Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-21 Minutes168 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, August 21, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster, Orton and Sharp; City Manager Grimes; Assistant City Manager McWethy; City Attorney McCord; City Clerk Kennedy; members of the press and audience ABSENT: Director Martin CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order, with six Directors present, and asked for a moment of respectful silence. STREET HEARING/DRAKE ROAD 168.1 Mayor Noland introduced a request by Michael Dabney for an opportunity to speak to the Board about the proposed extension of Drake Road. 168.2 Michael Dabney, resident of the Bishop Addition, addressed the Board regarding the current improvement plans for Drake Road. At Dabney's request, a large number of persons in the audience stood to demonstrate their opposition to improvements to Drake Road. A member of the audience in favor of the improvements to the road asked later that the record show there were about ten persons present in favor of the improvements. 168.3 The major points of concern voiced by Dabney were that residents of nearby Villa North Subdivision and Villa Mobile Home Park would begin to use the streets of the Bishop Addition (which he stated are about 90% single family dwellings) as "through streets", thus increasing traffic and putting the children and bicyclists in danger. Dabney also expressed concern that the improvements would adversely affect property values and suggested an alternative of a stop light being installed at the intersection of Drake Road and College Avenue. Dabney noted residents had signed a petition in opposition to the improvements in 1978 and that some of those in opposition had appeared before the Planning Commission in 1975. Mr. Dabney suggested an alternative of paving Drake Road but not accessing it to the streets of the Bishop Addition. 1 August 21, 1984 Jeff Slaton, resident of Villa North Subdivision, addressed the Board. Slaton noted in December of 1980 (when there were 22 single family homes in Villa North) residents of that subdivision had appeared before the Board, asking that Drake Road be built because of traffic difficul- ties. Slaton stated there are now many multi -family dwellings; that all residents presently must exit to Adobe. Slaton stated "we have a crowded situation there which needs another outlet". Slaton expressed CO concerns that the children in the Villa North Subdivision are in danger because of the over -development. Slaton asked that the Board "keep Ln the word that was given in the past when they said the street would r- be built..." LLJ CO Director Bumpass stated both subdivision developers contributed funds Q to build Drake Road through to Gregg, as it was planned by the city to be a collector street. Bumpass pointed out the existence of a row of "very large and beautiful trees" which extend from the intersection of Villa Boulevard to the proposed end of the street. Bumpass stated he thought the Board was trying to be sensitive to the "physical charac- teristics" as well as to the former promises made Bumpass stated the idea that residents of Villa North would be using the streets in the Bishop Addition for access to College Avenue "is speculation at this point". Bumpass stated the Board had gone through some "pains- taking considerations" in deciding what'would be best for everybody concerned" - and he thought the consensus was'that the intent of the Master Street Plan be met by the construction of the street to Gregg Avenue, to live up to the promise a former Board made to the Villa North residents, to take the pressure off Adobe and to be sensitive to the concerns of the Bishop Addition residents. Director Sharp stated he thought the consensus of the Directors was to have the City Manager and the Street crews stake out the area and consider building cul de sacs on some streets. City Manager Grimes stated there was no consensus reached by the Board as to which streets should have cul de sacs and which should not. Grimes stated there was discussion about possibly leaving one or two of the Bishop Addition streets as through streets. Grimes stated the Traffic Superintendent has suggested leaving a boulevard or tree island in the middle of Drake, with only one curb cut, which would somewhat limit access. Mayor Noland (quoting from Planning Commission minutes of July 12, 1976) explained the basis on which the Bishop Addition was approved by the Planning Commission was that "...additional street lights be shown at the intersection of Sunny Land and Hacienda [now Drake]; and at the intersection of Susan Carol and Hacienda...delete the cul de sac on the south end of Susan Carol and also on the south end of Sunny Lane and leave only an intersection with Hacienda." Noland explained Mr. Bishop (the developer) had to make a contribution to the consttuction of the street which was done to serve the residents 169 169.1 169.2 169.3 169.4 169.5 170 August 21, 1984 170.1 of the Bishop Addition. Noland stated the Bishop Addition has only one access and explained that the Planning Commission requires there be more than one access to a subdivision. 170.2 Director Orton pointed out the reason the Planning Commission requires two exits from the subdivision is so that fire, police or ambulance vehicles can travel through, should one exit be blocked. Orton stated she thought the idea of a boulevard, making the road one-way on either side, was a good compromise. 170.3 A resident complained about speeding cars travelling down Sunny Lane and coming to an abrupt stop at "an airport runway" on private property, a situation he thought would become worse when Drake Road is improved. 170.4 Director Orton suggested an alternative to the Traffic Superintendent's proposal: that there be no curb cuts from the boulevard, that the traffic would travel in a westerly direction on the north side and would have to go all the way to the end in order to travel east on the south side; that all the side streets would turn right onto Drake Road. Orton stated she thought this would slow down traffic but serve the ultimate purpose of Drake Road extending west. 170.5 After further discussion, Director Sharp, seconded by Orton, made a motion that the city's Street Superintendent stake out the road for study by the Traffic Superintendent and the Board of Directors, with consideration to be given to sidewalk location; and then to ask for more input. 170.6 City Manager Grimes stated of the Bishop Subdivision street" so that the cul de 170.7 Upon roll call, the motion it should be pointed out that, on the plat every street was platted to be "a through sac proposal is therefore a good compromise passed, 6-0. SEWAGE TALK/"F.L.U.S.H." 170.8 Mayor Noland introduced a request by John Reid III for an opportunity to address the Board regarding Fayetteville's proposed waste water disposal plant alternative. 170.9 Reid stated he was speaking as a representative of "Fayetteville Leaves Unwanted Sewage Here" (F.L.U.S.H), an organization formed in Tahlaquah, Oklahoma. Reid stated the Illinois River is designated by the Oklahoma State Legislature as "a scenic stream"; that the group is concerned about Fayetteville's proposed disposal into tributaries of the Illiniois and subsequently into Lake Tenkiller. Reid stated a technical report by the Pollution Control Coordinating Board of the Oklahoma State Department of Health shows nutrients of the Illinois have reached a "poor and degraded level in both scope, trend and severity" at the 1 1 171 August 21, 1984 present time. 171.1 Reid asked why some alternative system had not been discussed and why the decision was made to dump in the Illinois rather than the White River. Reid offered a sample of treated effluent which he stated met Fayetteville's 5/5/2/1 standards. Reid stated he had brought an engineer from Engineering Enterprises in Norman, Oklahoma who has CO stated there are plans available for a facility which is guaranteed to comply with federal, state and local requirements, which is cheaper and uses land application rather than dumping; Reid named other cities which have built such a facility and submitted a list of references W to the Directors. CO Q Director Orton pointed out the City of Fayetteville presently does not dump its effluent into the Illinois River. Mayor Noland explained the city's intention is to use land application for all the sludge and in the dry season to irrigate using the effluent. Director Orton stated the land application/irrigation is "breaking new ground"; that it is hoped the irrigation concept will be spread to more farmers. Reid suggested the city study the alternative of using 100% land appli- cation. Director Bumpass stated he thought the City had reached a good compromise to the alternative of pumping all the effluent into the White River basin, or Beaver Lake, from where Fayetteville receives its drinking water. Bumpass stated having open flow of the effluent through Mud Creek, in the middle of the city was evidence of good faith. Mayor Noland stated the proposed facility is guaranteed to meet the 5/5/2/1 requirement. 171.2 171.3 171.4 ACT 9 BONDS/SCHEDULED SKYWAYS HANGAR Mayor Noland opened a public hearing concerning the issuance of $300,000 171.5 in Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for financing the costs of a maintenance hangar for Scheduled Skyways. An attorney from the Rose law firm addressed the Board, explaining 171.6 that since the agenda was published, the principal amount of the bond issue increased to $330,000; that the correct amount has been re -advertised in the Northwest Arkansas Times and that the ordinance to be presented contains the correct amount. The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak against the issuance. There was no response. The Mayor stated the bonds would finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a maintenance hangar, adminis- trative offices and related facilities for use by Scheduled Skyways. 171.7 172 August 21, 1984 172.1 The Mayor also explained that there is no liability of any kind on the part of the city or its citizens for the repayment of these bonds. The public hearing was closed. 172.2 Mayor Noland listed the standard criteria considered by the Board before issuing such bonds, stating that criteria appears to have been met. 172.3 The City Attorney read an ordinance, authorizing the issuance, for the first time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3024 APPEARS ON PAGE 302 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK y /x 172.4 Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to adopt an emergency clause to the ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 172.5 172.6 AIRPORT BUILDING HEIGHT Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the Airport Zoning Ordinance by allowing the construction of buildings more than 25 feet high when the Federal Aviation Administration has approved such a height. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read 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, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3027 APPEARS ON PAGE �I 0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X( X BULLETIN BOARDS/"PRIDE IN DICKSON STREET" 172.7 Mayor Noland introduced a request by "Pride in Dickson Street" for Board approval of the concept of installing public bulletin boards 1 1 1 173 August 21, 1984 on Dickson Street. Ray Jones, representing "Pride in Dickson Street", 173.1 addressed the Board. Jones explained the present situation is such that windows, light poles and building exteriors are being used for taping up of handbills and posters and this request is to use the bulletin boards as an alter- native. Jones assured the Directors that the merchants promise to maintain and keep the bulletin boards looking nice, as well as being responsible for removing outdated material. A sketch was shown to the directors depicting a bulletin board with an awning, two of which could be installed back-to-back and provide shelter from the rain; W or one of which could be installed up against a building. Jones explained CO that one all -cedar bulletin board would cost no more than $100, and could be mobile until such time as permanent locations are found. Jones asked that about ten bulletin board be approved, with "Pride in Dickson Street" agreeing to pay for the materials. 1 Directors Lancaster and Orton suggested two bulletin boards be approved initially, one at the east end and one at the west end of the street, until such time as the need for others is determined Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to grant a variance to the sign ordinance to permit two, wall -mounted, bulletin boards. 173.2 173.3 173.4 Director Sharp questioned the need for granting a variance, stating 173.5 he was not sure these bulletin boards met the definition of a sign. The City Attorney explained a variance could be necessary in an instance where the wall -mounted bulletin board could constitute a second wall sign for a business (the ordinance only permits one wall sign per business). The Mayor noted the City Manager's recommendation is that the bulletin boards be built, installed and repaired by the city with "Pride in Dickson Street" paying for the cost of materials. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. SANITATION CONTRACT Mayor Noland stated there had been a request to table consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Northwest Arkansas Waste Management. 173.6 173.7 173.8 174 174.1 August 21, 1984 MUNICIPAL PARKING DECK REPORT Mayor Noland introduced a report from Garver & Garver on the status of the parking deck. 174.2 City Manager Grimes, noting the Directors had received a copy of the report, stated there has been discussion as to retaining Garver & Garver to meet with the structural engineer who designed the parking deck, in order to agree whether portions of the structure may be under - designed; and to bring back a report at the next meeting. Grimes explained the structural engineer was a sub -contractor to the construction contractor. Grimes stated there has been a meeting with the contractor. 174.3 William Driggers, Sr., representing Garver & Garver, addressed the Board. Director Bumpass asked if there had been any contact with the design engineer. Driggers stated his firm had been told the city was unable to contact the design engineer. Bumpass asked if the firm would attempt to find out if the structure is under -designed from the drawings, or from an inspection of the premises. Draggers stated most of the analysis was based on the plans they obtained from the city "which were supposed to represent what was constructed". Draggers stated his aproach would be to set up a meeting between the contractor, the firm and the structural engineer, Cook, who designed the facility for the contractor, to try to reconcile any problems with the analysis which has been made. 174.4 The City Attorney stated the recommendation is an attempt to determine, from an engineering standpoint, if any additional support is needed other than sealing the existing cracks. McCord stated there is a question as to whether the approach taken by the structural engineer and the contractor resulted in a facility that meets Code requirements; that the initial meeting is to be "a fact-finding mission and not an attempt to cast blame on anybody". 174.5 City Manager Grimes pointed out the contractor's attitude is "very cooperative" and if there is a problem, they want to help work it out. 174.6 Director Bumpass asked if repairs are anticipated. Driggers stated there were two particular repairs needed (the bonding of cracks and repairing of two major areas) but they anticipate that other repairs will be needed. He estimated the cost of the first phase of the work to be no more than $5,000. 174.7 Mayor Noland asked if any re -design work was anticipated. Driggers stated he thought some remedial design work may be needed, to be done by the contractor or the contractor's engineer; that if this is done, Garver & Garver would propose to check that work. 1 175 August 21, 1984 Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a notion to approve the 175.1 recommendation of the City Manager. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. BOND RATIFICATION/PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD CO 1-0 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution ratifying the Fayetteville Public Facilities Board's authorization of $28,035,000 in revenue bonds to N finance the construction of facilities by Butterfield Trail Village. W The Mayor reported that Board met on August 20. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to pass the resolution ratifying the Fayetteville Public Facilities Board's authorization of $28,035,000 of revenue bonds to finance the construction of facilities by Butterfield Trail Village. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 89-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 174 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK KIX BILL OF ASSURANCE ENFORCEMENT Mayor Noland introduced a recommendation from the Board of Adjustment that a Bill of Assurance executed in 1981 be enforced. The Mayor explained this Bill of Assurance concerns property at 1614 East Huntsville Road; that Mr. Dowers, who executed the Bill of Assurance, is deceased; that the property has not yet changed hands and the question is whether or not the present use is in violation of the Bill of Assurance. The City Attorney stated this matter is on the agenda because it involves facts that he did not believe the Board was aware of and he did not think he should pursue litigation unless instructed to do so by the Board. The City Attorney stated "in my considered judgment the issue of whether the Bill of Assurance is being violated is a close question" as he cannot predict what the court would decide should the city file suit. Gary Carson, attorney for Dorothy Dowers, executrix for the estate, addressed the Board. Carson explained that Jack Wilson, a friend of the late Dowers, was living in the residence with Dowers. Carson stated Dorothy Dowers lives in Florida and because the property has not yet been sold, she "struck up a deal" with Wilson and let him reside on the property to make sure the property was kept intact. Carson stated the Bill of Assurance clearly states that, if the property is sold, conveyed or leased, the shop building would have to come down. Carson stated it is the contention of the estate that the property 175.2 175.3 175.4 175.5 175.6 176 August 21, 1984 176.1 has not been sold, conveyed or leased and that there is no violation of the terns of the Bill of Assurance. Carson stated the property is difficult to sell because of the Bill of Assurance and because the residential structure, although constructed as a duplex, cannot be sold as a duplex, but must be sold as a single family residence. 176.2 Danny Wright, attorney for abutting property owners, addressed the Board. Wright stated the Board of Adjustment considered a request by the Dowers estate that the Bill of Assurance be released because of some hardships. Wright explained, at that hearing, surrounding property owners raised the question of whether there had been a "change in use". Wright stated the property had been used as a mechanical repair facility and has been changed to the use of a body shop. Wright explained the Board of Adjustment ruled there was no change of use and no waiver would be granted. Wright stated, at the time the Bill of Assurance was given to the city, the request was to build a residential structure on the back of the lot. Wright stated that Mr. and Mrs. Dowers at the time had given verbal assurance to the surrounding property owners that the shop building would be temporary and would be removed after about three years. Wright stated the residential structure was designed as a duplex but was "never okayed as a duplex". Wright stated the estate now feels the property would have much more value if the shop building could remain. Wright stated when the Board of Adjustment gave permission to build the extra residence, it was not the intention to allow the shop to remain. Wright stated the surrounding residents now feel the property is being rented or leased, even though there is no money changing hands. Wright stated there "an oral lease" in that free use of part of the residence and free use of all of the shop building has been given in exchange for caretaker services. The City Attorney, in answer to a question from Mayor Noland, stated a lease does not have to be in writing. 176.3 Director Orton asked how soon the estate would be sold. Carson stated the property has not been listed for sale because of the attempt being made to have the Bill of Assurance released. Director Bumpass asked how long the estate could continue to own the property. Carson stated the estate will try to dispose of the property by listing it with a real estate agent. 176.4 Carson, in answer to a question from the City Attorney, stated the residences were physically separate in that there was no way to get from one residence to the other without entering from the outside. Carson also stated the son of Dowers stays in one residence only when on leave from the military. 176.5 Wright requested the Board to authorize the City Attorney to commence filing a suit to enforce the Bill of Assurance. 176.6 Director Bumpass stated, if the estate continues to manage the property without disposing of it, and if there is a mortgage against the estate, 1 1 177 August 21, 1984 and the estate is short of cash, at some point the court could order 177.1 a foreclosure, which Bumpass stated would seem to be a conveyance requiring the shop building to be removed. Carson stated that is not a possibility as the mortgage is held by relatives. The City Attorney pointed out that, because the residences are physically separated, and only a single family dwelling is authorized, there CO may be a zoning violation even though the Board of Adjustment found no change of non -conforming use. McCord stated the Board could defer action on a suit to enforce the Bill of Assurance and could authorize the City Attorney's office to investigate the possibility of a zoning W violation and pursue whatever action is proper to enforce the zoning CO ordinance. a 1 177.2 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to table any 177.3 action until the first meeting in October, to give the City Attorney an opportunity to research the issue; at that point to take whatever action is necessary to uphold the Bill of Assurance. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. SIGN APPEAL/"THE SKATE PLACE" Mayor Noland introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance for an off-site, free-standing sign proposed in an I-1 zoning district, at the southwest corner of Birch Avenue and Poplar Street, submitted by Becky Maxwell for "The Skate Place". Becky Maxwell explained that The Skate Place is located at the dead end of Ash and cannot be seen from Poplar. Maxwell stated that having a sign at the corner of Poplar and Birch would aid in locating the facility; that the landowner, Pat Tobin, had given written permission for the sign and is aware only one sign is permitted. Maxwell explained the owner would remove an existing sign from his property should this variance be granted. Maxwell stated there is a wall sign on the building of The Skate Place. 177.4 177.5 Director Orton made a motion to grant the variance with the provision 177.6 that a free-standing sign not be erected on The Skate Place property. The petitioner asked if, at the time Ash Street should ever be extended to Sycamore and if she were to remove the off-site sign now being requested, she might be then allowed to erect an on-site sign. Director Orton agreed that this would be the intent of the motion. In answer to a question from Director Sharp as to size, the petitioner stated she would work with the Sign Inspector so that the sign would conform to any size limitations required for the setback. Director Sharp suggested the height of the sign be limited to ten feet. Becky 177.7 177.8 178 August 21, 1984 178.1 Maxwell agreed to this limitation. 178.2 Sign Inspector Pense explained that although a maximum of 30 feet in height is permitted in that zoning district, the setback would have to be 40 feet in order for the sign to be 30' high. 178.3 The City Attorney quoted from the Sign Ordinance: "...for any sign located closer to street right-of-way than forty feet the maximum height shall be reduced one-half foot for each foot of setback less than forty feet." 178.4 178.5 178.6 Director Sharp, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to amend the motion to add that the sign be no higher than ten feet and no wider than eight feet. Director Orton asked why there should be any different provisions for the size of this sign when the sign ordinance stipulates what size is permitted. Director Sharp stated, in his judgment, a ten foot high sign at this location is adequate. In answer to a question from Director Orton, the City Attorney stated there 1s no difference in the size permitted for the industrial and commercial districts. 178.7 Director Sharp seconded Director Orton's motion. 178.8 Building Inspector Freeman Wood pointed out the proposal for an 8' x 10' sign would allow an 80 square -foot sign when the maximum permitted at a forty foot setback is only 75 square feet. Director Sharp stated that the intent of his motion was to set a maximum height and maximum width which could be allowed, not to stipulate that the sign be 80 square feet in size. 178.9 178.10 Director Orton suggested it could be stipulated that the sign be of the character shown in the design submitted to the Board, that it be conforming to the ordinance, that the only variance be for one off-site location and that it would remain until such time that another free-standing sign is placed on The Skate Place property. Mayor Noland noted a directory sign is being requested and pointed out a problem encountered in the past has been that the first business to be listed on a directory sign might take up all the allowable space, leaving no room for other businesses to advertise. Director Orton suggested the Board could stipulate that the space for each business be of equal size. There was further discussion regarding the problem of knowing how many businesses would ever take up space on the directory sign. The petitioner explained the landowner had not yet given permission for any other off-site businesses to advertise on the sign. 1 179 August 21, 1984 The City Attorney pointed out the Board could approve a variance for 179.1 an off-site sign to identify one business, with one nameplate of a designated size, not to exceed a designated height; .that if other businesses come before the Board, approval would then be considered for a joint -identification off-site sign, at which time the total display area can be limited. The petitioner explained they requested a directory sign because the Inspection Office informed them, if they erected a single sign just for The Skate Place, there could not be 10 any other signs. N Director Sharp added to his motion to amend, that no business may 179.2 W use over 1/9 of the sign area. Upon roll call, Director Sharp's amendment CO passed, 5-1, with Director Orton voting against the motion. Upon roll call, the original motion, as amended, was passed, 5-1, 179.3 with Lancaster voting against the motion. ON-SITE, FREE-STANDING SIGNS The City Attorney introduced an ordinance which would amend the Code of Ordinances to regulate the number of on-site, free-standing signs permitted in industrial districts. The City Attorney explained that, due to an oversight, the restriction is stipulated for the commercial zones but was not incorporated for the industrial zones. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3029 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK y()( '1 1 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION SIGN APPEAL/"CHICKEN COUNTRY" The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance for a sign located at 1889 North College Avenue in a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, district. The Mayor explained the petitioner, "Chicken Country Restaurant", requests permission to add a marquee sign to an existing 23 square -foot free-standing sign which is located at a 21'6" setback from street right-of-way. 179.4 179.5 179.6 180 180.1 Director Lancaster noted this but, since the petitioner felt his mind on the size of the appeal. August 21, 1984 appeal was denied at the last meeting "he didn't get a fair shake" and changed sign, the Board agreed to re -hear the 180.2 Mr. Ben Fine addressed the Board, for an 8' x 4', or 32 square -foot mistake and could not have been Fine stated he intended to add a 2' stating his original request was marquee. Fine stated this was a added to his existing pole sign. x 5' marquee sign. 180.3 In answer to a question from the Mayor, Sign Inspector Pense explained the maximum allowable size would be 23 square feet; that the petitioner's existing sign is already at the maximum. 180.4 Director Lancaster suggested the petitioner could place his advertising on one end of the building. The petitioner explained all Chicken Country restaurants use a marquee sign to convey information about "specials". 180.5 In answer to a question from Director a marquee sign may be installed as that a wall sign may cover 20% of of 150 square feet permitted. Bumpass, the City Attorney stated a wall sign. It was clarified the wall, with a maximum amount 180.6 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. INFORMATIONAL SIGNS deny the request. 180.7 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the Sign Ordinance by allowing "identificational and informational signs" to bear advertising. 180.8 The City Attorney noted this item was tabled at the last meeting to give him an opportunity to meet with the Inspection Department regarding the best wording of the ordinance. McCord stated, with regard to the question as to whether or not an entrance or exit sign can bear the name of the business, in his opinion this decision could be handled administratively and would not require an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. 180.9 McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. McCord 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, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. 1 181 August 21, 1984 Director Orton asked how the ordinance would apply to several businesses 181.1 which share one parking lot. McCord stated, since no ordinance can address every possible situation, some situations may still require a variance. McCord stated it was his understanding that the ordinance was to be written to allow one parking informational sign, whether it be a free-standing or wall sign, identifying the lot, with the number of signs to be limited to the number of entrances to the parking lot. McCord stated, in his view, that situation could be handled administratively. LO Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. 181.2 mORDINANCE NO. 3025 APPEARS ON PAGE Z OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIX REZONING APPEAL R84-11/OLD FARMINGTON ROAD Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission regarding the failure to approve rezoning petition R84-11. The Mayor explained the appeal submitted by Clarence J. Rice for Dr. Berry Broyles is to rezone 5.13 acres on the north side of Old Farmington Road at its intersection with One Mile Road from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Noland stated the rezoning was not recommended by Planning Consultant Larry Wood. Clarence Rice addressed the Board. Rice stated there were only five commissioners present to vote on his petition and the vote was three in favor and two against, with two commissioners arriving just after his hearing. Rice stated he felt if the full commission had been present the outcome might have been different, as a unanimous vote was required when only five members are present. Leroy Willis also addressed the Board on behalf of the appeal. Willis stated he thought the main objection of the Planning Commission and the concern of Larry Wood was future development north and west of the area. Willis stated the land owner directly west of the area is in favor of the rezoning. Willis stated the intent is for "a nice apartment complex...leaving all the trees possible...with approximately 70 units". Willis stated they plan for sidewalks throughout. Willis stated he though the cost would be prohibitive to develop the land as R-1. Willis stated they would have to spend approximately $15,000 to curb and gutter about 900 feet of road. Director Sharp noted Larry Wood had said he didn't necessarily disagree with the developers' plans or that rental housing wasn't needed in that portion of town, but said that the requested change would tend to commit more land than the Planning Commission had previously indicated it was willing to see used for that purpose in that area and that 181.3 181.4 181.5 181.6 182 August 21, 1984 182.1 the question should be how far up and around the hill the denser housing should be allowed. Sharp stated he couldn't think of any R-1 development in that area in the last ten years. Sharp stated he agreed with Wood that rezoning may be setting a precedent. 182.2 Director Sharp, seconded by Orton, made a motion to refer the petition back to the Planning Commission and to ask the Planning Commission to look at the need for R-2 zoning in that area. 182.3 Director Orton added that the Planning Consultant should look at the drainage problems and density that can be tolerated for the whole hillside; that after the Planning Commission has studied this, a recom- mendation should be made 182.4 Mike Pritchard, adjacent property owner, addressed the Board. Pritchard stated he felt the rezoning would increase the value of his property. Pritchard stated he would be in favor of R -I zoning if he thought it was feasible. Pritchard noted the existence of the major highways, liquor store, E -Z Mart and drive-in movie in the neighborhood. Pritchard stated, if development is delayed, it will eventually be forced farther out, to Farmington and elsewhere. 182.5 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. REZONING APPEAL R84-12/EAST FIFTEENTH STREET 182.6 Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission regarding the denial of rezoning petition R84-12 submitted by J.B. Hays to rezone .28 acres located north of East Fifteenth Street and 150 feet east of South Washington Avenue, from R-2, Medium Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. 182.7 Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. 182.8 Connie Kronable addressed the Board on behalf of J. B. Hays. Ms. Kronable stated the appeal was being made based on the fact that only five commissioners were present to vote at the hearing, although a sixth commissioner came in late and cast an abstaining vote. Kronable stated the petitioner feels "the Master Plan will not be violated" by the rezoning to C-2, since there is a mixture of zoning on both sides of the highway. Kronable stated the only opposition expressed by property owners was from one owner not contiguous to the lot and "it was not a forceful opposition". Kronable stated that Joe Terminella would like to use the location for fabrication of machine parts and electronic car service and she stated this would not be detrimental to the area but would enhance it. 1 1 1 183 August 21, 1984 Director Orton noted a letter of objection to the rezoning had been 183.1 submitted. Kronable stated that the contiguous property owners have no opposition to the rezoning. A gentleman speaking on behalf of the appeal addressed the Board. 183.2 He stated there are two non -retail businesses nearby, the industrial park is nearby and there is another business across the street (College CO Club Dairy). LO Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 183.3 W QEASEMENT ABANDONMENT Mayor Noland introduced a request by Ron Rone, Southern Farmers' Cooper- ative manager, for an ordinance vacating and abandoning a portion of a utility easement located south of West Sixth Street and east of Government Avenue. 183.4 The City Attorney explained the ordinance will amend the previous 183.5 ordinance vacating the 7th Street right-of-way and retain the easement by amending the description of the easement. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read 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, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3026 APPEARS ON PAGE .37 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X/y EASEMENT GRANTING/CITY OF SPRINGDALE Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an easment for a City of Springdale sewer line to be located on Lake Fayetteville Park property, south of Lake Fayette- ville Road and east of Highway 71. 183.6 183.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to pass the reso- 183.8 lution. City Manager Grimes stated there is a parking area just west of the easement and that the easement would not disrupt anything in the Park. 183.9 184 August 21, 1984 184.1 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 90-84 APPEARS ON PAGE /'I9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X l X 184.2 ENGINEER HIRING/SEWER OUTFALL LINE Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for engineering services with McClelland Consulting Engineers for work in connection with the reinforcement of a sewer outfall line on Fox Hunter Road. The Mayor explained this was discussed in a Water and Sewer Committee meeting recently and that this work will relieve some pressure on a line which has been a problem. 184.3 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to pass the reso- lution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 91-84 APPEARS ON PAGE ail OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X I X 184.4 CABLE BILL Mayor Noland introduced a request by the National League of Cities for Board endorsement of House Resolution 4103, dealing with the regulation of cable television matters. 184.5 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that the Board of Directors support House Resolution 4103. 184.6 Director Johnson commented on the need for a national cable policy, stating citizens "should not sit back and let the FCC dictate all guidelines for cable use". 184.7 City Attorney McCord stated he would forward a copy of the Board's resolution to the congressional representatives. 184.8 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 92-84 APPEARS ON PAGE Mr? ? OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XI X 1 1 1 N W m Q 1 August 21, 1984 CONDEMNATION FOR WATER LINE EASEMENT Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the initiation of condemnation proceedings concerning the acquisition of a 25' water line easement along Starr Drive. Director Lancaster, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to pass the reso- lution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 93-84 APPEARS ON PAGE Ng OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK /Y/4 LIEN HEARING/1155 S. MAXWELL Mayor Noland opened a public hearing regarding the filing of a lien against property located at 1155 South Maxwell, for which a clean-up fee of $182.80 has not been paid. The City Attorney recommended the Board defer action on the public hearing and amend the ordinance which was passed in June to authorize the removal of the existing structure through court proceedings; and to authorize the City Manager to cause that removal. McCord stated the Board granted a 60 -day extension on July 18; that the property owner has taken no action thus far. McCord stated his recommendation would be that no action be taken until the expiration of the extension. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Noland, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak against the ordinance. There was no response. Director Bumpass stated he thought it had been the city's intention to "take over the property", remodel it and sell it to satisfy the lien. Bumpass asked if this ordinance will make it necessary to bulldoze the property and create a vacant lot for resale. McCord stated the intention of the ordinance is for the structure to be demolished. McCord explained there is no statutory authority authorizing the city to condemn property merely because it is in a dilapidated state, restore it and sell it, unless it is part of an established re -developed area. 185 185.1 185.2 185.3 185.4 185.5 185.6 185.7 186 August 21, 1984 186.1 McCord stated, if the ordinance passes, he will forward a copy to the executrix of the estate and their local counsel. Director Bumpass asked that notice also be sent to any other "heirs at law". McCord explained the son of the executrix is an heir and that the notices have been sent to both the son and the executrix. 186.2 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3028 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK )(p( PURCHASE APPROVAL/CITY ATTORNEY 41/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 186.3 Mayor Noland introduced a request by the City Attorney for authorization to purchase approximately $5,500 worth of various law books for his office in the renovated City Hall; and approval of a budget adjustment. The Mayor noted these books would remain the property of the city. 186.4 Director Lancaster, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the purchase and the budget adjustment. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 94-84 APPEARS ON PAGE /9/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X)X DECHLORINATION APPROVAL 186.5 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a revision to the City's "201 Facility Plan for Wastewater Management System Improvements" to include facilities to dechlorinate the sewage effluent. 186.6 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to pass the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 95-84 APPEARS ON PAGE /R 2. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X IX QUITCLAIM DEED 186.7 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Quitclaim Deed for a triangular parcel located near the intersection of East Huntsville Road and South Willow Avenue. 1 1 187 August 21, 1984 The City Attorney stated this property has a "confusing chain of title" 187.1 but he is satisfied this property was excluded from a deed which the city obtained and is not city property. McCord stated the second request from Lamar Pettus to purchase an adjoining triangular parcel which is owned by the City is not recommended for consideration at this time, since some of it may be needed in the future for street widening purposes. City Manager Grimes clarified that the parcel CO under consideration now is located at the intersection of Huntsville and what used to be Walker Road. Director Johnson, seconded by Noland, made a motion to approve the 187.2 W resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. co RESOLUTION NO. 96-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 1913 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK y l x CHILDREN'S HOUSE Mayor Noland introduced consideration of approval of the use of a 187.3 portion of the Water & Sewer Operations Center property as a location for the proposed Children's House facility. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the 187.4 use of a portion of the Water & Sewer Operations Center property for Children's House. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Wire -Glass Fire -Rated Windows Assistant City Manager McWethy requested Board consideration of whether to install wire -glass fire rated windows on the east side of the second floor of the City Administration Building. McWethy referred the directors to agenda material showing a breakdown of costs for glass, steel and supplies. McWethy stated no bids were received locally for one-hour fire -rated windows. McWethy stated the sample window had been constructed in about four hours. Director Bumpass expressed concern over the high cost of the windows. McWethy explained the city's Building Inspector has stated the Fire Code requires either (1) wire -glass fire -rated windows; (2) sprinkler heads at the top of each window; or 3) a metal -type shutter which would automatically close in case of fire. McWethy noted the proposed windows would be the least expensive alternative. Director Orton stated she did not think the cost of in-house construction was out of line. 187.5 187.6 188 August 21, 1984 188.1 The City Attorney stated it is not so much a question of whether failure to comply is a technical violation of the Code as it is a question of whether failure to comply would jeopardize the city's insurance. 188.2 Director Sharp asked whether the architect was informed of the need for the windows when he first consulted with the city's Building Inspec- tor. McWethy stated it is the architect's position that the windows are not required by the Code. 188.3 Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion that the city check with the insurance coapany to obtain their opinion in writing. 188.4 Director Lancaster suggested an alternative of checking with a plumber regarding the cost of installing the sprinkler heads. 188.5 Director Sharp suggested a City Hall Committee meeting with the architect, contractor, Building Inspector and City Attorney. Director Orton asked that that suggestion be added to her motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Revenue Sharing Handicapped Regulations 188.6 Assistant City Manager McWethy, referring to the August 16 memo concerning revenue sharing handicapped regulations, stated an evaluation must be done by October 17, 1984. McWethy stated the idea of a regional committee is proposed because the cities of Rogers, Springdale and Bentonville must also comply with those regulations. 188.7 Mayor Noland asked the City Manager if it was his intention to have the Board or the staff appoint a coordinator. McWethy stated the recommendation is for there to be one person from each of the four cities plus one interested handicapped individual from each of the four cities, with the Regional Planning Commission performing the work. The City Manager stated the staff has an active civic person in mind. 188.8 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the recommendation. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Fisher -Buick Sign Appeal 188.9 Director Lancaster stated the Fisher Buick Company came before the Board in June of 1984 asking for a variance from the Sign Ordinance and the Board granted to the company the same variance it had granted to Houston -Taylor; that Fisher -Buick has since filed suit against the city. 188.10 Director Lancaster made a motion to rescind the action taken by the Board, stating if Fisher Buick loses their case, "he wants them to start all over again". Lancaster asked that the Board set a 30 -day 1 1 189 August 21, 1984 time limit during which a variance must be complied with. 189.1 The City Attorney explained this action would mean that, should Fisher - Buick lose its case, it must comply with the literal requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 189.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to amend the motion 189.3 LO to state that Fisher -Buick has until October 1st to comply with the variance which was granted. Upon roll call, the amendment passed, 5-1, with Lancaster voting against it. 0 Upon roll call, the original motion, as amended, passed, 6-0. 189.4 Q The City Attorney stated Director Lancaster's point is well taken 189.5 that, if a variance has not been complied with by a certain date, it should expire. Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion that from this 189.6 point forward, a variance will expire if not accepted within thirty days. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Disruptions To R-1 Neighborhoods Director Orton stated she has received many calls from residents in 189.7 R-1 neighborhoods, complaining about some students who rent in those areas. Orton suggested this issue could be discussed at the Board Retreat. Orton noted the disruptions to the neighborhoods include trash in the yard, too many cars parked on the street and noise. Orton stated she thought landlords should take responsibility for the behavior of their tenants. The City Attorney pointed out that there is probably no additional 189.8 legislation which could be adopted to address these problems in that there is a noise ordinance, there are drug laws and traffic laws which cover most of the common complaints. City Manager Grimes noted that neighbors have to be willing to go to court to prosecute people in order to enforce the laws. Striping of Streets City Manager Grimes stated bids were taken earlier in the year for 189.9 striping of the city's streets; that the same contractor has indicated the same prices per linear foot. Grimes asked the Board to consider authorizing a second striping to be done now, and authorizing a bid waiver in order to use the same contractor as was used before. Grimes explained also this is a budgeted item. 190 August 21, 1984 190.1 Director Bunpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to waive bids for a second street striping, using the sane prices Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 190.2 The City Attorney stated he would check the records to see if a bid waiver was authorized the last time striping was done because if it was not, an ordinance would have to be passed. Flouride System 190.3 City Engineer Don Bunn reported the city's flouride system has broken down and there is presently no estimate as to when it will be back in service; that he will inform the Board when further information is available. MINUTES 190.4 With no corrections or additions to the minutes of the August 7 meeting, they were approved as distributed. ADJOURNMENT 190.5 With no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 A.M. 1 1 1