Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-15 MinutesA MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville July 15, 1997, at 6:30 p.m., Administration Building, 113 W 21> City Council was held on Tuesday, in the Council Room of the City . Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Randy Zurcher, Trent Trumbo, Donna Pettus, Kit Williams, Len Schaper, and Cyrus Young; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; staff; press; and audience. ABSENT: Aldermen Miller and Daniel Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with six aldermen present. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Young moved to appoint Jan Board and Denny Tune to the Civil Zurcher seconded. Upon roll call, 6 to O. Judy to the Parks & Recreation Service Commission. Alderman the motion passed on a vote of 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 July 1 regular City Council meeting. Alderman Williams moved to accept the consent agenda. Alderman Pettus seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. OLD BUSINESS BUILDING CODES Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance for the City to adopt State adopted building, fire prevention, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing codes with amendments. This ordinance was left on the second reading at the July 1 Council meeting. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. 1 214 :July 15,1997 Alderman Williams asked if there had been any comments from building trades since this was read at the last Council meeting. Bert Rakes, Inspections Superintendent, stated the:comments have :been positive. .The professional engineers asked'for an amendment. Rakes gave a copy of the:.amendment to City Attorney Rose, Rakes explained certain items are to be shown on drawingsprepared by architects and engineers.. Snow and wind design loads were not : included. Engineers have pointed out these are important and .should be on there. Rose asked if someone would like to move to amend section 151.30- C -1-a to add under the list of the six current plans submitted to be reviewed:numbers (7), Design Snow Load, and (8), Design Wind Load. - Alderman Williams asked if that would be for every building. Rakes replied it would be for buildings designed by architects and engineers. Those that. are stamped., The reason for this is there are many metal building manufacturers outside the state who may not be familiar with our snow and wind loading. Alderman Williams asked if those loads are already part of the code and should be checked for anyway. 1 Rakes answered they are. Northwest Arkansas is in a grey area and the ordinance defines the minimum snow load as an amendment. We want to be sure they pick.up on this and it is in the drawings. Alderman Schaper moved. to make this amendment. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6.to.0. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. There being none, he :called for the vote. .Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 6 to O. ORDINANCE 4044 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK With only six aldermen present, Mayor Hanna explained it takes five .votes, the majority of the Council, to pass ari ordinance. FARMER'S MARKET Mayor Hanna Hintroduced consideration of an ordinance amending Section.114.03(C) ofthe.Code .of. Fayetteville to permit locally tproduced cheeses_td be dold'at the Farmer's Market. This ordinance was.tabled,at the 'July 1 Council'meeting. 215 July 15, 1997 Mayor Hanna explained that the Council has received a letter from the board of the Farmer's Market asking the Council to include processed cheeses in the items sold at the Farmer's Market. The letter also gave two or three other matters to be considered before making changes. Alderman Williams asked Alderman Zurcher if this meets the amendment to the ordinance that Alderman Zurcher had brought forward. Alderman Zurcher replied it does. He felt it is perfectly reasonable to make an agreement with the board to give them at least a year to plan for the future and not try to bring everything that needs to sold to their attention. Alderman Schaper agreed it is not the Council's intent to micro - manage, but rather to support the strengthening of the Market. The Council will respond with whatever is needed to make the Market even more successful. He encouraged them to ask the Council for anything they needed. 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 6 to 0. ORDINANCE 4045 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR ANNEXATION Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance submitting to the voters of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and other affected persons, the questions of annexation to said city of 1,431.61 acres, more or less, of contiguous territory. This ordinance was left on the first reading at the July 1 Council meeting. Alderman Young moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Trumbo seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, gave a brief outline of events leading up to this ordinance. This ordinance was prepared at the instruction of the Council Water & Sewer Committee. It is the result of many months of work on the development of a waste water facilities plan for the City. The City contracted with CH2M Hill in the fall of 1995 to develop a waste water facilities master planning document which would direct Fayetteville's sewer tr t:4 216 July 15, 1997 collection and treatment system needs for a 20 year planning period. Two preliminary public meetings were held to discuss stages in the process. The initial announcement of the recommended sites surfaced at that point. Opposition to the preferred site surfaced and successfully lobbied the State legislature to pass Act 1336, which requires municipalities to site wastewater facilities within their own boundaries unless technically unfeasible. The facilities plan was completed and released in late February of 1997 and a public hearing on the plan was held on April 24, which was attended by approximately 250 people. The Water & Sewer Committee met on May 1 and eliminated five of the seven sites evaluated in the facilities plan. The Committee recommended that the City pursue a plant location at the site known as Owl Goose and instructed staff to begin work on an annexation that would encompass this site. Crosson stated that while the issue before the Council is an annexation, it is important to understand the location of a waste water facility is the primary reason for the annexation. They are two separate issues. Once the results of the pending stream studies approved earlier are completed this fall, it is anticipated that the entire facilities plan will be brought to the Council for approval. Charles Venable, Assistant to the Public Works Director, gave an overhead presentation of the plan. He explained two sites were eliminated from consideration when Act 1336 was passed. Though the plant site has not been selected at this time, he indicated where it probably will be. The total area used for the plant site would be about 30 to 40 acres. Adding screening and things of that nature will bring it up to 200 to 300 acres. Venable stated the total annexation would be in the neighborhood of 1,432. There are 59 property owners. Mayor Hanna opened the discussion to the public. Garlan Reading, 370 Dinsmore Trail, spoke on behalf of himself and neighbors. He stated annexation itself wouldn't be so bad, but to bring in the sewer did not seem right. Thereare problems with odors. It looked like it could be done on a lot less acres with less ,trouble- andbother- fort fewer people. He suggested more .thought'needs to be given to this in order to be done right. Alderman .Williams explained that more acres were being considered for a,buffer zone. If that -is something the neighbors do not want, it can be -reduced. ' This plant will be an anaerobic plant and may not need as big a buffer zone. The City will work with the local { ,people as that decision is made. 217 July 15, 1997 Tom Sager, citizen, spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation. It seemed ridiculous to him to ask 59 property owners to give up their rights and be annexed when it is not at their request. After attending the presentation made to Farmington by the City of Fayetteville, he does not think the citizens of Farmington are interested in seeing a sewer plant in their back yard. He stated a plan was shown on how it could be done with a facility presently located on the east side of Fayetteville and using lift stations to pump the waste to the east side. There are existing easements and right-of-ways in which these lines pass and facilities are located. It doesn't require the acquisition of more land or the building of a second plant. It would require the enlargement of an existing plant. He believed this makes much better sense. Alderman Schaper commented on the issue of one plant versus two. The consultants did a long-term study of the comparative capital and operating costs of one plant versus two plants. In the 25 year time frame, it is a wash. However, the operating costs will get you in the long run. In the long term, the two -plant option provides the most economical solution. Alderman Schaper addressed the back yard issue. He stated the Water & Sewer Committee has been very sensitive to that issue. They are willing to spend the money to acquire all that land to provide a couple of hundred acres of buffer zone because that is what it takes to do it right. With that kind of a buffer zone, the sewer plant is not in anybody's back yard. With the technology available to control odors, the very different construction of the plant than the one that exists in town now, and using that large a buffer zone, we are as sure as we can be that this plant will be a good neighbor. Bob Nikovits, 54th & W. Persimmon, stated he'd asked to be taken into the city 10 years ago but was turned down. Now that the City wants to put trash out there, they want him. He stated he does not want any part of the smell and does not believe it can be kept away. He would rather be owned by Farmington than Fayetteville. He felt this facility would devalue his land. Bill Jowers, citizen, spoke in opposition of the annexation. His wife has 200 acres there. He was disturbed to have heard about this annexation by the grapevine and was not notified by the City. Crosson responded that until there was an established annexation to vote on, the City cannot notify anyone. Alderman Schaper explained the process. This ordinance is only to put the annexation before the voters. After it is passed, then the City does have to notify every property owner in that area. 5 July 15, 1997 Alderman Williams noted this was intentionally left on its first reading at the last meeting to give it time to be covered by the media. Mr. Jowers asked if the property owners had a choice between Fayetteville or Farmington in this annexation. Mayor Hanna stated Mr. Jowers would have to get his neighbors together and ask for an annexation. City Attorney Rose explained there is. a procedure under the law if two votes are taken for annexation into two cities. Mr. Jowers stated the new law says this should be in the city. It didn't say to go out and start annexing. Alderman Zurcher responded that the law does say if there is not a viable site in the city limits it can be in the growth area. Mr. Jowers felt the City has viable sites to explore. He stated the consultants have been wrong before. He asked for a show of hands from the audience of those against the annexation and those for the annexation. Richard Swaffar, property owner in this area, stated he paid the high price for his property, has owned it about three weeks, and figures the City has cost him $75,000 because they want a sewer out there. Merice Mills, 11 N. 54 Ave., recalled Mr. Jones' proposed development of two years ago, which was going. to have its own sewage treatment plant. The environmental issues were explained to the Council at that time. She stated she thought the Council understood those issues at that time and asked why it is trying to create another such situation. She asked the. Council to consider the people on County Road 649 as well as the developing residential areas and what this sewage plant will do to their lives. She asked them to consider the drainage issues, environmental issues, and the stench. Cyrus Kooshosh, 46th Ave. off Highway 16 West, stated his American dream is going down the sewer. He moved to this area for fresh air and now would have to put up with the smell that would come his way. He asked where the extra water would come from if the sewage discharge standards cannot be met-. He asked if it would come from -Lake Wedington or be drained from`the well water in the area. a., x io Crosson stated there would be,no answer to these questions until the stream studies are -completed. • Y y . 219 July 15, 1997 Alderman Williams stated it might have to be piped down to the Illinois River or further to get the proper mix, which is what would be done rather than draining a lake. Crosson stated draining Lake Sequoyah in the past was a special condition based on temperature and flow. It is not a standard requirement placed on a discharge permit, but it is feasible that one could be considered here if the stream is considered that sensitive, wherever the best point to discharge is located. Mr. Kooshosh asked what impact will the separated solid waste from the treatment facility have on the quality of the water table as it is applied to the acreage around there. Crosson stated the plan is not to land apply sludge on City owned property. The current plan is to market the sludge to private farmers in the area. The City would also look at pilot projects with other technologies. Mr. Kooshosh stated an airport study showed the flow of the wind in this area would mean the smell would come toward Fayetteville. Crosson agreed the predominate winds are toward Fayetteville and that would be a consideration in managing odor control. Alderman Williams noted that the City spent $1 million to stop the odors to the east that were not affecting Fayetteville residents, to be a good neighbor. Alderman Schaper explained the difference between anaerobic processing, which the new facility would have, and aerobic processing, which the current facility has. Jim Carson, east Fayetteville, stated the scrubbers and doming have helped the problem at the current facility tremendously, but there is still an odor problem. He thought the old sewer plant was to be changed to the anaerobic process and would like to see action on that. Alderman Schaper explained the retention time of the sewage in the system is part of the problem. A two -plant system will decrease this time. Due to a long agenda, Mayor Hanna stated two more people could speak to this issue at this time. Citizens would have the opportunity to speak again at the next Council meeting and there may be more public hearings after that, if necessary. Clarence Starr, citizen, asked how the water would leave the plant and was it guaranteed not to hurt his well. If he had a choice, he would be annexed into Farmington first. 7 220 July 15, 1997 Crosson replied water would be discharged into either the Goose or the Owl creek. He could not guarantee this would not hurt wells. Michael Wilkins, County Road 4605, stated the creek could not handle the amount of treated water the City is putting in the White River now from the current facility. He did not want to see sludge application signs on his fence line. Mayor Hannaclosed the public hearing. Alderman Williams stated some good points were made. The original recommendation -from the consultants was a site on. the Illinois. River, very remote from most hones. He stated he feels this is a site that should be looked at. Regardless of that, this is a good annexation. It is within our growth area. If we don't annex it, Farmington might, and Fayetteville would be landlocked to the west. This item was left on its second reading.. Mayor Hanna noted the next item had been removed from the agenda. NEW BUSINESS FIRE DEPT. EOUIPMENT PURCHASE Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution accepting the lowest and best bid for the purchase of a new Fire Department Pumping Engine. .Alderman Trumbo reported the Equipment Committee .has metand visited with Chief. Jackson. This is a manufacturer we have experience with; but because of the dollar amount involved; the Committee wanted Chief Jackson to come before the Council to answer any questions from them and the public. • Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief, stated a multi-year plan has been in place since 1989 to replace all the old fire apparatus. That plan was completed last year.and.this is. the first additional piece of «apparatus.``it is' being, bought in order to have a relatively new •truck'td.go into'Fire Station No.'46.,-which will be built in 1998. This truck may not be the,one to go to that station, butit will enable thenevi station,to-have a late model when it opens.. This •truck is essentially° the same `as what was bought in the last two years as part of the replacement process. The engine was changed §ulon the. redommendation`of the.manufacturer. A pieceof equipment iwas"added thae hasbeen purchased separately in the past. It will -look' like engine 1 does. Alderman Williams stated this was put out to four- different companies, but the low bidder is one we've used before. and are happy with: - 221 July 15, 1997 Jackson stated they made no exceptions to the specifications and gave the best price. The bid is approximately $255,000. Alderman Trumbo moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. RESOLUTION 66-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution authorizing destruction of records. Mayor Hanna explained these are records that have been microfilmed and are available for review. Alderman Pettus asked the Council to remove the 1988 Off -Street Parking Quarterly Reports from the list as they may have some remote likelihood of being involved in pending litigation. She asked that those records be kept until that litigation is settled, at which time she would have no objection to their destruction. Alderman Pettus moved to amend the resolution to delete those records from destruction. Alderman Trumbo seconded. Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 6 to 0. Alderman Zurcher stated it is important to develop a way to keep a library of tapes at the City T.V. station, instead of taping over meetings. Some committees do not keep minutes. It was confirmed that City Council meetings are not taped over and are kept in-house. Alderman Schaper moved the resolution as amended. Alderman Zurcher seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 6 to 0. RESOLUTION 67-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ANNEXATION RZA97-10 Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance annexing 17.62 acres located east of Skillern Road and west of Rom Orchard Road as requested by Jim Neill and Milt McKenzie or behalf of Beverly Jeanne Skillern. The vote of the Planning Commission was 4-4-0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Trumbo confirmed this is just a request to annex coming in as A-1. 9 222 July 15, 1997 Alderman Zurcher stated this request is because of a rezoning and for a rezoning. The reason they want the annexation is to rezone it to put $300,.000 to $400,000 houses on.it. Alderman Schaper noted there is a whole subdivision plan that the Council has seen. Mel Milholland, engineer, showed a map of this area. He pointed out several houses have been built without a subdivision plan being submitted, so it was not controlled and the City does not have the infrastructure it would like to have when it expands. His purpose is to build a subdivision. He is asking to be annexed in order to have sewer and to be subject to City ordinances. Where there is no annexation, there is very little infrastructure paid for by the land owners. Alderman Zurcher asked Mr. Milhollandif he was saying he would build this subdivision even if this land is not annexed and it would then have septic tanks. Mr. Milholland did not confirm this. He stated his point is that the City has annexation procedures to protect the taxpayers from having to pay to do what a land developershouldhave done when he made money on it --lights, sidewalks, sewer, water. Alderman Zurcher stated the City does not need these things there. It needs a wilderness area. Mr. Milholland stated the landowner does not think it is a wilderness and does not want it to stay wilderness. Alderman Zurcher stated he'd heard the landowner would rather keep the land if it is not annexed. The people around it have written to Alderman Zurcher saying they do not want to be part of the city and do not want this area part of the city. If there is no benefit to the City for annexing, then it will probably end up staying the same and the infrastructure won't be needed out there. Alderman Schaper commented on 'premature annexation, leap frog development. The City is only supposed to rezone land if there is a need for additional land in that category.. With the number of homes in..the higher -priced :bracket on the market today and the 'enumber`of lots available in existing subdivisions/ there is clearly noneed'for additional development of subdivisions of this kind at this time. It is too early. Alderman Zurcher stated subdivisions are not built in the county because there are not the benefits of being in the city. Every •-time we have san annexation, this4is:the main argument, that they will put in a big•subdiyision'in the county and it will all have 10 223 July 15, 1997 septic tanks. He does not think this is a valid argument. There are areas we need to keep natural and agricultural. This would tax our infrastructure and not help our city at all. Mr. Milholland stated a City traffic study in 1995 showed a count of 1,200 a day. He stated his development would add another 250 trips per day. This would not even exceed the count the streets out there now would take. The master street plan calls for a 90' right of way, four lanes. This would take in excess of 10,000 cars a day. Alderman Schaper stated the concern is the total vehicle miles traveled when you build at the fringes. Alderman Zurcher stated the bigger the roads are, the less likely someone can safely walk across them. Alderman Williams asked if there were housing developments in the county out on Highway 45. Mr. Milholland answered that he developed two and lives in one of them. He built to County road standards. They do not require curb and gutter. If you go 60' wide, you can put bar ditches, which he has. This land is not as wide as what he worked with in those two subdivisions. The quality of the County's street standards is equivalent to the City's. Alderman Zurcher asked what control the City has in the growth area. Alett Little, Planning Director, responded that the City applies the same standards for subdivision development within the county as they do within the city. There are differences with regard to sidewalks, tree preservation, street lights, and fire hydrants. Connection to sewer is not allowed outside the city limits. If a mobile home park is proposed and they do not subdivide the land, it is not under the protection of the City because it is not a subdivision. Mayor Hanna opened the discussion to the public. J. L. Lancaster, adjoining property owner, stated that in a letter to the Council he had given 8 points of opposition to this annexation. At this time, he limited his comments to the fact that this narrow strip of land lies between single-family residences on acreage. The proposal is to build 29 houses, three per acre, at least 15 times the density of the smallest single family adjacent acreage. It totally destroys the character of the community. He has presented opposition petitions to Judge Johnson and the Planning Commission and now presented one to the Council. 11 July 15, 1997 Roy Rom, owner of land across from the proposed annexation; spoke against the annexation. He asked if there is a.need by the City for this narrow strip of property. He asked if there was a need in terms of the priorities the Council wrestles with, police and fire protection, sewage disposal, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, schools, civic structures, and other infrastructure items which make a city great. He questioned allocating resources to this property and asked if it would bring revenue to the City and be cost effective. He also noted there are already areas annexed into the city with a minimum infrastructure that are already designated for R1 use and asked if there is a need to bring more of this into the city. There is a buyers market in Fayetteville. The argument that annexation will stop development under County regulations is an implied threat. The County Quorum Court recognizes this type of situation and is too forward looking to let development in the city growth area proceed at unacceptable standards. This isspot zoning, not voluntary annexation, and not planned growth. There is a perception that the City caves in to developers and that the City's regulations favor developers. The neighborhood recognizes that it will eventually be annexed and will bring into the City a quality neighborhood, not with a scar of a single street with houses facing each other. There are other options fair to everyone. Without annexation there would be an opportunity to place the property on the open market, giving property owners in the area or others who seek a similar type of community an opportunity to purchase this land. Another option is to avoid being rushed into a decision by anxious developers. Al Baltz, adjoining property owner; handed out a map and photos to the Council. He had two concerns that affect him very much. One is the traffic. He described the S-curve on this road. One of his photos showed a ditch full of ruts caused by vehicles running off the road. The street was paved four or five years ago and he is laware;of six accidents that have occurred since. People are trying ,to 'take : the ,;curvea too ,_fast, 'traffic coming from Fayetteville. -Another photo showed the pavement edge that traffic is falling off of. Thisneeds to be considered,before another exit and entrance is made -in tlie-middle of -this curve. There are five drivewayson this'curve now. The second issue he addressed was drainage. Using a map, he showed the primary water=flow of the neighborhood, the south side of ,this' property. The third photo showed the entrance of the culvert ;under" Skillern .Road. .The tile is crushed to the point of only being two feet high in the center under the road. He stated this needs to be looked at. A big rain could back this up a few' hundred feet. Kyle Baltz, 3502 Skillern Road, pointed out that the amount of land touching the city is 240', less than the 5% of the perimeter of the area being proposed. He stated there would be a little less than two houses per acre of useable lot. space. The houses around this 12 225 July 15, 1997 area are of good quality. This development would benefit from this yet take away from the quality that is there now. Sewer, schools, and the road need to be considered. Wayne Hutchison, 4166 Skillern, opposed this annexation. This road does not need any more traffic and the sewer is already a problem. Tom McKinney, Arkansas Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated he had been asked by the property owners to look at this area for his opinion of the annexation and how it would affect their neighborhood. He stated this neighborhood is unique in Fayetteville. It has remained mostly unchanged for the last 30 years. This annexation and rezoning request will destroy the character of the neighborhood. There is no demand for additional housing in that area. There are empty lots and houses for sale in the Savanna development out there. Old Wire Road in that area has the same situation. This is an opportunity for the Council to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Colene Gaston, Rom Orchard Road, distributed a letter. The issues being discussed are not specific to this proposal and she hoped they would be kept in mind for future annexations. She believed the owner could receive fair market value for her property if it is not annexed and rezoned. It has never been publicly offered for sale. There is interest in the property. The property is long and narrow with only 241' contiguous with existing city limits. She hoped the City would not let developers determine the shape and timing of annexations, but rather be systematic and well reasoned. In December of 1995, there were 2,852 acres of undeveloped and underdeveloped residential land within the city limits. There is not a need at this time for this annexation and rezoning. It would further tax the sewer system. Her letter included pictures of sewer overflow. This annexation would have a negative impact on the fire department. Mayor Hanna asked for one or two more citizens to speak at this time, noting this issue will be back before the Council and citizens will have further opportunity to speak. Nina Luther, Old Wire Road, stated there is only one reason this issue is before the Council. It is so the developers can meet their profit margin. Her neighborhood has met with the developer and were informed that without the City providing the sewer infrastructure, this would not be a profitable venture for them. This piecemeal annexation would create a sloppy neighborhood and challenge the infrastructure. There is a problem with the stench that blankets the area from the sewage treatment plant. Reilly Skillern sculpted and developed this neighborhood as homes on acreage. His intent was unity, cohesiveness, and uniformity. She asked the Council for its protection and acknowledgement. 13 226 July 15, 1997 Ben Winborn, Old Wire Road, pointed out this property has been proposed for development severaltimes. In the,past the City has acted to prevent this and let it become abuffer. This' is what they are asking for now. Mayor Hanna closed the public hearing. Wes Doss, attorney representing the developer, was allowed to present his side of the issue. He stated itis ironic to talk about the need for 1,400 acres on the west side of •Fayetteville then talk about not needing 17. acres on the east side because growth is not needed. People who live adjacent to this property are not citizens of Fayetteville and the Council does'not represent them. He is proposing responsible planning and is asking the Council to be responsible and let them.conform to the requirements of the City. This annexation would lead to the improvement of the road everyone is complaining about. The city needs more. sewer, more fire protection, andbetter roads and it needs .a tax'base to have that. Mr. Skillern's widow is asking the Council to let her do what she wants to do with the property. Mr., Skillern sold the property that Brookbury and Savanna sit on. He asked the Council to be reasonable and represent the citizens of Fayetteville and require responsible planning within this annexation. Alderman Zurcher explained how this isrepresenting city people. If people live in this subdivision, they. will have to drive to work, to school, and to shop. That affects the citizens of Fayetteville. The biggest. complaint he receives is about the traffic. The more subdivisions on the edge of town, the more traffic. This item was left on its first reading. Mayor Hanna called for a ten minute break. .VACATION VA97-3 Mayor,Hanna introduced an ordinance vacating a utility easement on ,property ,located north; of. Sunbridge Drive and east of Keystone .Crossing. as requested by Keating Enterprises: The easement is located between lots 5 and 6 in Sunbridge Subdivision. The .Planning Commission voted.7-0 0 to recommend the vacation. 1 City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. ;Aid-erman Schaper moved to suspendlthe rules and.go to the second reading. 'Alderman`Zurcler seconded: Upon roll call, .the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. 14 227 July 15, 1997 Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the public. There were none. He called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 6 to 0 ORDINANCE 4046 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR FAUCETTE APPEAL Mayor Hanna announced George Faucette has asked that this be postponed to allow him to gather further information. This will be on the next regular Council meeting agenda under Old Business. NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mayor Hanna introduced ordinances amending the noise ordinance. City Attorney Rose explained the Ordinance Review Committee instructed him to prepare two ordinances. One would make the current ordinance differ in the sense that as it stands now the limitations by land use category are done only upon complaints brought by property owners or lease holders actually affected by excessive noise. The amendment is that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. it would not be complaint driven but could be driven by a police officer checking the area without a specific complaint. It was decided to do one at a time. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Williams stated the Ordinance Review Committee did hold hearings on this. The Committee voted 4-1, with Alderman Trumbo voting no, that the police should actively go out between 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. to make sure various clubs are complying with the noise ordinance. In the past, people did not want to call the police and be the bad guy. Alderman Trumbo explained he voted no because he agreed with the police department that it is better to keep it the way it is in order to track the complaints and follow up with the citizen to let them know the department is reacting. 15 228 July 15, 1997 Alderman Young clarified this is the original ordinance with the only change being, "Except between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a m Alderman Schaper questioned if someone could misread the title and. think violations are allowed between those hours. Rose did not think so but offered to change it if it seemed confusing. He noted the title is not what governs the ordinance. Alderman Trumbo moved to go to the second reading. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the motion failed on a vote of. 5 to 1, with Alderman Young voting no. Mayor Hanna opened the discussion to the public. Alderman Williams stated if there is.•no opposition to this, he would like to seeit pass at this meeting, to start getting it under control. Alderman Young stated he voted against going to the second reading because there had been no public comment. Alderman Williams suggested having public comment only on this ordinance at this time. Jennifer Creel, 625 W. Dickson, stated she never hears the noise fromthe, clubs.,, It is never an',issue. The issue for her is the =loud traffic,on Dickson.Street;at!night. Tera Little, 353, Rollston,_stated -she has called the police to coiplain'eaboutthe clubs...She did not think it was okay for the police ao.check noise levelstif.-no one calls to complain. If it gets too bad, people will complain:.- ga $. :woody'Basset;-`='rtf $ epresenting George's,; _ stated he was.authorized on -behalf of the ownerth of George's:' the operators of George's, to tell the Council that if it feels it is in the best interest of the city to make this change that is fine with George's:and they will not resist that change. They consider the cut .off time the more important issue. Rob Dzur, 822 Trust, asked for clarification. He wondered if the intention of the ordinance was to create a sound patrol between 10:00 and 1:00. Alderman Williams responded there are already are bicycle'police and -other officers on Dickson Street and it is only reasonable for them to take a noise reading if it seems necessary. 16 229 July 15, 1997 Mr. Dzur asked if the ordinance was limited to just Dickson Street. Alderman Trumbo responded it will be for the whole city. Alderman Williams stated there are only two decibel readers, expensive meters, which will be used where the problem is. Alderman Trumbo stated there would be no extra manpower or equipment. Mr. Dzur felt this is a narrow issue and an improper allocation of police resources. There were no further comments from the public. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Zurcher seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. . City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Trumbo moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Pettus seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. There being no further comments, Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 6 to 0. ORDINANCE 4047 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Alderman Williams noted there was no emergency clause. Rose stated emergency clauses are not done by Vote and must be done for good reason. Not having been asked for one, one had not been prepared. Alderman Pettus suggested Rose could write an emergency clause while the Council discussed the next noise ordinance. Mayor Hanna stated City Attorney Rose had told him there has been sufficient complaints for the police department to go ahead and issue tickets. They may not have to pay a fine, but the point would have been made. Rose explained the ordinance could be amended, which would take three readings. He would need time to compose it. 17 230 July 15, 1997 Rose explained the next noise ordinance. He had been asked to draft an ordinance banning and prohibiting outdoor music after 12:00 midnight. This was a complicated task. He has attempted to revise Section 96.02 of. the present noiseordinance,_ which prohibits any noise disturbance. .This new ordinance attempts to define a noise disturbance as being something separate, different, and unique from the limitations by land use category. It defines a specific noise disturbance as being the use of an amplification device, radio, T.V., phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which produces, reproduces, or amplifiessound that is deemed to be a noise disturbance if the sound is produced between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 8:00 a.m. either outside or in an unenclosed area and the sound is plainly audible at distances of 150' or more from the source of the sound. This is measured from the actual source of the sound, not the property line, and is anything clearly heard at a distance of 150' or more. The measurement standard is by the auditory senses, not a machine, based on a direct line of sight and words or phrases don't have to be discernable and bass reverberations are included. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Young asked if "musical instrument". would cover acoustic. Rose replied it would be any. kind of instrument and would not have to' be amplified. This ordinance is not limited to amplification. Alderman Trumbo moved to.antend the time to 1:00 a.m.; from 12:00 midnight. Alderman Zurcher seconded. Alderman Williams reported that the Ordinance Review Committee voted 3 to 2, with Aldermen Trumbo, Daniel, and Pettus voting in favor of a 12:00 midnight cut off. Aldermen Young and Williams voted against this in:favor of 1:00 a.m. =:Alderman -Williams stated he would' rather say a shorter number of ?feet from'the property line of':the sourceof the sound. If it is a-big`property and 150' is still within the property, there would be-no.reason to make.it.a11ega1. He would rather see it something 'like 50''from the property'=iine. Also, the way it is written puts aburdenon the'police` officer to figure out where the source is before he knows if he has'probable cause to issue a ticket. It rwould=be easier td enforce.from,thetproperty line. • , }� 1 Mayor Hanna noted there was a motion on the floor.. There was discussion about waiting to vote until.Alderman Daniel was present and what vote would be necessary to. pass an amendment. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the public. 18 231 July 15, 1997 Rebecca Wood, resident of the Dickson Street area, appealed to the Council not to implement a midnight cut off for outdoor music. Dickson Street is an entertainment district bringing much needed dollars to revitalize this area. This issue is brought before the Council every year by a handful of people, not the purchasing masses or the majority of residents. Some members of the Council, who do not represent the district in question, are eager to accommodate the few complaining by curtailing the livelihood of an established business. The people bringing this complaint own and live directly across from George's, for which they hold a lease for space used for indoor music and for which they have issued no complaint. Alan White, citizen, stated he has had property here since before there was any outdoor music. He supported letting the police monitor the sound levels. He is not against outdoor music, but it needs to be tolerable for those who live in the area. The issue will spread from Dickson Street if limits are not set. Alderman Williams stated the Council did pass a conditional use requirement for dance halls so that the Planning Commission could set parameters to protect neighborhoods. Brian Petty, musician, stated his concern is that a number of musicians like to practice late at night. Many musicians want to work with the sound ordinance. He would like to see a 1:00 a.m. cut off. Woody Bassett, representing George's, briefly discussed a few facts. This ordinance has been debated five out of the last six years. Tremendous progress has been made to accommodate citizens with complaints and at the same time preserve the tradition of outdoor music in Fayetteville. George's has been on Dickson Street through its good times and bad times. Dickson Street is in a commercial district and is now the entertainment center of Northwest Arkansas. Leaving the cut off time at 1:00 a.m. would not discourage residential development. It will develop all that the market can bear. George's has shown a tremendous amount of good faith, not debating or arguing against making the ordinance proactive. George's is in the process of building a 12' wall that will help. It is a $10,000 investment and a lot of money has been spent in the past to address the noise situation. George's is a nice business establishment that attracts people from all walks of life. He asked that the wall be given a chance to see what it can do. A midnight cut off would be financially devastating to George's. He urged the Council on behalf of his clients to make it a 1:00 cut off time and reminded the Council that several weeks ago George's volunteered to knock it back from 1:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. He is authorized to say they have no problem with that. They intend to resist any cut off time before 1:00 a.m. He understood 19 • July ,15, 1997 not voting on the amendment because of absent councilmen, but noted one or two others will be absent on August 5, the next meeting. He stated he would like the entire Council .present to vote, which would be August 19. Alderman Schaper confirmed that George's is a.corporation, which is like a person in the eyes of the law. He asked if Mr. Bassett was claimingthat because George's is an old and venerable institution ;they have more rights and .privileges than other citizens. Mr. Bassett replied he is not claiming that. Alderman Schaper stated it is not just the.folks'in this district complaining of the noise. There are a lot .of homes in the district that were here long before George's. He.,agreedIthe wall should be given a chance. Mr. Bassett stated George's has a legitimate business purpose and has made good faith efforts in the past and are making them now not to disturb a single person. If they are cut off at midnight,there will be serious and permanent damage done to this business.. He did suggest longevity is a consideration. .He stated ,he is convinced the wall and the 1:00 a.m. cut off time would work. ,Mayor Hanna pbinted'out�an amendment was still waiting for -- a vote. Alderman,Trumbo withdrewhis. amendment. until everyone is back. 7..4 a:a Richard Shewmaker,,605Y14.' Dickson, stated he is a proponent of Dickson St. and explained his experience in real estate regarding the'Dickson-area,="which,he,`.pharacterized as major contributions to .tHedevelopment'and rede-velopmerit-`of`Dckson St.. He stated.this is the third time this issue has come before the Council. The first time, he felt like things could be worked out and was opposed to closing the establishment. .-Since that time, different people have managed the club and it is not the same place. The changes include music six days a week until 2:00 a.m., rather than three to four nights until 12:30 a.m. He stated.'he resented being singled out. He explained how his home has 18" thick walls with another 2x4 frame with insulation and sheet rock and.double insulated windows. Though the insinuation is that everyone has obeyed the law, that is not the case and is the -problem. He was hopeful the wall would work. The history of. any redevelopment is to get people to move back in. That will have to happen to Dickson Street. He referred to documents .with information regarding characteristics Of. the block. An analysis was done on a 16' walland a 12' wall which showed the wall is not the solution to everything. He asked George's to consider building a 16' wall, which will do more, and to extend it south.to provide for .an acoustical wall in front of the door that exits from their band stage, which is never closed. 20 • 233 July 15, 1997 Mayor Hanna stated City Attorney Rose now had an emergency clause. Rose confirmed that the Council had passed the noncomplaint ordinance, the other one is on the first reading, and the amendment was withdrawn. He suggested going on with the emergency clause. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Williams moved to go to the second reading. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to O. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Pettus seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Zurcher pointed out this is not just a problem with George's, but the whole area needs to be patrolled. Mayor Hanna asked for further comments. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 6 to 0. ORDINANCE 4048 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Alderman Williams informed the Council he would not be at the next meeting and hoped they would wait until the third reading to do this ordinance. He informed City Attorney Rose, who had been out of the room, that he would prefer 50' from the property line of the source of the sound rather than the source of the sound. Also, on paragraph (C), he did not think the sound had to be produced outside or in an unenclosed area. He would strike ". . .outside or in an unenclosed area, and is. . ." and just leave "...plainly audible...50' from the property line." Rose agreed this could be done, though he was instructed to do just outdoor music. The ordinance regarding a cut off time was left on its first reading. ADJOURNMENT After announcements, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. 21