Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-03 Minutes349 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, September 3, 1996, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Hanna; Aldermen Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, Jimmy Hill (arrived late), Len Schaper, and Heather Daniel; 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 seven aldermen present. OZARK THEATER COMMITTEE REPORT Jonathan Story, member of the Ozark Theater Committee, presented two proposals for the Council's consideration. One was from Hayden Mcllroy, of Dallas. The other was from Richard Alexander, well known for preservation work in Downtown Fayetteville. The Mcllroy proposal makes good use of the interior space. The plans call for the use of the former lobby as a gallery depicting the theater's history and the history of the Butterfield Stage Coach Line. The remaining space will be office and commercial. The Alexander proposal is to use the interior space as a commercial -residential operation. Mr. Story stated the general agreement of the committee is that Mr. Alexander seems more interested in restoring the front of the building and the exterior to its original condition, while Mr. Mcllroy would probably use the lobby nicely. Both parties offer the same amount of money. The committee is more concerned with the quality of restoration and the positive impact this project will have on Fayetteville. Mr. Blackwell spoke for the Mcllroy proposal. As well as making good use of the interior, they will make good use of the exterior. The strategy for the exterior is cautiously optimistic and somewhat realistic. They want to bring back the spirit of the place, detailing on the exterior, the grand canopy, sense of entry, as well as revealing aspects of detailing that may exist. They also recognize the stucco on the building now may be difficult to remove. They are not afraid to build on what is there, to transform the building into something beautiful. They would approach this project in the spirit of transformation, preservation, and renovation. 1 350 September 3, 1996 Jim Foster spoke for Alexander and Merry -Ship. Their vision for the Ozark Theater is that of the original architect. They believe they will be pleasantly surprised with the condition of the facade of the building when the stucco is removed. The important elements of the facade such as the cornice and decorative columns.can be replicated. The windows can be replaced with historically correct windows. The rear facadewould need new openings. There will be stairs and an elevator. .The'added construction would be compatible with the materials and colors of the historic architecture. On the interior, the first. level would have the later construction removed. There would be retail., possibly professional office, and a gallery. New finishes in the public level would be of historic character and durable to withstand public traffic. On.the second and third levels, the floors are in relatively good condition. They will be refinished or carpeted. The walls will be 'refinished to match the plaster or allow the brick to be exposed. f,Ceilings could be restored to their original 15' height. There is historicstenciling that could be recreated. The basement will be additional leased space and a space for building equipment. • This firm has provided professional service to approximately 200 National Register properties in Arkansas: , The developers are interested in pursuing the possibility of applying to the National Register. Alderman Schaper stated it was his understanding that both offers provide that if.renovation:proves to be economically unfeasible, the City would have the opportunity to buy the building back for what the developer paid for it. Alderman Young asked what they would do if the stucco could.not be taken off. He asked if they would sell it back to the City. Mr. Foster stated a recommendation'would be made to the developer who would make a decision:' Rick Alexander stated they would discuss the option with the City. Alderman Bassett asked Mr.'Alexander if .his offer was contingent upon getting substantial financing. Mr. Alexander replied it was. They have been involved in 20 renovations downtown, bigger and_smaller. They had financing for each one. It is generally not appropriate to apply .for the financing until you have an accepted offer. .Their offer would be contingent on that. 2 351 September 3, 1996 Alderman Miller asked if there had been a structural inventory done. Mr. Alexander replied they have been through the building. From what he could see, it can be renovated. He would like to have an engineer tell him that. Alderman Hill asked about the 90 days closing date. Mr. Alexander stated that is time enough to get the engineering study. There is nothing in the offer set in stone. They just want enough time to do the engineering work that needs to be done to determine if they can proceed. Mayor Hanna asked for further comments from the audience. There were none. Alderman Schaper moved to accept the offer from Richard Alexander. Alderman Parker seconded. Alderman Daniel stated the facade is what is most important. It is what is selling the offer. Alderman Schaper agreed this is what moved him to favor the Alexander offer, the commitment to the historical renovation of the building. Alderman Bassett stated it was a difficult decision and he appreciated the job of the committee. Alderman Williams, too, would like to see the facade restored, so he favored the Alexander offer. Alderman Parker stated his main desire for the building is to have the historic exterior restored, so he leans towards the Alexander proposal. Alderman Hill encouraged Mr. Alexander to move forward with the engineering study and hopefully close this in 30 days or something similar. 0 Alderman Daniel stated it was made clear in both offers that it would come back to the city if the engineering study proved the renovation was not feasible. The Mayor asked for further comments. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. 3 352. RZ96-12 & RZ96-13 September 3, 1996 OLD BUSINESS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration ;of .ordinances rezoning property located north of Joyce Blvd. and -wet 'of Highway 265as requested by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Perry and Vernal Crawford. RZ96-12 tezones-13.93 acres from A-1, Agricultural„.to R-1, Low Density Residential. RZ96-13 rezones 6.37 acres from A-1;. to R-0, Residential -Office. These ordinances. were left on first reading at the August 20 Council meeting.Y Alderman Miller moved to suspend the rules and' -go to the second reading. Alderman Bassett seconded. Upon roll call; the motion passed on a vote of 7-0-1, with Alderman'Young.abstaining.' City Attorney Rose read the ordinances for the second time.. Mayor Hanna opened the discussion for both ordinances. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, stated he would dike to separate the voting on these, either leave the R-0 zoning tableduntil the third reading at the next meeting or have it removed from the agenda and only consider the R-1 zoning. Alderman Williams explained it did not have to be tabled. .It could be left on its second reading. Mr. Jones stated they would like to request not voting on itat this time but going ahead with the R-1 at this time. Alderman Schaper asked what the point of postponing RZ96-13 was Mr. Jones replied they could not have all the people present needed to speak on this subject. If it is a problem, they would just like to remove it from the agenda and not rezone the property. Alderman Schaper stated he would like to keep them together because this project will not start untilit is settled. In case there is some adjustment of the boundaries or something else transpires, it ,,should be kept' as a unit. If we don't do one, we shouldn't do either of them. Mayor Hanna asked Mr. Jones if this was satisfactory. Mr. Jones responded they would prefer that the R-1 zoning be voted on at this time. They are two separate projects. 4 353 September 3, 1996 Alderman Williams commented this has not been controversial and asked why one should be held hostage to the other, if they are separate. The boundaries won't be changing because this one is a separate rezoning. Alderman Schaper asked City Attorney Rose if the boundaries were changed, would that be a separate business. Rose agreed RZ96-13 could be amended and RZ96-12 would not have to be messed around with. Alderman Bassett's preference was to leave 96-13 on its second reading so it would come up next time for discussion. The other one has no one opposed to it. He saw no reason not to go ahead and get it behind us. Alderman Bassett moved to reading. Alderman Daniel passed on a vote of 7-0-1, suspend the rules and go to the third seconded. Upon roll call, the motion with Alderman Young abstaining. City Attorney Rose read the RZ96-12 ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. Ted Brewer, 2607 E. Joyce Blvd., lives directly across from the property in question. The neighborhood association did not have an objection on the RZ96-12. If passed at this time, he hoped it did not become justification to pass the other rezoning. They do object to the RZ96-13. They want to maintain the area as residential. There is a substantial amount of R -O property now in the city. Mayor Hanna asked for further comments then called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7-0-1, with Alderman Young abstaining. ORDINANCE 3989 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK CONSENT AGENDA Alderman Miller moved to approve the minutes. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll all, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. NEW BUSINESS ANIMAL SHELTER AGREEMENT Mayor Hanna stated this item had been removed at the request of the staff. It is not appropriate to discuss what we would approve and not approve before we find out if the County wants our animal 5 • September 3, 1996 `cdntroltservices. We have made known to them.whatit would.take for'us to do this, now it is up to them': VACATION VA96-9 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance vacating the street R -O -W connecting Lisa Lane and Brent Lane as requested: by George Faucette and Spencer & Martha Albright. The Plainning Commission denied the request at their August 26 meeting. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. George Faucette, representingthe petitioners and the Armstrongs who wish to purchase the property, gave a history of this property since the early '70s. When the home was first built, one of the City's conditions was the potential to connect Lisa Lane with Brent Lane. In the early '90s, the-Albrights donated a lot.to the Salvation. Armyy so they could build a -parsonage. When the Salvation Army requested their building permit, the agreement to the street right of way was discovered.. It was formally dedicated at that time. The Armstrongs mandate that they want to make their home .here. and be. assured there will beno street there. There is no other property along Brent or Lisa subject to development with access to either street. The only property that could be.,developed with any connection would be this property.. The Armstrongs and Albrights have signed a bill of assurance that says if the property. were ever developed, this easement would. revert back to the City. Mr. Faucette read the bill of assurance. He stated there was no strong opposition at the Planning Commission level. He reviewed the Planning Commission minutes. The City gives up no rights at all to the future possibility of this street by granting this petition. • Alderman Schaper asked how the Salvation Army's- parsonage is accessed. Mr. Faucette replied it is at the end of Brent Lane. Alderman Daniel asked where the Albright property is accessed. Mr. Faucette replied it is also at the end Brent. Lane. Alderman Daniel commented that we may not need this easement now, but we do not know about years down the road. There have been many incidences of citizens building over rights of way. The Mayor noted that there will not be more homes built in this area. They have offered to give the easement back to the City, should there be any development. 355 September 3, 1996 Alderman Schaper moved to suspend the rules and 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 Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the final reading. Alderman Young 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 asked for further comments. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 1, with Alderman Daniel voting no. ORDINANCE 3990 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR REZONING RZ96-15 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 3.63 acres located north of Wedington Drive and west of 59th Ave. from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, as requested by Melanie Stafford. The Planning commission voted 9-0-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. The petitioner was not present. No one in the audience had comments. Alderman Schaper stated if the purpose is to create one, two, or three lots, there is no need to rezone to R-1. There are other zoning classifications that would apply. REZONING RZ96-16 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 6.43 acres located east of Highway 71B and north of Shepard Lane from A- 1, Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, as requested by Northwest Engineers on behalf of Charlie Sloan. The Planning commission voted 9-0-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. 7 356 September 3, 1996 Alderman Young stated the companyhe works for is presenting this, so he would not participate in the discussion and would abstain from the vote. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, stated the proposed development would be similar to an office park development. C-1 gives flexibility for layout, and a possible use for the property would be a restaurant. Alderman Williams stated the General Plan 2020 shows this area as regional commercial. He asked why the petitioners wanted to go to neighborhood commercial instead of regional commercial. Mr. Jones replied neighborhood commercial would serve the purpose they have for the property. If the Council meant C-2, he would have no objections to that. Alderman Schaper reminded the Council of the original recommendation of staff, which stated there is an exorbitant amount of undeveloped commercial property in this area. There is no justification to rezone more commercial in that area. Alderman Williams stated C-2 adjoins that land, and it is designated that way in the 2020 Plan. This is in the Mall area;.a very important commercial heart. .Alderman Schaper stated the intent is to build offices. east' of this is zoned R -O. It does not have to commercial. The land be zoned Mr. Jones stated the plan now is offices and possibly restaurants. The C-1 zoning would allow more flexibility in laying out the project. Alett Little, Planning Director, explained some of the differences in constraints between C-1 and R-0. Mr. Jones stated the side setback is their main concern. They may eventually subdivide the property. They are knocking. around several ideas. Little clarified the- staff recommendation. They try to give developers advice as to what the codes require, ,what the master plan requires, and what might be approved. It was their feeling that the petitioner did not have much of a chance: of getting commercial approved. Looking at what they wanted to do, they counseled them that offices and restaurants could be accomplished with this zoning. With regard to the- setbacks, it could be a positive or negative. If the side of the building were able to remain one unified facade by not having any side setbacks, that 357 September 3, 1996 could be positive. We work through our Board of Appeals on setbacks when that is necessary. Mr. Jones stated the intensity of the development would not be any greater with the C-1 zoning than with an R -O. It would probably be less because of coverage requirements. With R -O zoning you can have 60°% coverage, whereas with C-1 you can only have 40%. They are willing to make that trade for some of the other advantages of C-1, particularly the side setbacks and the restaurant. Alderman Miller stated the Council is supposed to consider the feasibility of the zoning and the surrounding area. There is C-2 on three sides, with a little A-1 on the north, and R -O on the east. C-1 is a proper buffer to that area. Alderman Bassett stated the 2020 Plan calls for this. He is comfortable with the proposal and the fact that the Planning Commission supported this 9 to 0. Alderman Daniel asked what the access to this would be. Mr. Jones answered the access would be off Shepard Lane. It would have to be extended across the south end of the property, off Frontage Road. Little stated Shepard Lane would have to be extended to their east property line, so there would be a way to go back to the east as well. Mr. Jones stated there is a 16" waterline crossing the southeast corner of this property and everybody knows that. That is where they are planning on getting their water. Alderman Bassett moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the motion failed on a vote of 4-3-1, with Aldermen Parker, Schaper, and Daniel voting no and Alderman Young abstaining. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance amending Chapter 160 of the Code of Fayetteville to add the requirement that all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, electric power, telephone, and CATV cables, be located underground throughout the development. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. 9 358 iE September 3, 1996 Alderman Hill stated that he had asked that this be sent•.tothe Ordinance Review Committee. It is a broad ordinance. He .would still recommend this but knew Alderman Schaper wanted to move it on so it could be talked about the first time. Alderman Schaper stated he would second sending it to the Ordinance Review Committee. Alderman Schaper said he'd had one call from a SWEPCO representative saying they would -prefer this be done in the Ordinance Review Committee. . Mayor Hanna asked the peoplein the audience here to speakto this issue if they wanted to speak now or address this.. in the Ordinance Review Committee. Tommy DeWeese, SWEPCO, stated he had discussed this with several Council members. There are some problems as it is written now. They would like this to be submitted back to committee for further study• Alderman Parker noted that the ordinance says all utility facilities should be. underground. Some specific requirements of electrical power transformers or unitsrequire people to .have.a certain clearance when working around them, which means huge areas would have to be built underground. Most people, would like to see the lines buried but not the facilities because that is too wide a term. Tom McKinney, Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club, preferred that this not be sent back to the Ordinance Review Committee. A lot of the concerns should have been brought up at the Planning Commission. There is a process to ask that the ordinance be set aside where needed. He would like to see this addressed at this time. John Kehn, Arkansas Western Gas, stated they are concerned about how the ordinance is worded. This is especially true in section one where it speaks of all utility facilities. They have concerns regarding their regulators and what "facilities" means. They also have concerns about the way section two is worded, in which the service to the property line is to be provided at the expense of the developer. They would like to'see it sent to committee for further study and would like to be part of those meetings. Mike Pehosh, Ozark Electric Coop Corp., stated the reperdussions of -the"'ordinance as .it is worded now need to be understood. .Many Pt issues need to be addressed. He requested more information for the Council and more study in committee. The wording is broad. It needs to be more detailed with understanding from the utilities 10 359 September 3, 1996 standpoint so that when something comes up, they don't have to go somewhere to find out if they can do it. Mayor Hanna asked if the development costs per lot were considerably more when utilities are buried. Mr. Pehosh replied this is true. Most development in Fayetteville now in subdivisions is underground. A lot of the cost is borne by the developer and their lots become more valuable because they are that way. He wants a lot more discussion. It needs to be defined better. Alderman Schaper stated in residential construction the cost is not necessarily borne by the developer. It is $2 a month on the homeowner. Tommy DeWeese agreed. When a subdivision is developed, they charge the cost difference between overhead and underground. In some places where there is a lot of rock, costs can really run up per lot. If you were to take this ordinance now and apply it to construction in Fayetteville through August of this year, you are looking at an economic impact in excess of $3.5 million. Alderman Bassett stated it would be helpful to have, either prior to or at the Ordinance Review meeting, something in writing from the various utilities outlining concerns and suggested changes. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated he would also have representatives at that meeting to discuss City issues. Mayor Hanna stated there was a motion and second to refer this to the Ordinance review committee. He called for the vote. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance establishing new residential and commercial garbage service rates. He stated this is the first time the City has raised rates for solid waste since the form of government changed. During that period of time, costs per ton to land -fill solid waste has doubled. We have gone into recycling. We've built a transfer station. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. There were none. 11 1i. 360 September 3,. 1996 Alderman Young commented on the costs added into the rate structure "and -the reserve fund that is supposed to be developed over the next few years. He asked if this fund will be used by the solid waste division and be available to them. - Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, replied that if reserves are built up, they will be used exclusively for solid waste related :activities. a ; Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated it is an enterprise fund and stands alone. Alderman Miller was curious that the City allowseach. household 64 gallons of garbage a week. It says $8.50 a month for two cans. :He asked what happens if they have three. Cheryl Zotti, Environmental Affairs Administrator, stated that in the past there was provision to collect $.50 per can. In reality, this was never levied. In developing this ordinance, one goal was to be realistic. It would be difficult to say the staff could keep up with citizensputting out more than allowed. Alderman Schaper agreed with Alderman Miller that there is no incentive to recycle in this rate structure. He would like to see a volume -based plan where throwing things into the landfill costs money but all recycling put out is free. He stated it appears it costs the City $185 per customer to compost yard waste. This is not an incentive for people to compost their own stuff. Crosson explained the subscription service is for the collection portion of the composting program. We would have a composting program regardless of whether we .had a collection side of that program. We had a compost program before we collected yard waste. They are not dependent on each other. The subscription service is along the lines of $35,000 to $36,000. It is a subsidization but also encourages people who might not normally take their yard waste down to the site themselves. It gets paid for in the rate now being discussed. It is an all inclusive rate. Zotti stated that on a regular basis there are lots of citizens who bring their yard waste to the composting facility so as to not have to follow the guidelines of the yard waste subscription. The City's own internal divisions use this when they go out and trim and clear roads. Commercial yard maintenance people also dump there. The charge for this is in the ordinance passed prior.to this. This rate study does not affect that, they are charged $3.50 per cubic yard and there is a volume reduction for air for brush. They have an account or pay cash, and records of this are kept. This ordinance was left on its first reading. 12 361 September 3, 1996 COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 160: Zoning of the Code of Fayetteville to provide site development and architectural design standards for commercial, office, institutional, and industrial uses. The Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to recommend the ordinance to the Council. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Young clarified that what City Attorney Rose read did not include the changes. Mayor Hanna stated he'd received 16 letters in the last three days from people concerned about this. Many people were present to speak to this issue. The number one request was to send it back for review. Alderman Williams stated he'd started this about a year and a half ago with a page -and -a -half proposal that has now blossomed into 15 pages. Many people are not aware of an issue until it hits the City Council. We need to go carefully so that we do the least amount necessary to handle the problem we've had with very few structures in town. Alderman Schaper stated there was a lot of input on this ordinance at the Planning Commission. We do not need to send this to committee. Folks are present and we want to hear them and make whatever changes are appropriate. He'd thought his changes would be included in the ordinance read tonight. There are a couple of changes that make this more reasonable, based on what was heard at the contractors committee meeting and from the architects. Sending it back to the committee could be construed as an attempt to kill it. Alderman Parker stated this needs the public airing it will get at Council that it wouldn't get in committee. Alderman Miller stated there are a lot of things that needed to be addressed but fine tuning and rewriting at a Council meeting could take a long time. Alett Little, Planning Director, stated this had been brought to the Ordinance Review Committee, though not the exact draft, earlier. There have been four Planning Commission public hearings. There have been more than 12 committee meetings that led up to the presentation of the ordinance to the Planning Commission. She explained how the committee worked. If there was to be another Ordinance Review Committee on it, she would want the members of the committee and some Planning Commissioners to be present. 13 362 September 3, 1996 Mayor Hanna opened the discussion to the audience. Craig Hull, independent consultant and contractor, requested taking industrial uses out of the classification for regulation in this ordinance. The provisions are reasonable and feasible in north Fayetteville and in the development pathwhere most prosperity is happening, west and north. But in south Fayetteville and the industrial park and other places, buildings are predominately industrial -scale metal buildings and the need to have-a:tree every 30 feet in an industrial park is questionable. He asked for that part to be deleted and worked' on. from -a commercial and highway frontage perspective and let the competitive nature of the industrial recruitment efforts of the City continue. Alderman Schaper disagreed with one point. Generally, •he.finds industrial land winds up being better landscaped than most commercial property. The objections he heard from the contractors committee were that some of the elements to minimize or avoid mentioned on page 13 are by nature what happens in indiustrial buildings. His proposal is not to throw the whole thing out, but rather to indicate with a footnote that it is recognized. that large •industrial buildings may in part require these elements. They will not be applied quite as literally in the industrial areas as they are in the commercial areas. Alderman Parker agreed that what Mr. Hull spoke of was appropriate 'for trueindustrial uses. We wouldn't want t� -exclude an.area 'where we:might get development not really industrial in nature.•but since there is industrial zoning they would be exempt so wewould be striking out an area .rather than accommodating• to :true industrial uses by allowing them tohave the type of building they need. Fran Alexander, audience member, had a suggestion regarding the tree sectionwhereit says, "Species with root or branch habits which become a nuisance . shall be replaced at the:owner's expense." She suggested this paragraph -be deleted forthree reasons. First, it is not compatible with the current tree ordinance or unified with the tree ordinance. Second, Fayetteville has been declared a member of .Tree City USA and -they have suggestions for resolving tree and sidewalk conflicts, many of which are in the City's landscape manual. Third, the statement is in conflict with itself. It does not make sense to refer to'rbots or branches and then talk about messy fruit The priority should be having the tree there and move the. sidewalk. Tom McKinney, representing the Sierra Club members of Fayetteville, asked the Council to hold special meetings to keep this on track. Televise them and give everyone a chance to address the proposed ordinance. He would like to see the languagethat was deleted, 14 363 September 3, 1996 which talked about a sense of place, put back in. He would like to see the green space requirement for each lot increased to 25%, not just for aesthetics but to deal with rainwater. The guidelines should also apply for any large-scale remodeling or refurbishing of an existing structure. Michael Green, audience member, stated as an engineer he finds some issues may be impractical from the real-world standpoint. One is the issue of having all the design elements defined either at the large-scale development area or at some point in the permit process. Regarding equipment screening, there are some practical issues there. In our terrain, there will be some areas where it will be very difficult to screen with architectural elements or vegetation. We need to find a way to make this more flexible than the word "shall" which is used throughout these guidelines. Another item is in the structural bays in a lot of these buildings. These bays are repetitive for a good reason. Regarding the change order process, if there are any changes in materials to those elements approved it has to be approved all over again. During a tight construction schedule, those things will be difficult. The subjective language throughout the ordinance would probably make a lot of it unenforceable and undefensible. Alderman Schaper stated, regarding the amendment process, that the intent is not to tie people up in knots. Minor things like substitution of materials essentially the same but different color are not a problem and Alett Little has said they can be handled with a phone call. He shared Mr. Green's concern about the timing issues in terms of the large-scale development process and asked for his suggestions. Mr. Green responded that the point is that a good design process will take care of the issues when the time comes. His main concern with the timing is that funds get committed early and the risk is increased if you put too many stumbling blocks in the development and permitting process. Alderman Schaper stated one of the changes he eventually wants to propose is to incorporate the results of a visual preference survey so we put more concrete guidelines around what may be to some people very vague. This gives a very firm basis and guidelines of what kind of buildings will be allowed and what kind won't be allowed, and they won't come in with buildings that won't be allowed. Little stated there are communities in Arkansas that require the layout and what the buildings will look like before considering a rezoning. Fayetteville is not proposing that. Other communities have a separate process. Not only do you come through utility review, but a design review. We have tried to keep it as simple as 15 364 September 3, 1996 we could and get the approval.as..early in the process as we could so you don't run the risk of having it turned down later. • Steve Ward, Chamber of Commerce, requested that this .action be tabled and referred to committee. He understood the purpose and the concept of the ordinance but hoped to take the time to do it right. John Kehn, Arkansas Western Gas Company, had concerns about the 15' landscape area parallel and adjacent to the streets. This is generally where utility easements are provided. In certain case; landscaping could interfere with underground mains and services. There is another area that states that anything that exceeds.30" in height in front of the building, which could be meters and regulators, could be required to set behind the lot setback lines. This might force them to be in parking areas or in secured areas of the property. They also had concerns about fencing and lighting requirements and concerns about the subjective review that would have to be gone through. They preferred that this would go back to committee and that they would participate in those discussions. Alderman Schaper stated everyone needs to remember the risk to folks who build high-quality buildings that someone will come along and plop and ugly monster next to them. This ordinance 'would affect maybe five to ten percent of thebuildings that come through. Perry Butcher, resident and practicing architect, stated there is a simple answer to this problem. There .are already State laws that say the buildings we are talking about are to use architects. The City has zoning laws that could be enhanced to make some of these things happen without having another ordinance. He had letters from other architects for the Council to look at. He explained the role of the architect in the building process. Little stated the law applies to buildings over $75,000 and relates to structural requirements. It doesn't deal with design: Zoning would also not prevent some of these problems. Mr. Butcher stated what's been said by architects is they want input, time, and simplification. Jim Foster, architect, stated the local AIA has not taken a position because there is a diversity of opinion. He was not sure that guidelines with the word "shall" can be applied to individual building architecture. There are too many variables. It may be helpful to have dialogue with those who are most affected and further study before proceeding. Providing more requirements has been found to decrease the work for architects• because more regulation tends to decrease development. His worst fear is that 16 365 September 3, 1996 a client might be leery of developing here because of the regulations. Mayor Hanna asked for further comments from the public. There were none. Alderman Williams moved to refer this to the Ordinance Review Committee. Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 1, with Alderman Schaper voting no. STREET STANDARDS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of approval of proposed street standards. Alderman Young asked what is being changed. City Attorney Rose answered that it would be a resolution which amends Section 8.2 of the Master Street Plan of the General Plan 2020 to redefine standards of certain streets. Alderman Schaper stated the general sense of the thing is that the 31' local street is too wide. This gives an option to get away from the 50' right-of-way standard of the local street and down to narrower standards, including a 40' residential street and a 35' right of way required for residential streets if alleys are provided in the back. The large street right of way requirements go up so we can provide pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and enough room for planting significant trees. Alderman Williams noted this has been through the Street Committee. He stated he would like to postpone this to the next meeting. It is a substantial change. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m. 17