Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-03 MinutesMINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION An Open Public Forum meeting was held on December 3, 1991 with the Board of Directors at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mayor Vorsanger addressed the public explaining the purpose of this Meeting was for citizen inputon non -agenda items. Mayor Vorsanger further announced that, due to lack of public attendance, it was decided at the last Public Comment Session that these sessions would only be held on the first Tuesday of the month prior to the regular Board meeting, and not on the third Tuesday of the month. ABSTENTION VOTES Director Green inquired as to the Board'sabstention votes and whether they are actually a vote in favor. Mayor Vorsanger stated his understanding that abstention votes go with the plurality - or the majority vote,•whether for or against. Vorsanger suggested that they ask for further explanation from City Attorney Jerry Rose when he arrives at the meeting. Director Coody stated that Commission is reported as*a and he recommends that the procedure. an abstention. vote separate vote as' is Board of Directors • on'the Planning an absentee vote, follow this same City Clerk Thomas stated that abstention. votes are recorded separately on the Board of Director meeting minutes. City Attorney Jerry Rose stated that the general rule is that an abstention vote is counted with the majority, whether in favor or against, for the reason that the abstention will not influence the vote one way or another. 4 Rose stated that this procedure is widely used across the United States, and he recommends this procedure. However, the Board can change this procedure in their rules so long as it doesn't conflict with any statute or law. Director Coody agreed with Director Green's opinion that an abstention vote should not influence the vote one way or another, as if the person was absent. .He believes .this is the way an abstention vote should be`handled. City Attorney Rose responded that the procedure for abstention votes that the Board is currently using -works the same way as Director Coody's suggestion. ,The City Clerk records the abstention vote as a separate vote. Rose further stated that the only time an abstention vote affects the determination is -if a vote requires a certain number to pass or fail (for instance, two-thirds), then the 41)4 MINUTES 01 A MEETING O1 TEE CITY BOARD 01 DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, December 3, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of the --City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Vorsanger; Assistant Mayor Mike Green; Directors Ann Henry, Dan Coody, Julie Nash, Shell Spivey and Bob Blackston; City Manager Scott Linebaugh; City Attorney Jerry Rose, City Clerk Sherry Thomas; Planning Management Director Alett Little; Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson; members of staff, press, and audience. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with seven Directors present. The Mayor asked those present to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and then asked that a brief moment of respectful silence bs observed. The Mayor welcomed comments on any item on the agenda. He further stated that in order to allow equal attention to all items, the Board requests that comments be limited to 3 minutes per person per item. He,explained that the agenda for the Board meeting was set on the Wednesday before the meeting. Any item a citizen wishes to be presented to the Board not on this agenda must be presented at the next agenda session or brought up by a Director at that session for discussion at the following meeting. City Manager Scott Linebaugh reported that Items 2A, 5 and 6, Right of Way Condemnations, have been removed from the agenda due to the fact that they have become contested over a property line dispute between owners. OLD BUSINESS Mayor vorsangsr explained "Old Business" as items that have been brought before the Board, but were tabled or no decision mads to allow for further information to bs presented. $MOKING POLICY Mayor Vorsanger reintroduced an ordinance regulating smoking in certain public areas. The Board of Directors adopted a smoking policy for all city owned facilities at their November 5, 1991 meeting. The matter before the Board now is the consideration of enacting a smoking policy for certain public places. 'r0 December 3, 1991 The Board voted at the November 19 meeting to table this ordinance to allow people from the hospitality industry in Fayetteville to meet with Robert Leflar andothers who drafted the original ordinance to -come up with a compromise ordinance that both business people as well as the non-smoking community could endorse. Director Coody made a motion to take the ordinance off the. table. Director Henry stated that the revised ordinance had been provided to the Board members only 15 minutes ago, instead of the requested 24 hours prior to the Board meeting. For this reason, she suggested that they leave it on the table to allow the Board a chance to review the document. Mayor Vorsanger explained that the various interested groups had met and a new proposed ordinance was presented to the Board just prior to the meeting. Vorsanger announced that Mr. Rob Leflar was present to discuss the new ordinance with a taped presentation, and that discussion could be had on the new proposed ordinance. City Manager Linebaugh stated that the new proposed ordinance does not have the backing of the two groups as they were unable to reach an agreement. Mr. Leflar'.s group is the only group supporting the new proposed ordinance. Director Nash- stated that she is not prepared to vote on an ordinance she has just now -seen. On the %other hand, if the item must be removed from the table to receive reports from the various groups, then she would support the ordinance. Nash seconded the motion to take the ordinance off the table. Director Green stated that if the reason for tabling this ordinance was so that the two groups,couid come to a compromise, he could'see no benefit for discussion at this time if there is still a disagreement as to the substance.of..the ordinance. • Director Coody stated that several good points were discussed by members of the hospitality industry and. smoking ordinance proponents. Agreement was reached on, all but one minor point; therefore, he believes.a compromise:has been/made. Coody stated that the new proposed ordinance contains 6-7 changes from the original ordinance and addresses the concerns of the hospitality industry. 'u Director Spivey suggested that if.the two groups are that close to an absolute compromise, herchallenges them to get together one more time to prepare an ordinance that both ,groups can endorse. Director Blackston agreed 'with Director Spivey's suggestion and stated that if possible, he.would rather see both parties work out an agreement between themselves than to see the'Board take action 4( 4Ob December 3, 1991 at this particular time. In addition, Blackston stated his desire to have an opportunity to review the new proposed ordinance at his leisure. Upon roll call, the motion to remove the ordinance from the table failedby a vote of 5 to 2, with Directors Coody and Nash voting in the minority. Director Coody questioned whether the one point in dispute, that of the designation of "non-smoking" areas as well as designation of "smoking" areas, can be resolved and a compromise reached, as these views are diametrically opposed to each other. Coody stated his concern that this ordinance may "go down in flames" in view of all the compromising accomplished to day, because of this one "nit- picking" detail. Mayor Vorsanger suggested that in addition to the new proposed ordinance, the groups look at other ordinances for guidance such as that of Little Rock. Pat Henry, of the Hilton Hotel, addressed the Board stating that he has not been presented with any of the ordinances that Mr Lefler has received to review. /He believes these would give them more background to be able to draft a compromise ordinance. He further stated that the hospitality industry is IHIt opposed to a smoking ordinance they only want an ordinance that is fair 'and equal for all businesses. Mayor Vorsanger stated that the ordinance has been tabled, and will be reviewed again at the meeting in two weeks. Hopefully, it can be taken off the table at that time for further discussion. Director Henry reiterated her request that any proposed ordinance be provided to the Board members on Monday before the next meeting. Director Spivey stated his appreciation for the time committed by both parties to this issue. CURBSIDE REFUSE COLLECTION Mayor Vorsangsr reintroduced an ordinance amending Chapter 50 of the City Code making curbside the mandatory point of collection for residential refuse and eliminating metal sans as approved refuse containers. Staff recommends approving the amendments. Curbside pickup will decrease collection time by approximately 200-250 person hours per week, reduce the risk of injury from carrying the refuse for long distances, reduce the liability of disposing of something left near the trash bags or cans, and increase the effectiveness of the department by not missing pick-ups. al) i :40 4. December 3, 1991.. To implement this program, Staff intends to establish a curbside exemption for the disabled (which would include the elderly segment of the community who could not physically move their refuse to the curb), inform each customer by mail, and make the effective date 30 days after passage of the ordinance. Eliminating metal cans will reduce hazards for the collection crews. Plastic containers or bags weigh much less, are not susceptible to rust so do not develop dangerous, rough, jagged edges, and are not as easily damaged. The Board voted to table this ordinance to allow time for Staff to incorporate the amendments adopted at the November 19 meeting. Coody, seconded by Nash, made a motion to remove the ordinance from the table. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose advised that the Board needed to vote the old ordinance down before taking up the new ordinance. Coody, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to defeat the old ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose explained that the new ordinance was drafted to attempt td include those amendments that were voted on at the last meeting. If an amendment is not included in the new ordinance, this hopefully means the amendment was not necessary as it is part of the ordinance proper. Finally, ,Rose explained that the new ordinance incorporates option "A", or the first of the two options presented. • Director Henry stated that the original definitions were adopted in 1968, and the new ordinance is not a,'major change from the original. - • • • The City Attorney read the ordinance fortthe first time. Henry, seconded by Blackston, made a motion totsuspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading: ,Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. Director Coody stated that inthe last sentence of the new ordinance, Attorney Rose,misread'the ordinance to say "residents", instead of "tenants, lessees, occupants or owners." M1 » City Attorney Rose verified that the..ordinance reads, "tenants, lessees, occupants or owners." The ordinance was read for the second time. Coody, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and •final reading. .Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote ofr7 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. (c..408 December 3, 1991 City Manager Linebaugh explained that this ordinance mandates that refuse be taken to the curb with an exemption for the disabled/ elderly. Linebaugh pointed out that option "A" provides for the use of metal -cans with a limit of 32 gallons for solid waste and 50 gallons for yard waste. Linebaugh further explained that a "grandfather" clause will be included to allow for existing containers until containers are replaced at which time 32 gallon containers are requested. Director Henry stated that a major factor for amending this ordinance is to decrease the rate of Workers' Compensation claims by City employees with back injuries, etc. City Manager Linebaugh reviewed the reasons for requesting curbside collection: 1) sanitation employees have high injury rates from transporting refuse containers from backyards, 2) the City's liability when the wrong materials are collected, and 3) the decreased collection time of approximately 200 hours per week. Mayor Vorsanger reported the major concern from residents of Fayetteville has been that disabled citizens be exempt from curbside collection. Kevin Crosson explained that upon passage of the ordinance, there would be a thirty day educational period during which time flyers will be mailed to all City residents explaining the -new ordinance and exemptions available. In response to Mayor Vorsanger's inquiry, Crosson stated that it is estimated between 25%-30% of the population will be affected because approximately 70%-75% already place their refuse curbside. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3581 APPEARS ON PAGE 6‘ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XXVI NEW BUSINESS CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Vorsanger introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion, or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a "Consent Agenda." A. Minutes of the November 19, 1991 regular Board meeting. B. A resolution awarding Bid 91-63 to Galva -Foam Industries in the amount of $31,442 for 16 prefabricated boat slips at Lake Fayetteville, and approval of a budget adjustment. d( December 3, 1991, Staff recommends awarding the bid which is funded from the Capital Improvements Program. The budget adjustment of $1,700 will be funded from the monies left over from the Lake Fayetteville Softball Complex Parking Lot CIP project. These additionalstalls will generate $2,880 revenue per year at the current rate of $180 per stall per year. RESOLUTION 215-91 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK C. A resolution approving an amendment to an agreement with Youth Bridge, Inc., for an allocation from the 1991 Community Development Block Grant in the amount of $30,000. Staff recommends approving the amendment. The 1991 CDBG Statement of Activities includes this $30,000 allocation, and the original agreement with Youth Bridge needs to be amended to include the additional $30,000 with the original 1989 allocation of $65,000. RESOLUTION 216-91 APPEARS ON PAGE OP ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK D . Removed from Consent Agenda. E . A resolution approving the Feasibility Cost Share Agreement with the Corps of Engineers for the Flood Control Project on Cato Springs Branch and Town Branch in the amount of $21,000 plus $7,600 "in -kinds, engineering services. Staff recommends approving the agreement which is for the second part of the study, the feasibility study, associated with the flooding problems in this,area. The feasibility study is required by_ federal law to analyze different plans and to determine the "National Economic Development" plan with the highest benefit ratio. tf RESOLUTION 217-91 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION A resolution awarding Bid 91-61 to Ron Blackwell Ford for $68,028 and to Lewis Ford Sales for $43,857 for the purchase of seven (7) light and medium duty utility vehicles. Staff recommends awarding the bids for'the purchase of 4-1992 Jeep Cherokees, a,.1991 -Ford Ranger, a 1992 Ford F-250 pickup with a slip in dump bed, and a 1992 Ford Ranger 4x4.- G . A resolution awarding Bid 91-62 in the amount of $35,046 to Dealers Utility Equipment for. a Ford_F;350 Knapheide Model Body utility vehicle and versalift. 4[U December 3, 1991 Staff recommends awarding the bid to the low bidder for this budgeted equipment. RESOLUTION 218-91 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOS H. A resolution awarding Bid 91-64 in the amount of $98,231 to Ron Blackwell Ford for the purchase of four (4) one ton utility vehicles with utility bodies and auto -cranes, and approval of a budget adjustment. Staff recommends awarding the bid to the low bidder for this budgeted equipment. RESOLUTION 219-91 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOR Director Coody requested that Item "F" be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Director Nash stated that Item "H" calls for a budget adjustment however, she does not find an accounting on where the adjustment will be to and from. In addition, Nash asked if the budget adjustment was for the entire $98,231. Kevin Crosson -responded to Director Nash stating that there were surplus funds from savings on the procurement of vehicles and equipment account in the amount of $59,000 the remaining amount of making up the budget adjustment. Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of Item "F". Upon roll call, the motion was passed by a vote of 7 to 0. ITEM ngw Mayor Vorsanger reintroduced a resolution awarding Bid 91-61 to Ron Blackwell Ford for $68,028 and to Lewis Ford Sales for $43,$S7 for the purchase of seven (7) light and medium duty utility vehicles. Director Coody questioned the purchase of four (4) 1992 Jeep Cherokee sport wagon 4x4's for the Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Meter Division, and Maintenance Department. Coody stated that the City has just cut their services by requiring curbside refuse pickup, green space fees have been increased, a sanitation fee increase is being considered, and a recent increase was levied on property taxes. Therefore, he feels the City's purchase of four brand new Jeep Cherokees will not be met with public approval. In the alternative, Coody suggested the purchase of fewer, less expensive vehicles for the purpose of winter month travel. December 3, 1991, City Manager Linebaugh stated that the Jeep Cherokee was the low bid, $2,000 less than the other 4 -wheel drive vehicle bids received. Linebaugh stated that the Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Street Division, and Water and Sewer Division would use these Jeeps for the main purpose of traveling on construction sites through mud and during inclement weather. It was felt that the wear and tear would warrant 4 -wheel drive vehicles. In addition, the Fire Chief is often the first responder to fire calls during inclement weather and has a need for a 4 -wheel drive vehicle. Director Henry stated that she and Director Spivey questioned this same issue at the Agenda Session, and the response assured the need for 4 -wheel drive vehicles as'Well •as verification that the low bid was chosen. Director Coody reiterated the public's negative perception of the City's purchase of new, fancy vehicles. Coody further reported that the manufacturer's suggested retail price for the Jeep Cherokee sport wagon 4x4 is currently $16,640, without dealer incentives.. City Manager Linebaugh responded that these vehicles were bid, and four bids were received on the 4 -wheel drive vehicles. Director Henry asked Coody if he was suggesting that they pay a higher price for a vehicle that is perceived to be less expensive by the public. Director Coody responded that he is not convinced that the City needs four 4 -wheel drive vehicles at this time. Bill Oestreich, Vehicle Division and Motor Pool Division, addressed the Board stating that when choosing vehicles, they assess the needs of the City along with the necessity to be on the job to take care of citizen needs and services. Oestreich explained that Staff went through the bidding process, evaluated2-wheel drive versus 4- wheel drive, and evaluatecf various makes and models. The vehicles selected were those they thought would betbest for the jobs. Director Spivey requested an explanation of "going on site" to which Oestreich responded that the City, has a lot of street construction underway and vehicles are required to travel onto properties to install water meters causing obvious problems during inclement weather and ground conditions. . _ In response to Director Spivey's•question, Linebaugh stated the Public Works Director must be able to get to various locations during emergency situations. Linebaugh inquired as to the difference in price between a 2 -wheel drive and 4 -wheel drive vehicle to which Oestreich responded approximately $2,000. In addition, he pointed out that with the 4. J 4t4 December 3, 1991 ability to travel to the actual construction sites, staff is able to complete 202-25% more work. Director Henry inquired as to the expected life of the Jeep Cherokee to which Oestreich responded that they are being set-up at six years, the same as a 2 -wheel drive vehicle. Bill Oestreich further reported that in addition to replacing vehicles one for one, they plan to either auction additional City vehicles or scheduled for trade-in on the next batch of vehicles. In addition, Oestreich verified that the City currently has one Jeep Cherokee in service. Maintenance costs have been less than the 2 -wheel drive vehicle that it replaced. Director Coody made a motion to amend the resolution for the purchase of two Jeep Cherokees and a later assessment of the need for two additional 4 -wheel drive vehicles. Director Henry asked if the bid on the Jeeps was based on the purchase of four vehicles. Bill Oestreich verified that the price of $16,000 was per vehicle, but it was based on the purchase of four 4 -wheel drive vehicles. In addition, Oestreich stated that there are two classes of vehicles, supervisor and administration the difference being the addition 'of power windows and cassette players .for training purposes in two of the vehicles. Henry, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to table the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed by a vote of 4 to 3, with Director Green, Spivey, and Vorsanger voting no. REZONING APPEAL Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning property located on the southwest corner of Garland and Nedington Drive, from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, as requested by Pete Estes on behalf of Caroline Parsons. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 4 to deny the rezoning. Mrs. Parsons is requesting the rezoning for lots 4 and 5 only rather than for the whole parcel of property. Staff is recommending approving the rezoning to C-1 with buffers. Staff also recommends the City give consideration to the dedication of the 20 foot alley separating this parcel from lots 5, 6, and 7 for permanent green space as a method of assurance so that the character of the established residential areas to the west will be preserved. December 3, 1991 City Manager Linebaugh stated that a petition has been received by adjacent property owners which calls to invoke the rule requiring a 3/4 majority of the Board to vote to pass the rezoning appeal. Alett Little, Planning Management Director, addressed the Board explaining that the 3/4 rule comes into play when a petition is filed in protest against the zoning change. The petition must be signed by owners of 20% or more of the area immediately adjacent to the lots owned by the petitioner and extending 300 feet from the street frontage. Little further explained that the question in this case is whether the property owners are "immediately" adjacent. The 20 foot dedicated alley way to the west of this property, currently owned by the .City separates this piece of property from the petitioning homeowners. Given the legal definition of "immediate", Little stated that her interpretation of the 3/4 rule is that it does not apply in this particular instance. Mayor Vorsanger inquired as to the five names which appear on the petition, and how many families are represented. Little responded that there are two families represented on the petition along with the trustee for the parsonage located there. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance'on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Director Nash asked City Attorney Rose if the 3/4 rule means that there are no immediately adjacent property owners to this particular parcel. She further questioned whether this was simply a way to get around the ordinance. ter City Attorney Rose responded that the City'is adjacent property owner with the alleyway. verified that under the legal' interpretation City can be the only signee on a petition'in. the only immediately In addition, Rose of "immediate", the this case. Pete Estes, attorney representing the petitioner, Caroline Parsons, addressed the Board explaining that the Hathcock Trust, owner of the property in question, is seeking'to have this property rezoned from R-1 to C-1. Estes explainedthat a rezoning request on this property had been made two years ago however, the subject petition is substantially different. The petition. is seeking rezoning of only Lots 4 and 5 (property on the corner). Lots 1,'2 and 3, which are between Lots 4 and 5 and the school are not being rezoned. • h December 3, 1991 Estes stated that he believes there is a problem with consistency in providing for land uses and zoning of property for the City. Board member personalities, likes and dislikes, biases and desires change from- time to time. In talking with some of the Board members and the Planning Commission, Estes believes that the way to provide consistency is through long range planning which was done in 1970 with passage of a comprehensive general land use plan. This plan provides, among other things, that property located at the intersection of major arterial intersections should be zoned as commercial property. The property in question sits at the intersection of Garland and Wedington Drive, which Estes submits is a major arterial intersection. The plan has been followed on the other three corners of the intersection of Garland and Wedington Drive which have all been zoned commercial. Estes further explained that the Master Street Plan, also adopted in 1970, and the idea of long range planning and providing consistency to the citizens of Fayetteville, is in furtherance of this petition. Estes reported that the Master Street Plan sets out that the intersection of Hwy. 112 and Garland is planned to be four lane under a '91-'92 work project. A concern of the Planning Commission in rezoning the property from R-1 to C-1 was that it would cause traffic congestion. Estes proposed that the property as currently zoned R-1 produces congeltion with approximately 1,500 vehicles travelling through the intersection every day. Another concern has been expressed' regarding the safety of the children attending the school to the south of this property. Estes stated with the potential of this intersection becoming four lana, so there already exists a question of safety. The third concern Estes reported was with regard to destabilizing property values which ha also disagrees with. Estes stated his disagreement with the notion that the rezoning of this property from R-1 to C-1 would cause problems the proponents are contending. Estes stated the school officials have taken steps to adequately provide for the safety of the children as seen at Washington and Root Schools. In addition, Estes reported that there exists a separate ordinance which provides for erection of a fence between properties when real property is rezoned from residential to commercial, and his client intends to do this. Estes agreed with Ms. Little's recommendation that the 20 foot alleyway be maintained by the City as a green space. Estes requested that the Board pass the ordinance approving the rezoning of the Hathcock property. Director Coody agreed with Estes that traffic congestion already exists at this intersection; however, the Principal of Leverett School has reported three children hit by cars. Coody further stated his objection to the placing of a bar and restaurant on the same block with an elementary school. 1 1 • • December 3, 1991 .` Estes responded that he .was unaware of a letter from Leverett School in connection with this rezoning request. Coody responded that the letter was received 10-11 months ago. In addition, Coody stated the rezoning request is not radically different from the previous request which was voted down 6 to 1. Coody also stated his concern that this request is being made contrary to the rule in which a petitioner must wait one year after a denial before petitioning the Board again. In response to Director Coody's comments, Estes cited an ordinance. adopted by the City providing that restaurants may serve beer and wine as long as they are located 200 feet or more from the school or church. Based on that ordinance, it is difficult to argue that it should be less than 200 feet. However, it is unfair to argue this particular petition, since the ordinance is on the record, that it should be more than 200 feet. In addition, a new entity is not being interjected into this intersection as his clients' restaurant,, Fuzzy's, has been there for approximately eight years. Estes took exception with the term "bar" stating this is a "fine" restaurant serving beer and wine and is an .asset to the City. Mayor Vorsanger requested,a response from Estes to Director Coody's comment that the petitioner is six months too early with his rezoning request. Estes responded that the Planning Commission recommended that it be heard as a new petition due to•the fact that it is substantially different than the earlier request for rezoning. Director Coody stated that he wasn't implying that Fuzzy's was an improper bar or business he simply meant that it is an improper location to serve alcohol. In addition, Coody suggests that the Board needs to reconsider the ordinance setting out the 200 feet minimum. Pat Green, resident of 962 Hall, addressed the Board in opposition to the proposed rezoning stating that she was under the impression that to rezone property in the City, there needs to be a "need" in the area for the type of property, and no need has been shown. Green suggested that the entire area be rezoned to It -0 to provide less impact on the area schools and residential neighborhood and to not increase the traffic.r The 20 foot alleyway is shown on a 2 year old survey as an easement from the Green property. Ms. Green requested the Board again look at the ownership of the alley before a vote is taken on this rezoning request. ;- • Alett Little responded that this is adedicated alley accepted at the time the subdivision was planned. "P Pat Green reported that the pastor of.the Trinity Methodist Church, the property directly behind the Parsons property, also opposes the rezoning but was unable to attend the Board meeting. r' =.416 December 3, 1991 In response to Director Coody's inquiry whether the alley is actually owned by the City or a dedicated easement, Alett Little responded that the records show that the alley is City owned property. She researched the subdivision plan on file in the Planning office and other information from previous hearings. As to the question whether or not an easement can be dedicated as green space, it is possible and a quite common utilization. Mike Faupel, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating that he has addressed the Board several times in the past on similar rezoning requests for this property, and hs remains in opposition. In response to Mr. Estes' statements, Faupel responded that the zoning map of the City he examined shows the property as residential, and it is his understanding that the zoning map must be in agreement with the general use plan for the City. Faupel stated an additional concern of his that the value of this property to the community is as a wooded lot in an area that otherwise has been cleared. Rezoning would expedite the removal of the remaining trees. Faupel stated he would oppose any rezoning that did not include protection of the trees on the lots. Jackie Currington, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating that she is a parent of children attending Lsverett School and President of the PTA as well as fourth grade teacher at the School. Curripgton stated the reason for not issuing a new letter to the Board concerning safety of children attending Leverett School is because the position expressed in the first letter remains the same. Serving of alcoholic beverages at a location this close to a school is inappropriate when part of the children's curriculum is teaching them the problems with drinking. Currington contends that even though this is a restaurant, the population that frequents Fuzzy's packs the parking lot causing additional traffic problems. Currington stated that no one wants their children walking home from school in an alley way behind a restaurant or bar. Ann England, 904 N. Garland, addressed the Board in opposition to the rezoning. In addition to the previous opposing points made, she added that during Town Hall meetings on Fayetteville's development, the major concerns expressed by citizens were for the preservation of green space and parks, recycling, and protection of their children. She would hats to see any other danger areas developed around Leverett School. In closing, England stated that this type of rezoning is nothing more than "strip zoning" for commercialism. Director Nash commented that the second item appearing on the Visions report under the transportation category is to deal with traffic congestion in Oak Plaza vicinity. Kim Smith, resident of Hall Avenue and owner of a house that overlooks the property in question, addressed the Board stating :.December 3, 1991 that the landowners in this area are.also,asking the Board to be consistent on rezoning issues. Smith reported that the area west of Garland and south of Wedington Drive is currently totally residential with no existing commercial properties, and he requests that it remain as such. In addition, Smith reported that there is an incredible amount of commercial land for sale near Fuzzy's Restaurant. H 4•I? Charles Baxter, resident of the neighborhood, addressed the Board in opposition to the rezoning.and stated that traffic congestion is not the issue, nor is a restaurant or bar, but rather the issue is to keep from destroying the neighborhood. Director Coody addressed Mr. Estes stating that the best way to be consistent with rezoning policies is to maintain a consistent policy, which the Planning Commission has done with their decision to turn down the request for rezoning. Pete Estes reiterated his previous statements that since 1970, the City has designatedand acknowledged this property as commercial, due to the fact that the general use planning recommended that the property be rezoned C-1. Estes stated that denying this rezoning petition is not going to change the realistic fact that this is a commercial. intersection. The property meets all the criteria and standards established by the City, and in order to be consistent, this property should be rezoned commercial. Director Nash stated that it is important to realize that for the past two years, the Staff has been against this rezoning. Estes stated Ms. Little has been on the Planning Director for only a short time, but he commended her for her professional handling of this matter and suggested that in her capacity, she will be a great asset to the City. Director Green stated he sympathizes with the property owners as no one wants to see commercialdevelopment encroaching on their neighborhood. Even so, Green reiterated that this is a commercial corridor or intersection. The street corners are zoned commercial, and it is unlikely that anyone would want to develop a corner at this intersection as residential property. Green stated that based on what is being requested• and the circumstances, he will support the rezoning as he feelsIthe`placement of-Fuzzy's Restaurant on this corner, at this commercial intersection, will be an asset. Green stated that many buffers have been made and steps taken to protect the residential property immediately_adjoining the rear of the property, and the developers of this4property have made an attempt to look out for the residents'_ concerns. , wk Director Spivey stated that .he will support the rezoning as he believes that this property meets all the requirements for commercial zoning. Spivey expressed his concern that if the Board • MMM i% 4(8 December 3, 1991 denies this request, they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit on the adverse condemnation issue. Spivey did, however, agree that the 200 foot issue needs to be reviewed and revised. Director Nash stated that she will continue to oppose this rezoning because the criteria for rezoning is that the Board is not supposed to base their rezoning on a property owner's financial gain or loss. Therefore, the fact that Mrs. Parsons and her estate need the money from this property can have no bearing on the Board's decision as they have to look at a "bigger picture." Director Coody stated that as a Board, they can not approach rezoning requests with the view that if they don't vote to rezone, they'll be sued. Coody stated that he is opposing this rezoning as an effort to watch out for the betterment of the community as a whole, rather than for an individual's right Director Henry stated that this is a question of balancing out individuals' rights for the reasonable economic use of their property. Henry expressed her concern for the lack of an updated land use plan as they are dealing with a 20 year old plan. Director Blackston stated that this is a difficult decision to make as he understands both viewpoints. However, the property is commercial regardless of how the Board looks at it. In addition, Blackston agreed with Director Green's assessment that there isn't even a remote possibility that this property will ever be developed as residential property, and the commercial rezoning requests will no doubt continue. Director Spivey further explained his previous comment, stating that he is not "running from a lawsuit," but if the City gets into a lawsuit, he is concerned that they be in a defendable position. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 2, with Directors Coody and Nash voting in the minority. ORDINANCE 3582 APPEARS ON PAGE G 8 07 ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XXVI Director Nash left the meeting at 9:15 p.m. AIRPORT MINIMUM STANDARDS Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution approving the revised Minimum Standards for Operation and Commercial Aeronautical activities for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport. City Manager Linebaugh stated that Staff and the Airport Board recommend approving the revised standards effective January 1, 1992. The standards were rewritten in accordance with the FAA sample format and were forwarded to the FAA last year for their ,December 3, 1991, review and recommendations. :When returned this spring, all FAA recommendations as well aS the City Attorney's were incorporated into the docum_ent. The Airport Board approved the standards on May 2, 1991. FAA stated they no"longer perform. detailed reviews, but if all recommendations were included in the revised document, they see no problem with the standards. - Henry, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 6 to 0. RESOLUTION 220-91 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK WATER METER AND METER PARTS PURCHASE Mayor vorsanger introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive bidding for the purchase of water meters and meter parts. Staff recommends waiving the requirements of competitive bidding because the City currently uses Rockwell water meters, and due to compatibility, standardization, and maintainability, using other brands would require a much larger inventory of parts and cost more in the long run. The Board has approved bid waivers for the past several years to allow for these purchases. The ordinance was read for the first time. Blackston, seconded by Coody, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Blackston, seconded by Coody, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed bya vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Director Coody questioned the emergency clause asking if this purchase is required immediately or if it can wait 30 days. Coody stated that the useof emergency clauses should be minimized whenever possible. Kevin Crosson, Director of Public Works, responded stating that their inventory would require the purchase of the equipment and parts before a hard freeze occurs. 4 Director Blackston stated there is no need for competitive bidding in this instance since we buy direct from the manufacturer and want to stay with parts that are interchangeable.. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 0. 420 Blackston, clause in vote of 6 December 3, 1991 seconded by Green, made a motion to include an emergency the ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a to 0. ORDINANCE 3583 APPEARS ON PAGE 7" Boot X X V I SEWER BACK-UP CLAIM 01' ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION Mayor vorsanger introduced a resolution authorising a settlement of the sewer back-up claim by Stanley D. Sullins of 1210 S. Duncan. City Manager Linebaugh explained that this residential sewer back- up was caused by the usage of grease in the City's line, which blocked causing sewage to run into Mr. Sullins' house. City Staff has worked with Mr. Sullins on the clean up of his property and has handled this claim in the customary manner in which all claims are settled. However, Mr. Sullins is not satisfied and is demanding more money. Linebaugh reported that to date, $970.00 has been spent by the City on this clean up, motels, etc. A third party claim service recommends additional work including sanding the hardwood floors for an additional $2,055.00. In addition to these recommendations, Mr. Sullins is requesting that further work cleaning the furnace unit", and replacement of moisture barriers underneath the house be allowed for an additional sum of $1,900.00 which is not being recommended by Staff or the claim service. The amount he is demanding would make the total claim more than the $2500 staff is authorized to expend to settle any claim. Director Henry stated that the City is not liable under state law for any expenses whatsoever; therefore, a settlement policy is not in place in the majority of the surrounding communities. As a public relations policy, the City had previously agreed to pay some of the expenses incurred due to sewer back-up up to a maximum amount. Henry suggested that they stay with the $2,500 limit. Henry, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to pass the resolution allowing for a total payment of the current limit of $2,500 to settle all claims. Director Coody stated that he feels the cost for sanding the hardwood floors is exorbitant and Mr. Sullins should be able to have all of the requested work done for $2,500. Director Green stated that if the City tries to accommodate people whose homes are damaged by the City's sewers backing up, they are establishing precedents for future claims. In addition, the floors themselves were not finished prior to the sewer back up, which contributed to the damage. He stated that he believes $2,500 is a fair settlement figure. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 6 to 0. 1 . December 3, 1991 RESOLUTION 221-91 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK - 4 OTHER BUSINESS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION City Manager Linebaugh reported that four positions were open on the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. Larry Tompkins, a member of the Planning Commission whose term has expired, has recommended that two of these positions be filled by a City Board member and the City Manager because the other cities have a mayor or administrative staff as a part of their Boards with the remaining two positions being advertised. Mayor Vorsanger requested that any members of the Board who are interested in serving on the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission contact him, and he would make these appointments at the next Board meeting. Vorsanger further authorized Linebaugh to advertise for the other two positions. Director Coody inquired about putting a member of the Planning Staff in one of the two positions to which City Manager Linebaugh responded the decision is up to the Board. Mayor Vorsanger stated that he would give Dirdctor Coody's suggestion some consideration. SOLID WASTE RETREAT City Manager Linebaugh reported that the Solid Waste Retreat was being proposed for Wednesday, January 15, 1992 following the Board Agenda Session. BUDGET RETREAT City Manager Linebaugh reported that Director Henry would be unable to attend the Budget Retreat scheduled Thursday, December 5, 1991 at 1:001 therefore, justifying a change of date for the Retreat. Director Henry requested that the other Board members not change their schedules to accommodate her. Mayor Vorsanger suggested that they reschedule the Budget Retreat for Monday, December 9, 1991 at 1:00. WARD. REDISTRICTING In response to Mayor Vorsanger's inquiry, City Attorney Rose stated that an ordinance would be.presented for consideration at the first meeting in January 1992 regarding ward redistricting. r %.1.f. 422 December 3, 1991 3 D1TOURIOCINT The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. • do • 1 1 1