out there are no regulations for free- 6.6 standing signs in an R-1 zone, therefore, the restrictions would need to be imposed in the variance. Director Noland pointed out that the intent of the sign ordinance 6.7 III is to have all the signs of one size a uniform distance from the highway, within a particular district. Mayor Todd called for a vote on the motion made by Director Noland and 6.8 seconded by Director Sharp to grant the variance for the existing sign to stand so long as Mr. Riggs continues to operate the business in his name, and that the sign be no closer to the highway than the church sign next to it. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1 upon roll call. Director Lancaster 6.9 voted "nay" because he said he could not vote for a variance for a sign which is not permitted in an R-1 zone, especially a business sign inside the City referring to a business outside of the City. Director Sharp asked Sign Inspector, John Dietzen, if some of the signs 6.10 across the road from Mr. Riggs business, specifically the signs advertising a real estate business and a motel, were tied up in litigation. Mr. Dietzen told the Board that the area is zoned commercial and they 6.11 are entitled to larger signs. Director Henry stated that the signs in question are billboards. City Attorney McCord stated that he believed the owners of the billboards 6.12 had intervened in the Donrey case, and that there was an injunction. Mayor Todd asked Sign Inspector Dietzen to check out the signs mentioned 6.13 by Director Sharp. SIGN APPEAL/701 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from tie literal provisions of the sign ordinance, for an existing sign located at 701 South School Avenue; Zoning District: "C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial." The variance requested by petitioner Hoot's Chicken Drive -In, Fayne C. Gibson, is permission to allow an existing roof sign to remain. The ordinance requirement is that roof signs must be removed unless the Board determines that strict enforce- ment would be unreasonable. 6.1 Mr. Marshall Carlisle was present to represent Mr. Gibson and he 7.7 addressed the Board, stating that pictures of the businesshad previously been distributed to the Board members. Mr. Carlisle pointed out that 111 Highway 71 S is being widened and that the right-of-way goes almost right up to Mr. Gibson's business. Mr.Carlisle stated that Mr. Gibson has one sign on the roof of his business, which is in violation of the current sign ordinance. Mr. Carlisle stated that Mr. Gibson has been in business at this 7.2 location for 13 years and plans to retire in August of 1983 when the lease expires, and that he is requesting a variance to keep his sign until that time. Mr. Carlisle pointed out to the Board that the building has a glass 7.3 front and there is no other place to put any kind of sign. He also stated that the business closes at 6:00 p.m. and the sign is never lighted. Q Director Colwell stated that any sign on the side of the building 7.4 CD would be obliterated by parked cars at the business, and that it could not be put on the canopy because it would hang too low. CD Director Lancaster asked Mr. Gibson if Coca-Cola identified his buisness, 7.5 and Mr. Gibson answered that the sign is owned and was erected by Coca-Cola. Director Lancaster, seconded by Henry, moved to grant the variance until 7.6 Q August of 1983, provided the Coca-Cola part of the sign is covered up, that Mr. Gibson take down the sign in August of 1983, and that he execute a con- tract to this effect. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 7.7 SIGN APPEAL/1525 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE/MR QUICK Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the sign ordinance fbr a sign•tbibe located at 1525 South School Avenue; Zoning District: "C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial." The variance requested by petitioner, Mr. Quick, Gary Miller, is permission to replace an existing 280 -square -foot nonconforming free-standing sign with a 60 -square -foot free- standing sign at a 30' setback from the street right-of-way. The ordinance states the maximum size allowed at a 30' setback is 40 square feet; a 60 square foot sign requires a 40' setback unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would be unreasonable. Mr. Miller was present to answer questions from the audience or the Board. Director Lancaster stated that he felt like the variance requested was justified because of the location, and because Mr.. Miller will take down the old sign and erect a new one. Director Lancaster, seconded by Colwell, moved to grant the variance to allow a sign up to 60 -square -feet at a 30' setback. Mayor Todd pointed out that the widening of the highway had caused some problems for Mr. Miller and that he is in a transition zone. Director Henry pointed out that he is going from a 280 -square -foot sign down to a 60 -square -foot sign. Mayor Todd asked how long it would take Mr. Miller to have this change made. Mr. Miller answered that he should have it done within three or four weeks. Director Lancaster, seconded by Henry, amended his motion to state the variance would expire in ninety days if the sign was not erected by that time. ,After no further discussion, the variance was granted by an unanimous vote of the Board. 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 • 8 TAX LEVY/REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR 1980 The City Attorney read an ordinance which levies real and personal property taxes within the City for 1980 as follows: General governmental operations 5 mills Police pension fund 1 mill Fire pension fund 1 mill Capital improvements (City Library and Youth Center expansion, approved by voters on November 29, 1977) 2 mills total 9 mills Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Mayor Todd asked if this was the first year taxes had been levied on the City Library and Youth Center expansion or if it was last year. City Attorney answered that it was last year. Mayor Todd also pointed out that the 2 mill City Hospital tax, as approved by the voters, is not being levied, since the capital improvements general obligation bonds have not been sold. Director Lancaster pointed out this was something the Board has to do every year, and that it is not a new tax but only an annual renewal of the current tax levy. The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE 2670 APPEARS ON PAGE 001 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK K BUILDING CODE/1980 AMENDMENTS TO SOUTHERN STANDARD BUILDING CODE Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance adopting 1980 amendments to the Southern Standard Building Code and asked for comments or questions from the audience or Board. Mr. Freeman Wood, Building Inspector, was present to answer any questions. Mr. Wade Bishop asked Mr. Wood what changes were proposed to be incorporated that are significant above what is being required now. Mr. Wood outlined some of the proposed changes for Mr. Bishop. He pointed out that in the administrative section there is a historical section which allows the City to make decisions on historical buildings, and in some cases they do not have to meet the code requirements. Mr. Wood stated that there would be a $50.00 charge in addition to a building permit fee, which would be refunded when the final inspection was cleared by the Inspection Department and Planning Department. Mr. Wood explained the reason for this fee was an incentive for builders to get their final inspections. City Manager Grimes stated that the City has a problem of working with families who have moved into homes that have not had final inspections. He said that the City is trying to provide a penalty so as to give the builders an incentive to get everything cleared and finalized before he moves families into the homes. Mr. Wood stated that the $50.00 would be refunded when the final inspection was complete. 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6i 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.12 Mr. Bishop stated that he thought the City would not turn on the 9.1 9 utilaties into the customer's name until the final inspection was completed. IIIMr. Wood answered that many people buy building permits in their own 9.2 name and have temporary water, temporary gas, etc. in their own name and then never call to have a final inspection. Mr. Wood also pointed out that the new code called for guard rails 9.3 to be 42" tall, but that he was recommending this be left at 36" as it is now. Director Colwell told Mr. Wood that he realized the need for a set of 9.4 standards, but there were some things in the code which he had questions about. He pointed out some of these things. In a building with 5000 square feet of floor space, if you put one water fountain on the floor for public use you must also put one for the handicapped. If you put one bathroom on the floor for public use, you must put one in for the handicapped. O Director Colwell stated that he was not against facilities for the handi- 0) capped, but that these things should be thought about. He pointed out that in order to put a wheelchair ramp on a curb that is 8" tall, it would have to 0) be eight feet long, and because it would be over seven feet long a guard rail 7 would be required. Q Mr. Wood stated that the Inspection Department would enforce what was 9.5 Q passed. He suggested deleting parts of the code that were not wanted. City Attorney pointed out that certain standards do need to be set. He 9.6 stated that there is a Board of Housing and Construction Appeals which is authorized to grant variances from the standards set by the code and which meets on a regular basis. Mr. Wood pointed out that under this code a certain number of apart- 9.7 ments have to be built for the handicapped. Mr. Bryce Davis, a member of the Board of Housing & Construction 9.8 ' Appeals, stated that he felt the amendments should be discussed and looked into before the Board passes them. Director Henry stated there are many areas in the City that are not 9.9 accessible to persons in wheelchairs. She stated that she felt the Board should defer action on the building code until the builders have time to look over the proposed amendments and come up with suggestions. She suggested that Mr. Wood set up a meeting with some of the builders and come back to the Board at a later date with their recommendations. Mr. Wood stated that he had wanted to discuss the amendments to the 9.10 code item by item with the Board and get their feeling on each item. Director Henry answered that she felt this should be taken care of in a committee meeting. 9 11 After some discussion, Mayor Todd asked Mr. Wood if there were any substantive changes besides those dealing with the handicapped. Mr. Wood pointed out there was a proposed charge for plat checking which has never been charged in the past. Mayor Todd asked if costs are incurred that are not already covered. 9.12 Mr. Wood stated that probably not in house plans, but that plans for larger buildings such as the banks or factories take several days to be checked. Director Sharp suggested that anything over $50,000 be charged a plan 9.13 checking fee. Mr. Wood answered that single family residences should be exempt from this charge, even if it is over $50,000. 9.14 The City Attorney asked if the building permit is planned to recoup the plan checking costs and Mr. Wood answered that it is not. III City Attorney McCord stated that in regard to other City regulations, 9.15 such as zoning regulations or subdivision regulations, amendments are referred to a committee for study and then a public hearing is held to receive input both from the committee and the public. He stated this ,process has not been followed in the past with regard to the building code and perhaps should be. 10 Mayor Todd asked if the Board of Housing & Construction Appeals would 10.1 be an appropriate committee to look at these amendments. Director Sharp stated that someone who knows about handicapped persons 10.2 be involved and not just builders. Mayor Todd asked if the public hearing would be held at the Board level 10.3 or at the committee level. City Attorney answered that in this case the public hearing would probably be held at the Board level. He suggested that the Board might want to consider a joint committee consisting of the Board of Housing & Construction Appeals, representatives of the building industry, and representatives of the Disabled Students' Association. Director Henry stated that she felt this would be the best idea. 10.4 Mr. Bryce Davis stated that there are five members on the Board of Housing & Construction Appeals, but that three are University engineers 10.5 and are not familiar with the matters on a day-to-day basis, and that they are not really interested. He suggested filling the committee with builders and people in that particular field. Director Sharp stated that he felt these type persons were needed 10.6 to provide a balance. Director Lancaster suggested that the five members of the Board of 10.7 Housing & Construction Appeals, Mr. Wade Bishop, Mr. Jerry Sweetser, and representatives from the Disabled Students' Assocation make up the committee. 10.8 Mayor Todd stated that action would be deferred until this committee could meet and go over the amendments, as well as the existing code. SIGN AMENDMENT /SIGNS ON PARKED VEHICLES Mayor Todd introduced a proposed amendment to the present sign ordinance regarding signs on parked vehicles. He stated that the City Attorney had drafted a proposed amendment to the sign ordinance that would provide relief from the problem. City Attorney McCord stated that the substance of the ordinance was taken from a provision of the Tucson, Arizona sign ordinance. He said he originally added a rebuttable presumption based on the time the vehicle was parked in the same location, but because he felt it would lead to more confusion, he was recommending it be deleted. The City Attorney read the ordinance. Director Osborne asked City Attorney McCord if there would be a problem with putting a period in section H, fifth line at the end of the word right-of-way so it would read as follows: (h) Vehicles Used as Signs. No person shall park, or allow to be parked, any vehicle or trailer on which any sign has been printed, affixed, erected or placed on public right-of-way or on public or private property so as to be visible from a public right-of-way. City Attorney McCord stated that he felt this would create hundreds of technical violations of the ordinance. He stated that he thought the prosecutor, by proving a course of conduct, could establish the requisite criminal intent, which was that the vehicle was used for advertising and not as a means of transportation. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Director Sharp asked if the part of the ordinance reading ". . . any vehicle or trailer on which any sign has been printed. . ." could be interpreted to make trailer signs illegal once and for all. City Attorney McCord answered that was correct. 10.9 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 A member of the audience, Mrs. Carter, addressed the Board. She told the Board that businesses along Highway 71 S had problems of their driveways being changed, because of the construction that was taking place in widening the highway. She stated that it would be difficult ,to,'pla:ce a sign in compliance at the present time because of this problem. She told the Board that her husband's business, Carter's Garage, is 130' from the right-of-way, a two story house is located to the north and is 40" from the right-of-way, a motel is located to the south and is 11' from the right-of-way. She requested that the Board allow signs in movable vehicles until the time the construction is completed and the signs can be placed in compliance. Director Lancaster suggested to Mrs. Carter that signs be allowed in movable vehicles until such time as the curb and gutter is poured and the location of the driveway is determined. Mrs. Carter answered that this would be satisfactory, but at the present time they had been told that the curb and gutter is temporary. City Attorney McCord suggested that the problem could be addressed 11.4 by a reasonable enforcement policy, rather than trying to address the problem in the ordinance itself. He explained that the variance procedure Q did not apply to Section 17-67, which was being amended, and unless the Board wanted to amend the variance section of the ordinance, a variance could not be obtained. Mayor Todd stated that in the long -run the widening of 71 S would benefit everyone involved, but that in the short -run some problems would be created. He said that in a short period of time the driveways should be established. Mayor Todd told Mrs. Carter he was aware of her situation, II/ and that it was the type of situation that could be addressed through the variance procedure for a regular sign. City Attorney McCord told the Board another alternative for giving persons using this type of advertising technique time to make other arrangements, would be to make the proposed amendment effective at a later date. He pointed out that if a certain date was not set, and the emergency clause was not included, the ordinance would be effective 31 days from the date of publication. Mayor Todd stated that he thought this would be a good idea. Director Colwell asked Sign Inspector John Dietzen if the statement of reasonable enforcement was enough direction for him, since he would be the person to enforce it. Mr. Dietzen told Mr. Colwell that he felt the City could get into legal trouble by looking at what would be reasonable as an administrative decision. After some discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that Section 2, the emergency clause, be stricken from the ordinance. Director Sharp stated that he felt this might help Mrs. Carter if done within 60 days, but that it might not help others later on. He said there are many temporary signs up now, such as political signs. He stated that he felt something could be done in the future allowing temporary signs in situations like Mrs. Carter's. City Attorney McCord stated that the section pertaining to variances would need to be amended to authorize the Board to grant a variance. City Manager Grimes stated that these should be administrative variances, and that the Board would probably not want to hear every one of these individually. After further discussion, it was determined by the Board that reasonable enforcement would be an administrative decision, and that policy direction from the Board would be sufficient. The Mayor called for a vote on the motion amending the ordinance by eliminating the emergency clause. The motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with Directors Henry and Sharp voting in the minority. 11.2 11.3 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15 12 Mayor Todd called for further discussion on the ordinance. Mr. Hervey Houser of White Dog told the Board that he felt the ordinance was ambiguous. He requested a tabling for ane month to have the ordinance reworded. He stated that he understood the intent of the ordinance, but that he thought it would be hard to enforce because of ambiguity. City Attorney McCord told Mr. Houser that the ordinance would not come into effect until 31 days from the date of the publication. He told Mr. Houser that the Board would welcome suggestions from him, or any other citizen or sign owner, for drafting a more effective provision in regulating the activity determined by the Board. Director Osborne asked Mr. Houser if he was talking about the white van that White Dog uses for deliveries, and Mr. Houser answered that was correct. Director Osborne asked City Attorney if this would fall within a violation of the ordinance since the van is used for deliveries. City Attorney McCord answered that he would construe it as a violation. City Manager stated that the problem was the parking location of the van. Mr. Houser asked the Board not to pass the ordinance until more time was allowed for the ordinance to be reworded. Mr. Buddy R. Peoples, owner of Aamco Transmission, also asked that the ordinance be delayed. He stated that he has a vehicle which is used for picking up parts that also has the name of the business an the side. He stated the vehicle is not used solely for a sign. He told the Board that he did not see any difference in the car being parked in front of his business than trucks being parked in front of truck terminals with the name of the trucking firm on them. He stated that his vehicle is movable and can be driven. He said he does not drive the vehicle home, and that he parks it in front of the building to prevent vandalism. Mr. Houser of White Dog stated that his van had also been vandalized in the past, and that by parking it under the lights of the parking lot he felt he could prevent further vandalism. City Attorney McCord explained that there is no violation unless the prosecutor can establish that the basic purpose of the vehicle is to advertise the business or direct people to the business. He said the fact that the vehicle happens to have advertising on it does not necessarily establish a violation. He stated that reasonable enforcement will be required, and that the prosecutor will have to meet a stiff burden of proof to obtain a conviction. Mr. Peoples of Aamco stated that by striking the first paragraph of the ordinance, everyone up and down the street would be in violation. He recommended that the ordinance be left as it was originally drafted. City Attorney McCord answered by stating that the 72 hours would need to be changed to three consecutive days. He told Mr. Peoples that he recommended this clause be stricken because he thought it might mislead the public into thinking they had the right to park for up to three days without being in violation, when in fact that would not be true. Director Henry stated that people might think they could park the vehicle for two days, move it on the third day, and then park it again for two days. City Attorney stated that this was the reason he recommended that section be deleted. City Attorney McCord told the Mayor that he welcomed suggestions for the ordinance. He stated that if the ordinance was passed now without an emergency clause, or if the Board waited 30 days and passed another ordinance with an emergency clause, the effective date would be the same. 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.14 1 1 7 a City Attorney McCord said he had considered treating the vehicles ,lust as signs and require them to be set back as a sign is required to be set back. However, he said the problem with that would be an equal protection problem, in that some vehicles would be required to be set back and others wouldn't, when actually from a traffic safety standpoint they would create the same problem. There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass as amended, with Section 2 stricken. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2671 APPEARS ON PAGE 1t2 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK X 13 13.1 13.2 PROPOSED.AMENDMENT TO NOISE ORDINANCE Mayor Todd introduced two alternative amendments to the noise 13.3 ordinance regarding the issuance of variance permits. Director Osborne explained the two alternatives. The first was an 13.4 amendment which would allow the City Manager to issue a permit for a temporary variance from the time limitations presently prescribed for certain activities. This amendment would not authorize the City Manager to issue a variance relieving the permittee from the general prohibition against excessive noise. The second alternative was an ordinance to supersede the existing 13.5 noise ordinance. It contains a general prohibition against excessive noise patterned after the Arkansas disorderly conduct statute, an exemption provision taken from the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance drafted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and a variance provision patterned after the Norman, Oklahoma noise ordinance. Director Osborne stated that he had talked with the President of 13.6 the Interfraternity Council, Lowery Barnes, and some of:his neighbors concerning the noise ordinance. Director Osborne stated that the original intent of the noise ordinance 13.7 was to strike a reasonable compromise. He told the Board that he was recommending the second alternative, presented on page 12.03 of the Director's agenda. He stated that this had been read by the University students, and they had less objection to this alternative than the first. He also said that the City Attorney thought this alternative was more enforceable than the current ordiinance. Mr. Barnes addressed the Board and stated that the Interfraternity 13.8 Council had met and still wanted to come up with two dates in the Spring, as suggested last year, where the students could have parties and not be in violation of the noise ordinance. He stated that he felt the second alternative presented in the agenda could provide this variance. D'rector Osborne stated that the noise committee had determined that 13.9 one or two nights per year would not be unreasonable. He explained that the students would have to:go thirough Maureen Anderson, Dean ofuStudents, before they could ask for a Variance from the Board. Director Osborne explained that the big parties held each Spring have been a tradition for many years, and that he realized a lot of citizens would object. However, he stated that he •did not feel the students should be allowed to have their parties once or twice a year. 13.10 Mr. Barnes told the Board that the two dates which had been set for the Spring parties were April 11 and.April 25. City Attorney McCord explained to the audience that the Board considered 13.11 a number of alternatives when it first considered a noise ordinance. McCord stated that he obtained copies of noise ordinances from several other communities, including a copy of the model EPA ordinance. He stated that r 14 the EPA ordinance and many ordinances of other communities are decibel type ordinances, where the noise level is actually measured. However, he stated that the Police Chief had reservations about enforcing that type of ordinance, because the defendants might allege that the decibel instrument was not properly caliberated. City Attorney McCord stated he had written a letter to Norman, Oklahoma to see if they have had problems in that area or other areas of proof. He said the letter was written about one week ago and a response had not yet been received. McCord stated that the Board would need to reach a decision on whether or not to authorize variances from the general prohibition, on a temporary basis, or to allow businesses that are going to need time to come into compliance to have that time. He stated that the second alternative would authorize the City Manager to grant those types of variances. Mrs. Houser, a member of the audience, told the Board that the parties go on until 5:30 or 6:00 a.m. and it is impossible for persons to sleep. Director Osborne explained to Mrs. Houser that the City Manager would have the authority to require a certain cut-off time, and that the band would not be allowed to play past a certain hour. An apartment manager in the audience told the Board that she felt the students should be allowed to have some parties during the year. She stated that any tinea town has a University, there will be more of this type of action. Maureen Anderson, Dean of Students, stated that her job had been very difficult the past year simply because she did not know what to tell the students when they requested parties on the lawn, because she did not know if they would be in violation of the noise ordinance. Ms. Anderson told the Board she had meet with the Student Government and that they had voted to support a less subjective method of a noise ordinance, such as the decibel system, or a method of variance where they could have one or two nights per semester or year for their parties. She told the Board she would support them in whatever they decided to do, but that it does make it difficult for her since the ordinance is not very specific. Mrs. Houser stated that neither she nor her neighbors object to young people having parties if the loud noise would cease by 2:00 a.m. or so. She said their objection was when the noise went on to 5 00 or 6:00 a.m. Director Osborne stated that this problem did not only relate to the University, but there are other parties in town besides those of the University. Director Sharp stated that he agreed with Director Colwell in that the problem was amplification. He suggested that Section 13.8 be changed so that outside bands be allowed, so long as the bands did not use amplifiers. City Attorney McCord stated that the same suggestion was raised weeks ago, and that his office had rendered an opinion that a total prohibition against amplified music would be unconstitutionally broad. He stated that he felt you would accomplish the same thing by having a general prohibition against excessive noise, and depending upon the will of the Board, include a variance procedure. Director Sharp answered that he felt if variances were granted, the persons having the party might interpret that as a license to make all the noise they wanted to make. Director Noland asked if loud moterbikes in the early hours of the morning would be in violation of the noise ordinance. City Attorney McCord answered that he would consider that a violation of the prohibition against excessive noise. 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 several 14.10 14.11 1 1 14.12 15 Mr. Barnes told the Board that there are not many bands that will 15.1 play without amplifiers, and that in the case of large crowds amplifiers are needed. City Manager Grimes stated that he felt this alternative is more 15.2 subjective than the existing noise ordinance. He stated that students who get a variance to have a party with an outside band think they have the right to make all the noise they want to make until the cut-off time. He stated that he did not feel the City had the authority to grant anyone the right to disturb their neighbor. Director Henry agreed that there were misunderstandings concerning the 15.3 variance. The variances were actually variances for specific cut-off times, and not variances intended to allow all the noise the students 0 desired to make. City Attorney McCord stated that he felt the ordinance proposed was 15.4 better than the present ordinance. He suggested that perhaps the best type of ordinance might be tie type which would require the noise to be measured by decibels. Q City Attorney McCord told City Manager Grimes that one standard used 15.5 c to determine whether or not a variance should be issued, would be whether or not the activity could be done in a manner that would comply with the Ordinance. For example, stereos could be turned down, but even a band with the amplifiers turned as low as they would go might still be in violation of the ordinance. He stated that in this case a variance could be granted and reasonable conditions could be imposed on hours, since the activity would be of temporary duration. The City Attorney stated that the existing ordinance, with regard to 15.6 amplified music, imposes time limitations during which there are certain presumptions. He said the only variance that could be granted would be to relieve those presumptions and not relieve any general prohibition against unreasonable sound. Mr. Barnes stated that if a variance was granted as to the cut-off 15.7 time and that as much noise could be made as wanted until that specific time, even though you were disturbing your neighbors, that would be a workable and fair solution, if it is only once or twice per year. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the University already has cut-off 15.8 times and if any organization breaks the cut-off time, they could be up before judicial board charges at the University. She stated that cut-off times are not so much the issue as is the loudness factor. She pointed out that there are 28 different living units on campus, excluding the sororities. This would mean that approximately 14 parties would be going on at one time if two dates were given to allow parties. She stated that in this situation she did not see how a violation of reasonable sound limits could be avoided. Director Lancaster asked what the cut-off times for the University 15.9 are and Ms. Anderson answered that they are presently 11:00 p.m. for weeknights and 12:00 p.m. for weekends. A member of the audience suggested that readings could be taken by an 15.10 instrument that measures the decibels. She presented the instrument to the Board and told them she was qualifed to use the instrument. Mayor Todd stated that there was a suggestion from the Board to defer 15.11 action on this until the City Attorney has a chance to pursue the possibility of the decibel reading alternative. Mr. Barnes asked how long this would take. He explained that the bands 15.12 they want to book for their parties need to be booked now in order to get the quality of bands they want. 16 City Attorney McCord stated that his letter to the City Attorney's Office 16.1 in Norman, Oklahoma was dated October 16th and that he would expect a reply shortly. Mayor Todd told Mr. Barnes the Board would try to have something on 16.2 III this in two weeks. Mr. Barnes told the Mayor that the students would prefer the decibel 16.3 system. He stated this would be much more objective and they could be more self-governing this way. He suggested that he contact some of the students in Norman, OK and get feedback from them on their decibel system City Attorney McCord stated that this would be good information to have. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved to table the item until 16.4 more information was obtained by the City Attorney. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Director Osborne stated that he appreciated the way Maureen Anderson 16.5 and the students have cooperated in working with the Board on the noise ordinance. FAIR HOUSING PROGRAM Mayor Todd explained that the Housing of Urban Development Department had 16.6 requested the City of Fayetteville to adopt a Fair Housing Ordinance, and the Board had asked the City Attorney to pursue possible alternatives. City Attorney McCord stated that he had visited with Mr. Nat Hill 16.7 by phone. Mr. Hill is the Director of the Office of Human Resources in Little Rock. McCord said that Mr. Hill stressed the point that it is not sufficient to just tell HUD that you are going to do something, but that you must make a commitment, appropriate money, and convince HUD that you are going to do what you say. City Attorney McCord told the Board that the City of Little Rock was 16.8 able to obtain approval from FUD for a Fair Housing Program that did not III include the adoption of a Fair Housing Ordinance. He explained the three phases of the program as being: (1) education program, (2) complaint assistance program, and (3) complaint follow-up. He pointed out that copies of Little Rock's Fair Housing Program were in the Directors" agenda. A member of the audience asked what government funds were being 16.9 received which required the adoption of a Fair Housing Act. The Mayor explained that the City is currently receiving Community Development Funds from HUD in the amount of approximately $600,000 per year. Mayor Todd explained that there is already a federal law on this, 16.10 and that the Board of Directors is trying to avoid establishing another set of regulations. City Attorney McCord told the Board he would furnish packets consisting 16.11 of his letter to City Manager Grimes, materials from Little Rock, and two Fair Housing Ordinances adopted by different cities that were approved by HUD. Members of the audience were informed these could be picked up at the City Clerk's Office. Rick Mason of Community Development stated that he felt there might be 16.12 a misconception by some in their thinking that the Board is considering passing a Fair Housing Ordinance. He explained that the Board is considering not passing an ordinance, and handling the problem administratively within the City Government. He stated that now, if a tenant has a grievance, that tenant can file a report with the Department of HUD in Forth Worth. He pointed out that HUD is trying to make this a local issue where the tenant could file the complaint with the City. Mayor Todd pointed out that copies of the information on Fair Housing 16.131 would be available in the City Clerk's Office for those interested, and that the Board would table this item until the next meeting so that those concerned could have time to review the information available. FLUORIDATION/AGREEMENT WITH BEAVER WATER DISTRICT Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement with the Beaver Water District for the construction of facilities to fluroidate Fayetteville's water supply. Director Colwell, seconded by Noland, moved to authorize the execution of the agreement. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Todd pointed out that there was a substantial increase in the cost.. He stated the estimated cost now is $169,000 and that it was estimated at about $90,000 a year and a half ago. RESOLUTION /01-80 APPEARS ON PAGE YCOF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOKX O FLUORIDATION/AGREEMENT WITH MCGOODWIN, WILLIAMS & YATES 01 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of an Q) agreement with McGoodwin, Williams, & Yates, for engineering and 7 administrative services to plan and construct the fluoridation facilities Q mentioned above. Q Director Colwell questioned the engineering fee of $35,000 on a $41,000 for building and grounds, and $80,000 for equipment, project. Mr. Terry Williams of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates addressed the Board and explained the reason for the engineering fees. He pointed that the fee of $35,000 was only an estimate. Mr, Williams pointed out that the original negotiations were between the City of Fayetteville and the Beaver Water District, Mr. Dick Starr represented the Beaver Water District and made an offer to manage the facilities and allow the facilities to be 11/ constructed on the BWD plant site. Mr. Williams stated that a meeting was held in May between Dr. Nichols and members of the City of Fayetteville to discuss the possibility of receiving a grant from the Health Department. Mr. Williams stated that was the first time his firm entered the picture. At that time Mr. Starr asked him if his firm would do the engineering, since the firm had designed the last two expansions and knew where everything was located underground. Mr. Williams said that he thought his firm would be working under contract with Beaver Water District, however, there was not a contract or formal agreement with Beaver Water District, nor a contract with the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Williams stated that in various conversations with Mr. Grimes he was authorized to go ahead and come up with a design that would be suitable. Mr. Williams said that his firm had prepared a set of plans, sent the plans to the Health Department, and had received approval and permission to advertise for bids. He stated that is how he stands now, and still he has no contract with anyone. Mr. Williams stated that he did know where Mr. Starr intended for the fluoridation facilities to sit when he made the original estimate, but that there was some discussion about the location. Mr. Williams explained that he had decided on a location, but that problems for the next expansion arose, and Mr. Starr stated that a master plan would have to be prepared showing where everything would sit on the next expansion. Mr. Williams presented this master plan to the Board. He stated that as the facilities were moved farther out the costs were going higher and III hagher. Mr. Williams stated that they started searching for ways of I lowering Fayetteville's costs on items such as paving, buildings, etc. Hr. Williams told the Board that he took Mr. Starr to Arlington to v8sit some plants there, contacted the water treatment departments in Kansas City, Tulsa, and other places to convince him that the tanks could sit outside and not have to be housed in buildings. ,Mr. Williams said the negotiations with Mr. Starr took a lot of time. HHe said it is not really Fayetteville's responsibility, except that he did 17 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 18 not have any way of coming up with a design that would be approved without all this extra work having first been done, so the costs have ran higher. He said the salary cost is about $10,000 at the present time. Mr. Williams stated that if the City of Fayetteville felt they were being overcharged that he would be glad to negotiate with them, but that the time was acutally spent. Mayor Todd asked if there was any flexibility, so that if City wanted to piggyback onto Fayetteville's system, the City recapture some of the costs. Mr. Williams answered that this would be possible. Mayor Todd asked if the City of Fayetteville would or if Beaver Water District would own them. Mr. Williams answered that the Health Department would probably some title to the facilities also. City Attorney McCord stated that this should be tied down in an addemdum to the agreement. He stated that he would add a provision to the agreement stating that the facilities constructed under the terms of the agreement would be owned by the City of Fayetteville. City Manager Grimes stated that he had gone through the costs in detail with Mr. Williams, and that he was convinced that the firm does have a lot of time in the project. He stated that he felt Mr. Williams had worked the cost out as best he could. Director Noland stated that he since they were already in so far. Director Noland, seconded by Colwell, moved Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION //o-Ja APPEARS ON PAGEWI OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK,( . FLUORIDATION /BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES own another could the facilities claim 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 felt the City should go ahead and proceed 18.8 to pass the resolution. 18.9 Mayor Todd introduced the authorization to advertise for bids for 18.10 construction of the fluoridation facilities at Beaver Water District's treatment plant. Director Colwell, seconded by Osborne, moved to authorize for bids for 18.11 the construction of the facilities. He pointed out that in two weeks it would be two years since the referendum was held which authorized the fluoridation project. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 18.12 SHELTER FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Assistant Administrator David McWethy called the Board's attention to a letter from HUD (page 21.32 of agenda) stating that the proposed addition of a 1,000 square foot new construction to the existing structure is not an eligible Community Development Blcok Grant activity. Mr. McWethy stated that he could see no other alternatives except to try and appeal that decision. He explained that the problem came about because there is a section in the regulations dealing with privately owned structures, which includes the word expansion as an eligible item, and that at the time a letter from HUD was written, the City was talking about the old shelter on Mountain Street which was privately owned. He pointed out that the word "expansion" is not specifically included in the portion of the regulations dealing with publically owned structures. He stated that he felt a higher opinion should be sought. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved to appeal the decisoin by HUD. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1 with Mayor Todd voting in the minority. 18.13 18.14 18.15 ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS COMPANY FRANCHISE City Attorney McCord stated that in redrafting the Arkansas Western Gas Company franchise to incorporate the changes that were made at the last. Board meeting, one question arose with regard to the issue of whether the franchise was exclusive in any regard. McCord stated that Director Sharp raised the question of whether the initial wording would grant Arkansas Western Gas an exclusive franchise for liquefied petroleum gas and other synthetic natural gas. McCord stated that Arkansas Western Gas is requesting an exclusive franchise on natural gas. McCord asked for :clarification on whether the Board intended to grant an exclusion on natural gas and not on the other. Director Sharp replied that his only intent was that they did not have an exclusive franchise on propane and all fuels. He stated that an exclusive franchise on natural gas would be satisfactory. CORRECT ORDINANCE 2643 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance amending Ordinance 2643 to correct an error intheirezoning of property in rezoning petition R80-9 for 11.9 acres located east of Crossover Road and west of Hillside Terrace. Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass and the ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. 19 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 ORDINANCE 267a APPEARS ON PAGE 009 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Director Lancaster stated that he had received a complaint about the 19.6 length of the Planning Commission meetings. He said that the items close to the last of the agenda do not receive the attention they should because the members of the commission are already tired. He suggested that in these cases anothermeeting should be held at another time. Director Henry stated that she thought this has been done sometimes. 19.7 Mayor Todd stated that he would mention this to Ernest Jacks, Chairman 19.8 of the Planning Commission. Director Colwell pointed out that on the meeting of October 13 19.9 there were approximately 17 items and the meeting only lasted an hour and thirty-five minutes. APPLEBY ROAD Mayor Todd asked City Manager Grimes to find out about the plans for Appleby Road. He stated the Board would be interested in finding out why the plat was approved without the requirement of a paved road. 11/ COMPLAINT OF DOGS/ISH BENTON Mr. Benton stated that he thought it was time the City started enforcing its dog ordinance. He stated he had received a list of those charged with violations, and that two of those on the list were ones turned in by him. He stated the first case was dismissed and he was never notified about it. 19.10 19.11 20 Mr. Benton stated that there are five dogs in his neighborhood that 20.1 bark during the night and run loose. He stated the dogs are at his house daily from 1:00 p.m. until. 9:00 p.m. He stated he started keeping a daily record on the 18th of June. He told the Board there have been 115 days and there have been 30 days when he hasn't heard a barking dog. He pointed out that 17 of those 30 days he was not home. 20.2 City Manager Grimes stated that the Animal Control Officer and the police have been to Mr. Benton's house several times. 20 3 City Attorney McCord told Mr. Benton he would check and see why one of the cases was dismissed. DOGS RUNNING LOOSE Director Colwell told the audience and the Board that he had received 20.4 several letters and phone calls concerning dogs since the last meeting. Director Colwell stated that he accepted the recommendation of the 20.5 staff to ask for a third animal control officer in the 1981 budget, but that for the present time he felt a few things should be done. He stated that some of the animal control officers were spending part of their time working in the Sanitation Department. He said it was the intent of the City and the Board to have animal control officers because the actual 1978 budget for salaries for animal control officers was $17,000. This year the salaries are $31,000. He pointed out that the Sanitation Department has 42 employees, an increase of one this year over last year, and they use the animal control officer when they are shorthanded for sickness, vacation, or whatever. He stated that in this year's budget for the 42 sanitation employees, there is a provision of $35,000 for overtime and $7,200 for part-time help. He stated he felt this money should be used to pay overtime and part-time help, and that for the rest of the year the animal control officers pursue tneir job of animal control, because a truck with one man is not 50% as efficient as a truck with two men. Director Colwell also recommeded that for the rest of this year, when dogs are picked up and the owners are known, that summons be issued. 20.5 He stated that the important thing now would be to get the employees on the job and issue summons as provided by the ordinance. 20 7 Director Henry stated that she was in agreement with Director Colwell. Mayor Todd asked City Manager if employees of the street department or other departments might be available for this work. 20.8 City Manager Grimes stated that some employees of the buildings and 20.9 grounds department would be able to help. Director Colwell stated that he would like to show the citizens of 20.10 Fayetteville some effort on picking up the dogs, issuing summons, and hopefully prosecution. He said he realized that if a dog was picked up and someone came to claim it, that he pays $15.00 and $2.50 per day for food. He stated that this is not a sufficient deterrent. City Manager Grimes stated that it is $15.00 for the first pickup and 20.11 $25.00 for each subsequent pickup, plus $2 50 per day for food costs. City Manager Grimes asked if the amount might be raised to $25.00 20 12 and $35.00. 20.13 City Attorney McCord pointed out the existing ordinance was written in 1974 which set the amounts of $15.00 and $25.00. Director Colwell pointed out that even if the fines were raised, it 20.14 would not accomplish anything if the animals were never picked up. 1 1 1 City Attorney McCord, at the suggestion of the Board, read an 21.1 ordinance amending Section 4-21 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to increase the impoundment fees prescribed thereby to $25.00 for the first pick-up within a 12 -month period, $50.00 for the second pick-up within a 12 -month period, and $100.00 for each subsequent pickup within a 12 -month period. An emergency clause was included in the ordinance. Director Henry, seconded by Colwell, moved to suspend the rules and 21.2 place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further 21.3 suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass and upon roll call the 21.4 0 ordinance passed unanimously. CD ORDINANCE 2673 APPEARS ON PAGE o/o OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK .0 Director Colwell asked for an activity report at the next Board 21,5 Q meeting for the next two weeks activities on catching the dogs. Q STREET COMMITTEE MEETING Director Colwell stated that the street committee had met and discussed the cost-sharing on Joyce Street from Hwy 71 east to Old Missouri Road and that there was a discrepency in how much base is required. Some alternatives to drainage that might be considered were discussed. The drainage and bridge structure was approximately 35% to 40% of the project. Director Colwell stated that the relocation of utilities on Hwy 156 were also discussed. He stated that the street committee declined to bring a request to the Board for opening a road North of Lake Fayetteville to give access to two or three lots in Springdale. r 21 21.6 21.7 SECOND MEETING. IN NOVEMBER • The second meeting of November of the Board of Directors was set for Thursday, November 20th, to replace the meeting which normally would be held on Tuesday, November 18th. MINUTES City Attorney requested that the minutes be amended as follows: In paragraph 462.2 the word 'exclusive' should be stricken from the first sentence, and the last sentence of the paragraph should be amended to read, "Mr. Brannan said it was not the company's intention to sell liquefied petroleum through their gas lines, but that it would be satisfactory to remove the word exclusive from Section 1 of the ordinance in so far as it applied to liquefied natural gas." City Attorney McCord suggested that paragraph 463.8 be amended by adding the statement, "if the City Attorney determines that it would be legally possible to levy an occupation tax." Mayor Todd asked that 465.2 be amended by changing the first sentence il to read, ". . .in view of the fact that this was anew -looking sign that could not be altered without destroying it." ,ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. 21.8 21.9 21.10 21.12