Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-15 Minutes407 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, October 15, 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, Jimmy Hill, Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, and Cyrus Young; Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; staff; press; and audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. OLD BUSINESS COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance amending the Zoning Code of the Code of Fayetteville to provide site development standards and construction and appearance design standards for commercial structures. This ordinance was left on its first reading at the October 1 Council meeting. Alderman Young moved to put this on its second reading. Alderman Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Daniel had a question regarding subsection C. Site Development Standards, 3(a) Razor and/or Barbed Wire, on page 5 of the proposed ordinance. She asked for an example of when this type of fence would be permissible. Alderman Williams replied there is land not zoned A-1, like industrial, that is being used for agricultural purposes where there is barbed wire. If it is not used for agricultural purposes, this would control it and could not be visible from the street. Alderman Schaper stated a minor change needs to be made under subsection E. Design Review, on page 7 of the proposed ordinance. Regarding the first sentence of paragraph 1, we have heard the architectural community talk about this in terms of the process and the fact that submitting these designs with large scale development is often premature. Submitting them with the building permit application might come too late in the process. He would like more flexibility in this, something saying you can submit these drawings 1 • t 408 October 15,:1996 and specifications anytime, either concurrent with large scale or anytime .up to the submission. of a building -permit application. Regarding who they are submitted to,..the large scale development would be approved by the Planning Commission at some point, but the drawings and plans don't-need•to be approved at the same point as the large scale development." It is,the planning office that does the approval for somethingtthat doesn't'require large-scale. That could be done prior to submitting the building permit application. Planning Director Little responded that the committee and the Planning Commission were interested in not burdening developers with additional meetings•for this particular item. They did hear from developers in terms of that itwas too early. It doesn't seem reasonable to be asking the Planning Commission to make an approval if developers have not done their economic studies and if they do not knowhow much the project is going to cost. They may need to spend a little more time on the front end so the Planning Commission is not doing 'needless work if it doesn't pan out economically. We are asking for what the front of the building is going to look like, what the main facade'.is going to look like, and any landscaping and screening. They should be able to come up with that without a great deal of expenditure: It doesn't call'for the 'full set of architectural .plans. ;The description- of. external building materials could ba submitted'in a number of4forms.H They could bring a material board, but it would not be a requirement. They could bring descriptions or literature of theproducts. This could be submitted before `coming in fora building permit. .Alderman Schaper asked for some language that would allow this to 'be=submitted before coming in -for the'building permit. Little suggested stating, ". . with or prior to building permit application. . . Alderman Schaper stated the fourth line of paragraph 1 under°E. Design Review would now read ". . . for design review and approval with or prior to building permit applications.: ." The words "or prior to" would be added. Alderman Schapermoved this amendment. Alderman Williams seconded. Little stated that the concern has been that we have the -complete three readings required. McCarty stated that as a general rule, this is correct, but a minor alteration or revisi-on by a motion would be fine. There being no further comments on this, Mayor Hanna called for the vote. - Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 8 to 0. 2 Alderman Daniel had a paragraph lb, on page about the word "varied might be better. To than the verb form of 409 October 15,_1996 question regarding subsection F. Variances, 8 of the proposed ordinance. She wondered ." It may be technically fine but "modified" a layman, "varied" has a different meaning "variance." Little confirmed that modified was the intent. McCarty stated it is personal preference. They mean the same thing. Alderman Daniel stated a comma is needed in subsection F. Variances, paragraph 3, on page 8 of the proposed ordinance, after the opening prepositional phrase, between the words "applications" and "written." Also, the word "request" should be pluralized. She asked for an example of a waiver from design review. Little responded that in a rehabilitation where they are not really going to change the facade, there would be no reason to have a design review. They would still have to get a permit for anything over $200. Also, a small building not visible from a public street is another example of where waiver of design review might be reasonable. There could be hundreds of examples, and there may be many times when this provision will be used. McCarty stated a motion was not needed to correct grammar. Alderman Hill noted there were drawing changes on subsection C. Site Development Standards, paragraphs 2b(1) and 2b(2). He asked if there is one drawing that shows both of those items, a more realistic situation. A problem with the enclosure around the utility equipment is there is no way to access the transformer. If there is a dumpster at the end, there won't be a way for a vehicle to get back there to service that. Little stated she could get a drawing that would do that. She explained why the drawings were changed. Prior to this, they showed the parking in front of the building next to the street. That is one of the things we are trying to discourage. The utility equipment can be moved to the ell behind the building, a dumpster relocated, and put in one drawing. This is just an example of how it could be done. Alderman Hill asked if utility equipment mentioned in subsection C. Site Development Standards, paragraph 2b, on page 4 of the proposed ordinance is meters that normally go on the side walls of buildings. You have to be careful fencing in and screening those. 3 October 15,_1996 Little referred to subsection. C. Site Development Standards., paragraph 2b(1), on page`..4 of the proposed ordinance and thought that is a function of just'how visible that equipment -is; Meters on :the wall. with a projection of 'six or- nine inches is not significant. It depends on the ugly factor. An amendment may have to be done as we get more experience with this. Alderman Hill questioned a sentence in. subsection. C. Site Development Standards, on page 2 of the proposed ordinance. He asked if the Council had defined how much expansion would 'kick in. this ordinance. Little replied it is an issue the Planning Commission forwarded to the Council but we haven't gotten to that. - - Alderman Parker stated that one of the things talked about was there had been mentioned a preference for the older existing structures to be remodeled. That is one of theprimary reasons for the variance procedure, so if youdid expand an older structure by 100 sq. ft. or 200 sq. ft. or 500 sq. ft., they are likely to cut more slack. Alderman Schaper added there was a lot of discussion about renovations. They decided to specifically not apply this to renovations, which is appropriate. Mayor Hanna asked if the design element guidelines applied to manufactured structures in industrial parks. Little responded that at one point exceptions had been written in but we no longer have it. Alderman Williams stated it is clear under. Section 1; D. Design Elements Guidelines for CommercialStructures, that only commercial structures are to be considered, not residential structures, not industrial structures, only commercial structures. Alderman Parker stated that way commercial built in •industrial zones will be covered, but:industrial activities won't be. Mayor Hanna had concerns regarding subsection C. Site Development Standards, 2b(3) Outdoor Storage of Material and Equipment-, on page 5 of the proposed ordinance. He Saw the potential for. problems with various things like boats, lawn equipment, and monuments.' Alderman Schaper stated he had proposed a change in this paragraph - that wasn't in the proposed 'ordinance. Where it refers to =screening with natural vegetation, he thought it should just say screened. We have defined screening to be any combination of things. 4 1 411 October 15,_1996 Little agreed that this change had been approved earlier. Alderman Schaper moved to strike the words "with natural vegetation" and to put the period after "screened." Alderman Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 8 to O. Mayor Hanna stated storage of material and equipment is one thing, but display for sale needs to be further discussed. This is not clear enough. Alderman Parker stated this won't apply to folks in business at present. This will apply to new development, so they will be forewarned of the limitation. There will be time in the future to alter this if it turns out to be too restrictive. Alderman Schaper noted there is an ordinance on the books that says all businesses shall operate in fully -enclosed structures. Little agreed there is an enclosure of uses section. It includes things like salvage yards, wrecked vehicles, recycling facilities. Mayor Hanna opened the discussion to the public. Tom McKinney, Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club, urged the Council to pass the ordinance. It shows a farsighted attitude. He stated his concerns regarding Kings Drive sliding down the hill because of the Mission Hills development. There being no further comments from the audience, Mayor Hanna brought the discussion back to the Council. Alderman Williams also had concerns about how much expansion would kick this in. It is not reasonable to leave it blank. It makes the whole ordinance vague. This is subsection C. Site Development Standards. These standards should apply when either new development or an expansion of at least 25% of an existing development occurs. We could use another percentage, but we need to have something that is clear. One percent would not be fair. Alderman Parker stated if you are going by square footage and you use the whole development, you could revise it parcel by parcel and avoid it. It would be good to say something like, " . . . new developments or expansion of existing buildings by 25% or a unexisting structure by 25%." Alderman Schaper stated development is the area of the building. We should do it on the building footprint or building square footage. It should be a 25% expansion of the existing building square footage. 5 i October 15,-1996 Mayor Hanna suggested writing the•suggestions down for -the agenda session and having the third and final reading in two weeks'. `Alderman Parker stated he would like to be a part of passing this at -this time. Alderman Daniel asked staff what the expansion percentage was in the overlay district. Little..thought it was 50%. She made the technical point' that.the site development standards deal with the things that are not the building. It is the landscaping, the screening; and the' fences,. the site coverage, and the. driveways. We do not get to the buildings until we get to subsection -D., design elements for the structures. We probably ought to tie C. to a -certain percentage of the site. Generally, we relate that to parking. Another way to do it is when improvements are made to the property that equal x percent of a fair'market value. Another section' of the ordinance simply has a listing of figures of when these things apply, under the large scale section. If we want to tie it to the1building, the building is the thing that causes the site development to.Change. She would be comfortable with the 25%, but technically was not certain it should be tied 'to the building in the site developmeht standards portion. Alderman Schaper thought requirements are tied to building, they might have this'made sense as all the parking lot building area. If someone adds to the to' add to the parking as well. Alderman Williams. stated the changes move impact of the ordinance, not broadening it. Alderman Schaper moved to include the. language in that sense, to read, "The following site development standards shall apply when either new development or a 25% expansion of existing .building square footage occurs." toward reducing the -Alderman Young asked if the square footage meant the footprint or the total square footage if it were two stories. Alderman Schaper answered it would be the total square footage. Alderman Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 8 to .0. Alderman Parker moved it on to the third andy final reading. Alderman Schaper seconded." Upon roll call, the motion,passed on a vote of 8 to 0. 1 413 October 15,-1996 McCarty read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 4004 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR VISUAL PREFERENCE STUDY Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution directing City planning staff to initiate the commission of a visual preference survey to be used to expand and further detail the proposed commercial design standard ordinance. Council received this at this meeting. The cost of this had been discussed at the agenda session. City Planning Director Little stated the City's purchasing policy will require us to put out request for qualifications then have a set of standards. We can negotiate with them. Depending on the level of detail, we wouldn't get started until November. Guessing, it would take about two weeks to do the survey and three months to finish the ordinance. Alderman Bassett was concerned this would turn into an election. Certain groups are organized to respond. He would want to make sure that every citizen could participate to get a broad cross section of opinions not dominated by special interest groups. Alderman Young shared the concern for accuracy. In answer to his question, he was informed by Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, that no money has been allocated for this. Alderman Young would want to see a separate vote on the money to be sure the survey is the best shot at an accurate reflection of the community. Alderman Williams stated he has not been in favor of a visual preference survey. The primary reason is that the design standards ordinance solves the problem. With the visual preference survey, we are taking the next step and saying this is how we want Fayetteville to look. If we see problems in the future, we can look at it again. We should not put positive requirements on at this time but should let the creativity of the architects, engineers, and designers of the building go forward. Alderman Schaper stated he would agree if it were used that way. It could be called a visual un -preference survey. The requirements just passed are general and need more meat around them for the ugly building we don't want. The object is not to get one look that is the Fayetteville look. In terms of cross section, surveys are self-selecting unless you do the political polling survey. This 7 414 October 15,_1996 could be built into the requirements for the contract, asking what the selection procedure is to be sure we get.. a valid representation. Alderman Parker commented that the very people who objected strongly to the commercial design ordinance, the architects ..were the ones who asked for a visual preference survey. This allows us to look very closely at the process. It would not cause us to spend money or start a visual preference survey.. It gets the staff involved in the initiation of the commission of the visual preference survey, which would bring the 'Council the information it needs. In response to a question from Mayor Hanna, Little stated from her research she found that the cities that used the visual preference surveys seemed to be concentrated in the northeast.. Most were about a quarter the size of Fayetteville. She was not certain we could make it work city wide. She has not found any cities the size of Fayetteville that have used it. She asked the Council to stay in close contact with the staff if this goes forward. At some point we need to be prepared to use the results'even-if-different from what was expected. She advised against spending` the money if not willing to use the results. Alderman Hill stated the normal process for professional selection is that a committee takes the proposals and chooses bne firm. Money cannot be considered. Mays stated you cannot consider money for engineering firms, architects, and attorneys. Alderman Parker moved to pass the resolution. In response to a question from Alderman Hill, Little stated there is onefirm in Arkansas associated with a group who performs these surveys. Alderman Williams.- noted sectionthree says that the visual preference survey is intended to'follow on and revise the proposed commercial design standard ordinance. Alderman Parker stated section three was intended to say' this was not to derail the proposed commercial design standards ordinance. It could be stricken. Alderman Schaper seconded the motion and stated the Council could strike section three and if necessary modify section one to not say we are going to go ahead' and do it but to say we .wantto investigate doing it. 415 October 15,_1996 Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated the staff could do research and set up a panel to discuss it more and to help the Council come to an agreement as to what it is looking for. Alderman Parker moved to modify it. He stated section three's intent is no longer important because the commercial design ordinance passed. He stated he would like to modify it by striking section three. Section one could say that the City planning staff is directed to investigate the commission of a visual preference survey to be used to expand and further detail the proposed commercial design standards ordinance. Section two says the City planning staff shall report regularly to the City Council relative to this issue. Crosson stated this basically is what was done on the drainage study and a resolution was not necessary. A resolution instructing the staff to do a drainage study was not done. Alderman Parker withdrew his motion. Crosson asked the Council for a consensus asking the staff to look into this. The second was withdrawn. Mayor Hanna stated this would be forwarded to the staff to investigate then come back before the Council. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hanna 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 October 1 regular City Council Meeting; B. A resolution awarding Bid 96-58 to Hunnicutt Construction in the amount of $36,000 for the renovation of the administration area of the City jail at 100 W. Rock Street; RESOLUTION 105-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. C. A resolution approving a contract with Xerox Corporation in the amount of $47,376 to lease an additional copier to be placed on the first floor of the Administration Building; RESOLUTION 106-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. D. Moved to regular agenda; 9 416 October 15,-1996 A resolution approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $150,000 and awarding a contract to John Marinoni Construction in the amount of $222,300.80 plus a contingency of $14,281 for the installation of ILS/LDA equipment and related cabling at the Fayetteville Municipal Airport; RESOLUTION 107-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. F. A resolution authorizing the extension of the contract with the University of Arkansas to operate the Educational Access 'Channel for an additional two years with the stipulation of cooperating with the Fayetteville Public Schools in showing school programs on the channel; RESOLUTION 108-96 AS RECORDED IN THE. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. G. A resolution approving a contract with Time Striping, Inc., in the amount of $35,000 for street striping; RESOLUTION 109-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. H, A resolution approving the extension of the existing agreement with the State Board of Finance for turnback funds for the Continuing Education Center under the Tourist Meeting and Entertainment Facilities Assistance Act; RESOLUTION 110-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Alderman Williams moved to accept the consent agenda. Alderman Miller seconded. Alderman Daniel stated she had asked Be^=Mayestabout the turnback funds for the Continuing Education Center. We. are getting back 66.670 of our taxes. She asked.;if the proposed -Town Center gets built, would we get the same turnback deal on bonds for that. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated if the Town Center gets built andif bonds are used,, then the City may apply under the'same statutes for additional turnback that will not exceed 80% of the -debt service._1 A Second provision allowss-you to recoup a portion of the operating`expensesiafterdebt is retired. It would take a separate application -..-The fact'that we are already taking advantage of this would not jeopardize this application. sM Upon roll call, the motion passed on at -vote of"8'to0. 4 1 October 15,-1996 NEW BUSINESS REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS 417 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution allowing the Mayor to execute real estate contracts for a community development affordable housing program in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per contract. James Nicholson, Community Development, gave details on the program. The goal of the program is to assist low to moderate income residents to keep their existing homes affordable, decent, and safe. We have a $20,000 limit per project. The average cost of a full-scale rehab project is just under $18,000. The improvements are not just cosmetic. A good part of the money is spent on rebuilding the structure and stabilizing the foundation. A high priority is protection from the elements, roofing, siding, painting, windows, doors, and insulation and weatherization. Kitchen and bath facilities are made safe and sanitary and also the electrical and heating systems. If any money is left over, it is spent on interior finishes such as painting, flooring, and counter tops. He showed slides of recent projects. Nicholson then explained the acquisition rehab program they want to get started. It will be essentially similar to the homeowner rehab program. The City will acquire substandard houses, rehab the units, then sell the units to low -to -moderate income applicants. This can be combined with the home buyer's assistance program, which provides small grants for down payments and closing costs in buying a home. The goal is to move renters into homeowners. The selling price can be tailored to the income of the buyer. It will be a better utilization of the grant funds we receive. He urged the Council to pass the resolution. It will help the City to act quickly to purchase properties as they come on the market. After rehab they will be sold directly through the community development department. Participants will be folks not in the real estate market, as their income is too low. The City will not be taking business away from realtors. This effort will also enhance cooperative efforts between the City and private agencies such as lenders, realtors, tradespeople, and non-profit organizations. Alderman Schaper asked what safeguards there are for recovering the public money invested, if someone decides to move or sell the house. He asked at what point it would become a market house instead of a subsidized one and how the subsidy would be recovered. Jan Simco, Community Development Coordinator, replied the subsidy will be recovered when the house is sold. The applicant family will be getting a loan through a bank. We will get most but not all of our money back. We will place a lien on the property for 11 418 October 15,:.1996 the difference between the money we have in it and. the purchase price, for a period of ten years. If it is sold during that time, we will get that money back. If the difference is.'only a couple.of thousand, we might do five years. Alderman Hill asked why the City would want to get into such a volatile market and who makes the estimates on the rehab There is a $20,000•limit. Simco responded that the people we work with now manage to acquire these homes. They are substandard when acquired then.they come to us to fix them up'. This way, -.we will have a family ready to move into the house once it is.finished. We won't own a house for more than six months at the longest. If we don' -t have' a qualified family, we can sell it for profit to anyone. Mayor Hanna clarified that these funds are HUD funds. We are getting additional funds for this program, Alderman Williams moved the.resolution. AldermanThaniel seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 8 t� 0. RESOLUTION 111-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE JOYCE BLVD. IMPROVEMENTS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a ccnstruction contract with Jerry'D: Sweetser,'>Inc::; in the amount .of $676,413.80 plus a 126 prqject contingenoy'`inthe amount of '$80,000 for the Joyce Blvd. Street Improvements"Project.' Alderman Young stated the company he works for'±s>presenting this issue so he would not participate in the discussion and would -- abstain from the vote. Alderman Schaper stated Sweetser.-hasfa1mdst$$68,000 which is 10°% of the total price in item 23, Traffic"Control. ?That was way'out of line with the other bidders "Y'•He -asked :what„ 1:s involved with traffic control and whyshould`it cdstL$68y000 -,a ./ � ..i Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director,..assumedf'it:would.be one lane open during the whoia.:thing. Alderman Schaper asked if:this•.projeot=Would ,meet the new street standards or- the old ones. 11 1, r, �'" keeping Alderman Williams stated -this -was under, th"e when it was, authorized and bidtout.`t,f -,.12 ola.'atreet standards • 419 October 15,-1996 Alderman Bassett moved to pass the resolution. Alderman Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7-0- 1, with Alderman Young abstaining. RESOLUTION 112-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MILLING MACHINE PURCHASE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a budget adjustment and awarding Bid 96-61 for the purchase of a pavement profiler for use in the in-house pavement improvement program. Alderman Williams moved to pass the resolution. Alderman Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 113-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE EQUIPMENT PURCHASE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution awarding Bid 96-64 for the purchase of heavy duty cab/chassis with mounted spreader bodies and two spreader bodies. Alderman Daniel moved to pass the resolution. Alderman Hill seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 114-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OTHER BUSINESS Kevin Crosson announced the fall compost distribution from Saturday, October 19, to Saturday, October 26, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. He also announced the household hazardous waste roundup is scheduled for Saturday, October 19. This year tires will not be accepted. Alderman Parker bid farewell to the Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. 13