Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-18 Minutes143 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, April 18, 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, Jimmy Hill, 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 the staff, press, and audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with seven aldermen present. OATH OF OFFICE - ALDERMAN JIMMY HILL Judge Charles Johnson administered the oath of office to Alderman Jimmy Hill. • Alderman Hill thanked the Council and pledged to work hard to serve the citizens of Fayetteville. 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. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: An ordinance amending Section 160.035, 160.036, 160.037, and 160.038 of the Code of Fayetteville to provide for additional commercial design standards. Mayor Hanna stated that the item was left on its first reading at the March 21 Council meeting, tabled at the April 4 Council meeting, and referred to the Ordinance Review Committee. Alderman Bassett stated that the Ordinance Review Committee had held a public hearing and discussed the proposed ordinance. The Committee is scheduled to meet again on April 25, 1995, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss the six amendments proposed by Alderman Williams and to take public comments. Mayor Hanna explained that the item would remain tabled. Mayor Hanna stated the proposed amendments by Alderman Williams would be available to the public in the Mayor's office. 144 April 18, 1995 DETACHED SECOND DWELLING UNITS: An ordinance amending Chapter.160, Zoning Code, of the Fayetteville Code to establish standards and regulations for detached second dwelling units within residential districts as a conditional use. Mayor Hanna stated the item was left on its first reading at the March 21 Council meeting. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Miller, seconded by Williams, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its thirdand final reading. Upon roll call, the.motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Mayor Hanna asked if anyone had any further comments. Upon roll call, the Ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3887 AS APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR C. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION: An ordinance adopting the Flood Damage Prevention Code for the City of Fayetteville. Mayor Hanna stated the item was left on its second reading at the April 18 Council meeting. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. City Attorney Rose reminded the Council that they had been given a definition of "stream" which staff has recommended as an amendment to the proposed ordinance. As requested by Alderman Williams, Rose read the definition. Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to adopt the amendment. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Mayor Hanna asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the ordinance. Elam Denham asked what additional area is included in the revised ordinance and why the additional hazard zone was included. Denham also asked for an explanation as to why the ordinance would benefit the public. Planning Director Alett Little explained that the benefit would be a reduction in flood insurance premiums. Little stated that in order for citizens of Fayetteville to have flood insurance, the 145 April 18, 1995 City is required to adopt FEMA standards. In 1987, the City adopted the minimum FEMA standards. By adopting the proposed ordinance which is more stringent than the current regulations, flood insurance premiums would be reduced 5% to 45%. In answer to a question from Denham, Little stated the proposed ordinance is more stringent in that it requires lots that are 100% in the flood plain to have a one acre minimum lot size. If a lot is partially in the flood plain, there must be a 6,000 square foot building area outside of the flood plain for the home to be located on. In answer to a question from Little regarding other areas that are more stringent in the proposed ordinance, Kevin Santos explained that the ordinance is more stringent in the same areas. Alderman Williams explained that the Planning Commission addressed adding a section so that home buyers would be informed of flood hazards. In answer to a question from Alderman Parker, Little stated that the ordinance would call to the attention of home builders possible flood situations. In answer to questions from Denham, Little stated the City does not set the flood zones. FEMA sets the flood zones. The proposed ordinance was initiated in a joint effort between FEMA and City staff. In answer to a question from Denham, Little stated the ordinance has nothing to do with wetlands. Mayor Hanna asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to address the ordinance. Alderman Williams expressed his support for the ordinance. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3888 AS APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK D. ANNEXATION & REZONING R95-5 & R95-6: An ordinance annexing 99.8 acres located north of Huntsville Road and east of Jarnagan Lane and rezoning 38.49 acres of the property from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density Residential and 8.07 acres of the property from A-1, Agricultural to R -O, Residential -Office. Mayor Hanna stated the Planning Commission voted 4-2-0 to recommend the annexation and 5-1-0 to recommend the rezonings. This item was tabled at the April 4 Council meeting. 146 April 18, 1995 Bassett; seconded by Miller, made a motion to remove the annexation and rezoning from.the table. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 8 to -0. Alderman Young stated that the request brought forward from the Planning Commission was to rezone from A-1 to R-1 but that the applicant has requested to rezone from A-1 to R -S. Which request will be read? Rick Osborne, representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Bayari wishes to develop the property in a village concept. In the area that is not in the flood plain, the petitioner is requesting five lots per acre which requires an R -S zoning. The petitioner is willing to dedicate 10 acres that will never be developed. The overall tract will never exceed an R71 density which provides four lots per acre. Littlestated the original request was for R -S zoning on 38.49 acres which is 100% outside of. the flood plain. A Bill of Assurance• has been offered limiting development to 5 units per acre, one more unit per acre than is allowed. in R-1. The petitioner is willing...to.dedicate 9 62=acres in the flood plain.. On the remaining acreage, which is in„ the. ..kfiood plain, the petitioner has agreed to adhere to the Flood Plain Ordinance. The ordinance would restrict development to one lot per acre. In answer to a question from Alderman Miller, Little explained that a legal description is not available but that approximately 25 acres of the 99 is in the flood way. In answer to a question from Alderman Miller, Osborne stated that the petitioner thought the City would want the 10 acre dedication next to the City park. Dale Clark had asked for the west side.. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Little stated the total area of the tract including the portion that is already in the city is 107.87 acres. Alderman Schaper summarized the request as follows: eight acres, already in the city, would be zoned R -O and 38.5 acres would be zoned R -S. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Osborne stated that the approximate 25 acres located in the flood way will not be developed and part of the flood plain will not be developed. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper,- -Little stated that the total area to be annexed is 99.80 acres. Subtract 38.49 acres which isnot in the flood plain, the six acres being developed as park land, the additional 10 acre dedication, the 25 acres in the flood way and the remaining land, which is in the flood plain, that could be developed is 19 acres. 147 April 18, 1995 In answer to another question from Alderman Schaper, Little stated that in accordance with the newly passed Flood Plain Ordinance, the petitioner would be limited to one unit per acre on the 19 acre tract. Alderman Schaper expressed concern that in the future the property within the flood plain would be filled to remove it from the flood plain and a rezoning request brought before the City. He asked if the petitioner was offering to develop one unit per acre or is he offering to comply with the Flood Plain Ordinance. Little stated the agreement was that it would be limited to one unit per acre in accordance with the Flood Plain Ordinance. Removing land from the flood plain is very expensive and time consuming. Alderman Schaper suggested the Bill of Assurance offered by the petitioner limit the 19 acres to one unit per acre in addition to what they can build on the 38.5 acres which is approximately 190 units. Discussion ensued regarding the original request and future requests for rezoning in the event the land was removed from the flood plain. • Rose summarized the three items before the Council as they were forwarded from the Planning Commission. The first is a request to rezone 38.49 acres from A-1 to R-1. The second is to rezone 8.05 acres from A-1 to R -O. The third item is an ordinance confirming the annexation of 99 acres. Little explained that the only change was the rezoning of 38.49 acres from A-1 to R -S rather than R-1. Discussion ensued regarding the rural character of the area and how it compares to the Wedington area. Schaper expressed concern regarding traffic problems, leap frog development and urban sprawl, and the neighborhood transition character. Osborne stated that the traffic was not a severe problem and the annexation would have a squaring effect on the City's boundaries. Mayor Hanna stated that he felt the request was reasonable: Bassett, seconded by Miller, made a motion to change the request from R-1 to R -S for the 38.49 acres. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a 5 to 3 vote, with Parker, Schaper, and Daniel voting no. 148 April 18, 1995 The City Attorney read,the ordinance for rezoning R95-6 for the first time. Osborne offered a conservation easement for the 10 acres within the flood plain. Discussion ensued regarding the density of the subject tract. Osborne responded that subject tract has not been platted but that the applicant proposed 212 units in the R -S zone. Elam Denham expressed concern regarding unequal treatment of the applicant. Alderman Schaper suggested that the whole thing be rezoned to R -L. Tom Terminella stated that as a realtor he felt there was a real need for affordable housing as this development would provide and he favored the development. Andrew Cobra stated that the traffic was a concern to him and his neighbors in the area. Discussion ensued regarding the highway as a corridor to Little Rock and traffic count on various hours and days. An unidentified woman stated that she had moved from California to this area because of the rural character of the area and further she- gave a recount of how this type of development had ruined California. Richard Farcus expressed concern regarding the traffic, other developments in the area, and the high density of the proposed rezoning of the subject property. Alderman Parker expressed concern over th'et traffic impact of variousdevelopments in the area. Alderman Bassett made comments rega.rding,'the infrastructure of the City and the benefits -from growth. Bassett stated the City should raise additional revenue for street improvement and not wait on the state. a Alderman Daniel stated that she was opposed to the annexation. Discussion ensued regarding the state and their procedures for improvement of infrastructure, millages: • Alderman Schaper stated that road improvements have been planned but that the state did not have the revenue. 149 April 18, 1995 Little stated that they had 5 years to complete the improvements. Alderman Miller stated that it would be possible for the development to be at county standards which would allow septic. Tom McKinney stated that he agreed with Bassett that additional revenue must be provided. Alderman Hill inquired if the General Use Plan suggested in -fill. Little answered that it did. Alderman Young requested to see a written Bill of Assurance before proceeding with additional readings. Alderman Schaper stated that he felt the density should be 1 per acre. Discussion ensued regarding the 6 acres, 10 acres, and 19 acres having 1 unit per acre. The City Attorney read the ordinance for rezoning R95-5 for the first time. The City Attorney read the Annexation ordinance for the first time. All matters were left on the first reading. Osborne stated that he would prepare the Bill of Assurance prior to the next meeting at which time the ordinances would be on the second reading. E. CITY COUNCIL RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE Mayor Hanna stated this item was tabled at the April 4, Council meeting. Alderman Young explained his proposed changes to the rules regarding the reading of ordinances and the appointment of Council members. Williams, seconded by Young, made a motion to take the item off the table. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Discussion ensued regarding the changes. Young, seconded by Williams, made a motion to adopt the two changes to the Rules of Order and Procedure. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Alderman Young explained that he wanted to change the section regarding quorums to address an abstaining vote. 150 April 18, 1995 Schaper, seconded by Young, made a motion to adopt the Rules of Order and Procedure as amended. Discussion ensued regarding the relationship between the Council, the Mayor and City employees. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 56-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. 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 April 4, 1995 regular City Council meeting. B. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into Contract to Sell, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement with the Arkansas State Highway Commission for the conveyance and/or use of certain City properties for the extension of Razorback Road from Highway 71 to 15th Street under AHTD Job No. 40039. RESOLUTION 57-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. C. A resolution renewing Blue Cross and US Able group insurance contracts May 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996. RESOLUTION 58-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Williams, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to accept the consent agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE ORDINANCE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 160, Zoning Code, of the Code of Fayetteville to establish standards and regulationsfor limited neighborhood commercial uses within residential districts as a conditional use. Little stated that the ordinance would allow some types of commercial uses within residential areas provided that they meet certain standards. The Planning Commissioners will review requests along with the neighbors. The intent is to provide commercial uses to serve just the residents of the neighborhood. Alderman Parker added that it would give people a chance to work in their neighborhoods. 151 April 18, 1995 Hanna stated the requests are required to be approved as a conditional use which means that each request will be advertised and a public hearing held. Discussion ensued regarding positive effect on neighborhoods. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Hanna asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the ordinance. Elam Denham asked if the ordinance would create occasions where approval of a development would be based on how much a developer builds in commercial use. Discussion ensued regarding what types of uses would be allowed. Denham requested that neighborhood bars be removed from the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding "corner bars" and their function as social clubs. The point was made that a neighborhood bar would be subject to conditional use approval. Alderman Schaper expressed concern that sign paintingwas listed as a neighborhood commercial use. Discussion ensued regarding the use units and how those units were arrived at. Alderman Schaper also expressed concern about the wording of item E under Conditions for Approval. Discussion ensued regarding indirect lighting and internal illumination and whether to eliminate lighted signs. Rose explained that the wording has been changed to read. "only indirect, external lighting is allowed." The ordinance was left on its first reading. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance and resolution amending the General Plan (adopted Nov. 16, 1995; RES. 120-93) to include the Master Street Plan (adopted March 7, 1995; RES. 34-95) and the enclosed text describing the Master Street Plan and the transportation policies recommended by the Planning Commission. Little stated that documents had been circulated relating to the separation of sidewalks to the curb line as opposed to the traffic lane. 152 April 18, 1995 Roseexplained that the council would repeal the adoption of all Plan and then pass the Master resolution. should pass an ordinance which amendments to the Master Street Street Plan, map and text, by The City Attorney 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. The City Attorney read the ordinance forthe second time. Miller, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with Schaper voting no. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Alderman Williams explained that by passing the ordinance. and then the resolution, it would be clear as to what was passed as' -the Master Street Plan. Rose stated that he felt it was time to start with a new, adopted document instead of dealing with the various ordinances, resolutions and amendments that are currently on the book. The new adopted document would be subject to additional changes; Discussion ensued regarding the difference between resolutions and ordinances.. Rose strongly recommended that the Master Street Plan be passed by resolution. A plan is not meant to have the effect of an ordinance. An ordinance is a general documentapplied as law.. A plan is not intended to do that. Ordinances should be the laws developed from the. plan. In answer to a question from Alderman Hill regarding speed limits, Little stated that the street width and :speed Standards -were the same as adopted by the two county region. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3889 APPEARS ON PAGE OF TUE ORDINANCE BOOR The City Attorney read a resolution adopting the Master Street Plan map and text. Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to pass the resolution. 153 April 18, 1995 In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper regarding a requirement that new developments demonstrate and show the adequate road capacity before approval or issuance of permits, Little stated the wording could be amended as follows: "...two four feet minimum sidewalks, four feet clearance from curb where possible..." Alderman Schaper suggested deleting "where possible." Discussion ensued regarding saving trees by running sidewalks closer to the street, the approval process for developments, and ADA requirements. Alderman Schaper inquired as to the difference in width between principal arterials and boulevards and expressed concern that 80 feet is not wide enough for a boulevard. Mayor Hanna stated that the width had been discussed by staff and should be increased to 100 feet. Williams, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to have twelve foot lanes and 100 feet of right-of-way. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Little explained that sidewalk placement sometimes depends on the grade. Little listed several areas needing amended: traffic lanes - four 12 feet lanes, landscaped medians, 16 to 40 feet wide with 2 foot curb. paved widths - 28 feet each side of median. right of way - 100 feet minimum. sidewalks - 4 foot sidewalks on both sides, 4 foot separation from curb where possible. Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to amend the resolution as stated by Little. upon roll call, the amendment passed by a vote of 8 to O. Discussion ensued regarding sidewalks along local streets. Schaper noted an inconsistency as follows: under trails, "...in accordance with the Master Street Plan, sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street for principal and minor arterial street and along one side of collector and local streets." 154 -April 18,.1995 Little read.proposed.amendment as .follows:. ....in accordance with the Master Street Plan, sidewalks are provided on both sides of-thestreet..for.principal,. arterial, minor arterial, collector, and local street, and along one side for residential streets-.") Williams, as read. M.fl seconded by Daniel, made a motion to accept the amendment Upon roll call, the motion passed..by:a vote.:of 8.to-0.. Upon roll call, the resolutionpassed by a vote'of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 59-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: MASTER. STREET PLAN AMENDMENT - Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of anordinance amending;.the Master Street Plan (adopted March 7, 19951 RES. 34-95) to include a proposed collector extension of Sunbridge Drive between Villa Boulevard and North College Avenue. Mayor.Hanna stated the Planning Commission voted unanimously -to recommend the street 'extension. City Attorney Rose stated the amendment would be made by a resolution. The City attorney read the resolution. Daniel, seconded by Miller, made a motion toaccept the resolution. Mayor Hanna asked if anyone wanted to comment on the resolution. Little stated that the Planning Commission had foreseen the opportunity to acquire the right of way.for a collector street and wanted it to be included on the Master Street Plan. Discussion ensued regarding the procedures to amend the plan and protocol. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 60-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. EOUIPMENT.PURCHASE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration ofa resolution awarding.Bid 95-23 to the lowest qualified bidder meeting specifications, Gus Shaffer Ford, for the purchase of a passenger van and a cargo van for a total cost of $52,150.2.0. 155 April 18, 1995 Miller stated that the Equipment Committee had discussed the matter and would recommend approval of the purchase. Parker stated that the passenger van would be used by the police department and the cargo van would be used by water and sewer for equipment transportation. Miller, seconded by Young, made a motion to approve the equipment purchase. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 61-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK/8 OFFICE. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of nominations made for appointments to the Airport Board, Tree & Landscape Advisory Committee, Square Gardens Advisory Board, Citizens Environmental Concerns Committee, Civil Service Commission, and the Juvenile Concern Committee. Alderman Daniel, seconded by Williams, made a motion to appoint John Gearhart to the Airport Board; Susan Bolding, Marsha Donley, and Steve Nolan to the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee; Helen Lewis to the Square Gardens Advisory Board; Stephen Scott to the Citizens Environmental Concern Committee; Dan Epperly to the Civil Service Commission; and Peggy Smith, Melissa Melborne, Carla Bradley, Sara Bunton, Ezra MCGlothin III, Joan Driver, and Margo Clark to the Juvenile Concerns Committee. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. OTHER BUSINESS BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Ben Mayes requested a budget adjustment for an item passed under the Consent Agenda for widening of Razorback Road. A fence needs to be moved on city owned property. Mayes requested a resolution allowing $9,200 to be taken from the sale tax fund to be used to replace the fence. Discussion ensued regarding protocol. Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to pass the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 62-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.