HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-06 Minutes1
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, January 6, 1981,
at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Directors Lancaster, Noland, Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Bumpass, Henry;
City Manager Grimes, City Attorney McCord, Administrative Assistant McWethy,
City Clerk Koettel, members of the news media, and other members of the
audience.
0 ABSENT: None
CALL TO ORDER
es)Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor called
the meeting to order.
EMPLOYEE AWARDS
Mayor Todd presented awards to five employees of the City who had been
selected as "Employees of the Month." Each employee was presented with a check
for $100 and will receive a certificate of recognition. The employees for
the month of December, 1980, were as follows:
1
81
81.1
Mr. Clarence R. Osburn of the Street Department is Construction & 81.2
Maintenance Foreman and has been employed by the City since 2-4-53. Mayor
Todd read some comments from Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, concerning
Mr. Osburn's contributions to the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Powell stated,
"Mr. Osburn is on the emergency recall roster and is frequently called out at
night, weekends, and holidays for emergency repairs. He has been a conscientious
and dedicated employee since the day he was first hired by the City. It is
only fitting that he be one of the first employees of the month in this new
incentive program."
Mr. Don Osburn of the Finance Department is the Meter Service Foreman 81.3
and has been employed by the City for fourteen years. Don is the son of Mr.
Clarence Osburn, who was also chosen as an employee of the month. Mr. Scott
Linebaugh, Finance Director, had made the following comments concerning
Don's performance. "Don began work for the City of Fayetteville in 1966 as
a meter reader for $1.25 per hour. Since that time he has advanced to Meter
Service Foreman and has promoted his division to be one of the most efficient
in the City. He has changed from a two-man readin crew to a one-man crew.
Some men now walk part of -their route instead of using trucks to go
from house to ,house. I can give -Don a job and know it will be done and
done correctly, even if it runs into -his own time.! .• -
Mr. Ronnie R. Ridley of the Street Department is a light equipment
operator. Mayor Todd read comments from Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent.
"Ronnie is classified as a light equipment operator. He consistently works
with a positive attitude toward his job and the equipment he operates. His
dedication to the job and the equipment he operates, and to the City in general
deserves recognition. Ronnie's selection as employee of the month is highly
Justified." Mayor Todd stated that Mr. Ridley has worked for the City for
seven years and five months.
81.4
82
82.1
Mr. Norman Gilbert is with the Sewer Maintenance Division of the Water
and Sewer Department and has worked with the City for four years. Mayor Todd
read some comments from Don Bunn, City Engineer. "Norman takes sewer calls
after hours, on weekends, holidays, and can be depended upon any time of day
or night. Norman deserves special recognition because he was asked to give
up part of his deer hunting vacation on a very short notice. His attitude
in complying with this request demonstrates he is an exceptional employee and
is very deserving of the employee of the month award."
82.2 Mr. Charles Patrick is a Crew Foreman with the Water Transmission
Division in the Water and Sewer Department. Mayor Todd read comments made by
Don Bunn, City Engineer. "Mr. Patrick's superior work and extra dependability
makes him deserving of the employee of the month award." Mr. Patrick has worked
for the City since 4-11-77.
82.3 Mayor Todd stated that the efforts and services of these employees were
greatly appreciated, and that these were indicitive of the service of the
staff and employees of the City.
INAUGURATION
82.4 Judge Charles Williams administered the Oath of Office to Director -Elect
Ron Bumpass and Directors -Reelect Ann Henry and Frank Sharp.
82.5 Mayor Todd stated that on behalf of the other four members of the Board,
they looked forward to working with each of the Directors.
MAYOR CHOSEN
82.6 Mayor Todd called for nominations for Mayor and Assistant Mayor for
the two-year term ending January 1, 1983.
82.7 Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, nominated John Todd as Mayor and
Paul Noland as Assistant Mayor, with the understanding that Mayor Todd resign
at the end of one year so that Assistant Mayor Noland could serve one year
as Mayor. Director Henry stated that this would allow Mayor Todd to serve for
two years, and would allow Director Noland to serve a year as Mayor. She
stated that Director Noland had done an outstanding job as Assistant Mayor and had
served on the Board of Directors for three terms.
82.8 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that the nominations cease
and the two named persons be elected by acclamation.
82.9 Mayor Todd stated that this arrangement was agreeable to him, and that if
he were elected Mayor he would gladly turn over the gavel to Paul Noland at
the first meeting in 1982.
82.10 Upon roll call the motion to elect John Todd for Mayor and Paul Noland
for Assistant Mayor passed unanimously.
82.11 Mayor Todd stated that he appreciated the opportunity to serve the City
of Fayetteville. He said he has been asked many times why he serves as Mayor,
and he said his answer is always the same. He stated that Fayetteville's
City Government is the best in the country, and that it is a privilege for
him to represent the City, and that he takes gerat pride in doing so.
82.12 City Attorney McCord stated that the intent of the Board to have Mayor
Todd serve one year and Director Noland serve the other year of a two-year
term is not contrary to statute.
1
1
1
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Mayor Todd suggested the following committee appointments: 83.1
Airport - Lancaster, Ch., Henry, Osborne
Nominating - Henry, Ch., Osborne, Sharp
Solid Waste - Henry, Ch., Osborne, Bumpass
Water & Sewer - Noland, Ch., Lancaster, Sharp
Advertising & Promotion - Todd., Ch., Bumpass, Sharp
Finance - Osborne, Ch., Todd, Lancaster
Police & Fire - Lancaster, Ch., Bumpass, Todd
Street - Sharp, Ch., Bumpass, Noland
Wastewater Treatment - Noland, Lancaster
Fayetteville -Springdale Transportation Committee - Todd
O Northwest Arkansas Criminal Justice Planning Council - Todd
CD Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission - Lancaster
cn United Community Services - Lancaster
7 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the committee appointments
as listed above be approved. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
Q
1
83
POLICY STATEMENT
Mayor Todd introduced a formal review and revision of Rules of Order and 83.2
Procedure for Board Meetings. He stated that the Board had probably reviewed
all the changes except for a matter concerning Act 9 bonds. Mayor Todd said
that the Act 9 bond issue should probably be considered separately, and would
be brought up at the end of the meeting under other business.
Director Osborne stated that he felt item 3, Special Meetings, under 83.3
Section A should be changed to state that notification of a special meeting
would be two hours instead of the presently required four hours. He stated
that a two hour notice is required by the Freedom of Information Act, and he
felt like the Board's policy should be changed so both would be two hours.
Mayor Todd asked if there was any objection from the Board in changing
the four hours to two as suggested by Director Osborne. There were none.
Director Osborne asked why four or more members of the Board were required
in calling a special meeting, and City Attorney McCord answered that it was a
statutory requirement.
Director Osborne also pointed out that item 4 under Section D should be
amended to state, "...any member of the majority may request a consideration of
any action..."
Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the amended Rules
of Order and Procedure as discussed be adopted. Upon roll call the motion
passed unanimously.
CD PROGRAM
.Mayor Todd introduced a recommendation from the Community Development
and Housing Committee on the proposed 1981 CD Block Grant Program. He stated
that the Board would go through only the items which had changes, since this
had already been discussed at the last Board meeting.
Director Lancaster asked for some discussion on the Fayetteville Open
Channel equipment for $3,250. He stated that he had reservations about this
appropriation.
83.4
83.5
83.6
83.7
83.8
83.9
•
84
84.1 Rick Mason, Director of Community Development, explained that Fayetteville
Open Channel had originally made the request for this equipment, but it had been
determined that they were not eligible for this. However, the City could own
the equipment, and it could be used to videotape the Board meetings, as well
as other meetings, which could be cablecast over Open Channel. Warner Cable
had agreed to run lines directly from the City Administration Buildir:g to
Open Channel so the meetings could be broadcast "live."
84.2 Director Lancaster stated that he felt the City should spend money for
streets and sidewalks and not get involved in the media. He stated that he
felt the media was doing a great job, but that the City should stick to City
business and the news media to the news business.
84.3 Director Osborne stated that he disagreed with Director Lancaster, and that
he felt like the equipment would benefit the citizens of Fayetteville.
He said it was important for the people of Fayetteville to know what went on
at the board meetings. He said that in the last sixty to eighty days several
persons had mentioned to him that they had been watching the meetings.
84.4 Director Bumpass asked if the City had contributed anything to Open Channel
in the past and was informed that it had not.
84.5 Director Sharp moved that the $3,250 be allocated to sidewalks. Director
Lancaster seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of
4-2-1. Directors Todd and Osborne voted in the minority, and Director Bumpass
abstained because ha was not familiar with previous discussions on the matter.
84.6 Director Todd pointed out that the total 1981 program was for $622,000,
but that this was not the exact amount but an estimate. He also told the
Board that $36,785 would be reprogrammed into the street category. This
was a repayment from Public Works on a past year's adjustment.
84.7 Director Lancaster stated that he had reservations about $25,000 appro-
priated for the Community PreSchool, He said that the City of Fayetteville
has other preschools, and he felt like the City should not appropriate this money
to the preschool.
84.8 Director Osborne said that he did not feel the $25,000 for the Preschool
qualifed under HUD. He told the Board he was for the Community PreSchool and
would like to allocate the money to them. However, he felt the item did not
qualify, and he felt like the City should not subsidize private enterprise.
84.9 Director Sharp stated that he had visited the Community PreSchool. He
told the Board that there were a lot of dedicated people putting a lot
of hard work into the program.
84.10 Director Noland asked if this appropriation would be the first in a
series, and if additional money would be allocated in future years.
84.11 Mr. Mason responded by stating that the original request was for $100,000,
and he would assume the Preschool would continue to ask for funds until that
amount was appropriated.
1
1
1
Mr. Mason read some regulations of HUD's concerning the grant for the
PreSchool. He told the Board that HUD had stated that the PreSchool "could"
qualify for this $25,000 but that they were not willing to make any definite
commitments based on the information already provided.
Ms. Judy Taylor, a member of the Board of Directors of the Community
PreSchool, addressed the Board. She stated that preschools were eligible
items under HUD in other cities, and as an example she stated that nine
daycare centers had been funded with CD funds in Newark, New Jersey. She
also told the Board that the preschool was willing to alter its program so
that it would qualify under HUD.
0 Ms. Ginny Jackson addressed the Board and stated that she felt like the
01 issue of how much other money is available for daycares is not a major factor.
C However, she stated that as a management.consul.tantshe had experience in
looking for federal funds for a variety of programs, and that the area of
daycare in this country has been very ill -funded. Ms. Jackson stated that
Q she is a parent of the school and that she knows there is a need among
working parents for daycares. She said this is especially true among single
parents trying to live in today's economy on a single income. Ms. Jackson
asked the Board to consider this contribution to the PreSchool very strongly.
Director Noland stated that the Board did not want to expend $25,000,
$50,000, or $100,000 over a period of four years and then suddenly find the
item declared ineligible and the City have to make up the difference. He
pointed out that what might be applicable in Newark, New Jersey 'was not
necessarily applicable in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Director Sharp, seconded by Henry, moved that the $25,000 be used for
preschool tuition grants for persons meeting set guidelines. He said he would
rather see the money put into tuition grants and let it be used for any school
that would have eligible students.
Ms. Taylor requested the Board to somehow consider the original request
of the Community Preschool and not completely replace it with the program
suggested by Director Sharp. She suggested they be given a portion of the
money requested to buy or construct a daycare building.
Ms. Jackson also addressed the Board and asked that they consider
allocating money for a building. She stated it was very important to have
a daycare center in an area close to those it served. She pointed out that
there are no other daycare centers easily accessible to the area served by
Community PreSchool.
1
1
There being no further discussion from the Board or audience, the Mayor
called for a vote on the motion made by Director Sharp, and seconded by Henry,
to leave the $25,000 in the Social Services category, but that rather than
fund a building, it would be designed to fund tuition grants for eligible
children.
Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 4-2-1. Directors
Lancaster and Osborne voted in the minority, with Director Bumpass abstaining
due to his unfamiliarity with the item.
The Board directed Rick Mason to prepare guidelines for the tuition
grant program and bring it back to the Board at a later date.
85
85.1
85.2
85.3
85.4
85.5
85.6
85.7
85.8
85.9
85.10
88
86.1 Director Osborne stated that he had voted against the motion because he
did not feel that the money should be left in the Social Services category,
but that the money could be well spent in streets or sidewalks and benefit
a lot more people.
86.2
Mayor Todd introduced the category of streets. He stated that he
had not yet heard a proponent of 9th street and asked why it was on the list.
86.3 Mr. Ish Benton, Chairman of the CD Committee, told the Board that 9th
Street was on the list at his request because it is in the same area of the
other streets proposed.
86.4 Director Osborne stated that if there were no houses facing 9th Street
he would rather it not be paved now. He said the streets with persons living
on them should be paved first.
86.5
Mayor Todd told the audience that the streets on the list at the
present time are Twelfth Street (from Duncan to dead end), Van Buren, 9th,
12th, and 13th Streets. Also the money under this category would pay for
drainage work north of Wedington Drive and south of Asbell Street, and for
small sections of sidewalks to fill gaps.
86.6 Ms. Elizabeth Reagan addressed the Board on behalf of several persons
of the community along 13th Street. She stated they were protesting the low
income housing project which was planned for East 13th Street. She stated that
their feelings about improving 13th Street had not changed since the last
board meeting. She stated that the neighborhood is already low income, and
that the residents of that community did not desire a low income complex
to be built in the area. Ms. Reagan stated that the residents strongly
supported the idea of scattered site housing.
86.7 Also, Ms. Reagan told the Board that East 13th Street is a dedicated
street to South Willow, and that beyond that point it has been a private,
dead-end driveway to the Reagan home for twenty-five years. However, she
said that she had seen it drawn on a plat today to South Wood Street,
presumably as a major access to the proposed low income project.
86.8 Ms. Reagan stated that since CD funds were to be used to benefit low
income people, she felt it was reasonable for the residents to ask that the
money not be used to pave roads into the proposed project since the entire
neighborhood of people do not want the streets paved.
86.9 Mayor Todd asked for other comments from those who wanted 13th Street
deleted from the list. He pointed out the recommendation the Board had would
only go to South Willow, and would not go East from South Willow.
86.10 Director Sharp asked why the recommendation was for asphalt only.
86.11 Mr. Ish Benton told the Board that it had agreed a
g year and a half ago
for the Community Development committee to recommend less than standard
streets.
86.12
Mayor Todd stated that he felt there had been a misunderstanding, and
that some streets would be built to less than standard, but that the streets
would be reviewed individually by the Board.
86.13 A member of the audience addressed the Board and stated that representatives
were present from Twelfth Street on the west side of town and from Van Buren Street,
•
and that they wanted their streets left on the list of be paved.
City Manager Grimes stated that the City had more drainage problems
in the area north of Wedington and south of Asbell School than it does in
any other part of town. He stated that he would like to use the first part
of the money allocated for this work to have a study done of the area.
Director Lancaster suggested voting on Van Buren Street, 9th Street,
the drainage work, and the west end of Twelfth Street.
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that Twelfth Street on the
west end come first on the list of priorities. Upon roll call the motion
passed unanimously, with Director Bumpass abstaining.
Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp moved that the second priority be
Van Buren from Duncan to 15th Street. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously, with Director Bumpass abstaining.
Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that the third priority
be the drainage work north of Wedington Drive and south of Asbell School with
the first part of the money being used to do a study of the area. Upon roll
call the motion passed unanimously with Director Bumpass abstaining.
Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that the fourth priority
be 12th and 13th Streets (from South College of South Willow).
Director Lancaster stated that since the people do not want these streets 87.7
built he does not think the City should build them, therefore he would have to
vote against this item.
Director Osborne stated that he was afraid the streets would never be
paved if they were taken off the list now.
Director Lancaster stated that he agreed, but that he felt he must vote
for the desires of the people.
A member of the audience asked Director Osborne why he was so concerned
about 13th Street being paved. He responded by stating that this has been
on a list for at least three years, and that the City has a responsibility
to pave the unpaved streets in the City.
Mayor Todd stated that the Board has to look at the overall public
necessity and importance as well as what an individual thinks.
Mr. Lloyd Seaton of the Public Housing Authority addressed the Board
and stated that there had been a development since the last meeting of which
perhaps some were not aware. He said there seemaito be a presumption that
the housing project would not be built unless the streets were paved.
However, he stated that money had already been pledged for one block to be
used for access to the project, and that the project would be built even if
the City did not pave the streets being discussed.
87
87.1
87.2
87.3
87.4
87.5
87.6
Director Noland stated that if the project
the City should try to provide pedestrian ways,
traffic ways in anticipation of the project.
Mayor Todd called for a vote on the motion to build 12th and 13th Streets 87.14
to Willow. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 5-1-1, with Director
Lancaster voting no and Director Bumpass abstaining.
was going to be built, then
sidewalks, and improved
87.8
87.9
87.10
87.11
87.12
87.13
88.1
88
Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that 9th Street be paved from
College to Washington. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, with
Director Bumpass abstaining.
88.2 Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the recommendation
from the CD Committee as amended be approved totaling $622,000 with $36,785
being reprogrammed into streets, and that the City Manager be authorized to
submit the application to HUD.
88.3 Ms. Judy Taylor asked that if the $25,000 recommended for a tuition
grant program is not eligible, that the original request be reconsidered and
the money not diverted to another category.
88.4 Director Henry stated that it could not he diverted, but would have to
be reprogrammed and8&wouldbeup Nfoorndisacaussion again.
88.5 SIGNLA PEAL/13051NORTH St* MIENO EPPE 1FTI? & RESOLUTION BOOK xi
Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the sign
ordinance regarding an existing sign located at 1305 North Garland Avenue by
Petitioner Dan Epperly, Epperly Flowers, Zoning District "C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial." The variance requested was permission to keep the present
15 square foot free-standing sign at a point 8.5' from Garland Avenue street
right-of-way.
88.6 The ordinance requirement is that no free-standing signs are allowed
closer than 15' to street right-of-way. A 15 square foot sign required a
17.5' setback; the closest legal sign allowed cannot exceed 10 square feet;
unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would be unreasonable.
88.7 Mayor Todd stated that the variance was for the existing sign, and
that if the sign was changed it would have to conform to the ordinance.
88.8 After some discussion, Director Henry, seconded by Noland, moved that
the variance be approved for this particular sign at this location as long as
the sign reads "Epperly Flowers."
88.9 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
REZONING/SOUTH SIDE OF NORTH STREET BETWEEN STORER AND OAKLAND AVENUES
88.10 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance rezoning property on the South
side of North Street between Storer and Oakland Avenues as requested in
petition R80-31 for .03 acres by petitioner Donald W. Stanton. The change
requested was from R-3 "High Density Residential" to R-0 "Residential -
Office."
88.11 Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that 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.
88.12 Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be further
suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. Upon roll
call the motion passed unanimously.
88.13 Mayor Todd pointed out that this had been considered by the Planning
Commission on December 22 and was recommended for approval by a vote of 5-0.
1
1
1
1
Director Lancaster stated that the proposed development would be an
asset to the community.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Todd called for a vote on the
ordinance which passed unanimously upon roll call.
ORDINANCE NO. 2692 APPEARS ON PAGE 2.51 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )C .
TANDEM LOTS
City Attorney McCord read an ordinance amending
regulations by defining tandem lots, specifying that
uses in all zoning districts where single-family dwel
and giving the requirements for their approval.
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be suspended 89.4
and the ordinance be placed on second reading.
The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read
the ordinance for the second time.
the City's tandem lot
they are conditional
lings are permitted,
89
89.1
89.2
89.3
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 upon roll call, and the City Attorney read
the ordinance for the third time.
City Attorney McCord pointed out that this had been considered in a
Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on December 22 and was
recommended for approval by a 5-0 vote. He told the Board that paragraph
(2)(a) of Section 1 of the ordinance was an addition, but that Other than
that the ordinance had only been reworded for clarification purposes.
Mayor Todd called for discussion on the ordinance.
City Manager Grimes stated that quite often there are long drives going up
to the tandem lots. He said that if the drives connect with a hard surface
street, over a period of time gravel ends up out on the streets. He suggested
amending section 21(c) of the ordinance by adding the following, "If access
is to a paved street, the private drive shall be hardsurfaced a minimum distance
of 25 feet from its connection with the paved street." He explained this would
prevent gravel from washing out on the street.
Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the ordinance be
amended as stated by City Manager Grimes. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously.
Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance as amended should pass. The ordinance
passed unanimously upon roll call.
ORDINANCE 2693 APPEARS ON PAGE 2S3 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )C .
TOWNHOUSES AND CONDOS
City Attorney McCord read an ordinance amending the City's regulations
regarding the minimum lot width, area, and other requirements for townhouses
and condominiums.
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be suspended
and the ordinance placed on second reading.
89.5
89.6
89.7
89.8
89.9
89.10
89.11
89.12
89.13
89.14
90
90.1
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and City Attorney McCord
read the ordinance for the second time.
90.2 Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be further
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 time.
90.3 City Attorney McCord pointed out that this had been considered in a public
hearing before the Planning Commission on December 22 and had been recommended
for approval by a 5-0 vote. He told the Board that the Board of Adjustments
had requested the Planning Commission to consider amending the bulk and area
regulations applicable to townhouses because of the large number of variance
requests the Board of Adjustments was receiving. The Planning Commission
appointed a committee to study the matter, and their recommendation was that
presented to the Board in the proposed ordinance.
90.4 Director Sharp questioned whether this would affect a hotel and was advised
it would not.
90.5 Director Lancaster asked why there were no specifications for setbacks
from the front and rear.
90.6 City Attorney McCord stated that was a legislative decision for the
Board to make, and if the Board felt like there should be front and rear
setback requirements, then it should amend the ordinance to reflect those
requirements.
90.7 Director Noland asked what the existing density per acre was in R-1,
R-2, and R-3.
90.8 City Attorney McCord explained that townhouse development could not be
permitted in R-1 unless it was a PUD. He told Director Noland the maximum
density in R-1 is 4 families per acre. In the case of single-family homes it
is 7 families per acre. Two-family dwellings are a conditional use in R-1.
The density limitations in R-2 are 4 to 24 families per acre, and in R-3 the
restrictions are 16 to 40 families per acre.
90.9 Mr. Jeff Slaton addressed the Board and asked them not to pass the
ordinance without an amendment.
90.10 Mr. Slaton stated he was asking that this ordinance not be passed because
it was deleting the minimum lot width required for townhouses. He presented
handouts to the Board which gave the current height regulations and land area
per dwelling unit now required. Mr. Slaton stated that it was his opinion
that the proposed ordinance had too much of the developer's interest and not
enough of the interest of the property owners that will be affected by the
ordinance. Mr. Slaton said this ordinance would allow townhouses to be built
on individual lots where they could not be built before this ordinance was passed.
90.11 Mr. Slaton pointed out that when this was recommended by the Planning
Commission there were only five members present.
90.12 Mr. Slaton suggested an alternative for the Board's consideration.
He asked that the ordinance be amended so existing plated subdivisions would
be exempt from the requirements of the new ordinance.
1
1
City Attorney McCord stated that the minimum lot width could easily
be avoided by developing under the Arkansas Horizontal Property Act, whereby
individual dwelling units are sold and the land is not sold. A lot split
would not have to be made and the units could be whatever width the developer
wanted them.
McCord stated that with regard to isolated lots the exemption would offer 91.2
protection, but when there are two or more adjoining lots purchased by a
developer, he is not prohibited from constructing across the platted boundry
lines. He only has to meet the setback requirements at the end of the building
and front and back of the building.
McCord stated that if an exemption is provided, existing townhouse 91.3
developments need to be excluded and the right of conversion be offered.
0 He said this is a trend throughout the country.
CD
McCord stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to facilitate the 91.4
construction of single-family housing in today's economic market, and to make
Q affordable housing available to people who need it. He said the Planning
Commission was of the opinion that this ordinance would help in reaching that
goal. McCord stated that he was not advocating the ordinance one way or the
other, that he only wanted to point out aspects to be considered and ramifications
of the ordinance.
Director Lancaster stated that only five members were present at the Planning 91.5
Commission meeting and that bothered him some.
Director Osborne pointed out that it was still passed by a majority. 91.6
91
91 1
1
Director Sharp stated he would like to send this back to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Slaton could attend the meeting and Bobbie Jones, Planning
Administrator, would be present also.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that the item be sent
back to the Planning Commission wiht.a memorandum from McCord.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
PUDS
City Attorney McCord stated that he had attempted to draft an ordinance
that would perhaps meet with the consensus of the Board. He stated that he
understood the concern in the R-1 district to be multi -family dwellings, and
the ordinance would provide that only single-family detached residential
dwellings would be constructed for PUDs located in the R-1 districts. Also,
he said he understood that the majority of the Board did want to have an
appeal procedure, and this was provided in the draft of the ordinance.
Mayor Todd stated that there would need to be consistency between the
ordinance and the way R-1 zoning is now. McCord replied that a provision
could be added stating that two-family dwellings are a conditional use.
Also Mayor Todd suggested that perhaps multi -family dwellings could
be approved by the Planning Commission in PUDs over 5 acres. Mayor Todd
stated that it seemed to him that the big problems came in the small PVDs.
Director Lancaster stated that he had no problem with this suggestion.
City Attorney McCord stated that different treatment might be merited
depending upon the size of the PUD. He stated the Board might want to refer
this matter back to a committee with this idea in mind.
91.7
91.8
91.9
91.10
91.11
91.12
91.13
91.14
92
92.1
City Manager Grimes stated that he felt most of the problems came from
developers trying to get multi -family dwellings into R-1 zones.
92.2 Administrative Assistant McWehty asked if the Board would consider having
the committee devise some way of handling small pieces of property other than
through the PUD regulations. He stated the smaller pieces of property
have been developed under PUD regulations, but were not Planned Unit
Developments. In most cases he stated these were ways of getting development
into R-1 areas that otherwise would not have been allowed.
92.3 City Attorney McCord stated that in most of these cases the small PUDs
were not to develop multi -family housing, but to get relief from the minimum
street requirements or to have private drives.
92.4 Mayor Todd stated it would be hard to convince persons whether the small
developments were PUDs or not. He stated his preference would be to shut off
multi -family development under the PUD ordinance.4-
92.5 Director Osborne stated that there should be an appeal procedure.
He said he did not think it was desirable to shut off multifamily development
entirely. Mayor Todd stated that this would be agreeable to him.
92.6 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that a committee be appointed
by the Mayor. He suggested the committee consist of a developer, a Board member,
a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the Board of Adjustment, a
property owner who has been affected by a PUD, and the City Attorney. Also,
it was suggested that Larry Wood, Planning Consultant,be on the committee.
92.7 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously and the item was tabled
and sent to the committee.
NOMINATIONS
92.8 Director Henry reported on the appointments to the City Hospital
Board of Trustees, Energy Advisory Commission, Northwest Arkansas Cultural
Center Board of Trustees, Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, and Planning
Commission.
The nominations were as follows:
92.9 City Hospital Board of Trustees: J.W. Gould, term ending 1-1-85
Energy Advisory Commission: C.R. Magness, term ending 1-1-84
Randall E. Cole, term ending 1-1-83
Northwest Arkansas Cultural Center Board of Trustees:
Allan A. Gilbert, term ending 4-1-81
Nancy P. McVey, term ending 4-1-82
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board: Romey Thomason, term ending 1-1-83
David Lashley, term ending 1-1-83
Elizabeth Reagan, term ending 1-1-83
Rodney Ryan, term ending 1-1-83
Planning Commission: Ernie Jacks, term ending 1-1-85
Joe Wilson, term ending 1-1-85
Charles Mullins, term ending 1-1-85
92.10 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the above nominations
be approved as submitted. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
•
1
1
1
1
93
TAXI CAB INSURANCE
Mr. David Miller came to the Board and asked for help in paying the insurance 93.1
on his taxicabs.
City Attorney McCord stated that it was illegal for the City to subsidize 93.2
private enterprise.
The Board expressed its sympathy to Mr. Miller and told him they would ask
McCord to check further and see if anything could be done.
Mayor Todd asked if an increase in rates would help, and Mr. Miller g3.4
stated that he did not feel this would take care of his problem.
O Director Osborne asked Mr. Miller if he had checked with the insurance 93,5
ICT) company about paying the insurance monthly or quarterly. Mr. Miller stated
01 that they would not write the insurance on any other basis but annually.
QMayor Todd told Mr. Miller that the Board would look for a way to help 93.6
him, but could not make any commitments at the present time.
Q
93.3
ACT 9 BONDS
Mayor Todd introduced a proposed Act 9 Bond Issue Policy Statement. He 93.7
told the Board the statement covered items which he would like to take
into account when Act 9 Issues were being considered. The proposed policy
statement read as follows:
The City of Fayetteville will consider issuing Act 9 Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds only if:
(1) The project will produce additional employment opportunities for
Fayetteville citizens;
(2) The firm's predominant economic function is to produce goods and
services which are sold primarily to customers located outside
Washington County; and
(3) The firm demonstrates in writing a financial and organizational
capability which adequately supports the bonds.
Mayor Todd stated that he did not feel ACT 9 bonds should be issued for
local commercial firms. He pointed out that that is what has happended in
some other cities.
McCord stated he had received two memorandums from the Friday firms
and that the points made by them were: (1) should generate employment,
(2) goods manufactured or sold should not be sold only locally, but be
distributed to other areas, and (3) financial stability to insure there
would not be default on the bonds.
McCord stated that section (2) of the Mayor's proposed statement should
be changed so that "services" were deleted, because there has to be goods
manufactured.
Also, he suggested that section (3) be rewritten to read, "The company
demonstrates in writing a financial and organization capability such as
there is no risk of default on the bonds,"
City Manager Grimes stated that he disagreed with McCord's suggestion
to delete the word "services" from section (2). He gave an example of
a trucking terminal which would offer services.
93.8
93.9
93.10
93.11
93.12
93.13
94.194
McCord stated that was an industry, and the word "services" could remain
in the phrase.
94.2 Director Osborne questioned why section (2) contained the word "primarily."
He stated that he could see no reason for restricting the bond issues to
businesses selling primarily outside of Washington County.
94,3 Director Bumpass asked if the Board could turn down a company even though
it did meet the three requirements being proposed and discussed.
94.4 City Attorney McCord stated it was discretionary with the Board.
94.5 City Manager Grimes suggested a clause stating, "or support industries,"
for those who do sell outside of Washington County. He gave an example of
Bargo Engineering which renders services to industries in Fayetteville, but
in turn these industries sell primarily outside of Washington County. He
suggested changing section (2) to read, "...located outside Washington
County; or support industries that provide service to industries whose
products are sold outside of Washington County."
94.6 Director Bumpass suggested the words "only if" be removed from the
preface. He said that if the action was discretionary action, then these
words were not necessary. He said this wording would almost make it incumbart
upon the Board to approve the bond issue if the three requirements were met.
94.7 Mayor Todd stated the word "only" could easily be removed from the preface.
94.8 Director Bumpass suggested, "Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
may in the discretion of the Board be approved or disapproved on the basis
of the project's contribution to the community with greatest consideration
to the following criteria..."
94,9 Director Bumpass pointed out this would allow you to expand the list at
a later time.
94.10 After further discussion concerning support industries, McCord was instructed
by theBoard to draft a resolution incorporating Director Bumpass' language in
the preface, and a revision of section (2) that would be the consensus of the
Board and meet statutory requirements.
ORDINANCE 2676 CORRECTED
94.11 City Attorney McCord told the Board that there had been an error made
in Ordinance 2678 concerning tap fees. The present ordinance reads a refund
would be made when the cost exceeded the estimate and it should state the
opposite.
94.12 City Attorney McCord read the amended ordinance for the first time.
94,13 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that 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.
94.14 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that the rules be further
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 time.
94.15 There being no further disucssion, the ordinance passed unanimously upon
roll call.
ORDINANCE NO. 2694 APPEARS ON PAGEL55 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )( .
1
SIGN CASE
McCord informed the Board that Municipal Judge Williams entered a
Judgment in the municipal sign case dealing with criminal penalties on 1-5-81,
and that he had filed an appeal in Circuit Court today, 1-6-81. He said he
would try and get the case resolved as expeditiously as possible.
THE BEER KEG
City Manager Grimes stated that this business was to have had some
building code violations corrected by the first of this year. He said they
have now obtained their ABC permit to transfer to the next building, and a
building permit has been obtained to add restrooms. The work is expected
to be completed by the end of this month and the move made so they will be
in compliance.
0 BEAT TEXAS DAY
Q) Director Ron Bumpass moved that the Board approve a resolution declaring 95.3
d) January 12, 1981 as BEAT TEXAS DAY in Fayetteville. The University of Arkansas
basketball team plays The University of Texas on that night. Mr. Bumpass stated
Q that the game would be televised on national prime time television. Director
Osborne seconded the motion.
95
95.1
95.2
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously with Director Sharp abstaining.95.4
He explained that he always abstains on basketball issues.
RESOLUTION NO. 1-81 APPEARS ON PAGE 90 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XI
PROPOSALS FOR CITY HALL BUILDING
Administrative Assistant McWethy told the Board that the deadline 95.5
on presenting proposals for architectural services on the City Hall building
is January 16, 1981, and that the City Hall committee might meet before the
next board meeting.
CALENDARS
Director Osborne stated he had been asked by many people where the
City calendars were. He said he would like to see the City have the calendars
every year if possible. At the present time the calendars are printed every
five years.
Mayor Todd stated that the matter could be brought through the Finance
Committee for next year.
MINUTES
amity Attorney McCord pointed out that paragraph of 62.11 of the Annual
Board Retreat meeting should read the "University of Arkansas DPS" in the
first sentence instead of "EPA."
95.6
95.7
95.8
McCord requested the following be added to correct paragraph 77.5 of 95.9
the Special Board of Directors Meeting on 12-24-80, "...upon request if in fact
space is available."
Mayor Todd asked that paragraph 61.2 of the Annual Board Retreat be
corrected to read, "...a percentage of CD money to be used for housing
assistance, first with loans, and second a percentage of CD money without
loans. After all were tabulated, the average with loans was 30%, and the
average without loans was 20%."
Mayor Todd pointed out that the rezonings on 69,3 and 69.8 of the 95.11
12-20-80 meeting were not appeals.
Director Osborne asked that paragraph 75.14 be amended to read, "Upon
roll call the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1. Director Noland jokingly
95.10
95.12
96
said that anything having to do with HUD or Phil Colwell should never be
passed unanimously, but voted yes anyway."
96.1 Director Osborne also stated that "recommending" in paragraph 75.12
of the 12-15-80 meeting should be "commending."
96.2 Director Osborne requested that paragraph 66.15 be amended to read,
"Director Osborne stated that he wanted HUD to approve the eligibility of
the present program at the Community PreSchool in advance before committing
support."
ADJOURNMENT
96.3 There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
1
1
1