HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-06 Minutes26"
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, November 6, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of
the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster,
Martin, Orton and Sharp; City Manager Grimes, Assistant
City Manager McWethy, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk
Kennedy; members of the press and audience
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of
respectful silence.
EMPLOYEE AWARDS
267.1 The Mayor presented "employee of the month" certificates and checks
for $150 to the three recipients for the month of October - Bob Braswell,
Parks Department; Beverly Erwin, Inspection Department; and Earl Phillips,
Sanitation Department. The Mayor read the supervisors' comments about
the outstanding performance of these employees.
LOUIS BRYANT
267.2 The Mayor declared November 17th to be "Louis Bryant Day" in Fayetteville,
noting that Louis Bryant, a Fayetteville resident and an Arkansas
State Police Officer, had been killed in the line of duty last June,
and had been an employee of the Fayetteville Police Department. Mayor
Noland stated a trust fund had been established at First National
Bank and First Federal of Arkansas Savings and Loan Association to
provide educational funds to educate Bryant's children and that there
would be a benefit basketball game at the Fayetteville High School
on Saturday, November 17, with proceeds going to the educational fund
for the Bryant children.
267.3 Mayor Noland read a proclamation declaring "Louis Bryant Day" and
the proclamation was presented to the parents of Louis Bryant.
1
1
1
1
November 6, 1984
ARTS CENTER BOARD
The Mayor introduced Board consideration of a proposal to establish
an Arts Center Board. The Mayor noted that on October 30, the Board
held a special meeting at which presentations were heard about the
need for a communitytheater/arts center.
Director Sharp commented that, in 1977 when a resolution was passed,
the term "performing arts center" was used but that, since the needs
go far beyond just the "performing" arts, Sharp suggested calling
the board "The Fayetteville Arts Center Board". Sharp suggested a
W seven -member board such as was used by other Arkansas cities who made
presentations at the special meeting. Sharp commented that the length
of terms should be "moderate", such as three years. Director Johnson
suggested the use of "staggered terms" for the initial members of
the Arts Center Board (two members serving for one year, two members
serving for two years, and three members serving for three years)
with succeeding members of the Board to serve three-year terms.
1
[Director Bumpass arrived at this point.]
The City Attorney read an ordinance, for the first time, establishing
a Fayetteville Arts Center Board of seven members, with the length
of terms as suggested by Director Johnson. Director Johnson, seconded
by Sharp, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the' ordinance
on second reading.
Director Lancaster suggested "general fund revenues" should not be
used under Section 8 but that "sales tax revenues" should be used
instead. City Manager Grimes suggested changing this wording to state
simply "...funds...". It was agreed that the City Attorney would
revise that wording.
Upon roll call, the motion to place the ordinance on second reading
passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second
time. Director Johnson, 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, 7-0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the final time.
Mayor Noland stated that the Arts Center Board would bring a recommendation
back before the Board of Directors. Upon roll call, the ordinance
passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3045 APPEARS ON PAGE tin to OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK j{/ y
The Mayor explained that the staff would advertise for vacancies on
this Board. At Director Johnson's suggestion (as Chairman of the
Nominating Committee), it was agreed the advertisement would be done
268
268.1
268.2
268.3
268.4
268.5
268.6
268.7
268.8
2t9
November 6, 1984
269.1 when the Nominating Committee advertises other vacancies.
269.2 The City Attorney advised that a resolution should be passed to provide
for the ordinance to include that the length of the terms, to be staggered
initially, shall be designated by the Board. Director Johnson, seconded
by Sharp, made a notion to pass such a resolution. Upon roll call,
the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 128-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 11/;11 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK X /)(
C.D. BUDGET/PUBLIC HEARING
269.3 Mayor Noland opened a public hearing on the preliminary 1985 C.D. Budget.
The Mayor stated the proposed projects listed in the agenda come to
around $1 million in costs, but that only $458,000 in CD funds will
be available for 1985 projects.
269.4 Bruce Davis, Housing Director for the Economic Opportunity Agency
of Washington County, addressed the Board. Davis requested that $3500
be set aside as match funds to support EOA's Weatherization Program,
explaining that for each dollar the City commits, three additional
dollars will be provided from the Area Agency on Aging's Title XX
Program, and that complete weatherization could be provided for the
homes of approximately seventeen Fayetteville families. In answer
to a question from Mayor Noland, Davis stated that his data projects
that from July 1, 1984 to June of 1985, 17 homes will have been weather-
ized. Davis explained also that the weatherization services are provided
to low-income elderly and some disabled persons.
269.5 Director Johnson asked if the Board could be provided with a breakdown
of all C.D. funds which have been spent in each category (e.g., streets,
sidewalks, etc.).
269.6 In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, C.D. Director Sandra Carlisle
explained the only request which may be ineligible is from Fayetteville
Open Channel who must prove that they provide 51% benefit to low and
moderate -income persons. Carlisle noted that the funds for equipment
and administration which they requested are clearly ineligible.
269.7 Director Orton asked that a list be made available of all eligible
streets in the city which need to be paved, and that there be an overall
plan to set priorities for this year and future years. Orton suggested
the priorities could be rated based on how many families would be
affected. Orton asked also that information be provided as to whether
a street needs curb and gutter.
1
1
res. -
,270
November 6, 1984
Director Lancaster asked fora (breakdown of sidewalk projects, with 270.1
cost per foot.
Director Sharp pointed out that the Master Plan for Charles Finger
Park included a suggestion that additional land be acquired for the
park, and he asked that information on the possibility of such a purchase
be pursued.
270.2
Carlisle provided the Board with numbers of residences which would 270.3
be affected for each street on the proposed list.
WLI
Director Orton suggested money be spent finishing up other projects 270.4
CO rather than spending money on fire protection improvements for areas
Q which do have fire protection (except in matters of safety).
1
Director Lancaster asked that the Water and Sewer Committee check 270.5
on each water and sewer item individually.
In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, City Manager Grimes explained
it would be possible to complete the storm water drainage project
for North Oakland Avenue in phases, since the total cost for this
improvement is estimated to be $349,000.
With Director Bumpass suggesting the formation of street• improvement
districts might allow residents to help participate in some projects,
the City Attorney explained that C.D. funds may be used to supplement
an improvement district. Director Johnson pointed out the formation
of street improvement districts might prove difficult for low and
moderate -income persons.
Michael Barr, General Manager for Fayetteville Open Channel, addressed
the Board, explaining their request (for $16,546) would fund eight
television programs that would showcase eight agencies in Fayetteville
which work with the "target community". Barr noted it is difficult
to prove that those programs would benefit 51% or more of the low
and moderate -income citizens. Barr pointed out the programs would
not only be shown on cable, but would be available for the involved
agencies to use in-house.
In answer to Director Lancaster, Barr explained the agencies involved
would be EOA's Head Start, Weatherization and Elderly Nutrition programs,
four City agencies and the Women's Shelter. Director Lancaster suggested
Barr could have asked for funding for administration costs from each
of the agencies involved. Barr noted that he never has received any
indication from HUD that their request is "clearly ineligible".
270.6
270.7
270.8
270.9
In answer to Director Orton, Barr stated that in discussions with 270.10
each of the agencies involved, all expressed enthusiasm for the idea.
271
November 6, 1984
PROPOSED PROJECTS
STORM WATER DRAINAGE PROJECTS:
271.1 North Oakland Avenue, not including utility relocations or
easement costs
271.2 Wedington Drive area (priorities 1-14 on a previous study of
the area) not including engineering
271.3
271.4
271.5
271.6
EOA WEATHERIZATION
FIRE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS (WATER MAINS):
Giles Addition; 2,400' of 8" line
Lee & Helen Streets; 2,000' of 6" line
Mildred Lee Estates; 1,000' of 6" line
Double Springs Road area; 1,800' of 8" line
FIRE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS (HYDRANTS):
Highway 16 West area; 12
Mildred Lee Estates; 1
Poole Furniture Road; 2
Double Springs Road; 2
Wyman Road; 3
13th & Warford; 1
Giles Addition; 2
Helen & Lee; 2
Ellis & University; 1
Boone & Price; 1
East Farmers Avenue; 1
Western Hills Mobile Home Park area; 1
Indian Trail; 1
Greenwood & Alta area; 1
PARKS & RECREATION:
Walker Park North: Additional play equipment, earth work, sand
and railroad ties, trash cans, concrete pads
Charles J. Finger Park* Level play field, renovate barn for storage,
concrete pads, additional play equipment, picnic tables, grills,
swing set, trash cans, railroad ties and wood shavings
Greathouse Park: Climber, swinging park bench, concrete pads,
picnic tables, volleyball standards
Combs Park: Gravel parking lot, entry way to park, three sets
of soccer goals, four portable softball backstops
1
SIDEWALKS:
November 6, 1984
South Washington; 2,600' (7th to 15th)
Huntsville Road; 2,760' (missing portions between Rock &Morningside)
Wood Avenue; 2,700' (6th to Huntsville)
Barton Avenue; 520' (Huntsville to Walker)
Lewis Avenue; 2,700' (Deane to Wedington)
Deane Street; 1,280' (Lewis to Sang)
10 Mt. Comfort Road; 3,800' (Lewis to Garland)
N STREETS: Residences Affected
W
CO Dockery Lane; 500' (Huntsville to dead end) ?
Q Oak Road; 300' (Highway 62 West to Rutledge) 3
Rutledge Lane; 600' (dead end to dead end) 9
Velda Court; 700' (One Mile Road to dead end) 9
Birch; 300' (Poplar to dead end) 6
Pear; 300' (Shady avenue to Easy) 4
Easy Avenue; 600' (Poplar to Elm) 8
Venus; 500' (Eastern to Lewis) 4
Phillip Avenue; 500' (Mitchell to Sang) 19
___
Maine; 1,200' (Lewis to Sang) 10.
Lewis; 1,300' (Maine to Highway 62 West) Lewis Plaza
Neptune; 300' (Eastern to Lewis) 2
Gabbard; 300' (Mitchell to dead end) 11
Wood; 300' (Gabbard to dead end) ?
Hollywood; 300' (Gabbard to dead end) 11
FAYETTEVILLE OPEN CHANNEL:
For service programming directed to the.low and moderate -income
community, consisting of eight one-hour television programs "con-
cerning eight local agencies. that work directly with the target
population"
CHILDREN'S HOUSE/SCAN/ARCHITECT
The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a contract for architectural services with Albert Skiles,
doing business as Solar Design, for the Children's House/SCAN structure.
The Mayor explained the $5,500 architectural fee is for work in three
phases: preliminary design ($2,000), preparation of plans and specifi-
cations ($2,500) and construction management ($1,000). The Mayor
noted also the professional selection process had been undergone and
this is the staff's recommendation.
Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve
the resolution.
272
272.1
272.2
272.3
,272.4
272.5
27:;
November 6, 1984
273.1 In answer to Director Johnson, Sandra Carlisle estimated the preliminary
design phase should take eight weeks, with approval of the Children's
House Board and the City. Directors Lancaster and Johnson expressed
a wish to look at the plans.
273.2 In answer to Director Martin, Carlisle stated that, including herself,
the members of the selection committee were Directors Orton and Sharp,
Children's House Director Susan Lynch, and SCAN Director Janet Richardson.
273.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 129-84 APPEARS ON PAGE y/3 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK y I X
REZONING R84-18/BRYCE J. DAVIS
273.4 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning 90.08 acres north of
Highway 16 West, west of Betty Jo Drive, from A-1, Agricultural, to
R-1, Low Density Residential (37.3 acres) and to R-2, Medium Density
Residential (52.78 acres). The Mayor explained a petition was brought
to the Planning Commission by Bryce J. Davis and the Commission recommended
approval by a vote of 8-0.
273.5 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0. 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, 7-0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the third and final time.
273.6 Director Sharp noted that, in Planning Commission minutes, Davis had
mentioned that his property is not subject to the sewer or drainage
problems experienced by other parcels in the area. Sharp asked if
the commissioners were in agreement. Davis stated it was his belief
there were no drainage problems and that sewer, although expensive,
is accessible. Director Sharp pointed out the Planning Commission
had conducted a drainage study for that area and asked Davis if this
property had been included in that study. Davis confirmed that this
was the case. After further discussion, the City Attorney pointed
out that the question of drainage must be addressed during the Large
Scale Development process.
273.7 Davis stated that R-2 zoning permits development of 24 units per acre
and that R-1 zoning permits development of 12 units per acre; that
he would execute a Bill of Assurance promising to develop 37 acres
of R-2 zoned property at a maximum of 12 units per acre. Davis promised
1
1
1
November 6, 1984
also to give a 60 -foot right-of-way across his property to connect
with property to the north.
The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to comment on the ordinance.
There was no response.
274
274.1
274.2
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. 274.3
CO
LO ORDINANCE NO. 3046 APPEARS ON PAGE (p 9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK X
W
QREZONING R84-19/ANDERS
1
1
The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning 4.9 acres at the southeast
corner of W. North Street and N. Garland Avenue, from C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The Mayor explained
this petition was brought before the Planning Commission by George
Faucette, Jr., for the owners, Sterling and Kay Anders, and the Commission
recommended approval by a vote of 6-2. The Mayor stated that Planning
Consultant Larry Wood recommended approval, reporting that "(1) the
property is located at the intersection of two arterial streets which
is the location standard suggested for commercial development; (2)
commercial development currently exists on two intersections north
of this property; and (3) all necessary public facilities are available
to serve the anticipated development". The Mayor noted also that
several Bills of Assurance have been guaranteed as contingencies of
a rezoning.
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, 7-0. 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, 7-0. The ordinance was read for
the third and final time.
George Faucette, Jr., representing the petitioners, addressed the
Board. In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, Faucette explained
he requested a waiver of the driveway safety zone requirement to put
the entrance from Hughes a little closer to Garland and this was approved
by the Planning Commission. Faucette explained he requested, of the
Board of Adjustment, a variance of the setback from the east property
line, which is 15 feet in a C-2 zone. Faucette stated he asked for
13 feet instead and this was approved, subject to the rezoning of
the property and subject to the agreement he had made with the adjoining
property owner to provide some extra sound baffles around the air
conditioning compressors. Faucette stated he requested a five-foot
274.4
274.5
274.6
275
November 6, 1984
275.1 variance on the setback from the south property line, which request
was tabled. Faucette stated the primary entrance is planned to be
from Hughes.
275.2 Faucette distributed site plans and building elevations to the Directors.
Faucette stated he thought there were several things which would "soften
the impact" of C-2 zoning abutting residential property to the east:
(1) there will be a 6' wood privacy fence on the east side; (2) the
building will be somewhat in character with the residential area,
with a covered walkway and a reasonable amount of landscaping; (3)
the traffic aisles are in excess of 25 feet; (4) the trash dumpster
will be low, behind a retaining wall and not visible from the north,
east or south; and (5) there will be 23 parking spaces, which he stated
is four spaces in excess of the requirement (to attempt to eliminate
off-street parking).
275.3 Mayor Noland stated Faucette had offered to execute a Bill of Assurance
promising to prohibit certain uses of the property, and Faucette stated
the prohibited uses would be a detention home, theater, zoo, private
club or lodge, motion picture theater, dance hall, restaurant with
dancing and/or entertainment, membership lodge, night club or tavern,
all uses under "Transportation Service" in Use Unit X116 and all uses
under Use Units #19 and 1/20. Faucette stated C-1 zoning allows at
least two uses "which would be much more detrimental than what I am
proposing", that of a drive-in restaurant or a gas station.
275.4 In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, Faucette stated he
did not plan for an entrance from Garland and feels it would be dangerous.
275.5 In answer to Director Martin, Faucette stated he thought the rezoning
would increase the traffic going east on Hughes but that he thought
the majority of the traffic would travel west toward Garland.
275.6 Lothar Schafer, owner of adjacent residential property to the east,
addressed the Board. Schafer stated he originally supported this
rezoning because he wishes to cooperate with his neighbors and because
he thought the existing C-1 zoning was not debatable. Schafer stated
he felt the rezoning to C-1 was debatable because "all aspects were
not sufficiently considered and many persons directly concerned were
not informed about the process".
275.7 Schafer stated his reasons for opposing the rezoning to C-2 are: (1)
he is now convinced that commercial property in this location will
be a definite traffic hazard; (2) the lot is the only commercial property
in an otherwise exclusively residential area and not only should not
be upgraded but should be down -zoned to residential; (3) the original
rezoning request from R-3 to C-1 was justified to accommodate two
or three small retail shops and, instead of implementing their plans,
the owners did nothing; (4) the increased traffic in the residential
area will destroy the peace and trangility of the residents and will
1
1
November 6, 1984
require their streets to be upgraded; and (5) the rezoning to C-2
"will set a signal to residential property owners to let their properties
run down because commercialization will be unavoidable". Schafer
requested that the Board initiate procedures to down -zone to residential
zoning.
Schafer stated that he, and other property owners in the area, received
CO no notification by mail when there was a proposed rezoning from resi-
dential to C-1, and that some adjoining property owners are not included
on the list of names which were submitted to the Planning Office.
Schafer asked that the Board refer this matter back to the Planning
W Commission for further discussion. The City Attorney explained there
m is a legal requirement that a notice of a proposed rezoning be published
in a newspaper, which he stated was done; that the City ordinance
requires that a sign be posted on the property, which he stated had
been done; that it is the policy of the Planning Office, not a legal
requirement, that adjoining property owners be sent written notification
and that the Planning Administrator's records reflect every effort
was made to comply with that policy. Schafer pointed out that when
the sign was posted, it was placed close to a sales sign and was easily
overlooked.
Regarding the issue of down -zoning or rezoning the property, the City
Attorney stated the law requires that a property owner "be permitted
a reasonable, not the most profitable, use of the property". McCord
stated that a few years ago a petition to rezone property north of
Oak Plaza Shopping Center, to C-2, was denied by the Board, was taken
to Court, and the Court found the Board's decision to be "arbitrary,
and capricious". McCord explained also that the Planning Commission
or the Board of Directors may initiate a rezoning. -
Director Orton stated she did not think it was of much value to compare
this case with other property in the area because of the problems
of ingress and egress. Orton stated she was surprised these problems
had not been addressed by the Planning Consultant. Orton stated she
thought it more appropriate that this property be zoned residential,
if possible.
Director Martin asked what uses were permitted in the R-3 district.
The City Attorney explained the uses permitted by right are single
family and multi -family. Martin stated that, although he sympathized
with the adjoining property owners, he thought R-3 zoning could increase
traffic as well, because of the fact that apartments could be built.
Director Sharp, addressing the theory that there could be an extension
of the commercial zoning in the area, stated the Planning Commission
has been very careful to limit development and stated, unless there
is a drastic change in the composition of the Commission or the Board,
he doesn't see that area continuing to grow. Schafer stated that
the planned use for the area was that it be R-3.
-276
276.1
276.2
276.3
276.4
276.5
276.6
27'7
277.1
277.2
277.3
November 6, 1984
Dan Vega, resident in the area, stated he spoke for the neighbors
of the Rose Hill area. Vega stated the neighbors oppose the rezoning
because, according to the Ordinance, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial,
zoning is designed to encourage functional grouping of commercial
enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers. Vega stated
there is no access to the site from either Garland or North Street
and the proposed access from Hughes would increase traffic on Hughes
and Lindell Street, endangering children and pedestrians. Vega stated
that the application of a Bill of Assurance, waiver of driveway safety
zone and variances of setback "all suggest the need to bend City ordinances
to accommodate inappropriate development in an unsuited space". Vega
stated the neighborhood was unaware of the rezoning to C-1. Vega
stated the neighbors request the Board deny C-2 zoning and take action
to return the site to its residential zoning. Vega stated a naturalized
garden park on the site "would be a monument to progressive land use
and create a balance to planned development north and west of this
area" and Vega stated he would donate free services as a gardener
to such a project. Vega stated the names on the petition mostly represent
landowners residing in the neighborhood. Vega stated many of the
residents find it disturbing that "the City pays little heed to their
voices, instead favoring the single voice that speaks for money...".
Zella Vaugh, resident in the area, adressed the Board, stating she
had lived in the neighborhood for 51 years. Vaugh expressed her concerns
over the increase in the traffic over the years, and asked the Board
members "to stand for one hour in the busy part of the day" to see
what she means, suggesting Garland needs to have an extra lane for
traffic.
Roger Henry, resident of Johnson, addressed the Board, stating that
he was a frequent visitor to the neighborhood, and voiced his opposition.
277.4 Director Lancaster asked if there was other C-2 zoning in that area.
The City Attorney stated the other commercial property in the area
is C-1. George Faucette explained the uses he believes are needed
at that intersection, and which are not allowed under C-2 zoning,
are clothing stores and video equipment rental. Faucette stated he
will not develop the property if it remains C-1; that if it is rezoned
C-2 he plans for a maximum of four businesses on the site.
277.5
In answer to Director Bumpass, Faucette stated he was aware that he
would be required to bring Hughes Street frontage up to standards,
with sidewalks if required, and that he would have to install sidewalks
along Garland and North Street frontage.
November 6, 1984
After further discussion, the roll was called and the ordinance passed,
4-2-1, with Directors Orton and Noland voting against the ordinance,
and with Director Bumpass abstaining (because of his relationship
with Dr. Schafer). n
ORDINANCE N0. 3047 APPEARS ON PAGE /0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK y(X •
LO [Later in the meeting, under Other Business, City Attorney McCord
reported that an opponent of the rezoning had correctly pointed out
that there is a provision in the Ordinance that, if a proposed rezoning
LLQ is opposed by 202 or more of property owners immediately adjacent
CC] or adjacent in the rear, extending' 300 feet from the street frontage
of the property, a favorable vote of 3/4 of the Board of Directors
is 'required. McCord noted that 3/4 of • the Board of Directors failed
to vote in'favor of the ordinance. McCord stated there is a petition
signed by a number of apparent property owners. McCord stated he
would ask the Planning Office to make a determination as to whether
this provision applies; that this matter may need to be placed on
the agenda again to determine what further consideration, if any,
should be given to the matter.]
1
SIGN CLARIFICATION/"GRAM CRACKERS"
The Mayor introduced a request by the Sign Inspector for Board clarifi—
cation of its legislative intent regarding the Sign Ordinance. The
Mayor explained the Sign Inspector had received an inquiry from "Gram
Crackers" as to whether the Sign Ordinance permits, or prohibits,
the firm from using signs held by employees, dressed in costume and
stationed fifty feet apart on North College Avenue; that the signs
to be held would be approximately two feet high by three feet wide
and each would contain a phrase that, combined with the others, would
create an entire thought; that the proposed hours of display would
be from 8:00 to 9:00 A.M. and from 4:00 to 5:00 P.M.
Representatives of "Gram Crackers", wearing costumes and holding signs,
displayed for the Board an example of the signs they intend to use.
In answer to a question from Director Orton, the representative speaking
for the firm stated they intend -to stand at least three feet'away
from' the traffic. Director`Orton asked if the signs could be back
15 feet instead. It was determined that 15 feet from the road might
be back as far as the doorway 'of the business, and it was the firm's
opinion that for the signs to be effective, they would have to be,
at the most, five feet back.
278
278.1
278.2
278.3
278.4
278.5
Director Lancaster asked the City Attorney about possible liability 278.6
on the part of the City if the signs were to cause a traffic accident.
279
November 6, 1984
279.L The City Attorney explained there would be no liability on the part
of the city; that it would be a matter of proof as to whether the
signs caused the accident. McCord questioned whether the Sign Ordinance
covers this activity but stated that, if the Ordinance applies, (1)
the ordinance prohibits the maintenance of a sign on the right-of-
way; and (2) the ordinance prohibits the maintenance of a sign that
creates a traffic hazard. McCord stated that, if the Board interprets
the ordinance as not prohibiting the activity, they could indicate
that the activity may not take place on the right-of-way and that,
if it creates a traffic hazard, the firm would be cited.
279.2 A representative for the firm stated they had used such signs in another
city and no accidents had ever been caused.
279.3
279.4
Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to permit this
activity, as long as it takes place on the property, not on the right-
of-way, and as long as it does not create a traffic hazard. Upon
roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Lancaster voting against the
motion.
SERVICE ROADS/WIDTH OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
The Mayor introduced a request by the Planning Administrator that
the Board determine whether the collector streets which run adjacent
to the Fulbright Expressway should have 50' or 60' rights-of-way.
The Mayor explained that originally the Fulbright Expressway service
roads were shown to have 50' rights-of-way, but that last year the
Board amended the Master Street Plan to change these roads to collector
streets, which require 60' rights-of-way.
279.5 Director Orton stated she thought a 50' right-of-way would simplify
things; that the streets going onto the Bypass do not really need
a 60' right-of-way. Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion
that these streets be required to have 50' of right-of-way.
279.6 The Board discussed the fact that some of these streets are bounded
on one side by the Bypass and on the other side by private property,
and in some cases are bound by private property on both sides. Director
Orton suggested that each street may need to be considered individually,
and Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, changed her motion to refer
this matter to the Street Committee to bring a recommendation to the
Board. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0-1, with Director Bumpass
not present for the vote and with Director Martin abstaining because
his company owns property along a service road.
1
SEWER BIDS
November 6, 1984
. 280
Mayor Noland introduced consideration of bid awards for (1) the instal- 280.1
lation of a sewer line extension to serve the National Cemetery; and
(2) sewer line extensions to serve the Maple Street and Vandeventer
Avenue areas. The Mayor noted the low bidder for the National Cemetery
installation is Baldwin Construction Company in the amount of $4,844;
CO the low bidder for the Maple Street project is Fayette Tree and Trench
Company in the amount of $8,045; and the low bidder for the Vandeventer
Street project is Tomlinson Asphalt Company in the amount of $8,558.30.
W Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, move to •award the bids to the 280.2
CO low bidders. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, with Director
Bumpass not present for the vote.
RESOLUTION NO. 130-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 44$ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK ,k'/X
RESOLUTION NO. 131-84 APPEARS ON PAGE a S OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK %(x
•
NWARRA FUNDING
Mayor Noland introduced a recommendation from the Board Finance Committee
regarding a funding request from the Northwest Arkansas Resource,Recovery
Authority.
Director Martin reported that the Finance Committee met to consider
this request. Martin explained it had been previously decided that
payment of engineering fees to Henningson, Durham and Richardson for
services rendered on the solid waste facility would come from bond
sale proceeds.
Louis Watts, Project Director for the NWARRA, addressed the Board
on the status of the project. Watts reported that work is now being
done to obtain performance guarantees for the facility and for the
operating company. Watts stated this guarantee will be required of
Lahontan, the company chosen to build and operate the facility. Watts
explained the guarantee will mean the facility will be built to a
certain standard, designed to process a certain amount of waste, which
will produce a certain amount of steam, something Watts stated will
determine the amount of revenues. Watts stated, if the amount of
steam guaranteed is not produced, the company will provide financial
guarantees to pay the difference in lost revenues.
Watts reported that, in the last month, Lahontan has "made a deal"
with Raintree, a subsidiary of Brown & Root Engineering. Watts stated
that Raintree, Lahontan and Brown & Root are meeting in Houston to
280.3
280.4
280.5
280.6
281
November 6, 1984
281.1 make final contractual arrangements for the project. Watts stated
that, on November 19, that group will present a written proposal and,
on November 27, the group will orally present their proposal.
281.2 Watts explained that the City would be reimbursed for the amount requested
after the bonds are sold.
281.3 In answer to a question from Director Martin, Watts clarified that
the additional $78,500 includes not only fees due to the engineers
but also includes additional funds needed for the Resource Recovery
budget for the remainder of the year. Director Martin clarified also
that Watts had stated that, if the performance guarantee cannot be
obtained, another technology might be required. Watts explained that,
before Raintree and Brown & Root came into the project, they were
having second thoughts about whether they could secure performance
guarantees; that Brown & Root and Raintree have stated they are willing
to provide the performance guarantees. Martin stressed that, should
the Authority decide to take a radically different approach in the
technology or in the contracts, the Board would want to review the
project again.
281.4 Watts stated Stephens has told them it is possible that the project
can be financed by the end of the year.
281.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to accept the recom—
mendation
econmendation of the Finance Committee and fund NWARRA for $78,500. Upon
roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
AIRPORT TELEPHONES
281.6 The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a lease—
purchase agreement with DeltaComm., Inc. for a telephone system for
the Airport Manager's office.
281.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the
resolution.
281.8 Mayor Noland asked how this price (monthly payments of $42.39) compared
with other comparable equipment. Director Lancaster stated that the
City Attorney had reviewed the contract. Airport Manager Dale Frederick
explained several phone systems were studied and they chose a system
which would best serve their needs. Frederick also stated this system
was the cheaper of two proposals. Frederick asked for the option
to purchase the system in next year's budget. Frederick explained
they have the choice of leasing it for five years, after which they
would own it, or purchasing it for $1,333 before the expiration of
the lease.
1
282
November 6, 1984
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 282.1
RESOLUTION NO. 132-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 135' OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XX
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
LO
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the Sign Ordinance by 282.2
allowing off-site, free-standing directional signs in industrial zoning
districts.
W
(n City Manager Grimes explained this request is made as a result of 282.3
Q a conversation he had with a local industrial manager who claims that
delivery vehicles have trouble finding the plant in the industrial
park. Grimes stressed that the idea of the off-site sign is not to
advertise but to aid drivers.
Mayor Noland suggested that one sign be used for all the industries.
Grimes suggested the sign be six square feet and two feet back from
the right-of-way, so that it can be seen by a moving vehicle.
Director Orton pointed out the Ordinance calls for directional signs
to be four square feet and 15 feet back from the right-of-way. Orton
suggested, if several industries used one sign, it could be a maximum
of ten square feet.
282.4
282.5
Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to table the request 282.6
for further research.
The City Attorney noted there is another provision in the Ordinance
which allows directional signs of a non-commercial nature on public
property to be six square feet in size.
282%7
Director Johnson stated she would like to view the Industrial Park 282.8
area where the sign is proposed to be located.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Director Orton voting 282-.9
against the motion.
Director Bumpass stated he wished to renew a request he had made several
times that there be a design and location for some type of directory
sign in the Industrial Park. Director Lancaster stated this has been
discussed by the Chamber of Commerce and they are agreeable to this
idea. The City Manager stated he would follow up on this request.
282.10
283
PROPERTY DEMOLITION/W.LAFAYETTE AVE.
November 6, 1984
283.1 The City Attorney reported on the status of the unsafe structure located
at 618 West Lafayette Avenue. McCord explained the property owner,
T. R. Kelly, Jr., had received notice to repair or demolish the structure
and did not respond; that the property owner requested a number of
variances of the Board of Adjustment which were not received. McCord
stated the owner called him and stated he would repair the structure;
that he responded by asking the owner to propose a time schedule which
the owner agreed to do.
283.2 Phil Colwell, resident of 1122 Hillcrest, addressed the Board. Colwell
stated he spoke for his mother who owns property immediately to the
east of 618 W. Lafayette. Colwell stated there is no water or sewer
to Kelly's property, and Kelly claims he has intentions of developing
the property. Colwell stated he is concerned about the possibility
of a fire hazard, as the structure is within 25 feet of a two-story
apartment building. Colwell stated also that, in the past, a violation
notice was sent to Kelly for the garage on the property to be torn
down and shortly thereafter it burned down, damaging a utility pole
and an automobile.
283.3 Director Lancaster asked the City Attorney to read an ordinance to
order the razing and removal of the structure. Director Johnson stated
that the property owner had called her and indicated that the Board
of Adjustment only denied one request for variance and the rest were
tabled, in order to allow Kelly to redesign his project, which he
is in the process of doing. Johnson stated Kelly has asked the Board
of Directors to table the matter for two weeks.
283.4 Mayor Noland asked the City Attorney, if the ordinance were passed
at this meeting, how long would it take for the demolition to take
place. McCord explained that, with an emergency clause in the ordinance,
demolition would be ordered to take place within ten days and to be
completed within thirty days; that without an emergency clause, the
ordinance would not become effective until thirty-one days from publication
of the ordinance. The City Attorney advised that, if the Board is
not inclined to table the matter and does not wish to take final action
but wishes to encourage the property owner to proceed with some plan,
the ordinance could be left on first reading, for action at the next
meeting.
283.5 In answer to a question from Director Orton about why the owner has
not demolished the structure, Colwell stated that the owner claims
the funds for demolition are not available until financing is obtained
for the re development of the property. Director Orton stated she
would be in favor of the owner demolishing the structure now, because
of the potential fire hazard, and then proceeding with his other devel-
opment plans.
1
1
November 6, 1984
At the request of the Mayor, the City Attorney read the ordinance
for the first time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a
motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading.
Upon roll call, the motion failed, 4-3 (with 2/3 of the Directors
failing to vote in favor of the motion), with Directors Sharp, Johnson
and Martin 'voting against the motion. The Mayor declared that the
ordinance remained on first reading.
OTHER BUSINESS
Motorola Contract
•
Mayor Noland explained that, at the time the Board approved the purchase
of the Motorola Communications System, they said it would be paid
for at the time of installation, but that the bid specifictions stipulated
that the system would be paid for in phases. The Mayor asked the
Board to consider whether to change the method of payment to correspond
to the bid specifications.
Director Orton, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve a change
in the method of payment as recommended by the Finance Committee.
Director Martin, speaking for the Finance Committee, stated he understood
Finance Director Linebaugh was able to come to an agreement with Motorola
that there could be partial payments up to a point, but not beyond
the point of a year, and the Finance Committee recommends this arrangement
be approved. The Mayor pointed out that this means the Motorola contract
would be amended to allow progress payments.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
Wage and Salary Committee Clarification
•
The Mayor introduced a request from the Finance Director that the
Board clarify their understanding of what Pay Plan was approved at
the Wage and Salary Committee meeting of October 25, 1984.
Director Johnson clarified that, of approach #1 and approach #2 set
out in the Finance Director's memo, she had been in favor of approach
#2 when she summarized the committee's actions at the meeting, but
that all the other Directors concur that they are in favor of approach
#1. Johnson stated, therefore, that approach 111 should have been
approved - a Pay Plan with steps for five to six years, at which point
the employee would reach market level (average maximum salary), after
which time employees would be eligible for an annual bonus for exceptional
performance, which may be retracted if not earned, or which may be
continued from year to year.
284
284.1
284.2
284.3
284.4
284.5
284.6
284.7
285
285.1
285.2
285.3
285.4
285.5
285.6
285.7
285.8
November 6, 1984
Mayor Noland asked if the Board had ever decided how many employees
could receive the bonus each year. Director Johnson stated 25% had
been discussed at the meeting as a maximum of those eligible which
could receive a bonus.
Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion that the actions
of the Wage and Salary Committee be so clarified. Upon roll call,
the motion passed, 7-0.
Report To The People
Mayor Noland asked the Board to consider the original and the revised
section on Resource Recovery for the Report To The People.
Director Orton explained that a new paragraph has been added to tell
about some of the history, that a University of Arkansas industrial
engineering class came up with the original idea and selected a site,
as a class project. Orton explained the other change was a deletion
of several paragraphs regarding the contract with the University of
Arkansas which she stated "only gives one side of the story" and she
felt either both sides of the story or no part of the story should
be used. Orton explained there is an addition which states that the
NWARRA does have the air quality permit.
Donrey Removal Schedule
City Attorney McCord referred to a November 2nd memo he sent to the
Board concerning a proposed removal schedule submitted by Donrey for
their billboards. McCord reported that, under that schedule, all
58 billboards would be removed over a four-month period ending February
28. McCord stated that, if the schedule is acceptable to the Board,
Donrey will not pursue an appeal.
Director Orton, seconded by Martin, made a motion to accept the schedule.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
McCord also reported that there is a possibility that the Federal
Highway Administration will take a position contrary to the Arkansas
Supreme Court and will attempt to require payment of just compensation
for the removal of the billboards by imposing a 102 withholding in
federal highway funds to the State of Arkansas. McCord explained
if that happens, the Board would have to decide what action to take
in response.
Signalization of North Street CrossinWPlanking
City Manager Grimes referred to a letter sent to the Board concerning
signalization and planking of the North Street railroad crossing.
Grimes explained the City's matching share (102) of the total installation
costs is $3,174. Grimes recommended the payment be approved.
286
November 6, 1984
Director Bumpass, seconded by Sharp, rade a motion to authorize the 286.1
payment, as requested by the City Manager. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0.
Fire Walls for T -Hangars
City Manager Grimes referred to the City Attorney's opinion concerning
fire walls for T -hangars. Grimes noted the opinion indicates that,
in a complex of T -hangars, a fire wall would be required to separate
every 10,000 square feet but not between each individual T -hangar.
Grimes stated he concurred with that opinion and, with the Board's
W approval, the staff will proceed on that basis.
CO
CX Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that the staff
proceed on the basis of the City Attorney's opinion. Upon roll call,
the motion passed, 7-0.
Zion Road Street Improvements
Director Johnson, referring to the Street Superintendent and City
Manager's recommendation that the Latter Day Saints on Zion road be
permitted to proceed with their required street improvements, asked
if it should be assumed the Church did not accept either of the proposals
made by the Board at its last meeting.
Grimes explained the Church wishes to proceed with the street improvements
and it is the staff's opinion that a transition can be made at the
east end of the property with no traffic hazard.
Confederate Cemetery
Director Sharp reported that in September there had been a lot of
vandalism to the gazebo at the Confederate Cemetery and several persons
have offered to donate money for restoration work to be done. Sharp
stated that, during discussions with Cy Sutherland who is active in
restorations, Sutherland suggested that perhaps University architects
could provide services, the Southern Memorial Association and interested
citizens could put up the money, and the City could perhaps donate
the talent of its carpenters, for a restoration project.
286.2
286.3
286.4
286.5
286.6
It was agreed that the City Manager would send a letter to Cy Sutherland, 286..7
without making a commitment on the part of the City.
FCC Petition
Director Orton referred to a letter from the City Attorney to Warner
Amex Cable regarding the City of Fayetteville's Petition to the Federal
Communication Commission for special relief to waive carriage of out-
of-state television signals. Orton asked the City Attorney if a reply
had been received from Warner Cable concerning the City's request
286.8
287
November 6, 1984
287.1 that they join us in supporting the petition. The City Attorney stated
he had not yet received a reply but anticipated that Warner will support
the petition.
Street Standards
287.2 Director Orton noted that the Planning Commisson did not have the
required number of votes to take action on the proposed ordinance
regarding street standards for Large Scale Developments. The City
Manager stated he would review this matter. Director Orton stated
she felt this item should be placed on the agenda for Board consideration.
Bill of Assurance/Dowers Estate
287.3 At Director Lancaster's request, the City Attorney reported that he
had prepared an agreement which was forwarded to the executrix of
the Dowers Estate and that he has not received a response. McCord
stated he sent a follow-up letter to the attorney for the estate and
there has been no response. McCord stated he would contact the attorney
again and notify him that the Board wishes to have a response by the
time of the next meeting.
Board Retreat
20.4 It was agreed that the Board Retreat would be scheduled for Sunday,
December 2, 1984.
MINUTES
287.5 The following correction was made to the Minutes of the October 16
meeting:
241.4 change "...conformance with other..." to "...conformance
with adjacent..."
With that correction, the Minutes were approved as circulated.
ADJOURNMENT
287.6 With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
about 10:45 P.M.
1