HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-19 Minutes379
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday,
September 19, 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, and Stephen Miller; City
Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; Assistant City Attorney
LaGayle McCarty; members of the staff, press and
audience.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen
present.
OLD BUSINESS
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items that have been
brought before the Council but which were tabled or on which no
decision was made to allow further information to be presented.
A. COST OF CITY SERVICES: An ordinance amending various
chapters of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to change
the fees for City Services.
Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty read the ordinance for
the first time.
Mayor Hanna explained that Alderman Parker had drawn up the first
draft of this proposed ordinance. Since that time many changes
have been made as Alderman Parker has met and discussed the plan
with different people.
City Planning Director Alett Little was asked to explain one
change she found that needed to be made. Ms. Little explained
that she had already informed McCarty of the change so it had
been read correctly. On page 1.3C, Section 159.5 "Fees", the
word "concept plat" is included and it should read "concurrent
plat." On page 1.3D where the text reads "concurrent plat", it
should be changed to read "concept plat."
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Alderman Parker
stated he was unsure why the Large Scale Development Fee is
included twice.
McCarty stated that it was possible the original ordinance had
large scale development listed in two different places. She
could think of no other reason for it to be listed twice. She
explained that the fee is not charged twice but was simply listed
as a reference in two different places.
•
380.
September 19, 1995
Alderman Parker said he would look into the concurrent plat to
see how it would fit in -appropriately with theother fees to be
charged, under what circumstance it would be required, and who
would use it. He stated he would try to have information on this
at the next meeting.
City Planning Director Alett Little stated that large scale
development was in the ordinance twice to amend the current
ordinance, where it is listed twice. If the_Council does not
wish to have large scale development listed twice, they can amend
one section by removing fees and just inserting them at another
place.
Little stated she saw no harm in having large scale development
listed twice. It is listed in places in the ordinance where
types of applications received are -discussed. She felt having it
listed twice makes the ordinance easier to use for the public.
In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Little explained
that the concept plat is somewhat voluntary, however the Planning
Commission can call for a concept plat at any time. It is
usually used when a very large parcel of land is to be developed
over several phases. The purpose of the concept plat is to go
before the Planning Commission and check the plan's alignment
with the Master Street Plan,. extensions of water and sewer, etc.
before other extensive work is done on the development. This is
very preliminary in nature and the Planning. Commission is not
required to.take any action on it. The concept plat would
normally precede the preliminary plat.
Little further explained that a.concurrent plat is a combination
of a preliminary plat and a final. plat. There are certain
instances where a preliminary and final plat can be filed at the
same time.
Alderman Parker.stated that he would like, if possible, to apply
the same fee scale to a concurrent -plat as would be applied to a
single preliminary plat or a final plat. He asked if the work
involved would be the same for a concurrent plat as it would be
for a preliminary or a final plat.
Little stated that this was the case. She stated that when she
had spoken with Assistant City Attorney McCarty, they had removed
the word "concept plat" and put "concurrent plat" in its place
and this will accomplish.what Alderman.Parker is requesting,,,,..,,,
charging the same fee for a concurrent plat as would be charged
for a preliminary or final plat. » -
Alderman Parker stated that he would still like to retain the
same fee for a concept plat as was charged in the original'.
ordinance.
381
September 19, 1995
Ms. Little stated she would disagree that the same amount of
money would be needed for a concept plat. She stated that no
approvals were given relating to a concept plat and it does not
go through the same process, being a much less formal process.
Alderman Parker explained that the section listed as Streets and
Sidewalks, Procedure for Closing Streets and Alleys, on the first
page of the proposed ordinance is a regulation used to set the
fee for a number of easement vacations in addition to closing
streets and alleys. On a sheet Alderman Parker passed out to the
Council originally, easement vacations are discussed on item #8.
The areas discussed on this page are also affected by the streets
and alleys section of the proposed ordinance.
Alderman Parker stated he would talk to the City Attorney this
week and get a "whereas" clause put in before the sliding scale
on the various residential projects to explain why the sliding
scale is included.
Mayor Hanna opened the floor for public comment.
Cindy Arsega stated she feels strongly about the need for a
change in the cost of City services and supports this ordinance.
Andrea Forney, chair of Friends for Fayetteville, stated that the
group met last week and wished to express their support for
adjusting the cost of City services as outlined in the proposed
ordinance. She stated that Friends for Fayetteville was also in
agreement with the development community that the increase in
fees should be used to assist with City planning services. On
behalf of Friends for Fayetteville, Ms. Forney expressed the
group's thanks to Mayor Hanna, Alderman Parker and all the
aldermen for their work in making this ordinance possible.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Hanna turned the
discussion back to the Council. He stated that Alderman Parker
had asked that the ordinance be advanced to the second reading at
this meeting and leave the third reading for the next meeting to
give citizens one more opportunity to address the issue.
Schaper, seconded by
the ordinance on its
was passed on a vote
Parker, moved to suspend the rules and place
second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
of 8 to 0.
Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty read
the second time.
the ordinance for
The ordinance was left on the second reading. At the next
meeting the ordinance will be on the third and final reading.
382
September 19, 1995
Alderman Williams expressed thanks to Alderman Parker for his
work on this ordinance; and he expressed some concern about, the
magnitude of the increases outlined in the proposed ordinance, ,as
well as. some of the areas in which these increases are being
demanded. As an example he cited that the sign ordinance is
designed to protect the citizens of Fayetteville, not the
businesses who will be applying. Therefore this is not a service
being rendered to the businesses but is a service to,the citizens
of Fayetteville. He felt that having this cost rise so
substantially might be a problem.
Another area of concern was charging for the review of the Tree
Preservation Plan. When the Council passed the Tree Preservation
Ordinance and required a treepreservationplan, they did not put
a cost on the plan because the Council was interested in
protectingthe trees for the benefit of Fayetteville, not for the
benefit of the developer.
Alderman Williams stated that he would be in favor of not
charging anything for the tree preservation .plan as is currently
the case. It should not be more difficult for someone developing
their property to follow City ordinances.
Many of these fees should be increased, but not to the magnitude
of some of the listed increases. Some of the fees are dncreased:
as much as 27 times.
Alderman Parker stated he appreciated Alderman Williams'
concerns. Although these services do benefit the citizens of
Fayetteville, such things as ordinances for signs and trees were
approved because there was a need to control some of the
developments and some developers. He stated that because of
those few who would violate the common good, the City is forced
to regulate everyone in these areas. Therefore, though such
things as the sign ordinance do benefit the citizens of
Fayetteville, they are also necessary to prevent abuse by those
few....The same is true regarding the tree ordinance. The issue.
then becomes not whether this is going to be paid for, but who is
going to pay for it. Either the developer pays for it or the
citizen•pays for it.
•
In -regard .to a,question from Alderman Mi11er,;Alderman Parker
stated that he would have to get with Alett Little and the
Planning staff to project amounts raised by these fees over the
next year. Working withlthe numbers he had from the year of 1991
when there was less development, the subsidies amounted to a
little over a million dollars and the developers paid a little
over $340,000. He estimated that for these particular services
in this limited area, the subsidies would possibly be cut in
half.
383
September 19, 1995
Ms. Little stated that early in the process, before they had firm
numbers, the budget monies department did look into this and came
up with between $110,000 and $150,000. She stated they would go
back over those numbers with the current proposal and come up
with a more firm figure.
In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Alderman Parker
clarified that in mentioning the million dollars he had spoken of
the narrow section of subsidies in the planning management area
in the '91 cost of services study. In this area, the City
contributed a little over $1 million for those services.
Little stated that these items are not the limit of their
function and probably comprise about 30% of the work done.
Alderman Miller stated that he knows the Planning and Inspection
departments are very busy and there is a great need for more
personnel and equipment. He expressed his support in using these
higher fees toward more staff and better equipment.
Alderman Parker stated that this was certainly the way he is
leaning and he would like to see much of the money spent in this
way. He stated the developers should see a concrete benefit for
the higher fees.
In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Alderman Parker
stated that most of the signs discussed in the section on sign
permits were for fairly large businesses. He stated that he
checked on who uses this service and whether they could afford to
pay the full cost and that is where they came up with the level
of fees.
B. CONTRACT: A resolution approving a contract with CH2M Hill
in the amount of $683,286 for a sewer system study and
approving a budget adjustment.
Mayor Hanna stated that the amount of this contract had been
changed due to concerns from the Council about the amount. The
Water and Sewer Committee met and talked with the Public Works
Director about a revised contract offer from CH2M Hill.
Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated that this sewer
system facility study will, based on information on projected
growth rate, make recommendations for the sewer treatment plant
collection system to accommodate growth for the next 20 years.
Crosson stated that they feel this is the time to begin the
process of this study. The Water & Sewer Committee met twice
and worked on the details and questions. They worked with the
recommended engineer for this project and were able to reduce the
cost of the contract to $606,510. This was accomplished as a
result of the reduced mark-up on the subconsultant work,
September 19, 1995
elimination of mark-up on some direct expenses, some
rearrangement of duties within the consultants work on the
engineer level and a slight reduction in effort on some of the
work tasks in those project elements.
Crosson stated that the Water and Sewer Committee has voted to
recommend the contract for consideration of the City Council.
Crosson introduced members of his staff and representatives of
McClelland Engineering and stated they would be happy to answer
any questions the Council members might have.
In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, Crosson stated
that the information reported in the newspaper regarding the
elimination of one of the work tasks on odor abatement was wrong.
He stated that the task was left open to be used upon specific
direction by the Water and Sewer Committee when they reach that
point.
This task was to further study any problems they may have with
the existing process authorized a few months ago and also for
future needs for odor mitigation for whatever recommendation that
is made.
Alderman Williams stated that there are still problems with the
sewer treatment plant. He stated he had been contacted by a
number of people. •
Crosson stated that they are havingneighborhood meetings on,a
regular monthly basis. •Construction is under way and the domes
are currently being fabricated at the factory where they were
ordered. Once the domes'and scrubber unit are in place, there
should be a resolution of the problem.
In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Crosson stated
that it was anticipated that the domes -and scrubber would be
installed -and work completed on this by the end of the year.
Mayor Hanna stated that the contract calls for the work to be
done by the end of December 1995.
Alderman Hill stated that he is on the Committee dealing with
this and Task #6, with seven parts to it, is still to be
addressed.
In answer to a question from Alderman Parker, Crosson stated that
they envisioned the Water and Sewer Committee as the authorizing
body for the contract.
Mayor Hanna opened the.floor for comment from members of the
audience.
385
September 19, 1995
In response to a question from Fran Alexander, Crosson stated the
funding for the study for the odor elimination would not be
postponed. He stated that they want to work out the specific
details on how that element is to be handled and allow the Water
and Sewer Committee to specifically authorize this to proceed.
Fran Alexander stated CH2M Hill has had almost eight years to
solve this problem and it is still not known whether it will be
solved by the dome situation. She expressed concern about
allocating this much money to a company that has not yet
completely proven itself. Odor elimination is still not being
considered in the top priority along with the water cleaning.
Alderman Bassett stated the odor problem is a top priority of the
Council. The odor problem is unacceptable and has to be
corrected.
Mayor Hanna said that there would be answers long before the
study is completed about the present plant and whether it is
working.
Crosson stated that this will be a fully involved process where
all technologies are going to be evaluated and the Council and
City staff are going to be the ones who work with CH2M Hill to
select the process used.
Fran Alexander urged the Council to really think hard about the
issue. This is a lot of money to expend without ensuring that
odor elimination is a top priority.
Alderman Schaper stated that he agrees that $606,000 is a lot of
money. The fact that the odor mitigation conceptual design is in
the contract at all is a reflection of the degree of sensitivity
the Committee has to the problem. Hopefully, the evidence of
whether the approved domes and scrubbers work will be in by the
time this study is done. If the evidence is in and it does work,
then a whole separate piece of study will not have to be done
about odor mitigation. If there is still a problem, then another
look will have to be taken at it.
Fran Alexander stated that having been through five Councils and
five mayors, she worries about the odor being a political ball
that could be dropped. She would like to see it locked in so it
cannot be ignored.
Alderman Miller stated that he does not feel that the motivation
was there before to take care of the problem. This Council is
now getting ready to spend a lot of money on domes and scrubbers
in an effort to eliminate the problem.
r
386
September 19i 1995
Alderman Hill stated that to show the significance placed on
elimination, there are 15 tasks in -the break down and odor -
abatement is #2 in dollars.
i
Williams, seconded by Hill, moved that the resolutibn.be,
approved. Upon roll call, the motion was passed on a vote of 7
to 0, with Miller abstaining from the vote.
RESOLUTION 116-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY -CLERK'S OFFICE.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items which may be
approved by motion, or contracts and leases which can be approved
by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved
simultaneously under -a "Consent Agenda:"
A. Minutes of the September 5, City Council meeting..
B . A resolution approving the payment of $8,783 to the
Niblock Law Firmfor legal services,rendered in the
incinerator lawsuit:
RESOLUTION 117-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
C. A resolution accepting Federal Grant Offer AIP#20, a
multi-year grant.withe$613,673 granted at this time and
$127,849 to be added after October 1, for a safety
drainage/grading and land/easement project for Drake
Field. .
RESOLUTION 118-95 AS RECORDED IN THE_CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
D . A resolution accepting low Bid 95-58 and awarding a
• contract to Mobley Construction in the amount. of
$544,939.70 plus'a 5% contingency of $27,247 for
..drainage work included in FederalGrantAIP#20;
RESOLUTION.119-95 AS -RECORDED IN THE CITY-CLERK'SOFFICE.
E . Removed from the Consent Agenda by request of Alderman.
Schaper.
Miller, seconded by Young, moved that the Consent Agenda be
accepted. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote -of 8 to 0;
CARRIAGE SERVICE
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a
proposal made by the Fayetteville Carriage Company to provide
professional horse drawn carriage service to the Fayetteville
community.
387
September 19, 1995
Mayor Hanna explained that the proposal has been tabled so the
City Attorney's office can meet with the animal control and Human
Society to draw up an ordinance concerning the regulation of
horse drawn carriage operations in the City.
Alderman Miller asked if the service is going to be a public
conveyance, whether it would have to fall under the rules and
regulations of the ADA.
Assistant City Attorney McCarty stated that this issue would be
considered when an ordinance is drafted.
Item E
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving
the payment of $63,537 to the Arkansas Highway Department for the
remaining City share in connection with the extension of
Razorback Road and concurring the award of the construction bid
to McClinton -Anchor Construction Company in the amount of
$2,019,602.40.
Alderman Schaper expressed his concern with the fact that the
proposed extension of Razorback Road, which will go between the
new baseball stadium and Cato Springs Road, joining to the
bypass, will in fact be a five lane road. A recent survey was
done by Friends for Fayetteville which asked about the
desirability of parkways and boulevards with landscaped median
strips in the city. Of all the items asked about in that survey,
this one had the highest agreement rating. There would be a
great deal of pressure to make this road another commercial strip
just like North College and 6th Street.
Because this is supposed to be the new premier entrance to the
City of Fayetteville and to the University of Arkansas, it should
be more than just another 5 lane commercial strip.
Alderman Schaper stated that he had talked with Kevin Crosson and
Charles Venable and Crosson suggested that if this proposal
passes tonight, the Council should immediately start thinking
about some of the overlay district kinds of restrictions along
the road.
Alderman Schaper reminded the Council that once this road is
built, the City will have to live with it forever. Although not
passing this resolution at this time might delay building the
road for a few more years, he suggested the alderman think very
carefully about the resolution and the road that will result from
it.
September 19, 1995
Alderman Miller stated that he felt noone wanted to see another.
ugly five lane road coming. into Fayetteville. He expressed
frustration that the concerns voiced about this road had not
resulted in any action and that the road was going to happen
regardless of those concerns. The Highway Department had also
been asked for wider sidewalks for bike traffic and had responded
with wider concrete strips and no green space.
Alderman Schaper stated if the City had asked early in the design
stage for a boulevard, this could have been a boulevard. But the
City did not ask.
Mayor Hanna stated the median strip down the middle of a road is
not the only thing that makes an entryway -into a city nice.
There was the opportunity to make it nice through the Planning
Commission and Council in zoning decisions made about property
along either side of the highway.
Charles Venable stated that this project is 95% Federal and 5%
State and City. The project started nine or ten years ago.
Environmental assessments were made on the project and a public
hearing offer was made. No requests were received by the'/-
department. . .
Plans have been developed, right-of-way acquired and bids have
been taken on the project. It is a little late to go back'and-`
ask for a boulevard. Roughly $91,000 has been spent so far which
the City would be responsible for if the project does not .
proceed. There would also be right of way costs plus utilities..
Venable recommended using zoning to control the beauty of the
entrance as mentioned earlier.
Alderman. Williams asked Venable how receptivehe felt the .Highway
Department would be to requests made on the front end to get at.
least partial boulevards in the areas of -Hwy 265 and Hwy -45.
Venable stated that the request was made on Hwy 265 and the
Department turned it down. It is very difficult on an existing
road where the traffic pattern already exists to build a
boulevard. When you put a median in, you change the direction of
traffic flow.
In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, Venable stated
that the State had built boulevards in other towns and most of
them have since had the medians removed.
In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, Venable stated
that the total cost of the project is about $2.9 million dollars
with the City's share being $98,500. The largest portion of the
project is Federal aid. -
389
September 19, 1995
In response to another question from Alderman Bassett, Venable
agreed that there was a great deal of competition for this
Federal aid money. He agreed that if this project was stalled at
this time, it would be very difficult to get the money back
because of the need for money for other projects. There has also
been talk of reducing the Federal Aid money in 1996.
Alderman Bassett stated that he felt every single town in
Arkansas was begging for help from the State on highways. They
would all love to have this money. He asked Venable, if the City
decides not to take this money right now, would it be likely that
the money would go to some other project in the State.
Venable agreed that this would happen because of the shortage of
highway funds. This money can be used on any project.
Kevin Crosson stated that if this project was rescheduled and if
the money was at some point reallocated, at a minimum the City
would certainly lose its 95-5 status. It would then be an 80-20
project because the Federal Aid would be lost.
In response to a question from Alderman Williams, Venable stated
that the State Highway Department has a 40 day time limit set
between the time they take bids and when they actually award a
contract. Bids were taken on this on August 30. The Highway
Department will not award a contract until they get approval by
the City and money is received. If this is not approved until
the next Council meeting it could still be accomplished but it
would be cutting things pretty short.
Alderman Hill mentioned the Corridor Study that was done in May
of 1992. The number one item on the study was the interchange.
Mayor Hanna stated the study was done for the beautification to
the entrances to Fayetteville. He stated that it started with
the desire to have some signs saying "Welcome to Fayetteville."
It did not have anything to do with highways at that point, just
the very entrance to the City.
Alderman Hill stated that according to the study it concerned
signage planning, lighting, screening, pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, building patterns and other features of the
corridor.
Mayor Hanna stated that all that was added by the Planning
Commission after the original request was made.
Alett Little stated that after the Corridor study was completed,
she had conversations with the Highway Department about
recommendations made in the study and their response was that the
project was already in process. In looking back they found this
project had been initiated prior to the completion of the study.
1•
•
390
September 19, 1995
Alderman Hill stated that Mr. Gaddis, who was on the. Citizen's
Ad -Hoc Committee appointed by'the Mayor and on the Highway
Department, gave a seminar about the benefits of safety that are.,
involved with a median down a road. -
Alderman Hill stated that he does not want to turn down the money
but would like to see more work done in the next two weeks to
find out if there is any chance of getting anything done to make.
a boulevard possible.
Alderman Williams asked if, after the contracts had been let, the
City could.go back and renegotiate.
Alderman Young stated that what is being discussed is not a minor
change but a complete redesign of the highway.. The bid was
submitted,on the original design.
Venable stated that additional right-of-way would also have to be
acquired for a boulevard design. It's too late to make that kind
of change now.• In June of last year an offer was made for a
public hearing and no request was made by the City of
Fayetteville. ,
There was discussion of how notification was made to Fayetteville
citizens of the public hearing offer.'
Alderman
take out
and give
Young suggested that those who want boulevards, should. '
a map and circle the places where:a boulevard is desired
the map to Kevin Crosson..
Mayor Hanna strongly recommended against delaying this project.
Alderman Hill asked if the mayor or staff had asked the Highway
Department for a boulevard -last year in. June when'°the hearing
offer was made.
Mayor Hanna said no such request was made.
Alderman Parker stated that a recent
Hwy 71 B made him even more aware of
the beauty of the area along the new
would like to see the beauty of this
if it means waiting.
trip into Fayetteville along
the importance bf preserving
entrance.. He stated.he
new entrance preserved event
a q.
Alderman Bassett emphasized that the discussion was'not about.7
destroying Fayetteville but about building a road with almost', $31
million of Federal and State money. He stated he was supportive
of zoning and overlay measures to protect:the entrance and.take
it something to be proud of; but this project ds far.tob'far`.
along now to stop and lose not only the'Federal and State funds,
but the money already spent to this point.
391
September 19, 1995
Alderman Parker stated he was only asking that in the two weeks
remaining before the next meeting, some discussion be held with
the State to find out what flexibility the City might have to
make changes.
Alderman Williams stated that the reality is that the street had
been planned for 10 to 15 years. He questioned the validity of
the survey done which stated that everyone was in favor of
boulevards. He expressed concern about the potential of losing
the nearly $3 million. He emphasized that the way to preserve
the street is to control what is along the sides of the street.
Because of measures taken by this Council, including the Parking
Lot Ordinance, there is no real danger that there will ever be
another North College.
Alderman Williams reminded the Council that Hwy 71 will be
completed sometime in the future and all that traffic will be
pouring into Fayetteville. Without this entrance, the main
entrance from Hwy 71 into the City will be Hwy 62 - 6th St. This
street is already too crowded and will continue to get more
crowded. He cautioned that the citizens may not be happy if the
Council turns its back on a $3 million road now, which is going
to be so much needed in the future, just because they want a
boulevard.
Alderman Hill stated he would like to wait the two extra weeks,
if this does not constitute jeopardizing the money, and talk to
the Highway Department.
Charles Venable stated he could not say whether waiting the two
extra weeks would jeopardize the money. He recommended accepting
this now and work on preserving the integrity of the corridor
along the road.
Alderman Schaper pointed out that this is not an either/or
situation. He stated that projects regularly get pushed down in
priority. He stated the City is entitled to its fair share of
Federal money.
Alderman Young stated that this is not the way it works. This is
Federal money and carries with it the uncertainties of all
Federal money.
Mayor Hanna urged the Council to vote on the matter tonight.
An audience member stated that he would like to see more public
awareness of what was happening. He asked how many citizens knew
this road was actually coming in before this was discussed a
month ago by the Council. He also asked for more planning to go
into the road to ensure it does not develop into a commercial
strip.
392
•
September 19, 1995
Alan Jones stated that the difference between a boulevard and a
five lane road is the median.
Bassett, with a second from Daniel, moved that the resolution be
accepted.
Alderman Williams stated that if this resolution is turned down;.
the cost to the City will be approximately $400,000. If the City
then actually got the money back sometime in the future and had
to pay 20% instead of 50, that would be another $600,000. That
means a potential loss of $1 million to the City.
Alderman Daniel stated she felt they were now looking at
hindsight. She hoped that•the staff would now focus on acquiring
some right-of-way and beautifying that to preserve the area.
Alderman Hill again stated he is not for turning down this money
but he is for at least contacting the Highway Department to see
what flexibility is there.
Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 5 to 3, with
Schaper, Parker & Hill' voting no.
RESOLUTION 120-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
Mayor Hanna stated that the staff will question the Highway
Department about any flexibility in the project.
SUNRAY CONTRACT
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a
contract with Sunray Services, Inc., to transport and dispose of
municipal solid waste and for operation of City's transfer•.
station and approving a budget adjustment in the amount of
$24,752.
Kevin Crosson reported that the contract with Sunray Services was
a five-year contract. He explained that he and representatives
of Sunray were available to answer any questions the aldermen
might have. '
Alderman Schaper asked if we had contacted the Oklahoma
equivalent of our DPC&E. He had heard that though the Cherokee
Nation might say they will take all of our waste, the State of
Oklahoma will say that they cannot take the waste. He stated he -
would like to have some clarification on this.
Alderman Miller stated he had asked the Cherokee Nation if they
were going under the guidelines of the EPA or the State of
Oklahoma. They explained that the Cherokee Nation is a sovereign
nation under a national treaty and their lawyers are working on
this issue.
393
September 19, 1995
Kevin Crosson stated that the staff had contacted Oklahoma's
equivalent of DPC&E and he believes they gave an affirmative
answer to that question.
Cheryl Zotti explained that she had contacted Oklahoma's DPC&E.
Alderman Miller agreed that the Cherokee Nation had told him that
the tonnage limitation was self imposed and could be adjusted.
They also verified that they have a five-year contract with
Sunray.
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Alderman Miller
stated that the Cherokee Nation said that there were mechanisms
within the contract allowing either party to give 90 days notice
if any changes were made in the contract and that there would be
negotiations.
Mayor Hanna said that they cannot have a five-year contract with
totally guaranteed price because of the uncertainty of changes at
the Federal level.
Alderman Schaper explained that he was only concerned about any
internal changes that might be made in the contract by the
Cherokee Nation, not changes forced by external sources.
Alderman Miller explained that for any internal changes in the
contract, they would have to give 90 days notice to Sunray and
then they would renegotiate. It would then come back to the
Council.
Kevin Crosson explained that Sunray has five separate landfill
commitments, so the City is not tied exclusively to the Cherokee
Nation.
Alderman Daniel stated that on page 3.13, it is mentioned that
the refuge depositories are not limited to sanitary landfills but
also include incinerators. It is interesting that though we do
not want an incinerator in our area, we don't mind burning in
other people's areas.
Cheryl Zotti stated any changes in the contract would be
addressed by the Council.
Mayor Hanna stated that the same might be said of a landfill,
since we haven't been able to find a location for a landfill in
our area either.
Alderman Schaper said that in the same section mentioned above,
it states that the disposal site shall meet Federal subtitle D
regulations, and he asked if the existing Cherokee Nation
landfill meets those regulations.
4
4
394
September )19, 1995
Cheryl Zotti stated that when you have an existing landfill, you,
have criteria.you have to meet to stay open and this landfill
is meeting the existing regulations to stay open.
Alderman Daniel cited page 3.03 regarding the provision for
Sunray to pay a 5% franchise fee for any waste delivered to the
City's transfer station in vehicles other than the City of
Fayetteville's and asked what might be a situation in which they
would be using other vehicles.
Cheryl Zotti stated a private hauler might be an example.
Alderman Daniel said she is more interested in what others might.
be,bringing into the landfill, not the franchise fee itself:
Cheryl Zotti explained that there are regulations regarding what
can be brought to the landfill. No industrial/hazardous waste
can be brought into the landfill.
Barbara•Morman asked if there was a profile available for the
public to look at.
Alderman Young stated that Sunray is owned by USA.
Morman expressed concern about environmental situations USA Waste
maybe involved in._
Alderman Young stated that he had asked who owned USA and was
told they were a publicly traded corporation. He also asked if
there was anyone who owned 30% or more of the stock and was told
that there was no one. -
Barbara Morman stated she believes various members of one family
own approximately 21% of stock in the corporation.
Hill, seconded by Young, moved that the contract be approved.
Upon roll call, the motion was passed. on a vote of 8 to.0.
RESOLUTION 121-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
REZONING R95-29 APPEAL
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an appeal of the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a rezoning of 1.13 acres
located south of Venus, east of Lewis and north of Highway 62
from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R-3, High -Density
Residential as requested by Galen Eicher and Faye Sutherland!
The Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend the rezoning.
Because five votes are needed to pass a rezoning request, the
rezoning was denied. The petitioners are now appealing this
decision to the Council.
•
395
September 19, 1995
Alan Jones, developer of the property and a petitioner, stated
that a plan similar to the one he now presented to the Council
was presented to the Planning Commission.
Jones explained that they are asking for zoning to allow 32 units
to be built on this site. The maximum density allowed under R-2
zoning would allow for only 27 units. He explained that the rear
setback on R-3 zoning is 20 feet, versus 25 feet for R-2. The
five extra feet for setback would make it impossible to have the
required 24 -foot distance between parking areas. This would
eliminate one section of parking spaces.
Jones also explained that under R-2 zoning and with the maximum
of 27 units, they would be forced to build three eight -unit
buildings and a three -unit building, which would not work well
aesthetically or economically. Four buildings with eight -units
in each would allow them to keep the rents to a manageable level
for college students. The flexibility of a 20 -foot setback would
allow for an interior parking area rather than exterior, thus
allowing landscaping around the exterior of the project.
The project as submitted would create much needed housing for
University students within walking distance to the campus. It is
also only a short distance from Hwy 62, which would eliminate
more traffic in the downtown area. The project falls in line
with the City's goal for infill development and for the village
concept.
Jim Boyd, with Caldwell Banker, stated he met with some property
owners in the surrounding area and presented a petition of -
support to the Council which was signed by eleven of those
property owners. He read the names of the persons who had signed
the petition and stated these persons would be drastically
affected by this project and they all felt it was a positive
thing for their neighborhood.
Alan Jones stated that the developers feel this project is a much
more appropriate use of this property than single-family
dwellings or duplexes. It will act as a buffer between the
commercial areas and the balance of the R-2 property in this
area.
Jones stated that the offer had been made to the Planning
Commission to have the rezoning conditional and not to exceed 32
units and this offer is now being presented to the Council.
Alderman Schaper stated that he likes the idea presented for this
project. He expressed concern about the density. Compared to
the surrounding area, 32 units on one acre is a very high
density. He agreed that 27 units would cause problems with
division of units among buildings, but asked if 24 units might be
workable.
396
September 19, 1995
Jones stated the problems then would still be the setback
eliminating necessary parking space. There is also'a very
substantial difference financially.
There was further discussion between Alderman Schaper and Mr.
Jones regarding the density of this project.
In answer to a question from. Alderman Schaper regarding whether'''
the person building the duplexes across from this property had'
signed the petition, Jim Boyd stated that he had talked to a
number of people in the area who were apprehensive about signing
anything they felt the Council would look at negatively either ri
now or later.
Jones stated that a particularperson had been. at the Planning
Commission meeting and spoke with Mr. Jones after the -meeting:
The developer told Mr. Jones that when he realized what the
project was, he did not have any problem with it.
Alderman Parker asked who the Commissioners were who voted
against this project and what the reasons they gave for voting
against it were.
Alett Little stated that the minutes on page 414 contain,the
record of the Planning Commission and.it does not say who voted
against this project. She was not certain who the three were who
voted against the project.
Alderman Schaper stated that the minutes read that the motion to
approve the rezoning was made subject to a bill of assurance.
granting a maximum of 27 units and conditioned upon a five-foot
variance approval by the Board of Adjustments. He asked if this
was accurate.
Little stated that the staff had agreed, if the R-2 zone
remained, that they would support the granting of the five-foot
variance before the Board of Adjustments. If the zoning was
approved, the variance would not have been necessary. •
In response to a.further question from Alderman Schaper, Little
stated that the number "27 units" was not accurate and a
correction would be made to the minutes to reflect the motion as
it was made.
Jones again stated that the extra five units were needed to
complete the project in an economically feasible fashion.
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Jones stated
that he was more than willing to voluntarily give a bill of
assurance limiting the density of the project to 32 units.
397
4
September 19, 1995
Alderman Hill stated that it was his understanding that the way
the parking lot was now proposed would not meet the City's
parking lot ordinances.
Jones stated that for the density requested in the project, the
design presented does meet all parking lot ordinances as he
understands them.
In regard to a question from Mayor Hanna, Mr. Jones stated that
the R-3 zoning would allow the project to make the parking lots
meet all standards. With R-2 zoning, the setback requirement
would take away from the amount of space needed to meet the
requirements for parking spaces.
Alderman Williams stated that his understanding was that the
staff recommendation was that the rezoning be turned down but
that they would support a variance for the setback. He stated he
liked the proposal but shared some of Alderman Schaper's concerns
regarding the density of the project. He stated his intention of
following the staff recommendation and the actions of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Jones stated he feels that since the City has a desire for
infill development in this area, they need developers who are
willing to make this happen. Any project proposed will have to
be economically practical or it will not happen.
Alderman Schaper agreed that the number proposed makes sense
economically because of practical issues such as plumbing,
partitions, etc.
Alderman Hill stated he was concerned that zoning this property
R-3 would create an island effect. There is no other R-3 zoning
touching this property.
Jones said that there was some institutional housing to the north
and some other R-2 and the property is surrounded by mixed
commercial.
Mayor Hanna opened the floor to the audience for comment.
Bill Ward, owner of commercial property to the west, stated that
he objected to going to R-3 on this property. R-3 is much too
dense for the area. He asked the Council to consider denying
this request and keep the density in this area down as much as
possible.
I emir;
September -19, 1995
Marsha Gregory, with Dykes, Bassett, Mix, stated that as a
realtor in this area, she is very proud to have someone willing
to develop in this particular part of town and wanting to upscale
this area. Providing housing for University students close to
the University is important,(and she would like the Council to
take this into consideration.
Alderman Miller asked what the rent would be for these
apartments.
Jones stated that in a proposal made to the University to rebuild
some housing on their site they had three. -bedroom units renting
for $400 per month, two-bedroom units for $350 -and one -bedroom
for around $290. That would be the range desired for this
project. He stated that though the additional five units does
not sound like much, in reality in terms of structural design and
cost of simplicity of construction, it can mean a great deal.
He restated that there is a dramatic need for affordable housing
for students in this area and they are committed to trying to do
something in this area. However, he can only build if it makes
economic sense.
In answer to a question from Alderman Miller, Alett Little said
that there were 6" sewer lines on Venus, Lewis and Eastern, 6"
water lines on Eastern and 12" water lines on W. 6th. a
'
Alderman Young asked for clarification as to whether or not the'
Council would essentially be denying the appeal if it did nothing:-
with-this
othingrwith-this request.
Mayor Hanna stated that'there mustbea motion to approve or deny„
an appeal. If a motion is made to approve it, the Council'should.
accept the bill of assurances limiting the.project to 32 units.
Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty stated that even though
this is an appeal, .it is an amendment to the zoning code,.thus
making it an ordinance and requiring that it be read three times
if it is to be approved: However, the Council can, by motion,
deny the appeal.
Williams, seconded by Daniel, moved that the appeal be denied. -
Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 1, with
Bassettvoting no.
REZONING R95-30
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning
6.10 acres located north of Township Road and west of Villa Blvd.
from R -O, Residential -Office, A-1, Agricultural, and C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial as -
requested by U of A Foundation, Inc.
399
September 19, 1995
Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the first
t ime.
Mayor Hanna asked for questions or comments from the Council and
then from the audience.
Williams, seconded by Hill, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call,
the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Schaper abstaining
and Parker being absent.
Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the second
t ime.
Bassett, 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 by a vote of 6 to 1, with Schaper
abstaining and Parker being absent.
Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the third
t ime.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with
Schaper abstaining and Parker being absent.
ORDINANCE 3923 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
VACATION V95-8
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance vacating a
50 -foot water line easement across property located at 1418 East
Rodgers Drive as requested by Dan & Deborah Coody.
Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the first
t ime.
Schaper, seconded by Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call,
the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0, with Parker being absent.
The Assistant City Attorney read the ordinance for the second
t ime.
Miller, seconded by Williams, made a motion to
and place the ordinance on its third and final
roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to
The Assistant City Attorney read the ordinance
t ime.
suspend the rules
reading. Upon
0.
for the third
ORDINANCE 3924 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
•
•
400
September_19, 1995
LAND ACQUISITION
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving
the acquisition of approximately 3.14 acres of property located
on South School Avenue and approving a budget -adjustment.
Mayor Hanna explained that the land acquisition is in connection
with a University of Arkansas project.
Aldermen Bassett, Schaper and Hill each stated they would be
abstaining.
Mayor Hanna stated an appraisal has been done on the property.
The appraisers put a tax value of $234,200 on the property. The
high side market value is $271,200. Mayor Hannaexplained that
he is asking for permission to negotiate with the Suggs up to and
not more than $275,000 plus half of the closing costs.
Mayor. Hanna asked for comments from the audience. There was
none.
Alderman Williams explained that he has been involved with a
committee working on the expansion of the Engineering South
Campus and the beautification of .south Fayetteville. Williams
expressed his support for the land acquisition.
y -
Iri answer to a question from Alderman Daniel, Mayor Hanna stated
the duplexes on the property are in need of extensive repair and
there is not really any reason for;the City to salvage them.. The
commercial building on the property could be salvaged, but it
sits in the path of the main entrance. Part of the negotiation
will be that the City will not purchase any buildings that have
tenants at the time of purchase. -
Alderman Miller agreed that the housing on the property is in
poor condition but expressed concern that the people presently
living there will have no place to go., Miller suggested some
sort of relocation program'be available.
Mayor Hanna stated only one duplex is'occupied at this time. The
trailers are privately owned and can be moved. .The City will
work with individuals and will try not to displace anyone.
In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Administrative
Services Director Ben Mayes stated themoneycomes from the
General Fund.
Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to approve the
resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to
3, with Bassett, Schaper,'and Hill abstaining.
•
September 19, 1995
NOISE ORDINANCES
401
Mayor Hanna stated three different ordinances are being proposed.
There have been many public hearings on the issue. It is time
for the Council to vote on a noise ordinance. Mayor Hanna
requested the Council decide which ordinance should be discussed
first.
Alderman Schaper stated there is no reason to consider the
ordinance which was proposed by Dr. Harrison. The ordinance does
not cover what needs to be covered.
Schaper, seconded by Hill, made a motion to place the ordinance
proposed by Alderman Daniel on its first reading.
Alderman Parker expressed support for citizens being involved
in preparing ordinances and resolutions when the issues affect
them.
Alderman Young suggested the Council consider Alderman Daniel's
proposed ordinance and Dr. Harrison's ordinance. One deals with
the noise level and the other deals with licensing.
Alderman Schaper stated there has been a consensus to make an
outdoor music establishment a conditional use in all districts.
Alderman Young stated the Council has not discussed that.
Other members of the Council agreed that the issue had been
discussed.
Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance proposed by
Alderman Daniel for the first time.
Alderman Daniel stated she incorporated ideas from other people
into the proposed ordinance. Daniel explained that she was not
in favor of shutting off music at any particular time. She
stated it was sensible to have one decibel reading. The patrons
of the clubs on Dickson Street say that the music is just too
loud.
Mayor Hanna stated the Planning Department with the cooperation
of some of the property owners in the I-1, Light Industrial area
have requested for commercial zoning.
In answer to a question from Mayor Hanna, Bassett stated it is
hard to compare the decibels in the previous ordinance to the
decibels in the proposed ordinance. The measurement is taken
from different places. Bassett expressed concern that 70
decibels for all commercial zones may be too low.
.402
September -19,•1995 4
Alderman Miller asked if commercial zones adjacent to residential
areas would be regulated differently than commercial zones,
located away from residential areas..
=bitAlderman Schaper stated the differentiation is in (B). When
there is a sound that has crossed a district boundary and can be
identified, the limits of the most stringent district boundary
would be applied.
Alderman Miller asked if the proposed ordinance had been,reviewedp
by the Police Department.
Alderman Daniel stated yes It is less complicated than Alderman
Schaper's proposed ordinance. The Police Department would prefer
to have only one decibel reading. Seventy decibels is a
considerable reduction, but this problem requires a.signif•icant.^
reduction.
In answer to a question from Alderman Miller, Daniel explained
the readings she has taken in the Dickson Street area were /0775
decibels from the borders.
Alderman Parker expressed support for the proposed ordinance and
monitoring -decibels from the property boundary. Parker stated
the police will be able to enforce the ordinance because itis a-.
simple meter reading. There should be flexibility for
construction sites when equipment is being operated near the
border. The airport should also be an exception for safety
reasons.
Alderman Daniel stated the airport is exempt.
•
In answer to a question from Alderman Young regarding the
district boundaries in Section B, Alderman Bassett stated as an
;example, if. you can measure the noise from an identified source
in a commercial zone plus a residential zone, you apply the noise
level limits of the most restrictive use district. A reading
would be taken from the boundary -line of the residential
district.
Mayor Hanna; using Zachary's as an example, stated Zachary's is
in a commerdial zone but is adjoining a residential district.
One side of the boundary line is residential and one is
commercial. If there was a complaint, the residential decibel
limit would be used.
In answer to a question from Aldertnari Young regarding Section El
Alderman Daniel agreed that construction projects are subject to
the limitations specified for industrial zones for the period of
time of the building permit. Alderman Young suggested the
Council add the word "time" to the ordinance.
403
September 19, 1995
Alderman Parker stressed the need for flexibility when regulating
construction equipment.
Mayor Hanna stated there are very few complaints about
construction equipment.
Alderman Parker asked if contractors are allowed to produce
industrial noise levels for the period of the building permit
regardless of the surrounding zoning.
Alderman Daniel agreed that was her interpretation.
Assistant City Attorney McCarty stated general interpretation
would allow it.
Alderman Young questioned the proposed decibel level for
commercial zones. Young stated it may be too low.
Alderman Bassett stated the question is whether or not there can
be legal amplified outdoor music with a maximum dB of 70 in
commercial zones. Bassett asked if any measurements had been
taken to answer that question.
Mayor Hanna stated measurements had been taken by the police and
Alderman Daniel.
Alderman Daniel stated there are steps that clubs can take to
deaden the sound.
Alderman Basset stated if 70 decibels is the maximum, there is no
question that nobody is going to be disturbed. Bassett expressed
concern about outdoor music and asked if the decibels could be
raised to 75 and still be reasonable.
Alderman Daniel stated she prefers 70 decibels. An Audiologist
has said there are damages to hearing at 75 decibels.
Alderman Williams expressed concern about measuring from the
property line of the source and stated the proper place to
measure from is the complainant's property. Williams also
expressed concern about the decibels being the same level all of
the time in commercial zones. The only real problem has been
amplified music.
Alderman Schaper stated a complaint must be brought by a property
owner or lease holder affected by excessive noise on their
property.
Alderman Hill cited decibel level limits from an ordinance passed
in Wichita and an ordinance passed in Conway.
404
September 19, 1'995
Alderman Young stated you cannot assume the- .ordinances are being::.
enforced. This Council should<only pass an ordinance that.can.be
enforced.
Alderman Williams asked if any readings have been made in
industrial zones to see if they would be in compliance.
Alderman Daniel .stated there have not been any readings because
there have not been any complaints.
Bassett, seconded by Young, made a motion to amend the maximum
noise level to 75 decibelsatall times forallcommercial zones.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-3-1, with Daniel, Parker, and
Hill voting no and Williams abstaining.
Parker, seconded by Schaper, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on its second reading. The motion passed
by a vote of 7 to 1, with Williams voting no.
Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the second
time.
ki T
Young, seconded by Daniel,. made a motion to amend Section E to.:
insert the words "of time." The motion passed by a vote of 8
to O.
Mayor
given
final
Hanna reminded
an opportunity
vote is taken.
Met
OFF
the Council that. the public needs to be
to discuss the proposed ordinande`before.the r
Hill, seconded by Parker, made a
place the ordinance on its third
failed by a vote of 4 to 4, with
Bassett voting no.
motion to suspend the rules and
and final reading. The motion
Miller, Daniel, Young, and
Mayor Hanna stated the amendments will be made and the ordinance
will be available for the public to review. The ordinance will
be on its third reading at the next Council meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ROUND -UP
Public Works Director Kevin Crosson announced that the City, in
partnership with Washington County, will be holding the second
annual Household Hazardous Waste -Round -Upon Saturday, September
30. The Round -Up will be held at the City Shop Facility on Happy
Hollow Road from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. . Crosson reported the
collection numbers from the last Round -Up. Crosson stated there
is a need for volunteers. Volunteers should call Cheryl Zotti
with the City Solid Waste Division at 444-3498.
•
•
405
September 19, 1995
Alderman Miller stated there are training sessions available to
volunteers. The 4 -County Solid Waste District can provide
information on the sessions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m