Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-28 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, June 28, 1994, at 4:30 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; Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty; City Clerk Sherry Thomas; City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton; Planning Director Alett Little; Public Works Director Kevin Crosson; members of staff, press, and audience. CALL TO ORDER ikm r Mayor. Hanna called the meeting to present. order with eight aldermen TRANSFER STATION &4 RECYCLABLE MATERIALS PROCESSING -FACILITY Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving an engineering contract in the amount of $30,560 with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates for services on the Transfer Station and Recyclable Materials Processing Facility. This contract will be for the first phase of a two phase project. The first phase is for the Needs Assessment/Design Study. The contract expense for the second phase will be presented to the Council at a later date. This was tabled at the Council's June 20 meeting. Alderman Box stated he did get his questions answered, and although he was not pleased with the process, he did think everything had been done correctly. Alderman Miller stated he was part of this selection process, and he thinks this is a good company to engineer this facility. Miller, seconded by Williams, made a motion to approve the contract. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 72-94 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT Mayor Hanna introduced further consideration of 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. June 28, 1994 Mayor Hanna stated the Supreme Court handed down a decision on the Dolan case in Oregon. He asked the assistant city attorney how this decision would affect the City's design overlay district ordinance. Assistant City Attorney McCarty stated the Supreme Court recognized the authority of governments to regulate land use. She outlined the Dolan case stating it was not a legislative determination rather it was an adjudicative decision. The Supreme Court used a two part test to establish the constitutionality of the ordinance. The first part of the test dealt with whether or not there was an essential nexus. The second part of the test dealt with rough proportionality. Basically, she stated she does not feel the Dolan case puts the design overlay district ordinance at any greater risk than already exists. She stated there are some planning regulations the City uses that may need to be looked into based on the decision in this case. Alderman Bassett stated he feels the City's overlay ordinance differs from the Dolan case in that the Dolan case was a dedication of land to the public. With the City, property owners retain ownership. In addition, the burden of proof has been shifted. With Dolan, the burden is with the city instead of the land owner. He asked if someone asks for a variance of 30%, where is the burden? McCarty stated the burden.would be on the land owner because they are the ones asking for a variance from the regulations put on the entire area. Alderman the City Williams asked if this decision would limit the to collect impact fees. 1 McCarty stated reasons for the Alderman have 15% ord I • j McCarty stated it is the same. it ;makes it. really 'important fees. Vorsanger,stated thePpetitioner wa open space. Is that the same as th dinance? right of to have specific s 'already required to e 30% in this proposed i Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for time. the first Mayor Hanna asked if CMN Properties and Point West Subdivision would be affectedsince they both have approved plats or would they be exempted from these requirements. Little stated there was one other subdivision on Highway 112 that has requested an exemption. June 28, 1994 McCarty stated each situation would have to be looked at and a fact determination made if there is a distinction between those who have been platted. Alderman Williams stated he was reluctant to grant exemptions because of equal protection. They could still comply with screening, etc. He would count on the Planning Commission to look at each of these cases and consider whether or not to grant variances. He does not feel granting variances would be in the best interest of the design overlay district ordinance. Alderman Bassett asked if the City creates exemptions, would this create an equal protection problem? McCarty stated she felt it would unless the exemptions can be separated into a distinctive group of people. Alderman Miller stated he was in favor of keeping the environmental integrity of the City. Mayor Hanna stated he would prefer to wait until City Attorney Rose returns from vacation before voting on this in light of the Supreme Court decision on the Dolan case. He is convinced there will be some lawsuits filed against this City. He feels the City Attorney should be able to look at this case and tell the Council what he feels before a final vote is taken. Alderman Williams stated he feels McCarty has analyzed this case very correctly. He does not feel the Dolan case is relevant to this ordinance. He does feel the City is in a hurry, and if the Council delays, it should be tied to a development moratorium. Alderman Miller stated he feels McCarty has done a good job, and he too does not feel the Dolan case applies. Alderman Bassett asked McCarty if she has talked with City Attorney Rose. McCarty stated she has and has faxed a copy of the summary of the case to him. He agreed with her comments. Alderman Daniel stated she agrees if there is a delay, it should be tied to a moratorium. Alderman Bassett stated he did not want a moratorium. Mayor Hanna stated he has been told by several people that the City will be sued over this ordinance. Alderman Vorsanger stated he tried to change some things, but it did not work. He stated he received a letter from some newcomers to the area who threatened his incumbency if he did not vote like 10/ June 28, 1994 they wanted on this ordinance. He stated that threat only made him madder. He had suggested changes from the 660 feet boundary to a 330 feet boundary, and to reduce the 30% open space requirement to 20%. Vorsanger, seconded by Edens, made a motion to reduce the overlay district boundary from 660 feet to 330 feet. Alderman Box stated most of the negative comments he has received has been about the 660 feet boundary. He stated this is only a boundary, and people can build within it. He does not feel making the size smaller would change the integrity of the ordinance. He has heard the term "compromise" document used. There have not been any real compromises made on this ordinance. He feels to be fair to the property owners and the citizens, he feels there are some areas that can be compromised. Alderman Miller stated 660 feet is a compromise to him. He would like to see this ordinance enacted city-wide. Alderman Williams stated he does not think compromise is good just for the sake of compromise. The reason for the 660 feet is that it is 2 blocks wide. He does not feel it would be fair to property owners to narrow the overlay district to only 330 feet. Alderman Box stated he does not feel people look two blocks away from the road when they are driving 55 mph. Alderman Edens asked what compromises have been made? Little stated on the draft copy of the ordinance, the wording in bold has been added, and the lines stricken through have been removed. Upon roll call, the motion failed by a vote of'3 to 5, with Williams, Odom, Bassett; Daniel and Miller votinq.no. vorsanger, seconded by Edens, made a motion to reduce the 30% open space requirement to 20%: Alderman Bassett statedhe feels open"space is a crucial part of this ordinance, but he feels'30% may be too high. He hopes the City does not get sued, and if the open space requirement is reduced to 25%, that might help. He also feels the City Council should discuss applying these same rules to other corridors. Alderman Miller stated if the open space requirement is reduced to 25%, he does not feel the Councilwill be satisfying anyone. In his libertarian viewpoint, he feels the Council should. be considering the good of the community. j 168 June 28, 1994 Alderman Williams stated he felt 20% was too low, but it is hard to determine what is perfect. He stated if the open space requirement is lowered to 25%, he wants 80% of the 25% to be landscaped. Vorsanger and Edens withdrew their motion and second. Vorsanger, seconded by Box, made a motion to reduce the 30% open space requirement to 25%. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 2, with Williams and Miller voting no. Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to require 80% of the open space to be landscaped which can include ponds and fountains. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 3, with Odom, Vorsanger, and Edens voting no. Alderman Bassett stated the most other consistent complaint has been the curb cut provision. He asked if this couldn't be reduced and the City still have a good ordinance. Alderman Miller asked what is the maximum size of a curb cut. Little stated 40 feet is the general rule. Mayor Hanna stated if someone wants a curb cut feet, they can apply for a variance. Williams stated he feels the last sentence on should be stricken. less than the 300 page 8, number 6 Odom, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to strike the last sentence on page 8, number 6. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to O. Alderman Odom stated he feels 300 feet may be excessive. Alderman Bassett stated he fears there will be massive numbers of requests for variances from this. Miller, seconded by Edens, made a motion to change the curb cut requirement from 300 feet to 200 feet. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with Daniel voting no. Alderman Odom stated his concern is like that of Mayor Hanna's. The City Attorney will have to test this ordinance, and he would like to wait and hear his opinion; however, he will not vote against the ordinance. Alderman Bassett stated he would like to have the benefit of Rose's opinion as well, but he feels McCarty has offered her opinion, and the changes the Council has made are good. He feels the ordinance has been strengthened by dropping to 25% open space. To the property owners, he knows they will be disappointed with some of ! June 28, 1994 • the provisions of this ordinance. He feels this will increase the property values.;He hopes all citizens will stay together%and help. make this town look like we-waritkit to 20-30-40 years down the road. . , Alderman Williams stated'he agrees with Alderman Bassett. He feels this is a good ordinance, and he feels it is a good thing for this town to get together;and look -,to the future of Fayetteville. Alderman Vorsanger stated he thinks this ordinance is too restrictive. Alderman Daniel „stated there are principles at stake here. How much government is too much government? She stated that will.be debated as long as there is a constitution. 04. • 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 5 to 2, and the Assistant City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Williams, seconded by Miller, 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 5 to 2. Assistant City Attorney McCarty - read the ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with Edens voting no. Upon roll call, the emergency clause passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with Edens voting no. ORDINANCE 3806 APPEARS ON PAGE d3 6 OF ORDINANCE BOOR )(A/1/// ADJOURNMENT The meeting, adjourned at 6.:13 p.m.