Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-20 Minutes337 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, August 20, 1996, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Bassett; Aldermen Heather Daniel, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Steve Parker, Jimmy Hill, Len Schaper; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of staff, press, and audience. ABSENT: Mayor Hanna and Alderman Stephen Miller CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor Bassett called the meeting to order with 7 aldermen present. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Daniel stated there are two nominees for the Cable Board. These are two year terms. Alderman Daniel stated this is in the form of a motion, Lloyd Calhoun and Randall Cale. Alderman Hill seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. CONSENT AGENDA Vice Mayor Bassett introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a consent agenda. A. Minutes of the August 6 regular City Council meeting. B. Item B, Letter Agreement with Mitchell Law Firm, was removed from the consent agenda. See below. C. Alderman Williams had requested that item C, contract with U of A to operate Educational Access Channel, be removed from consent agenda. See below. Alderman Williams moved to accept the minutes. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. 1 44( r a 338 August 20,:1996 NEW BUSINESS LETTER OF AGREEMENT Vice Mayor Bassett stated this hadbeen pulled from the consent agenda. He introduced consideration of a resolution approving a letter agreement with the Mitchell Law' Firm to perform bond counsel services in connection with the proposed issuance of bonds, which would be issued to develop and construct a Town Center and Parking Garage in downtown.Fayetteville. The cost of $18,500 plus out-of- pocket expenses will be financed through the bond proceeds. City Attorney Rose read the resolution. Alderman`Schaper stated this is a new one. He was going to ask if 'we would still pay for the bond counsel if folks decide not to do this project and the bonds are not issued. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated that according to the agreement, we will pay for the out-of-pocket expenses that are incurred and where they are paid to third parties only. At the agenda session; therewere two questions that remained to• be discussed. ,Regarding where the money would come from, .the -answer is the bond proceeds. Regarding where the, out-of-pocket expenses would come from if the bonds were not issued, the answer is the advertising and promotion fund. This was put in the resolution so it would be abundantly clear. We were also asked about our experience on prior bond issues. The Council had been given a schedule that showed the last two issues. For the one in 1994 for $5.5 million, the fee was $22,500 and the expenses were $2,.976. In 1995 we refunded the HMR bonds. That was a $2.7 million issue. The counsel fee was $15,000,- and the expenses were $2,982. We are estimating out -of -pocket -expenses to be $3,000. Our only exposure would be the out-of-pocket expenses paid to third parties. • Alderman ;Schaper asked where the $18,500 comes from, if the bonds are not issued. Mayes replied it is not paid at all. ' It is.contingent upon the issue of the bond. It comes out of the proceeds of the bonds. He added the general fund will never be out anything on this particular bond issue. There is a:.long way to go. This in no way approves the bonds. It still has to be approved by the A & P Commission then come to this Council to be approved to be put on the ballot. Then it goes on a ballot to all the.voters. Then construction bids would be let and they'd have toissue the bonds'. The bond purchase agreement would come back to this Council:and•to the A & P Commission for approval. 2 339 August 20, 1996 Alderman Young stated the out-of-pocket expenses were paid out of the A & P fund, the HMR tax. Alderman Schaper asked why we need the bond counsel at this time. It is a long way to when we'll be issuing bonds. Mayes stated there is a lot that needs to be done before you issue the bonds. The election is one piece of it. That will be the responsibility of the bond counsel, to draft a ballot and make sure we meet all the publication deadlines, to draft supporting documentation. This issue requires coordination between the A & P Commission and the City Council. The discussion has been to bring in the Downtown Parking Authority to help. With the help of staff and the City Attorney, there are issues that will be the primary responsibility of the bond counsel. Alderman Williams stated this is a standard thing we've done many times. The attorneys we are hiring realize if we don't want the election, they are not going to get paid. It is contingent on the A & P Commission, the Council, and the voters all approving. Alderman Schaper stated the scary thing on contingency contracts is there becomes a built-in bias on the part of the folks who will get paid if it passes to make sure it passes. It is the same problem as having the architect do the feasibility study. Vice Mayor Bassett agreed this is a legitimate concern shared by all on the Council. In this instance, the protection lies with those on the A & P Commission, the elected Council, and finally the citizens. Alderman Williams stated here the bond counsel would just be drafting the ballots and things like that. They will not take an active role to promote this. Vice Mayor Bassett stated, just for the record, that at the last A & P meeting one of the points he'd made was that the numbers will have to be defended and proven to people that they are accurate, realistic, and feasible. If they are not good numbers, this project will never happen. Alderman Daniel asked if the Council had copies of the information from that meeting. Bassett replied those numbers were just presented for the first time at the last A & P Commission meeting. There will be further discussion at the next A & P meeting. This is moving slow, as it should. There are a great deal of questions to be answered. 3 August 20,31996. Phyllis Rice, Assistant to the Mayor, informed the Council that the Mayor's office had received calls askingwhy we, are. spending_ this. money for town center when we need streets. She asked that it be explained that the money being spent doesn't come from the general fund. Vice Mayor Bassett explained that if this project ever money will come from the HMR tax. .Underlaw, this used for only certain purposes. Clearly, it cannot general: fund purposes. There is no kind of proposed here. This must be done by some kind ofbond issue the HMR tax happens, the money can be be used for tax increase backed up by Alderman Parker commented that he would like to see. the A. & P materials once they have been looked at. .,Also, he noted,that.Ci.ty Attorney Rose had modified the resolution to conform to suggestions Council members had made at the agenda session. He asked that the final section be reread. City Attorney Rose reread the final section regarding out-of-pocket expenses. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for further discussion from the Council or comments from the public. There were none. Alderman Williams moved to accept the resolution. Alderman Hill seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 95-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY'CLERR'S OFFICE. U OF A CONTRACT Vice Mayor Bassett statedthis item had been removed from. the =cbnsent agenda. He introduced for consideration a resolution authorizing the extension of the .contract with the University -of Arkansas to operate the .Educational Access Channel .for .an additional year. Alderman Williams explained why he had asked that this be pulled from the consent agenda. He has received comments concerning it. It looks like the Fayetteville public school system, might. be interested in working with the University of Arkansas in..sharing or utilizing some of the time on this channel. It is designated as an educational channel. He had explained to Larry Foley of the<Cable Board what he'd planned to do, and Foley had no objections. 4 341 August 20, 1996 Lloyd Calhoun, new Cable Board member, asked the Council to at their leisure take a few minutes to review the franchise, the ad hoc committees report, and the act that created the Cable Board. He stated that in his application to the Cable Board, he was completely candid about the position he would take. The Board has had representatives from the University; the Board has been represented by as many as two from the public school system and others from the community at large. He wants to support the subscribers. Mr. Calhoun state in 1989 when the franchise was granted, there were 16,900 subscribers. Now there are over 20,000. Using Chamber of Commerce figures, that leaves 48,000 people. In the late 80's, when the Warner people had fallen way behind on what they should do, the community had to get tough. It was not a penalty for Warner, it was a penalty for the subscribers. They'd been paying a 3% franchise tax. The new franchise said 50. Mr. Calhoun stated he is hoping to provide convincing arguments that the school system should be the major performer on the education channel. He believes the subscribers would support that. There will have to be some yielding beyond just letting them get a foot in the door. In the ad hoc committee's discussions and in the enabling legislation, it was hinted the schools might get on the public channel. The education channel is for educational purposes. The public school is an educational institution even more so than the University, as far as the community is concerned. Mr. Calhoun requested that the Council not take action at this time. He said the school superintendent is interested in this. Cost is the only reservation anyone has expressed. Alderman Daniel stated she would like to hear directly from the public schools on this. Alderman Williams stated it would be appropriate for them to meet with the Cable Board committee. He had talked to Dr. Foley who had expressed a great willingness to work with the school system. The University has been working very hard to create the studios. They have a mayor investment in this. With the public school system working with the University, this should be successful for everybody. Alderman Schaper stated we are talking about awarding a channel that is on our basic system. People should be accountable for what they produce. He did not know how much educational programming has been seen on that channel that the University has been running. 5 August 20,_1996 Alderman Williams stated he understands the University is planning on programming about six hours an evening through their own production facilities. If we can bring the school system in, that would vastly increase the amount of actual education programming. A lot of this should be left to the Cable Board. Alderman Schaper agreed the Cable'Board should work that out. The other slap was the removal of the Oklahoma educational station because of the must -carry rule. He asked if it was possible to pick up some ofthat broadcasting. He would support a motion to table this and send it back to the Cable Board to see if they could work out something more useful to the subscribers. Alderman Williams moved to table this and refer it back to the Cable Television Board. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. REZONINGS RZ96-12 & RZ96-.13 Vice Mayor Bassett introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 13.93 acres located, north of Joyce Blvd. and: west of Highway 265 from A-1, :Agricultural, to R-1, Low, Density Residential,as requested by Northwest Engineers on -behalf of Perry and Vernal Crawford. The Planning Commission voted 6-0-1 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. City Attorney Rose read the next item, Rezoning:RZ96-13, for the first time. Vice Mayor Bassett stated we are discussing items three and four-. With respect to item four, the: Planning Commission voted 670-.0 to recommend the rezoning subject to a Bill of Assurance restricting the property to offices. Alderman. Young stated the company he works for is presenting' these two rezonings. so he would not .participatein the discussion -and would abstain on the vote. . Alderman Parker wanted to question the petitioners before deciding whether or not this would be handled as one or two. It is in Ward. 3. He has run in to no opposition and heard none on the tour, that is to the rezoning from A71 to R-1. . He .wanted to know if the petitioner would accept that if it"were given separately or do they want it tied to the second rezoning and in what manner:. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, stated he would prefer that they be looked at separately. 6 -22 343 August 20, 1996 Alderman Schaper said there is a question of modifying some of these requests. On the preliminary plat, there is a lot of R -O. We may want to keep our options open in terms of changing the area of these, if we are to approve R -O at all. It will be a question of just how much R -O we want to approve. That may change. He also wanted to ask why, if the lot sizes are of the kind shown on the plat, R -L is not being requested. Mr. Jones stated he believed the minimum lot size for R -L is half an acre. Some of the lots are not quite half an acre in size. What the Council has is really just a conceptual plat put together for information and for the client. The actual preliminary plat has not been prepared. Some lot sizes may be modified. We need the R-1 flexibility. One of the owner's requests was to make the lots as close to one-half acre as possible. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for other comments from the Council. There being none, he asked the public for comments. Ted Brewer, 2607 E. Joyce Blvd., lives directly across from the property that is being requested to be rezoned to R -O. He has spoken to the Planning Commission at both the meetings that were held on this question and expressed his concern for maintaining the integrity of this Joyce Street location as residential. Everything on the south side and towards the golf course is residential. There are some R -O's on the north side to the east but that doesn't change his position. Every property owner bought thinking it was and would remain residential. He was present to express his opinion on behalf of himself and the homeowner's association, who object to this rezoning. Mr. Calhoun had presented to the Planning Commission a petition signed by 15 of the 18 property owners. Three were unable to be contacted. He had copies for the Council. They were interested in maintaining their property values. This is no different than Old Missouri going back towards Old Wire or Highway 45 going through Fayetteville. Those are residential areas not wanting commercial encroachment. There are a lot of things going on on Joyce Street not advantageous to the residents, though maybe to the traffic patterns and master plan. We hope the Council will consider that Joyce Street from Old Missouri to 265, what is mostly zoned as R-1 now, could go no worse than R-1. We do not object to the 13.93 acres as R-1, but we do object to the 6.37. Alderman Parker asked if Mr. Brewer would object to that second rezoning if instead of going from A-1 to R -O, it went from A-1 to R-1. Mr. Brewer replied no. 7 344 August 20,,1996 Alderman Williams stated he should be aware that the Council recently passed a Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance that allows some commercial in R-1 areas as long as they are compatible with the area, look like houses. If we did rezone the property across the street to R-1, the owner still would have .the opportunity to request that they be allowed to put a neighborhood commercial facility in there. It might be .a good use of the land and not nearly as intrusive as regular R -O that doesn't' have to blend in. Mr. Brewer did not know the parking accessibility for an office of that nature. He asked if it was as big a parking area as the R -O. Alett Little, Planning Director, stated it has to appear residential in all respects. That does limit the parking as well. It limits the size of the building so that there. are no more than ;five parking spaces in this limited neighborhood commercial. The limited neighborhood commercial was specifically meant to keep residential areas looking residential. Alderman Schaper stated there are lots of residential areas that look almost more commercial than the commercial areas. He did not think this was a limitation. As he read the ordinance, you could 'very'attractively site a 3,000 sq. ft. office building and a ten car parking lot that goes with it. Alderman Daniel stated this would be a conditional use and would be scrutinized. Mr. Brewer stated there would be no objection to that. Alderman Williams noted for the record that, when the neighborhood commercial was passed, he did not realized there was a limitation of only five vehicles. With screening and. things like that,you can maintain the residential look of a neighborhood and still.have a parking lot large enough to handlea reasonablesize office. Robert Shaw, 2633 E. Joyce/ stated that when he purchased his home, there was no question in his mind that it was going to be residential. He is the closest one to the street. Having owned ten homes in ten states, he has some background in what is built around homes. •He has never lived in a place where they changed it and put in business offices. This is homes; we want homes. You can have commercial property at both ends of the street, but when you have homes that are already there, putting offices across the street is not protection of property rights. Mr. Jones asked if the Council was looking at the R-1 first and then the R -O. August 20, 1996 • 345 Vice Mayor Bassett replied the Council was discussing both of them and would ultimately vote on them individually. Mr. Jones appreciated the residents' comments and concerns, but the property across the street is not residential. It is undeveloped agricultural. We are not asking for a commercial zoning; we are asking for an R -O zoning. We are planning mixed use --residential office and residential subdivision. Somewhere residential and office space have to be next to one another. The property across the street is currently zoned R-2. They are basically multi -family dwellings. He asked if you don't put R-0 next to R-2, where do you put it. He asked what use the land use plan is if we don't use it as a guideline. Alderman Schaper responded that the land use plan is general in nature and zoning is site-specific. He asked about the parking lot on the western side and asked if the owners are the same as who would develop lot 19 and if there was any intention to connect parking lots. Mr. Jones did not know the answer to this. Alderman Parker questioned the appropriateness of this kind of detailed discussion. City Attorney Rose stated the Council is getting ready to rezone an entire piece of property. It may be used for any purpose for which R -O may be used or R-1, depending on the particular zone. You are not supposed to talk about specific acts of development. That is generally done at the plat review stage. However, if these folks have offered some indication of it, it is fair game to talk about it. Alderman Schaper stated one of the issues in rezoning is the impact on traffic, and the number of access points from the proposed development is one thing that needs to be considered. He is looking at the broader issues. He asked if there was a need for more land to be zoned in this category. There are many, many non- residential acres currently on the market. Many, many acres of non-residential land need to be redeveloped in the city. Offices draw their clientele from all over the place. There is no such thing as the neighborhood lawyer or doctor. Alderman Parker stated one of the guidelines the Council has is that it should consider whether additional land of this type is necessary. There is a substantial area of R -O right by the Mall. We are worried about the traffic that area will create. One issue that has been raised is connectivity. Connectivity often means the proximity of residential, commercial, and retail, so you can live and work near where you shop. In addition to supporting the views 9 346 August 20, 4996 of, the neighbors, Parker stated he would support a rezoneto R-1; but he would also support a modification of.the proposal going. from A-1 to R-0, to A-1 to R-1. He would like to see more housing near the Mall. Preferring residential would be in conformance with mixed use. Mr. Jones stated there would be less traffic in and out of the subdivision after hours because the offices would close at 5:00 p.m. Alett Little agreed this is generally a true statement after hours but did not know about during office hours. Mr. Brewer responded to the question of traffic. The residents on Joyce are probably more than 509s retired.. The traffic patterns are not the conventional 8 to 5 patterns. Robert Frans, 2517 Joyce, stated he would like to at least see the area north of Joyce stay residential. Vice Mayor Bassett brought the discussion back to the Council. He stated the Council traditionally runs rezonings through three separate readings. It is possible the Council could suspend the rules next time, but normally it goes through three readings. Alderman Williams agreed it should at least go through two meetings. Depending on how much public comment is received, it is fairly likely the Council would try to make its decision at the next meeting. Alderman Schaper agreed. The arguments are clear both ways. We understand them and have our position on some of those issues. One of the things we talk about in the 2020 plan is confining non- commercial uses to nodes, to major intersections. He does not see a need for strip zoning of non-residential land, even though this isgoing to be a four -lane road. Residential is perfectly reasonable on a four -lane road. This is a fundamental issue that f needs to be dealt with now before it is too late for this corridor. w • OTHER BUSINESS JOYCE' STREET Vice Mayor Bassett stated the Council had received information about the Joyce Street extension west. There was no resolution on this. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated this information was revised to reflect what was discussed on tour, to include the additional two lanes for the boulevard section. A map was included lA 1 347 August 20, 1996 in the ,package. Included was the amount to cover the addition of the two lanes, based on the amount the bid came in. We are recommending the bid award for the low bidder of $666,946 to Necessary & Sons Construction and awarding a contingency of $133,053.40, 20% of the contract amount. Alderman Schaper stated he had not realized we were building this as a five lane within the city and the boulevard part is in Johnson. Alderman Williams had also looked at this. The five -lane section is going through the commercial area that the developer is helping us pay for, and the developer does not yet know where the turns need to be. The boulevard section will be going north of a housing development where there will be no access, so a boulevard is appropriate. He hoped when we have a road going south, it will be a boulevard. We talked with the developers about this before we approved their rezoning. This is a good deal for Fayetteville. The Street Committee recommended unanimously going forward with this. Crosson stated the same cost share percentages apply to this contract that did on the Joyce Street -College Avenue intersection. Nanchar agreed to contribute $160,000 toward the construction of the road as well. Alderman Williams moved the resolution. Alderman Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 96-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m. 11