Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-20 Minutes69 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, February 20, 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 Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, Jimmy Hill, Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller; City Attorney Jerry 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. PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD ANNUAL REPORT Susan Driver, Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, made brief remarks touching on the broad areas of the annual report of which the Council had copies. The goal of the parks and recreation department and the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board is to provide an efficient and up-to-date park system that will guarantee a high quality of living and natural resources for present and future generations. Major works in progress include the girl's softball complex at Holcomb, the community recreation centers at Holcomb and Vandergriff elementary schools, the senior citizens center in Walker Park, a 7.5 mile loop around Lake Fayetteville, and the Lewis Ave. Soccer field. The completion and achievement they represent are due to the cooperation and contribution from individuals, corporations, the Advertising & Promotion Commission, clubs, and civic groups Driver thanked the Council for its support this past year on important issues including the passage of the HMR tax. The HMR money recommendation will be coming forward to the Council in March. It is recommended that almost 40% of that money in the first year be dedicated to park improvement and increased maintenance of our existing park system. In the future the Board wants to focus on the manner in which Parks & Recreation can help to define and secure the character of Fayetteville. Driver stated as population projections for the next 50 years show the world's population doubling, the question facing Fayetteville is not whether or not it will grow but rather how it will grow. She thanked the Council for its efforts in ensuring that Fayetteville retains its character even as it grows in size and population. 1 70 February 20, 1996 Driver invited questions concerning the annual report. Alderman Hill asked for clarification of a::discrepancyin the report regarding the amount of greenspace fees actually collected in 1995. He also asked if the Board was comfortable with the system of tracking whether or not the fees were paid. In answer to the first question, Driver stated that the amount was assessed in both money in lieu of land and in land dedication value. In answer to the second question, she stated the procedure 'by which greenspace fees are assessed and collected has been improved in the past year and an efficient method is now in place. Alderman Schaper .voiced a concern regarding a stated goal of encouraging the protection of open space and natural resources. As the city grows, some of the open land in the city will be gobbled up for development. Much of what is proposed seems to be directed towards active recreation and not passive recreation. Driver replied that the present plans for open .space are of a park nature -rather than viewshed or greenbelt. The Board is looking for land acquisition and has recommended that money be set aside from HMR for that type of acquisition. Alderman Schaper noted there is. a distinction between parks and open space, an act of recreation and more passive recreation or preservation of views. He did not see a plan for this type of acquisition in the report. He encouraged the Board to think about preserving views along the by-pass, mayor corridors, new areas as they open up, and existing undeveloped lots. Alderman Miller commented on the high cost of land in Fayetteville and expressed concern that purchasing 10 or 15 acres a year would really eat up a lot of the HMR tax. However, when there is an opportunity to acquire property appropriate for a greenspace or open space, it should be considered. v Driver responded that the Board is willing to look at any property offered that may have value to the City. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated that the City has just met the demands of all the athletic programs needed. Funds may_ now be available for other uses. Further, the acquisition°of the Walker Park addition was made primarily as an athletic field. expansion, though it has evolved differently. A lot of it will probably be left. natural. Driver stated the city's lakes as a tremendous reserve of natural resources. Though not in the urban area to be viewed from the car, they are available for anyone who is ready to get out in the wild. 2 'M. m rftri.. February 20, 1996 OLD BUSINESS 71 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. MT. SEQUOYAH: A resolution limiting roads across Mt. Sequoyah as proposed by Alderman Parker. Noting that Alderman Williams also had a resolution regarding this issue to consider, Mayor Hanna opened the discussion for the Council to decide which one would be brought forward first. Alderman Williams commended Alderman Parker for the work done on his resolution. Stating Parker's resolution was a good one, but believing the Council should deal in broad policy statements, Williams tendered his resolution for discussion as it is a policy statement rather than a concrete line drawn on a map. Alderman Parker suggested introducing his resolution at this time for the benefit of all who were not yet familiar with it. He showed maps of the area and alternative solutions to this issue. Parker stated the issue is who makes the decision on roads through these neighborhoods which might connect to Highway 265 and pour traffic through the neighborhoods. Now the decisions are being made by the Planning Commission and City staff. The Council has ultimate control if someone happens to bring the issue up for an appeal, but it usually doesn't reach the Council. The product of this is that the express wishes of the Council can be disregarded. Parker commented on the operative language of Alderman Williams' proposed resolution. First, it does not say where Mt. Sequoyah is. Parker stated that the Mayor and his staff have told him Rogers Drive is not part of Mt. Sequoyah. City staff or the Planning Commission should not interpret where Mt. Sequoyah is. A line is geographically specific. Second, while William's resolution states that landowners and developers shall not be required nor encouraged to build streets over Mt. Sequoyah, it does not say they are not allowed to do this. The proposed line might be changed, but a resolution should be passed that says roads cannot be built over the mountain. Third, Williams' resolution says prior to approval by the Planning Commission or City staff of a street that would act as a connection over Mt. Sequoyah, a resolution to approve such request must be presented and approved by the City Council after opportunity for public comment. Parker's resolution does not allow the Planning Commission or staff to consider it. 3 72 February 20, 1996 Finally, Parker stated, Williams' resolution could allow a scenario he described earlier where the legalities. of the. resolution were met but not the intent and a connection over the mountain would.be accomplished. Acknowledging a valid criticism made earlier by Alderman ,Hill; Parker stated a map with a more defined line could be prepared -by the City's planning department. Alderman Williams stated the primary difference between his approach and Alderman Parker's was one of trust. The -Planning .;, Commission did not have any roads going over Mt. Sequoyah.-- When:it came to the Street Committee, which he chairs, there was nothing on - the map regarding Mt. Sequoy'ah that they -had to address. There has been discussion in the Planning Commission about the -loop concept and not infringing on neighborhoods. However, there was never a policy in resolution form stating that there would. be no roads over Mt. Sequoyah: Once the, Council enunciates a clear policy statement, the planning staff and Planning Commission will follow the stated policy. Williams proposed his resolution because it is a broad policy statement. He feels it is the Council's job to set policy, not micro -manage the .government. If the Council were to -adopt his resolution, which he believes is a crystal-clear statement, no roads will connect over Mt-. Sequoyah. Itis clear to him where Mt. Sequoyah is. He does not believe this is an issue. His resolutions reiterates a policy which he feels has been established but not written that roads should not cross over the mountain. Even though it does not prohibit roads over the mountain, if someone proposes such .a road, they have to come to the City Council. There will be a public hearing, the citizen's of Fayetteville will get notice and an opportunity to be heard. Alderman Williams agreed with Parker and the general policy that theresshould not be roads over Mt. Sequoyah and if there is an exception it must come to the City Council. He stated that he does respect the honor and trustworthiness of. the Planning Commission and;all the citizen commissions ,and the planning staff and the Mayor's office. He sees no'problems with them if this resolution passes. It would have to be brought. to another Council before 'anything unwanted now would ever come about. In'response to a comment from Alderman Hill, Williams stated there were no substantive changes in the draft presented tonight -.from the rough given out earlier. 4 ap.4. 73 February 20, 1996 Alderman Hill asked if there was a problem with putting this forward at the next agenda session and giving citizens opportunity to see the resolution. The Council has not had much chance to look at this resolution. Alderman Bassett stated the issue needed to be resolved and could be done this night. Both resolutions have the same goal and the Council has an obligation to end it now if possible. Alderman Daniel disagreed as she has not had time to study this new resolution and needed more information. She asked the staff if they had had time to look at Alderman Williams' proposal. Alett Little, Planning Director, stated she had just received it. Alderman Williams noted that there had been a meeting of the community on Mt. Sequoyah with all aldermen present where he had handed out copies of his proposal. He stated that not one resident of Mt. Sequoyah has endorsed the idea of roads connecting over the mountain. He agreed with Alderman Bassett that this issue needs to be resolved now. Alderman Parker agreed that the public in attendance needed to leave with this issue resolved. Alderman Schaper also agreed that enough time has been spent on this. The language in both resolutions is clear. His one concern was to make sure that no one would be inadvertently landlocked. Alderman Parker stated that problem would be solved in either resolution because if there is a need to do so, the Council can waive this. Both resolutions have an out clause. Alderman Daniel stated she has received comments from citizens in the area of Mt. Sequoyah but not on the mountain. Traffic in the area needs to be dispersed and there is an uncharitable attitude of isolation on the part of residents of Mt. Sequoyah. Alderman Williams responded that it is through -traffic the residents are concerned about, not neighborly traffic. It is not ungenerous to not want connecting roads. A study done several years ago by the City found it did not make sense. It is time to have a clear policy statement about this. Alderman Miller stated that both resolutions say what he wants to see in a resolution concerning this issue, there will not be connection over Mt. Sequoyah and if one is ever considered, it would come before the Council complete with public hearing. Either resolution will work. One should be passed and we should move on. 5 74 February 20, 1996 Mayor Hanna read from both proposed resolutions,. showing where one differed from the other. He quoted.Section 3 of Alderman Williams' proposed resolution which says, "-Prior to approval by Planning Commission or City Staff of a street that would act as a connection over Mt. Sequoyah, a resolution to approve such request must be presented and approved by the City Council after opportunity for public comment." He then read from Section 2 of Alderman Parker's resolution, "It shall be the stated policy of the City of Fayetteville, its staff, administration, employees, boards, and commissions, that no paved road or roads be designed, constructed, maintained, or developed which would cross the north -south line set forth in -Section 1 above." The Mayor went on to say that Section 3 states, "Any waiver or exception to the policy will be allowed only by the express approvalbf the Fayetteville City Council upon a showing that such is in the best interest of health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Fayetteville" and,:this•would bedone at a public meeting like all City business: The Mayor then called for public comment. Tom Wilkerson, a resident of Dogwood Lane, spoke to support choosing Alderman Parker's resolution as it is specific and.leaves rib doubt as to the intention of the Council. Parker's proposal is the more emphatic and precise resolution. Larry Snodgrass, Ridgeway Drive, urged the Council to pass -Alderman;'"' Parker's resolution as it is the most restrictive resolution, restrictive in a positive sense. .It will tell. developers and homeowners that this is what the City expects and -wants. If someone is landlocked, there is an appeal process and the resolution would not address that in a restrictive manner. Nan Lawler, Skyline Drive, agreed with Alderman Williams.position that this should be a broad policy decision, but disagreed with his willingness to trust the Planning Commission. .She felt Parker's resolution was very precise, .which is important as she has witnessed a single-minded determination on the part of the Planning Commission to build roads':aiflaover the mountain. In response to Alderman Daniel's comments, Lawler stated she has no objection to people, only to traffic. There is a lot of wildlife that needs to be protected. She urged the Council to pass Alderman Parker's resolution. Dan Coody, Rogers Drive, voiced again that Parker's resolution is the stronger, believing that the 335 people ;who attended the neighborhood meeting would support choosing the -stronger measure. The people of Mt. Sequoyah are not against neighborhood connectivity. The fear is the connection of major thoroughfares. He urged the council to vote for the stronger resolution. Though both are good and have the same intent, the more clear the picture is now, the fewer the problems down the road. 75 February 20, 1996 David Dubbell, Rockwood Trail, expressed appreciation for all who have worked on this issue and those who have shown concern by attending meetings and voicing opinions. Stating it was the Council's job to make the wise decision, he hoped it would be done now at this meeting. There were no further comments from the audience. Alderman Miller stated that before the Mt. Sequoyah meeting of Thursday night, the Water. & Sewer Committee met. Something important happened at that meeting but there were no citizens and no press. The Water & Sewer Committee reviewed a pretreatment code that will do a lot to keep heavy metals and toxic chemicals out of our water, something we are having trouble with in this area. He expressed disappointment that this was not recognized and wanted all to know that other important issues are also being dealt with by the City. Alderman Daniel addressed a comment made by Dan Coody regarding there being no resistance to the connection of neighborhoods. She has not found this to be so. Park Place did not want to connect to the subdivision to the east of them. Where there was originally to be three streets there is now just one. She fears this idea will snowball and has already heard of one nearby neighborhood that wants to block off a road. Anthony DePalma, a resident of this community for 60 years who has held property of approximately 120 acres for 45 years, has seen insidious encroachment and desecration beginning. For the sake of brevity, he did not go into detail, but offered for archival purposes a copy of the agenda and notes taken of the Mt. Sequoyah meeting. He then read a short letter he'd written to the editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times on April 22, 1986, which referred to the study commissioned by the City whose recommendations were not accepted by the Planning Commission. It commended the then Board of Directors for their vote rejecting the proposed project. There being no further comments from the audience, Mayor Hanna closed the public discussion. Alderman Bassett stated he regrets this controversy has arisen as he thought it had been dealt with when the Master Street Plan was adopted in 1995. The decision was made then that there would be no through streets over Mt. Sequoyah. He supported that principle on the Street Committee and on this Council and still feels the same way. 7 • • 76 February 20, 1996 Bassett stated it is not practical to build throughstreetsover the mountain. It would unfairly interfere with established neighborhoods and do little to alleviate existing traffic problems. It would not be right to move traffic through the mountain neighborhoods and then dump it in the Historic District, a position he took when there was discussion about widening Lafayette Street. He has held from the beginning that a person can be opposed to connecting streets over the mountain and at the same time be against passing a resolution. He does not want to do anything that would unnecessarily hamper the ability of the Planning Commission to do its job. It is also a concern that if this is done for one area of town, other neighborhoods could expect the same. protection. 4 Weighing those thoughts and the pros and cons of having a resolution, he decided to support a resolution despite initial reservations. Alderman Williams' proposal is the one which makes the most sense to him. Something needs to be done at this meeting to end the dispute and to avoid losing the faith_and confidence of citizens. Bassett went on to say that the City has a serious traffic problem. There is a.great deal being done to dealwith it on a pay as you go basis, which he completely supports. However, in the months and years°to come, the City will have to consider either a two-year temporary sales tax or a bond issue to raise capital for street improvements or we will fall further behind. To accomplish the loop concept, additional revenue must be raised. Finally, Bassett defended the staff and Planning Commission saying the City has a first-class planning staff. Alett Little and the people who work for her and with her do an absolutely incredible job. The Planning Commission is the best we've ever had with good balance and diversity. Our rate of growth presents us with the continuing challenge to keep this. thebest place to live in Arkansas, some tribute should be paid to those who work day inand day out on this extremely- difficult fob. A lot more can be accomplished working together thanworking against each other. Alderman Young stated that connecting streets was an issue of the last election. He attended the Mt. Sequoyah meeting which was well attended; however,, -others in the community havementionedto him that it may not be a good idea to pass a resolution. They have not organized and have not appeared to speak to this. issue. If one of these resolutions is passed, the Council will besetting a larger policy for the City to 'follow, which is why .he supports Kit's resolution. Some people in Fayetteville may not have come out in opposition because it does not hit their neighborhood directly. 77 February 20, 1996 After checking with City Attorney Rose as to procedure, Alderman Young moved to adopt Kit William's resolution. Alderman Parker agreed that whichever one is passed, the Council would be setting a larger policy for the City of Fayetteville, saying the Council is listening to the people. He asked for a show of hands from those in the audience who live in the Mt. Sequoyah area and support his resolution. Mayor Hanna called Alderman Parker out of order, stating this is the Mayor's job should he chose to do it. He reminded the Council there is a motion on the floor. Alderman Bassett seconded the motion. Mayor Hanna stated there is a second and called for a vote by roll. Alderman Schaper stated that procedurally, this is difficult. There are two resolutions that do the same thing. He asked Alderman Young if Alderman Parker's resolution could be voted on first as it is the more restrictive and then Alderman Williams' resolution if it is necessary. He feared that those who might prefer Alderman Parker's resolution would not want to see both resolutions turned down. Alderman Miller brought up the point that Alderman Parker was the first to present a resolution and there might be a procedural question here. - Alderman Parker stated he did want to see his resolution voted on first as it is the one on the agenda, having been brought up through proper channels. If it did not pass, Alderman Williams' proposal could then be voted on. Alderman Bassett offered to withdraw his second to allow Alderman Parker's resolution to be voted on first. Alderman Young withdrew his motion. Alderman Hill asked City Attorney Rose if he has seen both these resolutions. He questioned whether or not Alderman Parker's was legal without giving legal notification to the landowners of where this line is drawn. City Attorney Rose replied that the Council may feel it is fair to notify the landowners but there is no legal requirement of formal notification. 9 78 February 20, 1996 Mayor Hanna expressed his opinion that this was being made far more complicated than needed. He did not wish to see it devolve into a popularity contest. He agreed that a resolution needs to be passed now. He commended Alderman Parker -and Alderman Williams for the work they have done in connection with this. If the Council wished to vote on Alderman Parker's resolution first, a motion needed to be made. Alderman Miller moved to vote on Alderman Parker's resolution. Alderman Schaper seconded the motion. Alderman Williams stated he was dismayed at the expressions of distrust. Alderman Parker continues to question the integrity of the Planning Commission. Alderman Williams explained he would not support Alderman Parker's resolution. Alderman Bassett echoed this. well intentioned. There are should not get personal. With not vote for his resolution. Everyone involved in this issue is honest disagreements, but politics due respect to Parker, Bassett would Alderman Miller cautioned people not to use words that hurt, are mean, and divisive as they cannot be taken back. Alderman Parker stated he is not trying to be divisive and apologized to Little and the Planning Commission for giving that impression. He looks at the members of his ward as he looks at his .clients. He tries to give them the best and ironclad protection he -can:. Alderman Daniel also commended the staff and Planning Commission for the jobs they do. She said she would not vote for either of these resolutions at this time as she does not have all the information she would like to have. • Alderman Schaper stated that whether the Council chooses the more specific resolution or the more general one, his vote should not be construed as a vote against connectivity. Connectivity is one of the principles in the land use plan. Neighborhoods should be connected. The problem is, in this case, that making a single connection across would result in establishing a collector street and there are no collector streets on the Master .Street Plan in that area. :Our goal is to channel the traffic around the mountain and keep it out of neighborhoods, another stated goal of the land use plan. There is fear whenever a street connection is made because the City has not been able to catch up in the road system and create roads designed to carry that through traffic. Something may have to be done to accelerate the necessary road widening in the future. 10 79 February 20, 1996 Alderman Hill stated that it was clear the Council was setting a couple of policies: one, protection of neighborhoods and, two, changing procedure in the way that neighborhood streets are handled. He hoped the Planning Commission and staff would work on this and give direction. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, Alderman Parker's resolution was defeated on a vote of 5 to 3, with Parker, Schaper, and Miller voting in favor of it. Mayor Hanna called for another motion. Alderman Young made a motion to adopt Kit Williams' resolution. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 1, with Alderman Daniel voting no. RESOLUTION 19-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Mayor Hanna stated this is a very good resolution, especially the part that endorses the loop concept. The policy statement set forth in this resolution should serve Fayetteville well. B. RAZING AND REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES: An ordinance providing for the razing and removal of buildings or houses that have become dilapidated, unsafe, unsanitary, or detrimental to the public welfare; and providing for a lien on the real property. Mayor Hanna stated this ordinance was left on its second reading at the February 6 Council meeting. Alderman Miller moved to suspend the rules and go to the third reading. Alderman Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Schaper stated that he agreed with Alderman Young's additions to this ordinance. He pointed out the need for this ordinance as there was recently another fire in an unoccupied structure on S. University which totally destroyed that structure and did serious damage to the adjoining structures. Every effort must be made to get these abandoned structures quickly removed. Alderman Williams moved to pass this ordinance. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. 11 80 { February 20, 1996. t« Paula4Marinoni, who .lives at 617 W: Lafayette St. which is a building on the National Register: of..Historic Places,..spoke. She noted=that when this was on the first reading, the main change was not notifying the public. She expected people to express alarm at that. Her•main interest in the community is historic preservation and restoration. From that standpoint this waived a red flag, buildings possibly being torn down without•the public knowing about it. With notice, someone may come forward to restore the building for offices, etc. Marinoni read Section 1 of the proposed ordinance and pointed out that she had researched what ordinances are on the books allowing for the upkeep of property and found only three ordinances... There is not now on the books an Fordinancethat tells people property must be kept up. If we want to tear these buildings. down,'a more positive action would be to put an ordinance on the books to encourage people to keep up their property. Marinoni offered her assistance to the Council in working on such an ordinance. Alderman Schaper agreed with Marinoni's comments-. His ordinance is an ordinance of last resort.. He would prefer to see properties kept up and have stronger regulations about this. Unfortunately,• there are times when property is left to run down. This ordinance is needed to avoidthe safety hazard of these kinds of..buildings. Alderman Young pointed out the changes he had made to Schaper's ordinance.. One of them does exactly what Marinoni talked about. One of his main concerns was historic houses. The City's inspection•department has rules and procedures in place right now which he added to this ordinance so they would have to go through .s such procedures before tearing down a house. , Alderman Parker noted that the ordinance .did have provision..for , notice by certified copy to the owner or posted on the:property,if-.' the owner cannot be found. Though this would not be public notice'; 4 it is notice to the owner and the City is. not dust coming in ,and rolling over the property. 0 Mayor Hanna brought the discussion back to the.Council,:reminding them a.motion had been made. Mayor Hanna stated this ordinance is on its third reading so a second is.not..necessary. Upon roll, call the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0; ORDINANCE 3948 APPEARS ON PAGE.. OF ORDINANCE BOOK 12 81 February 20, 1996 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT APPEAL: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to modify a Large Scale Development Plan for Car Mart at their January 8 meeting as requested by Todd Fleeman. Mayor Hanna noted that Alderman Schaper had brought up the point that the Council needed to vote on whether or not to hear this appeal. This is not something usually brought to the Council. City Attorney Rose had been consulted and he agreed. Alderman Young stated he would vote to hear an appeal but strictly on the question of the Highway Department's requirement of 15' for a one-way street rather than the 12' given by the Planning Commission. He is not interested in considering 25' for a double entrance. Alderman Miller moved to hear the appeal. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Bill Rudasill, WBR Engineering, spoke representing Mr. Fleeman and Dynamic Enterprises. He gave background of the design of the project and the process gone through with the Planning Commission and City staff and what transpired after that. The proposed car lot currently has two 25' two-way entrances. Staff had concerns about two driveways and proposed one driveway. Because of semitruck traffic, one drive would have to be located near the center of the property, which disturbed the layout by reducing the number of cars displayed and the truck would have to make several turns to move in and out, maneuverability was limited. In meeting with Alett Little, it was resolved that two entrances would better serve truck traffic and flow through the property. Staff was still concerned about driveway cuts and was adamant that one drive would be one way and the other would be two way. They preceded through Planning Commission under those requirements. After that, the owners approached the Highway Department with the question about the one-way drive and requesting their opinion. They were informed that the Highway Department does not allow 12' drives for commercial access or exit; it must be 15'. The Highway Department also had concerns about how the drive would work in relation to the traffic on that road. They are making this request basically on at the recommendation of the Highway Department. Alett Little stated that she did not feel it takes Council action for the City to commit to the 15'drive out. She understood that the appeal was to discuss whether or not to allow two two-way drives in or out. Staff is prepared and willing for the one-way drive out to be 15'. It is an administrative issue and does not take Planning Commission or Council action. 13 • 82 February 20, 1996 In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Little said an arrangement of one=way in and one-way out has never been -discussed. They have always discussed a main entrance and a drive to accommodate the larger trucks. Having to circle behind the building, it would be easier to exit in a straight manner rather than coming back across the lot. That is why staff agreed to the additional exit -only lane. In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Charles Venable,. .Assistant to the Public Works Director, stated the Highway Department normally requires a 15' wide drive. Little<stated that as it is a State highway, it does require the State's approval which is why the Council and Planning Commission do not have to act on this. The City would have to approve the 15'. In response to Alderman Parker, Little agreed that if the Council turned down the appeal it would not inhibit them from making that one correction to the plans. The appeal is to request two two-way drives. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Rudasill stated the frontage is 300' with at least 150' between the drives. One item not yet covered is that there are currently two two-way entrances spaced closer together on that property. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Rudasill stated there is landscaping proposed along the front of the property. Little stated most of this was on the plan as part of the parking lot -requirement and part are tree replacements. A car lot is not considered a parking lot, but there is parking along the front of this site. In response to a question from Alderman Daniel regarding having one way in and one way out, Mr. Rudasill stated the Highway Department has made comments to the effect that it would be safer to provide a two-way. entrance. Alderman Parker said the Planning Commission may have had safety in, mind when making their decision. When you don't have two two-way entrances, you don't have people pulling out from both. Because of the high volume of traffic, the Commission may have wanted to have only one ,.in -out entrance and the other was provided only as an escape valve for the trucks. They surely considered all the arguments presented now and rejected them: It'. would 'be presumptuous of the Council to ignore that. 14 83 February 20, 1996 Charles Venable read a letter from the Highway Department recommending that the City allow two 25' driveways if all other criteria was met. Alderman Williams supported the Planning Commission's action in trying to preserve Highway 62 and its having too many curb cuts. Alderman Williams moved to deny the appeal and support the Planning Commission's decision. Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0, with Schaper voicing his support of the Planning Commission. D. VACATION VA96-2: An ordinance vacating the portion of Jerry Avenue which lies south of Helen Street located south of Huntsville Road, east of Happy Hollow Road as requested by Greg Foster on behalf of Jerry and Elizabeth Watson. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Miller stated there is no chance this road would ever be extended as it would go into the river. He noted the City would keep the utility easements. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Alderman Williams moved to go to the second reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Miller moved to suspend the rules and go to the third reading. Alderman Bassett seconded. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3949 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK E. REZONING RZ96-1: An ordinance rezoning three acres located on Moore Lane from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Gary Stearman. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Miller noted that a large part of this is in the overlay district. The only reason this rezoning was held up was to give a chance for public comment. 15 • 84 February 20., 1996 Alderman Schaper explained that he has been working:with the people on the research and technology park which would be across the street from this rezoning. He stated there is no need for any more commercial space. He had concerns about the existing development there which is not of the highest quality and needs to overcome obstacles in order to get an.attractive and saleable research and technology park. There are plenty of areas in the city where this business could go that would be just as accessible. Alderman Bassett agreed this He, however, is comfortable district. He pointed out enacting the overlay ordinan .. r. was.a fair point,because of the park.. with this as.it' is in the overlay the Council did the right thing ,in, ce. Alderman Williams observed that the General Plan also.'shows this as regional commercial'1and. .This is good use for thisk.`fland;though he did agree that there are many other acres -of commercial..land available. In answer to a:question from Alderman Schaper concerning the.policy when a property .is .partly in .and partly out of the overlay district, Alett Little stated that a zoning district is adefined area. :The provisions of the overlay district apply only t� the land located within the boundaries'•of the overlay district. There are several sites like that within the city. In answer to a question from Alderman Young regarding conditional use requests, Littlereplied that conditional use is also allowed under zoning. The overlay district`is primarily a set of design standards. It goes on top of: whatever else 'is required in the district, making it more restrictive. The intended use of this property is for storage units, whichare not a use by right in the C-2 district and' do require a conditional use approval by the Planning Commission. In making the conditional use approval, the Planning Commission has broad powers' as far: as setting the conditions they wish to see on the site. This is true with any conditional use. .. In answer to a question from Alderman. Parker; Little did remember the petitioners stating they would comply with the overlay district on the entire property, though she could not find it in the minutes. a • r Parker thought if that was the case, the petitioners would be willing .to- offer a bill of assurance regarding this.. The petitioners were not present to address the issue. Aldermaxf Parker, seconded by until.. the,. petitioners could roll call,the motion passed Schaper, movedtotable the ordinance be present to answer questions. Upon on a vote of 8 to 0. 16 ., 4 85 February 20, 1996 F. REZONING RZ96-2 & RZ96-3: Ordinance rezoning property located at 2472 N. Shiley Drive as requested by Jerry Sweetser. RZ96-2--Rezone .315 acres from R-1, Low to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial; RZ96-3--Rezone .34 acres from R-3, High to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Density Residential, Density Residential, Alderman Bassett moved to suspend the rules and go to the third reading. Alderman Miller seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read both rezonings and reminded the Council they would have to vote on them separately. Alett Little stated there has been an additional piece of information presented since the last meeting, which is a letter of assurance from Michael Sweetser regarding the use of this property stating they have no intention of converting this to commercial use. Alderman Parker noted this is not a binding bill of assurance as the wording is not specific. There being no public comment, Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call ORDINANCE 3950 Upon roll call ORDINANCE 3951 CONSENT AGENDA RZ96-2 passed on a vote of 8 to 0. APPEARS ON PAGE RZ96-3 passed on a vote of 8 to 0. APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK OF ORDINANCE BOOK Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution, which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a Consent Agenda: A. Minutes of the February 6 regular City Council meeting. B. A Resolution approving an agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $112,886 plus a 10% contingency of $11,289 for reconstruction of 24th Street. RESOLUTION 20-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 17 86 1 Y'a f TK RESOLUTION 21-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .D. A'resolution endorsing Hanna's Potpourri Specialties for s, benefits from tax refundsandtax credits as provided.by the Arkansas Enterprise Zone Program. February 20,z1996 A resolution approving a contract with O.J.'.s:Enterprises in the amount of .$47,125 for nightly cleaningservices at the airport. RESOLUTION 22-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE E. A resolution awarding bids for asphaltic materials, asphaltic oils, concrete materials, hillside material, and petromat for use citywide. RESOLUTION .23-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE F. A resolution authorizing payment of an additional $2,327.51 for the City's share of the oversizing cost of Cliffs Boulevard. RESOLUTION 24-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Alderman Williams moved to accept the consent agenda. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6- 0, with Alderman Young abstaining and Alderman Hill not present. REZONING RZ96-4 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 1.73 acres-located.at 3250 W. Sixth Street from A-1, Agricultural, to C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Clyde Widders on behalf of Joe Gaspard. Planning Commission voted 5-4-0 to recommend the-'' rezoning.. :+ r City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Miller suggested leaving this on its first reading there had been no Council tour the day before. • Mayor Hanna asked for comment from the audience. There being none this ordinance was left on its first reading. AWARENESS OF ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution requiring owners applying for commercial building permits to acknowledge their awareness of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines and Southern Standard Building Code Accessibility Standards and the consequences of failing to meet 18 87 February 20, 1996 such standards and guidelines; and to require all commercial building permit plans to indicate compliance with accessibility guidelines. Mayor Hanna stated the City has been working for a number of years to get in compliance with the ADA regulations. City Attorney Rose read the resolution for the first time. Alderman Bassett paid tribute to City Attorney Rose for the guidance he supplied to the Mayor's task force on this issue. He also thanked all the people who served on this task force. The idea of the resolution is to make sure that commercial buildings constructed in Fayetteville are accessible to the handicapped. Another aspect is to notify the property owner up front before money, time, and effort is wasted. There are aspects of the resolution designed to avoid lawsuits. Bassett noted that City property is not involved here. There are future plans for the task force to address multi -family housing. Alderman Miller commented that this is an absolute no-brainer. It is time to stop building buildings that deny access to a portion of the population. He hoped the task force would also work on stiffening penalties for people who park in handicapped parking spaces. Alderman Young commented that in new construction it is difficult to determine where curb cuts and curbs should go. In his opinion the most important part of this resolution is where it states this must be shown on the construction plans. In answer to a question from Alderman Young regarding whether or not only owners could apply for building permits, City Attorney Rose stated the intent is to have the owner sign the acknowledgement form no matter who applies for the permit. This had been discussed. Alderman Bassett moved to pass this resolution. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 8 to 0. 12ES6LU7 1OrJ 2m5“ciG AS KEaGOY2bE7 iN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Danielle Strickman, Director of Sources for Community Independent Living Services, spoke to congratulate the Council and City of Fayetteville. What was done tonight was the culmination of a task force that worked so well together and so quickly it was an unusual circumstance. This accomplishment is precedent setting. She does intend to promote this and it will be the basis for the Governor's Commission on Persons with Disability in Arkansas. 19 88 OTHER BUSINESS February 20, 1996 ANNEXATION COMMITTEE Mayor Hanna asked for volunteers to form a committee to study the annexation questions. The City staff has saidthat within two weeks they could provide a list of the advantages.and disadvantages of annexation: It was decided to have this done before the committee was formed. - - Alder'man Parker asked for the staff report to include how this would affect the White River Rural Water Association. 'Alderman Schaper noted it would be important to consider the impending census change and how that would affect out planning area • boundary. - INCINERATOR LITIGATION UPDATE City Attorney Rose gave an update on the incinerator lawsuit. He reminded the Council that there are -two cases. One is being handled by attorney dick Patton and is a case against third parties in State.. Court. All those parties have been served and are now going through various motions to dismiss which Patton is fighting. The other case is the Boatman's case where they are suing the City in Federal Court. Until about tendays ago it was handled by Patton, who has found -it would not be beneficial to the City to continue this. Rose stated he has taken over this case. It is a very complicated lawsuit involving State security violations and four counts of Constitutional violations. He has filed a 31 -page answer to that complaint. The Authority, which is virtually non- existent, has not answered the complaint so a default judgement is being sought against the Authority:' They are asking for a default judgement of approximately $36 million. Rose explained that in the weeks to come he will want to be sure he has the resourcesto combat that regardless of what it takes. He will be candid about what his.'needs are. Alderman Bassett: Alderman Williams: Alderman Parker: Alderman Miller: UPCOMING COMMITTEE MEETINGS Ordinance Review, Thursday, 4:30 Street Committee, Tuesday, after agenda sessions., Nominating Committee, Thursday, 5:30 1 • e. y j Environmental Concerns, Wednesday, 5:33 The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. 20