HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-18 Minutes251
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday,
July 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 Heather Daniel, Stephen
Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve
Parker, Len Schaper, City Attorney Jerry Rose, City
Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of the staff, press
and audience.
ABSENT: Alderman Jimmy Hill
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Fred Hanna called the meeting to order with seven aldermen
present.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
Alderman Daniel reported that Lloyd Seaton was nominated for the
open position with the Arts Center Foundation and Larry Foley,
Sandra Barnett and Michael Smith were nominated for the three
open positions on the Cable Board.
Daniel, seconded by Williams, made a motion to approve the
selections of the Nominating Committee. Upon roll call the
motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT
Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, gave a brief report
regarding the reasons for an independent audit. He explained
that an independent audit is required by State statutes for
numerous funds received by the City and is also required by most
granting agencies, such as FAA, Community Development funds, etc.
He also stated that it is good business sense to have an
independent audit done of the financial records and controls of
the City.
Mr. Mayes explained that the audit includes all City funds. He
stated that the City did receive a clean opinion by the auditors,
with the exception of the modification due to the uncertainty
with the incinerator litigation.
Mr. Mayes pointed out
1995 because that was
work on -the audit was
Court's ruling on the
July 18,1995
that the audit opinion was dated April 28,
when a significant portion of the field
completed. This was prior to the Supreme
incinerator.
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, copies of which were
given to the Council members, is the'end product of the audit.
This report will be filed with the State of Arkansas to meet
their requirements and will be reviewed by the State's
Legislative Audit Committee. It will also be filed with all the
City's granting agencies; regulatory agencies and with the
Government Finance Officer's Association. This last group will
conduct an independent review and give the City constructive
criticism on how to make this.a better product.
Mr. Mayes stated that a copy of this report is available to the
public. A copy will be kept at the University of Arkansas
Library, Fayetteville City Library, and at the City Clerk's
office.
Mr. Mayes explained that the question had been raised as to why
the bonds for the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority
were shown in the City's'financial statements if the Supreme
Court has ruled that they: are not an obligation of the City. He
explained that accounting literature;'in:-the opinion of
management and the auditors, states:that"these bonds'shouldbe.•
included in the City's financial statements. The recent Court
ruling stating that it is not the City's debt says otherwise.
There will be continued figoilc on this, issue in order to find -a '
solution to this disclosure; problem.
Another item of interest this year was the Regional Airport.
This may have a potential'impact on the operation of our current
airport. Management will continue to monitor this.
Calvin Webb, a partner with Arthur Andersen & Co. who are in
charge of the Fayetteville -City audit, reviewed the Executive
Summary of the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Mr. Webb stated that the audit opinion is clean with the
exceptionof the uncertainty as to the outcome of the incinerator
lawsuit.
Mr. Webb also reviewed the Brown Report; the audit report dealing
with Federal and State_grantactivities.: This is mandated by the
Federal and State authorities`.- All"the opinions in thi•s'audit
are clean with the exception of the reference to the overall
financials.
•
e if
253
July 18,1995
k 1 r,
Mr. Webb stated that the auditors will be issuing a letter on
their observations of internal controls. Various suggestions for
improvement on these internal controls will be presented to the
Council in this letter. Mr. Webb stated that the auditors noted
no material weaknesses or significant non-compliance with any
laws, regulations or procedures.
Mr. Webb commended the Finance Department for the sixth year of
winning the Government Financial Award for financial excellence
in reporting. This is a national program for cities and counties
across the country. It is a credit to the City to achieve
excellence in this area.
Mr. Webb reviewed the key reporting and audit items on the report
submitted to the Council members. He reviewed the total assets
and liabilities as presented in the report, as well as revenue
and expenditures.
Mr. Webb commended the City on the good reserves that have been
built up in light of the uncertainty about having to pay out
additional legal fees regarding the incinerator lawsuit.
In summary, the final results of the audit were a modified report
dealing with the uncertainty regarding the incinerator lawsuit as
well as the tipping fees. There were no limitations placed on
the auditor's ability to audit the City of Fayetteville's
financial operations. There were very few audit adjustments.
The City staff takes a very pro -active role in dealing with their
financial operations.
Mr. Webb stated that his company has had continued open and
effective communications with City management in dealing with the
audit process.
Alderman Schaper asked Mr. Webb's opinion as to whether the
amount of reserves the City has at this time is prudent given the
uncertainty over the incinerator lawsuit.
Mr. Webb stated that it was his opinion that the reserves are
very prudent.
In answer to a question by Alderman Young, Mr. Webb explained
that the uncertainties he is referring to are the potential of
additional legal fees relating to third party lawsuits and the
Council's decision to petition the Supreme Court for review of
its decision stating that the Authority's debt is not the City's
debt.
254
July 18,1995
Alderman Young questioned, in light of the Supreme Court's:,
opinion that the Authority and the City are two.separate
entities,_ how an accounting. system can put the Authority's
accounting into the accounting for the. City.
Mr. Webb stated that he did not have:a complete answer to that
question but he explained that the accounting literature states
that if an entity exists over which-the'governing.body has an
oversight responsibility, it meets the criteria for inclusion.
With the sharing _of seven Council members, this situation very
clearly meets the definition of imposition of will.. and that has
been the basis for the inclusion in the City financials for the
last Seven years. At this time they will have to re-evaluate the
situation and find an answer concerning -whether it should
continue to be included..
Alderman Young stated that the City of Fayetteville has that same
oversight responsibility in improvement districts in that the.'. -
Council appoints the commissioners in improvement districts‘garid"
he questioned why they.wouldttnot also berincluded in the
financial system under the auditor's definition.
Mr. Webb explained that there is a lot of criteria involved in
determining these issues such as the type of services, whether
the service benefits the citizens or:the:City, financial
commitment; etc: He explained that this\had to be balanced..with
the Supreme Court's opposite interpretation.
Alderman Young suggested that in the deliberations of the
auditors and management; they think about improvement districts.
Alderman Parker stated that -he understood the Supreme Court
decision was that. the contract with the Authority was "void
abenicio" which means that. there was never a relationship, not
that the relationship existed but is now void.
Alderman Miller mentioned the $2,02.charge which the Supreme
Court has deemed an illegal extraction and the pretty hefty
lawyers'. fees for the plaintiffs in the incinerator case. He -
asked if the City would have to reimburse the $2.02 charge and if
so, whether the City was -in a position to withstand that blow,
plus the large legal fees.
Ben Mayes deferred the legal portion of that question to City
Attorney Rose, but he offered•that4f the Supreme Court does not
reverse its opinion, the"City.will,berequired to refund all or a
portion of that $2.02 collection.
•
255
July 18,1995
Once the Court orders what is to be done, the Administration will
be back to the Council asking for additional money to be
appropriated for legal fees. The money is in reserve in the
general fund and in other places if this is required. At that
point it will be a Court order and the City will have no choice.
Mr. Webb returned to the question regarding whether the amount of
the reserves at this time is prudent and stated that yes, they
are prudent but he does not know if they are adequate.
ODOR ABATEMENT/SLUDGE ENHANCEMENT REPORT
Kevin Crosson introduced Mr. Henry Huffman, the District Manager
with OMI.
Mr. Huffman brought the Council up to date on the waste water
plant and the odor problems in that area that have plagued the
Fayetteville treatment plant for so many years. In the beginning
the odor was primarily caused by hydrogen sulfide and unstablized
sludge. The expansion in 1988 created a different odor.
Special projects were created that eliminated the hydrogen
sulfide and stabilized the sludge but a different odor was
created by the digestion of the sludge. The equipment used was -
less than ideal and was known to create odors but funding was not
available to implement the recommendations of the study done by
Black and Veatch concerning this problem.
Mr. Huffman discussed the quality of the waste water treatment
plant and the income it creates for the City of Fayetteville.
Equipment recommended by the studies done works well to eliminate
odors and enhance digestion of the sludge. The decision was made
to implement the study in phases rather than all at once.
Mr Huffman discussed the progress that has been made in working
through the problems with digesters and in eliminating some of
the odor problem. It was determined that the current digesters
and aeriation equipment was insufficient. Mr. Huffman explained
what was done to improve the situation.
Mr. Huffman discussed the money that has been spent to this point
to implement the program adopted. He made recommendations
regarding equipment needed and explained what could be achieved
with the existing funds.
Current recommendations for additional equipment were presented
to the Council. These recommendations would cost a total of
$869,000, resulting in a shortfall of $114,000. Mr. Huffman
presented a request for approval of this additional expenditure.
Alderman Williams asked if this would solve the odor problem.
•
1
r >
•
256
July 18,1995
Mr. Huffman stated that it is felt this will eliminate .90 -to 95%
of the odor. He -did not feel that it would ever be possible to
totally eliminate odors at a wastewater treatment plant.
Alderman Parker stated he had a lot of personal contact from
people in his ward who .have been told many times that various
"fixes" would eliminate the odor. He expressed his interest in
exceeding bandaid measures and doing ell that it takes to ensure
the odor problem is eliminated. He questioned Mr. Huffman
regarding the second and third option presented in the report
given to the Council.
Mr. Huffman stated that nothing precludes proceeding directly
from option one right into options two and three. Option one can
be proceeded with immediately because the funding is available.
If option one does fail, :they will be able to proceed immediately
into option two. He explained that they are proceeding along a
phased approach to implementing the Black and Veatch study
recommendations.
Kevin Crosson explained that though they feel this initial phase
will be successful, if it is not they can proceed immediately
into the next step.
Alderman: Schaper presented the question of the definition of
success,
Mr. Huffman defined success as when the residents in the area are
satisfied.
Alderman Schaper agreed and stated that the question of how far
it will be necessary to go along the phased system depends on the
feedback received from the residents.
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Huffman
stated that the job will be completed before the end of the year
with the possible exception of one dome.
Alderman Bassett asked if Mr. Huffman was promising that, if the
money is appropriated, the project will be completed by the end
of this year or early next year before spring when the odor
problem gets worse.
Mr. Huffman stated that this was the case. Heistated that, with
the Council's approval, they would like to form a citizens' group
in that area to work with them on this.
In response to a.. question from Alderman Parker, Mr. Huffman
stated that the third dome should go in in January.
257
July 18,1995
Kevin Crosson explained that there is no way to quantify the
percentages of reduction of odor. They are covering what they
know to be the vast majority of the problem. Once these are
covered, there will be other odors out there. At that point, if
there are still problems, those problems can be addressed
specifically.
Alderman Miller commented on the difficulty in eliminating all
odors and wished them luck.
Mr. Huffman stated that once the digesters are domed and the
resulting odors are eliminated, they will be able to recognize
where any other odors are coming from.
Alderman Schaper asked Kevin Crosson how the City's contract with
OMI works.
Kevin stated the contract is cost plus but this is set up as a
separate item under the contract as capital expenditures.
In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, Kevin explained
that the money would come out of the water and sewer fund. The
recommendation is to accelerate phase two, which is already
approved by the Council and to request the additional $114,000.
Mayor Hanna stated that a budget adjustment of $114,000 would
allow implementation of the plan suggested by OMI.
Williams, seconded by Parker, moved that a budget adjustment of
$114,000 be approved to implement the recommendations presented.
Mayor Hanna asked if there were any comments from the audience
before the vote of the Council.
Fran Alexander, a resident of Fox Hunter Road expressed her
feeling that the citizens in the area of the treatment plant
should be commended for their patience. She urged the Council to
approve the funding necessary to eliminate the odor problem.
Ms. Alexander asked if it was possible to get any money back on
the failed vinyl dome.
Mr. Huffman explained that the dome had not failed. It had been
a temporary solution and it will be kept as a backup and
temporary covering.
Upon roll call, the motion for approval of a the budget
adjustment passed with a vote of 7 to 0.
RESOLUTION 99-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
0.%
4.4
258
July 18,1995
OLD_BUSINESS
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items that have been
brought before the Council but which were tabled or on which no
decision made to allow further information to be presented.
A. REZONING R95-15, R95-16 & R95-17.: Ordinances rezoning
property located north of Joyce Blvd. and east of Highway 71
B as requested by Jim Lindsey and Southwestern Energy
Corporation.
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning
10.75 acres located north of Joyce Blvd. and east of Highway 71 B
from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to C-2,. Thoroughfare Commercial
as requested by .Jim Lindsey and Southwestern Energy Corporation.
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning
5.50 acres located north:of Joyce Blvd._ and east of Highway 71 B
from R -O, Residential -:Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial as
requested by Jim Lindsey and Southwestern Energy Corporation.
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 4
acres located north bf Joyce Blvd. and east of Highway 71 B from
R-0, Residential - Office to. -C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial as
- requested by Jim Lindsey and Southwestern Energy Corporation.
Mayor Hanna explained that these were three separate ordinances
-
being considered together.
City Attorney Rose-read.all three ordinances for the second time.
Alderman Young explained that the company he works for is
presenting the agenda item.. He stated he will not participate in.
the discussion of the issuesandhe will abstain from voting.
Kirk Elsass, representin_g:Jim Lindsey and S.W. Energy,.passed
out copies of covenants of Vantage Square subdivision. He•stated
that they would like to make it clear that they, as owners of the
property, will be willing to work with the owners of the property
to the north to connect.. Vantage Road•in whatever way it needs to
be connected. The opening of Stearns St. is not of importance to
the owners or developers of this project and will not deter their
development.
An aerial photo -was presented oftheproperty.. Mr. Elsass
pointed out the area of approximately five acres which i8 in
hardwood. Some additional -smaller -trees are in the area. There
are options to working around the.trees and-maintaining.as many
of them as possible to stay within the :Tree Ordinance.
259
July 18,1995
Mr. Elsass discussed the impact on traffic in the area if this
development goes in. He stated that they had asked Mr. Ernie
Peters to do a traffic study in the area. Mr. Peters was asked
to address the issue of what kind of traffic increase could be
expected with the addition of this development and what the
impact on the intersection would be.. He was also asked, if the
property was not rezoned but was developed in its current zoning,
what the impact would then be.
Mr. Gary Watson with Americom Properties, the developer
interested in developing the property in question, spoke to the
Council regarding his company and what they have done in the past
and their plans for this development.
Mr. Watson explained that Fayetteville is a very desirable
community and many of his company's clients would like to open
businesses here. These clients want to be in the area where the
commercial/retail business activity is, i.e. out by the Mall.
This site was selected as the best available.
Mr. Watson discussed the desire of his company to avoid a
development of a strip -like set of buildings and parking lots.
His company wants to develop a unique project they can be proud
of. Numerous site plans have been designed to try to get an
internal focus. The plan finally adopted has been distributed to
Council members. The focus of this development is in the
interior, with landscaping surrounding. This design will be more
thorough and complete when the landscape architects work on it.
Mr. Watson explained that though the property across the street
from the proposed rezoning site is already zoned for commercial,
it does not fit the type of development his firm wishes to
accomplish.
At this point Mr. Watson's firm has gone as far as it can. If
the property is rezoned, they will develop a plan to save as many
of the hardwood trees as possible and will address the concerns
of the surrounding neighbors with landscaping and berm on the
exterior to add to the aesthetic appeal of the development.
Alderman Parker asked Mr. Watson if he had examples of other
projects done or designs developed. Mr. Parker did not feel the
drawing he had seen appeared significantly different from the
traditional strip mall.
Mr. Watson explained that he did not have any such designs with
him because every development is different from the last one. He
stated that if they are given criteria by the Council, they will
address these criteria.
260
July 18,1995
Alderman Miller brought up Utica Square in Tulsa and expressed
his admiration for that. shopping center:
Mr. Watson stated that the concepts of retailing are totallyi
different than they were when Utica Square was developed 50•years
ago. Larger buildings are now necessary for the large discount
store/value retailing businesses that are profitable in our •
current economy.
Alderman Parker asked that the aerial drawing be brought in
again. He pointed out the areas being discussed, and which ones
are already zoned C-2.
Mr. Tom Hopper stated that the area with most trees is the area
of approximately 10.75 which is currently zoned C-1.
Alderman Miller mentioned that Fayetteville does have a canopy
requirement and that it now also has. a Landscape Administrator to
monitor any developments approved.
Alderman Daniel explained that the Council is under a lot of
pressure from the residents in thearea to come up with a quality
development. She expressed concern over the signs of
z. overdevelopment$in the area. However, it is necessary that
whatever development -is built beeconomically feasible for the
tenants and one that will draw customers.
Mr. Watson agreed with Alderman Daniel. He stated that
Fayetteville has established itself as the business hub of this
part of. the state. This draws .people here. He explainedthat
his firm, asowners of the developed center, will have to be very
careful who they build for because of the economic
considerations. These tenants will be screened very thoroughly
to make sure they will stay in business.
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Watson
described.his major tenants generally as a large retailer with
three -different businesses including clothing, household items
and linens. Also an electronics firm -is interested in locating
here.• He stated that he felt they had a little over half the
necessary. tenants lined up.
In response to
Watson defined
lesser prices.
established in
in the area.
a second question from Alderman Schaper, Mr.
his tenants as primarily dealing in name brands at
The.impactof.these businesses on businesses
the area will:be the same as competition al -ready
•
•
July 18,1995
261
Alderman Schaper wondered about the impact of yet more retailing
in an area where some businesses are already moving out. He
stated that the amount of money doesn't change, it just gets
sliced up among more players. He doesn't think the growth in the
area is sufficient to warrant many more businesses.
Mr. Watson stated that the growth in this part of the state is
far outstripping its ability to serve it or these businesses
would not be interested in moving here.
Alderman Daniel commented that since this is a thriving area and
businesses do want to come here, she felt the developers might be
more willing to invest in a very special type of development.
Mr. Ernie Peters, who had completed a traffic study of the area
of Joyce Blvd. and Hwy 71B at the request of Mr. Tom Hopper,
spoke to the Council about that study. He stated he had been in
the business for about 24 years and he feels that this
intersection is the most studied intersection in the state.
Mr. Peters had studied this intersection in conjunction with the
expansion of the Mall and the Spring Street Center, south of the
Mall. The work being done in the area now is a result of that
study. These improvements will include dual left turns on each
approach to the intersection except the southbound left turn. It
will also provide at least two through traffic lanes in each
direction in addition to the left turn lanes.
Mr. Peters stated that for this current study for Vantage Square,
he took into account the existing traffic plus the traffic
projected associated with all other known development in this
immediate area. To this base he added the traffic projected to
be generated by the proposed zoning.
Mr. Peters stated that the proposed zoning would essentially
generate another 10,000 vehicles in the area. All these will not
be on Joyce or 71B, but they will be in the area. All will not
be new trips, some will be combined trips.
Commercial traffic generates about three times as much as office
does for equal square footage. Office traffic, however,
contributes to the adjacent street a.m. and p.m. peak hours while
commercial traffic primarily contributes to the p.m. peak hour
with the rest spread out during the day. When comparing the R -O
to the C-2, the change in zoning will contribute about 3,000 to
3,400 additional vehicles per day.
Mr. Peters determined that an additional lane for southbound
traffic at the intersection of 71B and Joyce would be needed. He
also determined that at a major access point to this development,
a traffic signal will be needed to provide safe, controlled
ingress and egress to the site. These recommendations have been
262
July 18,1995
provided to Mr.. Hopper and he. has incorporated these changes into
the plan. The owner and/or developer has.agreed.to make these
improvements.
In response to a question from Alderman Williams, Mr. Peters
stated that he has estimated that approximately 40% of the
traffic would come and go from the east and therefore would
travel past Butterfield Trail Village. Joyce Blvd. can
accommodate this increase but it will be busier. The traffic
signal. proposed would provide gaps in the traffic so the
residents in the Butterfield area can get onto and off of the
street.
Alderman Daniel stated that she is on the Trails Advisory
Committee and they had talked about putting sidewalks wide enough
for bike traffic on the east and west side of 71B along Joyce.
She now realizes that bikers or pedestrianswill not be able to
cross 71B.
Mr. Peters stated that pedestrian signalsare not a part of the
work underway now. He explained that the reason for this is that
pedestriansignals, when activated., would require an extensive
period of time for people to waik across this very wide.highway
andpthis wouldinterrupt the through-traffic..for..a considerable
length of time.
Unlike the intersection of 71B and Joyce:,; the intersection,of
Vantage and Joyce where the traffic signal is proposed could be
provided with pedestrian crossings. This is not presently in the
design but could be if that were deemed desirable.
Alderman Daniel expressed support .for considered of pedestrian
crossings:
Kevin Crosson explained that the City had looked into putting in
an overhead crossing at Lafayette and College in the past and it
would be much too costly to put such a crossing over 71B.
Alderman Miller stated that he felt this area had been made
pedestrian unfriendly many years ago and that was not going to
change.
4
Mr. Peters stated that he feels.it is possible to make the
Vantage Square area friendly to pedestrians.
Alderman Miller asked --that the developers consider widening the
sidewalk to five or six feet in width to make it a multi -use
trail. He felt itwas also important to make it possible for
Butterfield area residents to walk to the shopping area.
3
263
July 18,1995
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Peters
explained that he had used Institute of Transportation Engineers
trip generation rate for commercial/retail shopping. This rate
is unadjusted for pass -by trips.
Alderman Schaper asked if he was projecting another 10,000 trips
per day onto Joyce St. since all the traffic ends up on Joyce.
Mr. Peters stated that he assumed the worst case of the Vantage
connection not being there.
In response to a question from Alderman
stated that the current volume on Joyce
and it is capable of about 25,000.
Schaper, Mr. Peters
Blvd. is 11,000 vehicles
Alderman Schaper stated that it appears with this one development
the traffic capacity on Joyce Blvd. is almost at its maximum.
Mr. Peters stated that on a 24 hour basis, it will be using most
of its normal operating capacity. This does not mean it will
fail but it will be pushed.
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Peters
stated that he had not attempted to study the possible conditions
if all potential developable property is developed. He stated he
had included the numbers for the property to the north side of
Joyce.
Mr. Peters added that with the improvements under construction at
this time, including the addition of the second southbound left
turn lane, there is nothing else that can be done at the
intersection of Joyce Blvd. and 71B. Unless the traffic begins
to be diverted from and to other directions, this intersection
will eventually be a problem.
Alderman Schaper asked Mr. Peters if he was saying with the
development of property already zoned commercial, plus this
possible rezoning, Joyce would be well over capacity.
Mr. Peters agreed to this.
In response to a question from Alderman Williams, Mr. Peters said
the difference in traffic from the R -O zoning to the C-2 zoning
is an extra 3,400 trips.
Alderman Daniel brought up the development occurring to the
north, between Zion Rd. and Joyce Blvd, as well as the possible
development of 300 acres on the west of Hwy 71B.
3 4
1 r
264
July 18,1995
Alderman Parker said that the residents of Butterfield -Trail
asked him to make known the fact that they feel that their
ability to deal with traffic situations is less than it was when
they were younger and that the additional night lighting often
associated with C-2 activity makes it more difficult for them to
drive.
In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Alderman Parker
stated that he did not know the number of residents from
Butterfield Trail who drive,, but a number of those who were at a
meeting last night expressed their concerns.
Mr. Peters offered the observation that since the property to the
south side of Joyce is already zoned_C-2, it could generate as
much traffic as what is proposed with this development and in
itself could cause the Joyce & Hwy 71B intersection to be over
capacity.
Alderman Miller stated that he had checked out various areas -
where traffic was reported to be very bad and usually found out
that the traffic was only bad for a limited amount of time in a
day. He feels traffic usually evens itself out. If traffic gets
really bad, people will stop driving in that area or will 4o
there at a time when traffic is less. Traffic will always be,a.
problem in Fayetteville regardless of what the Council does.
Alderman Daniel stated that this intersection has been a problem
and a lot of complaints are received about it.
Alderman Schaper agreed with .Alderman Miller, but with developers
refusing to create more pedestrian friendly environments and
buildinginstead. projects that are purely car oriented, people
will be driving.
Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the audience.
Mr. Gary Combs stated he had an issue with the Tree Ordinance
which had been discussed. He asked Alderman Parker if, when he
developed and presented the film at the last meeting, he was
acting as a City official.
Alderman Parker stated that the film was related to another issue
being considered at the time, that of Landscape Administrator and
the film. was in answer to a question as to whether or not the
Tree Ordinance was being enforced. He stated that he was acting
in his capacity of Alderman investigating this question,
Mr. Combs stated that he was a developer and contractor and that
particular project which Alderman Parker filmed was a project he
is building. He wanted to discuss how the City is handling the
Tree Ordinance.
265
July 18,1995
Alderman Parker suggested that he would be glad to bring this
issue up for discussion under Other Business but he felt it was
not appropriate to address it at this particular time.
There was some discussion regarding this situation.
Mayor Hanna asked Mr. Combs to direct his comments toward what
was being discussed at this time, which is the rezoning issue.
After further discussion, it was decided that Alderman Parker
would bring this issue up under Other Business and allow Mr.
Combs to address his concerns.
Tom Meade presented the Council with a petition signed by 73
residents of Brookhollow Subdivision. Mr. Meade discussed past
rezonings in this area. He stated it is clear that a great deal
of traffic will be generated by this additional proposed
rezoning. Logically, residential neighborhoods in the area will
suffer.
The petition presents an alternative to
request. He understood from Mr. Elsass
connecting Stearns St. through does not
However, he understands that connecting
issue with the Council.
denying the rezoning
and company that
impact their development.
city streets is a major #.
Alderman Williams questioned whether the concern here was
strictly that the neighborhood does not want the traffic from
this development on their street or if they are concerned about
losing the potential buffer from a commercial district into a
residential district.
Mr. Meade stated he felt it was a little of both. The impact of
traffic without the rezoning might have been dealt with with
stops signs, etc. But the large amount of traffic generated by
this potential development will be far too substantial for these
alternatives.
In response to a question from Alderman Williams, the resident
stated that the bulk of the neighbors' opposition is to increased
traffic. Most of this opposition would evaporate if Stearns St.
does not go through.
Alderman Miller stated that it was his opinion that no matter
what is developed out there, it would be ludicrous to have the
extensive traffic from this large commercial area routed through
this small neighborhood. He would never support connecting
Stearns St. to this neighborhood.
The resident brought up the Master Street Plan which would make
such connections.
266
July 18,1995
Alderman Williams .stated that the Master Street Plan is atworking
document and when special circumstances arise such as zoning
changes, the street plan can be adapted.
Mayor Hanna stated that it appears the opposition is mostly the,
connection of Stearns St. to this neighborhood. He pointed out
that this rezoning requestis just the first step in the
developer's process. They will have to go through large..scale
development, at which time there will be opportunity for the
public to address their concerns regarding traffic, •streets, -etc.
At this time the Planning Commission will have the opportunity -to i
change the Master Street Plan.
The resident stated that they understood this but wanted to bring
this before the. Council because they feel they will lose some " `
leverage when.and if the re -zoning is approved.
Alderman Daniel stated that she does not approve of encouraging
cul-de-sacs and she spoke for connecting streets wherever
possible.
Alderman Williams stated he felt the same way until he drove down
this street recently. He now feels this is an unusual
circumstance and he feelsthat in this particular case, if this
re -zoning is approved -and the development goes•,.forward; it would
have an unreasonable impacton this neighborhood.
Alderman Miller agreed with Alderman -Williams but stated that to
connect this quiet little neighborhood. to the largest commercial
area. in N.W. Arkansas would not be appropriate.
Alderman Bassett agreed that this is an unusual circumstance and
an exception to the general rule.
Alderman Parker stated that he also had been in this neighborhood
and it is unusually quiet and would be radically changed by this
connection.
Bob Brandon spoke to the Council and .stated he feels that there
is not a traffic study that addresses the entire situation with
all the development.,potential development and changes resulting
in connecting Joyce Blvd.. to Johnson Road. He suggested -that J-
- there;be'an absolute moratorium on entertaining any more
requesta. for rezoning.or development until a traffic study is
`done on the entire area.
Alderman Parker suggested that Mr. Brandon connect up with
Alderman Hill who has mentioned .these same topics.
•-Mayor•Hanna asked for any further comment from the audience.
There being none, he brought the discussion back to the Council.
267
July 18,1995
Alderman Williams expressed his concern that if the rezoning is
approved, the traffic will increase by approximately 3,400 trips
per day. This, combined with the traffic resulting from
potential development of property to the south side of Joyce,
might push Joyce over the top. The issue should be addressed by
the developer and owner so that the Council could be assured that
this would not happen.
Alderman Parker suggested that one solution to some of the
traffic concerns is mixed usage, which is several types of
zonings in one area. If all this property is given over to C-2
development, it will force persons to live in other areas and to
drive back and forth to do shopping in one area.
Alderman Parker stated that the Butterfield Trail residents
expressed their concern about the night lighting, activity and •
noise levels that would be generated by the rezoning. It had
been stated that they were no longer against the rezoning, but
they expressed to Alderman Parker that this was not the case and
they do not support this rezoning. They asked that the Council
oppose the rezoning and asked that at least no decision be made
tonight because they would like to write to the Council and
express their viewpoint.
Alderman Parker stated that he understood that the 2020 Plan
indicates that within the City of Fayetteville, there are 1,306
acres already zoned commercial and already developed. There are
also 3,683 acres zoned commercial or expected to be zoned
commercial that are not yet developed. Therefore a rezoning
could not be based on there being any real need for commercial
area.
In response to a question from Mayor Hanna, Alderman Parker
stated that though there will be a small buffer with the
proposals presented, at this time there is a much better buffer.
There was some discussion between Mayor Hanna and Alderman Parker
about the buffer as it exists now and the buffer that will be
left when the area is developed if the rezoning is approved.
Alderman Daniel asked if there was any options about what kind of
development might go into the property to the south of Joyce
which is already zoned C-2.
Alett Little explained that the C-2 zoning does allow 60% of the
area to be developed under the current ordinance.
The proposed ordinances were left on the second reading, with the
third and final reading to occur at the next meeting.
268
July 18,1995
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 July 5 regular City Council meeting.
•
B. A resolution approving a contract with Perry Butcher & .
Associates for design and construction supervision of a
girl's softball complex at Crystal Springs.
RESOLUTION 100-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
C. A.resolution approving Task Order #6 and related budget
adjustmentwith McClelland Consulting Engineers for work
associated with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) study and
recommendations at the Fayetteville Municipal Airport.
Contract Costs are notto exceed $48,000.
RESOLUTION 101-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
Miller, seconded. by Young, made a motion to:approve the Consent.
Agenda.. Upon roll call, the motion passed .with a vote of 7 to 0.
VACATION VA95-5
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance vacating a
15 foot utility easement between lots ,10 and 11 in Phase I of
Crossover Heights as requested by Dave'Jorgensen. The Planning
Commission voted 7-1-0 to recommend this vacation.
City Attorney Rose read 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. Upon roll call,
the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Young, - seconded by Williams, made a motion to suspend theArules.-
and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon
roil call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for .the third time.
Mayor Hanna :askedfor any comments. There were none.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3904 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
269
July 18,1995
BID WAIVER & COST SHARING AGREEMENT
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance approving a
bid waiver and a cost sharing agreement with A&M Railroad for two
railroad crossing upgrades to concrete crossings.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Young, seconded by Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on it second reading. Upon roll call, the
motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Daniel, seconded by Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon
roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final
time.
In response
stated that
during this
In response
that he was
to a question from Alderman Schaper, Randy Allen
Poplar Street would have to be closed for one weekend
construction.
to a question
unsure of the
from Alderman Daniel, Mr. Allen stated
date of closure at this time.
Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the audience. There were
none.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3905 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR
CONTRACT
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a
contract with S.P.E.A.R.S., Inc. to provide all archeological
services associated with a Memorandum of Agreement relating toa
historic site discovered during the clearing portion of Federal
Grant Project AIP #17. The contact cost shall not exceed
$35,000. This is an eligible grant expense and will be funded
90% by the F.A.A.
Mayor Hanna explained that this resolution is regarding the
cemetery south of the airport.
Alderman Miller stated that he had sat on the RFQ Committee for
this and he remembers that there were five firms seeking this
contract and the S.P.E.A.R.S. firm was either the first or second
choice of everyone on that committee.
•
270
July 18,1995
In response to a question from Aiderman..Daniel, Aiderman.Miller
explained that the basic purpose of.the project is to find the
range and scope of the cemetery, .which is a Federal regulation.
Airportwork is being head up until this is done.
Mayor Hanna explained that the City of Greenland has asked
Fayetteville to try to mark the boundariesbf the original
cemetery and try to determine how many graves were there.
Alderman Parker stated that in the past few years the regulations
regarding this have changed and become very comprehensive.
Williams, seconded by Miller, moved that the resolution pass..
Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
RESOLUTION.102-95 AS.RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
VACATION V95-6 & 7
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance vacating
undeveloped street right-of-way for the extension of Brophy
Circle. and Westview as requested by Ralph Brophy.
The Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to recommend- the vacations:
Mayor Hanna stated there are two ordinances, one.for each. street.
City Attorney Rose read both ordinances for the first time.
Alderman Daniel expressed her concern regarding the,ordinanc&
closing the northern section.
Bill Rudasill explained where the areas in question are located,`
their grade, etc. f
}
Alderman Parker stated that if the area were to be developed:and
a road built, it would be better for drainage, traffic and safety...
for the road to be much more curving.
Mr. Rudasill explained that trying to create an intersection
here, that would work with Hwy 71 the way this strip is developed
would be problematic.
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Rudasill
statedthat options are very 1imited .for development of this
property. '.There-are.several ioiiing-lines within the property:•'
The intent is to split the property into 1 - 1 1/2.acre lots.
In responseto a question from Alderman Parker, Mr. Rudasill
stated there would be no through streets.
271
July 18,1995
In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Mr.Rudasill
stated that the utility easement will be retained.
Mayor Hanna stated that he had looked at the area pretty closely
and he felt it would not be appropriate to build a street here
and he would much rather see it developed with private drives.
Alderman Miller commented on the Planning Commission vote of
9-0-0 and felt this must be the right thing to do. He made a
motion that this go to the second reading.
Alderman Parker stated that if the City kept the current easement
and built a road, traffic problems would be made worse. He
seconded the motion that this go to the second reading.
Both Alderman Miller and Alderman Parker stated that their motion
and second was intended to apply to both ordinances. Upon roll
call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read both ordinances for the second time.
Williams, seconded by Parker, moved that the rules be suspended
and the ordinances be placed on their third and final reading.
Upon roll call, this motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for V95-6 for the third and.:
final time.
Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the audience regarding
these two ordinances. There were none.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3906 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for V95-7 for the third and
final time:
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3907 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
ZONING CODE DEFINITIONS
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending
Section 160.002 of the Code of Fayetteville to add a definition
of ministorage.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Alett Little said a definition of storage yard, as requested by
the Council, will be brought forward separately.
272
July 18,1995
Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to
and move the ordinance to its second reading.
the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the
William, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to
and move the ordinance to the third and final
call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final
time.
suspend the.rules
Upon roll call,
second time.
suspend the rules
reading. Upon roll
Upon roll call, the ordinance passedon a vote of 7 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3908 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR
MINISTORAGE SCREENING
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending
Section 160.055 of the Code of Fayetteville to insert ministorage
units as an allowed activity in Use Unit 21, Warehousing and
Wholesale.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Alett Little
stated that this ordinance is not printed in the ordinance book
as being under Use Unit 17. Putting it under Use Unit 21 will
clear up what has been an interpretation for some time.
Williams, seconded by Daniel, moved that the rules be suspended
and the ordinance be moved to the second reading. Upon roll
call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Young, with a second from Miller, moved that the rules be
suspended and the ordinance be moved to the third and final
reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final
time.
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Ms. Little
explained that Use Unit 21 is now an allowable use under Zoning
classification I-1 and I-2 and as a conditional use under -C-2.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3909 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR
July 18,1995
MINISTORAGE SCREENING
273
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending
Section 160.118(D) of the Code of Fayetteville to add paragraph
(8) prescribing screening requirements for ministorage units.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Alderman Miller asked if this ordinance was retroactive. He was
told they could not legally do that.
William, with a second by Miller, moved that the rules be
suspended and the ordinance be moved to the second reading.
Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Alett Little
stated she felt it would be possible to structure the definition
of storage yard to incorporate all storage yards, not just
ministorage. She will have to look at what has been done already
and it may mean she will have to bring two definitions forward.
Alderman Young and Alderman Schaper discussed the need for a
general definition of storage yards.
Schaper, with
suspended and
reading. Upon
City Attorney
time.
a second from Daniel, moved that the rules be
the ordinance be moved to the third and final
roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
Rose read the ordinance for the third and final
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3910 APPEARS ON PAGE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SELECTION OF SISTER CITY
OF ORDINANCE BOOR
Alderman Daniel
chosen Santiago,
Sister City. A
June and stayed
stay here. The
our Sister City.
announced that the Sister City Committee has
of the Dominican Republic, as Fayetteville's
delegation of 13 came from Santiago at the end of
for six days. They were very pleased with their
Committee voted unanimously to accept Santiago as
Daniel, seconded
Santiago, in the
City.
by Parker, moved that the Council accept
Dominican Republic as Fayetteville's Sister
Alderman Schaper stated that he had met with the delegation from
Santiago and gave them a tour of the Engineering Research Center.
274
July 18,199.5
He commended Alderman Daniel for all her work;on .this committee
and in setting up this visit.
Alderman Bassett also expressed his appreciation for all the work
Alderman Daniel has done.
Alderman Daniel stated that she would .not have been able to
accomplish this without the help of Phyllis Rice and DeeDee Long
of the.Fulbright Institute.
Alderman
Santiago
Alderman
support.
Parker said he would like to thank the delegation from
for coming to Fayetteville and he also wanted to thank
Daniel., the Mayor and his office for all their work and
Upon roll call, the resolution to
Fayetteville's Sister City passed
accept Santiago as
on a vote of 7 to O.
RESOLUTION 103-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
OTHER BUSINESS
COST OF CITY SERVICES
'Alderman Parker spoke regarding a.copy of a request he hadmadeto'the City Attorney and which had been distributed to the
Council.
Alderman Parker explained that developers get services from the
City but the fees they pay are far below thecost to the City to
perform those services. He proposes a pay-as-you-go plan which
would required developers in these specific situations to pay for
what they're getting.
•
One example presented by Alderman Parker included the cost of a
preliminary plat, for which the developer pays $50 and which
costs the City $800. Alderman Parker proposes the fee be raised
to $800.
It was agreed this matter would be discussed at an agenda session
when the ordinance is brought.before the Council.
PARKER. RESIGNATION FROM NWARRA
Alderman Parker discussed a letter he had sent to the attorney
for the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority resigning
as a board member• effective June 26,1995. He stated he could not
represent the best interests of both the Authority -and the City
Council.
275
July 18,1995
GARY COMBS - TREE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
Alderman Parker introduced discussion regarding the objections
Mr. Gary Combs had brought forth earlier in the meeting regarding
the City's handling of the Tree Ordinance. He asked Mr. Combs to
address the Council regarding these concerns.
Gary Combs read portions of several documents. He again asked
Alderman Parker, when he took the picture of the project he
believed was not abiding by the Tree Ordinance, if he was acting
as an official of the City or a private citizen.
Alderman Parker stated he would wait until Mr. Combs made his
point and then he would respond to the complaint point by point.
Alderman Parker explained that there had been a debate regarding
whether or not the Tree Ordinance was being enforced and his
contention was that it was not being enforced. He was challenged
on this and he felt the best example he could find of non-
compliance was at Hidden Lakes. It was in his capacity of a
public official that he acted, though not as a representative of
the City Administration.
Alderman Parker stated that as a lawyer, he is not ignorant of
contracts, but he is also aware that contracts are subject to
laws and the law in this specific case does not allow selective
clearing of trees that are designated on the Tree Preservation
Plan. Once the trees are identified on the Tree Preservation
Plan, they are not to be cut down nor can the protection area
underneath the tree be intruded upon with heavy equipment or
storage of equipment.
Gary Combs stated he had a letter of transmittal from Milholland
Engineering dated March 1 and he read from this letter. He then
read from several other letters, including one received from the
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
Mr. Combs stated that there was no indication that the City
wanted this job to follow the new Tree Preservation Ordinance up
until a letter from Tim Conklin of the City Planning Commission
dated April 4. At this time the project was mostly completed.
Mr. Combs stated that prior to Alderman Parker's filming of the
project and what he termed the misrepresentation of the project
caused by the film, Mr. Combs and Mr. Marcus spent two days
moving water and sewer lines and also moving the street to
accommodate saving trees.
Mr. Combs stated that the trees Alderman Parker showed in his
film were not on any preservation plan. They were trees the
developers had marked as salvaged trees. The only trees on the
project removed were dead trees or those in the cleared right-of-
ways for streets which had to be taken out.
236
July 18,1995
Mr. Combs stated that comments made by Alderman Parker published
in the paper indicated that City inspectors had come to the
project to help. Mr. Combs stated that there were no inspectors
from the City at the project.
•
Mr. Combs stated that there had been no violation. He stated
that there had been an adversarial relationship established
between the City Council and the engineers, contractors and
developers in this area.
Mr. Combsstated that the film shown by Alderman Parker was a
fraudulent representation of his project. He stated that if
Alderman Parker had told his engineer, the owner of the property
or himself that he was going to make the film, they would have
explained to him what they were doing and how they were doing it.
Mr. Combs stated that he viewed Alderman Parker's presence on
this project as trespass and the statements made about the.
project as a form of slander. {
:ar
Mr. Combs asked for a public apology from Alderman Parker:He
further stated that if this is not forthcoming, Alderman Parker -
and the Council will be getting notice of legal action.
Alderman Parker responded to Mr. Combs' allegations by stating,,,
that there had been a Tree Preservation Plan submitted. `-He
stated that according to information he received from the
Planning Office, a citizen had called in to complain that at
least six of the designated trees were mowed down.
Alderman Parker stated to Mr. Combs that the Tree Preservation
and Inspection Ordinance supersedes any contracts Mr. Combs has.
Alderman Parker read from a portion of this ordinance.
Alderman Parker stated that the first plan for the project was
trashed because trees marked for preservation had been destroyed.
He stated that Tim Conklin had spent 15 to 25 hours on the
project showing workers on the project what needed to be done. A
new Tree Preservation Plan was brought up on 04/13/95. He
stated that it was still obvious that this plan was not being
followed.
Alderman Parker stated that he would not make a public apology
for pointing out a violation of the law.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
•