HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-02 MinutesA.MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL
A meeting o the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. in the
Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. •
•
PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna, Aldermen Heather Daniel, Cyrus Young, Randy Zurcher,
Trent Trumbo, Donna Pettus, Len Schaper, Stephen Miller, and Kit Williams, City
Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Heather Woodruff; staff; press; and audience.
,
Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present.
NOMINATING COMMITTEEREPORTr•
Alderman Daniel moved to reappoint Bill Mandrell and Reed Greenwood to the Walton Art
Center Foundation Board and Marion Orton to the Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals.
Alderman Young seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the resolution carried by a 8-0-0 vote.
CONSENT AGENDA
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes from the meeting of May 19, 1998.
BID 97-64: Award of Bid 97-64 to Mobile Concepts by Scotty for a children's fire safety house
in the amount of $25,174.00 and approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $12,587.00.
RESOLUTION 65-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
ABOVE GROUND FUEL FARM: A resolution approving Amendment #1 to the contract with
McCelland Engineeringin the amount of $2,000.00 for additional engineering services in the
design of the Airport's new above: -ground fuel farm.
RESOLUTION 66-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
BID 98-40: A resolution awarding Bid 98-40 to Barton Freightline Inc. In the amount of
$91,621.00 for the purchase of a H. D Cab and Chassis with mounted bulk waste crane and
dump body for utilization in the City's solid waste bulk pick-up program.
RESOLUTION 67-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
BID 98-37: A resolution awarding Bid 98-37 to DYCHEM International, Inc. for the purchase
of an automated drive-thru equipment wash and supplies.
RESOLUTION 68-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
1t
V
June 2, 1998
BID 98-42: A resolution awarding Bid 98-42 to Williams Ford Tractor and Equipment in the
amount of $82,818 00 for tractors, mowers, and various haying equipment to be utilized for hay
management operation at the sludge site and parks mowing operations.
RESOLUTION 69-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
WEDINGTON IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT: A resolution appointing two new members to
the Wedington Drive Sewer Improvement District board.
RESOLUTION 70-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
Alderman Daniels moved the approve the consent agenda. Alderman Zurcher seconded the
motion. Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 8 to 0.
OLD BUSINESS
VA 98-4.00/ VACATION/ FENNEL
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance vacating approximately 12' X 72.5' of an existing alley at
310 West Dickson Street. The request was submitted by Hiegel -Miller Architects on behalf of
Joe Fennel.
City Attorney Jerry Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
In response to questions from Alderman Williams, Mr. Rose stated the ordinance would vacate
the alley, but an easement would be reserved for utilities and drainage. The ordinance was
recordable and would be recorded. He did not believe the letter from the property owner to the
adjacent property owner's regarding access could be considered a valid easement. It was not
recordable. He added the Council would be opening the alley back up if they required an access
easement.
Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go the third and finial reading.
Alderman Zurcher seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion carried by a vote of 8
to O.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time.
Alderman Young requested that the minutes reflect Mr. Roses comments that if the adjoining
property owners had a problem with access they were to contact Mr. Fennel and not the City.
Mayor Hanna called for the vote, which passed on a vote of 8 to 0.
ORDINANCE 4098 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
2
June 2, 1998
AMENDING RULES OF ORDER
Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution amending the rules of order of procedure to require the
support of two aldermen in order to place a discretionary item of new business on the City
Council agenda.
Alderman Williams explained the amendment would only affect those items which recieved an
objection to being placed on the agenda. He added the amendment was very similar to Roberts
Rules of Order which required a motion and a second before there is discussion. He felt most
itmes woudl receive a second. If an item coud not receive a second, then the council shoudl not
take up the public's time.
Alderman Daniel stated if the item would die at the "council meeting if it did not receive a second.
Alderman William confirmed that it would, however, if the item were placed on the agenda, then
people would come to the meeting exspecting to discuss it. This would save the public's time and
effort in corning to the meetings.
In response to comments from Alderman Schaper, Alderman Williams explained his orginial the
number •of aldermanhad changed from three to two to be consistant with Roberts Rules of Order
City Attorney Rose read the resolution.
Alderman Zurcher stated he could not see the need for the resolution believeiing their current
procedure was adequate.
Alderman Williams replied the amendment was more for the public's benefit than for the
council's. Currently, analderman could present anythingand have it on the agenda. This
resolution would prevent them from not recieving a second and dieing at the council meeting.
Alderman Zurcher stated if the people wanted to come and speak on a subject, then the aldermen
should want to listen to them. ¢ ^ t • 1 ' ' - _ :" ►
Alderman Williams reiterated, if an item had no support from the aldermen, then it did not need to
be placed on the agenda. He felt at least two out ofthe eight members of the city council should
want to hear a subject before it was placed on the agenda.
f % - t • 4
Major Hanna explained the council did not vote or make any motions at theigenda session „The
current procedure allowed an aldermn to place any item on the agenda. This resolutin would
require at least two aldermen to support the item being placed on the agenda
•
Alderman Schaper stated because of Freemdom of Information Act, the aldermen were not
allowed to discuss any item before agenda session. They would not have the opportunity to
2 U 1
�v4,
June 2, 1998
review the request, because no private conversations could occur among the alderman.
Alderman Young stated the public had been allowed to bring up new issuses at the end of meeting
in the past. This no longer occured. He felt the amendment would make it harder for the public
to place itmes on the agenda.
Alderman Williams explained only in the instance that an alderman objected to a item being placed
on the agenda, would a second vote be required. He added if the item failed to receive a second,
it could be presented at the next agenda session He felt having two aldermen agree to place a
item on the agenda was a very low standard.
Alderman Trumbo felt the amendment would be a good house keeping measure.
Alderman Daniel stated she would not be supporting it.
Alderman Pettus stated the aldermen were often hit cold with an item and were not sure weather
or not to support an item. She would not support the item.
Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call the motion failed by a vote of 2 to 6, with
Aldermen Pettus, Miller, Schaper, Daniel, Zurcher, and Young voting nay.
NEW BUSINESS
BATES PARK PLAYGROUND
Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution awarding $49,856.32 to Diversified Recreation for the
Bates Park playground project. The total estimated cost of the project is $56,857. The Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board will contribute $29,000 from their Green Space fees. The remaining
balance will be paid by the Fayetteville Public Schools and Bates Elementary School. He
introduced Ms. Fay Jones, Assistant Principal of Bates Elementary.
Ms. Fay Jones told the story of the Playground in story format.
Alderman Miller moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Williams seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion carried by a vote of 8 to 0.
RESOLUTION 71-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
RZ 98-10.00
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance approving a rezoning request submitted by Demaree
Media for property located at 1780 Holly Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential. The request is for R -O, Residential Office. The property contains approximately
2.34 acres.
4
-203
a Li
June 2, 1998•:
, f
City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. '
Alderman Trumbo asked if the applicant had offered a Bill of Assurance stating no additional
square footage would be added to the building.
%
Mr. Craig Hull, representative for Demaree Media, stated the Planning Commission had approved
the rezoning with the offered Bill of Assurance. He explained the property had developed as a
radio station before the neighborhood had developed. He felt the property would be difficult to
market with its current R-1 zoning.
Alderman Schaper stated the radio station had always been treated as a conditional use. He felt
an R -O zoning would allow very different usemof the property. He noted the Bill of Assurance
only covered the existing structure. He questioned the other possible uses for the remaining land
and he asked if lot splits were possible.
Ms. Alett Little, Planning Director, stated any lot splits or future developments would have to go
before th Planning Commission. She added the applicant had agreed not expand the existing
building during the Planning Commission Meeting.
Alderman Schaper expressed concern about father developemtn of the site, which was not
covered in the Bill of Assurance.
In response to concerns voiced by Alderman Williams, Mr. Hull stated the intent of the Bll
Assurance the exiting building woudl not be expanded and the site owuld stay the same.
Alderman Pettus asked why the staff had recommended denial of the rezoning request.
Ms. Little explained the bylaws of the Planning Commission required the staff to make findings.
The staff had not been able to make the required finding inorder to recommend approval.
Alderman Young stated when a conditional use ceased to be used as the use then it reverted back
to its original use. The owners had used and expanded the property with the full knowledge, that
it was a conditional use and it would eventually revert back to residential.
Mr. Hull stated his research had reveal that the property had been a radio station since the early
60's and had been transferred to the Demaree family in 1966. The city had allowed the owner of
the radio station to expand the building twice. He felt the City had reassured the owners that they
condoned the use by allowing the expansions.
Alderman Schaper believed the property owners knew taking a chance when they expanded.
They could sale the property to anyone. If someone wanted to use the building for anything other
than residential, they would have to come to the city for a conditional use. He felt there were
5
•
204
June 2, 1998
uses allowed in an R -O zoning that would not be desirable near an R-1 zoning district.
Alderman Trumbo building needed to be kept a viable structure.
Alderman Pettus questioned the types of uses allowed in an R -O zoning district.
Ms. Little listed professional offices, veterinarian offices, artist studios, and sales of professional
equipment which were related to those types of businesses. Most of the businesses allowed in R-
0 districts would not generate much traffic.
Alderman Williams stated the R -O zoning had been created to mix residential with businesses to
act as a transition. Uses would be low impact. He did not believe the rezoning would have more
of an impact on the neighbors than the existing radio station.
Mayor Hanna asked Ms. Little since the use of the property predated the zoning, if the radio
station was a use by right or a conditional use.
Ms. Little explained the radio station was considered a conditional use, because the owners had
expanded the existing building. A conditional use had been granted twice to allow the radio
station to enlarge the building and continue operation.
Mr. Hull stated the rezomng was necessary to affectively market the property. The owners were
willing to offer a Bill of Assurance to ensure the property woudl not be further developed.
Mr. Rose advised the State of Arkansas did not condone contract zoning. A Bill of Assurance
could not be required as a condition for the rezoning. It had to be offered by the applicant and it
could contain whatever the applicant wanted.
Mr. Joe Alexander, a Fayetteville resident, stated it should be the property owner's right to do
what they wished with the property, unless the city could prove there was going to be significant
damage.
Alderman Young expressed concern about setting a trend toward turning Conitional Uses in to a
rezoning.
Alderman William felt decisions should be made on a case by case basis.
Mayor Hanna stated people had a nght to submit a rezoning request every twelve months for any
piece of property.
In response to concerns voiced by Alderman Young, Alderman Williams reasoned one of the
advantages to having a conditional use was to find out of the use bothered the surrounding
6
20c
June 2, 1998
neighbors. There had been no complains about the radio station.
Alderman Zurcher explained they were not talking about the current business. They were •
discussing the property. There were problems with R -O zoning. The affect had not been mixed
use. He had observed the buildings in R -O zones were empty at night, which encouraged
loitering at night. He would like to eliminate R -O zoning.
Alderman Miller read from the Planning Commission minutes where the applicant had stated that
no changes would be made to the property. He felt the statement included no lot splits, no extra
buildings, or expansions.
Mr. Hull agreed with Alderman Miller's assumption and added, the owners had agreed to remove
the towers and satellite dishes which would improve the looks of the property. He felt the bill of
assurance offered was a good offer. He felt this was a unique situation, where the property had
long history.
The item was left on the first reading.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL
Mayor Hanna introduced an appeal submitted by Burke and Eldridge on behalf of Washington
Regional Medical Services for a large scale development offMillsap Road and Wimberly Street.
The request is to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to deny a waiver request from
placing utilities underground and the construction of standard city street.
Alderman Schaper stated he would be abstaining, however, he would reserve the right to speak on
any general discussion of underground utilities.
Mr. Kurt Jones, Crafton Tull and Associates, stated there were three conditions,
yof approval
required by the PlanningCommission which he wished to address. He asked the council to waive
the requirement to place the existing over -head lines underground. The estimate for the
relocation had been approximately $500,000 or $200 per liner foot. He added Swepco had not
placed this size line underground before. ,He stated the city council was allowed under the current
ordinance to grant waivers due to financal'hardship:• ' . •, '
In response to a question from Alderman Schaper,
Mr. Jones stated he did not know the size of line, however, it carried a 900 amp load.
Ms. Little stated it was a 12 Kilovolt line.
Mr. Jones explained Swepco did not have 900 amp equipment. Their equipment was sized for
600 amp or 1200 amp. He noted there was a large cost difference between the two sizes if
7
206
June 2, 1998
required to go underground.
Mayor Hanna asked if the lines they were discussing were the lines around the perimeter of the
property and if the lines were existing.
Mr. Jones reassured all new lines would be placed underground. The existing lines were along the
perimeter of the property and did not serve this property exclusively. They were transmission
lines which ran along the existing section lines of the property. The financial burden of $200 per
liner foot was roughly equivalent to a new four -lane highway.
In response to questions from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Jones stated the overhead line to the west
was not located on this property.
Ms. Little added the line to the west was a three-phase line which ran from the 12 kilovolt line. It
was the feed to the North Hills Medical Park. All the lines in the Medical Park were fed from this
line.
Alderman Trumbo Irked the Underground Utilities ordinance, however, waiver would be required
from time to time. He added the proposed development was greatly needed in Fayetteville.
Alderman Schaper stated the purpose of the ordinance was for visual impact. The alternative to
placing the lines underground was to place them at the rear of the property. He flet that condition
had been met.
In response to comments from Alderman Schaper, Ms. Little explained Tract C had already been
assessed the cost of placing the line underground. She believed their cost would be approximately
$21,000.
Ms. Little explained the property was located within the Overlay District and was not part of the
Overhead Utility Ordinance.
Alderman Williams felt the estimate was very considerable for such a small benefit. He added he
had problems mandating a procedure that had not been done in the State of Arkansas.
Mr. Jones stated it was not impossible to bury the line, but it had not done it before of the
increased cost. He believed it was not financially feasible. He added there were also maintenance
issues. Overhead lines could be repaired within a couple of hours. Underground lines could take
couple of days to locate the problem and make the repairs.
Alderman Schaper noted there were fewer problems with buried lines.
Alderman Williams believed the applicant had made a good case on the basis of financial
8
r207
June 2, 1998
hardships. He added the use of the land needed to be taken into account. This was an extended .
long term care facility. The city needed to make the project feasible.
Alderman Schaper replied the project was located in a very attractive professional development.
The standard needed to be maintained and even improved upon to make the property more
attractive.
•
In response to questions from Mr. Schaper, Ms. Little stated the owners of Tracts A, B, and C
had met on Monday. Tract A, Staffmark, had been assessed a cost for placing their lines
underground. There estimate had been approximately $'79,000. Tract C had also been assessed,
their estimate had been $21,000 for the portion to the south and $70,000 for the line to the north.
All three of the tracts were going to be developed at the same time. The owners had met with
Swepco on Monday. She noted every time there was a turn in the line a switching mechanism
was required, which was a large box which ranged from $20,000 to $40,000 per box. She
believed if the number of turns could be reduced then the cost could be reduced. Mr. Burrack,
Swepco, had stated he would be more comfortable serving the properties from two different .
directions, in the event service was disrupted in one direction.
Mr. Jones stated he had spoken with Mr. Burrack after the meeting. Mr. Burrack had indicated
that there was not a more economically way to route the line. Mr. Burrack believed the cost
might change 10 to 15% total.
Alderman Schaper stated he would like to know why it was so expensive to place the lines
underground.
Mr. Jones stated Swepco was under no obligation to come to the meeting and supply the
information.
Mayor Hanna noted the overhead lines were existing and that the developers had designed the
tract so that the lines ran to the rear of the property. He felt city needed to take care of the
citizens in two directions. They wanted Fayetteville to as nice as possible, but they did not want
to make it impossible to develop. He believed the utility company had their reasons for placing
the lines in their current locations. He felt the proposed assistant care facilities fit very well into
the North Hills Medical Park.
Alderman Miller asked what would happen to money from the other developers in the area if this
developer was not required to place utilities underground.
Ms. Little replied the City had not received the money. The number used to estimate the cost of
placing the lines underground had been an assessment for the Targe scale developments She
added Tract A was owned by Staffmark. They were continuing with their development. Tract C
was owned by a partnership called Smith -Brooks. They had not continued with their
•
208
June 2, 1998
development. It had been her understanding the property had been transferred from Harvey Smith
to Smith Brooks. If the property had changed ownership, then the new owners would have full
knowledge of the cost of relocation.
Alderman Trumbo asked if Tract C had back out of their development because of the cost of
relocation of lines.
Ms. Little thought the cost of the relocation was part of it, however, she believed there were other
reasons.
Alderman Trumbo noted Tract A was being developed by a multi-million dollar corporation.
Tract C was a non-profit organization.
Alderman Daniel stated she had checked on the organization. Technically it was considered non-
profit, but it was a business. They were not like Habitat for Humanity. This was a big business.
It was different from a couple or family with a small project.
Mr. Mike McGlen, Vice President of Clinical Services, stated this was a Fayetteville City Hospital
project His company had taken over the operation of the hospital. They were wanting to offer
another alternative to citizens, assisted living.
In response to questions from Alderman Schaper, Mr. McGlen stated any more delays would put
the project in jeopardy.
Mr. Rose advised that the ordinance required a vote by the majonty to hear the appeal.
Alderman Trumbo moved to hear the appeal. Alderman Pettus seconded the motion.
Upon Roll call the motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0.
In response to questions from the aldermen in reference to the requested street waiver, Mr. Jones
stated the Planning Conumssion had required the developer to place money in a security bond for
one half of a standard street for the length of the east property line to the connection of Plainview.
The requirement was basically an off-site street assessment. He did not believe the street
connection was necessary for the operation of this development. The street would not be
constructed in conjunction with this development and would not service this development.
In response to questions from Aldermen, Ms. Little explained the Master Street Plan had a
connection from Monte Painter Drive, diagonally through this site to Longview. To build in their
chosen location, a Master Street Planned street was being relocated. The Planning Commission
required as a condition of the Large Scale Development that the street that went through the
center of the property be born by this facility. In addition that one-half of the cost of the
connection between Longview and Plainview, near the new fire station would be located.
10
June 2, 1998
Mr. Jones stated they were also requesting a waiver from the requirement that they construct the
street on-site to the west property line. He proposed constructing the street to the edge of this
facility. The developer was willing to grant right-of-way for the remaining portion. He added the
road would only dead end at the property line. The street addition would be acting as a drive into
the facility and would be constructed to city standards. The street between Plainview and College
was no where near being a collector street and would not adequately serve the project.
Alderman Schaper commented a developer was never required to put up for the entire cost the
construction of a collector street. He questioned the extension to the east. He noted the benefit
to having access from both directions, especially with the new fire station along Plainview.
Mr. Jones agreed the street would benefit the project; but -his concern was the cost/benefit ratio.
He did not believe it would benefit the facility as much as it would cost. He questioned the
ordinance that allowed the Planning Commission to assess the off-site improvements.
In response to questions from Aldermen, Mr. Jones stated the estimated cost of the their half of
the street would be $75,000.
Alderman Williams did.not believe many people living at the assisted care facility would be
driving. He thought it might be more appropriate to require the off-site improvement when the
other part of the property developed with a higher traffic use.. However, he did not have a
problem requiring the street construction to the property line. The city required stub -outs in most
developments. The adjacent property would need the stub out when it developed. He expressed
concern with the off-site requirement.
••
�s •°•
In response to comments from Mr. Jones, Ms. tittle stated the General Plan 2020 had a policy of •
connectivity. The Planning Commissionand felt a connection to Longview would be in the ,
public's best interest. + ' 4
Alderman Schaper did not believe the $62,000 requested for the street improvement was a lot of:
money in the grand scheme of things and the life of this facility.': He.suggested separating the •
appeal into two pieces and voting separately on each waiver.
Alderman Trumbo moved to approve the waiver request for the underground utilities. Alderman
Pettus seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion carried by a vote of 4-3-1. Alderman
Daniel, Zurcher, and Schaper voting nay. Alderman Young abstaining.
Mr. Jones stated they were in agreement with the location of the street. The issue was assessed
the cost of the off-site improvements. He had not see the ordinance which supported the off-site
assessment. The proposed facility was a low density development and would not generate much
traffic and could be serviced by one access.
11
210
June 2, 1998
Alderman William stated it was a question of fairness. The city usually required developers to
construct the streets on their property He did not understand the requirement to make this
developer pay for another developer's share of the road. Especially if the development would not
be generating a lot of traffic.
Alderman Miller stated he had to look at the property before making a decision.
Mayor Hanna stated the appeal for the street placed on the next agenda.
SEWER REHABILITATION
Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution awarding a contract to Jones Brother, Inc. for White River
Minisystem 15 sewer rehabilitation in the amount of $645,080.85 with a $64,508 contingency for
sewer lining.
Alderman Williams explained the request was for a Targe amount of money, however this was an
ongoing project, that the city had been spending a lot of money on in the last couple of years to
upgrade the city's sewers. He felt this needed to go forward.
Alderman Miller stated this was a good improvement. It was very important to the health of the
citizens.
Alderman Schaper moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Young seconded the
motion. Upon roll call, the motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. Alderman Zurcher was
absent for vote.
RESOLUTION 72-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
SEWER REHABILITATION
Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution awarding a contract to T.G. Excavation in the amount of
$186,543.00 with an $18,654 contingency for White River Minisystem 15 sewer rehabilitation
pipe bursting .
Alderman Miller moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Young seconded the motion.
Alderman Schaper noted the problems with pipe bursting in the past.
Mr David Jurgens, Water and Sewer Supenntendent, they did not allow the type of method that
had fail in the past. This was being done under contract. The risk level was much higher for the
contractor, than in the test. They would also be using methods which had been proven across the
country.
Upon roll call, the motion carried by a 7-0-0 vote. Alderman Zurcher was absent for vote.
12
;211
June 2, 1998
RESOLUTION 73-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SEWER REHABILITATION
Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution approving a contract with Insituform Texark, Inc. in the
amount of $228,937.50 with a $22,893 continency for White River Mmisystem 15 sewer
rehabilitation for pipe bursting.
Alderman Miller moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Trumbo seconded the
motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. Alderman Zurcher was absent for the vote.
RESOLUTION 74-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
CHAPTER 33 AMENDMENT
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance amending Chapter33 of the Code of Fayetteville to
provide for the Board of Adjustments, the Plat Review Committee, the Subdivision Committee,
the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee and the Board of Sign Appeals.
City Attorney, Jerry Rose, explained the ordinance would allow them to place the board and
commissions into an area of code in which all of the departments and committees are located.
The ordinance would wipe out the existing ordinances and reformat them into the UDO formate.
The changes would make the ordinance more user friendly. It would also make the problems with
the existing ordinance easier to see and to correct.
Mr. Rose stated three copies of the code would be located in the city clerk's office.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Mr. Rose reassured they were not creating any new ordinance. They were only moving them to
another section.
The ordinance was left on the first reading.
DELETING TITLE 15
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Stating three copies would be placed in the City
Clerk's office for inspection.
Alderman Schaper explained the goal was to reformat the existing code. And not to make
substantial changes.
4
Alderman Young added once the format was changed, then they could come through and make . ` ._
changes to individual ordinances.
June 2, 1998
The ordinance was left on the first reading.
SUTTON PARK
Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Attorney to make an
offer of purchase to the current owner of the proposed Sutton Street Park.
Alderman Young stated he had been asked by citizens to place the itme on the agenda. He
expressed concern about some of the Parks Board's decisions. The people in the central part of
the city had been paying taxes for parks and yet when the oppurtunity came for the City to
purchase land for a park, they Parks Board could not find the money. The Board required the
neighborhood to help raise the money to purchase the park.
Alderman Williams stated this would be a good location for a park. He noted the Parks Board
had voted, 5-1, to try and purchase the land as a park. He could not remember another situation,
where a neighborhood group had been asked to contribute funds to a park. He felt the people
within the central part of the city had seen benefits. There had been Improvements to Wilson Park
and the Square Gardens. He added there would soon be a new park where the old water towers
were They had not denied any part of the town benefits. He agreed they had spent a lot of
money on Gulley park and a sports complex off Salem. It was his understanding that it was the
owner's wish for it to become a park. He though it would be a good addition, but the
surrounding neighbors needed to be taken into consideration.
Alderman Daniel stated she was disappointed in the way things had turned out. She stated she
was willing to listen to everyone.
Alderman Pettus stated it was her understanding that the property had been sold to another party,
so the council was considering to make an offer to the new owner.
Mr. Rose read the resolution.
Alderman Miller stated he had campaigned for small neighborhood parks. He felt there was some
confusion between athletic facilities and parks. He felt Wilson Park was an athletic facility. To
him a park was a green area. He would support this park.
Alderman Trumbo stated Ms. January had made a business decision to sell the property to
someone who had made a bonafide offer. He stated he would have a problem condemning the
land for use as a park. He noted the Keating's lived across from the property and they would not
let the property deteriorate.
Aaron Bleidt, Vice Chair of the Parks Board, stated the Parks Board had voted 5-1-0 to support
the park. They had also voted to cost share.
14
213
June 2, 1998
Alderman Trumbo asked if this was the first time the Parks Board had required a neighborhood
to cost share.
Mr. Bleidt did not call other instance.
Alderman Pettus asked why the Board had required the $25,000 from the citizens.
Mr. Bleidt stated the Parks Board had felt it needed to be a community endeavor. There was also
only $50,000 allocated for land acquisition.
Alderman Schaper pointed out it was only 100% of the line item because the Parks Board had
stated the amount was adequate. He had advocated for years to increase the amount for land
acquisition and less on sports complexes. He added the council authorize the expenditure of
funds. He found the cost sharing arrangement strange. He wished the Board had brought
forward a recommendation to purchase the property with a budget adjustment.
In response to questions from Aldermen, Mr. Bleidt added the public meeting and the appraisal
had taken a large amount of time. In addition the Parks Department underwent a lot of changes.
Mr. Kevin Crosson stated there had been considerable opposition to the park by the people living
adjacent to the property.
Mr. Bliedt added there had been two public hearings because of the opposition.
Alderman Miller questioned why the Parks Board had only set aside $50,000 a year for new
parks. o. 1 3
Mr. Crosson stated there were two competeing interests: buying extra park land mand maintaing`
the existing parks. The Parks Department had over 50 faciliites to maintain at a certain level. -
Currently, there was the HMR Tax and the greenspace allocation. They ha not had those
allocations in the past. They were currently playing catch up. Acquisitionsl had to be made when
they made sense.
Alderman Miller stated he had mowed the small park in his neighborhood three times this year.
Alderman Schaper stated much of the money generated by the HMR Tax was currently being
used for the facilities such as the softball complex. He felt the allocations were unbalanced. It
was clear that $50,000 was not adequate for land acquisition.
Mr. Bliedt stated the property had been purchased since the Parks Board's last meeting.
Alderman Trumbo asked the estimated cost to maintain the proposed park.
15
214
June 2, 1998
Ms. Edmundston estimated $1,300 per year.
A petition was presented to the council in support of the park.
Ms. Kathy Thompson, 507 North Walnut, stated she was co-chair of Citizens for Sutton Street
Park. She had recommended to the Parks Board that the park be purchased. She felt this was a
city wide issue. The city needed to preserve and save greenspace to improve the quality of life for
present and future generations.
Dick Keating stated it was sad that this issue had such a divisive affect on their neighborhood.
His intentions had always been clear. He did not see any of the reasons for making this area into a
park. He added pnvate ownership had proven to be a good guardian of this property in the past.
He felt it could be so in the future. The lot looked like a park because of the private ownership
that developed it. All the improvements had been constructed with private money. The mini
parks were not cost effective. The city could not maintain them adequately. He believed the city's
money could be more effectively spent on funding and protecting city wide parks like Walker,
Wilson, and Gulley. He did not believe the neighbors had a right to the property. The group had
lost sight of the meaning and the value of private property. This property was put up for sale, and
offers were made. With full knowledge of both offers, the present owner opted for his offer. He
intended to buy it for the good of the neighborhood and the desire to preserve its natural beauty.
They would prove to be good stewards of the property.
In response to comments from Alderman Williams, Mr. Keating stated a group of them had
purchased the property thru his accountant. They had made the offer in this manner to avoid
competition and confrontation. There was nothing unethical about the offer. Ms. January was
comfortable with the offer.
Alderman Young asked if they planned to build on the property.
Mr. Keating replied they would like to place a small single family house on the furthest part of the
property toward Olive Street. He was thinking about moving there.
Alderman Schaper asked what would happen with the remaining part of the lot.
Mr. Keating expected the lot to be much like his.
Mr. Orland Maxfield urged the Council and citizens to acquire the property. The Sutton Street
tract was located within the Washington Willow Historic Dtstnct. The Historic District
Commission had supported the acquisition of this land. He asked the council to acquire the
property by whatever means neccessary. He noted none of the historic districts had a park. He
stated this tract was the only tract that was not developed in the district.
16
v
June 2, 1998
Mr. Wyatt Wright, 346 N. Walnut, the back of his house was 20' from the proposed park He
stated the group of citizens for the park had offered to help raise the money for the park. He did
not believe the property had been used as a park. The January's had restored the property over a
number of years: They had intended to build themselves a house on the southeast corner of the
property. They had discussed fencing the property because of the problem with public use. He
had been authorized by the January's to ask people to leave and he had done so. He stated the
property had never functioned as a public park in the 13 years he had lived in the area. The
owners had always viewed it as a home site. The Parks Board chairman had stated that most park
land was purchased at below market value, which was the reasoning behind requiring the group to
help raise the money. He felt the park would serve only the interest of a small group of people.
Alderman Schaper stated small neighborhood parks did serve a function. They did not have the
same function as Wilson or Gulley. They were to serve the neighborhood. Most of the traffic
would be from pedestrians. He did not believe the area east of College was able to be served by
Wilson Park.
Mr. Wright stated the difference between this property and other parks was that this was ring very
tightly with homes.
Alderman Daniel noted the park would be very hidden because of its location. She did not believe -
many people outside the neighborhood would come to the park.
In response to comments from Aldermen, Mr. Wyatt asked if the City would be as good of a
steward as Ms. January had been.
Ms. Kindle Curry stated she often went to Sutton Park during lunch to met her family. She felt
the park would be greatly appreciated and felt precautions could be taken to prevent problems.
She suggested several ways to preserve the quite nature of the park.
Mr. Bill Keating, 338 Washington Street, stated if so few people were going to be using the park,
then spend everyone's money on it. He stated the current bridge, would have to torn down
because it• did not meet any of engineering standards. He and his brother had purchased six to
seven abandoned houses and restored four of them, rather than demolished them. They had
remodeled houses on Lafayette, Washington, Sutton and Hyland Street, They had given property
to the City. They had also given a lot to Habitat for Humanity and the entrance to Gulley Park.
They had down zoned property and constructed single; family homes in R-2 zoning., He had lived' .
next door to Jim January for ten years. They had discussed developing the lots and they had t _ t
drawn plans.The green space fees for first five months of 1998 were $17,000. In 1997 the fees
were $45,000. The greenspace fees were not coming m. • He felt there would lie problems with 7
the feasibility of maintaining parks.
Alderman Schaper asked Mr. Keating if he was part of the group which purchased the .property..
.r •
17
216
June 2, 1998
It was his understanding the property had been on the market for some time. He questioned why
they had not made an offer before.
Mr. Keating replied he had thought about it, but it had been to expensive. Once the price was
affordable they made an offer. His brother was considering moving to lot.
Mr. Dick Keating stated they had looked at the property from the beginning, but they could not
afford $79,000. They had always thought than it was worth $50,000. They had read in the paper
it was available at $50,000.
In response to questions from Alderman Miller, Mr. Dick Keating stated ms. January's real estate
agent had presented her with both offers, and she had accepted theirs.
Mr. Bill Keating stated when the Historic District was form, many of the people were opposed to
the controls. Now they liked them.
Alderman Pettus asked if they would be interested in selling the land for a park.
Mr. Bill Keating replied he could not speak for his partners. He would like to develop the lot
with a single family home.
Alderman Pettus stated the resolution before them was whether or not to make them an offer on
the property.
Alderman Young expressed concern about the Keatings overbuilding the lot. He felt Mr. Keating
only valued the lot if it had a house on it.
Mr. Bill Keating responded he found value in the property when their were children and private
ownership, when they maintained it. The city had guidelines on how to develop properties. He
would be laugh out of the building if he tried to over develop the property.
Rick Alexander, 231 E Dickson, stated this was the only property within the Historic District that
had not been developed. He stated there were 650 signatures supporting the park. He asked the
city to use its power of emment domain to condemn the land. He felt the community wanted and
needed to have this park.
Evan Calhand, young resident, stated he often played in the park. He asked the council to make
the land a park because many kids liked to play there.
Katie Reynolds, resident, felt there was a need for a park in the area to keep it a nice place to live.
The city needed to preserve greenspace.
18
June 2, 1998
Alderman William stated the offer should be $51,000 exactly what they had offered to purchase
the property for. He did not believe it would be fair to pay above market value for the land He
did not believe this offer would be accepted. He felt they would be faced with condemnation of
the property to make the property a park.
Alderman Pettus asked if their would be a problem with offering more money for the land.
Mr. Rose stated they were obligated to offer what they believed to be fair market value.
Alderman Zurcher stated he would like to make an offer on the land. He would like to bump up
the price in hopes they would not have to go the court. He felt the property had always been used
as a park.
Alderman Trumbo stated they should make an offer to the Keating's, but as a banker he had never
seen someone buy something for more than it appraised for.
Alderman Williams stated there was a need for both types of parks. But he was not willing to
condemn the land yet. He felt they needed to make an offer on the land.
Alderman Pettus moved to purchase to the property for $52,000. Alderman Miller
seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion carried by a vote of 8-0-0.
RESOLUTION 79-98 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY. CLERK'S OFFICE.
r.
19
217
1