Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-20 Minutes• 1 69 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, April 20, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Bumpass, Henry, Lancaster, Todd, Osborne, Sharp, and Noland; City Manager Grimes, City Attorney McCord, Assistant City Manager McWethy, and City Clerk Rowe; members of the press and audience. ABSENT: None CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of _) respectful silence. W J REZONING APPEAL/ONE MILE ROAD -LOIS STRATTON Mayor Noland introduced a rezoning appeal from a decision by the Planning 69.1 Commission regarding rezoning petition R82-4 of .54 acres on the east side of One Mile Road owned by Lois Stratton. Mayor Noland gave a summary of the information located on page "B" of the attached agenda. Mr. Charles Hanks, attorney for Mrs. Stratton, addressed the Board 69.2 requesting the rezoning from A-1 to C-2 be granted. He stated the property owners that were objecting to the rezoning were doing so because of noise and ___ traffic problems. The plans were to build a solid wall of stores on the north side of the property which would created a buffer between the road and the residential area and cut noise and dust problems. This particular piece of property was zoned differently than the rest of the surrounding property. There would be no access from One Mile Road --only from Highway 62. Mrs. Stratton had also indicated her willingness to pave, curb, and gutter One Mile Road to the end of their property at her own expense. There was discussion about how the property located around this particular 69.3 tract was zoned, the easement that would be granted, and the 6 feet obscuring screen that was required as a buffer between C-1 and residential zoning. It was confirmed that the proposed uses of the property would not be allowed 69.4 under the present zoning restrictions. Mrs. Dorothy Black addressed the Board in opposition of the rezoning. She 69.5 stated the property was too close to her home and would create noise and traffic problems. She requested a privacy fence be required if the rezoning was granted. Mr. Hanks informed her that One Mile Road would be paved to her property line, and there would be no access from the proposed property onto One Mile Road. Director Osborne asked if a privacy fence was built as a buffer would 69.6 Mrs. Black still object to the rezoning. She stated she probably would. A member of the audience stated the new complex would be 25 feet from his 69.7 bedroom window, and he was concerned about noise from machines, fans, etc., that would be too loud and remain on all night long. It was pointed out that the noise from semi -trucks and cars on Highway 62 was currently a problem. It was pointed out that the property owners were not trying to hurt the residents, rather they were trying to benefit the area. There was discussion about R-0 zoning. Mr. Hanks stated that this zoning 69.8 would not be adequate to allow the development of the property as desired. Mr. Pat Pinnell, Mrs. Stratton's partner in this project, stated they would be walling to guarantee that the property would be used as was proposed. April 20, 1982 70 70.1 City Attorney McCord stated he understood that the petitioners would be willing to offer a bill of assurance that the development would conform to the plat submitted as far as setbacks, obscuring fences, and access. 70.2 Mr. Hanks stated this was correct, except that the plat would be amended from the one submitted in that there would be no access from the west. 70.3 Director Osborne made a motion to approve C-2 zoning with a bill of assurance that the area rezoned would contain no other types of businesses than the ones indicated on the plat, and there would be no access on the west side of the property. 70.4 There was discussion about whether the bill of assurance offered would insure the type of business allowed in addition to setbacks, obscuring fence, and access guarantees. 70.5 After general discussion about the zoning possibilities, Director Sharp made an amendment to the motion to approve C-1 zoning. 70.6 Director Lancaster asked if the petitioners had expressed all of these things, including their willingness to offer a bill of assurance to the Planning Commission. 70.7 Mr. Pinnell stated that they had not attended the Planning Commission meeting because Mr. Larry Wood had informed him that the commission only considered the principle use of land rather than the practical aspects of the land use, and in no way would Mr. Wood ever recommend that the land be zoned anything less than R-0. Therefore, Mr. Pinnell felt there was no reason to attend the meeting. 70.8 Mr. McCord stated he disagreed with Mr. Wood's analysis of the Planning Commission's method. 70.9 There was discussion about referring this matter back to the Planning Commission along with the proposed offer of a bill of assurance for further consideration. Mr. Pinnell stated this had been done about a year ago with no success. 70.10 Director Todd made a motion to deny the appeal. Director Lancaster seconded this motion on the basis he felt the Planning Commission should review the matter. 70.11 Mayor Noland pointed out if the motion was to deny the appeal, the petitioners could not go back to the Planning Commission for 1 year. 70.12 Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, made a substitute motion to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with the proposed bill of assurance. 70.13 Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 1 to 1 with Director Bumpass abstaining and Director Todd voting against the motion. REZONING APPEAL/BRYCE DAVIS 70.14 Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of the decision by the Planning Commission regarding petition R82-6 consisting of 1.20 acres at the southwest and southeast corners of Betty Jo Drive and Highway 16 West owned by Bryce and Betty Jo Davis. Mayor Noland summarized the information located on page "C" of the attached agenda. 70.15 Director Bumpass indicated there had been some misunderstandings at the time the Planning Commission had considered this rezoning request. He felt if the matter was referred back to the Planning Commission, some of the problems could probably be eliminated and a decision made without coming before the Board. Members of the Planning Commission had contacted him requesting the item be referred back to them. Mr. Davis' attorney agreed with this recommendation. 70.16 Director Bumpass, seconded by Henry, made a motion to refer this item back to the Planning Commission. 70.17 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 1 April 20, 1982 71 STREETLIGHT CHANGEOVER Mayor Noland introduced further consideration of a proposal to change 71.1 existing SWEPCO-served residential streetlights from mercury-vapor to high- pressure sodium fixtures. (Additional information may be found on pages "D" and "F" of the attached agenda.) Mrs. Dorothy Whitcomb of 817 Broadview Drive spoke against the additional 71.2 lighting. The increased lights caused some plants not to bloom. Mr. Bill Giese confirmed that he could no longer grow poinsettias or tomatoes because of too much light at the present t'me; therefore, he was against any increased light. Mayor Noland stated he understood the lights only came in 1 or 2 sizes and 71.3 no smaller unit was available. Mr. Bob Waldren of SWEPCO stated the lights were available in 100 and 150 watt sizes only. The 150 watt size would be more light CO for the money. This type of light is "yellow" rather than the "blue" and more el like natural sunlight. The cost of the new lights was discussed. If 150 watt lights were used, the 71.4 cost would increase from the present $24,500 to $36,000. If 100 watt lights were (� used, the increase would be to $34,400. It was confirmed that most of this CO additional cost was for the fixtures and bulbs because the new lights use less Q energy than the mercury-vapor type. Mayor Noland asked how long it would be before the City would be taking 71.5 advantage of the increased energy efficiency. Mr. Waldren stated the present quotes would remain in effect until January 1, 1982. The present lights pull 214 watts and the proposed lights would pull 168 watts (250 watt bulb size). Director Lancaster asked how long it would take for the new lights to 71.6 amortize their cost. Mr, Waldren stated the lights were usually amortized on a 20 year basis, and some of the present lights that are proposed to be changed have not yet been amortized. Some of the unamortized cost is included in the rate budget. In other words, the old lights that would be taken down would have to be paid for along with the new lights. Director Bumpass stated that it appeared additional lighting was needed in 71.7 some areas. He suggested placing the new lights only on major thoroughfares and not in residential areas. Mr. Waldren stated this would not change the cost of the new lights. He stated the new lights would not be placed where the older pole -top lights were which would include the older sections of town. Mr. McWethy pointed out that several of the major thoroughfare areas were 71.8 serviced by Ozarks Electric rather than SWEPCO and would not be affected by the change. There was general discussion about what areas would be affected. Mr. Martin Redfern addressed the Board and expressed his appreciation of the 71.9 streetlight that was put on his street, The pole had been placed between trees and was well disguised. He had no feeling about increased lighting. Director Bumpass made a motion to refer this to the Street Committee for 71.10 cost consideration. Mr. McWethy informed the Board that Ozarks Electric does not have the high pressure sodium lights. Mayor Noland seconded Mr. Bumpass' motion. Director Henry asked how long it would be before the old lights were 71.11 amortized because she had a problem with installing new lights before the old ones were paid for. Mr. Waldren stated about 10 more years was left in the amortization. He further stated SWEPCO would agree not to change lights when there was an objection. Upon roll call the motion to refer to the Street Committee passed 71.12 unanimously. April 20, 1982 72 NOISE VARIANCE 72.1 Mayor Noland introduced an opportunity for the presentation of objections to the granting of variances from the literal provisions of the city's "Noise Ordinance". (Additional information is on page "E" of the attached agenda.) 72.2 Director Bumpass stated there was a requested amendment to one of the variances. 72.3 Mr. Jay Lewis, of Fayetteville High School, requested the variance be extended from 11:00 p.m. to 12 midnight on May 15. The event would be on top of the First National Bank, a commercial area, and would not affect any residential areas. 72.4 Director Osborne asked if there was a reason why the variance was only granted to 11:00 rather than midnight. Mr. McWethy indicated it was his understanding that the function would be held outside --on the terrace of the First National Bank Building. He felt that something that close to the Hilton, and to a lesser extent the Mountain Inn,with 75 decibels at the receiving source, which was as loud as the average food blender, was unjustifed. Mr. McWethy stated the group would be allowed a noise up to 65 decibels until midnight. 72.5 Mr. Lewis stated the alternative would be for the senior party to be held inside, but they would prefer to have the party outside. 72.6 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved to grant the variance until midnight. 72.7 Mr. McWethy pointed out that 75 decibels was 10 times louder than 65. 72.8 Director Henry stated she had been contacted from the university campus requesting that the problems that had occurred last year not be allowed to be repeated this year. Also, the weekend the parties on campus were scheduled is when Daylight Savings Time begins at 2:00 a.m. Therefore, this will not affect the time for the parties to close down. 72.9 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 72.10 A member of the audience requested that the variance be extended to include the Lambda Chi house, as the request had been left out of the original requests. The variance would be for the same night, time, and on the same street as the other houses where the variances had been granted. 72.11 Director Osborne, seconed by Bumpass, moved to grant the variance. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. DRAINAGE STUDY 72.12 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract for engineering services with Northwest Engineers for a drainage study of the Wedington Drive area. It was confirmed that the professional selection policy had been followed for this $7,900 contract. 72.13 Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to approve the resolution. 72.14 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 57-82 APPEARS ON PAGE a51A OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV AIRPORT PARKING 72.15 Mayor Noland introduced further consideration of a resolution authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Air Terminal Parking Company regarding revenues from the Drake Field parking facility. 72.16 Mr. Grimes requested the item be tabled until a meeting with the Air Terminal Parking people had taken place. 72.17 Director Bumpass, seconded by Osborne, moved to table. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 1 1 1 April 20, 1982 73 BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD AGREEMENT Mayor Noland introduced further consideration of a resolution authorizing 73.1 the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Retention Fund Agreement with Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Arkansas. Purchasing Officer Sturman Mackey stated this was identical to the existing 73.2 contract and would be to the city's advantage to approve the retention agreement. Claims would be paid for a 6 month period if Blue Cross/Blue Shield was not the carrier at a later date. Director Henry, seconded by Noland, made a motion to approve the agreement. 73.3 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 73.4 RESOLUTION NO. 58-82 APPEARS ON PAGE .38-L2.OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV CO (Y) PROPERTY CLEANUP/949 BOONE STREET Mayor Noland Introduced further consideration of an ordinance, left on first 73.5 U reading at the April 6 meeting, authorizing directing the City Manager to have CO unsightly property conditions at 949 Boone Street abated. QMr. Grimes stated he had received a memorandum from Mr. Freeman Wood thata 73.6 building permit had been applied for but not granted because the house was in the flood plain. The owner indicated that he had been out of town, but would have an engineer determine how far the house had to be raised so that the building permit could be issued. Mr. Grimes suggested moving the item to second reading and allow the owner's engineer time to determine the requirements for making the house comply with city codes. Director Osborne moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be 73.7 placed on second reading. This was seconded by Director Henry. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. PARKING METERS Mayor Noland introduced a request by Director Bumpass for an ordinance 73.8 reducing the hours when parking meters require coins from 8:00-6:00 to 8:00-4:00, excepting federal, state, county, or city holidays. Director Bumpass stated he wanted to include that Saturday and Sunday be 73.9 exempt from requiring money in parking meters. The reason he proposed this ordinance was because of the confusion when certain holidays were celebrated by the City. During some county, state, or federal holidays, the City might observe the holiday at a different time or not at all, and people were receiving tickets on what they considered holidays. There would be 6.5 additional holidays to be exempted. Mr. McCord pointed out that the proposed ordinance would in essence exempt 73.10 Saturdays and shorten the time required for putting money in meters because the current ordinance excludes holidays. Director Henry asked if this would be an impairment of bond problem. 73.11 Mr. McCord stated he had checked the indenture, and it was not necessarily 73.12 a violation of the literal terms of the document. He felt there was an implied violation because of the revenue projections supplied to the local banks before they purchased the parking deck bonds. The revenues would be less than the projections because the operating time would be lessened. Director Bumpass stated when an institution downtown had a holiday, there 73.13 was more available parking around the downtown area. He felt it was bad public relations for the City to ticket during their holidays. He stated the City had not been enforcing the Saturday ticket requirement at this time. He stated some people got off work at 4 and put money in meters until that time. If they were 1 April 20, 1982 74 delayed for some reason, the time expired on the meter and they were ticketed. He stated when the ticket price was increased from 50Q to $2.00, there was also stepped up enforcement. It was confirmed that the increase was done for the financial purpose of paying for the parking lots. 74.1 After general discussion, Director Bumpass suggested tabling the issue until after the parking deck opens and see what affect it has on the downtown parking problems. 74.2 Director Henry seconded the motion to table. It was decided to table until the second meeting in September. 74.3 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. SEWER LINE 74.4 Mayor Noland introduced an award of a bid for the construction of sewer line adjustments near, and necessitated by, the new North Street box culvert in the amount of $4,750 to Decco Construction Company. 74.5 Director Lancaster, seconded by Todd, made a motion to accept the low bid. 74.6 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 59-82 APPEARS ON PAGE A53 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X I V STREET CLOSING ORDINANCE 74.7 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the city's regulations regarding the closing and repair of streets excavated for utility line purposes. 74.8 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Henry, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. 74.9 Director Todd asked why the utility companies were being exempted. Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to strike the sentence exempting utility companies from compliance with the proposed ordinance. 74.10 Director Lancaster stated he was against requiring the utility companies to post a bond each time they had work to do. There was general discussion regarding the requirements of the utility companies. 74.11 Upon roll call the motion to strike the sentence passed 5 to 1 to 1, with Bumpass abstaining and Lancaster voting against the motion. 74.12 Director Sharp asked about the sections dealing with the depth of utility lines. Mr. Grimes stated there were meetings scheduled with the utility companies regarding this. Due to the necessity of getting this part of the ordinance on the books, it was decided the ordinance could be amended later to include depth requirements and other necessary items. 74.13 Director Osborne asked if it would be possible to allow the utility companies franchised by the City the right to file a paper bond rather than a cash bond if money could be received from them promptly for any damages that might occur. Mayor Noland stated this would work if the City was working directly with the utility company and not with subcontractors. 74.14 City Manager Grimes stated the utility companies could post a bond and the City keep the same bond through the year for all work that would be done by the utility company. Director Osborne stated that the corporate surities would have to sign for the bonds, but they may not pay off quickly which would create the same problem the ordinance was proposed to eliminate. 74.15 There was general discussion about the bond being required to be "cash" or if it could be a corporate surity bond. Director Osborne proposed a possible amendment to the ordinance to allow surity bonds. Director Todd felt it would be better for the City to owe the utility companies or their subcontractors rather than the other way around. Director Todd felt Mr. Grimes' proposal about the permanent bond arrangement was good. 1 1 April 20, 1982 75 Upon roll call the motion to move to second reading passed unanimously, 75.1 and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Director Bumpass voting in the minority. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the final time. Director Todd suggested amending the ordinance under section 18-44 to read 75.2 "In granting such approval, the City Manager, or his authorized representative, shall impose time limits and such reasonable . ." rather than "may impose" and not include time limits. Director Todd made a motion to make this amendment which was seconded by Noland. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. CO Director Bumpass asked if there had been any feedback from the utility 75.3 companies regarding this ordinance. He proposed leaving the ordinance on third reading to allow the utility companies time to respond. Mr. McWethy stated the utility companies had been notified. Director Bumpass moved to leave the issue 0 on third reading and send each utility company and person the City deals with CO in this context a copy of the ordinance and give them an opportunity to make objections. Director Lancaster stated he was only opposed to the utility companies 75.4 having to post a bond each time they had work to do. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 5 to 2, with Directors Bumpass and 75.5 Lancaster voting in the minority. Mayor Noland, seconded by Todd, made a motion to approve the emergency 75.6 clause. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Bumpass and Lancaster voting in the minority. ORDINANCE NO. 2806 APPEARS ON PAGE ait OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x77 PURCHASE VEHICLES FOR FIRE PATROL Mayor Noland introduced the request to purchase two additional vehicles 75.7 for the fire patrol units under the same bid that was awarded at the previous meeting. By purchasing the two additional vehicles, at fleet rates would be available. The total cost would be $24,998.00 for the two vehicles which would include radio equipment and walkie-talkies for each vehicle. Purchasing Officer Mackey pointed out that they would have to be purchased 75.8 now to obtain the fleet pricing. City Manager Grimes recommended the full size units and felt they would be 75.9 beneficial in the long run over small cars. He further commented that the larger vehicles were necessary in order to store the fire equipment required. Director Lancaster, seconded by Todd, moved to approve the purchase. 75.10 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read an ordinance to waive the requirements for 75.11 competitive bidding. Director Noland, seconded by Bumpass, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Todd, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2807 APPEARS ON PAGE )3 67 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK JO/ RESOLUTION NO. 60-82 APPEARS ON PAGE X56 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV I April 20, 1982 76 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE 76.1 Mayor Noland stated a request had been submitted to the state ABC concerning the transfer of a license for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -sight consumption into an R-2 medium density residential zone. There were ordinances stating that these establishments should be confied to C-2 and C-3 zoned areas. 76.2 The need for board action was discussed. The owners were denied rezoning several months ago, and they did not appeal the Planning Commission decision. The board took no action with the understanding that the City Manager would continue to make known to the ABC all proposed violations of the local zoning laws. FIRE PROTECTION FEES 76.3 Mr. McWethy stated the new fire fees had been computed for outside the city protection. The same formula as last year was used to compute the new fees. The new fee would be $107 up from $95 for 1982 per rural household for neighborhoods. For individual contracts, the fee would be $214. 76.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved to approve the new rates. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. WATER MAIN BREAK DAMAGE 76.5 Mr. Grimes stated that the City had a serious water main break on Garvin Avenue which flooded 2 homes causing serious damage. There was lesser damage to several other homes. He had instructed the homeowners to submit statements to the City for the cost of repairing the damages which were estimated at $5,011.18 and $5,741.00 for the two homes. 76.6 Director Henry, seconded by Todd, moved to approve the payment of these damages. 76.7 Director Todd expressed his concern about the delay in turning off the water. Mr. Grimes explained that seven different valves had to be turned off and one was stuck and had to be broken before it could be closed. He felt the reason for the break was the changes between the extremely dry and wet ground. Director Todd expressed concern over the apparent lack of preparedness for such emergencies such as this and the gas line explosion last year. 76.8 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. SOLID WASTE 76.9 Director Henry stated there would be a meeting of the Solid Waste Committee for the purpose of determining means of financing a solid waste facility. SWIMMING POOL 76.10 Director Osborne reported that the Swimming Pool Committee had met with the engineers and a swimming pool design specialist and decided on a proposed layout for the pool and park area, including the concession, bath house, proposed parking areas, and the features of the pool itself --shallow and deep areas, wading area, fountain area, lifeguard stands, etc. The proposed timetable of the pool construction outlined was: June 1, 1982 - plans finished and submitted to the Health Department for their approval; July 1, 1982 - engineers expect to receive the approved plans from the Health Department and advertise for bids on that date; August 1, 1982 - bids to have been received by this date; August 15, 1982 - award bid and commence construction by this date. The pool should be completed by the 1983 season. Director Osborne further stated there was a problem with filling in the old pool because of the drainage system that is under the old pool which serves the Mt. Sequoyah area and the area west of Mt. Sequoyah. The weight of the dirt is more than that of water and could cause the bottom of the old pool to collapse and damage the drainage system. 1 1 1 April 20, 1982 77 City Manager Grimes stated he preferred there never be through traffic 77.1 in the parking area because of the danger to pedestrians. Also, there were a couple of rare breed cypress trees in the area that needed to be saved. The engineering estimates and costs should be ready by June 1, 1982. BETTY REAGAN PROPERTY DAMAGE — Director Osborne expressed his concern over the damage Mrs. Reagan's land 77.2 had received from the PUD being developed in the area. Her fence was torn down, some of her walnut trees destroyed, and several other problems. She was requesting the City do something about these damages and prevent future problems. The Board stated the Housing Authority should take care of this problem. 77.3 CO Director Henry stated she had talked with several members of the Housing CO Authority about this problem, and Mrs. Reagan's requests, and the Housing Authority was going to take action and correct the problems. Mayor Noland suggested on the next board tour to check into the damages 77.4 U and make sure something had been done to correct the problems. CO GRAVEL TRUCK DEBRIS PROBLEM City Attorney McCord stated he had not located any legislation providing 77.5 that gravel trucks be covered. Mr. Grimes stated that with discussions with the police, they had indicated 77.6 there was a law dealing with this problem. Mr. McCord stated he would check with Bob Jones, and if there needed to be an ordinance drafted, he would do so. •MINUTES Changes in the minutes: (1) page 47.3, the word should be "signed"; (2) at 47 9, Mr. Olinghouse's name should be "Buddy" not "Burney"; (3) at 68.4, the ad size should be "one-fourth" and not "one -four"; and (4) Director Sharp stated that at 58.2, he disagreed with Mr. Hugh Mill's statement that the City has quite an investment in the Hilton and the CEC. The CEC is a public building, but the Hilton is a privately owned building. The minutes were approved as amended. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m. 77.7 77.8 1 AGENDA APRIL 20, 1982 PAGE "B" 1 REZONING APPEAL: An appeal from a decision by the Planning Commission, regarding rezoning petition R82-4. Size of parcel: 0.54 acres Location: On the east side of One Mile Road, north of Highway 62 West Petitioner: Lois Stratton Change requested: From A-1 "Agricultural" to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" Planning Commission action: Recommended denial, 8-1 Considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 22, 1982. Planning Consultant Larry Wood presented a report on the request, and indicated that while C-2 zoning should not be granted, R -O "Residential -Office" was recommended, for the following reasons: 1. "The property under application sides onto and faces single-family development which needs some protection from commercial intrusion"; 2. The transition from commercial to residential "should consist of a series of less intensive uses such as commercial, office, apartment, duplex and single family"; and 3. The establishment of a transition use will discourage further extension of commercial activities north along One Mile Road. There was no one present in the audience to speak on behalf of the request. Appearing in opposition, Ms. Dorothy Black, of 1020 One Mile Road, stated that C-2 zoning, with its noise and traffic, would disrupt the neighborhood. These sentiments were echoed by Ms. Christine Merton, of 3640 Old Farmington Road and several others present. Planner Wood noted that the recommendation against C-2 "doesn't make good development sense" --in terms of what would work best for the developer --but that it was consistent with good zoning principles for protection of the residential land nearby. After further discussion a motion to recommend denial passed 8-1, with Commissioner Cullers in the minority. Mrs. Stratton is now appealing this denial to the City Board. 1 i • APRIL 20, 1982 PAGE "C" REZONING APPEAL II: An appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission, regarding rezoning petition R82-6. Size of parcel: 1.20 acres Location: At the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Betty Jo Drive and Highway 16 West. Petitioner: Bryce J. and Betty Jo Davis Change requested: From C-1 "Neighborhood Commercial" to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" Planning Commission action: Motion to recommend approval failed to pass, 4-3 Considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 12, 1982. Planning Consultant Larry Wood presented a report on the request, and recommended that either the existing C-1 or the proposed C-2 zoning would be appropriate, for the following reasons: 1. There currently exists sufficient public facilities and services to support the proposed development; 2. There currently exists transition and buffering uses with the offices and apartments to preclude the eventual commercial stripping of Highway 16 West; and 3. The traffic generation and access points will likely be the same whether developed as offices or commercial. Speaking on behalf of the request, Mr. Davis indicated that there is already C-2 zoning east of this property, on both the north and south sides of the highway, but that "none of these tracts of land can be purchased ". Because of this, Davis concluded, "there is no C-2 property west of the Bypass that is for sale". The present property has been zoned C-1 for nearly a year, he added. In response to a question from the Commission, Davis indicated that a typical prospective purchaser might be a pizza restaurant which would want C-2 zoning to allow beer to be served, but that he had no specific plans and was trying to secure C-2 zoning to "keep...[his] options open". Commissioner Williams noted that he couldn't find a difference between the eating places allowed in C-1 and those allowed in C-2 zones. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones stated that as far as city zoning regulations were concerned, "a restaurant could serve beer with meals" regardless of the zoning, to which Williams responded "why then are we considering a rezoning"? 1 1 APRIL 20, 1982 PAGE "D" Opposed to the rezoning was Attorney Boyd Cox, representing two area property owners who felt that C-2 zoning was "contrary to the general plan". C-1 traffic would be bad enough, Cox stated, while C-2 would create further traffic problems his clients "do not wish to live with". Commissioner Hailey said "I kinda think I agree with Larry [Wood] for once" in that there was no pressing reason to deny the C-2 zoning. Attorney Cox responded that if a pizza restaurant that sold beer or a liquor store were located on the property, it would have a higher traffic volume than would be under C-1 zoning, which would detract from the value of his clients' rental property. D avis countered by pointing out that Mr. Bill Lazenby, "the biggest property owner on the street", had submitted a letter in support of the rezoning; and that he (Davis) still owned more property on Betty Jo and obviously "wouldn't [do something that would] hurt...[his] own interest". Commissioner Williams asked Mr. Cox, since restaurants were allowed in both C-1 and C-2, if the "five or six more use units under C-2" would create that many more objectionable activities, to which Cox responded that "quite frankly" his "principal concern was if it were a liquor store usage". Commissioner Cullers noted that "a McDonald's would generate ten times as much traffic as a liquor store", while W illiams stated that while "zoning shouldn't be used for reasons of moral issues", this request was a "close call". After further discussion, a motion to recommend approval failed to pass, by a 4-3 vote --five affirmative votes being necessary for passage -- with Commissioners Jacks, Stockdell, and Williams in the minority and G itelman and Crook absent. Mr. Davis is now appealing this decision to the City Board. 3 STREETLIGHT CHANGEOVER: Further consideration of a proposal to change existing SWEPCO-served existing residential streetlights from mercury-vapor to high-pressure sodium fixtures. In previous actions the city has authorized the changeover of main -thoroughfare streetlights from the older mercury-vapor lamps to energy-efficient high -pressure -sodium fixtures that give significantly more light per watt of energy consumed. This phase would convert all existing SWEPCO-served streetlights in the city except the "top hat" decorative lamps on aluminum poles. While the higher acquisition cost of the sodium fixtures means that the city's yearly electric bill for streetlights will increase by 50% --from $24,510 to $36,811 --the light output per street- light will increase by 100%, from 8,000 lumens to 16,000 lumens per light. 1 1 l APRIL 20, 1982 PAGE "E" When the proposal was considered at the March 16 Board meeting, the Directors decided to table the matter until an advertisement could be placed in the local newspaper, giving affected persons an opportunity to object. One or more residents of the areas listed below have submitted a written objection to that streetlight being changed over; the City Manager's Office is recommending that, unless significant support for the changeover of a specific light is voiced at the meeting, the objections be honored and the lights listed be left as they are. G ray Avenue @ Cardwell Lane N ear 890 and 850 East Skyline Drive Near 817 and 821 Broadview Drive E leventh Street and South College Avenue At the Boston Place cul-de-sac Spring Street @ Olive Avenue Rockwood Trail @ Crest Drive Oak Avenue, south of Wedington Drive N ear 523 and 533 North Willow N ear 1824 Applebury Place N ear 1004 Rebecca Street N ear 2458 Primrose Lane N ear 1599 Helsel) Road Davidson Street @ Willow Avenue w NOISE VARIANCES: An opportunity for the presentation of objections to the granting of variances from the literal provisions of the city's "Noise Ordinance". The City Manager's Office has received requests for variances from the city's "Noise Ordinance", and has granted the following variances: For the evening of Saturday, April 24, the fraternities listed below are granted a variance so as to allow a sound level of 75 decibels at the receiving source until 1:00 a.m. on Sunday, April 25: Alpha Kappa Lambda, 240 Stadium Drive Kappa Sigma, 711 West Dickson Street Phi Delta Theta, 108 Stadium Drive Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 110 Stadium Drive Sigma Phi Epsilon, 10 Stadium Drive For the evening of Saturday, May 15, the Fayetteville H igh School Senior Class is granted a variance so as to allow a sound level of 75 decibels at the receiving source until 11:00 p.m., for an event to be held on the terrace of First National Bank. • 1 APRIL 20, 1982 PAGE "F" 5DRAINAGE STUDY: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for engineering services with Northwest Engineers, for a drainage study of the Wedington Drive area. AIRPORT PARKING: Further consideration of a resolution authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Air Terminal Parking Company, regarding revenues from the Drake Field parking facility. 7 BCBS AGREEMENT: Further consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Retention Fund Agreement with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Arkansas_ 8PROPERTY CLEANUP: Further consideration of an ordinance, left on first reading at the April 6 meeting, authorizing the directing the City Manager to have unsightly property conditions at 949 Boone Street abated. 10 PARKING METERS: A request by Director Bumpass for an ordinance reducing the hours when parking meters require coins, from 8:00-6:00 to 8:00-4:00, excepting federal, state, county or city holidays. SEWER LINE: Award of bid for the construction of sewer line adjustments near, and necessitated by, the new North Street box culvert. 11 STREET CLOSING: An ordinance amending the city's regulations regarding the closing and repair of streets excavated for utility line purposes. r OBUSINESS. 13MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the previous Board meeting_ 14ADJOURINME-NT,,