Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-05 Minutes1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville was held at 7:30 p.m. on July 5, 1983, in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Johnson, Lancaster, Osborne, Orton, Sharp, and Bumpass; Assistant City Manager McWethy; City Attorney McCord; City Clerk Griffin; Acting City Clerk Rowe; members of the audience and press. H 0 ABSENT: City Manager Grimes QCALL TO ORDER 1 Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARDS Mayor Noland presented each of the three employees of the month -- Joey Boersma, Police Department; Jim Frederick, Water and Sewer Department; and Sherry Rowe, Finance Department, with a certificate and a check for $150 and noted the comments made about the outstanding performance of the three employees by their supervisors. REZONE/JAMES M. AND MARK RUSH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF STONE STREET Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested 77.2 in Rezoning Petition R83-9 by James M. Rush and Mark E. Rush for five (5) acres located on the North side of Stone Street, approximately 990 feet West of Sang Avenue. The request is from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-3 "High Density Residential." Mayor Noland noted that the Planning Commission recommended, by a 5-0 vote, the property be rezoned from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-2 "Medium Density Residential." City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director 77.3 Bumpass, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Mayor Noland stated that in the discussion that occurred on this 77.4 rezoning with the Planning Commission, it was pointed out that R-2 zoning is compatible with the recommendations of the General Land Use Plan and the surrounding zoning pattern whereas R-3 zoning district 77 77.1 78 should be restricted to the desired high concentration areas with access to arterial or collector streets, and the necessary public facilities available to serve either R-2 or R-3. Mr. Jim Rush addressed the Board and requested that the Board reconsider 78.1 his Petition to rezone to R-3. Mayor Noland asked Mr. Rush if he planned any access to the West onto the existing frontage road from this property or would all the access have to be from the East. Mr. Rush replied that he understood the street would be extended to the Bypass eventually. Mayor Noland asked that, under this five acre rezoning, were there any plans to extend Stone Street West to the Bypass, and Mr. Rush replied that this would not be done under his plan, but that the street does have access to Highway 62 and would eventually have access to the Bypass. He stated that all the property in this area is undeveloped, completely raw land, that would lend itself to any type of development, with no pattern of development set at this time. He further stated that he felt the property is actually an excellent. area for high density residential development because of the Bypass. Discussion then turned to how many units could be put on this land with each rezoning, R-2 and R-3. Mr. Rush said that it was his understanding that 120 two-bedroom units could be put on five acres under R-2 zoning and approximately 181 units of the same size could be put on five acres under R-3 zoning. Director Orton pointed out that rezoning th R-2 on Sang Avenue was 78.2 turned down a few years ago because of the density in relationship to the proximity of the school, but that lately, there has been a movement to accept R-2. She further stated that she would be against making the density any more because all the traffic now will be going by the Junior High School. Mr. Rush argued that there is very little traffic on that street in the daytime, to which Director Orton replied that when you get that many units there, it will change greatly. Director Bumpass asked Mr. Rush about the present access to Highway 62, 78.3 and Mr. Rush replied that you come down Stone Street to Sang Avenue to get to Highway 62. Director Bumpass further inquired if Mr. Rush was going to build a new road to Highway 62 as part of this development and if he had any specific plans as far as the number of apartments that were going to be built. Mr. Rush replied that he did not think a new road was needed at this time and that approximately 160 apartments were being planned. Director Lancaster referred to a statement made by Mr. Rush earlier 78.4 wherein he had said that no pattern of development had been set in this area. Director Lancaster stated that we realize that no pattern has been set - there's no street in there, but that is why we have a Planning Commission, to plan and set patterns for the future. Mayor Noland then called for the final roll call on the ordinance. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7-0. Mayor Noland reminded Mr. Rush that the ordinance passed as it was read, that is R-2 rezoning. ORDINANCE NO 2930 APPEARS ON PAGE 4g OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV 78.5 1 1 1 1 79 SIGN VARIANCE/2715 DRAKE ROAD/BY HAROLD RISLEY Mayor Noland introduced for consideration by the Board, an appeal 79.1 from the sign ordinance by Harold Risley, President of AAA Business Machines. Location of the sign is 2715 Drake Road and permission is being requested to increase the height of a 70 square foot, free- standing sign from the present 30' to 38'. Mayor Noland introduced Bert Rakes, the new Property and Sign 79.2 Inspector, and asked if he had any comments regarding this matter. Mayor Noland added that most of the Board had seen the sign earlier that day during the Board tour. Mr. Rakes stated that there is a provision in the ordinance for 79.3 a limited access abutting a Federal Highway, to have the highest 0 road taken as the measuring point rather than the 30' level. He went on to say that this is not a limited access as you would think of, Q out on the Bypass, but it is a similar situation. Mr. Risley was present in the audience. In addressing the Board, 79.4 he stated that the letter he had submitted requesting this variance stated his position on the sign. Mayor Noland noted that the letter basically stated that visibility on Highway 71 -Business was limited because Mr. Risley's business is set back some 400 feet and the present height of the sign in question is a liability rather than an asset. Mayor Noland said that as the Board had driven by the sign during the tour, going North, it had been observed that the business itself probably obscured the sign about as much as the sign itself, and that the sign could not be seen until they had cleared the Richards' Building. Director Osborne made a motion to grant the variance. There was 79.5 no second to this motion. 1 Director Bumpass noted that on the morning Board tour, it seemed to be the consensus of the Board that perhaps if Drake Avenue were better marked, maybe from both directions, it would solve the problem. He queried Mr. Risley as to how much of this business was "drop-in" as opposed to established customers. Mr. Risley replied that much time was spent on his phone giving directions to customers, and if his sign could be more easily seen, his business would benefit from increased sales. Mayor Noland expressed the Board's concern that if they granted the variance to 38' for Mr. Risley's sign, the next person that put a business in there would have to have a sign 8' higher than the AAA sign to the West, which would eventually result in a grading of sign heights back from the Highway. Director made a motion to deny the variance. ,There was no second to this motion. Mr. Risley then asked what alternative he had if the variance was denied - would he need to ask the City to put a larger sign at the Drake Street entrance. Mayor Noland told Mr. Risley that the Board could grant this request, to see if they could get a little better visibility for the Drake Street sign. 79.6 79.7 79.8 80 Director Bumpass made a motion that the Board investigate the possibility of setting a sign on both sides, North and South, to show "Drake Street" and give Mr. Risley an opportunity to withdraw his petition and get his filing fee back. City Attorney McCord suggested that the Board inquire as to whether Mr. Risley wished to withdraw his petition. The inquiry was made and Mr. Risley said he would withdraw his petition for now. Director Johnson seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-1 with Director Osborne voting in the minority. LOT SPLIT/RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY GARY DRAKE Mayor Noland introduced for further consideration, a request by Gary Drake to vary the 1.5 acre minimum lot size requirements of Ordinance #2353, for subdivided property not having access to a public sewer. This request was first discussed at the June 7, 1983 Board meeting and was tabled and referred to the Water and Sewer Committee for recommendation. The Water and Sewer Committee met on June 28, 1983, at which time the petitioner introduced evidence that the proposed resulting two lots could adequately support two septic tank systems as far as the percolation test was concerned. The Water and Sewer Committee did vote to recommend to the City Board that the lot split request be denied, however. Mr. Gary Drake addressed the Board and stated that the percolation test had been approved by the State. He said that one item that most concerned the Water and Sewer Committee was that, as he was going to build his house on one lot and his parents were going to build a smaller one -bath house on the second lot, they had planned a smaller septic system for their lot. The Water and Sewer Committee was concerned that if the smaller house was ever sold in the future and the new buyers had a larger family and wanted to add another bath, the septic system would not be adequate. Mr. Drake then stated that because of this concern, they would be willing to put in a larger septic field to accommodate any possible future growth. Director Johnson stated that she had talked to the State Health Department regarding what percolation rate standards they would approve. She said they told her the least amount would be three minutes per inch, be- cause if it went any faster than that, it would not filter at all, and the most would be 45 minutes per inch; and as Mr. Drake's property had a range of 7-12-15 minutes, and 12-15-17 minutes respectively, these perc rates were excellent, as was the soil on the property; the lateral lines had been designed properly, there was no ground water problem, and this was a perfect time of the year to evaluate ground water problems; therefore the Health Department said the Drakes should have no problems with two 1,000 gallon septic tanks on a lot this size. Director Sharp said he thought the question here was larger than just the Drake's appeal, as the Board had decided that there should be separation between septic tanks; the way he understood it, that was the reason for the 1.5 acre minimum lat size because of possible failure of the septic system. He went on to say that he felt the Board is going to have to make a decision either to continue to use the 1.5 acre lot requirement or just get rid of it. 80.1 80.2 80.3 80.4 80.5 1 81 Director Osborne commented that he thought the 1.5 acre minimum lot 81.1 requirement was a good starting point. He further stated that he had talked to a private engineer, who told him that these percolation rates were excellent and if all the information in the State Health Department reports was correct, that this would be as ideal a location in Washington County that you could have a septic system. Director Osborne then made the motion that this request be approved, conditional on Mr. Drake putting in the lateral lines to support the 1,000 gallon tanks that he had volunteered to do. Director Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Blackwell, a member of the audience, asked to address the Board. 81.2 10 He stated that a lot of people ask for variances, and that you can't just help one - how many other people out there would want to do the same thing. He went on to ask what would happen if the City, at some future point in Q time, decided to run sewer lines in that area - would they run into opposition and would it be voted on. Mayor Noland answered that the Q Ordinance reads that if a sewer line ever does go by this property, they Q would have 18 months to connect to it. 1 1 Director Osborne challenged Mr. Blackwell's earlier statement regarding not just helping one person by stating that he viewed that as part of the 81.3 purpose of a City Board - to help people; otherwise, there would be no reason for being there. Director Orton expressed her concern that the Board was possibly 81.4 developing a loophole for developers from now on. City Attorney McCord answered this, stating that the law is very clear, that each application for a variance is to be treated on its own merits and even if a future applicant sued the City, the evidence of what the City Board did in this case would not be admissible in court as it would not be relevant. The only facts that would be relevant would be the facts applicable to the particular case before the court. Mayor Noland reminded the Board that there had been a motion to grant 81.5 this variance which had been seconded, and called for a vote on the matter. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 4-3 with Directors Lancaster, Orton and Sharp voting in the minority. STREET IMPROVEMENT VARIANCE/WEST END OF TRUCKERS DRIVE/BOWMAN & CASELMAN ENTERPRISES Mayor Noland introduced a request from Bowman & Caselman Enterprises 81.6 for a variance from the literal requirements of street improvements in connection with the development of property at the West end of Truckers Drive. He noted that this was a radio tower installation, and that the Baord had gone% by to look at it during the Board tour, and there was some sentiment within the Board that they might be able to execute a Bill of Assuranceswith this landowner, that if this property was ever developed beyond the existing deadend, then they could be responsible for their share of the improvements at that time. Director Osborne, seconded by Johnson, made this motion to execute 81.7 the Bill of Assurances with Bowman & Caselman Enterprises. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. 82 STREET IMPROVEMENT VARIANCE/TAYLOR STREET PROPERTY/DONALD R. WILSON Mayor Noland introduced a request for a variance from the literal requirements of street improvements in connection with the development of property on Taylor Street. Mr. William Storey, Attorney, spoke on behalf of the Wilsons, stating that essentially, they were asking for a variance from the provisions of Article IV, Section J(a)(1) of the Fayetteville Zoning Code. He stated that Taylor Street is a one -block, 20 ft. wide street running East and West between Leverett and Whitham which has remained basically unchanged since 1959. He went on to say that Mr. Wilson has proposed to build a 4 -unit condominium on his property, and is asking that the provision of the Ordinance which requires fifty feet of right-of-way dedication be waived because of the individual aspects of this street. He said that he had discussed this with Assistant City Manager McWethy and had proposed an alternative to the variance which would involve a dedication by Mr. Wilson at some future point in time. Director Sharp stated that on the Planning Commission's report, it says there is now 20 ft. of right-of-way and 16 ft. of asphalt pavement with no curbs and gutters, and that City standards required 31 ft. with curbs and gutters. He asked Mr. Storey if the Wilsons were proposing to build the curbs and gutters now and Mr. Storey advised that this was the proposal, but that they were asking for a variance of the additional right-of-way required. Mayor Noland inquired if the only access to these proposed condominiums was going to be from Taylor Street or would there be some proposed access from Douglas Street down the alley. Mr. Storey stated that there was an alley there that had been closed, so the only access would be from Taylor Street. Director Orton asked if the developer was going to put in curbs and gutters but not dedicate the extra right-of-way, and Mr. Storey replied that this was correct; the street would remain 20 ft. wide as Mr. Wilson's property is only 65 ft. wide and this is why there were asking for a waiver of additional dedication, otherwise they would not meet the setback requirements for the structure. Assistant City Manager McWethy asked Mr. Storey if the developer was going to put in curbs and gutters at the place as shown on the Master Street Plan or where the current end of the pavement would be. Mr. Storey answered that they would be put at the entrance of his property, only as it applies to his particular piece of property and not the whole street. Mr. McWethy remarked that in his discussion with Mr. Storey, he had expressed the fact that he thought the City would want to protect its interest in having sufficient right-of-way on Taylor for some future time, although this additional right-of-way is not something that the City plans to do anything about immediately; executing the right-of-way dedication with the City not filing it until such time as the developer gets a building permit will ensure the right-of-way for the City when it is needed. 82.1 82.2 82.3 82.41 82.5 82.6 1 1 Director Osborne made a motion that the Board approve the building of the condominiums, with dedication of the right-of-way later and to put the curbs and gutters at 20 ft. and have Mr. Wilson sign a Bill of Assurance or actual right-of-way easement to whatever form the City approves, to allow the whole project to go ahead Director Lancaster remarked that there wouldn't be much use in putting curbs and gutters in at 20 ft. when the City intends to widen the street someday. 83 83.1 Assistant City Manager MCWethy noted that the City's interest 83.2 might be better served with a Bill of Assurance to allow Mr. Wilson to put the curbs and gutters in at the proper time when the rest of I() the street work is done. ODirector Orton made a motion to refer this to the Street Committee 83.3 for further study and recommendation. Q Mr. Storey stated that Mr. Wilson would be more than agreeable to 83:4 Q execute a Bill of Assurance to the effect that if and when the City elected to widen the street to the 50 ft proposal set out in the Master Street Plan, he would (1) dedicate the right-of-way and (2) do the improvements when requested or do the improvements at such time as the entire street is widened. 1 Director Orton explained that this would not change the amount of setback needed. Mr. Storey said it would, as the setback is measured from the existing right-of-way and every structure on that street is non -conforming if the street is widened, with most of them being non- conforming at this time. Director Sharp asked City Attorney McCord if the City could go ahead and require this and then waive the setback requirements in this case as the lot was platted before requirements existed. Mr. McCord said this issue had cone up before in other cases, and as he understood the suggestion of Mr McWethy, (1) the property owner be required to dedicate the right-of-way;(2) execute an easement and hand it to the City and that easement not be recorded until'the building permit is issued; (3) the Board would waive the requirement that setbacks be measured from the Master Street Plan and permit the developer to measure the setback from the existing right-of-way; (4) allow this property owner to get a building permit; (5) record the easement. The motion to refer to the Street Committee was seconded by Director Sharp. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-1 with Director Osborne voting in the minority. SBA GRANT/WILSON PARK LANDSCAPING Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Parks and Recreation Department for authorization to apply for an SBA grant for a Wilson Park landscaping project. 83.5 83.6 83.7 83.8 84 Connie Firrunston, Parks Administrative Assistant, addressed 84.1 the Board. She explained that while the amount of this grant was only $2,000, the major objective was to put unemployed people to work, using our department supervisors to supervise the work. Mayor Noland asked Ms. Edmonton if she felt the requirements of 84.2 this grant would be a major inpedinent to really getting the job done, due to federal requirements as outlined on the grant application Ms. Edmonton replied that as long as the work is done well, that is what the Federal District Office is interested in. Director Johnson inquired if the $2,000 would only cover shrubs 84.3 or would it inclnde labor, to which Ms. Edmonton replied that this figure included both shrubbery, trees and labor. Director Johnson said she was not sure that all that hassle with 84.4 federal requirements would be worth the trouble and would rather appropriate $2,000 from next year's budget. Mayor Noland noted that the main idea behind this is to put unemployed people to work. After general Board discussion, Director Sharp made a motion 84.5 that the Parks Department attempt to get this federal grant. The motion was seconded by Director Orton. Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-1-0 with Director Bumpass absent for this vote and Director Johnson voting in the minority. RESOLUTION NO.79-83 APPEARS ON PAGE /5,2 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XVII PURCHASE OF BLUE BUILDING/ROCK STREET Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and 84.6 City Clerk to execute a purchase agreement with Fulbright Investment Company for property located on Rock Street, noting that this came frau the Finance Committee as a recommendation. Director Osborne, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve 84.7 the purchase agreement. Director Sharp asked if this property had been appraised; 84.8 Director Osborne stated that he did not know, but the building was well worth the money and whereas we could live without it now, seeing haw the development of the area around the square has progressed in the past five years, it would be well worthwhile from the standpoint of the City's protection. Director Osborne went on to say that he would withdraw his motion if the Board preferred to get an appraisal. Director Johnson requested to know what an appraisal would cost 84.9 to which Mayor Noland replied that it might cost $500 but the cost would be well justified. Director Orton made a motion to amend Director Osborne's motion, to get an appraisal on the property. Director Johnson seconded the motion. 84.10 1 1 • Assistant City Manager McWethy noted that the City had agreed on the $80,000 price when the lease/purchase agreement was executed in February, 1982. Mayor Noland stated that if the appraisal did not agree with the figure in the contract, then the Board would have to make a decision at that time. He added that there was time to get the appraisal now by the end of August, which was one month before the lease would expire. 85 85.1 85.2 Upon roll call, the motion to table the resolution and get an 85.3 appraisal on the property passed by a vote of 6-0 with Director Bumpass absent for this vote. OSEWER PLANT GUARANTEE 7 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution setting forth the City's 85.4 Q intent that an engineering contract shall contain certain operational Q guarantees. Mayor Noland explained that as we enter into these engineering 85.5 contracts for the design of these major sewer system revisions, we need to assure the citizens of Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas of the Board's intent that these multimillion dollar improvements work like they are supposed to - that is the intent of the resolution. He went on to say that, summarized, the resolution states that it is imperative that the facilities consistently meet the specified design standards and this engineering contract shall contain guarantees that the facilities will operate in such a manner as to consistently meet the 5-5-2-1 effluent limits they are intended to achieve. 1 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that the resolution be approved. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 6-0 with Director Bumpass absent for this vote RESQLUTION NO. 80-83 APPEARS ON PAGE /5% OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK AMENDMENT TO MASTER SIDEWALK PLAN/FJ,11S AVENUE Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the Master Sidewalk Plan to reflect a sidewalk on the Fast side of Ellis Avenue, rather than on the West side. 85.6 85.7 Mayor Noland explained that this would avoid the added cost that 85.8 would be involved in more utility relocation costs if the sidewalk was put on the East side of Ellis Avenue. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. 85.9 Director Johnson, seconded by Noland, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Director Bumpass absent for this vote. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. 86 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to further suspend 86.1 the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the notion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Director Bumpass absent for this vote. Mr. McCord read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6-0 with Director Bumpass absent for this vote ORDINANCE 2931 APPEARS ON PAGE 51 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTIONS BOOK XIV WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Mayor Noland introduced a resolution adopting a schedule for the 86.2 implementation of the City's selected wastewater management plan. He stated that in May of this year we did adopt the White River/Mild Creek Split Flora Alternative as the selected wastewater treatment plan and since that time we have received the revised EPA documents. He went on to say that the Board needed to assure EPA that the deadlines as listed would be followed. Vernon Rowe of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. stated that 86.3 he had met with the EPA recently and had given some of this information to the Water and Sewer Committee regarding these deadlines. He further stated that since meeting with EPA, he and a representative from CH2M Hill had met with representatives of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology and it was indicated at that meeting, because of the change in the State's priorities with this program, the plans and specifications and Step III Grant Application had to be approved by June 1 and not lust submitted, contrary to what had been understood a month ago. Mayor Noland inquired if this change needed to be incorporated 86.4 into the resolution - that detailed plans and specifications would have to be prepared, submitted and approved by June 1, 1983. Mr. Rowe stated that this would not be necessary, as this resolution 86.5 is a reasonable schedule for the compliance people at EPA - they have already basically agreed to this schedule, but that it was more important that this schedule be stipulated in the contract with CH2M Hill He said it was possible for the State to review the plans and issue a grant without the total plans and specifications being complete, so we could be 90% completed by May 1st and still be able to get a grant. Director Johnson, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion that the implementation schedule be accepted. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 7-0. RESOLUTION 81-83 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK 86.6 1 1 1 1 87 CHARLES J. FINGER PARK Mayor Noland introduced a resolution naming the newly -acquired 87.1 park South of Farmer's Avenue "Charles J. Finger Park." Director Sharp gave a report on Mr. Finger's contributions to the community, noting that he had left a very successful career as Vice -President of a railroad in Texas to crone to the Fayetteville area, where he became a noted author. He added that Mr. Finger was indeed a personality worth remembering. Director Sharp, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 6-1 with 10 Director Johnson voting in the minority. RESOLUTION NO.SL-3 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTIONS BOOK EQUIPMENT RENTAL AGREEMENT - Q Q Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an equipment rental agreement for mowing equipment authorized by the Board at the June 21, 1983 meeting. Director Bumpass, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion to execute the equipment rental agreement. Upon roll call, the resolution passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.83-83 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTIONS BOOK TRAFFIC FLOW AROUND COUNTY COURTHOUSI- A member of the audience addressed the Board He inquired if an extension to Rock Street to the property directly behind the County Courthouse was being planned. Mayor Noland stated that Director Osborne had a letter in the agenda about this item that he thought Director Osborne might want to refer to the Street Committee Director Orton said she would like to refer this matter to the Planning Commission. Mayor Noland replied that the Planning Commission had already acted. Director Orton stated that they had only talked about alternatives, and that normally, such a plan would start with the Planning Committee. She then moved that the traffic pattern (flaw) around the courthouse be referred to the Planning Committee. Director Sharp asked Director Orton if she would want the Planning Committee to consult with the County Judge and the neighbors in the area about the plans and Director Orton replied that she would add this to her notion, that they talk with the County Judge and with people in the area and come up with a recommendation for the Board. Director Sharp seconded the motion Director Osborne stated that he would prefer to send this matter to the Street Committee because it had been referred to the Planning Commission before and no action was taken Director Bumpass made a motion to amend Director Orton's motion, to have the primary hearing with the Street Committee and then refer the matter to the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Director Osborne. 87.2 87.3 87.4 87.5 87.6 87.7 87.8 88 Director Sharp asked Director Bumpass if he would object if his 88.1 notion was amended to have the Street Committee meet with the Planning Commission and other interested individuals. Director Bmmpass indicated that he would not object to this. Mayor Noland observed that it seemed that what they wanted to do was to get some kind of exchange, and maybe after the meeting, at that point, a plan could be developed. Director Bummpass affiuned this and added that he hoped the meeting would be publicized so that everyone could come and make a comment. Director Lancaster stated that if the motion was to refer the matter to the Street Comnnittcc, get their recommendation, and then refer it to the Planning Commission, then he would be for it, but he preferred not to get in any hassle between the Strcct Committee and Planning Commission. He noted that the Planning Commission had previously turned down the Board's recommendations by a vote of 5-0, and stated that the Pnard does not send street plans directly to the Planning Commission, but rather, that a proposal is sent to the Regional Planning Commission for their recommendations which are then brought back to the Planning Commission with the Board's recommendation. At this point, Director Bmmpass noted that his amended motion may have been inappropriate and he withdrew it. 88.2 88.3 Mayor Noland then called for a vote on Director Orton's motion 88.4 to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for study. Upon roll call, the motion failed by 4-3 with Directors Orton, Sharp and Noland voting in the minority. Director Bmmpass made a motion that this question be referred to 88.5 the Street Committee for study, give everybody an opportunity to speak, make a decision and then let the full Pinard consider it. This motion was seconded by Director Osborne. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. BID AWARD/CITY VEHICT.F INSURANCE Assistant City Manager Mc*Vethy addressed the Bard regarding the letter from Dr Bob Hall of Hall's Consulting, Inc. This letter, he stated, recommended approval of his recommendation that low bid be awarded to Renner & Company for vehicle insurance for City of Fayetteville vehicles. Director Johnson made a motion to approve the bid award The motion was seconded by Director Bumpass and upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Director Osborne absent for this vote. 88.6 88.7 1 1 1 89 PRICE QUOTATION/4 ITIa PAVED SHOULDER,/HIGHWAY 62 Assistant City Manager McWethy addressed the Board. He stated 89.1 that the Board had asked him earlier this year to get a price quotation from the Highway Department for a change order to add four extra feet of paved shoulder on North side of Highway 62 from Highway 71 to the Old Farmington Road. He noted that the letter from B.K. Cooper of the Arkansas State Highway Commission quoted a price of $20,164 for this change order #5. He went on to say that this would not include drainge, just 4 ft. of paved shoulder, which would give the City 8 ft. of paved shoulder from Razorback Road on out to Old Farmington Road. 1 Mayor Noland moved that this matter be referred to the Board's 89.2 Street Committee. 0 Director Lancaster inquired as to why this matter should go to 89.3 Q the Street Committee, as they can't spend the money. Q Director Johnson moved that the $20,164 be allocated for this 89.4 project. The motion was seconded by Director Sharp. Mr. McWethy noted that the letter from the Highway Commission 89.5 contained a typographical error, and that it should read from Highway 71 to the Old Farmington Road rather than Highway 61. Upon roll call, the motion to allocate the money for this 89.6 project passed by a vote of 6-0 with Director Osborne absent for this vote. 1 1 ANNEXATION/HAYS PROPERTY City Attorney Jim McCord addressed the Board and recommended 89.7 adoption of a resolution proposing an ordinance for the annexation of subject property and scheduling of a public hearing within 60 days frau this date He further stated that he had prepared such a resolution, the proposed ordinance and a form notice to the public, with a form letter to be sent. He said the Board would need to specify the date of the public hearing. Mayor Noland moved to approve the resolution, and asked what would' be the earliest date the public hearing could be held. Mr. McCord answered that it would have to be within 60 days from today with a minimum 15 day public notification period. Mayor Noland stated that the public hearing could be held the first meeting in August. Director Orton seconded the motion that was made by Mayor Noland. Mr. Lloyd Hays, owner of the parcel of ground requested to 89.8 address the Board. He stated that he had never had any problems regarding this property until he attempted to put a fireworks stand on it and then the Assistant City Manager sent the Building Inspector out there and he was told he could not erect the fireworks stand. He stated that he had checked with Bobbie Jones in the Planning Commission and had been told it would be all riot, as it was not in the City limits. Mr Hays then asked if he could continue his 90 business if the property was annexed and City Attorney McCord stated that the law states that if you have an "on-going" business in unincorporated areas that are annexed, you have the right to continue business. Mr. Hays asked if his fireworks business, which by Arkansas law is only allowed to operate two weeks in July and two weeks around the beginning of the year, would be classified as an "on-going business." City Attorney McCord stated that as he understood the law, he would have to say it would not. Mr Hays then asked if the annexation had to be done by a vote of the people and Mr. McCord stated that this statute says that if a piece of property is completely surrounded by City property, then it can be done by the Board of Directors; if it is not oonpletely surrounded, it would require a vote of the people. Mr. Hays stated that his property was not completely surrounded, as the property across the highway belonged to the University of Arkansas. Director Bunpass then asked if the City Attorney or City staff could render an opinion as to whether or not this particular piece of property that is the subject of this annexation proposal is in fact subject to the statutory provision that allows the City Board of Directors to annex property that is canpletely surrounded by City property. Mayor Noland advised that this could be done in the intervening period between now and the tine that we have a public hearing and if we find out it is not completely surrounded, then the hearing can be Upon roll call, the motion to have a public hearing on this annexation at the first meeting in August failed by a vote cf 3-3-1, with Director Sharp abstaining, Directors Lancaster, Orton and Noland voting "Yes" and Directors Johnson, Osborne and Surpass voting "No". City Attorney McCord again addressed the Board, stating that 90.5 he thought there was one matter the Nord ought to clarify, in that the general rule is that an abstention is to be treated as in favor of the motion made. He went on to say that if that rule applies to the previous motion, it passed. He further stated that' the Board has the authority to set its own Bylaws. Mayor Noland responded that he had interpreted it as the same thing as being absent for a vote. McCord stated that he had had to give opinions before on the effect of an abstention, and the rule has been that an abstention is to be treated as in favor of the motion made. 90.1 90.2 90.3 cancelled. 90.4 Director Johnson then asked if the motion had passed or failed, and Mayor Noland responded that there wat a tie vote with one abstention. Assistant City Manager MctJethy commented that it seeped like this was a legal question - does State Highway right-of-way, which abuts Hays property to the Fast, with University of Arkansas property abutting the State Highway right-of-way, constitute property which is considered in the City or is it "neutral" in which case the University property across the highway would control. 90.6 90.7 Mayor Noland responded that as far as he was concerned, the 90.8 preceding notion had failed. 1 10 WITHHOLD PAYMENT/WILSON PARK POOL Assistant City Manager Mdvethy addressed the Board, calling their attention to a letter from Richard A. Naylor, Engineer for the Wilson Park Swimming Pool, in whid-i he stated that he was refusing to accept the finish plaster product on the pool floor, and therefore proposed to withhold final payment of $9,000 until the problem could be corrected. 91 91.1 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to withhold 91.2 payment of this amount and upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. MCILROY BANK SIGN CASE RECONSIDERATION City Attorney Jim McCord addressed the Board and brought to 91.3 0 their attention a letter from his office to City Manager Grimes in which —) he recommended that the City of Fayetteville dismiss its pending appeal Q in the Mcllroy Bank and Trust Company sign rase for the reasons stated in the letter. Q ' 1 Mayor Noland asked if there was sentiment in the Board to re- 91.4 I consider this request to appeal the cost of taking down these signs Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to dismiss 91.5 the appeal. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. NALCO SIGN Director Lancaster asked where the City stood on the Malco 91.6 sign rase City Attorney McCord said that there was no pending litigation at this tine and asked if the Board wished to authorize him to file suit against them. Director Osborne made a motion to have Attorney McCord review the file, send a demand letter to Malco and report back to the Board on whether or not they are going to comply with the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Director Buass and upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. AIRPORT CHANGE ORDERS Mayor Noland brought up sone airport change orders that needed 91.7 Board approval, stating that one change order was for airport parking and drainage in the amount of $1,910 and the second for fire station curbs and parking, for $3,200. Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved to approve the 91.8 dmange orders. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously LAWSUIT/POLICE OFFICERS City Attorney McCord brought to the Board's attention the case of the two Fayetteville Police Officers that are hieing sued in Federal Court for alleged civil rights violations He stated that this incident had occured before the City's current liability insurance became effective and although notice was being given to the carrier, 91.9 92 he expected the carrier would deny coverage. He added that in the past, the City has borne the cost of defense in cases of this nature when the carrier denied coverage He asked if the Board wanted to continue this practice and provide defense for these two officers by allowing them to select an attorney of their choice. He reminded the Board that the officers were on duty when the incident occured and it was his opinion that their action was proper, from his review of the case Director Osborne stated that he would like to know the rate per 92.1 hour before an attorney is employed and Mr. McCord answered that in the past, he had gotten an agreement from the attorney for a fixed rate. Director Osborne made a motion that the Police Officers be 92.2 allowed to select their am attorney and the City will pay for it. This motion was seconded by Director Orton and upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. TEMPORARY SIGNS/NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Director Orton stated that the Mayor of the City received a letter 92.3 from the Red Cross regarding their temporary signs that announced when their bloodmobile was in town She proposed to add a section to the sign ordinance that would deal with non-profit organizations and allow them to obtain a permit from the City to place temporary signs in the public right-of-way with the following restrictions - (1) Sings to be no larger than 3' X 4'; (2) No more than 3 signs could be used, (3) Sign would be identified by organization name: (4) Time and use will be stated in permit and failure to remove sign immediately will result in no future use of temporary signs for a period of 3 years; (5) Location of signs would be approved by City (Police and Traffic Departments); (6) Signs to be used to announce or direct public to special events - not daily, weekly or monthly activities; (7) Decision of City administration concerning non-profit temporary sign permit could be appealed to the City Board. Director Orton said the purpose of this proposal was to have a way of dealing with temporary sign permits so that this matter could be administered by the City and not have each one come to the Board. City Attorney McCord stated that he thought there was a provision 92.5 in the sign ordinance right now that would cover this particular situation, but if not, a very minor amendment could be made to the section to cover exactly what Director Orton requested. Mayor Noland requested that Mr. McCord prepare the amendment 92.6 and put it on the next Board agenda. Director Johnson, seconded by Bunpass, roved that this amendment 92.7 to the sign ordinance be considered on the next agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. 92.4 1 1 PRESERVATION OF TREES Director Orton requested that the City adopt a policy of preserving trees of more than three inches in diameter when the City builds sidewalks, or planting new trees of similar size near the location where the trees are removed. 93 93.1 Director Sharp stated that work is being done with the Planning 2 93.2 Commission on an ordinance for landscaping and asked Director Orton if she would like to work on the committee. Director Orton stated that she would. 10 Director Osborne stated that in his opinion, if we put in a 93.3 H sidewalk on a persons' property, we have taken their riot -of -way and O in taking a tree, we are obligated to compensate them for the tree by either rash or replacement of tree Q Director Bumpass asserted that if the tree is on the City right- 93.4 Q of -way, it's our tree in the first place. Director Johnson concurred. Director Orton contended that trees very much affect the amount of shade the property has. Director Bumpass commented that the Board could address the issue on a rase by case basis whenever it came up. After general Board discussion, Director Johnson suggested that the City continue with the sidewalk projects that are in progress now, assess each on an individual basis, with a group estimate in the fall, with the stipulation that the group estimate separate those trees into two groups: (1) trees that are on owner's property and (2) trees that are on the City's right-of-way. 93.5 93.6 Director Osborne made the motion that this plan be accepted and 93.7 Director Johnson seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT The Board, in considering a letter written by Iris Stratton for a private club permit, decided as a group not to oppose the application. Director Osborne, seconded by Johnson, moved that it was none of the Board's business. Upun roll call, the motion passed unanimously MINUTES The Board had the following change in the minutes of the June 21, 1983 meeting; 93.8 93.9 (1) At 68.1 should read that "Director Orton stated that she 93.10 was concerned that this proposal would put too much emphasis on fire detectors rather than a fire prevention program." With no further business before the Board, the meting adjourned 93.11 at 10:30 P.M.