Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-03 Minutes407 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, October 3, 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; City Attorney Jerry Rose; members of the staff, press and audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fred Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Daniel expressed appreciation for those who sent in applications for the Environmental Concerns Committee. Daniel, seconded by Williams, made a motion to appoint Robert Dzur, John King and Diane Montgomery to the Environmental Concerns Committee and William Curtis Shipley to the Advertising and Promotion Committee. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 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 was made to allow further information to be presented. A. 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. This item was left on the second reading at the last Council meeting. Young, seconded by Parker, moved to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the third reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Jerry Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time. Mayor Hanna opened the floor for discussion by the Council members. 408, October 3, 1995 Alderman Williams proposed a change on the Sign Permit Fee. The current sign permit fee is based in part on the size of the sign while the proposed fee is set at $85 regardless of sign size. It would be more equitable to base the fee on sign.size to ensure that an individual or small business wishing to put up a relatively small wooden sign would not be paying the same fee as a large shopping center putting up a large, electrical sign which might cause more work for inspectors. Alderman Williams suggested that the permit fee be $10 plus $1 per square foot. He asked for an amendment under section 158.22 reflecting this change. Alderman Parker stated that he had no objection to the amendment as a friendly gesture to smaller businesses.. He explained that there is no more work done on large signs than small signs. He suggested a "whereas" clause to be included to justify smaller fees for smaller signs. • Alderman Williams stated there'would be additional costs connected with an electrically lit sign with different inspection: needs as opposed to a smaller, non -electric sin. I•n response to a question from Alderman Hill, City Attorney. Jerry. Rose stated that the current' ordinance -:.reads "$10 plus ten^'cents per square foot of sign face." . In further response to the question from Alderman Hill, Planning Director Alett Little stated the size -of the sign permitted is dependent upon zoning and how far it is set back from the property line. Alderman Hill asked if it was true the size of the sign has nothing to do with the size of the business. Alderman Williams stated that the amendment he is suggesting would tie the size of the fee to the size of the sign, -as does the current ordinance. Alderman Parker stated the cost of the proposed amendment is a lot closer to the real costs of installing a sign than the current fee and it is in the spirit of the kind of changes the new ordinance is making. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Alett Little stated the largest sign allowed is 150 sq. feet along controlled access highways, with the exception that in some commercial areas a 250 sq. ft. sign (or 20% of'the face of the building, whichever is larger) is allowed. Generally the maximum size sign allowed is 75.sq. ft. placed 40 feet back from the property line, thus making the fee around $85.. 1. • 409 October 3, 1995 Little further stated that maximum size of signs varies with every zoning. Alderman Schaper stated he is in favor of keeping a sliding scale on the fee. However, in light of the fact that this fee has not been changed for some time and the fees are generally being raised under this ordinance to make up for a great deal of inflation, he suggested the base fee be raised to $25 plus $1 per sq. ft. Alderman Williams explained that he would stick with his original amendment making the fee $10 plus $1 per sq. ft. He stated this is a more appropriate fee for those who wish to put up a very small sign. Alderman Schaper agreed but stated $30 to $35 was not an unreasonable fee for putting up a small sign. Alderman Hill stated the actual costs for putting up a sign in 1991 was $83.72 regardless of the size of the sign. The Council should keep that in mind. He also stated that inspection of a lighted sign was a fee on top of the original fee. Alett Little clarified that installation of a lighted sign requires a licensed electrical contractor and there is a separate calculation for neon which is included in the calculation of the square footage for the sign. Williams, seconded by Bassett, moved that the amendment as proposed by Williams be approved. Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the audience. There were none. Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Mayor Hanna asked for any further comment from the audience regarding the original ordinance. There being no comment, Mayor Hanna returned discussion back to the Council. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3925 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK 410 • October3, 1995 B. NOISE ORDINANCE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance repealing Section 96.04 of the Code of Fayetteville and substituting anew Section 96.04 limiting noise-levels'within land use -categories, establishing noise levels.for'transierit-and construction°sounds and providing for related. matters.and:adding Section 96.05 (D):to the Code of Fayettevilleprohibiting."operation.of any'sound amplification devise within a vehicle plainly audible at a distance of 30 feet. Mayor Hanna explained thatthis is an amended ordinance. Young, seconded by Bassett, the ordinance to the third' call,.the motion passed on • :moved to suspend the rules -and move. reading and final reading: Upon roll a''vote of'B to O. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time and final time. Alderman Schaper offered two amendments to the .ordinance.. He suggested amending the maximum'dBA:`leSels-in commercial'zones to 75 dBAcfram 7:00 a.m. to'llc-00 p.m.,and 70 dBA from 11:00-p:m: to 700 a.'m! so that the commercial aohes are in conformance with residential and industrial zones.which"both have daytiMe and nighttime levels. He further suggested amending the ordinance with the addition of one sentence to be placed after thettable of maximum noise levels. The sentence would read, 'Ali:measurements shall -be taken with a sound level meter in its 'fast' or 'peak' reading setting." Alderman Schaper explained that sound_:level meters come with a switch that says "peak or average", or.."fast-or slow", depending on the brand. In the "slow"' or "average" setting, the sound meter averages the sound level:over"acoiuple of seconds. In the "fast" or "peak" level, it'.responds to more. instantaneous changes in the sound level. Since music is clearly the problem and it. is the bass punctuation of that music that is the biggest problem, the sound level should be defined on the "fast":setting to respond to those bass.,levels as opposed to the "slow" setting which would average those levels with other levels within that period'of-time and would not measure the bass thumps. It's the bass thumps that travel through people's walls and cause themto stay awake at night. Alderman Schaper stated this is just a minor clarification=of this section of the ordinance, 411 October 3, 1995 In response to a question from Alderman Young, Alderman Schaper explained that there is a separate switch on the sound level meter from the one for frequency response, which is also addressed in the ordinance. In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Alderman Schaper stated that he did not know how the sound level meters are currently being set. In response to a question from Alderman Young, Alderman Schaper stated that he assumed the police's sound meter does have this switch as every meter he has ever seen does have it. Upon being asked for input by Mayor Hanna, Lieutenant Helder of the Fayetteville Police Department stated that he did not know whether the sound meter used by the police department has a switch such as described by Alderman Schaper but he would find out and report back to the Council. Alderman Daniel stated that all along she has been hearing complaints about the bass sounds. This amendment would be a way to control those particular sounds which are the source of so many complaints. Mayor Hanna suggested, as the Council waits for further information regarding the sound meter used by the police department, that the meeting be opened for public comment. The decision was made to put the amendment on hold and open the floor to audience comment. Jack Hignet stated he was affiliated with Powerhouse Seafood and Grill which has outdoor music. He expressed concern that some of the Council has never used a sound meter. He stated that Powerhouse uses the "high" setting because it is the easiest way to determine sound level. He expressed appreciation that Alderman Young had worked with him in measuring sound levels at all points of the Powerhouse property. Hignet stated the ordinance being proposed is a pretty good one. He stated this would be the last weekend of outdoor music and he invited the members of the Council to come down to his establishment, take a reading to clarify, for themselves, what 75 dBA, 80 dBA, 90 dBA, etc., really are. He explained that when they were measuring the level at 90 dBA on their patio, they were getting no complaints. • • 412 October 3, 1995 Hignet explained that the backside of his patiois within:a,.few inches of the back of the stage at Powerhouse. On the front of his physical address, you are:50 to 70 yards from the'stage.';.He expressed confusion on where the officers would read the noise _ level in the event of a complaint being filed. He suggested taking a reading a setnumber of feet from the source instead'of at the property line. Hignet stated it is only fair to every party involved to have the Council members hear the actual sound levels and measure them themselves before they take a vote so that theyare completely clear as to what they are voting on. Hignet mentioned a subject discussed at a prior meeting about noise levels of construction and the length of time allowed on a building permit, whether it be 90 days; 120 days, or whatever. With this in -mind, he stated that most establishments only have, outdoor music three or four months of the'year. ._ Hignet stated that there has teen discussion about no longer having outdoor music in'September because of school obligations, etc. He stated there is a lot of room for outdoor music establishments to work with the City. He explained that`he had spoken with several police officers recently and based on information he has received, complaints have'been almost -non-existent regarding noise -,coming from the Powerhouse and Georges. He stated more progress has been made in the:last couple of months than has been made -in the past couple of years. Sincethere will be several months now without outdoor music, the Council can take time to check out noise levels fo"r themselves and make absolutely' sure they are comfortable with what they are voting on. Rose Gurgretch, a resident'in the Wilson Park neighborhood, stated that the reason people -.haven't been calling and, complaining lately is not because the noise isn't bothering them but because complaints in the past haven't helped. Allen White thanked the aldermen for'all•the work they had done on the ordinance. He agreed:that:there had been fewer complaints recently because it had done no good in the past to complain' The old ordinance does not work. On Sunday the noise was very. bad and coming from the Powerhouse, but therewas no use in calling in a complaint because it would not do any good. He stated he is not against.thelbands.having their music as long as it does not disturb the people living around it. If all bandth have to play at the same'level, he 'could not see how limiting the noise level could hurt them. October 3, 1995 413 Bill Long stated he had lived in the area all his life and he felt that Dickson Street, just like the University, is intertwined with the City. Not everyone can be made happy. He stated that if anyone wishes to have a home in this area, they have to put up with the music. It is not right to make the bands reduce the level of their music since they have been doing it for 20 to 25 years. If people want to destroy their ears listening to the loud music, that is their responsibility. Charles Axel of 455 W. Cleburn stated he had spoken to several of the Councilmen. He stated that he disagrees with the previous speaker, although he respects his opinion. He explained that he frequents the establishments concerned and listens to music quite often. He stated that he lives one block north of Wilson Park and last Friday night he heard a loud thumping noise on his windows and coming through his walls. He followed the sound straight to Jackson's. It was very distinct even coming from that far. He stated it was 1:30 a.m. before the music lessened. Axel stated something needs to be done. The high volume is not the problem. It is the low frequency bass that thumps on the windows and walls. Axel stated the music can be enjoyable, but it has to be reasonable. He suggested taking the bass more into account in the sound reading, perhaps phasing down the volume incrementally through the evening. He expressed his support for measuring sound from the source. In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Axel stated that he had called the police twice. Upon measuring the first time, they stated that they did not show a violation. The sound meter, measuring from the source of complaint, is not going to catch the low frequency bass sounds. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Hanna closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Council. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Alderman Daniel stated that under her ordinance, the sound level discussed by the previous speaker would be measured from the property line at the source. Alderman Parker stated that the sound can be measured either from the property line of the source to see if there is a violation of the standards for a commercial zone, or it can be measured at the boundary of the residential area to see if it exceeds the standards for a residential zone. 414 • October 3;'1995 There was some discussion regarding zoning:.and-where measurements would be taken. 5 j Lieutenant Helder of the Fayetteville Police Department stated that he had found that the meter used by the police department has a fast and slow setting and that officers presently:take readings on the fast setting. Schaper, seconded by Hill, moved to amend the times in the commercial zone from "at all times" to 75 decibels.from-7:00 a.m.' to 11:00 p.m. and 70 decibels:from 11:004).m. to 7:00 a:m: Upon roll call, the motion was'passed on avote of 6 to 2, with Young and Bassett voting no. Schaper, seconded by Hill, moved that all readings be taken at the peak level setting of the•sound.meter. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 1; with Miller voting no. Alderman Bassett commented that in a perfect world, a perfect ordinance could be created. - However; after all the work and discussion that has gone into this ordinance, it is about the best that the Council can..do. There has been a great deal of improvement with the.clubs:working with neighbors to try -to solve' the problem. There -are competing -.interests, involved._and;:there can be no a perfect -solution.: Alderman Bassett stated he voted against Alderman Schaper's amendment because he believes that 75 dBA is appropriate 'and, - should not disturb anyone. This opinion was based on his,own personal involvement in this issue.for the past four or fire' years as a private attorney representing one of the clubs before he was on the Council and:then his experience, on the Council w> Alderman Bassett stated that though he does not agree with everything on the ordinance, he does agree that sound levels•rieed to be measured at the boundary line of the source so:the ordinance can be enforced•and.he hopes'that this ordinance will be one everyone can work'and live with. Alderman Parker commented if this ordinance passes tonight, it will not take affect for 30 days. Mayor Hanna stated that the officer who investigated the. complaint made by Mr. Axel did go down to Jackson's and iackson's did try to comply. The officer was not convinced the noise was coming from Jackson's. He found:where someone connected with the University had been using a large -boom box up by Old Main but they were moving the trailer when he"got'up there at 1:30 a.m: after finally locating them: • • "64"r 'Plirm'IfFeirVITI 415 October 3, 1995 Mayor Hanna stated that sometimes it is hard to tell where the noise is actually coming from unless you are able to find the source and measure it there. Jackson's would likely have passed the test on Friday night and someone else would still have been causing the noise. This ordinance will make that a little easier to discern. Alderman Daniel thanked the police officers who worked with her this summer in helping her measure the decibel levels. She stated she enjoyed talking to everyone she spoke with during this time, including business owners, patrons of all ages on Dickson Street, and musicians. Alderman Daniel also thanked the Council members for their support. Alderman Williams stated he had planned to vote against the ordinance but had now decided to vote for it. He stated the reason for his decision was the last sentence under subsection A that says the complaint must be brought by a property owner or leaseholder affected by the excessive noise on their property. That is a good addition to the ordinance. The ordinance has been drafted very well, and he hopes it will resolve the issue. Alderman Miller expressed appreciation for Alderman Daniel's work on the ordinance. He stated he likes the idea of 75 dBA early in the evening to allow for good music. It is an improvement to measure from the source rather than the source of complaint, which is very difficult. In the spirit of cooperation and experimentation, he stated he would support the ordinance. Alderman Parker expressed thanks to Alderman Daniel for her work and to the folks involved with producing the music for their cooperation. He also thanked all the people who had come out pro and con on this issue. He stated there had been more civic involvement in this problem than on any other single issue he can remember and community involvement in the political process makes the Council's job much easier. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3926 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK 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 19 City Council meeting. 416 C October 3, 1995 Removedfrom. the Consent by:request of Alderman Young. • A resolution granting three utility easements as required for the installation of utilities to and on the Southeast Fayetteville Community. Center site. RESOLUTION 123-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: D. A resolution awarding a construction contract to Fayette Tree and Trench in the amount of $93,465.20 plus 106. project contingency of $9,346:52 for water line replacements for Sheryl Avenue,Glenn Lane and Bonnie Lane. RESOLUTION 124-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S•OFFICE. E. A resolution amending the City's July 1, 1995, agreement with. the State Board of Finance concerning the turnback of sales and income tax funds for the Continuing Education Center,. which is necessitated due to the refunding of the CEC'revenue bonds. RESOLUTION 125-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY -CLERK'S OFFICE, F. A resolution amending the Rules of.'Order and Procedure by adding Section G.4, Disclosure Setting Expectations of Council members -to disclose certain real estate, business and financial interests._• RESOLUTION 126-95 AS RECORDED IN THE:CITY'CLERK'S OFFICE. Miller, seconded by Williams, moved that -the Consent Agenda: be ; approved. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of S to O:• - Item B Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration a resolution approving a t. budget adjustment in the amountof$25,200 and awarding Bid #95- 63 to Star Systems Corporation for the purchase of an advanced computer system for the Police Department. • Alderman Young expressed his support of the resolution but wanted to point out a concern. He questioned why this change order was; being approved for upgrading the computer system at the police department when the fire department has yet to receive any computers. Alderman Young stated he had spoken with Fire Chief Mickey Jackson and Data Processing Manager Scott Huddleston and found that though this resolution would upgrade the police department's 417 October 3, 1995 mainframe computer, the fire department would also be able to tap into this same system. The problem is that the fire department does not have the physical equipment to access the system at this time. Alderman Young pointed out that there appears to be a bottleneck somewhere in that either the money is not coming through to provide the fire department with computers or they have not been requested. He stated he does not know where the bottleneck is, but is very concerned that the fire department is not on the computer system while the computer system is being upgraded for the police department. Young, seconded by Hill, moved that the resolution be approved. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 127-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. 1995 PROPERTY TAXES Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance adopting the real and personal property tax rates for 1995 for fire and police pensions. The rate to be adopted is 0.5 mils on real and personal property for fire pension and 0.5 mils on real and personal property for police pension. City Attorney Jerry Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Williams, seconded by Young, made a motion to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Miller, seconded by Young, made a motion to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time. Mayor Hanna explained that this was simply a renewal of the 1 mil for police and fire pension funds. This must be revoted every year to make it legal. There has been no change and no one's taxes will change. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3927 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK • October 3, 1995 REZONING R95-24, R95-25, & R95-25.1 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance (R95-24) rezoning 59.48 acres located east of Gregg, north of 71 Bypass,... and west of 71 Business from A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office as requested by Mel Milholland on behalf of NANCHAR, Inc. and Marjorie Brooks. The Planning Commission voted 7-2-0 to recommend the rezoning. Mayor Hanna submitted. the Council at one time • explained that there were actually three rezonings Each ordinance will have to be read separately but if prefers, all comments and'discussion can be handled It was decided to read all ordinances for the first time and leave them on the first reading. Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance (R95-25) rezoning 10.61 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood ,Commercial and 30.07 acres from A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial as requested by,Mel Milholland on behalf of NANCHAR, Inc. and Marjorie Brooks.• Property is located east of Gregg, north of 71 Bypass and west of 71 Business. The•Planning Commission voted 7-2-0 to recommend the rezoning •with restrictions. Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance (R95=25.1) rezoning 200.62 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-2., Thoroughfare Commercial and 8.99 acres from A-1, Agricultural to 0-2, Thoroughfare Commercial as requested by Mel Milholland on behalf of NANCHAR, Inc. and Marjorie Brooks. Property is located east of Gregg, north of 71 Bypass, and west of 71 Business. The Planning Commission voted 6-3-0 to recommend the rezoning with restrictions. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for rezoning R95-24 for the first time. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for rezoning R95-25 for the first time. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for rezoning R95-25.1 for the first time. Alderman Schaper moved that all rezoning requests be tabled. 419 October 3, 1995 Alderman Schaper stated the Planning Commission is required by the Fayetteville zoning code to submit in writing to the Council the reasons why they have approved a rezoning. In the instructions to the Planning Commission on this, they were reminded of the required findings they are supposed to make in this rezoning, including determining the degree to which the proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use planning objectives, principles, policies, etc. Alderman Schaper explained that he could find nothing in the record that the Planning Commission made the required findings. Schaper stated the issue should be tabled and sent back to the Planning Commission so those findings can be made. Alderman Schaper stated the second reason for moving the ordinances be tabled was that part of the package calls for some restrictive covenants between the developers of this property and surrounding neighbors. If the Council were to act on this, the City would become a party to whichever covenants had been agreed to between the neighbors and developers. He stated he had not seen these covenants and asked whether City Attorney Rose had seen them. Having been informed that he had not, Alderman Schaper stated action should not be taken on this until the City Attorney has reviewed the covenants and determined that they were indeed legal covenants. Mayor Hanna asked why Alderman Schaper would want to table the issue rather than leave it on its first reading. Alderman Schaper stated the proper action would be to return the matter to the Planning Commission. He stated that although the Commission had made their vote, they had not done what the by- laws require them to do. The Council needs the findings in order to vote on these rezonings. Alderman Young stated the Planning Commission can write those findings up and forward them to the Council without tabling the ordinances. The Council can simply leave the ordinances on their first reading. Alett Little stated that when the staff made the initial report on this, they did go through the required findings to be made by the Planning Commission and it is generally accepted that when they take the vote on those they are accepting the staff's recommendations with regard to those findings. She explained she was aware of no other zoning action taken by the Council in the three and a half years she has been here that those findings have been provided for the Council. She stated this zoning action is being treated differently from those in the past. 4 • 420 October 3 1995 Little explained she has no problemwith asking the -Planning•.-,> Commission to formally act on those findings if that iswhat the Council wants to see.. The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on October 9. In response to a question from Mayor Hanna, Little stated they could have the results by the time the Council meets again on October 17. - Alderman Schaper stated the issue should be returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Alderman Parker stated there would be a. stronger argument for:: this than for most projebts. The Mall is on 100 acres of C-2 property and this is proposing 200 acres of C-2 property and another 100 acres of C-1 property. The traffic changes'and.the changes it would bring to the City would merit a good-hard'look by the Planning. Commission. Alderman Williams stated the Planning Commission had.given the matter a good hard look. This has been before the Planning Commission many times and commercial land by the Mall is property where commercial land should be located. 4. Alderman Schaper stated he did not wantto get.intosecond.- guessing the Planning Commission but they shout± be heldto their by-laws which say they have to discuss and make findings on particular items. There is no indication in their minutes that they have made these findings. Nor is there a written. recommendation giving the reasons why this is being recommended.': to the Council so the Council does not have to debate .the whole issue again at their meeting; Alderman Bassett stated the City Council, by law,alwayshas the prerogative to second guess a commission because the Council has the final say on the issues. In almost every instance this year, the Planning Commission has been very interested in discovering - facts and -listening to people. They have spent a lot of time on• this particular development,. studying the facts and trying•to make sure they knew what this was all about and the implications it would have. - Alderman Bassett explained he was not suggesting -the Council should not have an open debate on this development;'but in defense of the Planning Commission, he' stated -they did a great job'studying this project so they.could understand all.that was involved in the project and make a recommendation to the Council. Alderman Bassett stated in -view of allthe time, effort. and .. energy that has already -been invested in this issue, the Council should go ahead and movethrough the process. V' 421 October 3, 1995 Alderman Williams called the Council's attention to the history of this issue. On July 10, at the first Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant was requested to provide additional information. On August 7, a special Planning Commission meeting was held to hear additional information. On August 28, the second Planning Commission public hearing action was postponed until the staff could review and present recommendations to the Planning Commission on the development plan and traffic to be generated. Finally, a third public hearing was held on September 11. This particular parcel of land has been before the Planning Commission since July. They have studied it very diligently. It would not be proper now for the Council to send it back to them. Alderman Williams explained he was comfortable using what the Planning Commission has provided and their recommendation to the Council as presented by their votes. He stated he was not in favor of tabling the issue and sending it back to the Planning Commission. Alderman Parker stated that he thought he made a misstatement earlier regarding the C-1 area. He asked for clarification from Little regarding what the actual acreage is. Little stated there were actually 40.68 acres involved. Alderman Hill stated if the Council does not have the covenants involved in this rezoning in their packets, the Council cannot vote on the matter. Alderman Bassett stated he would not vote without the covenants but the issue should not be sent back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Hanna stated in going through the regular process, it will be a month before the Council actually votes on this issue and they will have the covenants by that time. If no action is taken tonight, the matter will be on its second reading at the next meeting. Alderman Young stated he would like to caution the developers about the covenants. He requested the covenants not be given to the Council right before the vote is taken on the third reading. Alett Little stated that the covenants had been filed in her office. The staff has had the first set since the first hearing. The second set is not a covenant but a bill of assurance. She explained she had refused to forward this to the Council until she had a copy of the second set. • • 422 October -3, 1995 Little stated the Council is frequently handed bills of assurance the night of the meeting. It is not an extremely unusual situation for the Council not to have this in their packet. If the -Council chooses, they will get these in their packet in the future and in plenty of time for the next meeting. Alderman Schaper stated he would still like to know where the Planning Commission has made a determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning, objectives, principles and policies and with land use and zoning plans. In the memo from staff to the Planning Commission, it basically states that the proposed zoning is in no way consistent with the approved land use plan. He stated that either the Commission had decided to ignore that fact or has decided to overrule the land use plan in making this determination. He would like to know if they made a determination as to whether the proposed zoningwould create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, Little stated the General Plan 2010 shows about two thirds of this area being residential, and one third commercial. She called the Council's attention.to the fact that by simply saying this.property.is residential in the 2010 Plan, it does not exclude-use.of-the property as R-0 (Residential/Office). Alderman Williams stated ,he voted in favor of the 2010'Plan but thought the map provided to the Council was very vague. He stated he would not have supported this area as being primarily residential. Commercial is probably the best use for a large portion of this property. He expressed support for the newer 2020 Plan which lists more commercial area here. Little stated the reason the word "general" isincluded in the Land Use Plan is because the plan is not intended to be specific. It is intended to be a guide. There are no set boundaries and the judgement of the Planning Commission is to•be used to make land use decisions. Schaper, seconded by Hill, moved that the rezonings'be:tabled and returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Upon roll call, the motion tied on a vote of 4 to 4, with Miller, Williams, Young, and Bassett voting no. Mayor Hanna broke the tie and voted against the motion. The motion failed. Mel Milholland, representing the petitioners; introduced Jim Erwin and explained that Mr. Erwin had been instrumental in working on the development. - 423 October 3, 1995 Jim Erwin stated he has a commercial real estate business in Little Rock with a branch office in Springdale. In an effort to try to address some of the issues raised by the Planning Commission, a team was assembled including Mel Millholland, a civil engineer; Ernie Peters, who is a traffic engineer; and Mark Robertson who is a land planner. Erwin stated that the Planning Commission had asked the developers many questions regarding traffic, the proposed use of the property, the impact on the community, etc. To answer these questions, they prepared a land use map of this property. The plan presented to the Council represents a negotiated plan with the input of the staff, residential neighbors and various retailers in the area, etc. They have reached what they consider to be a very reasonable land use plan for this property. Alderman Williams stated that one of his primary concerns is the green area by the creek. He hoped there would be some sort of assurance that this area would remain a green space. Erwin stated that this area contains approximately 36 acres and they do plan to leave it as a green area in as natural a state as they possibly can. Alderman Miller echoed what Alderman Williams said about the green space. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Erwin stated they did not know at this time who would build the hotels noted on the plan. The petitioners would not be building the hotels. In response to a second question from Alderman Schaper, Erwin stated that there was no guarantee that these sites would ever be used for hotels. It could be developed in any way that falls under the C-2 category. In response to a further question from Alderman Schaper, Erwin stated that they had done at least seven traffic studies for different kinds of uses on this property. The traffic count numbers presented to the Council are based on the negotiated plan on which everyone has agreed. The Planning Commission had asked the petitioners to come up with some plan of how this property might be used and marketed. This plan represents what the land planner sees could or should be done with the property. Alderman Schaper stated that he agrees that the plan is admirable but if the rezoning is approved, there is absolutely no guarantee that any of this land will develop in the way it is indicated on this plan. 424 October 3, 1995 Erwin stated that at this point no marketing had been done..and,.no plans have been established as to how they are going to. develop the property. They have simply tried to come. up with.a plan that is acceptable to the city of Fayetteville and neighboring land owners so they can proceed with the process. Alderman Schaper stated that there is a big difference between what might go on the property and what can goon it after it is rezoned. The fact that the petitioners are basically going to sell lots to people who want to come in and build means that it's a wide open playing field. Erwin stated that they were asked to come up with a reasonable way this property might be developed and that is what they have: done. - Alderman Schaper stated the request was made because the general land use plan says that anything larger than five acres.should be done as a planned unit development with' all of the covenants, restrictions and guarantees that go with a planned unit development. • Alderman.Bassett asked City Attorney Rose if this was°something,. the'Council had a right. to ask.and get ananswer to. ,City Attorney Rose stated the...Council is -on the right.track; The idea is that when the Council rezones a piece of property, it is rezoned'.for a variety of different uses as listed within the zoning ordinance. It is a natural tendency for people to want to know precisely what is going to be developed in a particular area, especially when trying to estimate things such as traffic density. Because of this, you do have to come up with some projections about what you think should or should not be on the plan. It is perfectly proper for the Council to question those projections and find out if they are reasonable or unreasonable. However, it is not proper to as to what he or she intends decision regarding rezoning. scale development level, not question the developer specifically to do as a basis for the Council's Thisshould be done at the large at the zoning level. Alderman Bassett stated that once again the Council is starting to do the'job of the Planning Commission. Alderman Schaper stated that the point is that these specific uses have no basis in fact. The Council must plan for the most intense uses that might go on -C-2 land. Alderman Williams expressed his disagreement that the Council has to assume the most intense uses of the land. 425 October 3, 1995 Alderman Schaper stated they have to assume some reasonable mix. If someone comes along and offers a reasonable amount of money for a lot of frontage land, the petitioners will very likely sell it to them, regardless of whether they will build a hotel on it or not. Erwin stated they prefer to see hotels built on this frontage because they feel it is the best use of the property. He explained that they tried to come up with a balance where each use of the property would complement the other. If they try to deviate too much from the plan, things will get out of balance and they will suffer. He stated that he does appreciate Alderman Schaper's comments but he feels that it makes sense that, given the location of the area, some commercial development is needed in this general area. They have tried to come up with a plan that will not only handle any traffic generated by their development but will relieve some of the traffic for the Mall and the Spring Creek development. Alderman Parker stated that the point brought to the Council when they were asked to lift the moratorium for this project was that with the first building in this area, the north -south road that would go into the back of the Mall would be built. At the agenda session, Erwin said there is no immediate plan for doing this, that the east -west corridor would be built first along the Joyce Street extension. Therefore, the reason for lifting the moratorium is not even going to be part of the initial project. Erwin stated the proposal was that the entire property be zoned C-2. Alderman Parker stated when this was brought before the Council, it was mentioned what the rezoning would be. Erwin stated that the petitioners proposed to go ahead and build the road. At the agenda session they had simply stated they would like to build the road when development occurred. This plan is going to happen over maybe a ten year time period. To build all the roads on the front end would get things out of balance. They would like to get Joyce Street constructed and when development occurs, build the north -south street. He suggests that if they start designing the road tomorrow, it will take 6 to 8 months to design and 12 to 18 months to build the bridge and the road. Because they are not ready to start planning tomorrow, reasonably it might be three years before the road is built. 426 October 3, 1995 Alderman Young stated that his built it is not piecemealed in. whether he was saying that the time at the point in time when concern was that when the road.is.. He asked Erwin to clarify road would be put in all at one the development is started up. Erwin agreed that this was correct. Alderman Hill stated that until that road is put in, the petitioners are not relieving any traffic congestion, only adding to is as lots are sold. This is the concern of. the Council. He stated that the timetable is also a concern for him. If it is going to take that long to construct the road, the petitioners had better get started now. Alderman Hill stated it was his understanding that they would have to get a Corps of Engineers permit. He asked what would happen if the Corps said theycould not have the bridge. • • Erwin stated the Corps of Engineers involves about nine acres of wetlands. = i In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, Mr. Milholland agreed that the Planning Commission:had=.asked, these- questions. and the petitioners had answered them.1 Erwin.. stated' that anything that- has -to go across: the:floodviay"has to go to the Corps of Engineers for a'permit. This is standard and not something the Corps wintry to keep them from doing. Mayor Hanna possibly. be petitioners stated that he could count three lots that could developed on Joyce Street. He asked if the were participating in the improvement of Joyce St. Kevin Crosson stated that it contribution of right-of-way also plan to upsize from the that north -south road. was their understanding that the - will be made and the petitioners two lanes the City will put in up to Alderman Hill questioned whether this property adjoins the Mall. It was indicated that it does. Milholland stated that they have a. verbal agreement with the Mall to allow the future phase - called phase 3 - to tie into the Mall parking lot. There was a general discussion regarding intentions versus written promises, particularly with regard to this tie in. The petitioners stated that it is their objective to tie into the Mall parking lot. • 427 October 3, 1995 Alderman Miller stated that the City Attorney had told them in the past that when someone says they intend to do something, it is not binding. If a decision is to be made predicated on an advantage that might be made to the City by this tie in, it might be important to have a statement promising the tie in. Alderman Schaper asked what total traffic generation Ernie Peters had come up with regarding this project. Ernie Peters stated that they have projected total 24 hour trips at full development at 56,238 vehicle trips based on the mix proposed in the plan. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Peters stated they had not done a trip generation on mix of C-2, C-1 and R -O uses that could represent a reasonable maximum. He added that the traffic that is generated by any particular zoning is dependant on the use that goes in there. He has based his calculations on what the land use planners tell him is a reasonable mix for land on this particular development. Alderman Schaper expressed the importance of looking at potential maximum traffic because once the property is rezoned, they have no control or guarantee that the land will develop as now planned. He stated that the plan does not show a road going through to Van Ashe and there just aren't enough ways to get in and out of this if it is developed the way many areas have developed. Peters stated that an east -west connection is proposed as a part of the plan. It is not shown on the plan submitted to the Council. Peters pointed out that the precise design of the infrastructure of any development will appropriately be addressed as a part of the City's large scale development process. He stated that to explore the maximum level of traffic on this particular tract would give the Council some idea of what the upper limit would be but, similarly, one could question what the lower limit would be. He states that he feels his estimates are above what would be a median value between upper and lower estimates. Alderman Schaper stated that this is very valuable land and no one is going to develop it at a very low intensity. It would not make economic sense. Alderman Bassett pointed out that the Planning Commission had covered this ground. 428. October 3, 1995 Alderman Daniel stated that she felt Alderman Schaper was -asking; some good questions and is making some good points. She stated she was generally in favor of the rezoning because the developers have made a lot of changes. Many of the issues will need to be addressed in large scale development. Mayor Hanna opened the floor for audience comment. There being none, discussion was turned back to the Council. Alderman Hill stated that his concern was the road. If we can get the traffic in and out and some help for the Mall traffic that would ease his concerns. Alderman Williams stated that though he shares Alderman Hill's concerns, when the property develops it will have to go through a large scale development process and the property cannot be developed without the proper accesses to be built. It is not a zoning issue. - Alderman Hill stated it was definitely a zoning issue because traffic is one of the main issues of rezoning. City Attorney Rose stated that .traffic is certainly.a consideration regarding zoning. But is equally rightthat placement of specific roads and access is not a concern_of:the. zoningprocess, it is .more the concern of the large-scale development process. Alderman Hill stated the information given did not give specifics regarding this road.. He asked if the petitioners were going to put the road across the bridgeandif there is an agreement on that. Milholland stated that he had a road in the plans splitting the two zonings. Alett Little had said she would prefer to have it:. tied into Van Ashe. When the map Was made up, Ms. Little asked that it not be put in. It will be there eventually. ,. 11. Alett Little stated that-at.the time of development, the Planning Commission has the obligation to require every road for access and adequate traffic management. They will require thetroads that are necessary. The staff's big issue at this time is how they tie into the master street plan. There is not enough engineering data on this site at this time to make this clear. She wanted the roads left off so there would benoconfusion in the future. In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Ms. Little stated that around 5096 of the development has been completed on the 73 acre parcel just south of the Mall. 429 October 3, 1995 Alderman Parker stated that currently there is about 135 acres (including the Mall) of commercial property in this area, with the addition of 275 acres with approval of these developments. There will be a great impact on traffic. Parker stated he would like to see some promises in writing regarding some of these roads. He would also like to see worst-case traffic projections based on not having motels along the frontage but other types of commercial development. To avoid contract zoning, the Council has to consider any use the land might be put to. Parker stated he would also like to see some specifics on when the road construction would be started. Alett Little restated Alderman Parker's request to be sure she was clear about his requests. Erwin stated that they have no problem with giving a written promise of what they are willing to do as far as connecting to the Mall. Erwin also stated that Mr. Peter's traffic counts were taken on the assumption that Spring Creek is fully developed and the petitioner's property is fully developed. Peters clarified the issues regarding his traffic projections. The 56,000 figure mentioned is just associated with this development. But in placing that traffic around the street network, he has taken into consideration the existing background traffic, as well as projections of traffic associated with this and other developments. Alderman Parker requested a copy of the map if it could be reduced and a copy of the full package that the Planning Commission got. In response to a question from Alderman Hill regarding the zoning north of the northmost piece of C-2 property that falls north of the Mall and Joyce Street, Little stated that she believes that is the city limits of Johnson. She stated she would get a copy of the Johnson zoning map. REZONING R95-33 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 1.34 acres located on the northwest corner of Meadow Street and West Avenue from I-1, Light Industrial to C-3, Central Business Commercial as requested by Bill Mitchell on behalf of the Walton Arts Center. The Planning Commission voted 8-0-1 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. 430 October 3., 1995 Hill, seconded by Miller, moved ordinance to the second reading passed on a vote of 8 to 0. to suspend the rules' and move the_t s Upon roll call, the motion City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Bassett, with a second from Daniel, moved to suspend the. rules and move the ordinance to the third and final reading.. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna opened the floor for discussion with the Council. He then opened the floor for comment from the audience. There was no discussion. Upon roll call ;the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to O. ORDINANCE 3928 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK REZONING R95-34 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an .ordinance rezoning 2.58 acres located at 112 N. University from I-1, Light 'Industrial to C -3t, Central Business Commercial as requested•by Bill Underwood ontbehalf of Powerhouse Seafood: The.Planning Commission voted 9=0-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Hill, seconded by Parker, moved to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Hill,seconded by Parker, moved to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the third and final reading.- Upon roll call, the -- motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Parker stated that it -was the request of the City to make it of the property. said this was being done at more consistent'with the use Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3929 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK October 3, 1995 REZONING R95-35 931 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 2.44 acres located south of Dickson Street and west of West Avenue from I-1, Light Industrial to C-3 Central Business Commercial as requested by the City of Fayetteville. The Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Bassett, seconded by Miller, moved to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance Bassett, seconded by the ordinance to the the motion passed on for the second time. Daniel, moved to suspend the rules and move third and final reading. Upon roll call, a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on ORDINANCE 3930 APPEARS ON PAGE S.E. FAYETTEVILLE COMMUNITY CENTER third time. a vote of 8 to 0. OF ORDINANCE BOOK Mayor Hanna explained that this agenda item had to be postponed. Requirements for the bids for construction of the Southeast Fayetteville Community Center had not been spelled out properly concerning subcontractors so bids had to be relet. Public Works Director Kevin Crosson stated that bids would be opened again on October 16. Mayor Hanna explained that the same bids were expected and there were no changes in the requirements. However, as a government grant it requires that subcontractors be listed. NON -MOTORIZED PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance requiring a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate a non - motorized passenger transport service in the City of Fayetteville; requiring a non -motorized passenger transport vehicle driver's permit to operate a non -motorized passenger transport vehicle for hire upon the streets of the City of Fayetteville; providing certain requirements for the use of horses in the operation of the non -motorized passenger transport 432 October 3 ,.; .1995 vehicle; and miscellaneous requirements for the operation..of:the; non -motorized passenger transport. service. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Williams, seconded by Miller, moved.to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0, with Bassett absent. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Schaper, seconded by Miller, moved to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0, with Bassett absent.0f, City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time. Alderman Parker thanked those who will be regulated by this ordinance for helping to bring high standards to anyfutiire operations, including their own. Alderman.Miller also thanked those.people•,andthe,people-at.thez Humane Society who collaborated.on.the;ordinance: He.•expresseth his support of horse-drawn•carriages and stated.the.City showing foresight in seeing that_the industry` is_regulated.and... the animals well cared for. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, City Attorney Rose explained that this ordinance was adapted from one received out of Dallas. Upon'roll call,the ordinance passed on a.vote=of.8 to 0:' ORDINANCE 3931 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK CARRIAGE SERVICE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a:resolution approving a proposal made by the Fayetteville Carriage Companyto provide professional -horse drawn carriage service to the Fayetteville community. • • In response to a question from Alderman Williams, City.Attorney . Rose stated that if any other groups come in, they will also need a resolution to approve their service: ,- Williams, with a second from Miller, moved to approve the resolution. 433 October 3, 1995 Alderman Schaper expressed concern regarding the proposed route which would include one block of travel on Hwy 71 (College Ave. from Meadow to Center). He questioned having horse drawn carriages on 71. Alderman Parker felt it might be better to go along the south side of the square and take a right through the parking lot of the Federal Building and avoid Hwy 71. Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes stated there had been several comments made during staff review of this item and it says the routes are subject to change in consultation with City Traffic Superintendent. After consultation with City Attorney Rose's office, it was decided to wait and let the City Traffic Superintendent work with the carriage company. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote RESOLUTION 129-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK' CHANGE ORDER of 8 to 0 S OFFICE, Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving Change Order #2 to the construction contract with McClinton Anchor for the intersection improvements at U.S. 71 and Joyce Boulevard in the amount of $38,061.75 and approving a budget adjustment. Kevin Crosson stated that he had spoken with Mr. Clary and he indicated he would like to consider and speak with his engineers about the City's request to put in a fifth lane or fund 61% of this change order. Crosson explained he would continue to negotiate this week with him. Crosson stated that though Mr. Clary was not able to give an answer today, the Council should still authorize the change order as the staff continues to try to resolve the issue. In response to a question from Alderman Williams, Crosson stated that Clary will pay a minimum of 21% as he had agreed. In response to a question from Alderman Hill, Crosson stated that the work had already been completed. Alderman Hill stated that he would like the City to be mindful of this potential situation in the future and not get in trouble again. Crosson stated that it had been their error and it would not happen again. 434 October 3, 1995 1 Mayor Hanna explained that the staff had been working'under some' pressure because certain merchants contributing money toward the road work were insisting the work be completed: Alderman Parker stated that maybe the time for demanding performance of a contractor should be at the time performance did not occur instead of after an alternative plan has been tried. Alderman Williams stated that the work had to be done, regardless of whether the contractor was going to -pay for it because it was presenting a traffic hazard without the merge lane. Williams, seconded by Hill, moved to accept the resolution and approve the budget adjustment. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 130-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. COST SHARING AGREEMENT Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance approving ari agreement with the Salem Village Developers for the cost sharing' of an 8" water line in connection:with the Salem Village Subdivision on Salem Road and approving a. waiver -of competitive. bidding for constructioncosts of $35,000; and.an:ordinance. prescribing connection fees for'developers tieing onto a.:.new water line along Salem Road running from the southeast corner of the Salem Village Subdivision to the south side of Mount Comfort. Road: ' City Attorney Rose read the first ordinance for the first time. Williams, seconded by Schaper,m moved to suspend the rules and moved the ordinance to the second reading. Upon -roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Schaper, seconded by the ordinance to the the motion passed on Parker, moved to suspend the rules and move' third and final reading. Upon roll call, a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the time. third and final Mayor Hanna opened the floor for questions for comments. There were none. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on ORDINANCE 3932 APPEARS ON PAGE a vote of 8 to 0. OF ORDINANCE BOOK r, . 435 October 3, 1995 City Attorney Rose read the second ordinance for the first time. In response to a question from Alderman Williams, City Engineer Don Bunn explained the fee was based on the development of 160 acres along Salem Road. It is unlikely that all the acreage will be developed but likely that there be some additional development along there. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Bunn stated that the additional fees would cover the cost to the City of the development if the entire 160 acres are developed. Alderman Parker stated that he had spoken with Don Bunn about this and they had agreed that in the future a policy should be developed to spell out the particulars about how this would go into affect, what would and would not be required to pay this fee. The policy should then be brought back to the Council to explain the procedure. Alderman Schaper expressed concern regarding how vague the ordinance is. He wondered if it was possible to show the area that is benefited by the water line and say when the land inside that boundary develops, the City would get a certain fee. Alderman Parker stated that this was what he was talking about earlier. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Bunn said he thought it would work to put the area on the map and say this particular area is the affected area to be charged. He explained that the problem with the water line is that the line will benefit a much larger area than just the 160 adjacent acres. It serves to reinforce a much larger area in there so it is difficult to pin down the exact acreage. He felt that if you show a quarter mile on each side of Salem Road and indicated that this was the area in which the fee would apply, it would work. Alderman Schaper agreed and felt it would avoid confusion in the future if it was made clear up front what the affected boundary is to be. In response to a question from Alderman Williams, Bunn stated that with the first ordinance passed, it would be possible to come back later to the Council with a more specific cost sharing ordinance. Alderman Williams asked City Attorney Rose if a new street such as Salem Road which is a major expense, whether some of the costs from developers who would in the future build along that street. 436 October 3,- 1995 City Attorney Rose stated that this had been under discussion and research had been done. The problem is that the Supreme Court has defined this as a rough proportionality kind of measurement. It is'a'difficult measurement to determine because those streets are going to be used for other purposes outside the use of a particular development. City Attorney Rose has told Don Bunn that if he is capable engineer of developing this rough proportionality where it determined with some degree of certainty exactly what a developer's rough proportionality of the cost would be, he be pleased to defend it in court. as an can be will Alderman Schaper stated that the State Highway Department does something similar when they authorize the amount they will pay for condemned land. In response to a question from Alderman Young, Mr. Crosson stated that the staff would need to figure out a way to figure this out. City Attorney Rose explained that this would be very difficult to do and there had been a number of discussions about how it might be done. If a formula can be developed, the City can do it. In response Rose stated these roads a period of to a question from Alderman Williams, City,Attorney^ that a developer who is developingland alongside would be required to pay his proportion of .costs for time. Alderman Williams stated rough proportionality measurement should be conservative but he does not feel the City should get nothing. Mayor Hanna stated that the ordinance prescribing connection fees for developers tieing onto the water line would be leftl°on its Cr first reading and at the next meeting there will beya proposal with more specific language. OTHER BUSINESS HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ROUND -UP Alderman Miller stated there will be a press release in ar''feww' days about the Household Hazardous Waste Round -up About 450 people participated. There were 50 volunteers and 20 people from local industries who helped recycle some of the waste. Some firefighters were also on hand to help out with the Hazmat. Alderman Miller thanked everyone who worked on this and participated in this event. 437 October 3, 1995 DEVELOPMENT CONCERN Alderman Hill expressed concern about a possible gap in an ordinance passed earlier about developers and at what point they are able to sell lots. Alderman Young explained that someone can put up a piece of property for sale and get a contract on it but is not legally transferred because that cannot be done without the final plat. Alderman Parker asked if it wouldn't be best to try to protect citizens by putting developers under notice if they are known to be selling lots before the final plat is received. City Attorney Rose stated he would look into the issue and get back to the Council at the next agenda meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.