Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-20 Minutes36 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Thursday, November 20, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Lancaster, Noland, Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry; City Manager Grimes, Administrative Assistant McWethy, and City Clerk Koettel. ABSENT: City Attorney McCord CALL TO ORDER Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor called the meeting to order. ACT 9 BOiNDS/BALDWIN PIANO/TRUST INDENTURE 36.1 Mayor Todd opened a Public Hearing for consideration of the issuance of $1,200,000 in "Act 9" Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Baldwin Piano & Organ Company. 36.2 Mayor Todd asked for comments from the audience, and no oral or written comments were received. 36.3 Director Lancaster asked if the agreement with Baldwin would include a payment in lieu of taxes agreement, and was assured by Mr. Michael Parker of Davidson, Plastiras, Horne, Hollingsworth & Arnold, Ltd. of Little Rock, that a payment in lieu of taxes agreement had been given to the City Clerk, along with all other documents of the bond issue. Mr. Parker informed the Board that City Attorney McCord had reviewed all the supporting documents. 36.4 Director Noland pointed out that Baldwin had received a similar bond issue in 1974. He stated that particular issue was voted on by the citizens of Fayetteville and was approved by the voters with a margin of 4-1 or more. 36.5 Mayor Todd asked if this expansion would increase the number of employees at the Baldwin Plant. 36.6 Gerald Davis, Plant Manager, informed Mayor Todd and the Board that an increase of a minimum of 60 persons was expected. He pointed out that the expansion mainly centered around updating machinery in the plant. 36.7 Director Lancaster stated that Baldwin Piano & Organ Company has been an asset to the City of Fayetteville. 36.8 There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed. 36.9 Administrative Assistant McWethy read an ordinance authorizing the Trust Indenture with Baldwin Piano & Organ Company. 36.10 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. 36.11 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. 36.12 The Mayor called for further discussion on the ordinance. 36.13 A member of the audience, Mrs. Houser, asked how the Board could refuse the bond issue since they have issued the same type bonds to other industries in Fayetteville. 1 November 20 1980 37 Mayor Todd stated that the Board considers each company on an individual 37.1 basis and assesses if it would be of benefit to the community. Mayor Todd also pointed out that the City will actually own the expansion, 37.2 and will lease it to Baldwin on a breakeven basis. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the 37.3 ordinance, which passed unanimously. ORDINANCE No. 2679 APPEARS ON PAGE 051 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK A( . ACT 9 BONDS/BALDWIN PIANO/LEASE AGREEMENT Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance authorizing a lease agreement with 37.4 0 Baldwin Piano & Organ Company. CD Administrative Assistant McWethy read the ordinance for the first time. 37.5 Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved to suspend the rules and 37.6 place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved to further suspend the rules 37.8 and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the 37.9 ordinance authorizing the lease agreement, which passed unanimously. ORDINANCE No. 2680 APPEARS ON PAGE /560F ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x . SIGN APPEAL/3010 NORTH COLLEGE This item was tabled until the next meeting at the request of the 37.10 petitioners. SIGN APPEAL/3010 NORTH COLLEGE This item was tabled until the next meeting at the request of the 37.11 petitioners SIGN APPEAL/2400 BLOCK OF NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE This item was tabled on the advice of the City Attorney. 37.12 SIGN REHEARING REQUEST This item was tabled on the advice of the City Attorney. 37.13 REZONING/EAST SIDE OF RAZORBACK ROAD/1000' SOUTH OF HWY 62 WEST Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested in 37.14 rezoning petition R80-24 for 14.9 acres located on the east side of Razorback Road, approximately 1000' south of Highway 62 West, by petitioner Fulbright Investment Company. The change requested was from "R-2 Medium Density Residential" to I-1 "Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial" as considered in a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on October 27, 1980. Administrative Assistant McWethy read the ordinance for the first time, and Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. I 37.15 November 20, 1980 3S 38.1 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. 38.2 Mayor Todd pointed out to the audience that this had been considered by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood, did recommend the change. 38.3 Attorney Lynn Wade was present to answer any questions the Board or audience might have concerning the rezoning request. 38.4 Mayor Todd asked Mr. Wade if there would be further development before public sewer was made available to the tract of property, and Mr. Wade answered that there would not be, and offered a Bill of Assurance to this effect. 38.5 There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass, which would include acceptance of the Bill of Assurance offered that would restrict further development beyond the one facility that is already planned, until public sewer is available. 38.6 Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE No. 2681 APPEARS ON PAGE 2.30 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X . REZONING/NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE AND NONNAMAKER DRIVE 38.7 Administrative Assistant McWethy read an ordinance rezoning property as requested in the rezoning petition R80-25 for 0.56 acres located on the northeast corner of South School Avenue and Nonnamaker Drive, by petitioners Albert and Grace Miller. The change requested was from C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" to I-1 "Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial" as considered in a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on November 10, 1980. 38.8 Mayor Todd pointed out that this rezoning had been recommended by Planning Consultant Larry Wood. Mayor Todd explained to the audience that the Board does receive copies of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meetings, and are thus aware and familiar with Planning Commission action. 38.9 Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. 38.10 Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. 38.11 There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the rezoning ordinance. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE No.2682 APPEARS ON PAGE 232. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )( REZONING/WEST SIDE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD,800' SOUTH OF EAST HUNTSVILLE ROAD 38.12 Administrative Assistant McWethy read an ordinance rezoning property as requested in rezoning petition R80-27 for 0.68 acres located on the west side of Happy Hollow Road, approximately 800' south of East Huntsville Road, by petitioner Bert Rakes. The change requested was from "R-1 Low Density Residential" to R-2 "Medium Density Residential" as considered in a Public Hearing by the Planning Commission on November 10, 1980. 38.13 Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. 1 November 20, 1980 39 Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved to further suspend the rules 39.1 III and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. Mr. Bill Greenhaw was present to represent Mr. Rakes and to answer any 39.2 questions the audience or Board might have. It was pointed out by a member of the audience that Mr. Wood, Planning 39.3 Consultant, did not recommend this change. Mayor Todd read the reasons that Mr. Wood did not recommend the change (see Director's Agenda page F and G attached). Mayor Todd pointed out that the change was recommended by the Planning Commission by a vote of 8-0. Mrs. Houser asked if the owner of the proposed apartments would have to 39.4 charge the rent of $175 and $225 per month, as stated he intended to do. Mayor Todd answered that the Board would not bind the owner to charge 0 a certain amount of rent, and that the amounts above were only estimates 39.5 0) provided by the owner. 0) Mayor Todd called for a vote on the ordinance, which passed unanimously 39.6 upon roll call. Q ORDINANCE No. 2683 APPEARS ON PAGE .2357 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X Q PUD CHANGE Administrative Assistant David McWethy read an ordinance amending the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations by providing that a PUD shall be a Conditional Use in R-1 zoning districts; and by clarifying the right of appeal of adjacent property owners. Director Lancaster, seconded by Todd, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Todd pointed out that members of the Board of Directors and of the Planning Commission had met and developed the proposed ordinance. He stated that the City had made some changes to the present ordinance, but that some specific problems had arisen that were not anticipated, and that this was why an amended ordinance was being considered at the present time. Mrs. Houser asked why the Planning Commission did not make a recommen- dation on this ordinance. It was considered in a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on October 27, 1980, and was referred to the City Board without recommendation, by a vote of 7-1. Mayor Todd told Mrs. Houser that it was his impression, from reading the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, that the Planning Commission would rather not have the ordinance amended as proposed, but that they did not feel strongly enough about it to make a recommendation one way or the other. Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, moved to strike Section 2 from the proposed ordinance, which allowed the right of appeal to the Board of Directors. She stated that this was treating a PUD conditional use differently from other conditional uses. She pointed out that there is no right of appeal to the Board on other conditional uses. Director Sharp stated that everything he had heard until recently about the PUDs had been very positive. He stated the minutes reflected that the two problems with PUDs which had arisen in August basically dealt with the concern of the audience of the quality of people rather than the quality of the development. 39.7 39.8 39.9 39.10 39.11 39.12 39.13 39.14 November 20, 1980 40 40.1 Director Henry stated that anytime you have a change or something different, you have some people who are afraid of what might happen. She stated that if there had been a right of appeal to the Board of Directors, that probably Sunset Woods(PUD) would not be in existence today. She told the Board that if there were persons who were strongly opposed to a PUD, they should be willing to pursue it in Circuit Court. 40.2 In answer to Director Lancaster, Director Henry clarified that she did not object to all the conditions set forth in the proposed ordinance. She pointed out the only part she objected to was the right of appeal directly to the Board, after the Planning Commission had already considered all the conditions. She told the Board she objected to treating a PUD differently from any other conditional use. 40.3 Director Colwell pointed out that the present PUD ordinance does allow an appeal of the Planning Commission decisions to the Board of Directors. He stated the problem experienced in August was the procedure of an appeal. Director Colwell said the problem revolved around who could appeal and when an appeal could be made. 40.4 Mayor Todd stated that with the wording of the present ordinance, there is some question as to just who can appeal, and that Section 2 was intended to clarify this. 40.5 Mayor Todd, in answer to a question by Director Henry, stated that there were no reasons for denial in the original PUD ordinance. He explained that the original ordinance stated that a PUD was designed for more efficient use of land and public facilities. 40.6 Director Henry stated that this should not be considered as a conditional use, and Director Sharp agreed. 40.7 Director Colwell stated that he felt there are two different categories of R-1, a newer R-1 and an older R-1. He stated that vacant land in new R-1 would be developed in most instances in an efficient manner. He said, however, that this is not the case with old R-1 areas. He told the Board that limiting the right of appeal to only those with property joining the PUD did not extend out far enough, and that the PUD affects the entire neighborhood. He suggested that the ordinance state that any property owner in the immediate area, or a specified distance, be given the right to appeal. 40.8 Director Colwell also pointed out that he did not feel you could ever prove that something reduced the property value. He stated a more favorable wording would be a phrase stating the PUD would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, or change the character of the neighborhood. He said he felt this would be easier to establish than a decrease in property values. 40.9 Director Colwell stated that if Section 2 was allowed to stand, he would attempt to amend the ordinance so that property owners in the immediate areas be allowed to appeal, and that Section 1 have another distinction about the character or the nature of the change on the neighborhood. 40.10 Director Osborne stated that he agreed with Director Colwell on the point of persons in the immediate area having the right to appeal. However, he stated that "immediate area" would be difficult to define, and that a 40.11 specified distance should be incorporated. Director Osborne stated that Director Henry's proposal would provide one solution. The right of appeal to the Board of Directors would not be allowed, and anyone wishing to appeal would have to go directly to Circuit 40.12Court. Mayor Todd stated that if Section 2 were deleted, the ordinance would stay the way it is presently, and there is ambiguity as to who can appeal. 40.13 Director Henry suggested that the last part of section 2 be amended to say that the procedure of appeal shall be the same as the procedure for any other conditional use. 1 } ,A4>I• - November 20, 1980 page F Considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on November 10. Planning Consultant Larry Wood had prepared a report on the request, and told the Commissioners that the change was recommended for the following reasons: 1. I-1 zoning is consistent with the recommenda- tions of the General Land Use Plan; 2. The public facilities and services are available to service industrial development; and 3. There is substantial investment in industrial activity currently existing in this area. Speaking on behalf of the request, Mr. Miller told the Commission that the rezoning would "let us [continue to] use [the property]... for what it's being used for now" --the manufacturing of golf clubs There was no public opposition expressed to the rezoning, and a subsequent motion to recommend approval passed 8-0, with Commissioner Redfern absent. REZONING #3: An ordinance rezoning property, as requested in rezoning petition R80-27. [See 8.01] Size of parcel: 0. 68 acres Location: On the west side of Happy Hollow Road, approximately 800' south of East Huntsville Road Petitioner: Bert Rakes Change requested: From R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-2 "Medium Density Residential" Planning Commission action: Recommended approval, 7-1 Considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on November 10. Planning Consultant Larry Wood presented a report on the request, and told the Commissioners that R-2 zoning was not recommended for the following reasons: November 20, 1980 page G • 1. The General Land Use Plan recommends "a commercial land use pattern for both sides of Happy Hollow Road in this location and there is existing commercial development already committed to the area"; 2. The approval of the R-2 zoning would "potentially leave a small parcel of residential use between commercial development and an arterial street"; and 3. Such property with good commercial potential "should be preserved the same as residential and industrial" property. Wood recommended that, as an alternative, the petitioner consider either R -O "Residential -Office", or C-1 "Neighborhood Commercial" or C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial". Speaking on behalf of the request, Attorney Leonard Greenhaw told the Commissioners that it was his client's intent to build 16 apart- ments on the property. Eight of these would be one -bedroom units renting for approximately $175 per month, while the others would be two-bedroom units renting for $225. These lower rents, plus the close proximity of the industrial park would make them very desirable, Greenhaw said. He also added that there was a "weak" market for commercially - zoned property in the area, and that his client would have to wait a long time for there to be much of a change in this demand. There was no public opposition expressed to the requested R-2 zoning, and Commissioner Anderson indicated that she favored its approval. Making this commercial, she felt, was "just strip zoning" Happy Hollow Road and she thought it would be better to encourage a zoning mixture. Commissioner Cullers agreed. Commissioner Gitelman disagreed, however, and felt that certain appropriate areas such as this should be preserved for future commercial zoning. After further discussion a subsequent motion to recommend approval of the change from R-1 to R-2 passed by a 7-1 margin, with Commissioner Gitelman in the minority and Commissioner Redfern absent. • November 20, 1980 Administrative Assistant McWethy stated that this would need to be amended to read that all decisions by the building inspector or planning administrator related to PUDs may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The procedure for appeals from the Planning Commission shall be the same as for an appeal for any other conditional use. (see attached page 9.01 of agenda) Director Sharp withdrew his second because he did not want to consider this as a conditional use. Director Osborne seconded the amended motion of Director Henry. After further discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved to table this item and refer it to the City Attorney. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with Directors Todd and Colwell voting in the minority. STRUCTURAL STUDY CITY HALL 41 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 Q) Mr. Ervan Wimberly of Northwest Engineers was present. Mr. Wimberly 41.6 had done a structural study of City Hall and had determined that while the C building is structurally sound, the roof is in very bad shape structurally Q and is sagging. Mr. Wimberly reported that the roof decking is in good shape, but that a new roof covering will be required. Mr. Wimberly stated that the entire roof could be torn off, which would be the simplest, or the existing roof could be repaired with much work. Mr. Wimberly had drawn the plan with elevators at the back because this would not interfere with.the•daily business functions during the 111 construction process. Director Osborne suggested building one elevator at the back, with stairs, which could be used while construction was going on, and building another elevator and set of stairs at the front of the building. Director Henry suggested that the high, pressed tin ceilings be preserved. Mr. Wimberly stated that this would be very expensive, but that it could be looked into. After further discussion, Mayor Todd proposed that a committee be appointed to begin exploring alternatives.and possibilities. There was a concensus among the Board to do this, and Mayor Todd appointed the committee. Frank Sharp was asked to chair the committee, and Rick Osborne and Ronald Bumpass were asked to serve. Mayor Todd told the Board members they were all welcome to join in and work on this project. AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE Administrative Assistant David McWethy read an ordinance regulating the height of natural and person -made objects and otherwise regulating the use of property in the vicinity of the Fayetteville Airport. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. City Manager Grimes explained that this was required as part of the latest large construction project to get final FAA payment. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance is actually somewhat less restrictive than the present ordinance. The present ordinance has a slope to 50 to 1 and the proposed has a slope of 35 to 1. • 41.7 41.8 41.9 41.10 41.11 41.12 41.13 41.14 41.15 41.16 November 20, 1980 42 42.1 Engineer Wayne Jones was present to answer questions of the Board or audience. 42.2 Mayor Todd asked Mr. Jones why FAA would care if the City had a more restrictive ordinance, and Mr. Jones answered that he was not certain FAA would mind, and that he would check with them to be certain. 42.3 Director Lancaster expressed concern about amending this ordinance. He stated that years ago the City had to pay to lower an antenna mounted on the top of Standard Register Company, and that he was afraid if developments are allowed now the same type action might be necessary in the future. 42.4 Director Lancaster stated that since there was no rush in adopting this ordinance, that the ordinance be rewritten to leave the approach the way it presently is on the north and south ends. 42.5 Director Osborne suggested checking with FAA on this, and City Manager Grimes agreed. Mr. Jones was asked to check with FAA and report back whether the more restrictive ordinance would be acceptable. 42.6 Mr. Ervan Wimberly asked the Board if Section IV, Item #6 would allow the construction of a structure up to 50 feet in height. 42.7 City Manager Grimes suggested waiting until the report from FAA was received before discussing this item, and Mr. Wimberly stated this would be satisfactory. 42.8 Director Osborne moved that the item be tabled and that Wayne Jones and City Attorney McCord check with FAA and other necessary authorities. The motion was seconded by Noland. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. EASEMENT REDUCTION/SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF HWY 62 AND HWY 71 N 42.9 Administrative Assistant David McWethy explained that one easement was proposed to be reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet, and the other reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet. He explained that in the case of the first easement, the easement was oversized for a large sewer line which was later put along the highway, and the additional width is not needed. He stated that the second easement was oversized for a somewhat similar reason, and the additional width is no longer needed. 42.10 Administrative Assistant McWethy read an ordinance for a reduction in two utility easements in the Fayetteville Center Subdivision, located at the corner of the intersection of Highway 62 West and Highway 71 North. 42.11 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. 42.12 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. 42.13 Mr. Kent Clement of The Parnell Group, Inc. was p present to answer any 42.14 questions the Board or audience might have. Administrative Assistant McWethy pointed out that Southwestern Bell's concurrance was subject to official easement release from the Little Rock office. 42.15 Director Henry, seconded by Colwell, moved to amend the ordinance to make it subject to the official concurrance of Southwestern Bell in Little Rock. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. 42.16 Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE No. 2684 APPEARS ON PAGE 23& OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X 1 11 page 9.01 2.10, Authorization and Permitted Uses. PUDs are au- thorized in the following zoning districts: R-1, R-2. 11-3, and R -O. The uses permitted in the PUD shall be the same usesrmitted in the zoning district(s) in which the PUD and area lies, except a PUD in an R -1 -District may iI lude all uses allowed in Use Unit 9 on the Zoning Ordi'ance (Appendix A, Art. 6, [IX], [B]), except home occ .ations. Commercial uses of a retail nature are not pe • itted in a PUD unless the land on which they are o be placed is zoned or rezoned commercial. Comm: cial zoning and uses at locations other than as recom • ended by the general plan may only be considered wh-n PUD's exceed five hundred (500) dwelling units; pro .. ed, nonresidential uses of a service nature for the c. venience of the residents and their guests and not de ':ned to attract people living outside the PUD develoent may be permitted in a PUD. Such uses include, .ut are not limited to, laundries, childcare facilitie exercise facilities, game rooms, meeting rooms, and r: reation acilities. Uses not included above but determ)•ed by .dhe planning commission (after public hearing) to be similar in nature may be permitted. 5. 2.18. Enforcement. No building permit shall be issued for development which proposes a change from the approved preliminary development plan without the approval of the planning administrator or planning commission. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the final development plan has been approved and filed of record in the county courthouse. If structural construction has not started within eighteen (18) months after issuance of a building permit, the developer will be notified that the PUD approval will be revoked unless the developer shows good cause for the delay and the planning commission approves an extension. If the PUD approval is revoked and rezoning action was involved in the initial approval, the planning commission may initiateaction to return the original zoning to the i roperty. All decisions by the building inspector or inning administrator related to PUDs may be ,;ipea'led to the planning commission and all plan -1 Mg commission decisions may be appealed to the city board of directors. The procedure for appeal shall be the same as'for an appeal of a rezoning decision ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 12 OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO AMEND THE CITY'S PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY PROVIDING THAT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT AND BY CLARIFYING THE RIGHT TO APPEAL OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE HOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That Appendix A, Article 8, Section 12 (2.10) is hereby amended by amending the first sentence to read as follows: PUDS are authorized in the following zoning districts: R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-0; provided, a PUD in a R-1 District shall be a conditional use subject to the provisions of Appendix A, Article 9, Section 6 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission may refuse to approve a PUB for any of the following reasons: (a) The Planning Commission determines that the PUD would reduce property values in the neighborhood. (b) The PUD is not submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this Section. (c) The proposed PUD would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose of this paragraph, a "dangerous" traffic condition shall mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern. (d) City water and sewer service are not available to the property within the PUD and the developer has made no provision for extending such service to the PUD. (e) The developer refuses to comply with applicable requirements of the Subdivision Regulations - Appendix C to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances. (f) The PUD would not achieve the purposes enumerated in Section 1.00 above. Section 2. That Appendix A, Article 8, Section 12 (2.18) is hereby amended by adding the following: The developer of a PUD or adjoining a PUD shall have Board of Directors any dec by filing written Notice o within ten (10) days from The Notice of Appeal shall the appellant contends the and decision were in error the owner of any property the right to appeal to the ision of the Planning Commission f Appeal with the City Clerk the date of such decision. specifically state the reasons Planning Commission's findings November 20, 1980 SIDEWALK WAIVER/INTERSECTION OF EAST HUNTSVILLE ROAD AND BARTON AVENUE Mayor Todd introduced a request for a waiver of the requirements of the Master Sidewalk Plan, regarding property located at the intersection of East Huntsville Road and Barton Avenue. Mr. E. Lamar Pettus was present and addressed the Board. He said that the Master Sidewalk Plan called for the walk to be on the north side of Huntsville Street. He stated the sidewalk was already in existence on the south side of Huntsville Street. Mr. Pettus told the Board that the property owners were asking the Board to waive the requirements that a sidewalk be installed on thenorth side of the street since it already exists on the south side, and the Master Sidewalk Plan only requires a walk on one side. Mr. Pettus stated that the property owners had to give a 3.5 foot O right-of-way to make the Huntsville Road right-of-way comply with the CD City requirements. He said that if the sidewalk was put on the property off the right-of-way, it would be about three feet higher than the road. CD Director Henry stated that the sidewalk should be allowed on the right-of-way so it would be near the road. Q Mr. Pettus stated that this was a waste of the developer's money, Q because the sidewalk would have to be removed if the street was widened. Director Colwell asked if the sidewalk would be above the rock wall at the property, and Mr. Pettus answered it would be unless the walk was placed on the right-of-way. Mayor Todd asked McWethy if he knew why the Master Sidewalk Plan required a walk on the north instead of the south side. McWethy answered that perhaps because of a school further out, and the fact that so much CD money had already been spent in that area of town, and that since there was already a sidewalk on the south side there would be no sense in imposing requirements for a walk on the south side. Therefore, since walks were to be required on one side or the other, they required them on the north side. After further discussion, Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, moved to deny the request for the sidewalk waiver. Mr. Pettus stated that he felt the Board would be imposing another economical burden if the request was denied, and that it would not really serve any purpose. City Manager Grimes stated that it was customary to put the sidewalk on the right-of-way, and that the City has no plans to improve Huntsville Street. Director Henry explained that the area is close to Walker Park, there is multifamily housing near the property, and that because of the number of children she felt the sidewalk on both sides was necessary. Mr. Pettus stated that if a walk would be required on both sides, that the Master Sidewalk Plan needs to be amended to call for walks on both sides. Director Colwell pointed out that having a sidewalk on both sides would not prevent the children from having to cross the street. Director Henry answered that there is already a crossing guard. Mayor Todd pointed out that the area was a high accident area for children. Mayor Todd called for a vote on the motion to deny the request. The motion passed unanimously with Director Osborne abstaining fromdiscussion or voting because of the potential of a conflict of interest. 1 43 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 43.7 43.8 43.9 43.10 43.11 43.12 43.13 43.14 43.15 43.16 November 20, 1980 44 ALLEY CLOSING/EAST-WEST ALLEY RUNNING WEST FROM BARTON AVENUE 44.1 Mr. Lamar Pettus explained that this alley showed up on a survey, but that there were no utility companies using the alley. The utilities suggested that the alley be closed. Mr. Pettus told the Board that Bobbie Jones of Planning suggested the alley be closed also. He told the Board the alley runs west of Barton Street for one block. 44.2 Administrative Assistant McWethy read an ordinance authorizing the closing of the east -west alley running west from Barton Street. 44.3 Director Henry, seconded by Colwell, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. 44.4 Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion 44.5 passed unanimously and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should pass. The ordinance passed unanimously, with Director Osborne abstaining from discussion or voting because of the potential of a conflict of interest. ORDINANCE No.2685 APPEARS ON PAGE 232 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X BID AWARD #442/TENDER TRUCK 44.6 City Manager explained that bid #442 was for a tender truck replacement for the Sanitation Department. The budgeted amount was $90,000 and the recommendation was for the bid to go to the low bidder, Crane Carrier Corp. for the Truck Chassis, and S S.I. Inc. for the Packer Body installed on truck. The total cost is $87,633.00. 44.7 Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, moved the bid be awarded to the low bidder as recommended. 44.8 The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. CONDEMNATION/INTERSECTION OF APPLEBY ROAD 44.9 City Manager Grimes stated that the City had been negotiating for some time for a needed easement at the intersection of Appleby Road. Mr. Grimes explained that the Planning Commission had required a developer of nearby property to improve drainage facilities. The developer is willing to install a drainage box required and another box of approximately the same size on the other side. He stated they had been unable to work out anything with the other property owner, and that the City was asking for authorization to condemn the necessary piece of land, which would be approximately 1/4 to 1/3 acre. He stated that if that property owner were to develop that area, he would have to dedicate most of that land in the right-of-way anyway. 44.10 Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved that the authorization for condemnation be granted. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. MOUNT OLIVE WATER ASSOCIATION 44.11 Representatives of Mount Olive Water Association were present and Director Noland stated that a density formula had been developed, but that until the City Attorney could work out the wording on this, he would recommend no further action be taken. He stated that the Mount Olive Water Association was in the process of advertising for bids, and that bids would be accepted on December 17, 1980. 1 1 November 20, 1980 CD BUDGET REVISION City Manager Grimes introduced a CD Budget Revision for the paving of Block Street for $125,000 from the Senior Center allocation to be transferred to the Walker Park allocation. This item is to pay for the engineering and paving of Block Street which HCRS determined was an ineligible item under their grant. There is no line item for Block Street, and as Block Street is in Walker Park, the money will be reprogrammed toward the Walker Park Project. City Manager Grimes stated this had been approved by the Community Development Committee, and that he was recommending its approval also. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the CD Budget Revision be allowed. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. Q APPEAL SIGN ORDINANCE DECISION a)City Manager Grimes asked the Board to allow City Attorney McCord to appeal the recent sign ordinance decision of municipal court. He said 7 McCord stated the problem is with the criminal penalty section. Q Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the City Attorney be Cr authorized to take the necessary action in order to have the decision overruled. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. GIFT OF HOUSE BY BOB HAY Administrative Assistant McWethy stated that the house which was given III to the City by Dr. Bob Hay was on .5 acre that was without city sewer service. He stated a waiverof the minimum 1.5 lot size requirement for subdivided property not having city sewer would be needed so the deed could be filed. He pointed out it is an existing house on an existing septic tank. It was determined that an ordinance was needed, thus no action was taken until an ordinance could be drawn up by the City Attorney. City Manager Grimes told the Board that airport money would be used to rehabilitate the structure, and that any rent revenue would go back into the airport fund. TITLE I GRANT/CLEAN COMMUNITY SYSTEMS Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp moved to authorize Director Henry to work with David McWethy to apply for a Title I grant to implement the clean community systems in Fayetteville. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. LOAN TO CEMS Director Colwell stated that he had intended to ask the Board to convert the $23,000 loan to LEMS to a gift. However, he stated he had been informed that the County has not yet given the $10,000 to CEMS, whichi'was also a . loan. Therefore, he stated that the City will wait and do whdc Lne County does. There was a consensus among the Board to do this. VARIANCE FOR PARKING Director Colwell stated that he had talked to persons who were concerned about the Planning Commission meeting on November 10, which granted a variance for par'k'ing for the development of the south.side of the square. The needs were to be 164 parking spaces, and because of a count of parking spaces it was established that there was suitable parking. 45 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.5 45.6 45.7 45.8 45.9 45.10 45.11 45.12 November 20, 1980 4h 46.1 Director Colwell stated that some of the people downtown feel that they may be involved in a parking improvement district, and some feel they have already paid their share. 46.2 City Manager Grimes summarized the sessions which had been held dealing with parking. He stated that Powell & Satterfield discouraged the City from trying to build parking decks. They stated that Fayetteville really did not have as much of a parking problem as some think it does. Even in anticipation of all the new construction, they did not feel there was that much of a problem. The parking lot behind Penny's was only 10% full. Other lots were only half full. Powell & Satterfield encouraged the City to keep looking for ground level lots as they come available, since there would be no way to justify building multilevel parking. They stated that an 85% to 90% occupancy rate was needed in the parking lots to make them work. MINUTES 46.3 The minutes of the November 4, 1980 meeting were approved as submitted. ADJOURNMENT 46.4 There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. 1