Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-17 Minutes367 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, September 17, 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 Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, and Stephen Miller; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; audience. ABSENT: Alderman Jimmy Hill CALL TO ORDER Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, Attorney Jerry Rose; City members of staff; press; and Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with seven aldermen present. OLD BUSINESS RZ96-13 Mayor Hanna stated this item has been withdrawn. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, explained that at this time they are not going to get the R -O zoning and the client has no plans for other development. RZ96-15 Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration 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. This ordinance was left on the first reading at the September 3 Council meeting. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Melanie Stafford, petitioner, stated she is requesting a one -lot split. In A-1 zoning, each lot must result in two acres. They had originally requested a three -lot split, but it is not cost effective with the requirements of the City. Now they are down to a one -lot split and have a buyer for the house and half the property. 1 368 September 17, 1996 Alderman Schaper asked if they were proposing to do one lot split for this which would be a little below the standard set by the A-1 zone. - Ms. Stafford stated this is correct. Alderman Schaper asked Planning Director Little to refresh his memory on the zones that have larger areas than R-1. Alett Little, Planning Director, responded there is R -A, which is an acre lot, and.R-L, which is a half -acre lot. Ms. Stafford stated R -A would work with her plans. She had asked the staff's recommendation at the Planning Commission as to what she should try for and was told R-1 was what she needed. She hadn't even heard of R -L or:R-A. Whatever would accomplish a one split is fine. She asked if she would have to start all over. Alderman Williams responded that the Council could rezone it if that fit what she wants, 'as it seems to fit the guidelines the Council has. • Ms. Stafford stated this would be fine. The buyer of the house wants to remain on the 1.78 acres. The one on the other side would be pleased with a larger lot. Alderman Parker clarified that Ms. Stafford would have no opposition to the Council moving to amend the ordinance to read from A-1 to R -A. Ms. Stafford had no objections as long as it was done in a timely manner. Ms. Moore, the immediate neighbor with a driveway that adjoins:the property, was concerned that there would be more than one house and family using the driveway. 'She requested that another driveway be made for them. Alderman Schaper asked about the proposed access arrangement. Alett Little replied it comes,off of Wedington because that is the lot farthest to the west. It coi1d make sense.,to'•have the shared driveway. The concern is noLta'have multiple curb cuts near the other intersection. Fifty-ninth Street is there.? 1 369 September 17, 1996 Alderman Williams stated the access would have to be controlled at the Planning Commission when they do the development. By changing this to R -A, that would allow three houses where there is one house now. How those houses would be accessed would be controlled when they do the large scale development. Ms. Moore asked if this was allowed could there be three houses there. Alderman Miller stated the R -A allows one house per acre. There could be three houses, but Ms. Stafford is asking for one other one. Ms. Moore showed pictures of the driveway. It is an unimproved driveway, like a lane. Alderman Parker stated the Council is somewhat limited in that they have to consider an appropriate zoning for the property and uses of the property would be prohibited in The Planning Commission would decide where Their decision could be appealed before the considering specific making the decision. the access would be. City Council. Alett Little stated Mrs. Moore's is a tandem lot and the City requires that the first 25' be paved. The requirement for regular access is 12.5'. The requirement for the new lot would be 12.5'. If the same driveway is used, they would have to include her driveway for 12.5' in. They would own the land; she owns an easement over that land. She has the right to use this strip of land, 30', for access to her property. The property owner has the right to use that land as long as it does not interfere with her right of access. They could not put a gate across it and it could be a joint driveway. Wherever their driveway is, it has to be paved 12.5' in and it may improve her driveway. Ms. Moore would have no objection if there There being no further comments from the asked for a motion. were only one house. audience, Mayor Hanna Alderman Parker moved to amend this request from A-1 to R-1 to A-1 to R -A. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Alderman Schaper moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. 370 September 17, 1996 City Attorney Rose stated it now reads from A-1, Agricultural;..to R -A, Acre Lot. Alderman Williams seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney, Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3991 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK RZ-96-16 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. This ordinance was left on the first reading at the September 3 Council meeting. Alderman Young stated the company he so he would not participate in the from the vote. Alderman Williams moved to reading. Alderman Parker passed on a vote of,6-0-1, works for is presenting this, discussion and would abstain .suspend the rules and go to the second r.seconded: Upon roll call, the motion with Alderman Young abstaining. • City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, stated this was discussed at some length at the last Council' meeting. They are still requesting that this be rezoned to C-1. They are looking at a combination of offices and also a restaurant. A restaurant is allowed by right on C-1, not on R -O. The side setback requirements are less stringent for C-1. They are looking'at possibly an office development with zero side setbacks and possibly subdividing the property down the line and selling individual tracts....The C-1 zoning allows a less dense development as far as',coverage. .Access from the frontage road to the property will take some thought. There is no design at this point. Nothing looks ..undo=able. They';'will•be extending Shepard Road across the south'.end to the east side.. Shepard Lane connecting to Frontage Road will be the main access point. Alderman Schaper stated he cod`ld°not support anymore conversion to commercial land when there is,so^much-available.i. It devalues the land we have and gets sprawled -out commercial development. 4 • 1 371 September 17, 1996 Alderman Williams stated the Council needs to look at each piece of property individually. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Alderman Parker stated he was motivated by the fact that the Council considers broad decisions based on what is most beneficial to the City and to the petitioner. The petitioner has stated he wants to put offices and restaurants there. He does not want the R -O zoning because he would have to go back to the Planning Commission. The petitioner would have to be at the Planning Commission anyway for the development stages he must go through. The petitioner's primary motivation for this is the zero lot line setback. Parker asked if that isn't what allows strip malls to be built. Alderman Parker moved to amend this to read R -O instead of C-1. Mr. Jones stated they were not interested in an R -O zoning at this time. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Bassett seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on vote of 5-1-1, with Alderman Parker voting no and Alderman Young abstaining. City Attorney Rose stated the abstention goes with the ma]ority. He read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 4-2-1, with Aldermen Parker and Schaper voting no and Alderman Young abstaining. ORDINANCE 3992 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance establishing new garbage service rates. This ordinance was left on the first reading at the September 3 Council meeting. Alderman Daniel moved to move this on to the second reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. September 17, 1996 City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Miller stated this is a valid request as tipping fees have increased about 56°s in the last two years. People asked for curbside recycling and the City delivered on that. We have a good compost facility and a household hazardous waste roundup -twice a year. This is a modest rise in the rates. Mayor Hanna pointed out this is the -first time since the City government changed that garbage fees have been raised. Alderman Schaper stated we can subsidize garbage out of the General Fund or do a rate study, as .was done,, that shows the costs and where to allocate them. It keeps the accounting system more clean to do this than to subsidize garbage collection with money out of the General Fund. Alderman Williams moved to Stop talking trash and suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the, ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience.. Fran Alexander, from the audience, commented that we have to come to terms with the real cost of disposal before we reduce our rate of .consumption. She encouragedithe Council to make pay -as -you - throw the next step in the :procedure for lowering the waste. There being no further comments, Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a' vote of 7 to.0. ORDINANCE 3993 APPEARS ON PAGE;`'• STREET STANDARDS OF ORDINANCE BOOK Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of Section 8.2, Master Street :Plan of the redefine the standards of certain'streets. at the September 3 Council meeting. i a `resolution amending Gerieral Plan 2020, to This item was postponed Alderman Schaper stated setbacks c:arei ordinance not -in the Master Street_ Plan:' setbacks tied to the streets. =The purpose a space for future street widenings,and frame the street as a public space. The 6 defined" in the zoning It would be wise -to -have Of eetbacks is to` create an appropriate space to setbacks indicated would • 373 September 17, 1996 be advisory to the Planning Commission for consideration in the unified development ordinance but would not be part of the resolution. Alderman Parker asked if a way could be found to make them optional for properties developed adjacent to those streets. Alderman Schaper stated the difficulty is we establish setbacks by zone and not by street type. Alett Little, Planning Director, stated it is normally done in accordance with zoning. She is not adverse to the idea of having the setbacks correspond to the type of street. The enabling legislation relates setbacks strictly to areas for street widening. She is concerned that if we adopt setbacks as a part of the street standards and have a set of setbacks different from that in the zoning ordinance, we would have conflicting regulations which could cause one or both to be invalid. She advised the Council not to adopt the setbacks and promised to look at it when going through UDO Alderman Williams suggested also considering in UDO, if we do have setbacks designed by the street and if we want to change the street designation, that you could increase the setbacks in people's yards. Alett Little agreed. The way it currently is by zoning, on any one street you'll have varying setbacks. Our zoning ordinance in commercial and industrial allows a 50' setback if there is parking in between the street right of way and a building. It allows a 25' setback if there is not parking. We have a built-in incentive, but it could be better. Alderman Williams moved to delete all the setbacks listed on the street types. Alderman Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Alderman Miller stated the Trails Committee might ask for a wider sidewalk than 6'. It says at least 6', so they could ask for more. Alderman Williams pointed out the 6' sidewalks are only on the collector and arterial streets. Local street sidewalks are still 4' wide Alderman Daniel asked if there was any possibility of having standards for one-way streets. 374 September 17, 1996 Alderman Schaper answered there is.a provision in the PUD ordinance for one-way streets that are quite narrow, but those would be private streets. We have no new standards for one-way public streets. They could be added in the future. It is rare to build a new street that is one way. Alderman Schaper stated the one thing he would like to do in this is to allow flexibility in'the applicationsofthese standards in areas that are already largely developed. Some of the rights of way required on collectors and arterials are wider than we now require whereas the rights of way for local streets are less than now required in some cases. He wanted to be sure we don't apply those blindly to areas where development has'substantially occurred -and we'll never have a chance of getting an overall right of way that is that wide. We can handle that administratively and give Alett Little that flexibility. He wants to build in that common sense. Alderman Young asked if these were standard speeds used and if the terrain merited it, could they be reduced. Alderman Schaper replied that speed limits get set depending on local conditions. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. Jana Britton, from the 'audience, stated she has served on the Planning Commission and the Subdivision' Review Committee and has dealt with street standards. It is a good idea to encourage the narrower streets in certain cases. You have to look at each situation. She would prefer aeresolution that would Dust encourage narrower streets and not deny,the;Planning Commission flexibility. Alderman Schaper moved his resolution. Alderman -Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vo'teof 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 97-96 AS-RECORDEDsINkTHE CITY.CLERK'S OFFICE. UNDERGROUND UTILITY WIRES, LINESAND CABLES 4. Mayor. -Hanna introduced consideration, of an ordinance requiring underground utility wires, lines,'and/or cables.`in new residential developments requiring Planning =Commission approval and innewcommercial developments. 1k City Attorney Rose reviewed the Council`''s options You may leave what you have on table, TeL it die, and begin with something new. You have two choices to begin. anew With either the revised draft 375 September 17, 1996 that came out of the Ordinance Review Committee or the other draft presented by SWEPCO and David Matthews. City Attorney Rose went over the three versions. One is the one looked at two weeks ago and went to the Ordinance Review Committee. It is now tabled. The second choice is one drafted following the Ordinance Review Committee and it is 1.13 of the backup and contains four sections. The third choice is an ordinance submitted by David Matthews from SWEPCO. It contains six sections and was just passed out. Alderman Bassett suggested that what came out of the Ordinance Review Committee is probably the appropriate place to start. Since last Tuesday, David Matthews drafted an ordinance that contains additional sections. Today we received a letter from Conrad Odom and a letter from John Harbison stating their opposition to some of the additions the SWEPCO representatives made. Alderman Williams moved to came from the Ordinance seconded. Upon roll call, consider the version Review Committee. the motion passed on on page 1.13 that Alderman Bassett a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance, page 1.13 of final agenda backup, for the first time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. Tommy DeWeese, SWEPCO, stated this needed to be broken into two parts. First he would talk about the economic impact then turn it over to David Matthews to give the legal side. Applying this ordinance to the jobs they worked in the past year, there is a $1.5 to $2 million impact to the developer. That does not include street widenings or things of that nature that we are reimbursed for. A study was done a year ago looking at a ten- mile stretch of College and placing existing structures underground and it was about $1 million a mile. After working with other utilities and Jerry Rose they have a new proposal. The draft as proposed now could very easily add more overhead wires and lines and structures along College than is there now. Alderman Williams stated section 2 of the proposed ordinance would apply to this and the Planning Commission could grant a waiver. Mr. Deweese brought this up because we have so much of that out there now. He asked if the City wants to operate under applying to individual locations or should it be addressed in this ordinance. • September 17,.1996 Alderman Parker stated no one_ is talking about going back and. putting all of College underground.; It is new areas'we want to do.. Alderman Schaper stated we are not talking: about an additional step. It goes through large scale development and Subdivision. Committee review and all utilities comment on it.. . . Mr. Deweese pointed out it is a large piece of the new development in Fayetteville. Alderman Bassett has sensed there is_wide-_support for the ordinance being considered. The cost -argument -is a fair -argument, but the feeling is thatit is a cost the community may be willing to bear.. He asked why sections 4, 5, and 6 of the SWEPCO ordinance should be added. David Matthews, attorney,..responded:. The transmission lines are exclusively under the purview of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. We cannot build a. transmission line without their permission. : Included in that. -process is' a requirement that we estimate the'cost of the lines•. This becomes incorporated.: in. the rate structure. We believe there is strong legal argument that section six in the ordinance as written by Jerry:Rose adequately addresses that. What we want to do is ensure..that.no.intervener can come into a CCN application and say they've got to put .it underground and the figures submitted -.are not accurate -Re would like to include a sentence that makes it clear that transmission lines are not covered by thist-1... . '••; ° f Yr Alderman Schaper stated exactly -where those transmission lines g� may be.a major issuewith the;:public. He •asked who determines where they go., I .,...4 • - ` »3. Mr. Matthews replied it is.the;Public ServicetCommission.' Alderman Parker stated he was.,reluct'ant- to- appro e' a change—that would incorporate the figure tof ,34`5 Kv without background Material. a +.7j4cst Mr. Matthews stated if it 'la' less'` than that it is not a transmission line and does not require„Public Service Commission approval.x Alderman Young because if .that two rates, one asked why they.were concerned' about an intervener happened the Public Service commission would setup for overhead and"one`forunderground: .1 1 1 377 September 17, 1996 Mr. Matthews responded that this is not true. That rate structure impacts all the ratepayers, not just the ones limited to Fayetteville. It is also a timing issue. Alderman Schaper stated this ordinance does not apply to transmission lines. We are talking about residential developments requiring Planning Commission approval and new commercial developments. We say nothing about transmission facilities or anything regulated by the State. Section 4 of the ordinance being considered is unnecessary because the City of Fayetteville cannot usurp the authority of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. City Attorney Rose stated he did not interpret this as including transmission lines. It only includes distribution lines. Mr. Matthews stated a sufficient record has been made, if that is ever challenged. Alderman Young asked if the Public Service Commission required transmission lines to be overhead. Mr. Matthews replied they have criteria they look to. One is cost. They have it within their power to require transmission lines to be underground. Mr. Matthews referred to section 5. If you get into a situation where you decide a road needs widening, if the electric utility lines running along that area need to be moved and if our poles are outside the highway right of way, then someone has to pay to move those lines. Alderman Parker asked about the case where the street is being widened due to commercial development. That would exempt that developer. Mr. Matthews disagreed. Section 5 only provided for those relocations and widenings coming at the behest of a government. Alderman Parker stated a lot of requirements we have for development come out of Planning Commission. Alderman Schaper stated the City of Fayetteville is not a for- profit corporation. It is a corporation that serves the public interest. If we think it is important enough to require developers to put in underground utilities, we should be willing to do the same thing and pay the bill. 11 378 September ,17,: 1996 Alderman Williams agreedand would -like to see that in our ordinance. He stated he had. proposed language that said,' "If, because of street widening or extension utility lines mustbe moved, they shall be. placed underground if .feasible." Hewould make,this section 4 and change the current section.4-to section 5. Alderman Young seconded. Alderman Williams restated -.the wording for City Attorney Rose and said it might be put higher up inthe ordinance. City Attorney Rose asked if. he wanted to say anything about who pays for -it and under what circumstances. Alderman Williams thought the City would pay for that if it is going to:be widened, if'we-require the widening. City Attorney Rose asked if he wants to participate on State highway projects to bury utilities at.the. City's expense. Alderman Williams stated we are participating now when we have to move them. • Charles Venable, Assistant toPublic Works. Director, stated •on. a city street or State highway,'generally the utility companies.will +x move them at no cost. Y , .;; 'C,4 . .., Alderman Parker .asked whatthappens.` if it .doesn't come -as 'a requirement of:the-State and comes -from a requirement.we-putIon for development. z Kevin Crosson; Public- Works# Director;,.answered:-that would be between the developer and the`utilityat thatapoint-. ;. Fm a Alderman Bassett stated another -Ordinance Rev ew Committee is scheduled for after the next,.agehdatmeeting. &41e.wants to know a lot more about Alderman Williams'-proposal,"rwhat it will cost-.' He suggested not voting on this at=this time and discussing it•at the next agenda meeting and in thercommittee meeting.;; Mr. Matthews inclusion of utility. He if needed. stated he does. not think the City, is precluded by -the section 5 fromspaying!fbr•everyibit' of underground was trying to give'the Council a mechanism for-an,out Alderman Schaper asked Mr. Matthews to inform;the Council what it would have cost to undergroundo.the utilities on the Wedington job. 1 1 .h 379 September 17, 1996 Mr. Matthews will get this information. Mayor Hanna suggested having it by the next agenda session. Alderman Williams stated if his amendment was adopted, the Council might want to still keep section.4 about the transmission lines because if the City does street widenings we might want to specifically exempt them, where we did not need to in the past. Mike Pehosh, Ozark Electric, did not have any real problems with the ordinance that came out of the Ordinance Review Committee. He did not read into the ordinance that it maintained transmission lines and there has been enough discussion to show it is not in the ordinance. He was bothered by the discussion on street widenings. The ordinance does not say anything about street widenings, which he was satisfied with. The City needs to know the impact that could have. Ninety-five percent of their easements are on private property. If it is a State highway and the State widens it, they get reimbursed from the State highway department. Ozark Electric has never charged the City for widening a street. If the City wants it buried, there will be enormous cost. Those costs would have to be passed on to residents of Fayetteville, because they receive the benefit. Fran Alexander, audience member, understood we have a private utility on public right of way that has been paid for by the private citizen in residential areas. That should be considered in the formulation of who pays what. If the public owns the right of way and the citizen paid for the right of way, the citizens need to respond to this. If they want underground utilities they should continue to support that. She supports it in the new developments and in the relocations. She asked the Council to consider design standards for this town, not just for the neighborhoods and streets but also for these wires. If they have to be above ground, put them on the back property line. Bobby Farrell, Southwestern Bell Telephone, shared the same concerns as the other utilities. The most desirable for his company would be no mandated ordinance. They bury wherever they can. His concern with the ordinance is in the area of hardship. It is not uncommon to run into solid rock. He asked if that is the situation on new construction, would the developer have to go through the Planning Commission and ask for a variance or temporary permit. Alderman Williams answered it would be a variance. Mr. Farrell felt this would generate a tremendous amount of work. 13 : 380 September. 17, 1996 Aldermen Williams and Parker asked Mrr... Farrell .t�.. provide the Council With information ori- what they did'and the costs on the Wedington extension. Mr. Farrell will obtain this information for the Council. Mark Sugg, Planning Commissioner, spoke as .a citizen. The .design standards process was started because citizens felt the face of our city was being changed in undesirable ways.. The intent was not to make homes or commercial property or utility rates cost more-. The intent was to identify.deSirable characteristics and encourage the spirit of these characteristics in new and_: rebuilt. parts of the City. The design standards process also identified undesirable characteristics and will try torepair these characteristics in new and rebuilt partsof the city. The:repair may -come one Street or city block at; a time, but we must decide -if this repair is important to the citizens:of Fayetteville. He hoped the people are willing. to make..the commitment to.follow-through on this process and fight'the battles that will.be. Waged. J. Anyone who does not think that some of these repairs will have no associated cost has blinders on. On.the other hand, the investmerite.in these will::be recouped by increased propertalues and cont'inUed:prosperity-in Fayetteville. t..: •- se Steve: Ward, Chamber of Commerce,: had a `question regarding industrial in the draft.of`thordinance being considered: fc , .: City Attorney Rose informed him it had been removed. t .,. i i e-, ..,.\ r s. } F 4 fLL g Mayor Hanna suggested closingithe discussion.. He stated'it would be hard to find -someone -who*''doesn.'..t<?want:,our-i.city to be as beautiful as it :cans but wemust=-`remember if' we do things that drive our .utility rates inordinately higher -than our neighbors'; we'll get complaints. We need to look'at this. ` Alderman Bassett stated'tit ishis intention>.to`tmeet .after the agenda•session to discuss this ordinance and take:ganother�shot at the commercial design standards.and bring both back.. to the -next meeting. x :"}. } ... s '1/41e I Alderman Williams withdrew his motion Alderman^Young withdrew his second.. €'e,:� Ge t; 1 1 381 September 17, 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 September 3 regular City Council meeting; B. A resolution approving amendment number 1 to the engineering contract with McGoodwin, Williams, and Yates, Inc., for the 18" Forcemain Replacement Project in the amount of $4,500; RESOLUTION 98-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. A resolution amending the General Policies and Procedures for the Airport Board providing for election of officers following a vacancy and providing alternate sites for Airport Board meetings; RESOLUTION 99-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Alderman Parker moved to accept the Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the 6 to 0, with Alderman Young absent for NEW BUSINESS PARKING ORDINANCE REVISION consent agenda. Alderman motion passed on a vote of the vote. Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance that would establish a scofflaw penalty of $25 for the sixth and each successive parking violation received during each calendar month. City Attorney Jerry Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0, with Alderman Parker absent for the vote. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Bassett moved to suspend the rules and go to the third reading. Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0, with Alderman Parker absent for the vote. 15 382 . September.. -1.7, 1996 City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time.. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience: There .were none. Alderman Williams pointed out what was not done in this ordinance. Parking costs were not increased. The first five parking, tickets were not increased. The 'only thing -this ordinance has done is raise the penalty for someone who has more than five parking tickets in.a single month; to keep parking available for citizens who want to shop downtown.: ,: Alderman: Daniel had a question about the excess of five in'tany calendar month. She asked why it was put thattway instead of a 30 - day period. . n4 - Alderman Williams said otherwise it would be;tevery thirty days,,ca running.30-day total, which would be: hard toifigure out. C Alderman Parke cOuld be configured. Brian Swain, Assistant to Administrat that -is -the way the software is set ive Services Dir'e;ctor up Mayor Hanna asked for other Comments. There being none?„ for the vote. - Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on ORDINANCE 3994 APPEARS ON PAGE., PARKING ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT a vote -of 78:to0 N 0Th OF ORDINANCE•BOOK i ? h. .:;,. 4 .,,e t u i replied 1 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration and.approving a budget .adjustment Duncan Industries for the purchase peripherals, software, and training, of a resolution awarding abid in the amount of . $20, 352;t`to of handheld data terminals; .Alderman:Schaper-stated if we_are>adamant about.;raising the fines wehave to pony up the money for the equipmentthatallows us to-do this: Alderman Miller Upon roll call, moved the resolution: Alderman Schaper seconded: the resolutien•passed on'a.vote 'of 7'.to 0. RESOLUTION 100 -96 -AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'•SaOFFICE 16 383 September 17, 1996 LONG-TERM PARKING PERMITS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance establishing a fee of $24 per month for the sale of long-term parking permits. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Williams wanted to explain to the citizens the rationale for going to this system. Brian Swain, Assistant to Administrative Services Director, stated it was hoped that the long-term parking permits would allow people who need parking on a daily basis not to have to pay coins to the meters on a daily basis. That is the number one complaint we get. The parking permit will allow them to park in any space in the downtown area where there is a long-term meter. It can be moved from vehicle to vehicle. They can come and go as they please. Alderman Schaper asked if this is revenue neutral. Brian Swain replied that is hard to determine. It is hoped they end up writing fewer parking tickets as a result of this. The parking fine revenue may drop as a result. It costs approximately $19.80 for an average workman to park everyday. Part of the rationale for having it be slightly higher is we have some administrative and materials costs involved that we want to recover. People have said they are willing to pay a premium for this. Mayor Hanna asked if someone would like to move the ordinance along. Alderman Bassett so moved. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0, with Alderman Parker absent for the vote. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Williams moved to go to the third and final reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0, with Alderman Parker absent for the vote. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna asked for further comments. There were none and he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 6 to 0, with Alderman Parker absent for the vote. 17 September:17, 199.6 ORDINANCE 3995 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK. OTHER BUSINESS. BID WAIVER TO PURCHASE RADIOS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a bidwaiver to authorize purchase of Motorola Radios from Command Communications. I`,_) i . -: • Mickey Jackson was not familiar with the agenda material buttvas the initial instigator of this plan: This company has..new Motorola radios to sell at a. significantly reduced price.. He contacted Kathy Stocker., who spread -the word;.and a Whole'bunch of people*are interested. .They are proposing -.to place an :order for;a11_..the portables and• -part of :the mobiles available.. \ Thisrlrequiresla budgetadjustmentcity wide. This is a good dealr :These,,ar-e Motorola standard products: Motorola will make all. -you want:to order for about $2,400 each. We have thi"gpportunityto buy portables for $1500 and mobiles. for $1,200.:5 They are newradios., Motorola standard quality; the latest model, and what'everyone in the. City is.buying now. Our system is Motorola;.. :'4. .. -._t Alderman Schaper,askedwhy.they are.avaiiable so cheap., `,.., F.;t.• a ...� Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated,his understanding is that we are buying from a distributor„ thatroverbought fromthe manufacturer. a -Lf "A Kathy Stocker, Central Dispatch, stated Command:Communicatons has been in business, for eight- -years-. . They, buyeused radios:- These radios have never been programmed. They:.have`plastic:overgthe displays. They are new,-but.the company cansay they aref fnew because, they are. buying them from; someone whoy bought. them from Motorola. They come with the full' one; -year warranty: They.saiarif we are unhappy for any reason they can be`°sent back. 'Mickey Jackson knows someone who bought -radios fromt"this'company who':had no problems. City Attorney Rose stated he had Oust received this so did not have a prepared ordinance. He asked if it were an emergency. Peggy Vice, Purchasing Manager :replied we need to get back to them as quickly as possible. . City Attorney Rose left toLwrite the ordinance. [This item is continued below.-)'. 1.8 385 September 17, 1996 OLIVER STREET VIOLATIONS Alderman Schaper stated the Council had discussed at its last meeting the zoning problem on Oliver Street, the large addition to a rental house. There are two clear zoning violations which he would like clarified by the agenda setting meeting. One is that we define a dwelling unit by the presence of a kitchen. The critical issue in a kitchen is having a sink. In this case, the applicant is trying to put in kitchen sinks. These are not in the bathroom. They are additional sinks. If we allow them to go in, you are saying it is okay to build more kitchens in this structure. That is a clear violation of the zoning ordinance. Alderman Schaper stated the second violation is the idea that the place is going to be lived in by the applicant's personal servants. Our zoning ordinance is clear on this. You are entitled to have servants living in your house, but this is not the applicant's house. He owns it but he doesn't live there. He is already renting it to another family. The ordinance is clear that a dwelling unit can either be occupied by a family, related by blood or marriage, or it can be occupied by three or fewer unrelated people. It can't be occupied by both. Alderman Schaper answered a question from Alderman Williams. They are not occupying it now as it is under construction. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated it is not a violation then. Alderman Williams stated until he actually violates the occupation aspect of the ordinance we cannot take steps to stop him. Alderman Schaper stated it is under the authority of the planning administrator to make sure that zoning violations do not occur. Mayor Hanna stated this can be addressed at the agenda session The person being discussed and the concerned neighbors should be notified before public discussion. Alett Little, Planning Director, confirmed there is a stop -work order on the plumbing. The plumbing for some of the sinks is already in. She has asked for a complete set of plumbing plans. Kevin Crosson confirmed they have a revised building permit. 19 386 September(17, 1996 Alderman Schaper stated it looks like there areJ:at least two and maybe three dwelling units going' into that addition to a single- family house. That is a clear violation of the zoning ordinance andit is our job to prevent:it thefore it happens'. Kevin Crosson agreed but until that man rents'thbse properties we can't act. Mayor Hanna stated Alderman Schaper's.questions will be answered at the next agenda session. Thewperson,irivolved needs to be advised this will be discussed. . . WHITE RIVER RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION• - Alderman Parker stated he'd received...a-certified,letter from the Mayor of Goshen. The White. River Rural" Water•'Association had an election from its members who voted in the).majority to have their system consider the offer and;be 'bought by .Fayetteville and Springdale. The letter stated'thi city-council:,and mayor of Goshen were uniformly opposed to this.A Alderman Parker asked if this issue will be brought back ,to-:theCounci•1 before the money is released and the project goes -through. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, statedkthetCouncil hasnot authorized a contract to do anything. It has.approved a budget. Alderman Parker stated there were some very relevant points brought up by Mr. Bowen, Mayor of Goshen, that were not}included in the letter and should be considered.` BID WAIVER TO PURCHASE RADIOS - CONT'D City Attorney Rose read the -ordinance for the first time. Alderman Miller moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading.. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Young moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final- reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments. There were none and he called for the vote. 20 1 387 September 17, 1996 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3996 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR City Attorney Rose stated an emergency clause is not needed. ANNOUNCEMENTS Water & Sewer Committee, Thursday, 4:30. Environmental Concerns Committee, Wednesday, 5:30. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 21