Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-07 Minutese' r 4 A . MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL : a 1 A meeting of the Fayetteville City,Councila was'held on Tuesday, June 7, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. in the -Council Room of the City Administration Building, ‘1137W: Mountain,yFayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred" Hanna; Aldermen Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Conrad Odom, Woody Bassett, Fred Vorsanger, Len Edens, and Joe Box; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk Sherry Thomas; City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton; Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes; Planning 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. AGENDA ORDER f= Alderman Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to place the old business at the end of the agenda and get the rest of the agenda handled before discussion of the design overlay ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hanna 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 May 17, 1994 regular City Council meeting; B. A resolution approving the payment of $7,800 to the Niblock Law Firm for legal services rendered in the incinerator disengagement lawsuit. RESOLUTION 64-94 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. A resolution awarding Bid 94-28, Items #1 and #4, to Williams Ford Tractor for a 1994 Ford, Model 8670 Tractor for $62,494, less a trade allowance of $27,000, and an Alamo 21' Flail Mower for $22,400, less a trade allowance of $3,000, for a net amount of $54,993. RESOLUTION 65-94 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY.CLERR'S OFFICE D. A resolution .approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $96,650 to establish a building cost budget for the Walton Arts Center and establish a transfer to the Arts Center Bond r "rune 7,i1994.% Fund of the residual funds remaining.from the Arts Center Bond issue to allow theproject!fund to 'be closed., RESOLUTION 66-94 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Miller, Agenda. seconded by Odom, made a motion to approve the Consent Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. REZONE R94-26 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration ofan ordinance rezoning 2.3 acres located at 102 Plainview from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, as requested by Clyde Watkins. The Planning Commission voted 6-0-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Odom, seconded by Williams, 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 8 to 0, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Williams, seconded by Odom, 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 8 to 0.. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3799 APPEARS ON PAGE ell OF ORDINANCE BOOK -X X V// REZONE R94-28 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 49.15 acres located west of Shiloh and north of Joyce (4201 N. Shiloh Drive) from R -O, Residential Office and R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Connie Clark on behalf of Tristate Joint Venture. The Planning Commission voted 6-0-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Odom, seconded by Miller, 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 8 to 0, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for'the second time. Odom, seconded by Williams, 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 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Williamssstated this is for the expansion of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. He askedif they will be required to make off-site improvements. June 7, 1994 Alett Little stated they would, but that would be considered during the plat review process. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3800 APPEARS ON PAGE A023 OF ORDINANCE BOOK XX v REZONE R94-30 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning .31 acres located on the northeast corner of Happy Hollow and Huntsville Roads from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Kathryn Keck. The Planning Commission voted 6-0-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Miller, seconded by Williams, 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 8 to 0, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Miller, seconded by Williams, 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 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Miller stated this rezoning is to allow for a small store to be built. He stated this same facility would be allowed under C-1 zoning and the new zoning regulations. He asked if this would revert to that zoning when the new ordinances were adopted. Little stated the applicant has offered a bill of assurance with this rezoning, so it will be in conformance with the new ordinances. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3801 APPEARS ON PAGE ,ZZS OF ORDINANCE BOOK XX V// BACKFLOW PREVENTION PROGRAM Mayor Hanna stated the backflow prevention program has been pulled from this agenda and postponed until a later date. SUBDIVISION COVENANTS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a request by George Smith to address the Council concerning subdivision covenants and the enforcement of these covenants. George Smith addressed the Council and stated this dispute has been settled due to the help of the City Attorney. He stated a lot of subdivisions with restrictive covenants have no enforcement • June 7, 1994 measures. -He hopes theCitya will look intoan,ordinance in the near future to protect -homeowners. OLD BUSINESS-- p. 1 I S I •b! Mayor Hanna introduced. consideration of- items that have been brought before the Council but were tabled or no decision made to allow further information to be presented. A. MILLAGE TAX ELECTION: An ordinance calling and setting a date for a special Election on the question of levying a tax on real and personal property within the City of Fayettevilleand fixing the rate thereof at 1.0 mills to be dedicated 100% for x.. use in the Parks & Recreation System in the City of Fayetteville. This ordinance was left on its first reading at the Council's -May 17, 1994 meeting. ... City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Edens stated the only input he has received is in support from ballplayers. He has heard no opposition. Alderman Williams suggested this be left on its second reading and allow people additional time for input. The ordinance was left on its second reading. DEJA VU, INC. Mayor Hanna introduced a request by James Poe, owner of River City, to discuss relocation plans. Mayor Hanna stated Mr. Poe has filed en application with the Planning Commission for a conditional use of property on Watson Street. Mayor Hanna stated he did not feel it was proper for the Council to discuss this before it goes to the Planning Commission. John Everett, attorney for Deja Vu, Inc., stated he basically agrees with the Mayor. However, he would like a position of neutrality from the Council regarding the transfer of the liquor license. They would like to have a fair chance before the Planning Commission. Mayor Hanna stated he wrote a letter to the ABC opposing the transfer. Alderman Odom stated if Everett wants the Council to remain neutral, he would not.ask the Council to do anything. June 7, 1994 Everett stated Deja Vu has found a new location, but if the Council is not going to approve the location, etc., he would like them to tell his client now. Alderman Williams stated the Council wants River City to move, but he does not feel the Council wants them to move to Shulertown. Alderman Vorsanger stated he would make his decision after they hears from the Planning Commission. Jim Poe stated River City is not moving anywhere. The business concept is totally different. He asked the Council if it is himself and/or his organization they are opposed to, please tell him now, and he will leave. He stated he keeps fighting the same wrong concept --River City is not moving. Alderman Odom stated he has nothing against Poe, his son, or River City. He stated he was a patron of River City. The problem with your request is you asked the Council to remain neutral on the one hand, and on the other hand, you want the Council to speak out in favor of your transfer. If you want the Council to be neutral, it would remain mute. Everett stated the perception is that this governing body opposes the transfer and move. He wants the City Council to adopt the position of not doing anything. Alderman Bassett stated he feels the City Council has acted in good faith. They want River City to move. He can't support the Shulertown location for several reasons. However, he wants River City to have a chance to start over, just somewhere else. Alderman Miller stated according to ordinance, dance halls are not allowed within 300 feet of churches. He could not support this location. Alderman Bassett stated he feels it would be wrong to move a problem to the Shulertown location. Alderman Daniel stated she has received a number of calls and letters against the Shulertown location. Everett stated the Council should be considering whether River City should stay in their present location or move. Alderman Odom asked what the new name would be of the new establishment. Poe stated it would be called the "Bistro". This location will serve lunch and dinner, and there will only be live entertainment on Friday and Saturday nights. June 7, 1994 Claudette. Hunnicutt stated the neighbors want them out oftheir neighborhood, but they do not want to impose River City on another neighborhood. She stated Poe is asking for everything he has now, with more room at the Shulertown location. OLD BUSINESS - CONTINUED B. DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT: An ordinance establishing a Design Overlay District for the U.S. 71 Highway Corridor pursuant to the zoning authority of Chapter 160 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and declaring an emergency. This ordinance was left on its second reading at the Council's May 17, 1994 meeting. :..- y Rick McCullough, a Fayetteville businessman,rstated�the Chamber of Commerce is in favor of an overlay program, but they are in favor of a workable ordinance. -- He , recommended'" this ordinance be sent back to the Planning Comkission ,for more public'>input. He also suggested the City look -into Rogers' overlay program. ...1 , r Alderman Daniel stated.she feels it is very, important to get this ordinance enacted-tas.quickly-as possible,' and sending it back to the Planning Commission would cause delays. McCullough stated he feels this ordinance should be worked out at. the Planning Commission level. • Alderman Miller stated Rogers' plan covers residential as well as commercial development. He feels Fayetteville's ordinance is less vague. John Fornay presented a slide show showing Fayetteville in years past as well as Bella Vista, Bentonville, and Springdale. Tom McKinney, Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club, addressed the Council in favor of the overlay project. He feels it is a good and timely plan. This is not taking away property owner's rights, it is just requiring setbacks. Elam Denham,_2111 N. Shiloh, stated he owns property that will be affected, and he is against this ordinance. Most of the people who own property along the bypass already had to give up some of it when the highway department built the road. He feels this is an attackand threat on property owners' rights, and is a taking of property without compensation. He does not want to have to set aside 30% of his land. In addition, he does not feel proper notification was given to the public about this ordinance. He presented -the Council with petition containing.74..signatures of people in opposition to the ordinance. June 7, 1994 Sterling Anders stated he opposes this ordinance. He is not in opposition of beautifying Fayetteville. He feels the ordinance can be changed and a compromise reached. He stated one of the Planning Commissioners who voted for the ordinance really did not know what they were voting for. He suggested some of the proposed millage be devoted to beautifying the bypass. He does not like the idea of the City taking away his property. He suggested sending this back to the Planning Commission. Jewell Bennett, League of Women Voters, stated she is in favor of the design overlay ordinance and in making Highway 71 as beautiful as possible. Harold Johnson stated the bypass lived in this area for 30 years, Fayetteville for 50 years. He ordinance. took some of his land. He has and he has been in business in stated he is opposed to the Joe Crouch stated if the City does not want progress, we could go back to a two-lane highway. He stated the land around the bypass is expensive. He just sold some land for $65,000 per acre. He stated our ordinance should not be much different than Rogers' ordinance. He stated Fayetteville does not need more greenspace than Rogers. Louise Schaper stated she moved to Fayetteville in 1992 because Fayetteville cared about its beauty. She represents the "Friends of Fayetteville", a new group to help preserve the small, friendly town atmosphere through growth. They conducted a questionnaire, and out of 240 people asked, 237 agreed to support efforts to preserve the beauty of the corridors including the bypass. She collected 564 signatures during 2 Saturday morning efforts. Dan Bennett lives on the eastern side of the City. He stated you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. When he brings people into town from the airport, he uses the bypass and not South College. He stated the City needs to protect those elements of this community that are special: the economy, the schools, and the natural environment. This would be a positive legacy for this City Council to leave. A University of Arkansas professor stated the City needs to restrict development along the highways. He stated property owners will get their money back because of the increased value of the land by protecting the natural resources. He stated development does not always pay its way. He stated the City needs to control both the economics and the aesthetics of the road. Don Nelms stated he feels the 71 bypass needs to be preserved. He does see some problems with the current ordinance. He stated there are questionable aesthetic impacts about some of the components including the 4 foot fence and the trees required. College Avenue June 7, 1994 could have had 20-25 feet setbacks years ago, but when the road was widened, the setbacks were lost. He stated property values have - been driven up on the bypass because there is no other place to locate a business. College Avenue is basically full. He recommends a commission to look into this and come up with a practical ordinance. He also feels the City should consider the tax advantages of businesses locating in Fayetteville. Judy Brittenum; a landscape architect, stated thisordinance allows for development and : to still have an aesthetic community. She feels this is a responsible plan for the whole community; and she supports the ordinance. Jana Britton, member of the Planning Commission, stated the sign ordinance had a great benefit to this community, and she challenged the Council to pass this ordinance so Fayetteville can take charge of its destiny. Mary Thomas, a propertyowner, stated it .:is -not the .property owner's place to•make the area beautiful. She suggested taking up donations as well as signatures to buy -•land along the bypass. She feels this is a dictatorship trying to takejher property. Harley Brigham read a statement infavor-ofmthe�ordinance. e !, • t y.. l 4 P. Al t fl T Morty Newmark stated =the time has come for this firm plan to protect our City. He feels everybody is concerned about development. The Vision project in 1991 called for an overlay plan. He urged the City .Council to take action. Gary Tucker, a native of Little Rock who moved to Fayetteville within the last 3 months, stated he chose Fayetteville because of the beauty of this town. He feels Fayetteville can have a sustainable growth rate and an overlay plan. He stated if businesses do not feel they can be compatible in certain areas, don't move there. -He stated without some restrictions, the bypass could become as ugly as College Avenue. - Mr. Henry, a property owner off Cato Springs Road, has owned 3 acres for quite some time, but now he is going.to place his land for sale. He stated the City has a 25' easement on his land. They dug up the land and buried water lines. They were supposed to clean up their mess. They did not; he hauled off the mess himself. He stated right now there are weeds and grass in the right of way that are taller than the trees the City has planted. Tom Sager stated he., too, is a property owner on the bypass. This ordinance will have a deep economic effect on the bypass properties. He stated people are willing to look at 25,000 cars per day on the .bypass, but they .are unwilling to see one sitting still within 660 feet of the bypass. He feels this is inverse condemnation. June 7, 1994 City Attorney Rose defined inverse condemnation which means that regulations affecting property take away all of its economic viability. Sager stated that could be a possibility for some of the property along the bypass. He stated he feels the overlay district ordinance should be sent back to the Planning Commission. A resident of 2556 Mt. Comfort Road stated she is a property owner, and she does not want to have to give up 30% of her land without compensation. She suggested letting those in favor of this ordinance give up 30% of their properties. Richard Culver, an out-of-state owner of property, stated he is concerned that this ordinance has been drafted too hastily. He stated there are many inconsistencies within the ordinance. He feels there needs to be more study done on this type of ordinance. He stated the City needs to decide if it wants future development or if it wants to put up a fence and keep new people out. Vicki Holland, 1885 Harold Street, stated she moved here two years ago from California. She feels industry and people will move to towns with the greatest restrictions. She stated the City needs to seek a balance. Growth does not have to mean the destruction of the environment. She is in favor of the ordinance. Sue Clemens, Edge Hill Drive, stated the purpose of the bypass is to save people from having to go through town. If businesses are built up along the bypass, it will back up traffic on this thoroughfare. She feels the ordinance needs to be passed to protect the integrity of the bypass and the residential areas around it. Robert Pritchard, Crest Drive, stated there are a lot of people who feel they have a special interest because they own property along the bypass. The aldermen were elected to the City Council to make Fayetteville the type of city the residents want --not to help landowners make money. George Faucette, owner of property on Hwy 71 and College, stated he is not opposed to the design overlay district, per se, but he is upset because none of the property owners were asked for any input. He felt this should be sent back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Hanna thanked the citizens for their input. Alderman Bassett stated some of the speakers talked about the taking of property that is illegal or unconstitutional. He asked the City Attorney his opinion regarding this. City Attorney Rose stated there are three ways to challenge the overlay district ordinance. First, is it constitutional? Everyone June 7, 1994 who has looked at them has said they are constitutional. Second, do the regulations included in the ordinance match the purpose for which it is passed? In other words, do the rules and regulations do what the ordinance wants? Third, if it is a taking, there must be compensation. It would not invalidate the ordinance if it were considered a taking, it would just make it costly to the City. There has been a lot of litigation about this being a taking. The courts have generally held there is no taking as long as the owner has an economically viable use of the land as a whole. There is a line of cases that say the overlay ordinance can be considered a taking even if there is economic value left if the land is extracted for some public benefit from private individuals. Alderman Bassett asked if the provision for variances included in this ordinance would make it more defendable. Rose stated it would. In addition., he suggested a severability clause be added. lie stated most ofthe comments he has heard from people is that they think it is a pretty good ordinance,except for . He feels a compromise can be worked out. Alderman Daniel stated she feels this issue has- been sensationalized. This is not that drastic. The setbacks are not that different from what the City currently uses. Mayor Hanna stated staff is looking at this. There is a lot of misinformation out about this ordinance. He feels the City needs to work toward a compromise, and he feels wedo not need to be in too big of a hurry with this ordinance. In addition, he does not feel College Avenue looks bad. Alett Little stated setbacks for commercial property is 50 feet from the street right of way. That is the same as the design overlay district. A property owner can limit the setback to 25 feet if they screen or have no parking. She stated basically this design overlay district...is;not greatly; different from what we currently have, it..just has different requirements:'. Alderman Bassett stated the.Chamber of. Commerce;passed around a copy of the Rogers ordinance. :He asked if theirs was more or less stringent than the,onesproposed for Fayetteville. Little stated there :`are ,a''numbervof. major. differences. Fayetteville's does not_proposetminimum lot. sizes, Rogers does: Rogers has a setback requirement of 75 feet, Fayetteville's is 50 feet. Rogers requires 1 tree every 20 feet, Fayetteville's is 1 tree every 30 feet. The sign provisions are about the same. They do have a provision that would allow signs for all commercial developments. Their curb cuts are less restrictive --1 every 100 feet compared to 1 every 300 feet in this proposed ordinance. June 7, 1994 Alderman Williams stated he agrees with Alderman Daniel that this is not such a dramatic change. With the curb cuts, waivers can be sought for smaller lots. He feels this has been a good step forward. With some amendments, he feels this ordinance should be approved. He does not believe this will decrease property values. Alderman Daniel stated she was concerned for the landowners. But, she also believes if development is carefully planned in Fayetteville, land values will increase. Alderman Bassett stated he has talked with over 60 people in the past few days. There are a lot of people who want to protect the bypass; however, he feels people think the City should be reasonable in the way they go about this. He feels the 30% greenspace and the 660 feet setback requirements are too much. He wants to make sure what the City Council passes will keep the bypass from becoming another North College Avenue. However, he does not feel this should be sent back to the Planning Commission. He feels the aldermen were elected to make these types of decisions. Alderman Vorsanger stated he would not vote for this ordinance as it is currently written. He wants to pass an ordinance that is more palatable to everyone. He stated he did not understand how the 660 feet setback requirement was established. Jana Britton stated the original Planning Commission compromised taking 1/2 from each side of the property owners. figure was 1,000 feet. But, the with 660 feet, and intended on street which would be fair to all Alderman Box stated most of these changes will affect Ward 4. He has had lots of calls in support of an overlay ordinance, but not this one. He stated this ordinance needs more work. Mayor Hanna stated he feels the ordinance should be sent back to the Planning Commission because they do a good job. He recommended each alderman review the ordinance and give their changes to the Planning Commission for them to revise the ordinance. Alderman Edens stated he is in favor of sending it back to the Planning Commission. Edens made a notion to return this ordinance to the Planning Coaaission. The motion died for lack of a second. Dan Coody addressed the Council and stated he feels this ordinance is an instrument of compromise already. Alderman Miller stated he is proud of the tree ordinance, but it is one of the most ignored ordinances he has ever seen. June 7, 1994 i4ni . Mayor Hanna asked each alderman to give staff the changes they would like to have made in the ordinance by the agenda session next Tuesday. Staff can incorporate the changes in the ordinance and present a revised ordinance at the June 21 Council meeting. Vorsanger, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to table the Design Overlay District Ordinance until the next meeting. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. OTHER BUSINESS • MEETING DATE Alderman Bassett stated he would not be able to attend the next meeting scheduled on June 21, 1994. He asked if the meeting could be changed. Williams, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to change the June 21 meeting to June 20, 1994. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a`vote of 8 to 0. WATER & SEWER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS MEETINGS There will be.a meeting of the `Council's Water and Sewer and Environmental Concerns Committees starting at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 13, in Room 326. Alderman Edens, Stobaugh to the 30, 1997. .Upon 1 NOMINATING COMMITTEE • seconded by Odom, made a motion to appoint James Walton Arts Center Council for a term ending June roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose stated all of the nominations could be voted on at one time. Edens, seconded people: by Box, made motion to appoint the following e Walton Arts Center Foundation': Randy Blanton - reappointed to a term Mary Earle -•appointed 'taw fill an 6/30/96 Y Board of Housing &ConsttUction.AppeaiS: Lisa Johnson-- appointed to a term ending 4/1/99 1 ending 6/30/97 unexpired term ending i June 7, 1994 Cable Board: Christopher Corke - appointed to a term ending 7/1/96 Earl Buddy Chaddick - reappointed to a term ending 7/1/96 Citizens' Environmental Committee: David Mersky, Aaron Bleidt, and Jean Hudder - appointed to terms ending 7/1/97 Historic District Committee: Rob Turberville - appointed to a term ending 4/1/97 Bike & Trailways Committee: Art Hobson and Ben Thigpen Parks & Recreation Advisory Board: Sturman Mackey - appointed to fill an unexpired term ending 1/1/95 Upon roll call, the nominations were approved by a vote of 8 to 0. ADJOURNMENT +The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.