HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, April 2 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of City Hall,
113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Lancaster,
Martin and Orton; City Manager Grimes, City Attorney
McCord, City Clerk Kennedy; members of the press and
audience
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Noland called the meeting to order, with five directors present,
and asked for a moment of respectful silence.
REZONING PETITION R85-5/WARREN COTNER
Mayor Noland introduced a request from Warren Cotner, tabled at the
last Board meeting, to rezone 11.56 acres located west and south of
Highway 112 North, southeast of Cris Hollow Road, from A-1, Agricultural,
to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial district. Attorney Phillip Moon was
present to represent Cotner. t.
Phillip Moon distributed scale drawings of the property to the Directors.
[Directors Lancaster and Martin arrived at this point in the meeting.]
Moon explained that the proposed usage is a winery., restaurant and
retail sales. Moon noted that although the winery is permitted in
the A-1 district, a restaurant and retail sales are not permitted.
Moon explained that, upon a request of the Planning Commission, the
petition was reduced from about seven acres to 1.56 acres (removing
the house and surrounding area from the request). Moon stated that
Cotner now plans to restore the house for his own residence and to
develop a vineyard on the east side of the property with ingress to
be from the southernmost portion of the property approximately across
from Ozark Windows. Moon stated that the owner's intent is to leave
the area in its natural setting; not to cut down any trees, to restore
the barn with an addition to possibly be a restaurant, and to impact
upon the area in the least intrusive manner. Moon added that he thought
a winery would increase property values in the area.
Moon stated his client would offer to execute a Bill of Assurance
promising that if the property were sold and there is any use made
of the property which is not permitted in a C-2 district, or if the
use changed beyond that of a winery, restaurant and retail sales,
the zoning would revert back to A-1; but that, if the area were modified
79.1
79.2
79.3
80
April 2, 1985
80.1 into a commercial area, the Bill of Assurance would become null and
void. Director Orton stated she did not think the Bill of Assurance
as worded contained any restrictions, since there was no mention of
a winery or restaurant. The City Attorney asked Moon if Cotner would
be willing to specify that, if the property were sold, the present
use would have to continue. Moon stated that Cotner would be willing
to execute a Bill of Assurance which would state that, if the property
were sold and used for anything other than a winery and a restaurant
and retail sales, the zoning would revert back to A-1.
80.2 Director Martin noted that the owner's promise to preserve the rustic
atmosphere of the area was not included in the Bill of Assurance.
Moon stated that the owner would be willing to include such an assurance.
80.3 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Moon explained that
the restaurant would be added onto the east side of the barn, with
a small parking area proposed to be located east of the barn.
80.4 Jim Sandlin, neighbor in the area, addressed the Board. Sandlin commented
that the Bill of Assurance as proposed does not address the use of
the property while it is owned by Cotner. Sandlin stated that the
Planning Commission had denied a request for commercial zoning at
the intersection of Highways 265 and 16 because they thought a liquor
store would be built there. Sandlin pointed out that C-2 zoning would
allow a nightclub to operate and commented that if the owner doesn't
restrict alcohol consumption on the premises, it would "create a heck
of a hazard" as "that road is not made for drunks".
80.5 Sandlin stated that he had talked to many of the area residents and
that they all are in favor of the project but want to be assured that
the project will be limited to only what Moon has proposed. Sandlin
noted that accesses might be required. Sandlin added that the Planning
Commission had asked the petitioner to work out a Bill of Assurances
with him (Sandlin) and that no attempt was made to do so. Sandlin
asked that the Board vote "no" unless a Bill of Assurance is offered
which would limit the use of the property.
80.6 David Fulton, real estate broker, addressed the Board, stating he
was present at Sandlin's request. Fulton expressed concern that C-2
zoning would open up a residential and agricultural area to "honky-tonks".
Fulton also expressed concerns about the damage the infliction of
C-2 zoning would cause to long-time residents of the area, commenting
that it would be an extreme injustice.
80.7 Director Martin pointed out that a high amount of density could occur
under R-1 zoning and he noted that the owner has committed a large
portion of the property to A-1 use.
April 2, 1985
•
Fulton added that the area landowners' objections are not necessarily
to the C-2 zoning but to its placement immediately adjacent to Sandlin's
property.
•
Al Graves,•owner of abutting property, stated he thought the question
was moot and he asked where all the arguments were when the east side
of the highway was rezoned, which he stated was "far worse". iGraves
commented that, with industrial zoning to the south, and C-1 zoning
across the street, he didn't think residential development would be
"in the cards" for the property. •Graves added that he didn't understand
such.adverse reactions to "a clean business" in the community.
Director Hess asked Sandlin if he "would be at ease" if the Bill of
assurance would specificallylimit the use of the property to. a restaurant
and retail sales. Sandlin commented that that would be .a. step in
the right direction.
After further discussion, Moon reiterated that his client would be
• willing to make the Bill of Assurance more specific. The City Attorney
recommended the issue be tabled again .to give him and Moon an opportunity
to draft .a Bill. of:Assurance. Moon stated he would, be willing to
state. that his client. would execute a Bill of Assurance promising
to restrict the use of the property to the restaurant and retail sales,
if the Board would vote on the issue now. -
Director Lancaster commented that C-2 zoning is meant to be along
a major highway, not in a rural area set back off the road in the
middle of. a'15 -acre field.
Director Bumpass questioned whether, if this property were to be rezoned
C-2, there could be a judicial case for rezoning all the property
between the two commercial districts. McCord stated he thought that
would not- be the case because of the city's policy of restricting
commercial development to established intersections.
In answer to a question from Bumpass as to whether there is a procedure
whereby a non -conforming use could be granted in an A-1 district,
the City Attorney responded that, under Arkansas law,' the Planning
Commission cannot grant "a use variance" to permit a use not otherwise
permitted in the zoning district.
Director Johnson -asked what wouldtbe included in "retail, sales".
Moon explained the retail sales would include the wine- produced from
the vineyard.
•. . , .
At the request of the Mayor, 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.
81
81..1
81.2
81.3
81.4
81.5
81.6
81.7
81.8
81.9
82.1
82.2
82.3
82.4
82.5
82.6
82.7
82.8
April 2, 1985
Director Orton commented that she would be in favor of leaving the
ordinance on first reading until such time as a new Bill of Assurance
is proposed. Mayor Noland suggested that Attorneys Moon and McCord
recess to discuss the drafting of a Bill of Assurance. It was decided
to consider other agenda items during the recess.
Following the recess, the City Attorney reported that the petitioner
agreed to offer a Bill of Assurance promising that the property rezoned
C-2 would be restricted to a restaurant or eating establishment serving
food, wine and beer; that the petitioner will not agree to a covenant
that the premises could not serve mixed drinks; that the adjacent
building could be used for the wholesale and retail sale of wine;
including a covenant that the restaurant would be located on the east
or south of the existing barn. Attorney Moon explained that his client
had not stated whether he plans to have a private club so he did not
wish to rule out that possibility.
In answer to a question from Director Martin, the City Attorney clarified
that the Bill of Assurance would apply to existing or future owners;
that the use is restricted in perpetuity; that the property would
not revert to A-1 zoning unless the Board chose to rezone the property.
In answer to a question from Director Orton regarding whether the
reversion to A-1 should be included, McCord stated he would recommend
against the use of such reversion language.
McCord 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 ordinance was read for the final time.
In answer to questions from Directors regarding the location of the
road, McCord stated the petitioner has not offered to include any
reference to the location of the road in the Bill of Assurance.
In answer to a question from Director Bumpass about items of concern
such as lighting restrictions, a privacy fence, and screening, McCord
noted that some of those items would be addressed during the large
scale development process.
Director Hess asked if the Board would have any recourse should the
owner attempt to open a private club. McCord noted that the Board
would receive notice and would have an opportunity to register any
objections.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-1, with Director Lancaster
voting in the minority.
ORDINANCE NO. 3075 APPEARS ON PAGE .12 q
OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXI
1
1
•
April 2, 1985
CHILDREN'S HOUSE/SCAN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a con-
struction contract with Harrison Davis Construction Company Inc. for
the new Children's House/SCAN facility. The Mayor explained that
the facility would be constructed on city property near the city's
Water and Sewer Operations Center.
The Mayor reported that the low bid, including deductive alternates,
was submitted by Harrison Davis. Community Development Director Sandra
Carlisle noted that the driveway was revised to cut down on asphalt.
In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Carlisle explained
that the City Manager had written the Highway Department to request
permission to cut another driveway and that the Highway Department
has granted the request.
83.1
83.2
83.3
In answer to a question from Johnson regarding credit for asphalt 83.4
shingle roofing, Carlisle explained that credit was given because
the first bid was $350 more than it would cost to install asphalt
shingle roofing.
In answer to a question from Johnson regarding the difference between
cast iron, stainless steel, and fiberglass mop sinks, Carlisle explained
the architect and Davis decided a fiberglass sink could be used at
less cost. Johnson questioned whether a fiberglass sink would last
as long and she suggested Carlisle check into prices for a stainless
steel sink.
83.5
In answer to Mayor Noland, Carlisle stated that construction is hoped 83.6
to be completed by August 1.
Director Martin asked Carlisle if she felt that any of the change
order or alternate items would not, in the long run, be cost-effective
to. use. Carlisle explained that the intent of the changes was to
keep the project within the budget and she pointed out that, in the
case of the alternate fence, chain link was simply being substituted
in place of a wood fence.
Director Hess pointed out that he thought most of the deleted items
represent the difference between a "$150,000 custom house and a $110,000
spec house". Hess added that the alternate items are all functional
but just not quite as high quality as what was originally planned.
83.7
83.8
Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to award the bid 83.9
to Harrison Davis in the amount of $142,595. Upon roll call, the
motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 33-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 378. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XX)
8 4
April 2, 1985
EOA/SCAN LEASES
84.1 The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute lease agreements with the Economic Opportunity Agency of
Washington County, Inc. and SCAN Volunteer Services, Inc. for the
new Children's House/SCAN facility.
84.2 In answer to a question from the Mayor regarding insurance for the
facility, C.D. Director Sandra Carlisle explained that the city carries
an insurance policy covering all its buildings at a lower premium;
that the lessees would pay the city a pro rata share for the insurance.
84.3
84.4
84.5
Director
execution
call, the
Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the
of the lease agreements with the EGA and SCAN. Upon roll
motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 34-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 3g 1 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK NO. XXI
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT/C.D. STREETS
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of
a contract for engineering services with McGoodwin, Williams and Yates
for Maine, Lewis, Gabbard, Kaywood, Venus, Neptune and Phillips Streets;
and for engineering services with Crafton, Tull, Spann and Yoe for
Oak Road, Rutledge, Velda Court, Easy, Pear and Birch Streets.
Mayor Noland reported that five proposals were submitted and the two
firms were chosen through the city's professional selection procedure.
84.6 Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, made a notion to pass the resolution.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. ./
RESOLUTION NO. 35-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 3g7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK X X
84.7
84.8
WATER AND SEWER BUDGET/30% FUNDING
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the expenditure of
up to 30% of the amounts in the 1984 Water and Sewer budgets until
the 1985 versions have been approved.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the
resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 36-85 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK XXL
OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
1
1
•
April 2, 1985
TOWNSHIP ROAD ENGINEERING
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of
a contract for engineering services with Milholland Company for the
Township Road (Old Wire to Crossover Road) project.
85.1
City Manager Grimes pointed out that this contract would cover design, 85.2
bid process and construction observation.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Bess, made a motion to pass the reso- 85.3
lution.
City Manager Grimes noted that the alignment for the road was established
in 1979. Grimes stated that nearly all right-of-way acquisition has
been completed at this time. Grimes recommended that, after preliminary
engineering has been completed, the Board ask the Planning Commission
to review and recommend which streets should or should not intersect
with the road. Grimes noted that stakes will probably be installed
at every street and that citizens should not interpret this to mean
that those streets have been chosen to intersect the new road.
85.4
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 85.5
u
RESOLUTION NO. 37-85 APPEARS ON PAGE /L2. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XX I
REZONING PETITION R85-8/KENNETH HORN
The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning three acres located east
of Highway 71, immediately south of the entrance to the Drake Field
Terminal building, from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
district. The Mayor explained that this petition was submitted by
Kenneth Horn and the Planning Commission recommended approval by a
vote of 9-0.
85.6
The City Manager read the ordinance for the first time. Director 85.7
Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director
Hess, 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.
The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against
the ordinance. With no public opposition expressed, the roll was
called and the ordinance passed, 7-0.
85.8
88
ORDINANCE NO. 3076 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK XX
April 2, 1985
OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
REZONING PETITION R85-4(0.43 ACRES)/A.W. REALTY
86.1 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning 0.43 acres located north
of Joyce Street from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial district. The Mayor noted the petition, submitted by Jim
Lindsey, was recommended for approval by a Planning Commission vote
of 7-1-1 (Jacks dissenting and Green abstaining).
86.2 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, 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.
86.3 Director Martin explained he would abstain from discussion and from
voting because he is an officer of A. W. Realty Company.
86.4 Jim Lindsey was present and addressed the Board concerning both this
petition and Rezoning Petition R85-3 (which is for property surroun-
ding the 0.43 acre parcel and under consideration to be rezoned from
R-2, Medium Density Residential, to R-0, Residential Office district).
Lindsey displayed drawings showing the zoning of the area and his
proposed development plans.
86.5 Lindsey explained that, should C-1 zoning be approved for the 0.43
acre parcel, a Bill of Assurance would be executed promising that,
if a drugstore can be added to the uses permitted in the R-0 district,
the property would then be rezoned to R-0 and the Bill of Assurance
released. Lindsey pointed out that presently a drugstore is permitted
in the R-0 district, but is limited to the sale of drug-related items
and it was his intention to sell other items such as greeting cards.
86.6 Addressing Petition R85-3 (for a five -acre tract to be rezoned from
from R-2 to R-0), Lindsey stated he felt his original request for
the entire 14.57 acres was a fair request based on the overall balance
It would give to the surrounding zoning. Lindsey noted that Planning
Consultant Larry Wood had recommended approval of R-0 as well. Lindsey
explained that the Planning Commission recommended only five acres
of the tract be rezoned; that at the Planning Commission meeting it
was brought out that some R-0 uses may be approved in an R-2 District
as conditional uses upon appeal.
1
April 2, 1985
Lindsey noted that A. W. Realty Company recognizes the fact that Ellen-
berger Avenue is on the Master Street Plan and is willing to honor
that fact if the city could designate the location of the street.
Lindsey explained that the Planning Administrator and the Planning
Consultant disagree over the location of the street. City Manager
Grimes stated that the city would have to do some field work to determine
its location. The City Attorney added that the Master Street Plan
only indicates a general location for the street. Planning Commissioner
Barbara Crook noted that Ellenberger is shown on the Master Street
Plan to line up with the west side of the property but a legal description
has never been found for the street. Crook added that the Planning
Commission recommended an amendment to the Master Street Plan to show
a north -south street extending from Ellenberger to Zion Road.
Lindsey explained his plans for building a doctors' office complex
on 5 acres of the 14.57 acre tract of land but he noted there was
a possibility that in the future the complex would house other tenants
as well. Lindsey stated he felt that the quality of an office complex
would be far superior to the quality of apartments which might develop
in the R-2 zone.
The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against
the ordinance to rezone 0.43 acres from R-2 to C-1. No public opposition
was expressed and upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0-1, with
Martin abstaining.
ORDINANCE NO. 3077 APPEARS ON PAGE 036, OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK kX
REZONING PETITION R85-3/(5 ACRES)/A.W. REALTY
The City Attorney introduced an ordinance to rezone five acres of
land, located north of Joyce Street from R-2, Medium Density Residential,
to R-0, Residential Office district. 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 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, 7-0. The ordinance
was read for the final time.
Director Bumpass asked that the record reflect (since the ordinance
before the Board only includes five acres of the original 14.57 -acre
tract) that this does not mean that the balance of the tract was "denied"
for rezoning by the Planning Commission, but that the Planning Commission
recommended only five acres of the tract be rezoned; that this means
Lindsey would be eligible to submit another petition to rezone the
8i
87.1
87.2
87.3
87.4
87.5
88
April 2, 1985
88.1 balance of the property without waiting one year. City Attorney McCord
concurred.
88.2 Mayor Noland asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition
to the ordinance. With no public opposition expressed, the roll was
called, and the ordinance passed, 6-0-1, with Martin abstaining.
ORDINANCE NO. 3078 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK Xyl
OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
REZONING PETITION R85-9/CHARLES YERTON
88.3 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning 0.42 acres located at
3345 South School Street from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density
Residential. Noland explained that petition, submitted by Charles
Teflon, was recommended for approval by a Planning Commission vote
of 9-0.
88.4
88.5
88.6
88.7
88.8
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, 7-0. McCord
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 ordinance was read for the final time.
The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against
the ordinance. With no public opposition expressed, the roll was
called and the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3079 APPEARS ON PAGE 7D OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK )00
GREEN SPACE AMENDMENTS
The Mayor introduced three proposed amendments to the "Green Space"
Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1985:
to allow for the determination of unnecessary hardship; to allow for
a waiver in the instance of special recreational needs; and to establish
the dates upon which the ordinance would be applied to a subdivision.
For purposes of expedience, the City Attorney read all three proposed
ordinances for the first time.
Director Hess asked the City Attorney what the legal ramifications
were of the proposed amendment that "the requirements shall not apply
1
1
April 2, 1985
to any development where the subdivision plat was filed of record
after September 12, 1960, and before January 20, 1981". The City
Attorney noted that the Planning Commission recommended the date of
September 12, 1960 because that was the date the city first imposed
any park requirements on developers. He stated that January 20, 1981
was the date of adoption of the existing parks ordinance. Planning
Commissioner Barbara Crook noted that developers were subject to some
requirements between the two dates and that the Planning Commission
didn't feel they should be subject again to the requirements of the
present ordinance. Crook added that there are only a few platted
subdivisions prior to 1960, according to the Planning Administrator;
that those few subdivisions never made improvements and could be made
subject to the requirements if they decided to develop now.
Director Martin asked if a developer must meet all seven conditions
of Paragraph 5 in order to be granted a waiver of the requirements.
Crook pointed out that the amendment would add a seventh condition
to the already existing six conditions which must be met. Martin
commented that if the residents of a development had no "special recre-
ational needs", the amendment as written does not allow for a waiver
to be granted.
Director Martin pointed out that if a developer wished to build a
small "Disney World" type development which would be open to the public,
and couldn't show "unnecessary hardship", the developer would not
be eligible for a waiver. Crook noted that Paragraph 5 was written
to apply to private parks, not commercial endeavors open to the public.
Director Martin stated it had been his observation that "one of the
hardest things to get is a waiver of the Green Space Ordinance" and
he commented that the proposed amendments make it impossible.
Crook commented that the intent of the amendments is to clarify areas
that have been "muddy" for the Planning Commission and possibly for
the developers, particularly the addition to the first paragraph of
Section 5. Crook added that she thought the terminology of "unnecessary
hardship" and "unique circumstances" simply puts into words the require-
ments for a waiver from any city ordinance.
Director Orton stated she thought waivers should be granted for exceptions
to the rule, because of some unique situation, and she commented that
the proposed amendments were needed.
Director Martin expressed concern that the amendments focus the granting
of a waiver on "negatives" and do not allow for positive aspects of
a development to be considered.
Mayor Noland pointed out that two waivers of the Green Space requirements
had been granted in the last year and he commented that he thought
those waivers could still have been granted under the proposed new
conditions.
89.1
89.2
89.3
89.4
89.5
89.6
89.7
90
April 2, 1985
90.1 Director Martin commented that he did not think Butterfield Trail
could have been granted a waiver under the proposed amendment to paragraph
five because of wording which states the ordinance must cause both
unnecessary hardship and that the problems of the developer must reflect
unique circumstances.
90.2 Director Johnson suggested the proposed amendment to the first paragraph
of (5) be changed to read
90.3 ...upon determination that enforcement of the ordinance would
cause unnecessary hardship and/or that the problems of the developer
reflect unique circumstances..."
90.4 Director Martin suggested that
90.5 "...the problems of the developer..." be changed to read "...the
characteristics of the development..."
90.6 Director Bumpass suggested that
90.7 "...the problems of the developer..." be changed to read "...the
problems or merits of the development..."
90.8 Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin, made a lotion that the proposed
amendment to the first sentence in Paragraph 5 be changed to read:
90.9 "...upon determination that enforcement of the ordinance would
cause unnecessary hardship or that the problems or merits of
the development reflect unique circumstances..."
90.10 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
90.11 Director Martin suggested that the changes to the first amendment
may do away with the necessity of the proposed paragraph (g). Mayor
Noland and Director Orton commented that paragraph (g) should be kept
in the ordinance.
90.12 Director Martin, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to delete proposed
paragraph (g).
90.13 After further discussion, Director Martin stated he thought that developers
who could not qualify under paragraph (g) would be discouraged from
enhancing their developments with recreational facilities such as
swimming pools. Crook stated she believed developers would continue
to build pools to enhance their development and sell their lots.
Director Orton stated the green space fee is not large enough to inhibit
developers from building swimming pools, which she commented would
in most cases be exclusively private pools. Director Johnson stated
she thought the ordinance does not allow the average developer to
get any break.
1
April 2, 1985
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-3, with Lancaster, Martin, Hess
and Johnson voting for the motion and Orton, Noland and Bumpass voting
against the motion.
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 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, 7-0. The City Attorney.read the ordinance
for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance (as amended)
passed, 7-0. •
ORDINANCE NO. 3080 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XX
9.1.
91.1
91.2
The meeting recessed at 9:55 P.M. and reconvened at about 10:05 P.M. 91.3
REZONING APPEAL/CLARENCE PAYNE
The Mayor introduced an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission
regarding the failure to rezone property as requested in rezoning
petition R85-6. The Mayor noted the appeal was submitted by Clarence
Payne and concerns 3.52 acres located at the northeast corner of Highway
16 and Highway 265; that the Planning Commission, by a vote of 8-1,
denied the petitioner's request to rezone the property from.0-1, Neighbor-
hood Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
91.4
Ervan Wimberly was present to represent the petitioner. Wimberly 91.5
noted that Highways 16 and 265 are thoroughfares and that Highway
265 was earmarked on the Master Street Plan to be relocated generally
to the west of Happy Hollow Road. Wimberly added that the State plans
to make improvements to the intersection and the developers will give
additional right-of-way as required for those improvements. Wimberly
noted that the developer is well aware of access, flood plain and
drainage problems on the site. Wimberly explained the site is below
existing drainage sewer and a private pump station would have to be
maintained and the creek would have to be re -channeled to make any
use of the, property. Wimberly added that, after the right-of-way
dedication and drainage work is completed, there may only be 2 1/2
acres or less which can be used.
Wimberly stated he thought the neighborhood opposition was based on
neighbors' fears that a liquor store would be located at the intersection.
Wimberly pointed out that the City Ordinance prohibits a liquor store
being located on any commercial property bounded on any two sides,
91.6
2
April 2, 1985
92.1 or across the street, by residential property (with a state highway
being considered a street). Wimberly noted that at present three
sides of the property in question are bounded by residential property.
92.2 Wimberly noted it has been the Board's and the Planning Commission's
general policy in the past to allow commercial zoning at major inter-
sections.
92.3 In answer to questions from the Directors, Wimberly explained that
the creek rechannelization would be as ouch as thirty feet wide at
the bottom, and about 60 feet wide at the top, would remain open and
would be landscaped.
92.4 In answer to a question from Lancaster, Wimberly stated an auto parts
store is proposed for the site.
92.5 City Manager Grimes explained the current status of the State Highway
Department's plans for improvements at the intersection is that the
project is in the "preliminary plans" stage and that those plans are
available for inspection at the City Manager's Office, with September
being the time slated for construction.
92.6 Mayor Noland asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition
to the rezoning.
92.7 Richard Mayes, resident across the street from the property, stated
the area is a quiet, single-family neighborhood with already existing
traffic problems. Mayes stated he thought three sides of the lot
could be sold off and a liquor store could still be built. Mayes
stated he was opposed to the rezoning until more information is provided
as to what kind of business would be built and how late it would be
open.
92.8 Carl Osborn, speaking for his wife (property owner to the west), stated
he thought the rezoning would adversely affect the quality of life
in the neighborhood and stated he didn't believe the profits of the
developers should be at the expense, or to the detriment, of the neighbor-
hood. Osborn stated he was concerned that additional rezoning could
cause further intrusions of commercial development into the neighborhood,
causing excessive noise, lights, vandalism and increased traffic.
92.9 Darrell Ward, property owner to the east, stated he had been opposed
when the property was rezoned C-1 and is again in opposition to C-2
zoning. Ward pointed out the Planning Commission had recommended
the property be zoned for office use. Ward added that he thought
the rezoning would cause property values to decrease.
92.10 Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a lotion to deny the appeal.
1
1
April 2, 1985
Director Bumpass spoke in favor of the rezoning. Bumpass commented
that the rezoning would not constitute "strip zoning" since the Board's
policy has been to allow commercial zoning at major intersections.
Bumpass added that the traffic count for the intersection shows there
to be more traffic there than at the intersection of Highways 265
and 45 where he stated there is about 80 acres of C-2 zoned property.
Bumpass stated he did not think some of the proposed uses would create
any additional traffic than that which exists under the C-1 zoning.
Bumpass stated he thought the request was reasonable and should be
approved for reasons of consistency.
Director Hess raised the question of a buffer zone between the property
and the surrounding residential area. Director Orton pointed out
that such a requirement would be imposed by the city during the development
process. Wimberly explained that either a view -obscuring fence or
trees would be required.
Upon roll call, the motion to deny failed, 3-4, with Lancaster, Martin
and Orton voting in favor of the motion and Hess, Noland, Bumpass
and Johnson voting against the motion.
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 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, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the third
time.
Director Martin pointed out that the developer is not willing to give
up the right to build a liquor store, which Martin stated appeared
to be one of the more objectionable uses. Martin commented that the
neighbors should be protected from that use.
Director Lancaster stated that the property was never developed under
its C-1 zoning. Lancaster commented that he was opposed to any business
at that location, noting that the location has been an established
residential neighborhood for a long time. Mayor Noland pointed out
that the Board established a land use policy to limit commercial develop-
ment to the intersections in order to avoid strip zoning on Highway
265.
Director Johnson asked about the possibility of a Bill of Assurance
to address the safety aspect at the intersection and which would be
related to the Highway Department improvement project. Wimberly stated
the the owner would be willing to postpone plans to open a business
for as long as nine months to one year, if it took that long for the
Highway Department to make the improvements. In answer to a question
from Johnson regarding business hours, Wimberly replied that most
93
93.1
93.2
93.3
93.4
93.5
93.6
93.7
9 4
94.1
94.2
94.3
94.4
94.5
94.6
94.7
April 2, 1985
businesses do not stay open past 9:00 or 10:00 P.M. and he pointed
out that he did not think a business at that intersection would attract
the kind of traffic which is found at a "downtown commercial shopping
center".
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 4-3, with Directors Hess, Noland,
Bumpass and Johnson voting for the ordinance and Directors Lancaster,
Martin, and Orton in the minority.
ORDINANCE NO. 3081 APPEARS ON PAGE Li 3. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK Xk 1
FIRE AND POLICE HOLIDAY PAY
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the establishment
of the legal holidays and compensation rate for fire and police personnel
in the employee pay plan.
Director Bumpass stated that during the Board's tour of agenda items,
it was his understanding that it was the consensus of the Directors
to ask the Finance Department to make an analysis of the financial
impact of new legislation regarding holiday pay for police and fire
personnel, using different formulas to establish holiday leave; and
to show, over a long term, what the best and worst financial impact
would be on the budget; that this analysis would be referred to the
Finance Committee in consideration of the overall budget. Bumpass
added that the change in legislation has necessitated the need for
some recommendation to be made.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to refer this atter
to the Finance Department to make a recommendation to the Finance
Committee.
Director Johnson stated she thought the Board should determine the
recommendation, and added that although the holiday pay has already
been approved, the issue was whether holiday pay should be included
in base salary or be in addition to base salary; and what will the
impact be on other city employees. Director Johnson commented that
it would have a far more detrimental effect on employee morale to
retain 11 holidays this year and change to eight holidays next year,
than it would to change now to eight holidays.
Director Martin commented that the city has already approved a pay
plan for city employees and he did not think the impact of the new
legislation could be considered without knowing how other communities
plan to apply the new law. Martin pointed out that the change in
the law did not change the results of the salary survey which was
used to establish the pay plan. Martin stated that although he was
1
April 2, 1985
willing to re -study the issue, he still thought the Board already 95.1
approved holiday pay for police and fire personnel.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Martin voting against 95.2
the motion.
BID AWARD/OFFICE SUPPLIES
Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the award of Bid #611 for 95.3
a one-year office supplies contract.
Purchasing Officer Sturman Mackey reported that bid invitations were
mailed to all bidders in Northwest Arkansas and one out-of-state bidder.
Mackey reported two bids were received which were in compliance with
the bid specifications, from McRoy and McNair and from Duffields Office
Supply. Mackey reported that McRoy and McNair bid 20% off list and
was the low bidder. Mackey recommended the city enter into a one-year
contract for office supplies (with the exception of paper products,
printing items, IBM typewriter ribbons and lift-off tapes, and furnishings)
with McRoy and McNair.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the
bid to McRoy and McNair. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
REMOVAL OF BUILDINGS AT SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE
City Manager Don Grimes explained that appraisals have been made of
the buildings located at the sludge disposal site and, upon the recommen-
dation of the EPA, the city has offered to sell the buildings to the
former property owners for their appraised value.
The City Attorney advised that a resolution authorizing the execution 95.7
of a Bill of Sale would be in order.
95.4
95.5
95.6
Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to pass the resolution.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 38-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 42,1 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK KA I
95.8
9f;
DWI SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
April 2, 1985
96.1 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the city Police Department's
participation in the DWI Selective Enforcement Program.
96.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion that the Police
Department participate in the DWI Selective Enforcement Program.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 39-85 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK XX I
423 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
SUIT FOR DAMAGE TO CITY VEHICLE
96.3 City Manager Grimes asked the Board to authorize the City Attorney
to file suit to recover the value of a city police vehicle destroyed
in an accident on August 13, 1984.
96.4 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the City
Manager's recommendation. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
96.5 Director Johnson reported the following recommendations of the Nominating
Committee for appointments to citizen committees:
Advertising and Promotion Commission
For a term ending April 1, 1989:
Board of Housing and Construction Appeals
For a term ending April 1, 1990:
Historic District Commission
Fur a term ending April 1, 1988:
Library Board of Trustees
Fur a term ending April 1, 1991:
C. Garland Melton
Gary Deckert
Ann Thomas Ray
Hugh Longino, Jr.
96.6 Johnson reported that the vacant position on the Board of Adjustment
would be readvertised.
96.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the
recommendation of the Nominating Committee. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0.
1
April 2, 1985
CONDEMNATION AUTHORIZATION
City Manager Grimes requested authorization to file condemnation proceed-
ings to acquire property needed for the Drake Road protect. Grimes
explained the city has been unable to negotiate for the property.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to pass a resolution
authorizing the condemnation.
The City Attorney noted that there is still a possibility the city
may be able to negotiate with the property owners and that the condemnation
may not be necessary.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 40-85 APPEARS ON PAGE L124, OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK xX I
PARKS ALLOCATION
City Manager Grimes reported that the
Board has recommended to the Board that
at Wilson Park for the 1985 season.
included in the budget for this purpose.
Parks and Recreation Advisory
a second wading pool be built
Grimes noted that $23,000 is
Director Orton, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the recom-
mendation of the PRAB.
Director Johnson noted that a memo from the Parks Director included
a request for a reallocation of $10,000 designated for Walker Park
North and Finger Park improvements to Lake Fayetteville Softball Complex
improvements. Directors Orton and Martin agreed to include approval
of that request in the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
6-1, with Bumpass voting against the motion.
STREET COMMITTEE MEETING
A Street Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 10 at
2:00 P.M.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
A meeting of the Finance Committee was scheduled for Thursday, April
11 at 8:45 A.M. to consider the Water and Sewer budget.
97.1
97.2
97.3
97.4
97.5
97.6
97.7
97.8
r
98
98.1
98.2
98.3
98.4
98.5
April 2, 1985
LOW WATER BRIDGE PROJECT
Bob Brandon, resident of 649 Wilson Avenue, asked if the Street Committee
would consider his request to drop plans for upgrading the pathway
on railroad property near Wilson Park. City Attorney McCord explained
that he has recommended the Street Committee not address the request
until the lawsuit (which was filed by Brandon against the city) is
resolved.
HIGHWAY 71 JURISDICTION ADJACENT TO DRAKE FIELD
Director Bumpass, speaking as Chairman of the Police and Fire Committee,
reported that, since there are two cases pending concerning police
jurisdiction along Highway 71 adjacent to Drake Field, any consideration
of city policy should be deferred until a judicial determination of
jurisdiction is received.
The City Attorney explained that two arrests were made by a Greenland
Police Officer in the area which is in controversy; that these cases
are set for trial on May 13. McCord noted that there is no dispute
over whether speeding was involved, but the court will decide whether
the city of Fayetteville or the city of Greenland has jurisdiction
over that area. McCord added that, since there has been no mutual
agreement between the cities over who should have jurisdiction, the
court's determination should resolve the issue.
MINUTES
The minutes of the March 19, 1985 meeting were approved with the following
corrections:
67.4 Line 7: Delete comma after "salaries" and add "in"
after "salaries"
72.7 Line 4: "funds" should be "fund"
72.7 Line 7: After "...census" add "in one year's time."
76.1 Line 1: "Vance" should be "Janzen"
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
about 11:25 P.M.
1