Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-16 Minutes17 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, January 16, 1996 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, Len Schaper, Jimmy Hill; City Attorney Jeriy Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of staff, press, and audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. STAFF RECOGNITION Mayor Hanna recognized Marilyn Cramer, head of the Accounting Division, and Steve Davis, head of the Budget Division, for receiving the annual awards for excellence in financial and budget reporting. The awards were given by the Government Finance Officer's Association. OLD BUSINESS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items that have been brought before the Council but were tabled or no decision made to allow further information to be presented. A. PARKING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: An ordinance amending Chapter 160, Zoning, Section 160.117, Off -Street Parking of the Code of Fayetteville, to provide parking requirements for restaurants offering entertainment within the Zoning districts of Fayetteville. Mayor Hanna stated this ordinance was left on its second reading at the January 2, 1996 Council meeting. Since that meeting it has been discussed by the Ordinance Review Committee and also the subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Alderman Bassett stated that the consensus of the Ordinance Review Committee and the entire Council during the agenda meeting was that this ordinance be tabled until a report is forwarded from the Planning Commission subcommittee. Alderman Bassett made a motion that this ordinance be tabled. Alderman Daniel seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. B. Item B was removed from the agenda at the agenda session. 1 18 January.16, 1996 C. SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTION: A resolution approving the connection of the sewer for Goose Creek Subdivision to the Fayetteville public sewer. J Mayor Hanna stated this item was tabled at the January 2, 1996 Council meeting. Mr. Jim McCord distributed a memorandum for the Council to read. Mr. McCord stated that as it was desired by the City staff and the property owners of the Farmington area, the' developer of Goose Creek has agreed to connect the sewer system to the Fayetteville public sewer, which is required by Farmington and Fayetteville subdivision regulations. The site is outside the corporate limits; therefore, the City staff has construed the • Fayetteville Code of Ordinances as requiring City Council approval for the sewer connection. In previous agenda and regular sessions of the Council, certain aldermen have expressed the views of doing feasibility or impact studies, as being required, to see how this subdivision would impact the system or if sewer system improvements would be necessary. The developer is willing to bear the cost of the study to be done by his engineer, WBR Engineering, and to be reviewed by the City Engineer. The developer is willing to insure that the City bears no cost if the study reveals that the subdivision has created a need for sewer system improvements The developer has requested the Council make a decision to approve the sewer connection contingent upon the outcome of the feasibility study. If the request is denied the developer will proceed with his original proposal, which is to construct a tertiary wastewater treatment plant on site and obtain a MPDS periiiit from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology and discharge into the Illinois River Basin: Alderman Young stated he was concerned with the capacity of the sewer treatment plant and whether this development would accelerate the need for a new plant or expanding the current one. Mr. McCord stated the projected build out on Goose Creek subdivision is five years. Phase I will be approximately one hundred fifty lots. That would not have a significant impact on the capacityof the wastewater treatment plant. Alderman Young said you have to look at the entire project, not just one phase` Mr. McCord explained that the Council had just approved a large apartment complex that would have an immediate impact on the plant and the sewer system capacity much more than this subdivision. ..a r Alderman Young responded that the complex was inside the city. Mr. McCord stated he did not see the difference. l 19 January 16, 1996 Alderman Schaper stated the City's sewage treatment plant has the capacity of eighteen million gallons per day Right now with approximately 20,000 households in the city we use about thirteen million gallons per day in the peak season. He questioned Mr. McCord on how many units were in the projected build out. In answer to the question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. McCord stated 740 units. Alderman Schaper stated that is more than one year's growth in the city, as projected by the 2020 Plan. We have to provide for another 30,000 people inside the city limits of Fayetteville by the year 2020. The City has an obligation to provide for the citizens of Fayetteville first. We will outgrow our sewer treatment plant in ten years or less and will have to add capacity either in our existing plant or at a new plant to be built in the future. The new development represents around 10% of the unused capacity of our current plant. Mr. McCord stated the ordinance should not require that suburban subdivisions connect to public sewer. The developer originally proposed to build his own tertiary wastewater treatment plant which would not burden the system and the staff said they preferred him to connect to public sewer and that the ordinance required such. Alderman Parker stated that the interpretation of the wording of the ordinance would not necessarily require this. The language of the ordinance could be construed to mean if it's practical for the City to be able to absorb that as well as being physically close enough to connect. Mr. McCord stated if the Council wanted to go against staff recommendation and the desires of Farmington area property owners, the developer would go with his original proposal and go on with the project. Alderman Williams stated the City has had problems with the wastewater treatment plant. The odor problem is a limiting factor. The City is obligated to provide service to people within the city, but not to the outside. Alderman Williams suggested the developer's original plan might be the best choice in this particular case. Alderman Miller stated in reading the minutes of the Planning Commission, the developer was insistent on building his own plant and the Chairperson of the Commission mentioned twice that she thought it would be a good idea to hook up. That was the only mention found in this regard. In answer to a question from Alderman Miller, Mr. McCord stated that the public sewer hook up was originally raised at the concept plat review by a joint meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission, the Farmington Planning Commission, and the Washington County Planning Board 20 January 16, .1996 Mr. MrCord stated the developer was trying to accommodate the expressed desire of City staff and the expressed desire of property owners in the Farmington. area who preferred public sewer hookup. Alderman Miller explained he did not know of any City staff members who have stated they want the hook up. Alett Little explained that City staff discussed public water connections being required because of the water line running through there... Staff felt like it might represent some difficulty on the developer's part, getting the approvals required for the treatment plant, but the City of Fayetteville staff did not indicate this requirement. Mr. McCord stated that comments made by City staff were construed as a clear indication that they would oppose a MPDS permit application. This was,.taken,as in y indication that they wanted a public sewer hook up. Alderman Daniel stated the size of Goose Creek subdivision was a concern because -of the drain and demand on our system. Mr McCord stated there is no question that Fayetteville will continue to grow loth } within the corporate limits and within the designated planning area. A study to'examine the capacity andtheneeds for upgrading the system is not to'be completed for approximately a year. Mr. Jones could not wait for the results and needed to get on with his project. Mr. McCord requested a decision one way or the other. Alderman Parker stated it would put an unacceptable load on Fayetteville's sewer system due to the fact that they are contemplating annexing some of the lands to the east to even up borders which will bring additional areas under the City's responsibility. Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the audience. There were none. Schaper, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to deny the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. D. REZONING RZ95-40: An ordinance rezoning 1.61 acres located on the south side of Highway 62 and west of Hoot Owl Lane from A-1, Agricultural to R-0; Residential Offices as requested by Freda Poor. Mayor Hanna stated that the ordinance was left on its first reading at the January 2, 1996 Council meeting. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. 'Freda Poore discussed the options on getting the zoning changed. 21 • January 16, 1996 Mayor Hanna stated that the Council had the authority to change the zoning when they vote, if they so decide. City Attorney Rose stated that the Planning Commission recommended an R-0 zoning, but that they had discussed an appeal and had ten days to do so. He stated that Freda Poore had spoken with LaGayle McCarty and the City Clerk's office regarding an appeal and made a conscious decision not to do so. Freda Poore stated that no one had told her she had ten days to appeal She explained that she did not have enough time to file an appeal at the time she was informed of the process. Alderman Bassett stated that her options were to withdraw the R-0 zoning issue at the Council meeting. In response to a question by Alderman Bassett, Alett Little, Planning Director, stated that C-2 zoning had been applied for, but the Planning Commission denied this and instead chose to vote on C-1 zoning which was denied also. Ms. Poore would have to wait a year before bringing it back to the Planning Commission. Alderman Bassett stated that the Council had the authonty to approve the C-1 zoning, however, he would be very uncomfortable doing this in view of the discussion that took place before the Planning Commission. He would, however, vote on the R-0 zoning. Alderman Williams stated that it could be referred back to the Planning Commission for them to reconsider. City Attorney Rose read from the Code of Ordinances regarding this subject. Alderman Parker stated that he would be reluctant to turn this back to the Planning Commission. The reason why the Commission did not want the Commercial zoning in this area is because it would create a stnp effect along the Highway The R-0 is the highest degree of commercial zoning that would be compatible for their plans for the land. Ms. Poore explained her only option is to accept the R-0 zoning and come back in a year. Alderman Schaper stated that the R-0 zoning allows many reasonable uses that are commercially viable. He agreed that the area is not desirable for residential living. It is unfortunate that five -lane continuous roads are located throughout Fayetteville, because it leads to this type of problem It is viewed that once a five -lane road is put in, it is not considered fit for residential. r • 22 • January 16, 1996 Alett Little stated that Residential -Office is the category and it allows a,mixing of residential uses as well as office type uses. On the commercial side office uses of any type are allowed as well as the retailing of office supplies. Daycare centers are allowed but require a conditional use from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has dealt with this property before and has consistently said R-0 or R-2. Alderman Daniel stated that the history has a strong message in this area. In answer to a question from Alderman Daniel, Alett Little stated that apartments could be built behind the offices if access could be provided through her property. Alderman Miller stated that he had been on the property and that they should vote on an R-0 zoning. et Bassett, seconded by Parker, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of' 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. y Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the audience. There were none. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3944 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK E. CONDITIONAL USE FOR CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES:. An ordinance amending Chapter 160 which would make facilities emitting odors and facilities manufacturing explosives a conditional use in industrial zones. Mayor Hanna stated the ordinance was left on its first reading at the January 2, 1996 Council meeting. Mayor Hanna suggested that this be turned back to the Ordinance Review Committee. He stated that conditional use is a great planning tool and that obnoxious odors and explosives need to be addressed. There is no way of knowing what type of odor is being discussed. Alderman Williams stated the ordinance was directed toward rendering plants and other obnoxious odor plants. Alderman Miller suggested in defining odor, the ordinance should define certain.* chemicals that are very obnoxious He named several chemicals that are -considered obnoxious and suggested making conditional uses of certain odors from certain < chemicals. Toxins should also be included in the ordinance. 4 23 January 16, 1996 Williams, seconded by Hill, made a motion to table the item and refer it to the Ordinance Review Committee for further study. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. 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 January 2 regular City Council meeting. B. A resolution approving a letter of agreement with Stephens, Inc to perform underwriting services in connection with the refunding of Sales Tax Capital Improvement Bond, Senes 1986 which were issued to assist in the financing of the Walton Performing Arts Center. RESOLUTION 4-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. C. A resolution approving a letter of agreement with Gill Law Firm, to perform Bond Counsel Services in connection with the refunding of the Sales Tax Capital Improvement Bonds, Series 1986 which were issued to assist in the financing of the Walton Performing Arts Center. RESOLUTION 5-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Alderman Daniel questioned the amount of savings to the public this refunding will offer. In response to the question from Alderman Daniel, Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated based on today's market when a bond refinancing is done it would depend on the interest rates of the market at the time of the refunding. If we were going to give them today we projected an average interest rate of 4.6% on this refunding, we would also shorten the maturity by two years and would achieve a net present value cash savings of approximately $350,000. Schaper, seconded by Miller, made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. t 24 REZONING R95-38 January 16, 1996 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 3.10 acres located on the southwest corner of Huntsville Road and Happy Hollow Road from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial as. requested by Byron Moon on behalf of Mark Foster. He stated that the Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. In answer to question from Alderman Darnel, Ms. Little stated that the zoning of the Fina Station is C-1 as found on page 9.6 or 4.08.. Alderman Young stated that the one concern he had was that the original request was to rezone the whole tract and we are lustrezoning the north portion. He asked for confirmation that the legal description matched just the north portion. In answer to the concern, Ms. Little stated that they had received a revised legal description, the original request was for 5.03 acres and the revised request is for 3.10. Mayor Hanna asked for public comments. There were none. Alderman Williams stated that this was not very controversial, but he would like to leave it at least one Council meeting due to the change from residential to commercial zoning. Alderman Miller agreed with Williams. Mayor Hanna stated that this ordinance would be on its second reading at the next regular Council meeting. REZONING R95-41 & R95-42 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 6.55 acres located at the southeast comer of Highway 265 and Old Wire Road from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-2, Medium Density Residential as requested by Calhoune-Barre Development Corporation. Mayor Hanna also introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 1.08 acres located- east of Highway 265 and south of Old Wire Road from A-1; Agricultural to R-2; Medium Density Residential as requested by Calhoune-Barre Development Corporation. 4- , City Attorney Rose read both ordinances for the first time. z5 January 16, 1996 Michele Harrington, representing Calhoune-Barre Development Corporation, introduced the owners of the corporation and explained that they would be doing the project themselves. Ms. Harrington also introduced other members of the audience that would be addressing issues on the project. She urged the Council to have an open mind when making a decision. She explained the type of upscale apartment complex that was being proposed. Ms. Harrington pointed out that the property values in the area would not be affected due to this complex and went over a map with the Council of other apartment complexes in the area. Ms. Harrington stated this area had been turned down for Commercial zoning and for Residential -Office zoning and it is shown to go residential in the 2010 Plan. In the next few years, the signalization at this corner will change the nature of the intersection and commercial development will be proposed. The attempt to stay residential and to do as many aesthetic things as possible is the goal for this property. This development will provide, from a planning point of view, an ideal buffer from the very busy intersection with the signal to the very nice homes that have been built behind and that are further up on Old Wire Road. The developers will do whatever the City wants to buffer this area. This project will result in a beneficial upscaling of the neighborhood from what it is now. There will be only one and two bedroom apartments which will not be geared for families. This is critical on the traffic issues. Ms. Harrington read two letters of support for the complex from citizens in the immediate area. The developers are aware of the concern that 180 units are too many; therefore, they are willing to lower the number of units. The developers are also willing to restrict the structures to two stories. The Calhoune-Barre Corporation is basically willing to do anything that the Council feels would make this a plausible project for the City. Alderman Hill stated that the property had been turned down from R-2 to R-1 in September of 1993. Alett Little, Planning Director, stated that it had been changed in the course of the request at the Planning Commission level. The request was amended to R-1.5 with a conditional use and was denied. Ms. Harrington stated that this area is in the middle of an R-1 zoning. There is R-1 on two sides and also A-1 on two sides. Medium Density Residential is an ideal zone for the property because of the buffering of the intersection. In answer to a question from Alderman Parker, Ms Harrington stated that Mr Cartin is a property owner across the street and immediately on the right, past the sewer lift station. Ms. Harrington stated the adjacent property owners are in favor of this project. Ernie Peters, with Peters and Associates Engineers, stated that they were asked by Calhoune-Barre Corporation to address the traffic impact of the proposed development. The project consists of approximately 8.3 acres. If the property were to be developed as R-1 residential based on standard twenty-four hour generation rates, it would generate t • 26 January 16, 1996 approximately 238 vehicle trips per day.. If the project is developed as has been proposed to a maximum of 180 units it would generate on a twenty -four-hour basis an additional 927 vehicles. During the p.m. peak hour, the worst case this project would generate is about one entering vehicle per minute and about one exiting vehicle every two minutes. He stated that he had addressed the impact of the traffic associated with this development on the Old Wire/Crossover Road intersection which has recently been signalized. The intersection currently operates at a "0' level of service which is totally acceptable, all movements operate as "C" or better during the worst case p.m. peak hour. Traffic volumes have increased in recent years on Hwy 265 and they will likely continue to. The intersection, at full development of the project, will continue to operate at "C" or better level for each movement. Even when taking into consideration the development of all the platted lots in Savannah and Brookbury Subdivisions, the intersection will still continue to operate at a "C" or better level of service. If the proposed development were as many as 500 units, the intersection of Old Wire and 265 would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service . The project has 500 feet of frontage. The proposed frontage provides ample opportunity for well designed ingress and egress points Maps of the project area, intersection drawings, and drawings of the .proposed intersection were shown to the Council. Mr. Peters stated that at the intersection of Skillern and Old Wire Road, where the property abuts, he recommended to the developers that they provide the sole source' of access to this apartment project This would allow the intersection to become a more standardized cross type intersection. .With the change in the traffic control, the east - west movements from Old Wire onto Skillern and vice versa would be assigned the right r ' _ of way and the north leg of Old Wire would stop, as would the traffic coming out of the proposed development He stated this would be an improvement to the intersection and would bean appropriate place to accommodate the traffic associated with the development _ The developers have concurred in accepting this recommendation which is very feasible and will be adequate for their access and will improve the operation of the current intersection. Dave Jorgensen, Engineer, stated he was there to represent the developers concerning the large scale development plan and various issues concerning that plan. He stated that the 100 -year flood plain affects 60 feet of this property from the center line of the creek. There is a study available but it does not address the proposed area. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Jorgensen stated that the current study was completed in 1991. Ms. Little stated that the studies were actually completed in 1989 and published in 1991: She explained she has asked for an update from the Corps of Engineers, but it will not be complete for another 1 1/2 years. r 14 27 January 16, 1996 Mr Jorgensen stated the area is being worked on in the future to comply with FEMA because of the sewer lift station. The elevation of the bridge deck was shot on the deck that was recently built that crosses this creek. The bridge deck and bridge were built to accommodate FEMA category, in which case it would accommodate a 100 -year flood. The bottom of the bridge deck is right at the elevation of the ground in that corner. If the bndge will pass a 100 -year flood, then in that comer is where the water will be affected. Alderman Schaper stated the only restraint on this property is the large sewer easement that goes through it from northwest to southeast and comes out in the middle of the southern boundary of the property. The site plan renders the entire southwest corner undevelopable. Mr. Jorgensen stated that a good portion of property in that corner will not be able to be built on. However, the present code allows you to build within the 100 -year flood plain as long as you are two feet above that elevation. Alderman Schaper stated that you can't build on a sewer easement and questioned whether a building would fit between the easement and the flood plain. In answer to the question of Alderman Schaper, Mr. Calhoune stated that was possible. In answer to a question of Alderman Miller, Mr. Jorgensen stated that no buildings will be built on the flood plain because of the small area. There is a possibility that a gazebo, amenity, or a parking area will be constructed. Mr. Calhoune commented that they are offering to cut the density back so it won't be much of an issue. Mr. Jorgensen stated that it appears to be a low area, however, the elevation is 30 feet higher from the east end to the creek. There is a difference in elevation. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Jorgensen handed him a topography map. In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Mr. Calhoune stated developing within the density allowed in R-1 would not be feasible. Alderman Williams stated if the proposal is going to change, the Council needs to know what the new proposal is. Ms. Harrington stated the developers would be willing to drop to 160 or 152 units. The R-1 is four units per acre. 28 January 16, 1996 Alderman Young questioned what density the. neighbors think would be compatible for.,. , their neighborhood. Mr. John Gore, Architect, explained that he did the design for the Waterside complex in Bentonville Mr. Gore displayed drawings from the Waterside project .to .the Council. • Mr. Gore stated that it was the desire of the developer to create a buffer around the units with planting. The bottom area where the flood plain exists would be left natural with some clearing of underbrush, then transition into some curbed lawn areas, which would transition into heavily planted, sodded lawns around the units themselves. They would incorporate retaining walls and the units would be sited for their best appearance. Curbed streets andsidewalks will be added to create a soft aesthetic appearance to the development. A very nice entrance will be built including walls, flowers, planting, etc They plan to work with City Tree and Landscape Administrator Beth Sandeenon the landscaping. Greenspace would be developed in the project.. Another development project map was shown to the Council to give an idea of how the greenspace would be developed. In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Mr. Calhoune stated the development in Bentonville was 12 35 acres with 18 units per acre. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. Tom Luther, a resident of Old Wire Road, stated a petition was circulated along Old Wire Road and Skillern Road. The petition was signed by 139 people. They • represented 91 households He stated that there were only four people in favor of the - project that live east of Hwy 265. There is one person that abstained. The petition went 1.5 miles up the road. 1 Greg Curley, a resident of Savannah Estates, stated there is overwhelming opposition by the surrounding residents. The majority of the land is currently. zoned R-1, and when these neighborhoods were invested in, the zoning was relied upon. The proposed R-2 rezoning and the construction of a 180 unit apartment complex on this property would have a negative .impact on these neighborhoods, as .well as the adjacent property owners:. The traffic study doesn't adequately consider the future development that is going to occur in this area. There is a lot of undeveloped land up and down Skillern and Old Wire Road that will be developed someday. The additional traffic from the proposed apartment complex places an unnecessary burden on the intersection and the effected ,. portion of Old Wire Road. Alderman Parker asked for a show of hands of people in opposition of the proposed project and for those in favor also. 29 January 16, 1996 James Rimby, a resident of Crossover Road, stated that he respected his neighbors and the concerns they expressed. He stated that his concerns arose from a different vantage point, including the potential for a developer going in and clear cutting the property no matter what sort of development takes place, whether it be the proposed R-2 zoning or development under the current R-1 zoning. He explained that after discussing this and other concerns with the principals of Calhoune-Barre, they are satisfied that their approach to developing the property would responsibly deal with these and other problems. Mr Rimby expressed support for the rezoning and the development project as it has been represented. Ben Wimberly, a resident of 3139 Old Wire Road, stated a portion of this land has been under water several times due to the bridge at Old Wire damming up the creek. The talk of possible commercial zoning of this property has been used to get more support for the proposed project. Commercial property does not make sense at this location. The traffic problem is at Skillern Road and Old Wire Road not at the signal at Hwy 265. He expressed concern about not keeping the nature of the neighborhood as it is and about putting 180 units in this small amount of land. A citizen stated that the clarification on the traffic numbers is misleading. Another concern was the average density of the apartments. He stated he would like to see a plan that is more consistent with the type of development that is already in the area. Ms. Harrington stated that the developers are willing to go down to 120 units. The entrance would be very aesthetically pleasing. The entrance could be constructed so that the development could hardly be seen. Marilyn Rimby, a resident of Crossover Road, expressed her support for the rezoning. Peter Scopa, a resident currently in the process of building a home in Brookbury Woods, stated his property is adjacent to the proposed site and he is opposed to the project. He explained that he has made a large investment in his home and if the proposed project goes through he would be looking out his back door at 180 apartment houses and this would be detrimental to his property values as well as the quality of life for his family Alderman Schaper wanted to state for the record that the above mentioned home is at the end of the cul-de-sac that the Council looked at on the Council tour. Elizabeth Winn, a resident currently building a home in Brookbury Woods, commented that she is not in favor of the proposed project. Jeff Magness, a contractor for a project on Lot #21 in Brookbury Woods, stated if the development is approved, he will be canceling his construction project. Due to the prices of residential homes in the area he couldn't see investing in that neighborhood. 30 January 16, 1996 Lee Jackson,a resident of Roms Orchard Road, •commented on all the setbacks of the proposed development. He stated that if it was a nice building, you wouldn't need to hide it with walls. 5 e Buddy Peoples, a developer of Savannah Estates and Brookbury Woods, stated that he is opposed to the location of the complex. He expressed concern about the noise factor and all the additional traffic generated by the 180 proposed units in the approximately 8, acres of space. He .stated approximately a year ago a rezoning request that would have. accommodated offices and business was denied for the same location, which would have generated far less, in his opinion,noise and traffic than the proposed apartments. It was after the denial of that rezoning that he preceded with this development which is an R-1, project on 50 acres. Savannah and Brookbury are averaging two houses per acre. Mr. Peoples pointed out that these developments border the proposed project on the south. He stated that there are many available sites in the city to build apartments that will not oppose upon the lifestyle chosen and paid for by the people in the subdivisions. Mr. Peoples asked that the Council reject the proposal. John Rinert stated there has been very little effort on the part of the developers to initiate contact in the subdivisions. •They have spoken to a couple of adjacent property owners which is obvious by the letters presented. There have been a lot of offers for. compromise.. The local residents, as a number of people have stated, are not opposed to growth Growth is inevitable, but appropriate growth is how we like to term it. The density level of the proposed development in comparison to the local area which is one to two families per acre, would be ten families or 1000 percent greater.. than its adjacent. development. If this is approved the property will be surrounded on three sides by.single family homes and the fourth side is the road. Colleen Caston, a resident of Old Wire Road, stated that she disagrees that any signalized intersection on Hwy 265 cannot be developed as R-1. There are predominantly single family homes along Hwy 265. In addition to the important issue already addressed,. she asked that the environmental issues at this site be addressed. Ms. Caston stated there would be contamination of Mudd Creek by a developmen f.of,this' s size It is possible that this area contains a wet land area and if this is approved!that an investigation of this issue should be done. Mayor Hanna:explained that the Council received all the correspondence on the development issue and knew the feelings and opinions of the neighbors: ^ Mayor Hanna i. closed the hearing to the public and turned back to the Council for discussion. <` In response to the question from Alderman Daniel, Ms. Little stated that the area -in - question was A-1 and would be difficult to develop the property. 31 January 16, 1996 Alderman Schaper stated that the principal issue is the density. The traffic impact is not that severe. The density is out of character with the overall development of the area. This area is developed not only with the R-1 subdivisions, but also with some houses on almost rural lots. This area is on the fringe of the city. Alderman Schaper explained that to preserve the character and value of peoples' neighborhoods and the investment that they have made with their life savings in the homes is a very important issue. Fayetteville has 60% rental housing. He stated that he didn't feel that there was a need for additional land to be zoned R-2 to have more apartments in this city He stated he would vote no on the ordinance. He commented that he wished something could be learned from this and that the Planning Commission would stop torturing neighborhoods and stop putting neighborhoods at odds with the City government who is supposed to be protecting them. Alderman Parker complimented all people involved who took time to explain and answer questions. He stated his opposition to the proposal and explained that he was not in agreement that traffic is not an issue. The area from Township to Joyce is the area he would least like to see increased traffic Single family development in the area can be expected and would increase the traffic, but not nearly as much as the amount of traffic that would be generated by the higher density of the proposed project. Apartments should be located in areas that are close to retail centers. Single family homes are better choices out on the fringe of the city. He stated that he felt the development would be supported if located elsewhere. Alderman Miller stated he did not have a problem with the traffic. The proposed development is not an appropriate use for the area. Alderman Bassett complimented the developers on their presentation. He explained that his concerns are similar to those of the other Council members. He expressed concern about the density of the project. Alderman Bassett stated the traffic concerns are legitimate also. This project is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Alderman Bassett suggested the Council go through all three readings of the ordinances rather than addressing the issue at three meetings. Alderman Hill agreed with the idea of going through all three readings. He commented that he did not feel that this development should be in this location Alderman Hill stated after all the considerations, the neighborhood integrity outweighs the need for this project. Alderman Williams expressed his feelings that this is not the right location for the proposed development. Alderman Daniel stated the main problem is the density. This could be a good transition area for apartments if the density was not so high. 32 January 16, .1996 Alderman Young asked City Attorney Rose if in order to suspendthe rules, two separate motions were needed. City Attorney Rose stated one motion could be made to suspend the rules on both ordinances. Young, seconded by Schaper, made a motion to suspend the rules and place both" ordinances on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of.8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinances for the second time. Bassett, seconded by Young, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinances on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to O. City Attorney Rose read the ordinances for the third time Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the audience. There were none. City Attomey Rose stated that separate votes would be taken on each ordinance. Upon roll call, the ordinance for Rezoning R95-41 was defeated by a vote of 8 to 0. Upon roll call, the ordinance for Rezoning'R9S-42 was defeated by a vote of 8 to 0. Mayor Hanna thanked the petitioners for a good presentation and for trying to answer some of the complaints with offers to change their plans. He invited them to try and find another location in an area where this type of complex is needed. Mayor Hanna thanked the neighbors for their time to become involved and interested in their city. HOMEBUILDERS'S REGISTRATION Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance requiring a certificate of registration under Act 859 of the acts of Arkansas, 1987 with issuance of a building • permit for certain residential dwellings in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas and for other purposes. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. .. n • i .M Alderman Daniel thanked Steve Ward and the Chamber for bringing this to the Council and drawing up the ordinance along with Jerry Rose. Alderman Young stated that one concern of citizens is that a person can work on their own home without having to go through this. That is the way it has been explained. 33 January 16, 1996 Alderman Young asked for an explanation of the definition of homebuilder. Alderman Williams stated that its intent was if your building a house for resale, you will have to meet the requirements. City Attorney Rose explained that it was the same definition that the Arkansas legislature passed, but that its intent was that you do not circumvent the law by owning property and doing it yourself for purposes of resale. In response to the question from Alderman Young, City Attorney Rose stated that the homeowner would be exempt if he was not going to resell. Alderman Miller stated that it would be possible for a homeowner to work on his home then resell it five years down the line. This would be a more clear case if there was a series of working on a several houses then moving each time one is finished. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director stated that it was the intent of the ordinance and would be interpreted in that way. Alderman Parker stated that with this wording it allows somebody to build a house out back for example for a mother-in-law and this would exempt them. Alderman Williams stated that he did not believe that this would be a problem for the homebuilders in Fayetteville. Mr Crosson stated that to his understanding the Secretary of State defines the exemptions. The burden of proof would be with the individual permit applicant. Mayor Hanna asked what he meant by burden of proof. Mr. Crosson explained that the permit applicant would have to prove if it was for himself or for resale. Alderman Hill stated that an individual can actually build a commercial building and be the general contractor even though he has to hire licensed craftsman, only if its for his own use. Alderman Williams suggested leaving this on its first reading. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. Steve Ward with the Chamber of Commerce thanked the Council, City staff, and the Ordinance Review Committee for addressing this issue on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. The ordinance came from the Contractors Committee within the Chamber. 34 January 16, 1996 In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Mr. Ward stated that the registration could only be revoked on the basis of registration requirements; which is insurance The ordinance was left on its first reading. RAZING & REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance providing for the razing and removal of buildings or houses that become dilapidated, unsightly, unsafe, unsanitary, obnoxious, or detrimental to the public welfare and providing for a lien on the real property. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. i_> 'a. Alderman Miller stated that there is a problem with this issue in some south Fayetteville 4 i properties. He expressed some concem with the terms unsightly and obnoxious. They are far to subjective to be in the ordinance. Alderman Miller, seconded by Williams, made a motion to strike the words. unsightly and obnoxious from the ordinance. * ' City Attorney Rose stated that the language in this ordinance follows the Arkansas statute, which provides for the raze and removal for all the different kinds of things In the past we have done an individual ordinance for every time we raze or remove. This. will allow it to be done by resolution rather than an ordinance. The notices that are given by the Inspection Department give the property owners specific notice of the specific violations of the Code of Fayetteville that he has violated in his house. They are also specific things that the individual may do to bring his property up to code to avoid the raze and removal and he will have sufficient amount of time to do so. If there is not sufficient amount of time he may come before the Council and ask for more. Alderman Parker stated the ordinance is not losing anything by striking these two words from the ordinance. Mr. Crosson asked for procedure clarification: Alderman Miller stated that his understanding was that the Council is simply the final authority, but the determination is made by the Inspection Department. Alderman Williams explained that under the Notice Section is where the city staff gets involved. The Inspection Department would give notice, then if it wasn't done it would go to -Council. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 1, with Schaper voting no. 1 35 January 16, 1996 In response to a question from Mayor Hanna, City Attorney Rose explained that this ordinance is very similar in all areas as to what we currently do now. What we currently do now is that the Inspection Dept will go out and inspect a house and give notice to the individual of specific things that are wrong If these are not corrected within a period of time, he would then bring it to the Council for the raze and removal, and you would consider it as an ordinance. The only change is that it will allow you do this by resolution rather than ordinance. Alderman Williams stated that this ordinance was good because the homeowner and building owner will know their nghts and responsibilities and would have no reason to believe the City was being selective on them. Mayor Hanna stated that he wanted the public to know that we are not making any great changes about what the City has the power to do. Alderman Schaper commented that this gives the property owner all the protection and notices given. It would now be standard procedure instead of an ordinance every time this needs to be done. In response to a question from Alderman Hill, City Attorney Rose stated that in the past each property had its separate ordinance. Alderman Young stated he had a concern with the notice of people living outside Arkansas being treated differently. Their amount of notification is not as great as residents of Arkansas. Alderman Schaper stated that generally the registered letter of notification makes sense for nonresidents. Alderman Williams agreed and stated it is an equal protection argument. City Attorney Rose stated that he would work on the ordinance and propose an amendment at the next meeting. Alderman Young expressed a concern regarding the enforcement of liens. In answer to a question from Alderman Young regarding the process of placing liens on properties, City Attorney Rose stated the City has to seek to enforce the lien. This follows Stated Statute. In the past, the City used one of the two methods already outlined in the Code of Ordinances. The State does not give the City power to handle the process any other way. The lien must be done as a judgement hen with the Circuit Court. 36 January 16, 1996 In response to a question by Alderman Young, City Attorney Rose stated that the City may seek to have the land sold and collect the lien. Alderman Young stated that in the ordinance it states that in an extreme emergency a'• lot of the things don't have to be done. Alderman Williams stated that they do have to be done, but not on the front end.. If there is an extreme emergency the government has a lot of power to protect the health and welfare of citizens. Alderman Young stated that he did not feel that Alderman Schaper understood how severe this could be. Alderman Schaper stated that he did not write it and that the last draft he saw did not have this section in it. Alderman Young stated that the reason he had concems about this was the abuse of the power that could very easily take place as it did when the city government was different. Alderman Williams stated .that the abuse of power was inappropriate but the City 'Counci1already has that power. This ordinance does not give any additional power. Mayor Hanna stated that the abuse of power could happen, but the Council would have to vote and he could not envision that happening. The ordinance was left on its first reading. RENEW AMERICA Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration a resolution committing the City of - Fayetteville to be a co-sponsor of the National Town Meeting, which will be held by Renew America to discuss issues involving environmentally sound alternatives for addressing Fayetteville's growth and population of commerce. Mayor Hanna stated that since the discussion at the Agenda session, Jim Lukins and David Glasser visited him. The Council had copies of the letters that they brought from Renew Amenca. They are in the process of getting it set up, so we will be hearing more about it. Alderman Williams questioned if the Mayor would be on Fayetteville. Mayor Hanna stated that they had asked him to be on it, Mayor's conference at that time. the panel representing but that he may be at,a • • 37 • January 16, 1996 Alderman Williams stated that he supported the resolution no matter who the representative may be. Mayor Hanna stated that some of the other people that had been chosen are John Lewis of the business sector in Fayetteville and Superintendent of Schools in Bentonville. Alderman Williams, seconded by Schaper, made a motion to pass the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 6-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. OTHER BUSINESS BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Mayor Hanna introduced a budget adjustment concerning buying a piece of property needed to extend Joyce St. to the west from the mall. The project has already been approved, but the cost of this particular piece of property exceeds staffs limit to approve. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated that this was the last parcel of property needed to complete the right of way acquisition.. Mrs. Brown would like to settle in a favorable manner. They have agreed to provide, without compensation, easement for the project water line that runs through to the subdivision for when we have to relocate it. The compensation is for her 1.2 acre tract and her 1/10th interest in the .7 acre that her family also owns. Crosson asked that Council approve the purchase and the budget adjustment for the project. Alderman Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to approve the budget adjustment. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 7-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.