Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-19 Minutes429 A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, November 19, 1996, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Jimmy Hill, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, and Woody Bassett; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; staff; press; and audience. ABSENT: Alderman Len Schaper CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with six aldermen present. ALDERMAN APPOINTMENT - WARD 3/POSITION 1 Judge Rudy Moore administered the oath of office to Trent Trumbo. City Attorney Jerry Rose suggested taking a formal vote. Alderman Williams moved to appoint Trent Trumbo as alderman for the open position. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. ARKANSAS PARKS & RECREATION ASSOC. VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR AWARD Mayor Hanna presented a plaque to Susan Driver and stated she is being honored for her dedicated service to the City's parks and recreation programs. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Daniel stated the Dickson Street Improvement District Commission asked the Nominating Committee to nominate someone for one open position. Alderman Daniel moved to nominate Greg House. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. OLD BUSINESS FIRE MARSHAL Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance declaring the position of Fire Marshal in the City and prescribing certain duties, responsibilities, and authorities of same including the authority to carry a weapon. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. 1 a 430 November 19, 1996 Alderman Daniel stated she had just received some information from the, fire department on recent arsons. She would provide the other Council members copies of 'this. She expressed concern about the repercussions; we don't know who future fire marshals will be. There is a problem of firearm retention and what.would happen if a firearm was taken away from the fire marshal. Anytime'an officer shoots someone, there is inevitably a lawsuit and theofficer is suspended without pay. As we would.have only one fire marshal, we would need him on duty at all times. There are other ways to ensure the safety of officers. We have pepper spray. The fire department could work closely with the police department. Alderman Williams also had problems with the ordinance,' in that it allows forthe arming of assistant fire marshals. Though:he might be in favor of arming the fire marshal, he would not be in favor of allowing it to go further withoutit being brought back to the Council to amend the ordinance. Fire Chief Jackson appreciated and shared the concerns stated. He had no objections to changes in theordinance regarding authority of who controls who becomes an armed officer. He is riot trying to create authority for .one' person, but rather for a position. He reiterated the certification process the fire marshal would go through before being armed. This ordinance was left on its second reading. SIDEWALK SPECIFICATIONS Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance repealing Section 98•.67 of Chapter 98: Streets and Sidewalks of the Code of Fayetteville, to. addi.a new Section 98.67 setting standards for sidewalks, driveway approaches, and access ramps. 'City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. There were no comments from the audience. Alderman Williams pointed out this has been through the Trails Committee as well as the Street Committee. It has been well looked at. 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 4005 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCEHBOOK 2 431 November 19, 1996 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution approving the 1997-2001 Capital Improvement Program. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated this is the end of a lengthy process. It has gone through various subcommittees and boards. This is not a financing tool; it is our planning document. The 1997 portion will come back to the Council in the budget process for approval. All the projects will follow normal City procedure. Mayes stated two changes had been the Library Book Purchases, and Salem Road Improvements to Salem requested. We will add $3,210 to we will change the name of the Area Road Improvements. There were no comments from the audience. Alderman Daniel moved to pass the resolution. Alderman Hill seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 119-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. TREE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 162: Tree Protection and Preservation, to prohibit land disturbance operations before the approval of a tree preservation plan for certain properties. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Williams reminded the Council this had not gone forward to the final reading because the Council wanted to refer it to the Tree Preservation Committee, which has not met yet. This could be on the third and final reading at the next Council meeting. Mayor Hanna noted it may come back to the Council with some changes as there are some enforcement questions. 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 November 5 regular City Council meeting; 3 November 19,_ 1996 A resolution approving a budget $43,400 and awarding Bid 96 - Contractors for the replacement at the Police & Courts Building adjustment in the amount' -of 63 to Mountain Mechanical .of.twb air conditioner un -its for a cost of $65,600; • RESOLUTION 120-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Alderman Daniel had a question for staff. She asked if the units would be placed on top of the building and what ordinances they would be subject to. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, replied they would be on top of the building and he did not think they would be subject to any ordinances. Rick Hoyt, Police Lieutenant, Hill. He stated there were specifications. responded to a question from Alderman two bidders, but only one met the Alderman Daniel moved the consent agenda. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote -of 7 to O. Mayor Hanna stated item six was removed from the agenda.. APPEAL --CHARLESTON PLACE PUD Mayor Hanna introduced an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission to approve a preliminary plat for Charleston 'Place PUD as requested by Jimmy Hill on behalf of Terry Turpin. Mayor Hanna stated there have been further changes to this since it went through the Planning Commission and was appealed to the Council. Richard Alexander, representing the owner and developer, stated he understood this was an appeal of the approval .by' the. Planning Commission. It was not the owner's nor the developer'=s intent to get into a. fight with the neighborhood. They were trying to make an alternative, higher end, affordable housing development in conformance with what they believe to be good' -economics, the Fayetteville 2020 Plan, and the affirmative statements the Plan suggests with respect to diversity"and style and lot size and density, specifically with respect to infill. They chose a PUD because it allows for smaller lots, green space, and a -different structure with respect to lot size and housing placement for reasons of economy and aesthetics. Alexander stated that in light of the reaction from the community with respect to the density issue, which he believed was the primary concern of the neighbors, and after consultation with City 4 433 November 19,. 1996 staff, the developer and owner have agreed to go down in density to 51 lots. Fifty-one lots, as he understands it, is what would be allowed in an R-1 development without any density bonus. They want to keep the structure as a planned -unit development so that they can have green space, a desirable feature with respect to salability, and the economic feasibility, as well as to enhance the quality of the development. Alexander stated they have attempted to talk to some of the neighbors through Mr. Turpin, who had written a letter to the Council. In response to that, they wrote a letter which they thought dealt with the issues raised in Mr. Turpin's letter with respect to density and open space and the calculations. The important thing is that the developer and owner have backed off of a density request of 69 units and are now willing to do 51 lots. The density allowed under PUD regulations is 96. The developer and owner felt 69 was a comfortable, mid-range position. They do not concede that the development is not a good development, that it is not good for Fayetteville, or that they have not met the regulations. Their primary goal is to do a good project, not to enrage the neighborhood. In the spirit of compromise, they would like the Council to know they have agreed to back off. Having submitted a changed plat, it was Alexander's understanding from talking with the City Attorney that the Council has several options. They can submit the development as changed. They can refer it back to the Planning Commission, which the owner and developer would like to avoid because it has been a long process and the layout and design of the PUD as submitted to the Planning Commission was the result of a long process and a series of compromises and input from City staff and planning people. At one point they were down to details of fire hydrants and curb and gutter and that kind of thing. They would like to not have to start that whole process again. Especially in light of the fact that they understood from the outset that this type of development was something that would be encouraged by the City. The main thing is it is higher end and affordable in terms of better quality construction, better aesthetics, more open space, but smaller houses and smaller lots. That is to appeal to a whole range of potential buyers. Greg House, President of Houses, Inc., gave more background. When this project was first embarked on, they did consult with planning staff, Planning Commission members, as well as some aldermen about the concept to see if it could be supported. They have had many meetings, some public where the neighbors have attended, and worked through compromises about a pavilion they had at one time, green space, entrances, locating larger lots towards the more developed area and pushing the smaller lots toward the undeveloped neighboring area. It has been a long process. 5 November 19,_ 1996 House stated they want to create homes with 10' ceilings, crown' molding, tile, and wrought iron on smaller lots, which is more affordable than the alternative of •developing infill land on a third of an acre lots with large homes more in the style of Mission Hills. That is what we are faced with. The initial land cost is so much, it is either do large and expensive or increase the density to create a market more in the $100,000 to $125,000 range.. Alderman Trumbo stated a major concern of the neighbors is drainage, in particular the effects on the houses to the north. 'House stated this issue has been discussed many times in the 'process. Initially, there were two retention ponds in the plan. As the engineers studied it more, they felt three were needed. He has been told by the engineers that the drainage canbe controlled so it will not create problems for the neighbors to the north. The burden is not to fix existing problems, but rather to not exaggerate them. Alderman Hill asked if the restrictive covenants had changed with the replat the Council had received. House responded that the concept is exactly the same. All they have done is reduce the number of lbts. The covenants will remain the same. The style of house will.remain the same. The use of the green space area for a trail system and all the other amenities will remain the same. Alderman Hill read item number 17 of the covenants. He asked if the intent is to build two. -car garages for every home. House replied that their intent is not necessarily to build two -car garages for every home. There might be some -carports. 'There may be single -car garages. There will be a variety, some two -car garages, possibly no garages. They do want to provide enough:off- street parking so that:residents and guests would have plenty of parking off the street. It Would be in their driveway or parking pad. Most of -the homes will be designed so that the parking and any garage or carport would be inz the rear. of the building.to maintain a traditional look, They are considering an alleyway that would go behind deep lots vs. individual drives for each home. Alett Little, Planning Director, stated the setback 16.5' on the sides. House stated you can get a driveway in 10' to 12'. The 5' separation could be part of the driveway. They are considering shared -driveways for some. He referred to pictures of Harbor Meadows provided to the Council which showed attractive homes built on 30' wide lots. a 11 435 November 19,_1996 Alderman Daniel asked about paving and the width of the alley. House replied it would be paved and it can be 12' wide. Mayor Hanna opened the discussion to the audience. Terry Turpin, Amber Drive, spoke on behalf of the neighbors. First, he wanted to get straight that this is not a personal thing, the neighbors vs. Greg House or development. They know the reality of the situation. Compromise or no compromise, the PUD ordinance must be followed in order to have this development. They have a compromise of 51 lots, but there are many questions left unanswered by the Planning Commission. Turpin stated a major item was the private drive on the northwest side of the property being counted toward open space. The language of the PUD states that the open space must be within the PUD. Another item not answered is that the statute states that only 50% of open space can be covered by water or wetland. We are talking three retention ponds and low lying area. Another item not touched on is whether there will be on -street parking. The statute calls for six extra feet on either side of the road where there is going to be on -street parking. Turpin stated they also had trouble with the way the Planning Commission felt like if you provide the requisite amount of open space, then you are guaranteed the density bonus. The statute does not read like that. It says if you have the requisite open space, it is within the discretion of the Planning Commission to provide the density bonus. It is not a guarantee. Turpin stated that when he was talking to the City Attorney's office on the appeal process, they discussed the PUD ordinance. They basically stated this ordinance is one that is being looked at by the City to be possibly redone or replaced. If these decisions are in the works, they would like them made before any kind of approval is given. With the new plat, Turpin stated, the buffer originally surrounding the whole area has been left the same except the Amber Drive end where it has been eliminated. The lots within the PUD will come right up to the property lines of the R-1 lots right next to them. There is no buffer on the west end. Turpin noted that the bend in the road to slow down traffic, as this will be a cut through, is gone. It looks like a straight shot on the new plat. 7 11 436 November 19,_1996 Given the neighborhood and the city of Fayetteville,'this area should be infilled the same as the surrounding area. Regardless of any compromise, Turpin hoped the Council would not make the same mistake the Planning Commission made and push this thing through. It is a compromise offer but still does not meet the requirements under the PUD statute. Reed Greenwood, 1601 Elmwood, reiterated they are not present to beat up �n Mr. House but are serious about beating up on the plan. He had a petition with 284 signatures, which had been given to the Planning Commission. They feel a PUD in this neighborhood is out of character. This area has been built up through the subdivision approach. This has helped to have reasonable development, reasonable structures, quality oflife in a neighborhood represented with mixed housing. He spoke about neighborhood and sense of community. This' is a quiet park -like area. The green space is spread around the houses so there is space for play areas, garages, carports, streets. The space is around the houses, not in some distant green space. This proposal will introduce something totally out of keeping with this area. Greenwood stated there is concern about the drainage problems. This development would remove a good part of the watershed. This proposal is an example of how a good idea can be turned into a bad plan by a developer who takes advantage of planning regulations intended to allow flexibility. When carried to the extreme, they can result in development incompatible with the area. The shuffling around of green space to concentrate houses on tiny lots is completely out of character for this neighborhood. Greenwood stated concerns about the additional traffic dumped on Amber, Hackberry, Mission, and Old Wire Road. This would be much more than you would find in a typical subdivision development. Greenwood stated the developer has not demonstrated there is a need fon a PUD at this location. He has not met the absolute 'requirements for a PUD as specified in the ordinance. Neither the " -planning staff, the subdivision committee, nor the Planning Commission applied specific criteria to those must requirements. It was sent forth by the planning office without recommendation. Ithwas sent forth by the subcommittee without recommendation. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission which expressed a clear bias in; favor of this development. They are opposed to urban sprawl -on the periphery of the city in favor of high density infill in established neighbors. Greenwood stated the Planning Commission limited the neighbors' remarks to two minutes per person. The developer was not subjected to any time constraints. The neighbors were not allowed to respond to the developer's comments. What they heard from the Planning 8 1 11 437 November 19,. 1996 Commission was it looked okay and they liked this kind of development and the citizens would have to get used to land like this being developed. Greenwood stated we are getting high density development in space zoned for low density development and a significant variation from the established housing patterns and subdivision requirements that have served this city well for many, many years. This neighborhood is a clear indication of how it has served this area. Approval of this development will establish the City of Fayetteville as favoring high density development in areas where such developments are not needed and not in keeping with established housing patterns. The proposal will negatively affect the quality of life in our neighborhood. It will create drainage problems. It will bring housing into the area that does not provide for the needs of children or families and will add to the congestion in ways excessive to what would be expected from this amount of land. We recommend the developer follow the subdivision regulations that have served this city well and that are compatible with established housing in the area. Mike Andrews, Board of Adjustments, has seen many appeals to adjust required setbacks because developers have built houses on too small lots. He cited three examples: BA96-7, BA96-19, BA96-21. These errors, mistakes, discrepancies cost the City planning department, inspection department, Board of Adjustment, and even the builder much time, trouble, and expense. The City is responsible for allowing large houses to be built on small lots. When such lots are approved and the homeowner wants a house bigger than a bread box, the builder attempts to use every square inch available, leaving zero room for error. If the lots were larger, there would be allowances for possible error. Andrews stated he would deny future appeals coming before the Board of Adjustment if the developer was attempting to push the lot size vs. house size ratio beyond reasonable limits. Ted Johnston, 1901 Overcrest, lives just around the corner from the Hackberry entrance to this proposed PUD. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, one member indicated this PUD ordinance should be the first thing they worked on. At both the subcommittee meeting and the Planning Commission meeting there was confusion about what the PUD ordinance says. Though not technically, in effect a PUD is a rezoning. Liz Watkins, from the audience, stated she lives in front of the little road that is being called a lane. The third pond they have added will be right behind her house. That road was conceived as a driveway. It was never intended to be a street. When surveyed, most of that was on their property. When the Bostons lived there, 9 November 19, 1996 they were given a quitclaim deed to the road for access to the house. She stated she does not want a 20' road behind her house and a pond that will be a mosquito farm. She asked who would maintain it. She also had concerns about its overflow. The pond that is there now runs over. It is a live spring. She also had concerns about children playing in the ponds. It sounds -like nothing but trouble. There being no further comments from the audience, Mayor Hanna closed the discussion to the public. Alderman Daniel commented that things cannot stay the same. Land has gotten much more expensive. We can't continue building on huge lots. There can be a compromise. Alderman Williams thanked the citizens who have written letters concerning this. Many good points were brought up which helped the developer realize he would have a significant problem pushing through the plat approved by the Planning Commission. He also apologized for the Planning Commission. He stated they should .. change the way they are doing business and listen to the citizens, not give them two minutes. Citizens should have a full opportunity to express their viewsto the Planning Commission and respond to the developer, just as the developer should have a chance to respond the neighbors' drainage concerns as well as some of the other issues. - Alderman Williams shared some of the Planning Commission's beliefs that a PUD might be a good project for this property.. However, he would refer the new plan back to the Planning Commission as there is a lot that hasn't been decided. Alleyways have been talked about but there are none shown. Maybe the street needs to be wider to allow for one lane of parking. Parked cars have a tendency to slow down traffic. He hoped this could be improved further. Alderman Miller agreed this should go back to the. Planning Commission. He suggested future developers who think they are going to build a controversial subdivision get together with the neighborhood before starting the process rather than afterwards. He liked the curved road on the first plat. Alderman Young commented that doing an R-1 subdivision would lose the green space. The Planning Commission needs to look at how the existing neighborhood was developed. His idea of infill isPfor the central part of the city. This is not the central part of the city. Many books recommend PUDs, but you have to -.read our ordinances and go by them. He also liked the curving road and was in favor -of sending this back to the Planning Commission. 10 439 November 19,. 1996 Alderman Trumbo agreed it should go back to the Planning Commission. Alderman Bassett had questioned whether the neighborhoods there would be much better off if it's R-1, as opposed to the plan now before the Council. By listening to the people in that area, he has been persuaded that there are some very legitimate concerns. He would vote to send this back to the Planning Commission. In the final analysis, this is probably R-1. In defense of the owners and developers, they have tried to follow the 2020 Plan and respond to comments made by the Council and others in connection to some of these issues. Alderman Daniel asked what the percentage of green space is in the new design with 51 units. House replied it is at least 30%. Alderman Hill stated he had the same concerns and comments already heard. He would support sending it back to the Planning Commission. Alexander stated Greg House had made significant efforts in involving the neighbors before foisting the plans on them. Likewise, there was significant process with respect to the Planning Commissions's staff. He took constructive criticism and incorporated changes. Considerable sums of money were spent in trying to comply with codes and reading the regulations. This was months and months of detailed negotiations and discussions. The Planning Commission made detailed findings, as they were required to do, that this PUD met all their requirements. Alexander stated the dilemma is having to go back through that process with the only new bit of information being that the developer has ceased to ask for any density bonus at all, only wishes to have the density allowed in R-1 but still wants to do a PUD for all the reasons stated. He wondered how the Planning Commission would arrive at a different decision given the already - made detailed findings of fact that this project qualifies. He asked if we want to encourage this type of development or traditional development with all the burden that places on the infrastructure. Alexander stated this is not a case of developers not listening and not in tune with the political process, the requirements of the ordinances, and the neighbors' concerns. It left them in a difficult position of knowing what to do. One of Mr. Turpin's concerns was loosing the green space along his part. You can't have it both ways. One reason for the green space is to be able to do the smaller lots. If you do just the larger tracts, you are 11 November 19, 1996 back to the tree ordinance. Once in place, there is nothing to stop owners from cutting down all the trees. We are getting two signals, do what you are required to do but we may not okay it. Alderman Williams responded that the PUD, when you don't have the increased density, is a very good development in most cases. He hoped the neighbors would think about what that land would look like if cut up into R-1. Think about the drainage when you have more streets than in a PUD. He encouraged everyone to keep an open mind. Turpin gave examples of the Planning Commission's .-detailed decisions. One was that the statute says the open space must be usable. The question was asked how the pond was usable. The answer was you could float boats in it. Another member of the Planning Commission supported smaller lot sizes because a grandmother had to move out of her house because she couldn't mow her yard. There are still questions to be answered. Whether the private drive can be used as green space was never answered. Look at the statute. The Planning Commission has not made all the detailed decisions that are necessary. House offered to go through the issues point by point, but it appeared the Council had decided to send it back to the Planning Commission and he would deal with it at that level. Maryann Greenwood, from the audience, addressed the size of the lots. There are no yards for children to play in this PUD. They can't play in the pond and they can't play in the green space. The PUD offers no alternative places to play. She would rather see the Council do R-1. If sent back to the Planning Commission, she would like the Council to ask them to state what criteria are going to be required for them to meet the PUD and how they are meeting the requirements. Alderman Miller asked why children can't play in the green space. Greenwood responded that the green space is adjacent to her back yard. The spring pond would be dangerous. The green space down the lane would have a wet -weather pond in it. Mayor Hanna closed the hearing to the public. He explained the Council could accept the PUD or turn it down or send it back to the Planning Commission with recommendations. Alderman Miller felt the reduction in the number of lots made it an entirely new situation, which is why he favored having the Planning Commission look at it again. 12 1 1 1 November 19,_ 1996 Alderman Williams noted they'd only had a few days it was not a fully developed plan. He felt the should be to look at it again. They should follow 441 to this and so recommendation the ordinance. Alderman Young recommended this should be reconsidered based on the new plat and also to view the PUD vs. R-1. Mayor Hanna commented he'd heard concerns about the curved street which was straightened. Also Mr. House suggested that the lots might be accessed from the back by an alley. The drainage concern should be looked at as an R-1 development as opposed to this PUD. R-1 would have larger roof areas, wider driveways, and more streets. Alderman Daniel liked the alley idea and a trail that was mentioned. Mayor Hanna stated he would like the City Attorney and the Planning Director to look closely at the lane to make certain that it should be allowed as green space if it is approved as a PUD. Alderman Williams said it could be a lane or trail. Alderman Williams moved to return this plat to the Planning Commission with a copy of the minutes of this meeting. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Alderman units. Alderman APPEAL - Williams clarified that he meant the newest plat with 51 Miller asked that the road be looked at. UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP L.S.D. Mayor Hanna introduced an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission to require certain improvements as a condition of approval for the Large Scale Development for the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fayetteville. Mayor Hanna stated that during the planning meeting there was a request that the church give a $10,000 gift for future development of Cleveland Street. The church had already agreed to build a sidewalk down Oakland. The Council has been requested to look at this to see if the $10,000 is a necessary and fair assessment against the church. Alderman Daniel stated she would abstain from the discussion and vote as she is a member of the fellowship. 13 November 19;"-1996 Alderman Williams stated he has in' the past beenra'member- of -.the fellowship.and has recently representedthenm and would abstain from the discussion and voting. 'Alderman -Miller stated he'd been told the plans came in and the prices were extremely high -'so they were looking at it again i He is familiar with the building and supported the fact that they should not have to improve on Oakland. He has -also looked at the:parki-ng lot. .Putting blacktop on it would exacerbate the drainage." He would support not paving it. Alderman Miller was informed it was Cleveland, not Oakland. Alderman Bassett asked Planning Director Little about a request for $10,000. Little replied it was an assessment determined by the, Planning Commission. - Alderman Bassett asked if there was a staff recommendation on that. Little replied therewas and it was for no contribution. Alderman Bassett asked what they based the $10,000 figure on. Little replied that was the estimated cost, a broad estimate. We would depend on the engineer for the project coming up With a more specific cost. The actual assessment is one-third of the cost of Improving Cleveland Street to a standard City street fortune -half of its width. That estimated value is $30,000. The way the $10,000 assessment was arrived at is the addition to the church represents about one-third 'of the total area occupied by the church at completion. One-third of $30,000 is $10,000. Alderman Bassett asked if they were making contributions in other areas. r '-'Little replied they are bringing it up to stand designed to be attractive -' -- St-reet. making -improvements to Storer Street, ard. They ate installing a sidewalk and weaving around the trees on Oakland Alderman Bassett stated he was glad for the required improvements .to Storer. He thought the $10,000 was unreasonable. He would vote to reverse the rdetision on the $10,000 assessment. Alderman Miller seconded this. 14 1 1 1 443 November 19,. 1996 Mayor Hanna stated there was a motion to reverse the $10,000 assessment that was required of the Unitarian Church from Woody Bassett and seconded by Alderman Miller. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1, with Daniel absent for the vote and Williams abstaining. BOTANICAL GARDENS Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution approving in principle the establishment of a botanical garden and the appointment of a committee to negotiate a lease with the Botanical Garden Society of the Ozarks, Inc., to provide land for such project. Mayor Hanna stated he'd looked at this closely with staff and talked to the City Attorney about it. We are putting the cart before the horse. A committee of aldermen should be appointed to look at this, but that should be done before the resolution is voted on. Otherwise, they are limited in negotiating a lease. The committee should come up with the resolution if they feel it is necessary. There are several points that need to be addressed. The term of the lease is important. The amount of land involved is important. A site plan requirement and some of the terms presented in the original submission that gives a timetable are important. We have talked about keeping the wooded areas natural. He would want the committee to look at the last part of phase two and three to make everyone aware of what the acreage is going to look like. Alderman Williams stated it might not be unhelpful to at least have a resolution that we are interested in a botanical garden and are going to appoint a committee to further look at it. He agreed that we should not commit the City to anything beyond the intent that if terms could be worked out we are going to look toward leasing some property to the Botanical Gardens Society of the Ozarks. Mayor Hanna stated other things that need to be looked at include the boundaries of the property. It will have to be surveyed. Mayor Hanna opened the discussion up to the audience. Donna Porter, President of the Botanical Society of the Ozarks, stated they are willing to work with the City. It is new territory for everyone. It will be a great asset. Mayor Hanna stated this is a long-term project and there is no need to rush. The proposed resolution limits what the committee he was asked to appoint could do. He did not want to operate under that restraint. 15 • November 19,-1996 Ms. Porter referred to the lease for 25 years and concerns thatit was too long. They first wanted it for 50 years. The reason'or 'a long=term lease is that in time we will go out and try to solicit major;:funding for this project. To be taken seriouslywe need a long-term lease. We are not asking the City for funding at this time. Katherine Barnhart, member of the Botanical Garden Society, stated much of this work has been done. A landscape architect has been hired. We have a master plan. We have looked at leases and other botanical gardens. We have made role models. She agreed this should not be entered into lightly. Alderman Williams stated the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has looked at this carefully. William Giese, Zion Road, asked how many have looked'over Lake Fayetteville and the wooded hillside. He stated if they get the 103 acres, there will have to be 10 to 15 acres of concrete for parking lots, roads, buildings, etc. If you are going to grow exotic plants, you will have to cut trees to get sunlight. He believed the view would attract more tourists than any botanical garden. He stated this land was originally taken by the City for a water supply and asked if this has been changed. His alternative recommendation was to take an eyesore and do something with it. He suggested Zero Mountain rock quarry. A sewer system .could be part. of a botanical garden. He would hate to see Lake Fayetteville destroyed. Porter stated the society would like to set examples of how not to destroy the environment when developing an area. They do not plan on mowing down trees to build the garden. Regarding parking lots, they have been working with the landscape architect -to have permeable parking lots. Mayor Hanna appointed Aldermen Williams, Trumbo, and Miller to the committee. He stated City Attorney Rose would draw up a new resolution before they hada meeting and staff would give a list of items to consider from the City's. standpoint. RZ96-13 Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance rezoning 6.37 acres located north of Joyce Blvd. and west of Highway 265 from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, as requested by Kurt Jones on behalf of Perry and Vernal Crawford. Mayor Hanna stated there was some legal business that needed to be attended to first. City Attorney Rose had a resolution that needed to be passed before the ordinance was considered. 16 1 1 1 1 445 November 19,. 1996 City Attorney Rose read a resolution meant to eliminate confusion about this being taken from the agenda and the application being withdrawn by the proponents. Alderman Williams 80 moved. Alderman Bassett seconded. Alderman Young stated the company he works for is presenting this so he would not participate in the discussion and would abstain on the vote. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 5-0-1 with Daniel not present for the vote and Young abstaining. RESOLUTION 121-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Rose stated the abstention went with the majority. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Bassett seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1, with Daniel absent for the vote and Young abstaining. Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Mayor Hanna opened the discussion to the audience. Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, represented the owner. We did decide to withdraw the request for the R -O zoning to get time to evaluate the feasibility of developing this as a residential subdivision. We have since prepared a preliminary plat for this project contingent on this property being rezoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Alderman Hill asked if this is the exact same piece of property. Jones replied it is. The property to the north was acted on. This is the lower piece that had been requested R -O. Ted Brewer, 2607 Joyce Street, asked for an explanation of the resolution just passed. Rose explained there had been confusion about whether or not this needed to be taken back through the complete process, from the Planning Commission on through. The City Council tried to figure out a way not to do that since it had been well discussed a few weeks back. We do have a provision in our ordinance which allows the Council, on their own initiative, to take on rezonings. To make it clear that is what they are doing, they passed a resolution 17 446 November 19, 1996 to this effect. Brewer had no problem with this. Representing the homeowner's association across the street from the property, he stated they had no objections in the beginning to R-1. While they .have no objection to R-1, they hope it is not a move to open the door to do something else down the road. The association is in concurrence with the R-1. He had no objections to going to the third reading. There were no further comments from the audience. Alderman Williams moved to go to the third and final reading. Alderman Bassett seconded. Upon roll call; the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1, with Daniel absent for the vote and Young abstaining. -City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 5-0-1 with Daniel absent for the vote and Young abstaining. ORDINANCE 4006 IS FOUND ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK ADJOURNMENT There were announcements about upcoming Water & Sewer Committee and Environmental Committee meetings::The meeting adjourned at .B:50 p.m. 18