Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, January 3, 1995, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, Robert Prichard, Len Schaper, and Heather Daniel; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; 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. OATH OF OFFICE Municipal Judge Rudy Moore administered the oath of office to Mayor Fred Hanna, City Attorney Jerry Rose, City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul, and Aldermen Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, Robert Prichard, Len Schaper, and Heather Daniel. VICE MAYOR Mayor Hanna, seconded by Williams, nominated Woody Bassett for the position of Vice Mayor. Upon roll call, the nomination passed by a vote of 8 to O. RECOGNITION OF GLYNDON BUNTON Mayor Hanna recognized former City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton. Bunton served his last meeting on December 20, 1994. The City Treasurer position will now be a part of the City Clerk's duties. Mayor Hanna expressed his appreciation for Bunton's service and presented him with a key to the city. OLD BUSINESS 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. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION V94-5: An ordinance vacating a 12.5 foot wide strip of right-of-way located on the north and south side of the existing right-of-way located between 1543 and 1571 Arthur's Court as requested by Carl Lewis. January 3, 1995. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the vacation subject to the paving of the remaining 25 foot. wide right-of-way, modifying the curb to allow vehicleaccess, and placing an Emergency Access Only sign at the entrance. The assignment of costs for the associated improvements has been deferred to the Council for action. City Attorney Rose stated this item wastabled at the December 20, 1994, Council meeting. The petitioners' attorney has not contacted the City Attorney's office this week. .The Council can leave this item on the table or remove it. Williams, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to remove Right -of -Way Vacation V94-5 from the table. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to O. Alderman Daniel stated this should be a regular street. The main concern of residents in Fayetteville is congestion and traffic. This subdivision should have more than one street. There should be another ingress and egress: A regular street with curb cuts is :needed for access of emergency vehicles. Mayor Hanna stated the Public Works Departmenthas stated that a 24 foot wide street would be sufficient if it were made into a local street. Schaper stated there has been.an encroachment on this right-of-way by a driveway.. He expressed;concern about the implications that driveway might have on a possible street. Planning Director Alett Little stated the house is at least three feet to the north of the right-of-way. Thirteen feet of the driveway is located within the right-of-way. The Planning Commission has recommended that 12.5- feet:•on• both °sides of the right-of-way-.be-vacated"leavii4 25€feet ih tiiekmiddle`. That would take care of'the, drive _way, 4 r., '-. 4. "4"-- ' 4 -- In answer to a question from aldermanFWilliaisl Rose stated he had not talked to the neighborhoodattorney.regarding the suggestions that were made at thelast agenda session., -. Alderman Williams stated he;was reluctant=to% go forward on this vacation without having the'neighborhood's input. 4,141 Alderman Parker stated there was lots of input from the neighborhood regarding this issue in the past. The Fire Department can work with what is there now. Alderman Williams stated if the access is an obvious emergency access, with pavement and signs, people are less likely to block it. 3'.' January 3, 1995 Alderman Daniel stated originally Park Place was going to have four through streets. With the traffic situation this would be better as a regular street. It will not be a convenient cut through for people avoiding the intersection at Mission and Crossover. Alderman Miller stated his main concern was to make sure emergency vehicles can get through. There needs to be some sort of pavement in there. In answer to a question from Alderman Daniel, Little stated a 12 foot wide lane will accommodate one way traffic. A 24 foot wide lane would accommodate two way traffic. The Planning Commission recommended there be a 25 foot wide right-of-way. City Attorney Rose stated there is an ordinance before the Council that vacates the entire 50 foot right-of-way and accepts in its place a 16 foot right-of-way grant for emergency access only. If not tabled, the ordinance will go on its third reading. The Planning Commission minutes state that staff has consistently explained that there will be a public hearing prior to a street being placed there. Anything consistent with the use of the right- of-way easement can be done without any further action. Alderman Williams stated notice of a public hearing should be given before the Council considers putting a street in. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. upon roll call, the ordinance was defeated by a 0 to 8 vote. H. ALLEY VACATION V94-10: An ordinance vacating a portion of a 12 foot east -west alley located east of Vandeventer, between Ila Street and Maple Street, as requested by Thad Hanna. This item was left on its second reading at the December 20, 1994, Council meeting. Mayor Hanna explained this vacation is being requested by his son. He stated he was just going to run the meeting and that under no circumstances would he vote on this item. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. In answer to a question from Mayor Hanna, Public Works Director Kevin Crosson stated a rough draft of the proposed Parking Lot Ordinance was distributed at the Agenda Session. Little stated the ordinance is now in its sixth draft. Staff plans to put it in final form and submit it to the Planning Commission at their second meeting in January. The Council's comments are welcomed during this process. Current copies will be distributed. January 3, 1995 Alderman Bassett expressed his support ofa parking lot ordinance. He stated althoughthe process may take some..time,.an ordinance will be passed. The citizens in the Ila neighborhood should recognize that the Council is committed to passing a parking lot, ordinance. Thad Hanna's vacation has been a separate issue and is now on its third reading. A decision on the vacation should be made tonight. Frank Head, 402 Ila, stated he had previously spoke against the vacation. The parking lot ordinance seems to be moving forward and will protect the neighborhood. There havebeen :neighborhood meetings with University Baptist Church. They haveassured us that they are as concerned about our neighborhood as we are. They have no intention of using the house on Ila Street for anything other than a house. There is no immediate plans for the church to use the lot directly behind Thad -Hanna's house for a parking lot. There may be a. plan for ..that in the future. He requested the Council vote in favor of the vacation petition. Ellen May, 215 Ila, welcomed the new City Council members. She stated the vacation before the Council has been of great concern to the Ila Street neighborhood. The property south of this alley is being purchased by University Baptist Church for the purpose of building a parking lot. This could be the first step toward the destruction of the neighborhood. Theneighborhood requests that the Council move quickly to adopt a parking lot ordinance. In answer to a question from Alderman -Parker, Than Hanna stated the vacation is being requested to enlarge the back yard. The property line is four feet from the corner of the house with the south porch being on the property line. The back sidewalk is in the alley. The yard we have been using for 25 years is actually the alley. Alderman Young expressed that communication is the key to a situation Like this one. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Little stated the ordinance makes any parking lot that is not attached to the primary use a Conditional Use if it is in another zone. Alderman Williams explained that the proposed parking lot ordinance will not stop parkinglots in residential. areas. It will, however, give citizens a chance to have some input during Conditional Use hearings. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3860 APPEARS ON PAGE OP ORDINANCE BOOR 1 January 3, 1995 C. PERSONNEL POLICY AMENDMENT: An ordinance amending Section VI - 20 (1)(a) of the Personnel Policy of the City of Fayetteville. This item was left on its second reading at the December 20, 1994, Council meeting. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Miller stated this amendment opens up an option. Alderman Daniel agreed. Alderman Prichard stated it is a minor concession and that he is in favor of the amendment. Personnel Director Don Bailey, in review of his comments at the last Council meeting, stated the principal comment made was that this ordinance is not applicable to the Council. The passage that was quoted was taken out of context from the entire personnel manual. Another section, Article I Section I-2 (1), states, "Elected officials and officials appointed by the City Council to advisory or special boards and commissions shall be exempt from the provisions of this policy." He stated even if there were restrictions in this policy, the members of the Council would be exempt. There is no attempt made to prevent the Council from discussing any matter with any employee. The passage which the ordinance addresses specifically is for staff only. This may have come up as an attempt as a first step to achieving some union recognition. He explained that his dealings with unions have not been pleasant. Recognizing unions would create problems that do not exist now. It is impossible to draw comprehensive and rational lines that prevent conflict between the Council's need to be responsible to the public interest and to the demands of a union for influence over terms and conditions of the employment of the membership. The Little Rock contract can be an example of what this can lead you to. All the articles in that contract are solely devoted to the self interest of the union and its members. Important to recognize is that there is no evidence in the agreement that it is for public purpose or public good. The Division Heads, Department Directors, the Fire Chief, myself, and the Mayor are against this recognition or anything that would lead to recognition. We have been told by officials of the three cities that have fire unions to avoid it at all costs. Alderman Williams asked if was the interpretation of Bailey that the Mayor could not talk to any representative of any employee group on any issue or just that we do not recognize them at that point. January. 34 199.5;. Bailey stated the policy:was written under the.City.Manager,form of, government. The policy is referring to..the.City Manager and City staff. The Mayor was a part of the Council. The Council was excluded from this policy. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Bailey stated the Council would be amending something by ordinance that does not exist in the first place. The Council and the Mayor can talk to anybody they wish. Alderman Williams -asked how the.proposed amendment;to make it clear that the "Mayor does have that- power: would hurt the:City. ' Bailey stated this ordinance could lead to an organization possibly coming forward with a.;contradtr: The Connell/has to extend the right to negotiate to the°union. • ': Alderman William's pointed .,out,athe;proposed/amendment does not extend the right. Alderman Young stated interpretation is an important issue. There has been inconsistent interpretation. There are two Personnel Policies. Bailey stated one policy is for civil service employees:- The Civil Service.'Policy covers uniformed civil -service employees. This would be the average fireman and police officer, not the management. Alderman Young stated the part that exempts elected officials is not in the Civil Service Policy. Bailey stated the Civil Service:Policy does not cover them. It was not entered into the policy for the reason that the people covered by theCivil Service Policy would not be negotiating with other civil service employees or any other union. They were hourly employees. Alderman Young stated there is a section in the Civil Service Policy on employer - employee relations.. The section number in the proposed ordinance is the section in the policy forgeneral employees not the policy for civil service employees. Bailey agreed that both section numbers should be recognized in the proposed ordinance. , • Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes stated the wording is the same in both policies in the employer - employee relations sections. If the Council is going to pass the ordinance, both policies should be amended. 1 January 3, 1995 Alderman Young stated after the amendment, the interpretation is the Mayor and City Council can meet with employees. Bailey stated they could do that now. The policy also says that the staff will not negotiate a contract. In the existing policy there is a section allowing employees to present suggestions and make statements on any issue relating to conditions of work. Alderman Schaper stated elected officials are exempt from Section VI -20. Is that true for the general employees and not the civil service employees? Bailey stated elected officials are not civil service employees. The original policy was written when the management staff members were general employees. Alderman Schaper commented that the exemption only covers general employees. Bailey agreed and stated only those covered by the general employee policy would be involved in negotiations from a management standpoint. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Bailey agreed that if the proposed ordinance was passed it would allow the Council and Mayor to discuss issues with either the general employees or the civil service employees. Alderman Parker stated Arkansas is a right to work state. A person could not be excluded from an occupation because he will not join a union. This ordinance would allow the City of Fayetteville to recognize an employee organization as the sole spokesman of any category of employees. Would this be legal in Arkansas if they recognized a union as a sole representative and there were others who were not a representative of that union? Would that individual's rights be excluded to negotiate for his terms of employment? Rose stated the union does negotiate. You cannot fire anyone for not belonging to a union but they get all the benefits of the union contract. A person not in a union could negotiate on his own behalf. Mayes stated other cities have informed the City of Fayetteville that union recognition in their cities started this same way. They all recommended that the Council not make this change in the Personnel Policy. Mayor Hanna asked if the Personnel Policy was implemented by resolution or ordinance. 8 January 34 A995 Rose stated.there is some.ambiguity over -that. ;If the amendment is approved by an ordinance,. there.. would not be any doubt as to its effectiveness. Bailey stated Resolution 29-90 passed the general employee policy.,: and Resolution 193-90 passed.. the civil service. policy. Mayor Hanna commended City employees. Problems have occurred when an employee of a certain.department took it upon .himself to be the representative for every employee in his department. -The Municipal League has suggested that we review our civil service regulations. He explained he has a problem with amending an ordinance with a resolution and .a problem accepting the ordinance as presented-. It is changing something that is working very, well. In answer to questions from Alderman Williams-, Rose stated the Council can amend a resolution by -an ordinance.. It is unusual to do so. There was some discussion that .there may have been an ordinance passed in the past. The Council may wish to make the amendment by a resolution.. It would take an affirmative action on the part of the Council to recognize a union and tocollectively bargain with that union. This ordinance does not seem to change the City's legal position. Alderman .Bassett .stated this.-sendsthe wrong message. It encourages the firemen to continue with efforts to get recognition and to convince the City to .enter into collective bargaining contract with them.- Itis very difficult to say no to people that you are familiar with: This is 'a start down-ia path that will end up being a problem for the Council and the City. Alderman,Prichard stated',the+ordinance before the Council does not deal with union recognition in,any way. = - Alderman Young asked if both-personnel.polixcies could be amended. Rose stated they could be. Alderman Schaper asked' if the amendment should be done by a resolution rathenthan>an°•ordinance. Alderman Young stated if an. ordinance had previously been passed, an amendment would need to be done by ordinance. • Alderman ,"Williams stated since the policies were passed by resolutions, an amendment should be adopted by resolution. In answer to,a question from Alderman Williams, Rose stated the ordinance..would have to be voted down before a resolution could be presented. 1 January 3, 1995 upon roll call, the ordinance amending Section VI -20(1)(a) of the Personnel Policy of the City of Fayetteville vas defeated by a vote of 5 to 4, with Williams, Bassett, Parker, Schaper, and Mayor Hanna voting no. City Attorney Rose read a resolution amending Section VI -20, Employee - Employer Relations Policy, Subsection (1)(a) of the Personnel Policy of the City of Fayetteville and amending Section VI -18, Political Activity Restricted, Subsection (1)(a) of the Civil Service Personnel Policy to allow for the recognition of employee organizations as a sole spokesperson of any category of employees. He stated those sections would be repealed and added in their place that the City has . the freedom and discretion to decide whether or not to recognize any employee organization as the sole spokesperson of any category of employees. In answer to a question from Mayor Hanna, Bailey stated it was his interpretation that that already existed. Alderman Williams stated he agreed that the power is already existing. Rose stated he believed the Council already had that authority. Alderman Schaper stated he was not comfortable with voting on the resolution at this point. Alderman Williams suggested that the Council discuss the resolution at their next meeting. 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 December 20, regular City Council meeting, including a change requested by Steve Davis. B. Removed from the Consent Agenda. C. A resolution approving the FCC's Cable Customer Service and Consumer Protection Standards. RESOLUTION 1-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. D. A resolution approving a five year lease agreement with the FAA for the newly renovated Flight Service Station Building. Rental compensation shall be $25,909.33 annually. 9 10 January 3, 1995 RESOLUTION 2-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'SsOFFICE.+ E. A resolution accepting an ISTEA grant of $111,676 for railroad corridor acquisition and trail construction and authorizing the Mayor to execute all appropriate agreements and contracts. The project requires 20% in matching local funds plus an administration fee of $1,413.62 for a total of $29-,686: RESOLUTION 3-95 AS Williams, seconded agenda. Upon roll RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. z by Miller, made a motion to accept the consent call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Item ,B A resolution accepting Bid 94-77 from All -Storage Products for the purchase of a free standing mezzanine for the City Shop for a total of $82,984 and from Pinnell; Inc. for construction of a non- cOmbustible fire .wall for a total of $17,500. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Fleet Operations Superintendent Bill Oestreich stated the initial floor of -the new building will be the shop. The area on the east end, ,under the mezzanine,. will be offices; restrooms,.and the parts room. The mezzanine would create a second floor area for offices for the Divisions of Solid Waste, Streets, and Water and Sewer. The fire wall is a building requirement. Alderman Schaper requested an explanation of the options listed in the bids and the reason why only some .of the options are being processed. Oestreich stated companies were given the option of negotiation. He explained the changes made in the plans.- In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Oestreich stated the previously planned second level will not be built. Alderman Schaper and Mr. Oestreich discussed the details of the bids given compared to the recommended bidanddetails of the building .plans. Alderman Schaper expressed concern about changes made in the plans during the'bidding process. Oestreich explained that the changes were discussed with the low bidders. 11 January 3, 1995 Mayes stated the City received sealed bids based on the specifications. We are only allowed to negotiate with the low bidder. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 4-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. TRACTOR/DOZER PURCHASE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution accepting Bid 94-81 from E.A. Martin Machinery for the purchase of a Track Type Tractor/Dozer for a total of $143,975 and approving a roll forward budget adjustment in the amount of $104,340. Alderman Williams stated there were two bidders for this purchase. One bid was much higher than the other. Staff has recommended the Council accept the higher bid. Fleet Operations Superintendent Bill Oestreich stated that a group of thirteen people worked on creating the specifications for this purchase. The group established the specifications necessary to do the job. For the particular use that we have, the less expensive machine is not the best buy. This dozer will be used for street projects as well as other projects We have consulted many people and have come to the conclusion that the more expensive dozer is the best buy. Some of the important specifications are the engine size, horsepower rating, torch, weight, ground clearance, and blade capacity. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Oestreich stated although specifications were not limited, an elevated sprocket would make the machine easier to work on. Oestreich stated considering the difference in the dollar amount, as well as all other aspects, $23,000 is not an excessive amount to ask for a better piece of equipment. In answer to questions from Alderman Bassett, Oestreich stated the dozer would be used for site clearing and street construction. Both machines could do the job today, but not in ten years. We do not have any Case tractors. We have had a Catapiller tractor. Alderman Bassett expressed concern about spending 21% more for a piece of equipment that seems to function the same as a less expensive one. Oestreich explained that the life of the equipment is an important issue. 12 January 3, 1995 In- answer to a. question from Mayor Hanna, Public<Works-Director: Kevin Crosson stated the equipment Will ..not ..only beused for. clearing and street construction but will be'used for construction of parking lots and in drainage work. Alderman Schaper stated on the basis of the kind of economics applied to things like this, in thirty .years the resale value in that present value terms is practically zero. Oestreich explained that the research has been done and the recommendation is that the Catapiller dozer is the best buyl Alderman. Bassett -stated both machines seem to. be able do the job. One is almost $25,000 less. This money belongs to the taxpayers and the Council needs to be careful how it is spent. Alderman Schaper stated the specifications seem to be written specifically for a D5 bulldozer. It is not surprising that there were six no bids. Only one company, other than the company that sells. the D5, submitted a bid. The bid submitted was much lower. Oestreich .stated the. lower, bid was seriously evaluated and considered. Alderman..-Williams.state&*there are two viable-bidS... Both.machanes can do the job. There is;,noaneed tocre=bid: "The City can•decide between these two pieces of equipment.', "" Mayor Hanna stated he was.in favor,of`continually taking lower -bids until we got'to something that wouldYnot do theAob.- Oestreich stated the specifications were not limited or restricted. Mayes stated the City sets minimum specifications to encourage all bidders. -, Most of the bidders did not bid because most were bidding on the purchase of used equipment.. Street Superintendent Randy Allen stated a similar model to the Case -dozer in question was used as a demo and did.not appear to have the power and pushing capability of the Catapiller. 'In the past, Catapillers havelastedmany years.. Based on the evaluations made, Case equipment will not last as long as Catapiller equipment. The City has had positive •experience with Catapiller equipment. Service has been good: On at least one occasion, the experience with:Case's•service has not -been pleasant.. In answer to a question from Alderman Daniel, Allen stated the Case would have less of a trade in value. After some discussion ofwaiting until the next meeting to vote on the resolution, Allen stated the City needs the dozer right away. 13 January 3, 1995 In answer to a question from Alderman Bassett, City Attorney Jerry Rose stated the Council could accept the bid, re -bid it, or possibly award the bid to Scott Construction. Bill Pritchard, General Manager of Scott Construction Equipment Co., stated both of the dozers mentioned are state of the art dozers. He assured that Scott Construction had good service and could supply loaners when necessary. Pritchard compared the CAT D5H to the Case 1150G and explained why the Case 1150G was the better purchase. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Pritchard stated his bid is still effective. Pritchard stated both of the dozers will do your job. He requested the Council to preserve the integrity of the competitive bid process and accept the low bid from Scott Construction Equipment. In answer to a question from Mayor Hanna, Rose agreed that the City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids and waive the formalities in the bidding and make the bid award deemed to be in the best interest of the City. Rose stated the City Council could accept either bid as long as it was determined as the lowest responsible bid. Mayor Hanna explained that the Council could accept the bid from E.A. Martin Machinery for the CAT or accept the bid from Scott Construction for the Case dozer. • Williams, seconded by Bassett, made a motion to accept the bid from Scott Construction Equipment for the purchase of a Tractor/Dozer for a total of $119,207.37 and approving a roll forward budget adjustment. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 2, with Miller and Daniel voting no. RESOLUTION 5-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. REZONING R94-58 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 2.43 acres located on the south side of Johnson Road and west of North College Avenue from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Carl and Elizabeth Fite and Sherri McAdow. 14 January 3, .1995 City Attorney. Roseread the ordinance for the• first, time: Williams,.seconded by Schaper, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Alderman Miller explained he would be abstaining. from any discussion on the rezoning because he had been out of town and did not have a chance to make a site review. • Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 2, with Prichard voting no and Miller abstaining. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Planning Director Alett Little stated.this is a tract of land north of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. In the General°Plan this area is planned to be Commercial. -The zoning surrounding this property is Commercial. There was no public comment at the Planning Commission meeting. Daniel, seconded by Williams, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion was defeated by a vote of 5 to 3, with Prichard and Schaper voting no and Miller abstaining. Rose stated the ordinance will be on its third reading at the next Council. meeting.. REZ0NING._R94-59 Mayor.Hanna.introduced consideration of anordinance rezoning 1.12 acres located at 1700 Huntsville Road. from. R-1, Low. Density Residential to R -O, Residential -Office, as requested by Katyn Brophy. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Little stated the adjoining property owners to property being.rezoned are notified by mail. Notification is also given through the newspaper and by a sign posted on the property. Alderman Williams pointed out that there was no opposition to the rezoning at the Planning Commission meeting; Alderman Schaper stated many people :do^not _hear about rezonings until they seethe Council meeting on television..° He:stated he was not in favor of suspending the rules automatically as has been done in the past. Alderman Williams. stated he agreed that the rules should not be suspended on a -large .rezoning or.annexation January 3, 1995 Karyn Brophy stated she planned to open an accounting office at the location. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Brophy stated she did not have a problem with the rezoning being forwarded to the next council meeting. Rose stated the ordinance will be on its second reading at the next Council meeting. RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT VACATION Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance vacating Right -of -Way Grant 92-050110 (utility easement) from Fayetteville School District No. 1 across West Campus property for a new 24" water line due to rerouting of said line. The School District has provided a new Right -of -Way Grant for the reroute. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Williams, 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. 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. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3861 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR BID WAIVER Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance approving a bid waiver for the purchase of used 5100 ZL Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption equipment for use in the Wastewater Treatment Plant's laboratory. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Williams, seconded by Young, 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. Schaper, seconded by Parker, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place to ordinance on its third and final reading. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, OMI Project Manager Jake Rohrich stated the equipment is like new and will save the City $35,000 by purchasing it. 15 16 January�3,j19951 a , t upon roll call, the, ordinance passed by a vote, of 8 to, O. . City Attorney Rose read an emergency clause.' Williams;' seconded. clause. Upon roll by Daniel, made: a motion topass an emergency call, the.motion passed by:a vote :of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3862 APPEARS ON PAGE PLAT APPEAL OF ORDINANCE BOOR • Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of whether or not to hear an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to,approve a plat for, Hidden Lake Subdivision to be located between Old Wire, Rd., Ranch Dr., and Mission Blvd. Alderman Young stated he would be abstaining from any discussion on the appeal because he works for a company to which the developer, Mark Marquess, is a client. Mayor Hanna commented that the Planning -Commission minutes pertaining.to this subdivision had been distributed. Alderman Parker explained that the issue before the Council at this meeting is whether or not. to heanthe.appeal-at..a'later'date.. He stated the people who- live in the areanear the proposed subdivision are concerned about drainage. They want to see a final drainage` -plan during the preliminary plat process. Drainage specifications have not been finalized. Also, details .about the proposed park land have changed. After land is given to the City for a park, theCitymay be responsible for any drainage problems that may occur. In answer to questions from Alderman Williams, Planning Director Alett Little stated the preliminary plat approval ,gives the developer the authority . to .begin- the detailed., plans and specifications both for drainage and for streets. The preliminary plat approval gives the developer an ability to rely on the City's approval of the final plan provided those specific plans are approved by the City's Engineering staff. It - ties the Council to this format to the number of proposed lots under the preliminary plat. There is roomfor additional drainage work to be accomplished.. The discharge of the drainage would be required in order for the detailed plans .submitted by the engineering .firm to receive approval by the City. Alderman Williams stated the developer made several representations to the Planning Commission about taking care of some of the drainage problems. He asked if all that would.. have to be taken care of in the final drainage plan. If;that was not -done, could the City require the developer to redraw- the plans? January 3, 1995 Little stated drainage work has to be of a quality and of sufficient information that the staff can make a determination. The developer submits information to gain approval before filing the final plat. Alderman Schaper stated that a developer is well into the development/process by the time the final plat in filed. If there is a problem with the subdivision, it should be addressed before a significant/ investment is made and before the City becomes responsible. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Little stated lots cannot be sold after preliminary plat approval. The developer does have to include all of the utilities, streets, street lights, and fire hydrants or provide guarantees of those improvements. Building permits are not issued until the final plat has been signed by all the utility companies and the Engineering staff. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Little stated the developer has an option that once the plans are approved, he either installs that per the plans or he provides a guarantee to the City in the form of a cash deposit, a bond, or a lien on lots to assure the installation of those improvements. Alderman Parker stated that the people in the area are concerned about flooding. Flooding currently occurs in the area. Also, the previous drainage plan that was approved by the City was reevaluated by an engineer hired by the area property owners. Alderman Prichard explained that he was in favor of hearing the appeal. Mark Marquess of BMP Development stated he recently met with the area property owners. Drainage concerns were discussed as well as a proposed underground drainage system. Hopefully with the proposed plan, there will be no impact to anyone other than to raise property values in the area. Most people are familiar with the type of subdivisions built by BMP. In the new plan, the number of lots have been reduced in order to keep the existing lake, and acreage has been set aside for a park. The plan allows water which is presently not impounded, to be impounded by a 100 year flood retention. Roads have been redesigned in order to save some very old trees. The current water problems are not a cause of this subdivision. We have agreed to bring as much water as possible under ground. This plan will have to be approved by the City Engineer. We have assured those with concerns that if their concerns could not be addressed by the drainage plan, the subdivision will not be built. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Marquess stated the total acreage of the development is 20 acres, with 5.5 acres being designated for a park. 17 18 January 3, 1995.. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper regarding the,Jackson, house, Marquess stated the house is located on about the east one third of the property. The house has been platted into a lot. Alderman Schaper stated that according to the 2010 plan the house is on the national register. Little stated plans have always been designed so that there would be a lot for the house. The garage could be purchased with the house or separate. Marquess stated there has been interest in restoring that. house. It is the intention that it will be restored. Covenants will place restrictions and requirements for the restoration. The subdivision will be blended after Country French to a Southern Colonial type style. • Alderman Williams commended the developer and engineer for the changes made from the first proposed subdivision for the property, i r Marquess stated there- is. over. $110,000 in concessions for the proposed subdivision. t It ,, Alderman Parker explained,that the people in the area are not against thetsubdivision plan. They;just^want‘to-seethe drainage. plan more specifically drawnt t r Marquess requested that thedrainage-plan be. submitted to City Engineer Don Bunn and the neighborhood. Alderman Schaper explained that an appeal before the Council would be appropriate. Because of the controversy surrounding this subdivision, a total drainage proposal should be submitted to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Alderman Williams asked if the delay caused by an appeal hearing would be a hardship to the developer and/or engineer. Mel Milholland stated the plans being requested will not be. complete in two weeks._ He expressed concernthat with the request of the Council, the procedure that the City hasbeen following for years will be changed. The .City has -a set of regulations established to design a subdivision.. Alderman Schaper Jcommented that the drainage: is very tricky. A determination cannot really be made''whether this:subdivision should go ahead or notwithout More engineering study. January 3, 1995 Milholland explained that a study had been done and submitted to the City Engineer. They have been reviewed and issues have been addressed. This development has not created the existing problem. City regulations require a developer to take care of anything he creates. A preliminary study has been developed to provide retention that is presently there now on the east side of Old Wire Road plus provide for additional flow. There is concern about the swale adjacent to Ramsey Drive. We have approached that on the basis of an open swale for a 100 year flood. Alderman Parker stated that people are still concerned about that issue. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Milholland stated the two week wait would not cause a hardship but the outcome of the appeal may. The delay itself could be a hardship when warmer weather hits and the houses are not ready to be built. Little asked what the normal amount of time required would be to prepare the plans and specifications for this subdivision. Milholland stated 45 to 60 days. Marquess requested that the Council not require a full final engineering plat. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Public Works Director Kevin Crosson stated that Don Bunn has considered the preliminary drainage plan which is part of the preliminary plat. To establish exact information, the developer would have to submit a final plat for review. Marquess stated changes have been made in the plan per Don Bunn's request. Alderman to hear approved Williams explained that the issue before the Council was the appeal or not. He stated the Planning Commission the plat by a 5 to 4 vote. In answer to a question from Marquess, Alderman Williams stated it seems unreasonable to require a final plat. Don Bunn should be present to explain his analysis of the issue. Milholland added that most of the houses in the area around the proposed subdivision are ten feet above the 100 year flood plain. The subdivision will improve the drainage situation in the area. Barbara Holt, a resident of Ramsey, stated that her concern was a swale directly behind her property. She explained details regarding existing drainage problems. She stated she did not believe that the proposed swale would contain the water. There could be possible blockage, erosion, and silting problems. There 19 20 14. January 3, 1995 has been some discussion that a wetlands determination -be done. -,e There has been communications about concerns and possible solutions: but the final drainage plan should be reviewed prior to approval. A.C. Perry., an adjoining resident, explained that he was :not, against the subdivision. He stated the people in the area have been misled. He expressed concern about the stability of the proposed drainage solutions. He asked who would be responsible for the drainage once the subdivision is approved. Crosson stated the City would be responsible. Perry stated he felt misled by the difference in the two previous drainage studies. The City should be aware of details before anything is approved. Prichard, seconded by Schaper, made a motion to hear the appeal. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with -Young abstaining. OTHER BUSINESS HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD NOMINATION Mayor Hanna stated the Housing Authority Board has chosen Dan Hudspeth to be reappointed to the Board He explained this needs to be confirmed by the Council. Williams, 'seconded by Young, made a motion to confirm the reappointment of Hudspeth to the Housing Authority Board.: Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. REZONING..R94-60..RECONSIDERATION Alderman Daniel made a motion to reconsider Rezoning R94-60. The rezoning of 51.39 acres:located north of Wedington and'west of 54th Avenue from A=1, Agricultural toY;"R-1.5,, Moderate Density Residential as requested by.'RichardBundrick on -behalf of J.D. Hall was approved bythe Council at their December 20"meeting. .3 Alderman Daniel stated there is a problem with cars moving into the city.. This will.be a tremendous impact on Wedington. The widening of Wedington.. has been`delayedby the°State.: sThere,may be citizens who were not informed;of this.rezoning who wantto give input. e 21 January 3, 1995 Schaper seconded the motion. He stated the rezoning could place another 5,000 trips per day onto Wedington Drive. He explained his concerns about the traffic situation in the Wedington area. He stated this rezoning was processed to quickly. It should be reconsidered. Alderman Williams stated he did vote against suspending the rules on this rezoning. He explained his reluctancy to reverse a decision by the Council. The final decision on the rezoning was unanimous. He stressed that there are similar development and highway problems all over town. Alderman Schaper stated the citizens who live in the Wedington Drive area should not have to .fight an additional 5,000 vehicle trips per day. Alderman Parker stated the issues involved with this rezoning are some of the issues this Council was elected to work on. Alderman Bassett stated there has to be some finality to decisions. In answer to a question from Alderman Bassett, City Attorney Rose stated traffic is a valid consideration in determining a rezoning. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Rose stated a rezoning does not go into effect until 30 days after the date of its passage. The petitioner does not have a right to rely on the rezoning without an emergency clause being approved. Mayor Hanna explained that regulating annexations may be a better way of controlling traffic. The rezoning may not cause 5,000 additional vehicle trips per day. The subdivision plat still has to be submitted to the City. There are other opportunities to address the problem. Alderman Schaper stated once the rezoning is approved, the land could be developed at the density approved. People in the area did not understand the implications of this rezoning. They should be given the chance to discuss their concerns with the Council. Mayor Hanna stated the alderman who were present at the Council meeting at which this was approved heard the petitioner explain his development intentions. Alderman Bassett agreed that the Council may need spend more time when addressing larger developments. There have been some good points made regarding some changes the Council could make, but this item was discussed and a decision was made. 2 lir January 3., 1995 Alderman Schaper explained that some issues were,not discussed.. He. stated that the citizens have.. elected the Council to address the growth problems of .Fayetteville. Issues should be more closely. evaluated. Alderman Young stated he was .in favor of the reconsideration. Reconsidering this rezoning might get the attention of the developers and realtors..Once a rezoning is approved, the City's hands are tied. . Alderman Miller stated the rezoning was processed too quickly. Americans are accommodating automobiles instead of people. Traffic in the area will not be controlled by stopping the development or widening the road. The City•should create bike trails and mass transit. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 3, with Miller,. Williams and Basset voting no. RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE Alderman Young requested that each Council member be given of the Rules of Order and Procedure. ENGINEERING Alderman -Young asked when completed. Mayor Hanna stated. hewould ADJOURNMENT • STANDARD` SPECIFICATIONS .. e.rm. the standard specifications would be a•copy havesto contadt.the City Engineer. z , a..4. a The meeting adjourned at:10:30 .p.m•. • •