Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-02 Minutes123 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, April 2, 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 Jimmy Hill, Steve Parker, Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, and Woody Bassett; 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. COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD Mayor Hanna presented a Community Service Award to the fifth and sixth grade children of Asbell School for their Gifts of the Heart program, which is now in its fourth year. Also honored were five teachers who designed and worked cooperatively on the annual project. They are Beverly Augustine, LaGaye Coffee, Sue Kirkpatrick, Royce Ann Mitchell, and Pat Storey. So far the students have raised and contributed more than $7,500 to half a dozen local organizations. Mayor Hanna thanked the teachers and the students for their commitment to bettering the quality of life of our city and urged them to keep up the good work. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Daniel moved to nominate Jim Waselues for the Advertising & Promotion Commission, a reappointment. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. OLD BUSINESS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items that have been brought before the Council but were tabled or no decision made to allow further information to be presented. A. Rezoning RZ96-4: An ordinance rezoning 1.73 acres located at 3250 W. Sixth Street from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Joe Gaspard on behalf of Clyde Widders. This ordinance was tabled at the March 19 Council meeting. Alderman Daniel moved to take this rezoning off the table. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. 124 r April 2, 1996 City Attorney Rose stated this ordinance has had its third reading and is now before the Councilfor their vote. He read the title of the ordinance. Joe Gaspard, Century 21, stated Mr. Widders is a client of his and the property has been listed since last -August. An offer on the property was made in December contingent :upon the property being rezoned from A-1 to C-2. Since that.time, the buyer has backed out. There is another potential buyer but the terms will be the same, requiring a C-2 zoning. If it does not get a C-2 zoning, the value of the property will be less. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Gaspard replied Mr. Widders does not own the property but has absolute power-of attorney for his sister who is 103 years old and residing in a nursing home in Prairie Grove. He lived on•this;property for the last eight years caring for her. He now lives in Springdale and the property is vacant.. The house suffered water damage.from broken pipes during the winter. Gaspard stated the property at one time was a grocery store, from 1935 to 1959. There are other commercial properties out there, the club, the salvage yard, many that detract froth any -neighborhood other than commercial. NO would want to build a house or live out there. Alderman Parker pointed out the land would not be devalued by not rezoning to C-2; it just won't increase in value as much as it would otherwise. Also, many aldermen have commented on the commercial nature of the area and ..that there are quite a. few commercial uses with an R -O zoning, which would be consistent with the 2020 Plan. In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Gaspard stated R -O would be better than A-1 - Alderman Daniel.stated there can be a better use for this land than C-2 which would better that area. There is a lot of C-2.there, :but this is an opportunity to have other zoning that might increase the value of some of the property there. Alderman Williams noted this has not been read for the third time. Responding to a question from Williams,.Alett Little; Planning Director, agreed the Planning Commission did -approve the C-2 request on a 5 to 4 vote. They did discuss the R -O classification and-ywhat would be allowed there.:,'-s.They also •discussed C-1`, and their feelings on that were .that;` there• are 'not' that -many significant differences between C-1 and C-2. This land does adjoin ,C-2 to the west which was a deciding factor in the recommendation. 2 IF April 2, 1996 Answering a question from Alderman Bassett, Little stated there had been quite a bit of discussion about R -O and that the four who voted against C-2 may have been arguing for R -O. Alderman Williams stated he is concerned about the whole corridor out there. The five -lane road is extremely busy and is not a good place to have a residence. There is a lot of commercial out there, some not in wonderful shape. The Planning Commission is concerned about having another strip develop out there and he shared that concern. This has been somewhat addressed on the 2020 Plan, but just slapping mixed-use out there does not give much guidance. This is an important area and the Planning Commission should look at this section to devise a way or make more specific plans on what they would like to see. This is not far from Farmington and there is a lot of commercial in Farmington, right outside our city limits. He would rather have the sales tax money spent in Fayetteville as opposed to Farmington. Alderman Schaper stated we must realize that there is a great surplus of commercial land in Fayetteville. The whole Sixth Street corridor is deteriorating. A lot of it needs redevelopment. The reason for this is that there is too much commercial available. One thing that needs to be demonstrated in any rezoning is that there is a need for additional land in that zoning category. We would be very hard pressed to show that there is additional land needed for C-2 zoning here where there is so much under-utilized property already. Another concern is that when the Council takes a long-term perspective, as it needs to do, and we think about the amount of commercial land we need in the city, the 2020 Plan says we need about 800 acres of commercial land to develop. There may already be on the books a 15 -year supply of commercially zoned land. That keeps the price of commercial land very low. It encourages marginal uses, as in the older areas of town, and we get single story buildings surrounded by parking lots. If we continue to rezone land to C-2 when we already have a 15 -year supply of it, we are not doing this town a service. Alderman Miller visited this site. He wanted the Council to consider the fact that there is a piece of property there that will go downhill real fast if someone does not take control of it. If it is not salable, it will degenerate more and more until it is really an eyesore. It is a consideration that if we don't zone it so that it is salable, it will sit and rot. Alderman Young's concern was the land use plan. The City went through a lot of trouble to develop a land use plan. The zoning we have now that is closest to mixed use is R -O. He is not interested in changing the values of property based on zoning. The Planning 3 125 126 it April 2, 1996 Commission must definitely decide what nixed use is and tailor.our classifications to mixed use.. Going back to the land use plan, we will either have one or we:won't. Each rezoning must be looked at on a case-by-case basis and if there is a compelling reason to zone contrary to the plan, it should be obvious. There is no obvious reason to go contrary to thelanduse-plan in this instance. Planning Director Little addressed mixed use. The Planning Commission was not thaphazardin their decision to assign this area a mixed use category. They made that decision after considering what was already present in the area,. not only single family homes but also night clubs and: junk yards'. .There are a number of families who own property and'what they would like to do with their property will have to. be considered. The purpose behind a mixed use zone is to allow incentives so that thearea can redevelop. The two criteria guiding mixed use development are that properties located next door to each other remain compatible and that the category of mixed use is a reflection of Fayetteville in that the amounts of land supported for rezoning remain consistent percentage-wise-throughout...the city. Each one of these mixed.use areas is a mini -Fayetteville and reflects that same mixing of uses. If this is sent back to the Planning Commission for additional study, it should be with a directive .to .develop zoning -classifications so that these properties are rezoned at the current time or with other more definitive guidance. Mayor Hanna asked for further comments from the audience.:,,There were none. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Before the vote, Alderman Parker asked if anyone would support a motion to change the designation in this from C-2.. It was decided he would make the motion after the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance. failed on a vote of 3 to 5, with Hill, 'Parker, Schaper, Daniel, and Young voting no. Alderman Parker moved to consider this for vote again, changing the designation from A-1, Agricultural, to R -O, Residential Office. Alderman Bassett seconded. Alderman Williams stated this is a good compromise. There is a ,need to keep in mind that this family must beable to sell their property. It certainly isnot agricultural property. April 2, 1996 Alderman Miller hoped this would allow the land to be sold and not develop into another eyesore. Alderman Parker pointed out that in addition to the uses allowed under residential office, there are quite a few conditional uses to expand the zoning classification that we might give it. There being no further comments, Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3957 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements: An ordinance amending the Subdivision Regulations of the Code of Fayetteville allowing for the deposit of U.S. currency, an irrevocable letter of credit, or a performance/surety bond for the delay of certain required improvements. This ordinance was left on its second reading a the March 19 Council meeting. City Attorney Rose stated the Council had before them copies of the proposed amendment by Alderman Young. This would require a motion to amend and Rose read the changes. Alderman Young moved to adopt the amendments. Alderman Parker seconded. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper; City Attorney Rose stated he had reviewed the amendments and his office had prepared them. Rose assured Alderman Hill that amendment E still allowed for the irrevocable letter of credit. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Alderman Miller moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Dave Jorgensen, from the audience, urged the Council to pass this as it is a good alternative to what is in place now. His only reservation concerned the installation of sidewalks within 270 days but felt this problem could be worked out. There being no more comments, Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3958 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK 5 127 128 April 2, 1996 CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration 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 March 19 regular.City Council meeting; B. A resolution.. approving a Highway -Utility Construction/Relocation Agreement with. the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department for the Highway 71 - Garland Avenue water and sewer relocation RESOLUTION 43-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S. OFFICE A resolution awarding Bid. 96-12 to :Chris King Electric for electrical work and related service needs of the City of; Fayetteville for. 1996 RESOLUTION•44-96 AS RECORDED IN THE -CITY CLERK'S OFFICE , D. A resolution awarding.Bid 96r13 to. Johnson. Mechanical for plumbing work and service needs of the City of Fayetteville RESOLUTION 45796 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Alderman Hill moved Upon roll call, the ' •BID WAIVER Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance approving a • to accept the Consent Agenda. -Daniel seconded. motion passed on a vote of 8 to O. bidrwaiver in an amount;not to exceed $32; -400 -for the purchase of a used, diesel powered,t40-passenger handicap bus which will be utilized.in the Youth Center Transportation Program. r 1 , City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Sehaper moved to sustain the rules and go.to the reading. second Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, pointed out the amount in Section 3 should be $32,400. Alderman Hill seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 8 to -O. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. 6 o- April 2, 1996 Alderman Miller moved to further suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. There being no further comments, Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0 ORDINANCE 3959 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK BID WAIVER Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance approving a bid waiver for the purchase of a used or demonstrator track loader which will be utilized in the Street Maintenance, Water/Sewer and Solid Waste programs. The bid waiver will include the trade of Unit #605 and is not to exceed a total of $93,000 difference. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Bill Oestreich, Fleet Operation Superintendent, stated the current market is such that it would be to our advantage to purchase this used equipment. We have an excellent review procedure. Alderman Williams moved to go with 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 Schaper moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3960 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK OFF STREET PARKING WAIVERS Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance amending the Zoning Code and giving authority to the Planning Commission to waive off-street parking requirements in C-3 and C-4 zoning districts. 7 129 130 April 2, 1996 Mayor Hanna stated the Planning Commission voted 7-0-2 to recommend the ordinance. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Bassett commended the Planning Commission and its. subcommittee for the time and effort they put into this. .This will continue the revitalization of Dickson Street and the downtown area and will encourage restoration of existing buildings and further investment in this area. Alett Little responded to a question from Alderman Daniel concerning where the money for variances goes. When funds are collected for a specific purpose, they go into a fund for that purpose. If they are not'used within a certain amount of time, they are, returned to the person who paid them. The ability to assess those fees has been on the books since. February of 199.5. The Planning Commission has chosen to assess those in only one instance. In that case, 'that business did not materialize or mature to the point where the fees were collected. To date, 10 years, there have been no fees collected. Alderman Daniel stated she is not keen on another parking lot here, the Uptown School location. She would rather see that money used towards a parking deck or something. Referring to a letter from the Dickson Street Improvement District, Daniel stated they are expecting the City to provide 75. more. parking spaces; however, originally the improvement district was supposed to.pay.for-.the 500 parking spaces. Alett Little explained that the 500 parking spaces was one consideration used in placing the Walton Arts Center on Dickson Street. That responsibility was originally the Dickson Street Improvement District's. However, the City ,did take.over:that responsibility in a lawsuit settlement, atwhich time, the improvement district agreed to be responsible for the landscaping, beautifying, and other issues in the area. Currently, there are 433 parking spaces developed for the Walton Arts Center. The original commitment of 500 has not..been met. With regard to 500, that is just a number that came out of the air and is not related tothe seating in the Walton Arts Center. It does represent a firm commitment on the part of the City. . Alderman Schaper :questioned why razed buildings .need parking'. Little explained this means when they are replaced and should be covered by new construction or enlarged buildings. In response to Schaper's suggestion to strike razed buildings, Alderman Young stated this was not .a.good_idea,as they couldsay that it is just a building on an existing foundation. 8 April 2, 1996 Alderman Williams had a problem with the idea of discriminating against someone who takes a building down and puts another one back up. It should be treated like an enlarged building; if you actually enlarge the square footage, more parking spaces should be required. But we should be encouraging the taking down of dilapidated structures and not punish someone if they rebuild on the footprint. We might say for enlarged and reconstructed buildings, additional parking spaces will be calculated by the amount of square footage that is added. Alderman Schaper stated one of his concerns is that the City does discourage new construction downtown because the new construction has to meet parking requirements and the conversion of existing buildings doesn't. It is an arrangement that should be looked at to see if we are deterring new construction. The most successful downtowns have streetscapes that are continuous building facades. They do not have parking lots punctuating the streetscapes; they are behind or off the street. We do not have this here. Alderman Williams stated the ordinance does not cover replacing buildings and the Council needs to consider what the Planning Commission intended. This is not what they recommended. They recommended if it was razed, you lost all your parking. Alderman Schaper suggested adding the words "or reconstructed" after the word "existing." City Attorney Rose suggested leaving this on the first reading to allow him and Little time to incorporate the Council's thoughts into an amendment. Alett Little clarified the Planning Commission's intent regarding this ordinance. The way the City now operates is that if you have a warehouse and you change it to a restaurant, when you come to the planning office for a building permit, we look at the number of parking spaces that are required for the warehouse and the restaurant and subtract the ones assumed to be there for the warehouse and ask where the others will park. With this ordinance, the Planning Commission is attempting to liberalize our current policy, saying if you want to take a building and you want to renovate it and change the use of it, we as a City will support you in that and it is your responsibility as a business owner to find the parking. The City will not deal with that anymore. Also, they said in changes of use we are not going to deal with it anymore your way. You don't have to worry about the parking requirements anymore. If one of those buildings were redeveloped to a more intensive use, they did not feel that would be fair and did not want to punish the others on Dickson Street who use that parking by having that removed from any requirements. That is why they separated the two kinds of uses. 131 132 April 2, 1996 Alderman Daniel had a question on page: 7.10 concerning lower assessments to properties in the District Street Improvement District. Alderman Young stated that in the puts in improvements, they can go assessments loweredrelative to have done. improvement district, if someone to the Commission and have their the amount of improvements they Alderman Williams had a question about Section 2(1)(a) stating we might want to put, "except for residential use." Otherwise, we ,might be encouraging homes to be taken over, • razed, and no new parking would be put in. We want to continue the mixed use with homes near commercial zones and not give people incentiveto go in and remove homes from the residential use. We don't want to replace houses with commercial structures. • Little agreed this is a valid concern and one that the Planning Commission has discussed. This is an area zoned C-3 and C-4 and although these people are choosing to use their property residentially, they have the right to change their use. Alderman Daniel asked thestaff to provide her with a map of the Dickson Street Improvement District by the next meeting. Richard Schewmaker, Dickson Street resident, had asked the Council in October not to pass a new ordinance. Since thattime the Planning Commission has spent a lot of hours meeting with many important segments of the community and have done a good job.. He hoped the Council would make a decision on this at their next meeting. In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Little stated the Planning Commission realizes there is potential for conversion of the residential uses and also realizes those people have the C-3 and C-4 zoning now. They already have the right to develop •it differently. Once we realized that those properties at least had yards and that the effect of the new construction or enlarged area would kick in, we felt that at least would cover it. If the City wants to take an active role in promoting the residential use there, we will have to come up with some funds to say if you won't develop we'•1l give you such and such. Beyond that, they do have the right to develop their property. Alderman Daniel stated that since it is apparently legal to allow assessments, that may be the way to go.. • Not wanting to reinvent the wheel, Alderman Parker asked that the Council be informed by the next agenda session of some of the ideas considered and shot down. 10 • April 2, 1996 Mr. Shewmaker stated that the most significant market force there now is housing. There is a tremendous demand for it. City Attorney Rose clarified his drafting task. He would proceed to tinker with the footprint idea but not pursue the idea of residential or single-family home assessments. He would have this for Tuesday's agenda session. DISCHARGE & PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance repealing Chapter 51: Water and Sewer, Subchapter: Discharge and Pretreatment Regulations, Sections 51.070 through 51.089, of the Code of Fayetteville; and adopting the Discharge and Pretreatment Code for the City of Fayetteville. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time and informed the Council that Section 5, the emergency clause, had been withdrawn. Alderman Miller stated this pretreatment ordinance was formulated by Operation Management International, the company he works for, and he would abstain from discussion and voting on this issue. Alderman Bassett pointed out that some industries directly affected by the proposed modification have not been made aware of the proposed changes. There may be an issue as to whether or not they have had appropriate notice and ample opportunity to determine what the proposed changes are. While not wanting to interfere with discussion by the citizens present to comment on this, serious consideration should be given to tabling this, as we would a rezoning if there were not adequate notice to people directly affected. Charles Venable, Assistant to the Public Works Director, stated this has not been done overnight. It has gone before the Water & Sewer Committee and there has been a lot of opportunity for input. No one has contacted the staff about this. Duen Tran, OMI, made some clarifications. OMI helped draft this ordinance because OMI is more familiar with what is going on. The EPA had a model to work from which OMI had a handle on. Tran gave a brief review of the pretreatment regulation, which has been here since 1983. it is applied to all users of the system, not lust industrial users. In 1992 the State issued Fayetteville the new discharge permit and in that it required the City to reassess the ordinance. Several definitions in the ordinance were no longer correct. The local limitations are not technically based. The modifications were submitted to the State in 1993 and it is still there. Since then the industrial flow to the plant has increased 11 131 134 April 2, 1996 significantly and we have to reassess our local limits one, more '•time, as required by. law. When the EPA sewerordinance model was =available, we took the chance to use it. If we'd had it before, we'd have used it. Tran then discussed some of the changes there were concerns about. Many definitions have been revised to meet EPA language.. Many were added because of the scope of the program and procedures have -changed.- It is nothing new but needs to be -in the ordinance to clarify it. EPA requirements were added. A major change that would benefit the industry more than anything is the pH limitation. The local limitations have been changed and are based on the most current data. The local limits apply to the users who do not have a permit from the plant. Those with permits stay until time for revisions. A change that would. affect the industrial user is the permit fee, those applying for a new one or renewing a permit. The cost is necessary to cover administrative. costs of issuing the permit. A major change which is an EPA requirement is $1,000 for violation per day. We have to have this. Steve Ward, Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, apologized that they were not on top of the fact that this issue was coming down. It directly affects the industries and major employers in this community. The costs of this could run into millions with thousands of jobs lost.. He asked that this be tabled so that the people affected by this have a chance to talk to the staff to gain understanding and give input. In response to the Mayor's suggestion, Ward agreed to set a meeting with OMI and the City and the industrial users whohave questions. Alderman Williams explained this is an ordinance and unless the rules are suspended it would have to be read at three separate meetings over more than a month. He would rather not table it but let it go through normal procedure. 'A month would be enough time to set up a. meeting. Ward agreed there would be enough time but wanted the opportunity to have input before the Council addressed the ordinance in case there are changes that need to be made. Alderman Parker noted that this month has five Tuesdays. It could be read tonight then by the next agenda session the Council would have an idea ofwhetheror not to take it off the agenda for the following meeting or to table it at that meeting. 12 135 April 2, 1996 Responding to Alderman Young's question as to how long Mr. Ward would need to set up a meeting and have input ready, Ward replied the industry is very concerned about this issue and would be ready at a moment's notice. Months and months would not be needed. Several meetings could take place in a short time. Alderman Parker commented on the importance of using EPA standards and EPA language, which could save the City money. EPA language has been interpreted by the courts, so the City would not have to go to court as we might with language we generate. The ordinance was left on its first reading. WATER LINE, SEWER LINE & STREET SPECIFICATIONS Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution authorizing the Engineering Department to promulgate policies, procedures and specifications for water lines, sewer lines, and streets. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated this resolution will specifically approve the water line specifications already presented to the Water & Sewer Committee. The City Attorney's office suggested authorizing the water, sewer, and street specifications to be approved by the appropriate committees rather than having them come to the Council individually. When the sewer line and street specifications are ready, they will be taken to the appropriate committee for approval and not to the full board. Alderman Schaper reads this resolution as bypassing the Council, going right from the committee to the Mayor. City Attorney Rose stated it is normal for administrative rules and regulations to be made by administrators. The due process is fairly minimal. You need notice and a hearing. There are all kinds of rules and regulations which do not come to the Council. Alderman Young stated that by going through a committee, someone on the Council knows what is going on. City Attorney Rose stated another source of discussion was that once you get into approving a general body of rules and regulations, how do you amend those. Alderman Williams was satisfied that this adds another layer of Council participation, not by the full Council but by committee members. Any major questions could be brought to the Council. 13 t April 2, 1996 Alderman Parker was a little leery of this. Small administrative regulations. are already made without sending them before the Council and he saw no reason not to continue to do so. This removes a whole class of policies,,procedures, and specifications which could be taken before the Council on the consent agenda and not take a lot of debate. This resolution edges into policy and he would rather not give up jurisdiction over the decisions on water lines, sewer lines, and streets. Alderman Bassett saw no threat to the role of the Council. The committees will have the opportunity to review all questions. Alderman Williams stated this resolution steers, questions to the Council. The committees are made up of half the Council so it is well represented. Alderman Williams moved that under sections 2 and 3 after the word "reviewed" we put "and approved." Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote 8 to 0. In answer to a question from Alderman Young, Don Bunn stated street specifications should be done soon. .He is working on putting them into a form similar to the water specifications. They should be ready for the Council in May. The sewer line specifications. will come after that. Alderman Schaper had a concern about the water specs. At agenda session they were told of a requirement of not having tree plantings in easements. He could not find anythingin the specifications that says you should not plant trees in a water easement. David Jurgens, Water & Sewer Maintenance Manager, statedthat generally water and sewer easements are not together because by law they have to be separated by at least ten =feet. These.. are construction specifications, they do not have to do with residences once the lines are put in and houses built. A solution to keep sewer lines away from trees is to put them in the street, which causes problems with the streets but does allow access and keeps us out of people's back yards. These specifications are not the proper place to address these problems; they are construction specs for design and built, not maintain specs for the ground surface. We do have the first draft of the sewer specifications. They are very detailed and complete. Jurgens explained itis very disturbing to a citizen when the City messes up their entire front yard to avoid the trees right along the edge of the street. He stated the City needs to look at the long term impact of where trees are being placed. 14 137 April 2, 1996 In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Jurgens stated planting trees in the four foot planting area can create a challenge in maintaining the water and sewer system. Alderman Parker expressed his support for placing lines underneath the street. In answer to a question from Alderman Hill, Jurgens stated it is the duty of the City to maintain the ability to get to the system. Alderman Miller asked if there are any sewer materials that are designed to prohibit roots from infiltrating them. Jurgens stated the City is doing everything within current technology. City Engineer Don Bunn stated roots could probably be excluded from the sewer system if the City used water line pipes for the sewer system. Water line pipe costs three to four times as much as sewer pipe. The technology is there but it is not economical to use water pipe for sewer pipe. Alderman Miller stated the City might want to purchase more expensive pipes for certain situations and locations. In answer to an earlier question from Alderman Hill, Bunn explained that water line pipe can be curved when it is put in so that it can go around trees. At times the City must cut trees for the purpose of the physical installation of the pipe. Alderman Schaper expressed concern that the City might be prohibiting having beautiful tree lined streets. Alderman Parker asked that the City look into types of trees that are less likely to cause problems in the sewer lines. Jurgens agreed that it would be fine to plant some types of trees along the street. In answer to a question from Alderman Hill, Landscape Administrator Beth Sandeen explained there are needs on behalf of Engineering, Water & Sewer, and ordinances promoting tree planting. Sandeen stated right now each situation is handled on a case by case basis. A Master Street Tree Inventory is in the works. This will help with identifying the best streets or areas in the city for tree planting in the future and give other City Departments an opportunity to give input. 15 138 • • April 2,'1996 In response to comments from Alderman Schaper, Sandeen stated the bottom line is trees and easements do not often mix. Street Superintendent Randy Allen stated only small trees are appropriate for the area between the sidewalk and the curb. . In response to a comment from Alderman Schaper, Allen stated large trees planted away from the street will have canopies that will come together in time. Jurgens pointed out timing is sometimes critical when water lines need repaired. He stated the crews just do not have time to cut trees to get to the lines. That is the historical basis whereby easements are always clear. . . Young, seconded by Miller, made a motion to adopt the resolution as amended. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0, with Hill not present. RESOLUTION 46-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.. TREE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending the Tree Protection and Preservation ordinance of the Code of Fayetteville. City Attorney Rose stated the Environmental Concerns Committee has proposed some minor changes in the ordinance. With permission from the Council, Rose read the ordinance for the first time with the changes included. Alderman Miller stated it seems that protocol of the City allows at appeal to be submitted with support of one alderman. Miller reminded staff that the issue was discussed at the Environmental Concerns Committee meeting. Landscape Administrator Beth Sandeen stated the intentions of the Tree & Landscape Advisory Committee in requiring the support of two or more aldermen for an appeal was to keep appeals from becoming arbitrary. The was- some discussion regarding the appeal process "for development plats. Sandeen agreed that if it only takes the support•of one alderman to bring forward an appeal, the Tree Ordinance should'be consistent with the current regulations. .r 16 139 April 2, 1996 Parker, seconded by Miller, made a motion to strike the words "two (2) or more aldermen" and replace with the word "an alderman." Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0. Alderman Parker suggested the section regarding Stop Work Orders might need to be amended to make it clear that a Stop Work Order means that a person must stop work immediately. Rose explained he did not think an amendment was necessary. Alderman Miller stated a Stop Work Order means stop working. Mayor Hanna called for public comments. Charles Agee stated the ordinance is complicated and burdensome. He expressed concern regarding the violation of personal property rights. Agee stated rights are of no use unless they are backed by law and ordinances that defend those rights. He explained that some ordinances create an inability to defend rights. Agee urged members of the Council to view proposed ordinances with a protective eye. He stated the Arkansas Constitution is strong in individual rights. However, nothing short of moral courage by elected officials will stop the constant necessity for citizens to return to the courts to overturn bad law. Agree asked the Council to consider its actions in the light of what is right and what the minority has to do to defend their rights. He stated the Council is placed in a no win situation at every meeting. Agee asked the Council to preserve personal property rights. In response to a comment from Agee, Alderman Miller stated trees are not merely aesthetic. They cool land, purify the air, provide habitat for wildlife and add worth to land. Don Bright stated the issue is not trees. The issue is stealing private property. Bright accused the Council of stealing private property. Alderman Parker stated if you carry property rights to an extreme, a person has the freedom to put in an undesirable use. Zoning laws were established to address this issue. Citizens are giving up part of their personal property rights in exchange for some benefits. Parker added trees can create an economic advantage. Elam Denham stated there are times when the Council has to do something that may be of benefit to the community and may affect someone's rights. Trees on private property belong to the property owner. The Council has sworn under oath to uphold the Constitution and not break laws in passing ordinances that are counter to those existing laws. The existing laws say that the Council has no rights to private property unless it pays for it. It is not right 17 fr 140 April 2, 1996 for the City to take control of private property. -Denham added that .he attended the .Hobbs Mountain .meeting that- was.held in Elkins. Denham discussed the possible dangers of,polluting.Beaver Lake. Bud Tomlinson stated the City is 'taking people's property. Tomlinson expressed concern about the City regulating the planting or removing of trees on private property. Tomlinson stated -the utility companies are butchering trees in the right-of-ways. In response to a question from Tomlinson regarding replacing a percentage of the existing canopy prior to tree removal, Planning Director Alett Little stated the regulation only applies to the development of residential subdivisions. Once the property passes into a lot, the Tree Ordinance does not apply. In answer to a question from Tomlinson regarding the penalty for not shutting down an operation when asked to do•so, City Attorney Rose stated he wouldgo to court and get.an injunction to make a person quit. The person who issued the cease and desist order could.also file misdemeanorcharges against the person in violation for violating the City ordinance. Tomlinson explained he was opposed to the Tree Ordinance. Tomlinson expressed his opinion about putting utility lines:in streets.' He stated the cost is high to.put lines in the street and they always have to be dug up. In response to the private property comments, Alderman Williams stated the Tree Preservation plan -is required when property is being developed. The City requires many things of developers during the development process. Preserving the trees is a minor 'cost. of'development. The City istrying to balance the legitimate -interests of persons to use their property as they want to with the other interests of the neighbors and, the community as.awhole. 4 -Tomlinson expressed his concern for having to fence trees that he is not going to get close to during development.. t AldermanWilliams stated if protective measures are not made, some of the :developers -will damage trees :that should •be preserved: Williams pointed out that some people might not know the types of things that will damage a tree. In response to a comment by Williams, Agee stated there are ordinances regulating -streets, sewers, and sidewalks but everyone can agree thatthose ordinances are well within the purview of the City. A developer is a land owner and the Council is still addressing property rights. 18 141 April 2, 1996 Connie Cramer expressed her support for the Tree Ordinance. She stated tress are important because they purify air and are used for screening purposes. People should keep in mind that some cities have even more stringent regulations. If everyone would work in harmony and have a spirit of cooperation and a desire to beautify our surroundings, the City would not need this ordinance. The Tree Ordinance is a moderate document. The City is not asking unreasonable things of people. In answer to a question from Slater Agee, Tree & Landscape Administrator Beth Sandeen stated the City is not trying to dictate what types of trees are planted. Sandeen stated the City will make recommendations based on the site and what has been planted on the site before. Agee suggested having more genetic diversity in the city as far as different types of trees. Agee also pointed out that 8096 of the air that people breath comes from the oceans. Louise Schaper stated what someone wants as his or her right is not necessarily what the community thinks is right. Through the democratic process in the last couple of centuries, the country has continually sought to balance individual rights versus community rights. This is about that kind of issue. We are resolving it through the right process. The Council decided to leave the ordinance on its first reading. Alderman Hill complimented the Tree & Landscape Advisory Committee for all of their hard work over the past 18 months. Joe Alexander stated the ordinance sounds very complicated. Life is good not because of complicated codes of behavior that tell how people have to act but because of whatever natural goodness is in people's hearts. The solution to the tree problem is not so much in complex rules as to exactly how trees have to be treated but in the love of trees that is in the hearts of many people. We do not need complex rules that get so many people mad at the government and create so much division in the community. CHURCH STREET PARKING LOT Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution addressing the parking spaces in the lot along Church Street between Center Street and Meadow Street. Alderman Young stated there was a parking meeting last Thursday. There was lots of progress made towards resolving the issue. Staff is going to get some information together for another meeting scheduled for April 9, 1996 after the City Council Agenda Session. 19 142 c April 2, 1996 Young, seconded by Miller, made a motion to table the resolution until the next meeting. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 8 to O. CONDITIONAL USE FOR CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending the Zoning Code of the Code of Fayetteville making facilities emitting odors and facilities manufacturing explosives a conditional use in. specified zoning districts. • Alderman Bassett explained that at the last City Council Ordinance Review Committee meeting the committee spent most of their- time reviewing the Tree Ordinance amendments and did not have time to discuss the proposed ordinance amending the Zoning Code. Alderman Miller stated mutagens, carcinogens, and severely toxic substances should be included in the proposed ordinance. Miller suggested adding "and/or other dangerous substances" to the .title of the ordinance and "any process, product or byproduct likely to emit odor or have a potential for explosion or that is a -known mutagen, carcinogen, or toxin" to Section 4 (EE)(2). - The Council decided to refer the ordinance to the Ordinance Review Committee. OTHER BUSINESS Fireworks for Grand Opening of Baum Stadium Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance allowing the University of Arkansas to use fireworks for the singular occasion of the celebration of the inaugural grand opening of the Baum, Baseball Stadium. Alderman Hill stated opening night is scheduled for May 3. The athletic department would like to have a fireworks display before and after the game. The existing ordinance only allows fireworks on July 4. The company being used is the same company that displays the fireworks at the Mall each year. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Schaper stated as an employee of the University, he would need to abstain from the vote. Williams, seconded by Hill, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a 7-0-1 vote, with Schaper abstaining. 20 Rose read 143 April 2, 1996 the ordinance for the second time. Bassett, seconded by Parker, made a place the ordinance on its third call, the motion passed by a 7-0-1 motion to suspend the rules and and final reading. Upon roll vote, with Schaper abstaining. Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed by a 7-0-1 vote, with Schaper abstaining. ORDINANCE 3961 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR Annexation Committee Alderman Parker asked if the committee to consider a possible annexation had been established yet. In answer to a question from Mayor Hanna, Assistant Public Works Director Charlie Venable stated a report has been completed and is ready for review. Mayor Hanna asked for Council members who would like to serve on the committee to volunteer. Alderman Williams suggested the report be distributed to the entire Council. The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. 21