Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-07 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE. CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the ,Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday,:. September 7, 1993, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Kit Williams, Conrad Odom, Woody Bassett, Fred Vorsanger, Len Edens, Joe Box, Heather Daniel, and Stephen Miller; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk Sherry Thomas; City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton; Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes; Planning Management Director Alett Little; Public Works Director Kevin Crosson; members of staff, press, and audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. CONSENT AGENDA 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 August 17, 1993 regular City Council meeting. B. A resolution approving a professional services contract with• Arthur Anderson & Company to perform annual audits for the City of Fayetteville. The contract for the 1993 audit to be performed and budgeted in 1994 will cost $48,000. The contract will be for one year, with three year options for renewal at a cost of $49,300 for the 1994 records, $51,600 for the 1995 records, and $53,000 for the 1996 records. RESOLUTION 90-93 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. A resolution awarding Bid 93-31 to the lowest bidder meeting specifications, Pinnell, Inc., for a 125, x 200, x 18, clear span pre-engineered metal building and approval of a construction contract for a total amount of $111,617.30. This building will be for the new Maintenance Facility to be located at 1525 S. Happy Hollow Road. This is the first step inconstruction of the facility for which the budget adjustment was approved by the Council on July 6. RESOLUTION 91-93 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 September 7, 1993 A resolution approving an easement agreement between the City and the Fayetteville Hotel Ventures Limited Partnership (The Hilton Hotel), and an exchange of quit claim deeds to correct the gap and overlap in faulty legal descriptions. The easement agreement and the quit claim deeds will address ingress and egress rights and responsibilities as well as clear .up minor discrepancies discovered in a survey at the time of sale. RESOLUTION 92-93 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Vorsanger, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. APPEAL OF REZONE R93-34 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to rezone .41 acres located at 2406 Old Wire Road from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-O,.Residential Office, assubmitted by Jim McCord on behalf of Ron and Linda Wallace and Marilyn Shoffit. The Planning Commission. voted 6-1 to deny the rezoning request at their July 26 meeting. The -petitioner has submitted a letter stating why they feel the Planning Commissions' decision was in error. Jim McCord, attorney for the petitioners, stated the rezoning is contingent upon the offer by a bill of assurance from the buyer that would limit the use of the property as•a single chiropractor office or a single family dwelling. Dr. Wallace's plan would significantly improve the. property. McCord also addressed the Planning Commission's concern about traffic problems, and read from the Planning Commission minutes where. Commissioner Britton stated she felt there would be little change in the traffic. McCord stated Mrs. Shoffit bought the property in 1979. The City widened Township and put in the light. The street is very close to the house. She has been trying to sell the property for five years and has not had a single offer on the property as a home. A few weeks ago she received a $44,000 offer on her asking price of $47,000 for the property to be used as a physician's office. The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled in 3 cases that it is arbitrary and capricious for a city not to rezone R-1 property to its suitable use. McCord asked the Council to apply the law to the facts in this case. Alderman Vorsanger asked if the petitioner would put their drive on Township. McCord stated it would be on Old Wire Road about 150 feet north of the intersection. Alderman Miller asked if they would then be embellishing ,the current access. McCord stated they would. r r] September 7, 1993 Mayor Hanna stated the Council has a wide range of options on how to handle this request and asked City Attorney Rose to list the options for the Council. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, stated the Council may adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission, amend or modify them, or return the item to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendations. Mr. Paul Spencer, 2433 Old Wire Road, stated he was speaking for the neighborhood. Rezoning the lot would cause the other corners to soon be requesting commercial rezoning as well. The City has installed lights and turn lanes to handle the traffic in this area. The owners of the lot on the southeast corner have been turned down for rezoning five years in a row. He stated Mr. McCord was trying to keep the neighbors from being heard by the City Council. He presented the Council with a petition consisting of 53 names of people who do not want this corner rezoned. McCord stated the land owner and himself are not trying to keep anyone from being heard. When former residential property has become unsuitable and unsalable for residential property, the law says it can be rezoned. Little stated the Planning Commission did act on staff's recommendation to deny the rezoning. Alderman Edens asked how far back in time did the public know that Township was going to be widened? Crosson stated he did not know the answer to that question. McCord stated Mrs. Shoffit knew the road was going to be widened at one time, but it has been widened even more than she originally knew about. Mr. Spencer stated the City told Mrs. Shoffit they would take a 30 foot easement on Township and 10 foot easement off Old Wire Road. Alderman Vorsanger stated the Planning Commission denied the rezoning by a vote of 6 to 1. He does not want to send this item back to the Planning Commission unless the petitioner gives the Council new information. He asked McCord if he had done that. McCord stated he did not want the matter to go back to the Planning Commission either. He feels not approving the rezoning is an unlawful deprivation of property. A lady from the audience stated Mrs. Shoffit has a huge lot that could have another house built on it. She could build a new house further back on the lot, and this property could be kept as residential. 209 . September 7, 199,3{ Alderman Miller stated he looked at• the house and can see the road is encroaching on the area. But,•he does not like to second guess the Planning Commission. Betty Davis's residence at 2065 E. Township adjoins this property. She stated she moved into a residential area; and she wants it to remain •a residential area. Before she bought. her .home, she researched the area to be sure it would remain residential. Once one property in the area is zoned commercial, it will be almost impossible to deny another rezoning request. She has worked hard to'keep'this a pretty residential area. Alderman Williams stated he felt this was a neighborhood that wanted to remain residential. He agrees with Alderman Vorsanger that he too would need to be shown something compelling to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. Alderman Bassett stated he too can't vote against the Planning Commission. He feels this is a residential neighborhood, and it should stay that way. Williams, seconded by Commission's decision. of 8 to O. • Edens, made a motion to affirm the planning, Upon roll call, the motion passed by.a vote APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT DENIAL Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission decision not to approve the preliminary plat of the' Masters Subdivision submitted by Wright -Pence, Inc., Dallas Wright,/ Dee Wright, Eldon Pence, and Drydon Pence. The Planning Commission denied approval of the preliminary plat at their August 9, 1993 meeting. The petitioner has submitted a Notice of Appeal to this .decision. City Attorney Rose stated the Council can either sustain the disapproval of the preliminary plat or they can refer the item back to the Planning Commission for restudy with instructions. Alderman Daniel stated she felt City staff gave a green light to the development,. and she is in favor of returning this to the Planning Commission and allow the petitioner to present their case again. She stated she is not gung ho for development,gbut she does want everyone to have a fair and equal chance. Alderman Williams stated he agrees with Daniel. However, there is no money allocated for the next 5 years to help the road up to the Country Club development. Alderman Box. Little:Rock situation. stated he read the.article in the newspaper about the case, and he asked if that case applies to. this September 7, 1993 Rose stated the Little Rock case concerned the Planning Commission and their decision and not an appeal to the City Council. Rose stated he is not inferring any agreement or disagreement with the Planning Commission. The primary issue is how much discretion does the Planning Commission have in approving plats. He stated the Richardson case concludes there is not much discretion. In the Little Rock case, the Planning Commission denied approval for reasons not approved by the city ordinances. The lower court agreed with the Planning Commission, but the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the lower court, and stated the Planning Commission may not disregard the regulations set forth in the subdivision ordinance and set their own standards. The Supreme Court went back and based their decision on the constitution and examined the Enabling Act. When the subdivision regulations are adopted by ordinance, the City is bound by these regulations and should administer them. The Planning Commission is not a legislative or judicial body, rather an administrative body. It would be arbitrary to deny the plat if the developer meets the regulations set forth in the development ordinance. The Planning Commission can't decide if subdivisions can be built if the property is already zoned for that purpose. The subdivisions are allowed by right. The City has to abide by its own ordinances and apply the same standards to everyone. Alderman Bassett asked who makes the decision about whether the standards have been met. Rose stated the City Council makes that decision. Alderman Bassett stated if the ordinance is followed, that tends to take people out of the process, so why do we need a planning commission or city council. He feels the ordinance may need to be changed. Rose stated he does not feel this case wants to cut people out of the process, but what people say should be considered relative to the subdivision ordinance. Alderman Box stated he agreed with Alderman Bassett. He asked if the City Council is bound by the same rules as the Planning Commission. Rose stated he believes they are. Alderman Daniel stated the City in a sense is trapped by its own ordinance. She is worried about trying to keep up with all of the development. Bill Greenhaw stated he would like to address some of the issues that have been brought up. The water flow would be at 99% capacity only when all of the approved development has been completed in the area. And the Council needs to remember that this application is L11 t .,September 7, 1993 ia' only, -for -phase I of -the project -.18 lots'.- He also pointed out that the decision of the Planning;Commission was a 5-4 vote, so there was no overwhelming consensus by them. Also, as noted in the Planning Commission minutes, City staff recommended approval of, phase I of the development. He agrees with Jerry Rose thatFthe Richardson case does apply. He stated the .real question in'this case is. has the development complied with the subdivision ordinance. In this case, there is no question but that all of the requirements have been met. At the Planning Commission meeting,. there were people present who objected because of traffic, etc., but no -objections were made to the plat as it was filed. Greenhaw stated for approval of phase I, there are no requirements that can be made for off site improvements. There was nothing said about what was missing from the subdivision plat. People rely.on the ordinances to know what is needed for developing their land. . Greenhaw stated he is not asking this Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. He is asking the. Council to remand this plat back to the Planning Commission so his clients can find out what is needed and give them the opportunityto correct the deficiencies. He does not believe the PlanningCommission appliedthe law .and facts as the Supreme Court.says.should have been done in the Richardson case. Greenhaw stated in less than two weeks after the decision was.made on this case, a similar subdivision, the Taylor Estates, came before the Planning Commission and was approved with -about the same number of lots, the same neighborhood,/the same access, and the same water lines. He sees no reasons for approving one and denying the other. Greenhaw stated he wanted to draw attention to a possible conflict of interest that may have been present at the Planning Commission. Two of the commissioners are members of the Fayetteville Country Club. There was discussion about the economic loss to the. Country Club if this subdivision is approved. This has made an.appearance of some type of impropriety. Alderman Bassett stated he is a member of the Country Club, and he recognizes this may cause some questions. But.,..he has decided it is his duty to vote on this without considering any other interests. Greenhaw stated he was concerned because members of the Planning Commission made statements about the direct financial' impact on the Country Club and its members. He suggested this matter be remanded back to the Planning Commission for them to address these problems. Alderman Williams asked Greenhaw if he was a member of the Country Club.. September 7, 1993 Greenhaw stated he was a member, but he had made full disclosure of this to his clients and received a go ahead from them. Alderman Bassett asked Mr. Greenhaw if he felt it made any difference that he made a full disclosure of his membership before this meeting. He felt if the item were sent back to the Planning Commission, it would eventually come back before this Council. Greenhaw stated he felt it did make a difference. He is not sure the Planning Commission was fully aware of the ramifications of the Richardson decision. Alderman Alderman asked if that are Vorsanger stated he too is a member of the Country Club. Odom stated he is a member of the Country Club, and he it was the wish of Greenhaw's client that the councilmen members not vote on this issue. Greenhaw stated he did not know. If the councilmen feel that voting on this matter would create an appearance of conflict or cast a shadow on the process, the proper position would be not to vote. He would like to focus the attention on this matter on the ordinance and the Richardson case and not the possible conflict issue. Alderman Box asked when the Taylor Subdivision was approved. Little stated the preliminary plat was approved somewhere between December 1992 and February 1993. The final plat was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting. Alderman Williams stated the Planning Commission knew they had approved Taylor when they denied Masters. Little stated that was correct. David Horne, attorney for the neighborhood, stated there were several things he felt the Council has been a little misled about. He stated Bill Greenhaw has said the Planning Commission is required to give a rubber stamp approval to any plan meeting requirements. Horne said Greenhaw also stated the Richardson case says only the ordinance can be considered when deciding plats. Horne stated the Council has the right to weigh the matters. The Council can do what they want with this issue, and they are not bound by City staff. Horne had people that were present in the audience opposing this plat to stand, and he stated they were not all members of the Country Club He stated there could almost always be some type of conflict of interest construed on the part of a councilman, but the Council should vote on behalf of the citizens. Jim McCord, representing the board of directors of the Fayetteville Country Club, stated his client was concerned about traffic .September 7, 1993.E problems.. He agrees withBillGreenhaw that.in the Little Rock case, the Supreme Court held that the Little Rock Planning Commission denied the subdivision because of reasons not in the subdivision ordinance. The Fayetteville Planning Commission stated they denied the subdivision because of the unsafe street, which is allowed in the subdivision ordinance. He stated the petitioners were not denied equal protection under the law when the Taylor subdivision was approved because it was only for 18 lots and not 55 like the Masters subdivision. If the equal protection argument was accepted, the Planning Commission would never be able to turn down a subdivision in an area if one had already been approved earlier. McCord stated he did not feel there was a conflict of interest issue,.and the Planning Commission's decision should be sustained. Alderman Odom asked if McCord felt the Planning Commission was concerned about the future development. McCord stated he could not speak for the Planning Commission, but you have to draw the line somewhere when approving development in an area. Horne stated 24th Street is the longest cul-de-sac in Arkansas. This is the only access to the area, and it is 1.25 miles long... Jerry Hart, 160 E. 26th Circle, stated he owns the first house on the top of the hill after reaching the crest.. He retired back;to Fayetteville after growing up here as a boy. When he moved to this neighborhood in 1980, there were 14 houses; now there -are 122.; This development is driving all of the wildlife: from the.area including the deer, quail, and bear that have visited there in the past. He measured the asphalt on top of the hill and it is 20 feet wide and has been torn up by trucks hauling building materials for the last 4-5 years. The City says there is no money to repair this road. The school bus driver stated he had no trouble making the curves unless he meets another car, and according to Hart's count, there are 2,400 cars on the road in a 24 hour period. If it snows, the road is virtually impassable until the City crews:get salt,.on the road.. He asked the Council to deny this additional subdivision. Greenhawreminded the Council and audience that the Masters is only asking for approval of 18 lots and not the whole subdivision.. He feels this discussion should be focused on the facts, concerning safety. Traffic, records show that_ very few accidents have been reported over the last 5 years. There is no safety problem there based•on.City facts or the City staff. He stated he has never mentioned the words "rubber stamp," and he is only -asking that the laws be uniformly applied to every developer. His clients should be able to rely on the subdivision regulations. He stated the ordinance Jim McCord is referring to deals with the principles of street construction rather than tothe subdivision regulations. September 7, 1993 Dryden Pence addressed the Council and stated his engineer was present to answer any questions. He requested this subdivision request be returned to the Planning Commission. He stated he purchased the property and relied on the city laws and subdivision regulations. He has worked hard on this project. To add insult to injury, a similar development was just approved by the Planning Commission. He thought laws were to be applied evenly. He stated nowhere do the laws say they do not apply if you are adjacent to the Fayetteville Country Club or some influential citizen. He stated he is entitled to know what was wrong so he can make accommodations to correct the deficiencies. He stated he felt the Planning Commission was acting in a capricious manner when they approved one subdivision but denied his. Pence felt this was a simple case of right and wrong, and he requested the Council do what was right. Alderman Box asked Pence if he was aware of the rule to notify adjacent property owners. He asked if their opinions should be considered when deciding a subdivision. Pence stated he should be allowed to proceed because he relied on the laws of this City. He stated he has not come before this Council being totally insensitive to the neighbors. He stated he has sat down with the people and made changes in his plans that they requested. He stated he does not want to take an adversarial role with the neighborhood. A lady from the audience stated she lives on Fairway Lane, and the neighbors did not object to the Taylor subdivision because they thought it had been approved as an original part of the subdivision back in 1969 or so, or they would have objected. She stated she did have water pressure problems. David Horne stated there have been no occasions when Mr. Pence or any of his developers have come to his residence. He stated Mr. Pence had asked to be told where he was not in compliance. Horne stated that was easy: there was only one road to service 200 houses. These additional residences will overtax the city's infrastructure services, and Mr. Pence has proposed no compromise. He asked if the current residents of the area had the right to be protected against overdevelopment. He stated the property owner's interests are paramount over those of the developers. Jim McCord stated the City has the right to decide if the plat meets minimum requirements, but sometimes City staff is wrong. That is why there is a Planning Commission and an appeal to the City Council. Bill Greenhaw stated regarding overtaxing city services, there is no objective evidence that disputes the findings of City staff that this will not be the case when talking about the approval of Phase I. There is no legitimate objective standard that these developers L1J ,September 7, 1993:`, have not met'. -The property is 'zoned R-1, and everyone in this room should have known that this property could have been subdivided. He stated the laws should be applied evenly, and remand this appeal back to the Planning Commission.- Bill Rucell, the engineer for the developer, stated he is in charge of taking care of public safety. He has performed a detailed study of the road. The road slopes, but it is flat enough that it is well within the normal limits of operation. The pavement widths are. 20 feet, and there is some disrepair. This can be handled in the future. The posted speed limit is 25 mph, and at most places, there is some place to get off the road if there is a problem. He has a letter from the police department stating there have'been.5 accidents in the past 5 years. Rucell stated he also tested the water, and there is adequate water pressure to supply the 18 lots being requested tonight. Beyond the 18 lots, there will be additional requirements. Several of the property owners have sprinkler systems; The water line to the subdivision carries over 60 psi, and the health department only requires 20 psi. Mayor Hanna closed the public hearing. i Alderman Daniel stated she had received no complaints aboutwater pressure before this development was proposed. Alett Little stated the findings of the Engineering Department:: are for 75% capacity of the neighborhood, and that includes the undeveloped lots. The City Engineer's office could find'no records' of complaints about the water pressure. i ,, r , Alderman. Daniel asked how much water was required to maintain the golf course and country club Jerry Yergen stated he had compiled data on the water usage -of the area. He stated the use of the area is about 840 gallons per minute, and under•58 psi,that is normal operating conditions... He stated he believes the water system is adequate to handle phase.I with. 20% reserved capacity. However, he recommends no further development be made after this. He compared some of his calculations with those made by the City Engineer's office.0 He does not believe the city's calculations where taken during peak time of demand. • . Alderman Bassett stated he only promised to be fair when he ran for City Council- and to try and make intelligent decisions. ,.He can assure everyone that he is: not .being influenced by .-anyone Politically. He is only concerned about citizens in.this area as well,as in the rest of the City. He has to decide if he has a conflict of interest before voting on this issue. He hasmentioned this to Dee Wright as well. However, he does not feel there is any :financial: interestthat would affect•him with this decision. .There might be .some- appearance of a problem, but he has made. full September 7, 1993 disclosure to everyone involved that he is a member of the Fayetteville Country Club Trying to hide this would be wrong. He feels it is important for people to know that elected officials will be fair. There is a great deal of growth going on in Fayetteville. He has discovered that new construction in Fayetteville has increased 130% over that of 1992. His biggest concern and fear is that the City do a good job of controlling growth so that the way of life that we all enjoy can be maintained. This cannot be turned into a civil war. He usually does not like government interfering too much, but there are times when it is necessary. The City Council and Planning Commission need to find a way that they can all work in the same direction. He believes after reading the minutes of the Planning Commission and after hearing from the public, this is a serious problem with the street and access. There is a potential problem with water pressure. If this development is approved, he feels there will be more problems with the infrastructure, and the City simply cannot find the money to make those improvements at this time. He feels the City Council simply cannot approve this development. It would diminish the quality of life for these residents and perhaps make their neighborhood unsafe. Alderman Williams stated he shares Alderman Bassett's concerns even though it has been said there is no water problem. Don Bunn states traffic will double when the entire development is complete. He read from the subdivision ordinance, and he feels the law is clearly stated. The Wright's already had a development approved in that area, Wright Place. A line has to be drawn somewhere. He is not in favor of Fayetteville growing as fast as possible. The City needs long term plans to control growth. If the Council sent this item back to the Planning Commission, it would probably still come back to the Council for a final decision. The Council has been elected to make this type of decision, and this question needs to come to an end. Williams, seconded by Bassett, made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Alderman Daniel stated it is important to remember this request is only for phase I of the Master's Subdivision. Alderman Box stated he is not a member of the Country Club He asked to what extent the neighborhood needs to be considered when making a decision about a new subdivision. He asked if the Planning Commission made their decision based on relevant issues. He stated he feels the Planning Commission made a decision based on City ordinances. When appointed to the Commission, he made a promise to listen. He feels it is important to fix the road before anything else is built in that area. Alderman Miller stated he is not a member of the Country Club. He was at the Planning Commission meeting and sympathizes with the September 7, 1993-- people who live in that area. He is not concerned about a conflict of interest. He feels the illusion of a.conflict should be looked into. He is concerned about the approval of the Taylor Estate and there was no mention of water problems. He is not sure the Little.. Rock case applies to this situation. He realizes development will have to stop at some point, but Phase 2 would not be approved irregardless of Phase .1 without some major road and water,line improvements to the area. He feels the Wright's did not get a fair shake. The City needs to get the road fixed now, and the City could use its new paving machine on that road. Alderman Vorsanger stated something good from this discussion. There is a road to this area that needs repair; however, there .are several other roads throughout the City that are in bad need of repair as well. He feels the City has a strong Planning Commission that does a good job, and he is in favor of supporting them. If the Council does not support them, there is no point in having a Planning Commission. He stated he would vote to support them. .. Upon roll call, the vote on the motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision passed by a vote of 6 to 2, with Aldermen Miller and Daniel voting no. LOT SPLIT. APPEAL SETTLEMENT OFFER Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a settlement offer has been made by the plaintiff in David Lyle Hollman v. City of Fayetteville in an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to deny a lot split. Obert Undem, attorney for Mr. Hollman, addressed the Council and stated Mr. Hollman has lived on Rosewood for a number of years. A couple of years ago he bought an adjoining lot. They have cleaned it up and would like to build another home on the north 1/2 of the lot. The property is of such size that there can be 2 lots of about 3/4 acre each. During the course of planning for this big move, the neighbors were invited and notices were sent to 8 adjoining property owners. One 2 expressed any objections. of the 11 lots in Rosewood Estates, there are 9 owners. Three owners of 4 lots are in favor of the split. Two owners of 2 lots do not care, but do not want to take sides. Three owners are against the lot split. One of those against the split has already split his lot and lives at the lower level. There has been a great deal of misinformation circulated among the property owners. Rosewood has restrictive covenants, but they do not prohibit the splitting of lots. There are provisions that allow the owners to build structures of equal quality on the lot. The City staff recommendation was that the split be granted, so his client was surprised when the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the lot split. His client feels strongly about staying in the neighborhood.- -He has applied for and been granted a building permit. His client,has made an offer to assure the neighbors that • September 7, 1993 this construction will protect the integrity of the neighborhood. He is planning on putting the roadway where there are no trees, and he plans to save the green areas on Rosewood. He will also plant additional trees at the rear of his property. He will erect a privacy fence along the east end of his property. Alderman Edens stated the Planning Commission minutes state Don White presented a petition where 8 out of the 9 residents signed not in favor of the split. Undem stated there is no record of that petition. Little stated she thinks the petition was presented to the Planning Commissioners, and there is not a copy of it on file in the Planning Office. Alderman Vorsanger asked how many commissioners were in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting. Little stated there were 5 or 6. Alderman Williams asked if Mr. Hollman could build a house on lot 10 and not lot 11 at this time. Little stated lot 11 was not large enough to meet the requirements for building a house. According to the City's building code, if a person owns a lot large enough to meet the setback requirements, a house can be built on the lot, but this house could not be sold separately unless the lot split is approved. Alderman Miller asked City Attorney Rose what the available options were for the Council in dealing with this matter. Rose stated the Planning Commission turned down the lot split request. There is no appeal provision in the City code for this situation. So, the petitioner sued the City in Circuit Court. The petitioner has come before the Council with a settlement offer that has been set forth in a memo. The Council's decision is to decide whether or not to accept the settlement offer. Alderman Box asked Rose what he thought this case looked like for court. Rose stated he has not been made aware of anything wrong with the decision made by the Planning Commission. Alderman Odom asked what do the people who are opposed to the lot split say about the proposed changes. Mr. Hollman stated his neighbor that is so opposed will not talk with him about the matter. c J. September 7, 1993 Edens,seconded by Bassett, made a motion not t9 accept the offer and not to reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Hollman pointed out there was no one present at this meeting to oppose the lot split. Mayor Hanna stated he did not know if this was a flaw in the City ordinances because this type of thing has happened before. .Mr. Hollman has been issued a building permit whereby he can have two structures on one lot. Sometime down the road, there will be some one back before this Council requesting a lot split. Mayor Hanna asked if the Planning Commission had given their input into the settlement offer as requested in the City Attorney's memo. Little stated this was discussed at the special Planning Commission meeting, but they made no recommendation. She stated she may not haveasked them for a formal recommendation, but she did .ask: for members of the Planning Commission to attend the agenda session, and there were three members at that meeting. Alderman Williams made a motion to table this item and -wait on a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Hollman stated he has tried to do two things with this house: (1) to "stay within the covenants of the subdivision and (2) not to disturb any trees in the front of the lot. He is not removing -any trees with a diameter larger than 3-4 inches. Alderman Bassett stated he did not like making a decision based on speculation. - Obert Undem asked if he and his client would have the right to appear before the Planning Commission when they meet on this again. Alderman Williams stated the Planning Commission would hear what Mr. Undem and his client had to say. 4 Aldermen Edens and Bassett withdrew their earlier motions to uphold the Planning Commission decision. 1 Alderman Box seconded the motion to table. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed by a vote of 8 to 0. SIDEWALK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance revising the current Subdivision Regulations whereby sidewalks would be required to be placed on one side of local streets and on both sides of collector and arterial streets and cul-de-sacs and required to be installed concurrently with streets, curbs; and gutters. -The Planning Commission approved this at their August 30 meeting. September 7, 1993 Alderman Edens stated he agreed with the intent of the ordinance and asked if the City commonly enforces the 5 year rule. Alett Little stated property has to have sidewalks installed at the time streets are installed. There are several scenarios about when the sidewalks should be required. Alderman Edens asked if the only change in the ordinance was for the 4 foot setback and for the developer to install the sidewalks at the time streets are built. Little stated that is correct, and the City currently takes contracts for improvements, etc., and negotiates these times. Alderman Edens asked what mechanism would be required for the sidewalk to be present before construction. He stated he disagrees with having to cut through a new sidewalk to build a driveway or to have to drive across the sidewalks with construction equipment. Both of these situations will weaken sidewalks. Little stated one of the suggestions was that they would be built along with the curbs and gutters, and the curbs and gutters endure construction. Alderman Edens stated he was in favor of tabling this and letting the Planning Commission work out something so as not to waste the sidewalk expense. Edens, seconded by Miller, made a motion to table. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. VICE MAYOR Mayor Hanna introduced the appointment of a Vice Mayor for the City of Fayetteville. He stated there is no provision for a vice mayor, but the Council can elect from among themselves a person to serve as vice mayor in the mayor's absence or the mayor can appoint one of the aldermen to serve. This person would not have the power to sign documents, but he/she would run the meetings in the absence of the mayor. Alderman Bassett stated Mayor Hanna needs some help with some of the ceremonial type meetings. Alderman Bassett stated he feels any of the aldermen could do the job. Bassett, seconded by Edens, made a motion to nominate Fred Vorsanger to serve as vice mayor. Upon roll call, the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-1, with Alderman Vorsanger abstaining. Alderman Vorsanger stated this is the first two years, there was a He feels the present Council is his 5th year on the Council. For different make-up on the Board. one of great diversity, and he L L 1 September 7, 19936r1 tkt- :appreciates being accepted by everyone especially because he was a carryover from the previous form of government. -He stated he will do his best to carry out the duties as vice mayor. OTHER BUSINESS MILLAGE ELECTION Alan Wilbourn, of the Fayetteville school system, reminded the Council there will be an election on Tuesday, September 21, on increasing the millage, and he wanted to encourage everyone to support the schools. He thanked the Mayor and City Council for their help in this matter. NOISE ORDINANCE REPORT Alderman Williams stated his committee will try and have a noise ordinance amendment ready for the next meeting. The proposed amendment will lower the decibels by 10 and lower them an hour earlier. He hopes this will resolve the problems, and he thanked the Police Department and the bar owners for their help. Mayor Hanna stated this ordinance will be ready for the public, and copies will be available in the City Clerk's office. MEETING NOTIFICATION Mayor Hanna stated the City Clerk has asked that she be notified of committee meetings as soon as possible after they are set in order for her to get notification to the press and public. WARD 1 MEETING Alderman Miller stated there would be a Ward 1 meeting on September 14, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building. WARD 2 MEETING Alderman Bassett stated there would be no Ward 2 meeting this month. LAND USE PLAN The final public hearing on the Land Use Plan will be September 27, 1993, following the Planning Commission meeting in Room 219 of the City Administration Building. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.