Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-02 Minutes157 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, May 2, 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; Planning Director Alett Little, Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes, and Public Works Director Kevin Crosson members of the staff, press, and audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. 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 explained that the item was left on the table at the April 18 Council meeting. Alderman Williams stated that the Ordinance Review Committee had discussed the matter and is requesting the item be left on the table. B. ANNEXATION AND REZONING R95-05 AND R95-06 - An ordinance annexing 99.8 acres located north of Huntsville Road and east of Jarnegan Lane and rezoning 38.49 acres of the property from A-1 Agricultural to R -S Residential Small Lot, and 8.07 acres of the property from A-1 Agricultural to R -O Residential Office. Mayor Hanna explained that the ordinances were left on their first reading at the April 18 Council meeting. City Attorney Rose read each ordinance for the second time. Mayor Hanna stated that the petitioner had been asked to offer various Bills of Assurance and changes to the request. 158 May 2, 1995 Rick Osborne, attorney for the petitioner, stated'that the:Bili of Assurance had been signed. • In answer to:a question from Osborne, Rose stated the form .of the Bill of Assurance was acceptable. Mayor Hanna stated. that most ;of.the assurances were made at the request of the Council. x Alderman Miller asked if the bill of assurance restricted the remainingflood plain to•1 unitjp;er acre. Alderman Williams stated that the total number of houses on the subject tract was limited to 212 units.. In answer to a question from Alderman Miller; Schaper stated that this satisfied his question regarding the flood plain development. Alderman • Daniel inquired about a comment made at the last meeting regarding squaring off the City boundaries. Osborne stated that the City's eastern boundary extended 3 miles further than the subject property. Alderman Williams stated that if property was annexed to square off the City this property would be included. ._ In answer to a question from Alderman Young, Osborne stated the Parks Board has required approximately 6 acres be designated as greenspace. In answer to a question from Alderman Young, Osborne suggested a way to handle the additional 10 acres being designated might possibly be to donateit to. the City as park land. In answer to a question from Alderman Young, Rose stated that the assurances ,and .land dedication would' befiledat the County Courthouse. Alderman Young requested that the book and. .page numbers be noted on the final plats. Alderman Hill inquired as to whether the petitioner would still be interested in annexation:.if-the rezoning was not approved. Osborne stated that they would not be interested on the grounds that the property might not be purchased without the rezoning. The current.owner-of record.does not with to have the subject property annexed if it .cannot be developed. A 1 159 May 2, 1995 Alderman Hill commented that traffic was the primary concern and requested that consideration be given to making an ordinance to escrow monies for highway development from the developers. Alderman Schaper stated that there was already a precedent for collections of monies for off-site improvement and further inquired as to whether Hill advocated broader development impact fees. Discussion ensued. Mayor Hanna stated that Highway 16 was a state highway and normally city monies would not be spent on improvement of state highways. Discussion ensued. Mayor Hanna offered to report to Hill the status of various state highway improvement projects. Alderman Parker inquired as to whether or not it might speed things up to have escrowed monies to do studies. Planning Director Alett Little responded that a similar proposal had been made to the State Highway Commission. They will allow pre -engineering of some projects but if projects are engineered too far in advance of construction, it must be done again to account for various changes. Alderman Miller stated that he felt the issue before the Council was the annexation and requested that further discussion of development impact fees should be brought up at Ordinance Review Committee. Alderman Schaper inquired as to the number of adjoining property owners that were notified of this project. Little stated that there were eight adjoining property owners which were notified. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper regarding the regulation dealing with adjoining property owner objection to the rezoning, Little stated if a certain percentage of adjoining property owners object to the rezoning it takes a two thirds vote of the City Council to pass the rezoning rather than a majority. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Little stated the adjoining property owners must state before the vote is taken that they wish to pursue that regulation. As requested by Alderman Parker, five people in the audience motioned as being adjoining property owners to the property in question. Mayor Hanna asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the rezonings or annexation. 160 May 2, 1995 Osborne asked that each person give his name and explain if he is an adjoining property owner or not. Mike Keen, owner of property across the highway from the subject property, stated that he was against annexation and rezoning of the subject property on the grounds of the high density and the impact on city facilities. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Keen described the character of the general area as being low density suburban farms. Alderman Schaper stated the Land Use Plan refers to this as a rural transition area. Jude Keen, owner of six acres across the road from Mr. Counce, stated that she was against annexation and rezoning of the subject property on the grounds of the high density, .incompatibility with existing neighborhood and'over crowding;of -Happy Hollow School. Nancy Keen, owner of property in the area but'not-adjoining, stated that she was against annexation and rezoning of the subject property on the grounds of traffic impact and over crowding of Happy Hollow School. William Keen, adjoining property owner, stated that he was against the annexation and rezoning of the subject property on the grounds of the high density and the other reasons already mentioned. Nell Smith, adjoining property owner, stated that she was against the annexation and rezoning and wanted the property to stay just as it is. Kendall Keen, adjoining property owner to the east, stated that he was against the annexation and rezoning. Andrew Schimelpfenig, student at the University and a property owner on Huntsville Road, stated that the Council had a responsibility to be accountable to the public long term for improvement of the highway and providing schools and provide better notification. Alderman Miller stated that the Council was proceeding with caution and that this matter had been discussed at four meetings. Little stated that comparative traffic counts had been presented to the Council. Alderman Bassett commented that he had done background work since he was elected. Mayor Hanna stated that public notification procedure laws were followed. 161 May 2, 1995 Schimelpfenig stated that there must be better property for this project. Neal Smith, adjoining property owner, stated that he was against the annexation and rezoning on the grounds of the complicated nature. Alderman Parker requested that names of the property owners be written down for the City Clerk to be made a part of the record. Alderman Parker read the regulation regarding the protest of a rezoning by a certain percentage of adjoining property owners. City Attorney Rose stated there is a great deal of ambiguity in the regulation. If there are property owners that wish to evoke this 20% rule, we will need to have there names and review the location of their property. The determination would need to be made as to whether or not the properties are immediately adjacent in the rear thereof extending 300 feet from the street frontage of such opposite lots. Little stated the vote required to pass a rezoning being objected to by 20% of the adjoining property owners is three fourths not two thirds as stated earlier. Osborne stated that R-1 zoning would allow more houses on the subject property than what the petitioner was proposing. Alderman Bassett expressed concern regarding infrastructure and stated that he favored a bond issue or temporary sales tax to provide improvement projects. Alderman Basset pointed out that throughout the process, the petitioner has negotiated with the City Council. Alderman Miller stated that the petitioner has compiled with and met all the requests of the City Council. Alderman Williams stated that a 100 acre tract with 2 houses per acre was not excessive, especially in light of the village concept and grouping of houses. The Council should require reasonable development. If the City does not annex, the project could be developed to county standards. Many developments in surrounding communities contribute to Fayetteville traffic. Alderman Schaper stated that the 2010 plan identified the subject tract as rural zone and read... "Community character protection areas should be designated to control transition from rural to suburban to urban and undeveloped to developed." 162 May 2, 1995 Alderman Schaper then read staff comments as follows:. "2010 Plan identifies the site as a residential area and is located within rural transition zone. The plan offers transition guidelines for urban, suburban, and rural development. The maximum density recommended for rural residential development is 1 unit per 5 acres and clustering is encouraged." Alderman Schaper stated that there was clustering but not as much as implied by 100 acres with 200 houses because of non -development of the considerable amount of flood way with the subject tract. Schaper continued that there would be limited density in the flood plain with it becoming uneconomical. With dedication of the park land the actual area of the subject tract was greatly reduced. Alderman Schaper suggested alternative zonings which might provide more appropriate density. Discussion ensued regarding managed growth and its meaning. Schaper enumerated his specific objections regarding the petition concluding that this was the wrong development at the wrong place at the wrong time. In answer to a question from Alderman Young regarding the prevention of urban sprawl, Alderman Schaper stated there should be a generation of a transition between rural character and urban character... Houses should be clustered but there should not be so many of them. The City should increase the density in the areas that are served by infrastructure. Alderman Bassett stated that it was natural for any adjoining property owner to resist change. Alderman Miller inquired as to the price range of houses within the proposed development. Bayari stated that they would seli.for $65.,0004to $70,000. Alderman Miller stated that there was a lack of affordable houses in Fayetteville. Alderman Parker stated that he did not like the character of smaller housing units and further expressed his concern regarding traffic and infrastructure. He stated that he felt like the clustering resulted from economic feasibility rather than a desire to provide a village concept development. Mayor Hanna stated that the Planning staff had.•recommended approval of the annexation and rezonings to the Planning Commission who in turn recommended approval of same to.the:Council. In answer to a question from Alderman Hill, Osborne stated if the annexation is not approved the petitioner does not wish to rezone. • • 163 May 2, 1995 Alderman Miller stated that the 8.07 acre tract is already in the City. The request is to rezone it to R -O. Osborne pointed out that his client is proposing to spend $1 million on infrastructure. Required fees have to bear a rational nexus to the development. Improving a state highway is not appropriate. The development of what is proposed is just a little over half of what it would be under an R-1 zone. The long term plan for the City projected this area as R-1. Alderman Schaper explained that the guidelines say residential not specifically R-1. Bayari objected to the "cracker box" home comment made by Alderman Parker. Bayari stated the homes would be affordable homes but also someone's dream home. The development would have restrictive covenants. • Alderman Williams stated that the Council should stick to the issues and stated that he was against imposing an impact fee. Alderman Bassett stated that he would vote for the project but suggested caution. Discussion ensued regarding a motion to place the matter on the third reading and procedural interpretation of the law. City Attorney Rose stated that any determination of objection by property owners needed to be checked further. Alderman Daniel stated that she was opposed to annexation until such time that the city's boundaries could be squared. Discussion ensued regarding annexation and squaring of boundaries. Alderman Miller stated he also was in favor of squaring off the city but nothing was being done. Alderman Schaper stated he hoped the new Land Use Plan would determine how much land is needed in an annexation to accommodate the growth that is expected in the next 25 years. Rose stated, referring to the adjoining property owner issue, that litigation regarding a similar matter was pending and requested that more time be allowed to research and consider the issue. Osborne requested a vote. Williams, seconded by Parker, made a motion to place the ordinance for rezoning R95-6 on the third and final reading. Upon roll, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0. 164 May 2, 1995 The City Attorney read the ordinance for R95-6 for .the third and final time. Alderman Williams stated that although he supports a major -annexation to square off the City, he was not opposed to this annexation. Parker stated that the Planning Commission struck down the original proposal. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed with a vote of 6 to 2, with Parker and Schaper voting no. ORDINANCE APPEARS OF PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Williams, seconded by Bassett, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance for rezoning R95-5 on the 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 R95-5 for the third and final time. Rose stated both rezonings are contingent upon the annexation. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Little stated that the bill of assurance does restrict the R -O tract to business development. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed with a vote of 7 to 1, with Parker voting no. ORDINANCE APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Williams, seconded by Bassett, made a motion to suspend the rules .and placethe annexation on its third and^final reading. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 5 to 3, with Parker, Schaper and Daniel voting no. Rose stated that approval of the annexation required 6 affirmative votes. The annexation will remain on the second reading. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Daniel, seconded by Parker, made a motion to nominate Steve Singleton to the Library Board; Gerald Boyd (reappointment), Robert Nickle (reappointment), and Mike Andrews to Board of Adjustment; Mike Tramill to Board of Housing and Construction Appeals; and Terrel Rohrbach and Mark Corley to Historic District Commission. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. 1 165 May 2, 1995 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE ORDINANCE - An ordinance amending Chapter 160 of the Zoning Code of the Code of Fayetteville to establish standards and regulations for limited neighborhood commercial uses within residential districts as a conditional use. Mayor Hanna stated this item was left on the first reading at the last meeting. Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Mayor Hanna called for public comments. • David Tucker asked if neighborhood bar was still listed as a use in the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding amending the ordinance to strike neighborhood bars. Parker, seconded by Williams, made a motion to strike neighborhood bars from the Neighborhood Commercial Use Ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7 to 1, with Miller voting no. Schaper, seconded by Parker, made a motion to strike the sign painting from the Neighborhood Commercial Use Ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7 to 1, with Miller voting no. Alderman Young expressed concern regarding spot zoning. Rose stated it is not spot zoning because of the conditional use requirement and the restricted uses. Mayor Hanna stated the ordinance would be on its final reading at the 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 March 28, 1995 special City Council meeting and the April 18, 1995 regular City Council meeting. 166 May 2, 1995 .Resolution granting Southwestern Bell TelephoneiCompany permanent easements for underground facilities and equipment station for the Fayetteville Industrial Park North. RESOLUTION 63-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. C. Resolution approving the proposed engineering. services contract for the relocation and improvement of the City's water and sewer lines as required prior to the state's widening of Wedington Drive to Garland from .Garland to Highway 71. RESOLUTION 64-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY:CLERK'S OFFICE. Schaper, Agenda. seconded by Miller, made a motion to approve the.Consent Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote. REZONING R95-8 AND R95-9 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of ordinances rezoning 3.03 acres and ..52.acres located west of Morningside Drive and north of 15th Street from R-2 Medium Density Residential to I-1 Light Industrial and from I-1 Light Industrial to R-2 Medium. Density Residential. The City Attorney read the ordinance for R95-8 for the first time. Alderman Miller stated that a previous request made by Mr. Dramis involved the .52 acre tract. In answer to a question from Alderman Miller, was still only planning to have a flooring 3.03 acres. The. location of this tract is plan is the same for the 3.03 tract as it tract. :John Dramis stated he display store on the better. The building was for the -52 acre Schaper, seconded by Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passedwith a unanimous vote of 8 to 0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time.. In answer to a question from Alderman .Williams, Little stated the adjoining property owners were notified and; -did not have any objections.. • Williams, seconded by Daniel, made amotionqAo suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the thirdIand`finalreading. Upon roll call, the motion,passed with a unanimous vote on to 0. 167 May 2, 1995 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed with a unanimous vote. ORDINANCE 3890 APPEARS ON PAGE OR ORDINANCE BOOK The City Attorney read the ordinance for R95-9 for the first time. Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Miller, seconded by Young, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3891 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK EOUIPMENT PURCHASE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution awarding Bid 95-30 to the lowest qualified bidder meeting the specifications, Gus Shaffar Ford for the purchase of 4 four-wheel drive utility vehicles for a total cost of $128,982.50. Miller stated that the Equipment Committee had voted unanimously to accept the bid. Two of the units were for K-9 units which would be more appropriate than outfitting sedans with custom cages and was more cost effective. The third one was for the shift commander of the Fire Department and the fourth was for Park Police. Schaper, seconded by Miller, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote. RESOLUTION 65-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. LAND USE PLAN DISCUSSION Alderman Schaper inquired as to other input from the Council on what the land use principals should be for the land use plan revision. 168 'May 2, 1995 .Little.stated that questions had beenxaddressed regarding-•Awhether or not there should be policy statement changes from the current land use plan and whether the village concept should be mandated or an option to be considered by staff and developers. There was°a question relating to public involvement. One council member has responded to those questions. Alderman Parker stated he would submit his comments in writing to the Planning Office. Alderman Williams stated he believed that the village. concept should be an option to developers. Alderman Young requested a public hearing on the matter. Alderman Schaper asked when there would be anew -set of -land use principles to match what was in the 2010 plan that incorporates the inputs submitted. Little stated the original request for Council comments was April 3. She expressed her reluctancy to proceed with the project with comments from only one alderman. Alderman Young statedthat it needs to be the public's plan. Little agreed to set a public hearing within the next two weeks: Louise Schaper, 1940 Pratt Drive, commented that other cities have more citizen participation by setting up committees for issue discussion and urged community involvement. Schaperspecifically discussed the experience of Louisville, Kentucky. Schaper stressed the importance of public involvement for a successful plan. Little stated that the completion of the land use plan was scheduled for August. OTHER BUSINESS EXECUTIVE SESSION 4 Alderman Schaper made a motion to go into ,executive session to discuss a personnel issue. ' Alderman Bassett inquired as to the difference between appointed public official and a paid employee in terms of the FOI Act. Rose stated the executive purpose of considering demotion, disciplining, or employee. sessions are '.permitted monly for the employment, appointment, promotion, resignation of any public officer or 1 169 May 2, 1995 In answer to a question from Alderman Bassett, Rose stated he could not find anything legally obligating a City Council member to keep what happens in an executive session a secret. The reason for executive session is to discuss personnel matters in a degree of secrecy. Alderman Bassett expressed concern about discussing certain matters in executive session. Rose stated, referring to a case, a public discussion of allegations which later proves to be unwarranted would lead to adverse publicity and unjustifiable damage to the reputation to the individuals involved. Rose reminded the Council that they are only to discuss the particular individual involved. Daniel seconded Schaper•s motion to go into executive session. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote. The Council went into executive session at 8:25 p.m. The Council returned to regular session at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Hanna stated there would be no action, no vote and no comment. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.