HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-16 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
•
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on
Tuesday, February 16, .1988 at 7:30 p.m..: in the Directors' Room of
Fayetteville City Hall, 113 West Mountain -Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Johnson; Directors Lancaster; Martin, Kelley, Marinoni,
and Hess; Assistant City Manager Linebaugh, City Attorney
McCord, City Clerk MCWethy, members of the press and audience
ABSENT:, Director Bumpass and City Manager Pennington
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor with six Directors present.. 75.1
DICKSON STREET ASSESSORS
The Mayor introduced consideration of a resolution appointing assessors for
the Dickson Street Central Business Improvement District.
Carl Collier, member of the Board of Commissioners for the District, told
the •Board the District's Plan of Improvement had been completed and was
reviewed by the City Attorney and meets the statutory requirements. Collier
then submitted the Plan to the City Clerk on behalf of the District. He
displayed a drawing which depicted the layout of four parking lots. He
explained two of the lots would provide 217 parking spaces located south of
Dickson Street, west of West Street, north of Spring Street and east of the
main line of the Arkansas -Missouri Railroad, that a third lot would provide
257 parking spaces located east of West Street between Watson and Dickson
Streets; and the fourth lot would contain 58 parking spaces located between
Gregg Avenue and the main line of the Burlington Northern Railroad.
Collier reported the Board of Commissioners recommend Keith L. Schultz, Rick
Mayes and Dan Hudspeth be appointed as assessors.
The City -Attorney told the Board they should appoint the assessors and that
the assessors should not own property within the improvement District. He
said he had been advised that the three persons recommended do not own
property in the district. He told the Board the appropriate action would be
to adopt a resolution to appoint the assessors.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, moved approval of a resolution
appointing the assessors as recommended. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
6-0, Director Bumpass being absent.
t
•
75.2
:75.3
75.4
75.6
75.7
76
RESOLUTION NO. 11-88 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT TO THE PUBLIC
76.1 Because the City Manager was unable
the Report to the Public was not
copies had been distributed and any
at the next Board agenda meeting.
February 16, 1988
OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
to attend the meeting due to illness,
presented. The Mayor noted that written
questions on the report could be fielded
76.2 Dennis Sandretto reported on the progress of the Wastewater Treatment Plant
construction project. He said although the contractor was making headway he
had concerns with some safety-related items. He said the contractor intends
to start up on February 26, but that situation will be assessed next week.
He said his firm is notifying the contractor about some deficiencies.
Sandretto said there are some items they are not able to check before basins
are ready but the contractor has assured him that, because half the plant
can be operating while the other half is being finished, inspections can be
made of the first half.
76.3 Director Marinoni asked Sandretto to comment on reports that there had been
a slowdown in the work. Sandretto said there had been a significant
reduction in personnel after a major snowstorm, as a result of the storm and
re -assessing the amount of concrete repair work they completed. He said a
major part of the reduction in force was as a result of the subcontractor
who is doing the concrete remedial work. He said right after the end of the
cold weather the staff was brought back to a higher level.
76.4 Director Martin remarked that he did not remember having received a major
milestone schedule recently. Sandretto said that one had been prepared
which represents the end of January, although he did not know if the City
Board had been provided a copy. Martin asked if the project was going to
finish on time. Sandretto said the plant would meet the permit and
Administrative Order on schedule but he did not think the contract
completion date would be met. He said minor punch list items would remain,
in his opinion, but would not impact the meeting of the permit. Martin
asked if the idea of using half the plant, while finishing the other half,
was in Sandretto's opinion, a reasonable thing to be doing. Sandretto said
it was not the engineer's preference, but under the circumstances of the
Administrative Order and the desire to start meeting the final permit, the
engineer feels it is an acceptable alternative to delaying the job longer.
76.5 In answer to a question from Director Marinoni about the bermuda grass,
Sandretto said the program for this year will be reviewed and a plan has
been submitted by the bonding company on how they will control the weeds,
re -sprig with bermuda grass, do the earthwork, fertilize, irrigate, and mow.
He said the plan will be evaluated next week and it will be determined
whether it can meet with success. He said the bonding company was
February 16, 1988
responsible for finishing the job and will likely hire another contractor to
finish the bermuda grass.
In answer to a question from Director Hess, Sandretto said as of the end of
January the contractor on the Wastewater Treatment Plant had earned
$857,000, that $2.2 million has not been paid the contractor, of which only
$87,000 was retainage. Sandretto said he did not have similar figures at
this time on the sludge project.
The Mayor asked that a copy .of the project timeline be mailed to the
Directors.
REZONING APPEAL/RUTLEDGE LANE
The Mayor reported the petitioner on Rezoning Petition R87-29 has requested
the item be left on the table until,the next meeting.
City Attorney McCord said some citizens in opposition to the appeal were
present. -
Bill Bracey addressed the Board, asking them to hear the objections of those
present. Bracey was present representing Norman Gabbard, owner of rental
property on Velda Court. Mrs. Gabbard spoke on behalf of her husband. She
distributed a map and photographs to the Directors, stating the reason they
are opposed to the rezoning is because their property is basically single-
family development. She said opening Velda Court and joining it to Rutledge
Lane could pose a hazard to elderly citizens and children in the
neighborhood.
In answer to a question from Director Marinoni, Mrs. Gabbard said when they
bought the property Velda Court was a dirt street which has since been
paved. In answer to a question from the Mayor,. Mrs. Gabbard said the
property was not developed as a subdivision but they purchased the eight
houses as a package deal.
In answer to a question from Director Martin, Mrs. Gabbard said the proposal
was for Velda Court and Rutledge Lane to run together. Director Martin,•
with other Directors concurring, said he thought the proposal was that'Velda
Court dead end into Lot 13. Attorney Bracey said the proposal had been
amended many times and the .last proposal was to open Velda-Court onto
Rutledge. He said there was no way the roads could tie together with any
meaningful sense. Martin told Bracey there was never a proposal to connect
Velda Court and Rutledge Lane. The Mayor told Bracey there was an easement
between Velda Court and Lot 13- which would allow Pinnell to connect Velda
Court to. Lot 13. Bracey said the easement didn't exist on the ground. The
Mayor said the intention that the two roads meet'was -never presented to the
Board.. Director Marinoni said, although he remembered .there being
discussion about access from Rutledge Lane, he didn't remember any
discussion about connecting the two.streets.
77.1
77.2
77.3
77.4
77..5
77.6
77.7
78
78.1
78.2
78.3
78.4
78.5
February 16, 1988
Director Martin asked if 24 dwelling units could be built on the property.
City Attorney McCord explained that, under R-2 zoning, the permitted density
is 4-24 families per acre. He pointed out the property is only 0.18 acre.
Director Martin commented that the Board was being beset by misleading and
incorrect information.
Mrs. Webb addressed the Board, stating she lived on Velda Court. She said
the neighborhood was nice and quiet but won't be if apartments are built at
the end of her street.
Attorney Bracey asked the Board if they were going to be fair to people and
give them due process, and asked them if they were going to have a Master
Plan or spot zone into oblivion. He said unless there was some reasonable
basis to deviate from the current R-1 zoning, the residents depend on the R-
1 zoning to preserve their health, safety, welfare and property values. He
asked the Board to deny the petition.
Ken Edwards addressed the Board, stating he represented a few property
owners on Rutledge Lane. Edwards said the Fayetteville Fire Department,
through Larry Poage, had assured the property owners on Rutledge that the
addition of a fire hydrant at the corner of Oak and Rutledge would not be to
their benefit, as they already have adequate fire protection from the
hydrant at Highway 62 and Oak Road. He said when the Rutledge Subdivision
was approved there was a restriction that it be for residential use only,
that there could be no block houses, no house trailers, and that houses must
be at least 900 square feet. He said property owners in the Rutledge
Subdivision might be able to enjoin an action of a fourplex on the property.
He said if there is an easement between Lot 13 and Velda Court, "you will in
fact...be opening a thoroughfare." He said Pinnell parks a dump truck and a
bulldozer at the end of the street. He said even rezoning to R-1.5 would
allow a higher density and could create a situation that would injure
property values in the neighborhood. He said the owners he represented
hoped the City Board would ratify the vote of the commission to not allow
the rezoning.
78.6 The Mayor remarked that Pinnell had said he had contacted residents on
Rutledge and that they had no problem with the rezoning. Edwards passed a
list to the Directors showing the names of the residents on Rutledge Lane
who are opposed to the rezoning.
78.7 Edwards said Pinnell is currently operating his business out of Lot 14 or
16, which he said was in violation of the covenants of the subdivision.
78.8 Hess said the fact that the proposal meets with disfavor from the
neighborhood changes his original opinion of the circumstances.
78.9 Director Martin asked if the covenants would prevent a fourplex. Edwards
said there was a possibility that it would if each unit was less than 900
square feet. Martin said, if the covenants restrict the subdivision to
residential use, an apartment may be considered a resi
advised that the City could not enforce restrictive
disagreement among property owners on those would have
court of equity.
February 16, 1988
dential use. McCord
covenants, and any
to be resolved by a
The Mayor thanked the citizens for coming to the meeting, and told them
that, since Mr. Pinnell could not be present, the Board could not take
action at this time. She told them the appeal would be left on the table
until the next agenda, at the request of Mr. Pinnell.
REZONING APPEAL/LONGVIEW STREET
The Mayor introduced an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission
regarding denial of rezoning 0.79 acre north of Longview Street, west of
Highway 471, from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to C-2 "Thoroughfare
Commercial." She reported the Planning Commission voted, 5-2 to deny the
petition, but recommended rezoning the east 110' to C-2, which was approved
at the last Board meeting.
Tom Lewis, in answer to a question from Director Martin, explained the west
end of the property (792 Longview) was recommended by Planning Consultant
Wood to be rezoned to R-0. Lewis said property directly across from 792
Longview was zoned R-1 (791 Longview). He said property north of Lewis Ford
(Jones Olds) was zoned C-2. He said he also owned the next house to the
west on Longview, but requests no change in its zoning. Martin said he
thought it was logical to permit C-2 zoning to line up with the property to
the north, and with R-0 zoning as a buffer between the commercial and.
residential zoning districts. Lewis said if 792 Longview could be rezoned
to R-0 he would intend to use it for a parking lot. Lewis said, although R-
0 was not his first choice, it was something he could live with. He said
the alley is part of the lot in question'and is used for employee access.
•
Johnson said, although Plants Plus is zoned C-2
residential structure. She said she was in favor of
feet but couldn't see changing the zoning for the
because the neighbors will get to look at a parking
residence.
, it.still looks like a
rezoning the east 110
remainder of the lot,
lot instead of an R-1
Director Lancaster asked Lewis if he would be willing to shield the lot
along the west. Lewis said he would be agreeable to doing that. . He said
some of the trees could be left, although some of them are not -good and need
to come down.
Mr. Lewis told the Board, that although he appealed the denial of.
zoning, he would favor rezoning to R -0.i He said -the house on the
not in good condition and would be removed regardless of the outcome
appeal.
the C-2
lot was
of the
79
79.1
79.2
79.3
79.4
79.5
79.6
80
February 16, 1988
80.1 Director Hess said if he were living in the neighborhood he would be here
fighting, because he would not want his neighborhood encroached upon, but
said he thought if the lot remained R-1 people would park there anyway. He
said he didn't think maintaining the lot R-1 would keep the integrity of the
neighborhood, but would only hamper Mr. Lewis' business.
80.2 Following further discussion, the City Attorney read an ordinance to rezone
the property to R-0 for the first time. Director Martin, seconded by
Kelley, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its
second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was
read for the second time. Director Martin, seconded by Marinoni, made a
motion to further suspend the rules andplace the ordinance on its third and
final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was
read for the third time.
80.3 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to the
ordinance.
80.4 Rita Miller expressed objection, stating that she liked Mr. Lewis and had
done all her business with him, but could not do business with him anymore
"if he's going to do this to us."
80.5 Al Erbach, resident of 767 Longview, said the parking lot would be right at
his front door. He said he couldn't understand why there couldn't be some
other alternative with all the other land owned by Lewis behind the
dealership, instead of encroaching into the neighborhood. He said he
couldn't understand why the Board was so in favor of tearing up the
neighborhood and making a parking lot out of it. He said, although it was a
nice, quiet neighborhood, they do have some problems with Lewis' sales
people test-driving and hot -rodding vehicles on Longview. He expressed
concern over more of this happening when the new sales facility opens. He
said this will create a hazard for the children. He said the lot should be
left as is and, if people try to use it as a parking lot, Lewis should be
responsible for putting up a barrier to prevent that.
80.6 Scott Crook, resident at 892 Longview, said his biggest concern is where the
commercial zoning will stop. He asked for some assurance that it won't go
any further.
80.7 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-1, Johnson voting in the minority.
ORDINANCE NO. 3331 APPEARS ON PAGE 5 0/ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK Mil
80.8 Director Hess suggested, to reassure the neighbors, the Board might pass a
resolution expressing the Board's intent is that property west of 792
Longview would remain R-1. Hess so moved, seconded by Marinoni.
80.9 Director Kelley asked how that would be recorded on the property, so others
will know in the future that there is such a resolution. City Attorney
February 16, 1988
McCord said, although resolutions are not filed at the courthouse, they are
maintained in the City's permanent records and could be retrieved from the
City Clerk if the issue were ever raised again. Kelley pointed out that,
unless the records would automatically be retrieved, the resolution may
never be seen again unless someone remembers it.- McCord advised the Board
that the resolution would be one of intent and would not be binding on
future boards. Mr. Lewis suggested copies of the resolution be sent to the
owners of property to the west of the property in question.
Upon roll call, the resolution passed, 6-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 12-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE TEAM
The•Mayor introduced consideration .of a resolution authorizing the City of
Fayetteville to participate with Washington and Benton Counties, andother
cities within those jurisdictions, in the formation of a Hazardous Material
Response Team to deal with hazardous substance incidents. She asked the
Board to approve an interlocal cooperation agreement, so that the cost of
having -the team would be borne by all the cities in the counties, rather
than each city having to bear the cost themselves. -
Marinoni asked what the cost would be to Fayetteville. Johnson said the
fire chiefs are presently developing a financial prospectus of the cost.
She said it will be less cost to the city if we are a member of the team.
The saidthe cost, of one suit is about $3,000 and it has a life of 18
months. She said the proposal is for a 16 -member team to be equipped for
both county areas.
Fire Chief Jackson said the costs are not known at this time but it will be
expensive. He said the whole project would be done under the guidelines of
federal laws. He said costs may be spread out over time.
Johnson said minimal costs are estimated to be about•$500;000, and the city
is mandated by federal law to comply with the establishment of -a team.
Jackson said there was no compliance period for establishing the team, but
the law requires .local" industries and businesses 'to provide the fire
department and county planning teams with all --the information they have
about the hazardous materials that are stored'in their occupancies.
Jackson said, although the- law mandates 'that the team be established, it•
leaves it to the locales to decide what route to take.
V
Kelley asked how many other municipalities ,had signed the agreement.
Jackson said Springdale, Rogers and Bentonville were committed, and all
cities with full-time fire chiefs have- shown some unofficial commitment.
Kelley asked if this would approve an unlimited expense, or was just the '
OI
81.1
81.2
81.3
81.4
81.5
81.6
82
February 16, 1988
idea of negotiating and beginning a process. Jackson said he would come
back to the Board for input and approval at the time of setting budgets.
82.1 Johnson said a meeting was held earlier this month of the Intergovernmental
Cooperation Council, a group of mayors that meet quarterly. She said that
was the first time Washington county mayors had been informed, and the
target was to have the agreement approved by the City Councils and City
Boards by the end of this month, so that at their next meeting the ICC could
formally sign one document. Johnson said the Benton County
Intergovernmental Cooperation Council met today and she believed they would
sign an agreement today. Johnson said even those who do not choose to sign
will be required to form a team.
82.2 In answer to a question from Director Marinoni, Fire Chief Jackson said
other cities who committed to the agreement did so without knowing the cost.
Jackson said it wasn't "an open checkbook" and explained there would be a
budget drawn up by the Metro Chiefs Association which will be submitted to
the governmental agencies for input and approval, perhaps on an annual
basis.
82.3 Martin asked Jackson if he anticipated Fayetteville would bear the largest
part of the cost, as the largest community in the area. Jackson said that
was possible. Martin expressed concern about how Fayetteville may be
multiplying its liability exposure in a program like this. Johnson said,
under State law, in an interlocal agreement those entities serving outside
their jurisdiction are not liable for doing something in another
jurisdiction.
82.4 In answer to a question from Marinoni, Jackson said the Fire Department has
been responding to calls, however there hasn't been an organized hazardous
materials response team in Northwest Arkansas.
82.5 Director Lancaster asked what kinds of hazardous materials were involved.
Jackson said the plan would be to categorize hazardous materials emergencies
into three levels, with a level one emergency being a comparatively minor
one which can be handled by the Fire Department with their own resources; a
level two emergency will be one which the Fire Department would respond to
with the intent of handling it with their own resources and a regional team
would be put on standby; and a level three emergency would be one which
would be beyond local capabilities.
82.6 Jackson said the hazardous materials response team will not be responsible
for cleaning up spills, but will be responsible for mitigating the emergency
aspect, such as controlling a fire or making sure that evacuation is
undertaken if necessary. Lancaster asked why then so much money was
involved. Jackson said there would be expenditures for a vehicle, training
expenses mandated by law, personal protective equipment, and overtime costs,
for example. Johnson said she thought the first responder would be required
to clean up a spill but then could charge the other entities later.
February 16, 1988
ti 3
The .Mayor said 30 .cities and 2 counties can join together to share the 83.1
ballpark $500,000 expense, or any of those entities can choose not to join
but will still be mandated by law to have a response team of their own which
must'take care of a hazardous spill. She said, for a. spill in Fayetteville,
federal law indicates Fayetteville would be the first responder but the cost
of that cleanup including the cost of revamping the team, would be borne by
whoever spilled the materials.
Jackson -said, in a level three emergency, the team's responsibility will be
to assess the seriousness of the emergency, decide whether or not to
evacuate, decide whether or not the locality is capable of mitigating the
emergency aspect, and once that is done, the team will back out and turn
over the incident to another agency whose job it will be to clean up the
mess. He said this was mandated by the National Interagency Incident
Command System, part of the SARA Act. •[Clerk's Note: .SARA is the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.]
83.2
Martin asked what the affect was of the proclamation from the Governor of 83.3
Arkansas included in the agenda. Johnson said it simply indicated the
Governor had appointed a special emergency response commission. Jackson
said the Governor was mandated to do that by the SARA Act. Martin asked how
that commission related to the team being discussed. Jackson said the law
required that states divide into planning subdivisions and the Arkansas
Governor decided these would be counties. He said the Fire Chiefs then
decided to get together and form a nonprofit corporation and make this
proposal to the two counties..
.Kelley asked if the team could be formed on a' wider regional basis, to 83.4
include more than- just Washington and Benton .-counties. Public Safety
Director Coates said that was discussed at a meeting he attended but there
is a geographic problem in,that other counties would be .too far away to
respond within a reasonable length of time.
t
Jackson said, in a level three emergency, the team will' respond, with 83.5
Fayetteville's Fire Department probably having three to five members on the:
team. He said the rest of the team will be members of all the other fire.'
departments that are involved..
The Mayor told the Board that they had before them a resolution authorizing 83.6
the City to participate. She said, if' the City decides when the financial
figures come in that it doesn't want to participate, all the City has to do
is pass another resolution to get out of it.
Director Hess, seconded by Marinoni, moved the resolution. Upon roll call`, 83.7
the motion ,passed, 5-0-1,' Martin abstaining because he didn't have enough ••
information.
RESOLUTION NO. 13-88 APPEARS'ON PAGE - OF -ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK
c
84
ANNEXATION
February 16, 1988
84.1 The Mayor introduced consideration of an annexation petition of E. H. and
Willa Beatrice Sonneman, for approximately 13.79 acres west of Deane Solomon
Road and north of Mt. Comfort Road.
84.2 Chuck Chadwick was present to represent the petitioners.
84.3 The City Attorney told the Board the confirmation of the annexation could be
done by resolution which would negate the requirement of reading an
ordinance three times.
84.4 Director Lancaster, seconded by Kelley, moved approval of a resolution to
annex the property to the City of Fayetteville.
84.5 Director Hess said he realized the City didn't have an overall plan of
annexation but asked Linebaugh if in his opinion the annexation would fit in
to the plan which will be developed. Linebaugh said the staff's opinion was
this would fit into an annexation plan and recommended approval.
84.6 Upon roll call, the resolution passed, 6-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK
SIGN APPEAL/124 W. MEADOW
84.7 The Mayor introduced consideration of an appeal from the literal provisions
of the Sign Ordinance for a sign at 124 West Meadow, submitted by Melanie
Stafford for Seven Hills Realty. The Mayor explained the request is to keep
a six square foot freestanding sign set back nine feet from Meadow Street,
with the requirement being for a minimum 15 foot setback.
84.8 Melanie Stafford said last year she hired Steve Devere of Woodpecker Sign
Company to build her sign, and that he came to the City and spoke with the
woman previously employed in Sign Inspector Wilson's position. She said the
previous Sign Inspector went with Devere to the site and okayed the site,
because it was impractical to put the sign behind the tree. She said Devere
was told he could place the sign and then obtain a sign permit. She said
when she applied for her permit she learned the Sign Inspector had been
replaced by Richard Wilson who then denied her the placement of the sign in
its location, after it had already been permanently installed in cement.
She said she would have gladly place the sign elsewhere if the City had told
her to do so at the time she installed the sign. She said her appeal was
based on the fact that there is a large tree in the way, preventing the
required setback, and secondly because she had tried to do the proper thing
by coming to the City first, had been told she could place the sign in its
current location, and now is being denied after the sign was already set.
Stafford said she erected the sign during the first week of March.
February 16, 1988
Director Hess said he thought a former member of the Planning Office staff 85.1
had given Stafford erroneous information but, since she acted on the
information on good faith, he said it was the fault of the staff and not
Stafford's fault.
Lancaster said the Board toured the property and looked at the location of 85.2
the posts for the sign. He said it was felt the location was too close to
the sidewalk and should be moved east of the tree. Stafford said she would
be glad to comply if she could understand where the sign could be placed so
that traffic from Church and Meadow can see the sign.
Director Martin askedif the staff had any records of the communications 85.3
between the Inspection Office and Stafford. Public Safety Director Coates
said there were no records but the procedure described by Stafford is
different from anything the Inspection Office would follow. He said he knew
of no instance where a citizen would be told to put a sign where it doesn't
belong and told to get a permit afterwards. Wilson said when a citizen is
sent a violation notice they are told to correct it by obtaining a permit
(if it is just a matter of getting a permit) or by moving their sign to the
required setback.
,
Hess asked if the citizens are told to go to the Planning Office. Wilson 85.4
said they are told to go to the Inspection Department, pointing out that the
violation notices are signed by him, and are sent out by the Inspection
Department. Hess asked if -citizens going to the Inspection Department are
sent only to the Sign Inspector. Wilson said if:he is not available he can
be called on the radio. .
Martin said in this case there is no reason to .believe the citizen did not 85.5
rely on the advice of the staff, and he thought it was entirely the fault of
the city. Martin moved to approve the appeal.. The motion was seconded by
Kelley. Johnson asked Martin his motion included a caveat that, if the
sign falls over, it has to be replaced at the proper location.. Martin.
agreed. Lancaster pointed out the sign had already been taken down.
Stafford said she took the sign down but the posts were solidly set.
d -
In answer to questions from Hess, Stafford said she received the violation : 85.6
notice after the sign had been set in concrete. Director Hess asked Wilson
if a citizen went into the Planning Office by mistake, would they be sent to
the Inspection Department.{ Wilson said they would.
Johnson asked Stafford why, she waited from March of 1987 until now'to file 85.7
an appeal. Stafford said Wilson never instructed her to file an appeal
until last fall. She said•in`November she applied for an appeal.
Hess said he would like to speak to the person who`she hired to erect'the 85.8
sign. Stafford said that would be fine, commenting that she was relying on
information she got from him. ' Hess -asked if the appeal. could betabled
until.Devere could be -asked to appear before the Board. Hess said he
86
February 16, 1988
thought either the City's process was very deficient or the person seeking
the permit didn't do it right.
86.1 Martin said one thing he thought was wrong about the process is that the
Board goes through this rigmarole every time they have a problem. He said
he thought the staff should be making a recommendation. He said he thought
the Board should be decision makers and the process they were using was
totally ridiculous. He said he thought it was absurd for the Directors to
be inquiring like "the grand inquisitor", commenting that it was no wonder
that the citizens had no faith in the City.
86.2 Stafford asked that the Board consider the intent of the law. She said the
sign was constructed to blend with the environment, to be small and not
obstructive to the view of the traffic. She said she was trying to do
what's right and wished to be pretty much left alone.
86.3 Upon roll call, the motion to approve the appeal passed, 4-2, Lancaster and
Hess voting in the minority.
86.4 The City Attorney said he had long been of the opinion that sign appeals are
an administrative, not a legislative, matter. He suggested the Board
consider the possibility of amending the Sign Ordinance to have the Board of
Adjustment consider sign appeals rather than the City Board. The Mayor
suggested this matter could be discussed at the next agenda meeting.
SIGN APPEAL/3422 N. COLLEGE
86.5 The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign
Ordinance for "Ms. Marlo's Hairstyles" sign located at 3422 North College
Avenue. She said the request was to keep a 28 square foot wall sign, with
the requirement being that it not exceed 16 square feet.
86.6 Chuck Chadwick was present to represent Marlo Underhill. Director Hess told
Chadwick the Board toured the site and the consensus was that the sign was
within the limits. Director Hess, seconded by Kelley, moved to grant the
appeal. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-1, Director Johnson voting in
the minority.
SIGN APPEAL/2300 W. SIXTH
86.7 The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign
Ordinance for the Westwood Plaza sign at 2300 W. Sixth Street, for
permission to keep a 298.5 square foot freestanding sign at a 31 foot
setback instead of a 40 foot setback.
86.8 Don Watson was present to represent the Parnell Company. Watson said in
driving by the site he realized that if the sign pole were to be moved back
the required forty feet it will intrude into the parking lot and out of a
February 16, 1988
grassed .island, and would become more of a public hazard. He showed a
sketch to the Directors, and told them he had relied on some erroneous
information on an as -built survey which was done after the completion of the
shopping center, and before the highway was widened. He said a 12 inch
diameter steel pole extruding into the parking lot will have to be protected
if the sign is moved. He added that an easement had been obtained from
another owner for the right to locate the sign, and if the sign has to be
moved, it would mean contacting a partnership in West Germany.
Director Hess said he thought it would be very expensive to move the poles,•
and said he deplored the lack of scrutiny the surveyor employed. Watson
said the survey was done correctly, but subsequently the right-of-way was
relocated. He said it was the owner's error in that he did not request an
updated survey from the Highway Department. Hess said he thought it would'
create undue hardship to move the sign. Hess,; seconded by Kelley, moved -
approval of the appeal.
Director Johnson asked what size of sign would be! allowed if it were moved
nine feet toward the road. Inspector Wilson said 28 square feet of sign
area would have to be taken off, at a setback of 31 feet.
•
Lancaster pointed out the City has made others move posts which had been in
existence for ten or fifteen years.
•
•
Watson said the sign was shared with.the option of tenants to put up their
own placards. He said the,space for the bottom panel is 24 squarefeet in
size and it could be eliminated in order to reduce the size of the sign.
Hess said he would accept that as an amendment to the motion.
Watson said he thought it was a good idea to 'have the Board of Adjustment
hear sign appeals far the City Board. Lancaster said that would be a good
idea if they go by the Ordinance. 4 Lancaster pointed out that it had been
done in the past and the Board of Adjustment at the time allowed a Gulf Oil
sign to be built which was 90 feet'tall. 'The City Attorney said that had
been done under a previous ordinancewhich+was not near as comprehensive.
Johnson asked the Board to vote on the motion; with the sign remaining at a
31 foot setback. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0.
SIGN APPEAL/9 S. SCHOOL
The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign
Ordinance submitted by Vernon Hill for Taipei Video. She said the request
was to keep a 12 square foot sign installed on a parking lot railing.
Director Kelley said the Board saw this sign on their tour and it was
somewhat agreed thiscouldbe approved. Director Hess said as far as he was
concerned the sign could be hung on the railing right where the directional
X31
87.1
87.2
87.3
87.4
87.5
87.6
87.7
87.8
88.1
88.2
88.3
88.4
February 16, 1988
sign is. Director Kelley so moved, seconded by Hess. Upon roll call, the
motion passed, 6-0.
SIGN APPEAL/1120 N. LINDELL
The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign
Ordinance for "Ms Charlotte's Ice Cream" sign at 1120 North Lindell. She
said the request was to install a 66 square foot sign set back 15 feet from
North Street and 22 feet from Lindell Avenue right-of-way. The Mayor said
the ordinance requires a 40 foot setback.
Hugh Smith spoke on behalf of the appeal and said his problem was that the
sign would not be visible to traffic coming from the east on North Street
but would be directly in front of the building if it were at a 40 foot
setback. He said he hoped to place the sign close to North Street, where it
intersects Lindell. He said he intended to buy the trees behind the
building from Mr. Edens and cut them down.
Director Lancaster said there was nothing to keep the petitioner from
installing the sign according to the Ordinance requirements. Smith
commented that the reason for the appeal was because of the question of
visibility.
Director Marinoni suggested the sign could be installed close to the
southwest corner of the building. Smith said the corner of the building was
about 25 feet from the street. Marinoni moved to allow the petitioner to
install the sign close to the southwest corner of the building.
88.5 Director Martin said he thought that was essentially saying the sign could
be no closer than the building setback. Inspector Wilson said for a 60-75
square foot sign a forty foot setback was required.
88.6
88.7
Director Hess said he had difficulty in seeing there was a hardship,
inasmuch as the owner is permitted up to four wall signs, and a wall sign on
the back of the building would be visible from traffic on North Street.
Johnson commented that, if it was true that the building was closer to the
street than forty feet, placing the sign at the required setback would put
it in the middle of the building.
88.8 Director Johnson seconded the motion. She asked what size sign would be
permitted at a 22' setback. Inspector Wilson said the sign could be 24
square feet in size. Upon roll call, the motion failed to pass, 3-3,
Directors Martin, Marinoni and Johnson voting in favor of the motion and
Directors Lancaster, Kelley and Hess voting against the motion.
88.9 Director Kelley made a motion to allow the petitioner to place the sign 25
feet north of North Street and 22 feet east of Lindell. There was no second
to that motion.
February 16, 1988
89
Director Hess moved to deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Marinoni 89.1
and, upon roll call, passed, 5-1, Director Kelley voting in the minority:
The Mayor asked the petitioner to work with Inspector Wilson to place the 89.2
sign on the property.
ALLEY VACATION
The Mayor. introduced a request from Willard Johnson for an ordinance 89.3
vacating and abandoning a. portion of "'a north -south alley located between
School and Locust Avenues, south of Ninth Street.
The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director 89.4
Lancaster, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion' to suspend the "rules and
placethe ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Hess,
seconded by Kelley, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. Upon roll call,
the ordinance passed, 6-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3332 APPEARS ON PAGE -S o 3 ' OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK X X / V
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY/325 ROLLSTON
The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly 89.5
conditions and the razing .and removal of an unsafe "structure at 325
Rollston, which she explained had been tabled at the February 2nd'meeting.
She said the Board had asked Wilkerson (the property owner) to prepare a
timeline and financial statement.
Scott Linebaugh reported the staff had reviewed the plans and timeline 89.6
submitted by Wilkerson and felt the plans were good. He said the staff
wouldrecommend a June 1 deadline if the Board wishes to give Wilkerson more
time.
Director Martin, seconded by Kelley, moved the recommendation of the staff. 89.7
Director Hess. requested Wilkerson stick to the timeline. Hess said he could 89.8
go no further if Wilkerson came back to the Board on June 1st without doing
what he says he will do in his timeline.
Wilkerson said he would get a building permit tomorrow. 89.9
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 89.10
JU
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY/617 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
February 16, 1988
90.1 The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly
conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe structure at 617 North
College Avenue; left on first reading on February 2nd.
90.2
Property Inspector Richard Wilson said that the property owner requested the
ordinance be tabled until he could arrange to have a representative present
at the next Board meeting.
90.3 Director Martin, seconded by Kelley, moved to table. Upon roll call, the
motion passed, 6-0.
T -HANGAR RENTALS
90.4 The Mayor introduced a request from the Airport Manager for approval to
increase the amount of rental charged to tenants leasing T -hangars at the
Fayetteville Airport. She explained the proposal was to increase the rental
of the single engine T -hangars from $110 to $115 per month, and to increase
the rental of the twin engine T -hangars from $135 to $141 per month.
90.5 Director Hess, seconded by Marinoni, moved to approve the request. Upon
roll call, the motion passed, 6-0.
BID AWARD/OVERSIZING WATER LINE
90.6 The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid to oversize a water
line to serve property along County Road 707, south of County Road 94. She
said the staff recommended award to the low bidder, Benning Construction
Company, bidding $12,,157. She explained the City's share of the project
would be $7,382 and there was money in the budget to cover that expense.
90.7 Director Marinoni, seconded by Kelley, moved to award the bid.
90.8 Director Hess asked if plans were being made for future oversizing. He said
he didn't want oversizing done on a piecemeal basis. City Engineer Bunn
said proposals will be evaluated for a water system study which will address
line sizing in the Growth Area. In answer to a question from Hess as to
whether this oversizing will fit in with the future plan, Bunn said he
didn't know. He did say that this oversizing will come off of an existing
4" line and will tie into another existing 4" line, and was consistent with
the existing lines in the area.
90.9 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0.
BID AWARD/MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
February 16, 1988
The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of Bid No. 819, for a
maintenance contract for the City's "800 Smartnet Electronic System." She
reported the only bidder ,was Motorola, which will subcontract with "J Mac
Communications" of Fayetteville. She said .the annual cost would be
$42,217.80, with $43,422 being in the budget.'
Marinoni, seconded by Hess, moved award of the bid.
Director Lancaster commented that "he -would vote against this because there
was only one bid and there is another company in the City that does the same
kind of work. He said he believed. the way the specifications were written,
no one else in the City or surrounding area could meet the specifications.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-1, Lancaster voting in the minority.
BID AWARD/POLICE VEHICLES
The Mayor introduced consideration- of,the award of Bid No. 820, for nine
police patrol vehicles for the Public Safety Department. She said the staff
recommended award to the lower of ' two bidders, Lewis Ford, bidding
$120,799.62, with $128,385 ,being, in the budget. The Mayor said at the
agenda meeting the Board asked the staff to look into the State contract.
Linebaugh said the staff reviewed the State contract and. the City is
eligible. He said the State contract for police vehicles is with Cliff Peck
Chevrolet of Little Rock. He said the vehicles -would be virtually the same
as those which were bid, except for three items (split bench, door straps,
and rear window defogger).,` He said the State ,price would be $11,396,
approximately $2,000 savings per car. Linebaugh said.the staff was not
knowledgeable about, but worried about, the question of maintenance. He
said the City has always bought vehicles locally.
Hess remarked that total savings would amount to about $18,000.
91
91.1
91.2
91.3
91.4
91.5
91.6
91.7
Director Martin asked if any of the bidders were put at a disadvantage by 91.8
bidding without knowing about the State contract. Linebaugh said he
wouldn't say they were put under any disadvantage, although they did not
know they were bidding against the State contract.
Lancaster asked if the vehicles would be serviced in Little Rock. Linebaugh 91.9
said the local dealerships are supposed to recognize any of their model
cars.
Marinoni asked if the City Manager's cars could be included in the same
package. Purchasing Officer John Byrd said the contract was specifically a
package for police cars only..
91.10
92
92.1
92.2
92.3
92.4
92.5
92.6
92.7
92.8
92.9
February 16, 1988
Director Martin asked for a staff recommendation. Linebaugh recommended the
State contract from a financial standpoint. He said there was a political
question of whether to deal strictly locally, which he said was a question
for the Board to decide.
Kelley asked if it would be out of line to go back and ask the bidders if
they would like to match the State contract price. Linebaugh said there was
a timing problem, in that tomorrow was the deadline for the State contract.
He explained the cars are built once a year, all at one time.
Director Martin said he thought the City should spend the least money it
can, but should also be fair to people. He pointed out that it could be
said the State did not meet the bid specs since they do not offer the three
items mentioned by Linebaugh.
Hess said he didn't think all the bidders should be asked to match the State
price, but only low bidder Lewis Ford should be asked if they can match the
State bid without the three items. City Attorney McCord said he was
concerned about the idea of changing the specifications. He said if the
Board wanted to go with the State contract they have to reject the other
bids. He advised the Board if they wished to change the specifications they
have to readvertise and give all bidders the same opportunity. Hess asked
if the specs could be left the same and Lewis Ford be asked to match the
State bid. McCord said that would be an attempt to negotiate a competitive
bid after the bids are already in, and there is no authority to do that.
Marinoni, seconded by Hess, moved to reject all bids.
Director Kelley said he couldn't vote to dismiss the local bidder.
Director Martin said he thought the rules had been changed in mid -stream.
He said up to the last agenda meeting when the Mayor asked the staff to look
at the State contract, the City had not been doing that.
Director Hess asked if the other bidders could be asked to submit new bids
tomorrow. Linebaugh said there would be no time to advertise and meet the
legal requirements. Public Safety Director Coates told the Board there were
other considerations in going with the State contract. He said the City
would have to go to Little Rock to get the vehicles, and would have to then
store them in a local lot until insurance arrangements can be made. He said
the local dealers hold the vehicles until the City is ready for them and it
is not necessary to insure them while they are being held. Martin said the
question of delivery is one of the bid specifications. Coates said the
staff had not really had the opportunity to look into these other
ramifications because of the time frame. The Mayor asked what prevented the
staff from looking into those things. Coates said he didn't know until
today that the staff was researching that issue.
Hess said he thought we owed the taxpayers the savings of $18,000 but it
violated his sense of fair play that all the bidders are not being entitled
February 16, 1988
to an equal chance. He proposed the bidding process from.now onrinclude any
State package which is available.
Linebaugh asked if the Board was changing the current policy, and asking the_
staff to use the State contract whenever possible. Johnson said the Board's
philosophy -was to get value for dollars expended. She said the ,staff had a
whole .week to look. into :all the -considerations and just made a
recommendation to go to the State contract. . Linebaugh said the philosophy
the staff has been told to followin the past was to deal locally. Hess
said he was not aware of the policy.
. i
In answer to a question from.Kelley, Linebaugh. said the deadline to receive
bids was February 3. Kelley pointed out that, according to the specs, bids
received after that date will not be considered. He said a week ago, at the
not,
agenda meeting, it was too late to receive another bid. Martin said the
State bid then does not meet the specifications. The City Attorneysaid, if
the Board wishes to change its policy, the City specifications in the future
need to conform to the State specifications, so there can be comparable
bids. Linebaugh explained that there does not technically,need to be a bid
from the State, that the City can simply accept a State contract when:itcis
available. -
Hesssaid if.there will be additional
would decrease the amount of savings.
Upon roll call, the motion •failed to pass,, 3-3, Directors Lancaster,
Marinoni and Johnson voting for the motion and Directors Martin, Kelley and
Hess voting against the motion.
•
costs to pick up the vehicles
Director Martin, seconded by
roll call, the motion passed,
•
•
Kelley, moved to approve
5-1, Johnson voting in the
BID AWARD/CITY MANAGER VEHICLES
) 3
93.1
93.2
93.3
93.4
the low bid. Upon 93.5
minority.
The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of Bid
four-door.sedan automobiles for the City Manager's Office.
automobiles will. be rotated to the. Airport Manager.
Director.
No. 821, forAwo
She- said these
and the.,Planning
The. Mayorreported the only bidder was Lewis Ford, bidding $27,621.82, with
$28,000 being in the budget. -
In answer to aquestion from Lancaster,.Linebaugh said Chevrolet didn't bid
because they didn't. have a comparable car.
Director Marinoni, seconded by Lancaster, moved to approve the;bid. Upon, 93.9
roll call, the motion passed, 6-0.
•
93.6
93.7
93.8
JI
February 16, 1988
94.1 Director Lancaster said if anyone on the staff would like to know why he
voted against the Motorola bid, he would be glad to privately explain it to
them.
BID WAIVER/ROAD SALT
94.2 The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving the requirement of competitive
bidding and approval to purchase road salt for the Public Works Department.
94.3 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Hess,
seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0.
The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Lancaster, seconded by
Marinoni, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0.
The ordinance was read for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance
passed, 6-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3333 APPEARS ON PAGE 305' OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK )(X/'I
MUNICIPAL JUDGE SALARY
94.4 The Mayor introduced a request from the Municipal Judge for reconsideration
of his 1987 salary, deferred on February 2 until the staff could pull
together some more information.
94.5 Linebaugh said the staff handed out a memo from the City Manager on the
request. He said the staff feels their earlier recommendation should be
stuck with, for $33,500, with a 1988 cost of living increase for a part time
position. He said the staff had problems with the assumptions used by
Professor Taylor in that they don't agree with the way other wages are set
and with the Pay Plan matrix, and don't take into consideration factors such
as the level of responsibility, supervisory requirements, and regional
comparisons to similar positions. He said the staff reviewed Taylor's
report. He told the Board the Judge had received the same cost of living
raises that all City employees have received since 1981, in that he was
brought up to the same level as the others. Linebaugh said the staff
thought it was incorrect to use work load in Taylor's analysis since many
other city employees' work loads have increased since 1981.
94.6 Marinoni asked, if the part time salary of $33,500 were projected on a full-
time basis, what would the figure be, based on the number of hours the Judge
puts in per week. Linebaugh said Williams reported he put in 32 hours per
week, for an equivalent $40,200 full-time salary.
94.7 Martin asked what State law permits as a salary for our City. Linebaugh
said Fayetteville's maximum was $29,000 and has been raised to a current
February 16, 1988
•
•
range of $30-50,000.. Martin asked,Linebaugh if his recommendation took into
account the fact that the Judge's compensation is set by law. Linebaugh
said the City's pay plan is not devised according to methods used by Taylor.
f
Martin said, in the case of the judiciary, a City can't afford anything but
the best. He said, personalities aside, the City should want to attract the
best possible candidates to that position.? He said in his opinion there was
a basis for an increase. Martin said if the top of the range was $50,000,
out of a'regular 40 hours week, the salary
•
The Mayor said the salaryrange •is set by a legislative process but the City
is tb determine the actual salary. She said when the salary was negotiated
it was thought it would be a full-time judge because it had been projected
that the case load would increase threefold. Johnson said that had not
occurred.
and if the Judge works
should be in the $40,000
32 hours
range.
95
95.1
95.2
Hess said, if the Judge works 80% of a full-time job, his wage should be 95.3
$41,900, which Hess said was in the upper part of the $30-50,000 range.
Linebaugh said the staff did not use the legislative range but used a
survey of other judges' salaries in and out of Arkansas. Hess said he,would
prefer to follow the staff recommendation.
Director Martin said the information he asked- to receive which. was the 95.4
previous analysis and a new analysis, was presented to the.Board this
morning and he had not received it yet. He said he would
time to' consider the issue. Martin, seconded by Kelley,
The motion passed, 4-1-1, Director Johnson voting against
Director Lancaster abstaining.
OTHER BUSINESS
PRATT WOODS POA AGREEMENT
•
appreciate more
moved to table.
the motion and
•
•
The City Attorney'introduced an amendment to an agreement with the Pratt 95.5
Woods Property Owners Association. McCord said the agreement has been
amended because. when it was originally drafted he did not understand the
mechanics of the street light billing. He said he had no problem with the
amendment, and the agreement reflects what the Board approved.
Director Martin, seconded by Kelley, made a motion to approve a resolution. 95.6
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 16-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF .ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK
•
31)
96.1
96.2
96.3
96.4
96.5
96.6
February 16, 1988
BID WAIVER/AD CONTRACT
City Attorney McCord said the Advertising and Promotion Commission would
soon be awarding an advertising contract for the next three years and, in
view of the Klinger decision and an informal opinion from the Attorney
General, he believed an ordinance was necessary to waive competitive bidding
requirements.
McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Hess, seconded by
Kelley, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its
second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was
read for the second time. Director Hess, seconded by Marinoni, made a
motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final
reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read
for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3334 APPEARS ON PAGE 3O6 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK XX/ V
McCord reported that, after the Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court
and remanded the case (Klinger), the plaintiff amended his complaint to seek
attorney's fees and damages for lost profits from the City. McCord said he
filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint and received an Opinion from
Judge Butt today granting that motion, the court holding the plaintiff was
not entitled to attorney's fees because there is no authorizing statute, and
holding that the claim for damages did not state a cause of action because
public bidding contracts are for the benefit of the public and the City
should not be required to pay twice.
SIGN STICKERS
Marinoni said when he was in Houston he noticed all their signs had an all-
weather sticker which amounted to a license which is affixed to the sign so
you can visibly see whether the sign had a permit. He recommended the City
amend the Sign Ordinance to require a license be affixed to a sign. The
Mayor suggested the staff report back to the Board on this proposal.
SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
The Mayor said the Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste Authority had contacted
the City asking them to appoint a representative to that body.
Director Kelley, seconded by Hess, nominated Jim Pennington to represent the
City on the Authority. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0.
•
February 16, 1988
MINUTES 6a .v..01 -
The
wThe minutes of the January 30, February .2 and February 3 meeting were 97.1
approved as distributed. 7`
ADJOURNMENT
4
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. = 97.2