Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-01 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 277 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, August 1, 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 Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Steve Parker, Woody Bassett, Jimmy Hill, Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, City Attorney Jerry Rose, City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of the staff, press and audience. ABSENT: Alderman Stephen Miller CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fred Hanna called the meeting to order with six aldermen present. Alderman Bassett arrived. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Daniel, seconded by Hill, made a motion to appoint Joe Fennell to the Advertising and Promotion Commission. Upon roll call, the motion was passed on a vote of 7 to 0. 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, 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, and an ordinance rezoning 4 acres located north of Joyce Blvd. and east of Highway 71 B from R -O, Residential - Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. • 278 August 1,.1995 - Alderman Young stated that the company he..works..for: is ,presenting this agenda item; thereforeyhe will.not-participate.in,the discussion of these issues and he will abstain froflhy.'vote on,, the issues. City Attorney Rose read third and final time.:.._ City Attorney Rose read third and final time. City Attorney Rose read third and final time. the:ordinance for: rezoning .R95-15 for the the ordinance for rezoning R95-16 for the the ordinance. for rezoning R95-17 for the Mayor Hanna explained that the three,separate rezonings have been presented by the same petitioner and are beingconsidered together. Kirk Elsass of Lindsey and:Associates handed out traffic numbers and letters with information that different aldermen had mentioned they did not have. Mr. Elsass statedthat-severalaldermen-had made recommendations, due to the density of the''overall--area,-that his company come up -with a plan to reduce 'some of ,the density.. With this in mind, a plan has been developed:to offer todedicatean area of ::approximately 6..08 acres to.the C'ity:to:be u'sed'as,park area,: ...:greenspace, or a trail/walk area..- In`addition to this property, “approximately 20 to 21 acresof creek area is being offered; totaling approximately 27:acres: The owners of this property do want.to be assured that the City will do something with the property. Mr. Elsass stressed that the.figures-presented at the last meeting took in account the entire property. Subtracting the 6.08 acres and 20 acres of'creek area'/ -the buildable area is now estimated to be-approximateiy 200,000=square feet These are the figures used by Mr. Erni&'Peters in, computing the traffic figures he will present. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Elsass stated that there were approximately 27 acres to be given to the City. He stated thatthenumber:;on'the..material presented to•the Council members was incorrect':- The correct number was calculated too late to get it onto -the map presented: Alderman Daniel questioned whether the Parks and Recreation Board would not need toconsider ,and':move-on this ,offer before the Council could accept the'responsibility of -maintaining this area. {• 279 • August 1, 1995 Alderman Williams felt it would be good procedure to have the Parks and Recreation Board look at the offer, especially if a possible trail was going to be considered. Alderman Williams showed the map to the audience and explained that the green area is the former flood plain, the orange area is other land which they are proposing to deed to the City and the yellow land is the remainder of the buildable land. Alderman Williams stated that he had walked this area recently and found the water to be very clear and it was well populated with fish and wildlife. If the City accepts this offer, some money would have to be spent to build some sort of trail and he was satisfied that that issue would have to go to the Trails and Advisory Board and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Alderman Williams also stated that it was his opinion that there is enough room on the south side of the bridges to have a trail going under the highway there and allow pedestrians to get from one side of Hwy. 71'to the other. Alderman Williams commended Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Elsass for making this proposed offer. He felt it was a good step in the right direction and could be an example for other developers about what can be done. Alderman Daniel stated that there would be a problem with the water levels in the spring when floods are common. Alderman Williams stated that the City would also have to deal with the Arkansas Highway Department, whose land this is. Mr. Williams stated that the usual creek runs on the north side. When floods occur, it would obviously cover any walkway built there. He stated that it would be necessary to rely on people not to walk down into heavy waters. Alderman Daniel stated that children do like to play in the water and if there is a trail here, they are going to want to play in the area. Alderman Hill agreed with Alderman Daniel. He also felt that it was essential to follow proper procedure and let the Parks Board look at this proposal because they can also take money in lieu of land. Alderman Williams reminded the Council that greenspace is not required for commercial development and that this offer is totally a gift from the owners and developers of this property. He further explained that greenspace is only required in residential development based on the numbers of homes that are built. 280 August 1,-1995 Alderman Parker- .agreed that before>any..plah:is:approved,,Parks:+; and 'Recreation should.look'at•the proposal and •tell the., Council.: what -potential they feelfit.:has as a .?park and -how -difficult iti.a would"be to fit it into their maintenance plan. -r • («;.ek. . . - Mayor•Hanna stated he believes this,is-being.offered.as •N. greenspace with -the. possibility ofusing'part of it as a:walking trail, not. necessarily as a,.park. .He".felt there was es great a need for preservation °ofgreenspace in the City as there is for more -developed parks. He.stated`.that:all'greenspace is not Controlled -by the Parks.an�d[Reareation-Board. Alderman Williams. statedythat[he;would not want to -seethe. offered space totally developed -as aflpark. .He suggested that the most that should be•done would...be to build' a. walkway.. through the— " space. Alderman Parker asked:which department.of City government would be in charge of maintaining, such: a'greenspace`. Mayor Hanna explained that if the. area is left as greenspace, it would-not-.benaintained'.' NSf a trai1.isbuilt;,-Parks and Recreation would have to -approve 'and.theCity would have to ;maintain- A t.. . .Zn -response. to a question'from..:Alderman Parker, Mr. Elsass stated .-that the -owners and developersrwerer;askingthat the.City.maintain the space at least to the degree that it.stays mowed and kept up. He stated they would like tb'see something done with the space within at' least two years using whateveriplan the.City should 14-4 ' come- up with., 'I t' x' . ;.i, x = Alderman Williams. stated that with;this. requestin mind, it"would' be necessary/to allow .the -Parks and Recreation. Board their'input. The Board. has .long .term -`plans regarding.:,the utilization of.their funds and this proposal would .mean:that':some -money would:have;to be spent on maintaining the area. -• �,� - _`s,- kr Alderman, Williams stated'thefeels this-'is.very good concept and he would like to see other developers offer the same sorts of things to the City. Alderman Hill stated he:felt there'needs:to be more --discussion on this proposal. He stated'that .when4he-had spoken with Mr. ` Elsass,..:the proposal hadbeen presented as a way. for Butterfield Trail residents to .walk around.•the trail and get-ac--ross:Joyce St.-„ This would indicate that`-there'iwould-,need to-be.a walkway of some sort built,'* and :this would .have to be, maintained. • 281 August 1, 1995 Mr. Elsass stated that he had thought that this proposal and the possibility of building a trail on the property would be beneficial to the residents of Butterfield Trail and the Sterns Street area, opening up their options for getting around in the area. It would also allow more foot traffic into the projects that are developed in the area, possibly reducing some traffic on Joyce St. Alderman Schaper mentioned that Vantage Road south of Joyce St. shows up on the Master Street Plan; however, it is not shown on the map presented to the Council at this time. He questioned what the plans were for Vantage Rd., since this would have to cut across the property being offered to the City. Alderman Williams stated that with a Master Street Plan can be adjusted. developed in this area, it would not street through it. change in circumstances, the If a walking trail is be feasible to route a Alderman Parker stated that a number of aldermen had already expressed agreement with the idea that policy should be changed so that Vantage Road would not be expanded and Sterns would not be linked up with it. Alderman Schaper stated that they were not talking about the north side, but the south part where Vantage is scheduled to come down and intersect with College Ave. around the area where Milsap currently intersects. This road is in some of Mr. Peter's calculations in terms of traffic and where it would be routed. With potential development of the south side of Joyce Ave., this road will be a necessary connection to handle the traffic flow. Tom Hopper stated that this road would need to be studied as traffic dictates a need for it. He stated the traffic generated by this development,is an estimate based on standards that have been adopted nationwide. If the traffic is in fact generated that would dictate the need for this road, it would need to be studied at that time. To state now that it will be needed would be simply a guess. - Alderman Schaper stated that he was not saying it would need to be built now, but he does feel the right-of-way needs to be reserved for it. Mr. Hopper agreed that the Master Street Plan would require this and they would do this. Mr. Elsass said that a developer or builder would need to decide where the road would go through the development. • 282 August 1,4;995: Mr. Hopper; suggested'thattthe direction of the•road.would.be dictated primarily by terrain andicould be determined when the need arises. > :;a ..,... - i.. Alderman Williams clarified that this discussion was only about: the southern direction.of&the.road;tnot'the-northern direction; and this was generally agreed upon. • Alderman Schaper expressed that his concern was simply the reservation of the tight -of -way as required by the Master Street Plan. In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Alett Little : explained that when a survey was done -for the development of a lot adjacent to Butterfield Trail -Village, it was found that the power lines in this area`.had:been•.located west .of the easement in which they'were supposed;to be located;-' In order to locate them in the easement, it wouldhave been necessary to cut down a great number of trees on the property line. Th_e developer has worked• with the. power company-andthas agreed'•to"locate-the power line' closer.to•the easement and_'preserve the trees. This project is nearing completion. Some'!trees havehad:.to be removed but the majority have been preserved.`- E In response to a question -from Alderman'"Williams, Alett Little statedthatthere wasamsagreement:thatfa secondary screen of ::trees would be plantediapproximately.•'where the old power -line had been located. r.d.` ._. In response to a question from Alderman. Schaper, Ms. Little stated that -this was a portion of.Lot'6 as shown on the map. Mr. Elsass stated that when=it was:found.`that the power lines were out of the easement?Lindsey.andtAssociates contacted Butterfield Trails and asked them to.send their superintendent — out on the site to make•sure-they/knew what was being done and why. n• Mr. Ernie Peters shared further..information with the Council and audience regarding traffic"studies'done'in the area of Joyce Ave. and Hwy 71 B. • At the last meeting, figures were presented from' an analysis done on only the acreage north`of.Joyce, which called for approximately. 350,.000 sq=:ft "of commercial/retail and•87,000•sq. ft. of.residential/office`.development.:Associated With this `4N development it was estimated that on`a'24 hr. basis, approximately 10,-200 vehicle trips per day would be generated: August 1, 1995 283 At that time, the question came up about,the property on the south side of Joyce. Mr. Elsass has indicated to Mr. Peters that this area can support, from a development standpoint, approximately 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. Based on this information, Mr. Peters estimates that another approximately 5,400 vehicle trips per day would be generated by this development. This would make a total of approximately 15,600 vehicle trips per day being generated by developments on both the north and south side of Joyce. Mr. Peters explained that these figures are based on vehicle trips, not vehicles. If you drive to the area and then drive home again, that makes two vehicle trips and both are figured into these calculations. Mr. Peters again stated that the traffic volumes on E. Joyce are now approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. The additional 15,600 trips per day would not be simply added onto this figure because not all of the 15,600 would be traveling on all of Joyce. In addition, there are opportunities for alternate access besides Joyce. Relief could be provided by Vantage Dr. being extended on up to the north to Zion and Mr. Peters estimated what he considered a modest.10% of the traffic using this route. Also, an extension of Vantage south to Front St. or Hwy 71B would provide additional capacity and access. With all this taken into account, Mr. Peters assigned the traffic to the street system, stating that about 17,000 trips was estimated for the section of Joyce between this development and the Sterns intersection. At the eastern boundary of this development, approximately 18,000 trips per day was estimated. Mr. Peters repeated that what is considered a typical service volume at C -level service for a 4 -lane street such as Joyce is approximately 25,000 vehicle trips per day. C -level is the design condition for new or reconstructed facilities. The volume projected from the developments mentioned above would place Joyce at below this level. However, over time volumes would increase to that level as background traffic and other development in the area and other traffic demands contribute to the volume. Mr. Peters stated that the real capacity of that four lane section goes beyond the C -level service because it is not until you reach an F -level of service that a failed condition exists. Before this level is reached, this four lane section can handle approximately 32,000 vehicles per day. Taking into account development on the north and south side of Joyce, and not taking into account future development and increased growth not associated with this development, Mr. Peters calculated that the'level of service in the western area and the eastern area of this development would be a B -level service. • 284 August 1, 1995 This is:of:.course even more desirable than.the-designed '_C -level service. With theimprovements now under: -construction on,Hwy.71B south of Joyce, this section will remain at a C -.level of service, as will the intersectiontaking into account this development," full development of the -Spring Creek Center and expansion of the Mall. In" response to a question from .Alderman Daniel, Mr. Peters stated that his calculations assumed -:that the traffic volume between Joyce and Zion on Vantage -Road, if this road is connected up, would"be..between 10.and.15%:.of-the total,. resulting in a two-way volume on Vantage at Joyce of'about 2,000 vehicles per day. In response to a question from Alderman Daniel,-Alett•Little stated that Vantage Road -.is -shown on.the Master Street Plan as being .classified as a collector street with•a minimum right -of Way of•60 feet. Mr. Peters stated thatthe" level of volume projected would easily be accommodated by two lanes but it would be wise for it to be. three lanes at the intersection. In response to a question.from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Peters stated'that his projedtions.took into:.account•all development proposed north and south• of Joyce, as -Well as full development of Spring Creek and -the expansion of the Mall.. .He was also taking into.account.the improvements" underway at.Shepherd.-.He stated:.; that he did not assign ahy.:traffic"to Shepherd. If any traffic was touted this direction; the'figures-would be even better: Alderman Schaper.-questionedif any traffic was assigned to the Vantage Road going southof Joyce. Mr.. Peters stated that he.had assigned 4,000:vehicle trips per day, two-way volume to this'route..:If no:route is built through this south track".connecting.either" from Front -St: or Hwy -71B, this traffic would have to-be•reassi,gned..to Joyce. As response to a :question.'from.Alderman Schaper; Mr. Peters stated that he>.had'not calculated the effect on the level of service on Joyce itself or the intersection of Joyce and Hwy 71 B if another. 4,000. trips. per. 'day were -added to the projected,total. However, he feels confident :the level.of`service would either remain at.B-level; certainly :falling no l"ower than C -level..' He asked .that it. -be kept in mind that not all of.that 4,000 =would h•u necessarily have to. go through thi's='intersection. He stated:.that even a D1eve1 of service would be much better than"what we are seeing today at that intersection. • e--- Alderman. Schaper stated that.he:feels this does point outt.the :", importance of this-segment='south of Joyce to the future traffic patterns:.. 285 August 1, 1995 .y, Mr. Peters stated that he feels some route through that area is very possible. Terrain, as Mr. Hopper pointed out earlier, will probably dictate the route and the connecting point. Alderman Schaper stated that if it was going to have to happen eventually, it would make sense to plan for it now. Alderman Bassett agreed with Alderman Schaper that this route is needed. Alderman Daniel asked Mr. Peters if he had done any calculations regarding Sterns St. Mr. Peters stated that he had not specifically studied Sterns St. He pointed out that he viewed this as a very minor route, even if it is connected on over to Vantage. Joyce will have a center left turn lane at the intersection of Sterns when construction is completed. Sterns will be curved around and teed into Joyce at this five lane section, making it more of a typical intersection alignment than at this time. Sterns, however, will only be two lanes and is viewed as a very minor route. Mr. Peters did not feel it was important from a traffic carrying standpoint whether Sterns is connected to Vantage or not. His projections did not assign any traffic to this street. Aldermen Schaper and Daniel discussed which portion of Sterns was under discussion. Alderman Schaper clarified that Alderman Daniel was thinking about the part going through the residential neighborhood to the east of Vantage. This connection would provide a route from Vantage Square to Old Missouri Road without going on Joyce or Zion and this has been a concern of the neighborhood in this area. Mr. Peters stated that his response is the same. His calculations assumed that no traffic would use this street. If the street is connected and it is used, it would have an impact on the neighborhood but it would lessen the impact on Joyce. Alderman Daniel stated that she had learned that it was not a good idea to have a development and a residential neighborhood next to it with no access. In this case it would create more traffic on Joyce. In response to a question from Alderman Hill, Mr. Peters stated that for his calculations he used what was presented by the owners as their intended gross area to be developed. These figures are 350,000 sq. feet on the north side and 200,000 sq. feet on the south side. • Tom Hopper stated that the square footage on the south side was a "best guess" and is subject to change but the development on the north side is actually 300,000 sq. feet instead of 350,000. 286 August. 1, 19.95 Mayor.Hanna asked for; any commentsfrom the .audience.:: Mr..Byron Haynes spoke on behalf of the 226 residents of Butterfield Trail Village who signed the petition opposing the proposed change in zoning. :He stated.that he:and his wxfe.have- been residents of Butterfield Trail Village for the past three years. Mr. Haines stated that Butterfield Trail residents have no quarrel with the R -O zoning immediately north of their home. The •offideshaVe blended well into the -neighborhood and are not objectionable. The stores and offices close in the late afternoon and there is no further activity until the next business day. The Butterfield Trail :residents don't want this to change. Mr. Haines stated that it was'their.,opinion.that this general area of Fayetteville already.has more commercially zoned land than will be needed well into the next century. They see,no need to change the land now zoned: R -O tocommercial. The residents of Butterfield Trail Village oppose this zoning change and urge the members. of the Council to vote against the change. Alderman Williams asked if Mr: Haynes realized that the land on the south side of Joyce was already: zoned C-2 and that, except for a:portionon:the north side zoned R -O, a large section of this property is zoned C-2 also.. Mr. Haines stated that they are aware of this. Alderman Williams stated.that he is'concerned that if this rezoning is denied, the C=2`zoned'area left along Joyce St. would probably be suitable only tor the type of development considered strip development:. He asked'if Mr. Haines' group had considered how Joyce would look with this type of development. Mr. Haines -stated that they do understand they are primarily concerned with keeping zoned R=O from being rezoned becausethat closest to Butterfield Trail Village: this: He stated that this area currently is the part that is-. Samuel Seigal, also a resident of -Butterfield Trait -Village, and a 44 year resident of Fayetteville, discussed an apparent -error in the map being shown. It was determined that changes had been made since the map Mr. Seigal; had studied was -printed and he was given -a copy of‘.the current .map, Mr. Seigal stated concerns about the plans to extend Joyce to Gregg on the west side, making Joyce a major thoroughfare between Hwy 265 and Gregg. This would be-oneof.the most direct east/west routes in the Cityon the north side and traffic flow will be greatly increased. 287 August 1, 1995 ,r_ Mr. Seigal stated that one of the problems with the traffic on Joyce right now is that it moves much faster than the speed limit, making it difficult to judge when to pull onto the street. Mr. Seigal also mentioned the change in property values of the areas around the rezoned area. Though the rezoned area may increase in value, the residential property around a commercial area tends to decrease. Alderman Bassett asked if there was any plan in the future for a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Missouri Rd. and Joyce. Kevin Crosson explained that three segments of the Joyce St. project were currently under contract. There are plans to begin engineering in 1996 and construction in 1997 to complete the widening of that section of Joyce between Hwy 265 and Old Missouri Rd. At that time a traffic count will be done to determine whether a signal is necessary at that intersection. He feels one will be warranted. A resident of Butterfield Trail and of Fayetteville since the early 1950's stated she had recently moved into Butterfield Trail Village. She stated that she has always felt that zoning and planning was done to help people make decisions about where they want to live and where they might want to have a business. She stated she was puzzled when zoning is changed in an area where there is a large residential community. Butterfield Trail was built with the cooperation of five major churches in this town. These churches invested almost $30 million in this community. There are 340 people residing at Butterfield Trail and the community will be there for many years since residents buy memberships. About 140 people are employed here. This is a major business and many people move from all over the United States to reside in this community. She stated that she had understood that residential properties would be buffered by office and apartment communities so that people did not have to live next to C-1 and C-2. Most people will not invest their money in houses built next to commercial districts without a buffer. She stated that it seems unfair to be talking about changing the zoning after a residential community has been developed. In response to a question from the resident, Alett Little gave her a copy of a paper describing most of the major rezonings and the date they were rezoned. The resident stated that Butterfield Trail residents feel it is very important to keep the land going west on the north of Joyce St. as a buffer zone. She also wondered what the impact of this rezoning would be on the communities along the golf course where 288 August•. 1, 1995 many nice condominiums .have.beenbuilt. She urgedthe Councilto realize that this. rezoning would change the Character .of the community -for many people. Jim Lindsey spoke to the Council about the history of.this•area. He stated that Southwestern Energy owned this portion of land, a large portion of which was in a flood --plain. 'Joyce St.. was on• the City's Master Street Plan to be built: Traffic was. increasing. on Hwy 71 at that time and it vas very difficult toe navigate. At this time.Southwestern Energy.agreed to contribute: a large amount of the money needed -for the construction of this. street. They dedicated their right of way. Almost simultaneous With theconstruction of Joyce, people came who were interested in•Butterfield Trail..1 These were the first real residents of this street. Mr. .Lindsey .stated that the residents of Butterfield Trail .were,among.the City's finest, citizens and a bulwark of the community.` Mr. Lindsey stated that he had developed and built the condos on Joyce St. These begansellingin the early 90's. Everyone who bought there knew that the roadwouldbe widened. •Mr:..Lindsey explained -,.that Southwestern Energygave=their capital and helped,build the:road':with the'City. Southwestern:Energy :gave the right+.of-way•and contributed'in construction.of:the -road Theyhave also.:contributed.'to the building;of-Frontage • 'Road and are now contributing to the construction of a turn lane coming from the north on Hwy 71B. • Mr. Lindsey stated that this property had been in the. 2010 plan • as C=2 and that it..has been recommended -by the City staff, approved by the Planning. -Commission, and unanimously•approved by the Butterfield Trail Board. : . , Mr. Lindsey stated that three-meetings.had been held at Butterfield Trail and he had -attended two•of them, one with the Board'and-one with the residents. -He stated that the meetings .. had been very amiable. -.In the -meetings they attempted to explain their plans, agreeing to build:: -a sidewalk -along th'e street all the way to Lindsey's office; They have also agreed to make their equipment.available to the City to/.help build the trails onthe property being donated.to.the City. . Mr.• Lindsey stated that they would do anything that -makes -sense to make..the Butterfield Trail residents comfortable with the ' f' proposed development. . n ., Southwestern Energy and Mr:- Lindsey.ar--e asking the City to rezone 12 acres from R=0 to C -2 -:and at the.same time they -are willing to give to the City approximately 27 acres and to do whatever other things arenecessarry. Mr. Lindsey Also stated that the developer 289 August 1, 1995 will have to abide by the ordinances dealing with canopy and landscape coverage. He stated that they firmly believe that a large developed tract of land will be more suitable, nicer and easier to work with than a lot of separate businesses strung up and down the road. Mr. Lindsey again stated that they are open to landscaping the road and landscaping the remaining R -O area. He pointed out that even with the rezoning, there is an R -O buffer still left. Bill Cawfield, a resident of Brookhollow subdivision addressed the possible inclusion of the 80 to 100 foot strip it would take to connect Sterns to this development. He stated that he was convinced there would be traffic on this street if it is connected up. Mr. Cawfield stated there are 35 homes abutting Sterns in Brookhollow subdivision. In those homes there are approximately 17 preschool children. He asked that the Council consider the needs of this area. He stated that on behalf of most of the people who live on Sterns, these residents are not going to mind having to drive around a little to get to a place of business in the commercial area when the alternative is having the traffic coming through their neighborhood. Carrie Adams stated that she feels a majority of the residents of Brookhollow would like to have a foot trail to go from Sterns into this proposed development rather than have the street continue through. She stated that there are many more than 17 children in this neighborhood. The 17 children are just along Sterns St. Alderman Williams asked Ms. Adams if the City built a walkway along the creek whether the people of her neighborhood would walk down there. Ms. Adams stated that the walkway would be good, but it would be a matter of crossing Joyce. She stated that the residents would be much more willing to walk than to drive to it. Ms. Adams asked the Council to vote against connecting Sterns up to this commercial development. Carolyn Wilder, a resident of Butterfield Trail Village asked why it was necessary to go into two different residential areas with plans of changing zoning. She asked why this planned development couldn't be built in the area west of the Mall. Ms. Wilder also wanted to be told if it was true that Joyce, from Hwy 265 to Gregg Ave., is to be a truck route. 290 August 1, 199.5 Mayor Hanna stated thatthis was not. designated as -.a truck..route, and asked Ms. Wilder where:she had heard"this.. Ms. Wilder said .she wouldn't say where she heard it but she was interested in the answer.: Alderman Parker stated that the street would be four -lanes which would mean trucks could use it, whether it.was designated as a truck route or not.. Alderman Williams stated that he could guarantee Ms. .Wilder that this is not designed to be a truck route. Usually trucks in citiescan be restricted to numbered State highways andthis is _not a.State highway. It is -his opinionthatthe City would not want the extra -wear and tear .on the'street that trucks would - cause, as well as the additional stress on this already heavily trafficked area.. Alderman Williams stated that it was obvious that there would be a few roadtrucks but it is his opinion that this should not be a truck route and he will maintain that:position.. Alderman.Bassett agreed with this and suggested that the staff Th might give:some:thought to this and..perhaps get°with the -_street - "committee to address=this question:at'the next.meeting. He stated that Joyce+was•not designed;or._intended/tobe a -truck --route.. Ms. Wilder said she noticed a newfilling station going in at Hwy 265 and Joyce which would be conveniently located for trucks. Alderman Parker stated that he and Alderman Williams were on the Street Committee., and they constitute half of the Street Committee. ..This means half the Street.Committee is. already against designating Joyce as a truck route so it wouldn't be easy to get a majority vote to approve it. Alderman Schaper stated that as far as he knows, -the City -does not designate truck route's. However, there is nothing prohibiting trucks from going, on this street. Alderman,Williams cautioned that careful consideration would -have to be given to this issue because as a major commercial area, this area will require truck deliveries ?. Kevin Crosson stated that it is•possible to restrdct..trucks off of a road that is not a: State highway., Enforcement is a different matter but it can be considered it there is a problem: aJ Ms. Wilder asked the Councilto givecareful thought to changing the zoning in the proposed area whenall the area behind the Mall is open and would not interfere with existing neighborhoods. 291 August 1, 1995 bn Ms. Wilder also added that the idea of the park land being donated might draw undesirable traffic to the area. Kevin Crosson clarified that the City has no intention of designating any street as a truck route in the classic sense. It will, however, be necessary to allow for local truck traffic. Alderman Schaper stated that he felt it would be very difficult to restrict trucks from a major four -lane road which is one of the few east -west connections. Alderman Williams stated that since Gregg Street is not a State highway, it would not be mandatory to give trucks that access if the City decides they don't want this. Kevin Crosson stated that any truck traffic would not necessarily go all the way over to Gregg but would be more interested in getting onto the By-pass. In response to a question from a member of the audience, Alderman Williams stated that the City wishes to widen Hwy 265 to four lanes and this is a part of the "loop" strategy to try to move traffic around the City. The Street Committee also wants to have Gregg Street four lanes all the way to where it intersects at the Mali. Samuel Seigal commented on the extension of Vantage to Zion Rd. He stated that he understood that the only part of that connection controlled by Lindsey & Associates is that part south of Sterns. He stated he did not know who owns the remainder and he assumed that it would be up to the City to obtain and develop this property if the street were to be opened. Alderman Williams stated that the City requires the developers who want to develop a specific area to put the streets in if they are on the Master Street Plan. He thought there was an owner to the north considering development of residential property. He stated it would be up to the developers when Vantage Rd. goes in but it is anticipated to go through within a few years. Samuel Seigal commented on the 10% of traffic designated for Vantage Rd. that wouldn't be able to use this route until it is developed sometime in the future. A member of the audience commented that she hoped the Council would look at the matter at hand only, which is the rezoning of the land to the north of Joyce. The verbal offer of greenspace will have to be reviewed and accepted by Parks and Recreation. The Council is now on the third reading for this rezoning and a vote will need to be taken. 292 August. 1,:1995 Mayor Hanna closed;.the.'meeting to. public.. turned.thelm discussion -back over t�.the;.Counc l; for discussionand disposition. Alderman. Schaper stated that this.is a very difficult decision.,: The Council is faced-with:a development plan that, although not ideal, isone that has more potential than• the average strip development. Taking into account the existing: sets of easements in determining what is City property and what would :be retained as developable property., some.parts of the property will not be developable because you can't build over an easement. Alderman Schaper.proposed the possible compromise of approving. the rezoning forthe development of. Vantage Square but also asking that everything to the southeast of the. storm drainage easement be returned±o R -O." Mr Lindsey would get 23 acres rezoned.to.0-2 in return for rezoning 14 acres. to R -O in order to keep the buffet. Alderman Parker stated that he.had :proposed this possibility.to.. Mr. Elsass and Mr. Elsass had..said.that this -.would not be a possible compromise., Mr. Elsass.,stated that part of that'14..acres,is already:R-o.+. He• stated that they`are not in the position to make.such a trade..: • Alderman Schaper. stated that•he.is:.not..in,favor'of this.. rezoning because he feels the loss of this -buffer is critical to•the- residents.of this area. Alderman Williams stated that he appreciated the offer made by:..; Lindsey & Assoc•iates. He asked City Attorney Rose if the, Council is free legally tonegotiate a zoning request with an owner -or is this prohibited.. City Attorney Rose explained contract zoning, -which refers to an arrangement, usually an amendment of the zoning map, which proposes different and additional restrictions on the land being rezoned. This is:used as. an inducement to the municipal., . authority to authorizethat. rezoning. The general rule is that the courts have tended: to hold:.those kinds of -arrangements •, i-nvalid. .Arkansas courts have not,ruled.on this directly and the only case. Mr. Rose can find on -this point.is a;1976 case in which the Arkansas Supreme Court held thatit was not appropriate of a trial; lower,court to --impose certainadditional' restrict -ions to allow a rezoning.. Mr. Rosestated that most of the:authority he has beenable to research, indicate that Arkansas is one ofthosestates in which contract zoning is not goingto be"favored. - 293 August 1, 1995 Mr. Rose stated that the City has a perfectly good zoning ordinance that sets forth what should be considered upon rezoning. Classically this is talked about as being the highest and best use for the property. Arkansas Courts have stated that the proper purposes of zoning is to stabilize property values and encourage the most appropriate use of the land. Mr. Rose discussed some of the things that the Council can consider upon rezoning, including the views of residents of the neighborhood. Property can be zoned or rezoned for a wide variety of uses, including commercial, residential or mixed uses. It is generally not rezoned for a specific project. The time to talk about a specific project is at the preliminary plat level or at the PUD level. It is generally not a valid consideration on rezoning. Zoning considerations are broad in nature and the specific use of the property should be considered at the planning stages. Consideration of rezoning is not a time to make deals and exchanges. Alderman Williams stated that he did not want the Council to get on shaky ground. He thought it was appropriate to consider what the developer has offered and let the neighbors consider the offer and see what it means for their whole neighborhood. For the Council to get into a negotiation might not be appropriate. Alderman Bassett stated that he also was concerned about this point and the legal aspects of it. At the same time, it is nice to have a dialog with the people involved. It is just important not to cross the line of what is appropriate. Alderman Schaper stated he understands that this offer to donate property is voluntary and is not contract zoning. Neither would trading land be contract zoning as no additional restrictions are being placed on any one piece of property. City Attorney Rose stated that there is no problem with whatever the petitioners would like to offer voluntarily. The question arises regarding whether it is truly voluntary or if it is just being done to get the vote. He stated that it is not illegal to talk about what the.developers intend to do with the property, but if the purpose of the discussion is to make deals with the developer over rezoning and imposing restrictions not in the zoning code, it becomes a problem. There is nothing in the zoning code requiring a developer to give the City park land. 294 August 1;-1995 Alderman_Williams.stated he understood that the offer..was.made in response to concerns the City Council had. about the .traffic and what would happen if .the south part of. Joyce wasdeveloped without any changes and the .north part was rezoned. commercial..._ He felt the offer was a valid response to the Council's concerns: but he was concerned about going further in telling the developer what they would like to have done.. Jim Lindsey stated that they are very willing to revert this extra area which cannot be developed to A-1. He stated it was not a matter of -trading one piece.of land for another. When plans were drawn up, they:analyzed:how many square feet of commercial could be put on the site and•.still make .sense out of,a the traffic. In this analysis, this land'became extra andthey� are willing to immediately change it to A-1 zoning. Alderman Parker asked if Mr. Lindsey would be willing to do this even if the Council turned down this rezoning request. } Alderman Williams stated there wouldn't be any reason to'•at:.that point because there wouldn't dn'•1 be any traffic indrease on the - north. .north. Alderman Schaper stated that purpose of some kind of trade to establish R-O.zoning•was not just because of.:the amount of traffic involved; but the intensity of the-developinent. and proximity to the existing residential neighborhood. Jim Lindsey stated that a bank .was proposed for -.one piece of property which had been zoned R-0 and the:residents of Butterfield had agreed that the bank wouldbea better option than offices. They gave up that R -O zoning at that time.: They still have a substantial amount of R -O,- 5.36 acres, on that side-. He stated that there will be less building on a C-2 project than an an R-0 project as far as coverage of buildings. Mr. Lindsey stated that they are not asking to change the R -O around Butterfield at this point. They will have the bank, which they already know about. Tom Hopper stated that there.: are: currently 6 acres buffering the, proposed rezoning on the north. side. of Joyce. There are 5.63 acres plus the bank on the south side af Joyce acting as a2 buffer. • In response to a that the section the. south. • question from the Council, Mr..Hopper stated is 200 feet wide oh the north and 300 feet on • 295 August 1, 1995 In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Mr. Hopper estimated the current R -O zoning at about 600 feet. Samuel Seigal commented further. He stated that the Butterfield residents think of the bank as an office. Alderman Hill moved that this matter be tabled until the next meeting. His stated reasons for this motion were that Mr. Peters' traffic counts did not take into account the heavier densities that could be developed in this area, the Council has been shown a promotional brochure showing a development that does not meet the Tree Ordinance and showing streets that are not planned for development at this point, the donation of land needs to be more thoroughly considered. He stated that the Council had been given two maps in their packet and neither map shows the buffer in parcel 95-16. In one part of the packet it shows this buffer to be 220 feet wide not 200 feet wide. Given these reasons and the need to get with the Parks and Recreation Board regarding the proposed donation of land, he asked that the Council consider tabling this discussion until the developer can tie up the loose ends and so that good information can be made available. Alderman Williams seconded the motion. He stated that he would like Mr. Lindsey and company to meet with the Butterfield Residents again, show them their proposals and listen to their concerns. He asked Ms. Little if it was accurate that there must be screening between R -O and C-2. Alett Little stated that it would depend on whether the R -O was developed as office or as residential. Between commercial and any residential use there is a requirement for screening. There is not a requirement for screening between commercial uses, retail uses and office uses. Alderman Williams stated that he felt it wasn't time to make a final decision at this time. In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, Dale Clark stated that the Parks and Recreation Board will meet next Monday. upon roll call, the motion to table this discussion until the next Council meeting passed on a vote of 6 to 0 with Alderman Young abstaining from the vote. 296 August. l; 1995 COST.OF_.CITY..SERVICES Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending various chapters.of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to change the fees for City services andan ordinance adopting a uniform: charge for copies within the City. Mayor Hanna explained that this item was placed on the agenda and a cost of service comparisons with other cities was passed out to the Council.. Alderman Parker requested that this ordinance be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for some fine tuning. %Alderman Parker stated that there were two parts to the proposed ordinance.. The part of lesser importance is that according to the City Code, if you wereto go to' City Hall and request a copy of a.particular ordinance or piece of information, each different ordinance or piece of information might be covered under a different regulation. This ordinance would impose a uniform copying',cost of 25 cents. .If the individual department head sees •a reason to vary this charge, it would be possible. The second, more controversial part of the ordinance. deals with the cost of services from the City. A study was done in 1991 which found that the costs the City was charging for some services was greatly different from the cost to the City to - " provide the service. The proposal is to put these costs more in line with the actual cost to the City. • One of the things to be considered in the Ordinance Review' • Committee is how much other cities charge. for services, how much they do and how much Fayetteville does currently, how much this -a - costs and why it should be changed. The current process results in a lot of subsidies. If a developer comes in to do a rezoning, he pays-a.fee of $60. 1991, it cost the City $336 to do this. There have been some suggestions to vary costs according to the size of a project. Parker, seconded by Williams, made°a motion that this ordinance= be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee. Upon roll call, the motion.passed on a vote of 7 to 0. - Alderman Bassett proposed a meeting of the Ordinance Review.ri... Committee to be held Wednesday, August 16', at 4:30 p.m. in.room 326. This time and date was agreed upon. - :,., • • August 1, 1995 CONSENT AGENDA 297 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 18 regular City Council Meeting. B. A resolution approving a contract with Multi -Craft Contractors in the amount not to exceed $47,923 for the construction of Bambino Baseball Field #8. RESOLUTION 103-95 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Williams, seconded by Schaper, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution awarding a construction contract to Sweetser Construction in the amount of $161,313.30 plus $20,000 project contingency for construction of a standard city street from the intersection of Highway 265 to the new elementary school's drive. Williams, with a second from Daniel, moved that the resolution be approved. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 104-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. REZONING R95-19 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 3.93 acres located south of W. 19th Street and east of S. School Avenue from R-1, Low density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial as requested by Mel Milholland on behalf of Bryan Walker III. The Planning Commission voted 8-1-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read this ordinance for the first time. Mayor Hanna explained that this ordinance and the following two ordinances are all part of the same project. All three will be read and then discussed individually. A vote will have to be taken individually as well. 4. 4 b 298 August 1,_1995 REZONINGR95-20 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration-of.an ordinance rezoning,.. 27.72.acres located sough of E. 19th Street -And -east -of S. school Avenue from I-1, Heavy,Coinmercial - Light Industrial tc2R-2,-- -• Medium Density Residential as requested by Mel Milholland on behalf of. Bryan Walker III. The Planning Commission voted 8-1-0 to recommend this rezoning. City Attorney Rose read this ordinance for the first time. REZONING R95-.21 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance reigning 17 acres located south of E. 19th Street, east of S.. School Avenue from 1-1., Heavy Commercial - Light Industrial to R-1.5,.:Moderate Density Residential as requested by -Mel Milholland on behalf of Don England. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend this rezoning.. City Attorney Rose read this ordinance for the first time. Mayor Hanna stated that allthree ordinances could be 4liscussed at this time. • Ron Woodruff -spoke representing petitioner Don England, Sr. who - owns the property designated in -1295721 which is on the east end of this tract of -land. Mr. England is .also proposing to "purchase and develop the other two designated.in-R95-19 and R95720. 7i Mr. Woodruff explained that Mr.. England'purchase and development of all this land dep"s ends',upon the- rezoning and on obtaining the financing,ewhich is also tied:to the rezoning> 1 ti .-4 Mr. Woodruff stated that the front -portion of the property under discussion is commercial and hesbeen-for sale foramany-},years The back portion of the property is -zoned industrial% This` *4? property •has set for 20 to 25 years without any. interest"being expressed. in developing it/fpr industrial use. - The plan for developing this area is divided into three phases-. The front -commercial area will -be developed and 'sold as there is interest The niddle.section of27:acres wiilbe=.developed-`into affordable housing; with about 24 duplex lots and approximately' 90 smaller lots. 1 299 August 1, 1995 There has been no opposition expressed to this development. It has been stated that anyone wishing to develop in this area and spruce up this section of town should be commended. Mr. Woodruff asked that the Council consider waiving the rules and put this proposal on its second and third reading in order to allow the project to move forward. Alderman Williams asked if there were any specific reason to not leave this on the first reading and allow any public comment. Mr. Woodruff stated that Mr. England is working very closely with a bank in Springdale regarding financing and his banker will be going on vacation. If this is not approved at this meeting, it will delay the financing somewhat until his banker returns from vacation. Alderman Hill asked for recommendations from the staff regarding this rezoning. Alett Little stated that the staff made three separate recommendations. The staff recommended denial of the request to rezone the front section of this property, R95-19, from R-1 to R- 2 since one of the stated purposes was to develop affordable housing. For R95-20, the central and larger tract of land, the staff agreed to the request to rezone to R-2 but pointed out to the Planning Commission that it appears the stated purpose could be achieved under R-1.5. The same recommendation was made for section R95-21. In response to a question from Alderman Williams, Alett Little stated that on R95-19, the Planning Commission recommended rezoning to C-1 rather than the requested C-2. On the central portion, the Planning Commission recommended rezoning to R-2 and on the eastern most portion, R95-21, the Planning Commission recommended R-1.5. Alderman Williams asked Mr. Woodruff if he saw a problem with the R-1 zoning on the entire four pieces of property. Mr. Woodruff stated that Mr. Milholland and Mr. England felt that in order to make this a commercially profitable development, they would need the additional commercial zoning on the front. This development would offer a buffer from the hard core commercial area for the residential area and will make the project financially feasible. Vince Goddard with Prudential/Windmill Realty stated that he had been advising Mr. England on this project and he stated that the R-2 zoning behind the commercial area is needed to help allow the developer some flexibility in how he designs that subdivision. 300 August.i, 1995 Denying him.the.h.gher density.closer.to the;commer-cial area.'- would restricthis flexibility Of design.. The higher.density. would allow the project tot'be profitable. Alderman Schaper stated that it was his understanding that the plat presented could be done under.R-1.5. Alett Little stated that.the difference in a R-1.5.and an R-2: zone is that an R-2 zone<allows a 6000sq. ft. minimum lot. size R-1.5 requires 7,250 sq. ft. Alderman Schaper asked .if -R -S zoning would be.appropriate as it does allow 6,000 sq. feet minimum lot size. Ms: Little stated that this was accurate but R -S does not allow duplexes. The zoning was created to allow smaller lotzoning that was strictly. single family. . In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Ms. Little stated that R-1.5 allows 12 units per acres and R-2. allows 24 units per acre. Vince Goddard asked Ms.. Little if R-2 would allow the developer to do4-plexes if he chose where R-1;5 would not allow this. .. Ms. Littleagreed that this was correct. :R-1.5 allows up to a tri -plexi- She stated that when an area is platted and itris.- brought forthas the preliminary plat, at that time the stated purpose or intended use of the land must be placed on the plat. This is,how the utility.companies.decide which service they will add to the development. .Once it is platted, the uses are assigned, to ittand•they may not be changed throughoutthe platting process without Coming back to the City. Mr. Goddard stated that Mr. England's objection to Commission wasthat they don't know at -this point, Has: not been accepted -yet, exactly how the streets be done to make the project profitable:. They feel is going, to be necessary -to allow flexibility. • the Planning since:a plat will need to the R-2 zoning • Alderman Schaper stated thatthe stated purpose of this development is:affordable housing and affordable housing isnot defined•as•rental housing:4' Affordable housing would be housing ' people own and live in... 'Tri-plexes are.not in this category... He asked which; it was going tobe, rental property or affordable housing. -- �. Mr. Goddardstatedthat-tri-plexes or 4-plexes might be used as a buffer between the C-1 and the single family homes, as they are trying to get it all -blended -in together. 301 August 1, 1995 Mr. Woodruff stated that the original preliminary plat drawn up by Mr. Milholland had 125 lots on the 27.72 acres. Of those 125 lots, there were 24 large enough to accommodate a duplex if someone wanted to build one there. This was not necessarily the design, but there would be space for this. Since then, there have been some requirements for space from the Parks Board and some requirements to move lots to allow for better street entrances, so there aren't many of these large lots left. Alderman Schaper clarified that the Parks Board requirements are based on number of units, not size of the lot; so in order to make that work, it will be necessary to know what is going to be built. - Mr. Woodruff stated they are working on final plats at this time. Alderman Young stated that in the Land Use Plan affordable housing is designated as owner used property. However, the public sometimes defines affordable housing as rental property. Mayor Hanna stated that rental housing is considered affordable housing. There is owner occupied affordable housing and there is also rental affordable housing. He also pointed out that the property would be down -zoned from I-1 to residential. This is an area of town where development should be encouraged. Alderman Bassett agreed with Mayor Hanna and stated that the infrastructure is overburdened to the east, northeast and to the west of town. He is pleased that there is someone who wants to build housing in this part of town. The infrastructure is in place there to handle the development and he feels this is a good thing for the community. Even though there is somewhat of a policy for putting these rezoning ordinances on three readings, he personally has no problem with advancing this proposal. Alderman Young stated it was also important to remember that there was no opposition expressed at the Planning Commission meetings. Mayor Hanna asked if there were any members of the audience who would like to address this rezoning request. Alderman Williams pointed out that one of the votes of the , Planning Commission was 9-0. Williams, seconded by Bassett, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinances on their second reading. Upon roll call, the motion failed on a vote of 5 to 2. • 302 August 1., .1995 Alderman Parker explained that he did not vote-,against.the=.motion because he has any .particular problem with the'proposed rezonings. If the project hinged on whether- or.notthe rezonings were approved tonight., he might consider rushing the ordinances through. However, it.seems better to follow the normal procedure unless there is Some very good reason not to. Alderman Williams asked Mr. Woodruff if they stand to loose their financing if this is not passed tonight. Mr. Woodruff stated that the contract they have calls for a closing date of Aug. 1. They have asked fora 45 day extension from Mr. Bryan Walker but have not yet received.a response regarding that extension. •He stated he isn't sure whether there is still a deal or if there is even time to put the project together. There is a possibility of collapse. In responseto a question from Alderman Daniel, Alett Little expiained. that. the request was to rezone.R95-19 to C-2. The Planning Commission recommendation was .to rezone to C-1. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Ms. Little stated that the frontage on South .School is C-2. There is a parcel -of land on.Hwy.71 with 277 feet of frontage on Hwy 71 and 200 feet of frontage on 19th St. -.and that parcel is not a part of the rezoning request. Directly to the east of this R95-19, 3.93 acreeYwhich is currently zoned R-1. ;.The petitioner requested C- 2..zoning and the Planning Commission recommended C-1. Mayor Hanna stated that the motion did not get the required number of votes to move the ordinances to the second reading so they will automatically be on the second reading at the next meeting.., 4 Alderman Hill stated that he 'voted against moving this to the second reading on principle and-because:the staff hadaskedfor denial of -this rezoning. He did not •feel that could be taken lightly. LAND. USE PLAN Presentation of the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan as directed by Resolution 13-95.' `a ... , Mayor Hanna stated that the public•hearing held last night in front of the Planning Commission regerding•the.Land--Use Plan resulted in a,recommendatien to leave the:matter open-for,public discussion.. 303 August 1, 1995 Alett Little stated that the meeting last night was the fourth public hearing for the Land Use Plan. At the third public hearing on July 20, one of the comments received from the public was a request that we do more public notification. In response to that request, the staff placed a copy of the map in both newspapers and have initiated a process of notifying all customers who are served by Fayetteville water. This process has already started but will not be completed until August 31. The Planning Commission made a decision to postpone any action on the plan until their meeting on Sept. 25. Alderman Bassett expressed his opinion that the Council should follow the lead of the Planning Commission and give them a chance to gather more public comment. In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Ms. Little stated that the moratorium on rezoning from agricultural land was on Sept. 1. Alderman Daniel clarified that it states Sept. 1 or approval of the 2020 plan, whichever comes first. Alderman Daniel asked if the staff had heard any concerns from land owners or developers about the possible delay in removing the moratorium. Alett Little stated that nothing had been heard directly but at this point the moratorium will automatically lift on Sept. 1. Alderman Schaper stated that was why the clause was included, to avoid problems if the process was delayed. He feels there is time to get the new Land Use Plan in place before a rezoning request comes before the Council. Alderman Young stated that one of his concerns when this resolution was passed was to avoid the entire process getting bogged down. He feels they have passed that stage now and he feels it is now at the point that a month or two delay won't be a big problem. However, he wants the public and land owners to be aware that once the Land Use Plan is adopted, the next rezonings to come before the Planning Commission and before the Council will be judged based on the new Land Use Plan and not the old plan. Alderman Williams complimented the staff and the Planning Commission. He has read the draft and feels it is coming along well. He encouraged citizens to become informed and read the draft if possible. He also feels notification is very important. He feels the public should get involved in the process and let their views be known. • • 304 August. 1, 1995 In response to a:question from Mayor Hanna, Alett Little stated.& that the Planning Commission is willing to continue to take public comment at any meeting have but they have specifically set the meeting on the 25th aside so notification of the -public can. be completed. Mayor Hanna stated the public should be aware that if. they have questions or concerns about the plan, they will have time to read it and see how their land or part of town is affected. Alderman Parker asked if Ms. Little's office could make a list of the changes made between draft map 2 and 3. The new map is very - small arnd'hard to read. Ms. Little agreed that this would be done. Alderman Hill suggested the audience.be asked if they had any comments regarding the Land Use Plan. Mayor Hanna opened the floor to the audience. Craig Campbell, who. owns apartial interest in 30 acres on Hwy • 62, stated his concerns regarding the residential zoning along`, this five. lane State highway according to the Land Use Plan.` „He= wondered if a rezoning request for his frontage property along this highway would be considered if it were made. Alderman Williams suggested that such a question be put to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. If there is no response -he might then dome back to the Council. Alderman Young stated that once the. Land Use Plan is adopted, it is used as a guide. From the point of adoption, the Planning Commission will make judgements -and pass recommendations along•to the Council.He suggested this question be made td the -Planning" Commission now, not after the Plan is approved,• In response toa question .from Mr. Campbell, Alett Little stated that there would be opportunity for three more public hearings at Planning Commission level before the Plan is brought to the Council. ..These hearings will be on•Aug. 14, Sept.- 11, and Sept. 25. Ms. Little stated that both the 70 Plan and the 2010 Plan did' -- have the area along ..Hwy'62 designated -residential. This was not changed with .the .2020 Plan. HA number of commercial rezonings have been denied along Hwy 62, particularly towards the west. Alderman Hill asked that.Mr. Campbell's question be passed along to the Planning Commission: 305 August 1, 1995 Tom McKinney, representing the Ozark Headwaters group of the Sierra Club, stated that his group had concerns that they saw no mention of the possibility of putting some of the large overhead lines underground in the 2020 Plan. Alderman Williams stated that it was his understanding that the very large lines could not be put underground. Mayor Hanna elaborated that the large transmission lines would present a danger if put underground. Mr. McKinney stated that the Club also suggested something in the Plan to help discourage large cuts into hillsides for development purposes. He stated that current construction methods seemed to mean clearing larger portions of a lot than actually needed and then try to fix the damage later. He encouraged maintaining existing vegetation when possible. Mr. McKinney commented on several positive points in the Land Use Plan such as encouraging developments to conform to existing land conditions and terrain and minimizing flood hazards through land use planning and regulation. Mr. McKinney suggested addressing the issue of more efficient energy buildings in the Land Use Plan. He also suggested. incorporating some sort of environmental assessment program for the City, some commercial design standards and additional overlay districts. Alderman Young suggested staff look into putting something into the Land Use Plan about the City working with the utilities on their planning. Alett Little stated that they had contacted each of the utility companies as a part of the Services and Public Facilities element. They explained to the staff that they were more reactive than proactive in their planning and none indicated any long range plans for location of facilities. Ms. Little stated that they would continue to meet with the utility companies on a regular basis. Alderman Young suggested that the City encourage the utility companies to start doing some planning. Alderman Hill clarified that putting in underground lines is more a function of dollars than safety. Ms. Little explained that they do have plans to address this specific item in ordinance form. When the Unified Development Ordinance does come forward, placement of utility lines is critical. It won't be possible to get all underground but if they are property placed they can be better camouflaged. 306 'August. 1;.:1995 Alderman Young..stated..that.'-he.hoped the citizens:of,:Fayetteville will view the:.Land-Use . Plan as'::protection5 for their. propertyand stated it isimportant for the <public to :-.get involved With this'* process of developing the Land -.Use Plan. In response to a question .from Alderman Young,.Alett Little explained that once the Land Use Plan conies before the=Council-, if an alderman wants tci make a Change:he/she should -present it in written form to the other aldermen to allowthem timet&.revieW- it and then make a motion for Council vote. v. been brought tip•tnat there is and asked Ms. -Little what• had* -0.tt Ms. Little stated thataswith any planning procedure,"general notification is given and the staff is making every,effort t� notify landowners.. However,- no effort will- be made to contact every individual landowner. Alderman Daniel .stated that it had a problem with absentee landowners been considered regarding this. Kevin Crosson reminded. the Council that the Plan is not changing specific zoning. - Ms. Little stated that Land Useplanis the tool used to make the rezoning decisions.• There:is a very specific procedure for notification of adjacent landowners -on rezoning actions. AMENDMENT.. TO SUBDIVISION- REGULATIONS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an 'ordinance amending Chapter 159 of the Code of Fayetteville;. Subdivision Regulations to add the definition of Major Development., City Attorney Rose read the..ordinance-for the Williams, seconded by Daniel, made ',Motion to and place the ordinance ori its second reading. the motion passed 7 to O. - first time. suspend the rules Upon roll call, City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Daniel, seconded by Williams,. made a -motion to suspend'the rules and -place the ordinance onit$"third::and-final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7 to 0.. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance -for:the third and final time. - Upon`roii call, the ordinance passed on a' -vote of -7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3913 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR August 1, 1995 OTHER BUSINESS Alderman Williams announced that residents at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, immediately following the agenda ADJOURNMENT 307 Ward 1 will have meeting of August 8 at City Hall session. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.