Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-17 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville October 17, 1995, at 6:30 p.m Administration Building, 113 W. 439 City Council was held on Tuesday, in the Council Room of the City Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Woody Bassett; Aldermen Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Steve Parker, Jimmy Hill, Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, and Stephen Miller, City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty; Assistant Public Works Director Charles Venable, members of the staff, press and audience. ABSENT: Mayor Fred Hanna CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor Woody Bassett called the meeting aldermen present. Vice Mayor Bassett announced that Mayor Hanna NOMINATING COMMITTEE to order with eight would not be present. Alderman Daniel, representing the Nominating Committee, stated that the Committee has nominated Mike Pehosh for the position on the Tree and Landscape Committee. • Daniel, seconded by Schaper, moved that the nomination be accepted. Upon roll call, the nomination was approved on a vote of 8 to 0. OLD BUSINESS Vice Mayor Bassett introduced discussion of items that have been brought before the Council but which were tabled or on which no decision was made to allow further information to be presented. A. REZONING R95-24, R95-25, & R95-25.1 Vice Mayor Bassett introduced consideration of three ordinances rezoning property located east of Gregg Avenue, north of the 71 By - Pass, and west of 71 Business as requested by Mel Milholland on behalf of NANCHAR, Inc., and Marjorie Brooks. R95-24 - Rezone 59.48 acres from A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office. The Planning Commission voted 7-2-0 to recommend the rezoning. • 440 October 17, 1995 R95-25 - Rezone 10.61 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and 30.07 acres from A-1, Agricultural and. R-1, Low Density Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The Planning Commission voted 7-2-0 to recommend the rezoning with restrictions. R95-25.1 - Rezone 200.62 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and 8.99 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial The Planning Commission voted 6-3-0 to recommend the rezoning with restrictions. These ordinances were left on the first reading at the October•3 Council meeting. Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty read each ordinance for the second time. Vice Mayor Bassett opened the discussion to the Council. Alderman Daniel read from page 1.8 under "Regional Mall Activity Center" which states that consideration should be given to pedestrian access between residential and commercial areas She asked for the staff's comments on this. Alett Little stated that this was one of the recommended goals under General Plan 2010. Withregard to this item, a number of meetings have been held with local residents concerning vehicular access and a specific request has been made that no vehicular access be provided at one location. Little stated it is particularly importantto allow an area for people to walk between commercial areas to their home. This was brought up as a policy in this particular rezoning action. - The areas cannot be set aside for pedestrian access until the time of large scale development. In order for an area to be set aside for pedestrian access, it will take the same kind of area a right-of- way or utility easement would take. Alderman Williams brought up the walkway which had been,promise'd by Jim Lindsey in another development along the same creek that flows through this development. He asked if there had been -any. discussion with the developers of the property under discussion about continuing this walkway through this property. Little stated there has not been a specific discussion. Location • of the creek and the properties involved would offer a perfect opportunity to extend the walkway through this development. The Trails Committee has discussed this extention as being an important link to the Gregg Street trail which is a very important part of the trail system. There are plans to ask for this extention at the time'.of large scale development. • 441 October 17, 1995 Alderman Schaper asked to return the discussion to some of the reasons why the Council waived the moratorium to hear this rezoning request. Alderman Schaper quoted from the Planning Commission minutes of July 10 which stated that the proposed developer of the subject property had approached the Council with an offer to construct the streets immediately as opposed to waiting until the property is subdivided. In that same Planning Commission meeting Alderman Schaper quoted the minutes as reading that Alderman Young had stated it was his understanding the entire road would be constructed during Phase 1 of the proposed project. In the Planning Commission minutes of Aug. 7 Alderman Schaper read that Jim Erwin stated Phase 1 would be completed in a two year time frame. Alderman Schaper explained it was clear from the record of the Planning Commission minutes that the Council was promised the north -south connection within the first two years and this was the basis for lifting the moratorium on rezoning. He asked Mr. Erwin to explained his current position on the issue. Alderman Williams stated that on the Capital Improvements Projects list for next year $300,000 or so had been tentatively scheduled for the steel bridge, which of course assumed that there was going to be a road. Alderman Schaper then quoted again from the July 10 Planning Commission minutes which states, "In lifting the moratorium for this proposal, City Council has interpreted the offer to construct streets as a compelling public interest. This compelling public interest should be further established with a firm schedule for the construction of the streets." Alderman Schaper stated if there is indeed a compelling public interest, the Council needs to get to the firm schedule for construction of these streets. If there is no firm schedule for this construction then there is no compelling public interest. Mr. Jim Erwin stated that the petitioners' position has always been that they will develop the streets as the property is developed. He recalled his comment at the Planning Commission meeting as being that if they started work tomorrow, the soonest the streets could be developed would be in approximately two years. Alderman Schaper stated he understood the engineering aspects of the development of the roads but again asked for a firm schedule for the construction of these streets. • 442 October 17, 1995 Mr Erwin again stated that the petitioners propose -to develop.the streets as the, property is_develbped. He stated he. felt, -the primary question is whether they would build all of the north -south street or only a part of it.. He stated they are willing to do the entire Phase 1 part of the street, which is the north/south section. There was some discussion between Mr. Erwin and Alderman Schaper regarding this issue. Alderman Parker questioned the terminology being used in that Phase 1 is being defined as the construction of the north -south street, yet from Mr. Erwin's previous discussion it appears that Phase l is actually going to be the second or third phase in the construction. Mr. Erwin stated that their Phase 1 had always been the north -south street,and,they had always tried to stick with the same time frame. Alderman' Schaper and Mr. Erwin again discussed the two year time frame and what it means in terms of when the street will be ,' constructed. In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Mr. Erwin stated that the compelling public interest would be that the City would be getting $8 to $9 million worth of streets which will not only handle this development's traffic, but would give some relief to the existing road system in this area. Alderman Schaper reminded Mr. Erwin that this would be true of any development and Mr. Erwin agreed that streets would have to be built in order to develop the property. Mr. Erwin stated that they would begin marketing the property as soon as an agreement could be reached regarding rezoning. There was further discussion between Alderman Schaper and Mr. Erwin regarding whether there was a need to rezone the entire 300 acres at this time. Alderman Parker asked why the property should be rezoned all at once rather than as is necessary for the actual development. Mr. Erwin stated that the Council was being given an.opportunity to work with a collective effort to rezone the entire 300 acres in one package rather than allowing the .property to be zoned "piece -meal" over time. He stated the. second 'option would .be much less desirable than'an overall development plan. 443 October 17, 1995, Alderman Schaper stated he felt the problem with speculative rezoning is that if the plan put forward at this time does not match what the developer wants to do when he gets to the point of development, the matter will be back before the Council again. He questioned the need to do any kind of rezoning far in advance of when the property is going to be developed. Mr. Erwin agreed and stated that all they could do is have a plan. Preparation of a plan had been asked of them and they had tried to deliver. There was input from the staff, the Planning Commission, retail neighbors, residential neighbors, professional people and the owners; and they came up with a plan on which everyone is in agreement. Alderman Schaper reiterated that it was a plan with absolutely no guarantee. Mr. Erwin stated there were no guarantees in commercial zoning. He stated they had taken the highest and best use of what is a reasonable use of the property involved and presented the resulting plan. Alderman Young questioned the purpose of rezoning the west side (taken as an example) right now if the Phase 1 development was going to be concentrated on the center. There was discussion between Alderman Young and Mr. Erwin regarding the proposed development and Mr. Erwin stated that with any development in any phase of the plan, the streets in Phase 1 will be built. Alderman Young asked if Mr. Erwin was saying that when any development is started in the entire rezoned tract, they will put in the north -south street of Phase 1. Mel Milholland gave an explanation of Phase 1, using the map to point out areas being discussed. Alderman Parker stated that calling the north -south road construction Phase 1 is a little misleading because Phase 1 is usually what is done first. He stated he would not vote to approve this rezoning without a legally binding promise to build the north - south road from the beginning and also to build a back access into the Mall. He stated that although he sees that this plan is what the owners would like to see occur, it is not legally binding. Mr. Erwin stated he met with Mall officials and there is a written document saying they are willing to work with the owners to connect their parking lot to the proposed streets. 444 October 17„-1995 Alderman Parker again stated that although.the-petitioners and Mall officials might have the best'.of intentions-, this is still.not,.a legally binding promise. Alderman Miller asked how much the road would cost the developers to build and also whether it would be necessary to sell some of the property in order to generate. the funds to build the road. Mr. Erwin stated it would :cost .approximateiy,.$6 million to construct the north -south load. The developers were unwilling to commit to building the road until some revenue has been generated from sale of the property.,, Alderman Young questioned why the area over to the west would need to be rezoned at this time if it is not what will be sold first. Mel Milholland explained that the entire area had been planned. t, ' Alderman Young stated that there is no guarantee that the portion of property to the east is going to work out to be C-2. It;niayybe4 that down the road it can't`. be sold as C-2 and it would need to:bd down -zoned. He questioned why the R -O should be rezoned now`if'it wasn't going to be sold until after Phase 1. Alderman Schaper stated he felt the Planning Commission was!wbrking under the misconception that the reason for the need for the rezoning was that the City -Council had determined there was a compelling public interest for this rezoning based on the fact that the City would be getting an,immediate road built. Alderman Schaper said the Council is now being told the road will not be built immediately but as the property develops, making -the basic premise behind the Planning Commission's decision disappear. He agrees with Alderman Young that if'the .owners are not planning to develop portions of this'propertyfor quite some time,' there is no need to rezone those portions at this time. - There was some discussion between Alderman Schaper and Mr. Erwin regarding the advantages of rezoning now as opposed to rezoning as development occurs and the differences in the commercial value of the land based on its zoning., Alderman Schaper stated he sees no advantage in rezoning all of the property now. One requirement in the 2010 Plan states that any development larger than 5 acres should be done as -a planned unit development. Alderman Williams reminded the Council that the 2010 Plan is a guiding document and there are no requirements in it. 445 October 17, 1995 Alderman Schaper stated that the portion of the 2010 Plan he is referring to constitutes a very strong suggestion and for specific reasons. Mr. Erwin introduced Mark Robinson who did the land plan ion the proposed rezoning. Erwin explained that Mr. Robinson had served on the Planning Commission for a couple of years during his 8 years residence in Fayetteville and had served as chair of the Parks and Recreation Committee. He has a Masters degree in Urban Planning and in Horticulture. Mr. Robinson stated that he had left Fayetteville three years ago because of his :ob. Using the land map on display, he explained that when he was first involved in this process, the owners were wanting C-2 zoning on everything. He was contracted to come in to look at the property without regard to zoning and to look at what the best possible use for the property could be. Mr. Robinson said that his office looked at the entire 300 acres and the properties surrounding it. He stated that the plan being presented was not the one he initially developed. This plan is a compromised plan which has been through several Planning Commission meetings and has been approved by the owner, City staff and also Mr. Robinson's office. Mr. Robinson stated he feels this plan provides a very relevant, detailed use for the property, which is what a rezoning request should be. He stated the 300 acres being discussed lends itself to higher density commercial development. Looking at the area as a whole, there was an opportunity to develop this property in a manner similar to Utica Square in Tulsa. This was an opportunity to enhance the space and create a quality environment for Fayetteville. Alderman Williams asked if the Council would have any assurance that the green belt area of the plan would remain a green space with access for the public. He did not see anything in the rezoning material regarding this. Mr. Robinson stated that there would be no such material available at the rezoning level. This would be addressed in the large scale development process. Alett Little stated that there is about 50 acres shown in green on the map. She cautioned that only 38 acres of that is owned by this developer. The remaining portion is owned by someone living in Johnson. 446 October17, 1995 ,She stated that the reason this area was shown in green is.because it is'the Mud Creek floodway. The Fayetteville City ordinances and participation in the FEMA flood insurance program require that the City not allow development within the floodway and that only minimal crossings for the most essential public services be allowed. Alderman Miller agreed that it is important not to channelize this waterway. Ms. Little stated that with regard to channelization, there are Federal requirements related to that and it does come under the Clean Water Act and requires section 404 permits from the Corps of Engineers. Since this is governed by a higher governmental unit than the City, the City normally relies on these governmental restrictions. Ms. Little stated that the question regarding whether this developer intended to channelize this creek had been asked from the first and the City has always been assured that the developers have no such intention. Ms. Little stated that a greater issue is that Mud Creek eventually flows to Clear Creek, which flows to the Illinois River in Oklahoma which is regarded as a scenic river. Given the tenuous relationship with Oklahoma with regard to Arkansas' discharges for clean water, they do not want to encourage anything that would degrade the quality of the Illinois River. Alderman Parker asked if there was any real safeguard:that this section of Mud Creek would not become like the section on the eastern side of Hwy 71. Ms. Little stated that there was no specific way to prevent this from happening. However, enforcement of the Flood Plane Management Ordinance would be adequate. If the City were to.,make, recommendation against channelization to the Corps of Engineers, the Corps would honor that recommendation.. Mr. Robinson stated that the idea of channelizing would be completely contrary to the whole setting the owners of this property are trying to create. Ms. Little asked if the developer would be interested in offering a Bill of Assurance that they would not channelize the creek. Mel Milholland stated that the only channelization they propose to do is what is necessary to construct a bridge to cross the creek. He stated that assurance could be put in writing. 447 October 17, 1995 Mr. Robinson stated that at every juncture the developers have tried to work with the City staff and the Planning Commission. Obviously they are not getting the initial request for 300 acres of C-2 property, which Mr. Robinson personally did not feel was appropriate. Alderman Williams stated he felt this plan was a much better plan than what would have been possible under all C-2 zoning. Mr. Robinson stated he felt this was a reasonable plan for the property and the reason to approve it as a whole rezoning is that this is an opportunity to contribute to how the 300 acres is developed conceptually. Alderman Schaper stated he loves this plan but the problem is that there is no offer to put this in as a planned unit development where there is some assurance that this plan is what will eventually be built. Mr. Robinson stated it was his understanding that the appropriate time to look at that issue is when this comes back to large scale development. He said that planned unit developments (PUD's) can be under residential, commercial and other various zonings. Alderman Parker commented rezoning, they are approving C-2 zoning. Though this development, the developers entirely different from what some legal standing to say develop this C-2 property. that if the Council approves the it for any of the usages allowed under could be addressed at large scale might come in there with something is being presented now and would have the new plan is a legitimate way to Mr. Robinson agreed that this was correct. Alderman Williams reminded the aldermen that the City had some experience with these developers in the past. They developed the Medical Park across the road and did an excellent job there. They have led the way in Fayetteville showing what a good development can be. They are here for the long run and they will produce a quality development. He stated that although the plan is not put together like a planned unit development, it is a good business plan. Alderman Williams expressed his concern about the creek and explained a bill of assurance would relieve his concerns. He stated it is important to remember what these developers have done in the past and give them credit for doing something good. 2 448 October.17.;,1995 Alderman Bassett agreed .that these developers do have: 'good history. The development they put in out 'on the by-pass is one:of ... the best the City has had in a long time. He expressed hisfsupport for the concept before the Council and stated there had been'a•lbt of compromise and discussion. He stated he also liked the fact that this concept looks at the whole picture instead of pieces. Alderman Bassett stated that he is convinced the roads are going to be built as the development occurs. He suggested another compelling public interest forapproving this request for,rezoning. He stated this is going to be the commercial center of N.W. Arkansas and this is an area perfectly suited to commercial development. He stated there is a real need in this town for revenue in the form of sales taxes. Alderman Bassett stated that if there can be a good development with good infrastructure put into this property and it helps put some money in the City's treasury, it will be a good deal for the City. Alderman Bassett expressed his appreciation for the approach the developers have taken from the beginning. He stated the questions being asked were legitimate questions and he appreciates the patience and understanding in exchange. Alderman Parker reminded the Council that though the sales tax input would be very welcome, this development is outside the Fayetteville School District. The City is having to build new schools.to>deal with the influx of people and this development will be providing money to the Springdale School District, not the Fayetteville District. If the development was placed elsewhere in the city, it is more likely the money would go to support the Fayetteville schools. Alderman Parker stated that the "highest and best user of the land is .a1 matter of perspective. One important -factor' was not >r specifically related to how much the land will sell for but what the traffic impact will be. This development would basically triple the commercial area west of 71 and the traffic impact will be ferocious. Alderman Parker stated that though the eventual plan for all the roads to be built might take care of more than the development's own traffic, initially the firstpart of the development around Joyce Street and along Gregg Street will increase the traffic on an already overcrowded road system. Alderman Parker stated it contrary to good traffic sense to put all the shopping in one area when most of the residential is far away so that people work and shopa long distance from their home. • 449 October 17, 1995 Alderman Parker stated that though the 2010 Plan is the official policy of the City of Fayetteville, planned unit development has been made voluntary. Although the intentions were good on this plan, the Council cannot rely on good intentions. A planned unit development would give them assurances on paper that the development will be as presented. Alderman Parker stated that although the initial request had been for 300 acres of C-2 development, most people involved felt this was not at all reasonable to begin with so the present plan does not necessarily indicate that a lot of compromise has occurred. Mr. Erwin stated the main issue was the traffic. The developers have gone to extremes to do the traffic studies and they feel very confident about the projections being presented at this time. Alderman Parker stated that the projections were predicated on the traffic after the north -south road is built, not for the traffic when development is begun along Joyce Street before the north -south road is completed. Mr. Erwin stated that projected traffic patterns have been very well studied and more time has been spent on the issue than on any other part of the plan. The traffic issue has been adequately addressed. Alderman Schaper stated that this remains an issue because the traffic projections are predicated on this particular development plan. Unless there is a guarantee that this plan will be the final development, the Council cannot be sure that the traffic projections are accurate. Ernie Peters, who did the traffic studies, stated that it is true if some alternate land uses are developed on this property the traffic numbers would be different. However, as a part of the City's large scale development plan, those individual streets and segments will be designed to accommodate the specific development that is proposed to be platted as a part of that large scale development plan. Mr. Peters stated that he has sized the streets in this area based on the plan being presented at this time. The developers have agreed that they will build these streets as presented. If an alternate plan comes forward consistent with the zoning granted by the City, as a part of the large scale development plan the number of lanes, intersection designs, etc., will be firmed up and decided as a part of the normal process. This will not be the last time the City will look at the traffic considerations. Alderman Parker asked if "worst case" traffic numbers requested at the last meeting would be provided. ii 450 October 1-7,1995 Mr. Peters stated that he did do another analysis that assumed that at least one of the hotel sites would become -a major -commercial area instead. The numbers indicated about a 5.5% increase in traffic. Those numbers have been provided to the staff. -He stated the increase did not affect what he recommended in terms of number of lanes on the different streets. If some other land use were to come in, it could change those projections but that would be addressed in large scale development. - Mr. Robinson commented that in the traffic projections -they looked at what was a reasonable density for the property. ' 'They' are " looking at about 25% coverage which is consistent with the mall;and most all other commercial development. Alderman Young commented that this is a rezoning issue and howgthe,0 petitioners will bring in a specific development to the Planning% Commission is up to them. Alderman Young was concerned that aldermen seemed to be sold on the planned unit development concept. He stated the ordinances, the City has at this time are monsters and he stated he would not like any planned unit development to come before the Planning Commission until there is a chance to review those ordinances. Vice Mayor Bassett opened the floor for comment from the audience. Fran Alexander of Fox Hunter Road stated she had some. questions about process. She stated that her comments before the Planning Commission regarding the land use plan have centered around the fact that there has not been a. comprehensive study done on the effects of the environmental infrastructure of the entire city and how these parts affect each other. She was concerned about the amount of paving done on a parcel of land of this size and how it will affect that entire part of the city. Ms. Alexander stated that until the land use plan is completed, the Council should not allow a rezoning of this magnitude. . Ms. Alexander also reminded the Council of the process people need to go through for rezoning. In the Planning Commission by-laws it requires a staff report from the City's planning consultant, staff planner.or;city manager containing the findings of the staff, a determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles and policies and with land use and zoning plans and a determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the iezoning is proposed. Ms: Alexander stated this was not whathad happened with this rezoning request. The issue was not whether or not this was a good plan or whether commercial development should be in this area. The issue is that the process must fit everyone equally. • 451 October 17, 1995 Ms. Alexander stated the issue of the road was beginning to sound like deal making and was putting the Council on thin ice. Ms. Alexander stated the Council needs to make sure that the process applies the same to everyone. She asked that these issues be considered as the Council makes its decision regarding rezoning. Tom McKinney, representing the Sierra Club, stated that the Club usually does not come out with a position regarding individual rezonings. However, since this was such a large and significant rezoning request, the group has formed a position on it. Mr. McKinney stated that he had been unclear from the beginning why the moratorium on rezoning had been lifted from this property. He explained that it was his understanding that the immediate building of the road had been seen as a compelling public need and the reason for the moratorium to be lifted. Mr. McKinney stated that although the current plan may be a better plan than the one the petitioners first started with it is still not, in the opinion of the Sierra Club, appropriate to rezone this acreage at this time. The Sierra Club's position is that this area should not be rezoned unless it is under planned unit development. Mr. McKinney explained that the Club views this plan as purely speculative. It has not been uncommon, without a written bill of assurance, for developers in this town to change their plans on what is going to be built. For this reason, the Sierra Club would like to see this rezoning denied until there is a planned unit development. Another reason for denying this rezoning is the cumulative impact of this development on the area around the Mall. The runoff into Mud Creek and its branch that will be caused by this development and others in the area is a great concern. The drainage from all the developments in this area will flow into Mud Creek and nobody knows what the effect will be. The fear of the Sierra Club is that with all this water from drainage that will occur with all the developments, a heavy rain could blow out the creek, undercutting and washing away the trees and causing major problems downstream in Johnson to property owners below this property. Mr. McKinney said the Council must look beyond this property and see what the cumulative impact on all the property in the area will be. He asked that the Council deny this rezoning until there is a better idea of what will be developed, what kind of greenspace will be left to absorb the water and some sort of plan can be developed to control the runoff. Another concern of the Sierra Club is the traffic. This size of an area of C-2 without some idea of what the final development will be will undoubtedly produce an amazing amount of traffic. 452 October 17 1995 There being no further comment from the audience; Vice :.Mayor Bassett stated that this ordinance was on its .Second reading and would be placed on third reading at the next meeting: He asked for any final comments from the Council. Alderman Daniel commented on the sales tax to. be generated by this commercial development. She reminded the Council that the City would have to spend a great deal of money on streets and related traffic control because of the impact of traffic on the general area.of the city, not just the area immediately around the mall. Alderman Daniel stated that -she agrees with. Mr. McKinney that the Council must look at the whole picture, including all the development already going --in around this area. She felt this rezoning might be premature, although she appreciates the compromise made already. Alderman Daniel stated that she feels there are some red flags here that need to be considered before all this property is rezoned at one time. B. S.E. FAYETTEVILLE COMMUNITY CENTER Vice Mayor Bassett introduced discussion of a resolution awarding a contract for construction of the Southeast Fayetteville Community Center and approving a budget adjustment. Ben Mayes stated that the -staff had received two bids on the S.E. Community Center which were opened on Monday, October 16.. The low bid was from Harrison Davis Construction Co. and the staff recommends awarding that bid and approving the budget adjustment to facilitate that construction. Schaper, seconded by Daniel,- moved. that this bid and budget adjustment. be accepted as recommended by the City staff. Alderman Williams stated that both he and. Alderman Miller had been working on this project and they are .very happy to see .it going forward. He joined Alderman Schaper in recommending this resolution be passed. Alderman Miller commented on the cost of the center "-,He;also raised a question about the deletion of the bleachefe and 'some of the basketball goals which had originally been planned. Ben Mayes stated that two basketball will be two goals initially with the: Charlie Venable stated thatthey hope to the project. e goals are in the bid.•rA-There ability to add four more. 4 Vt to get some donation`s •to add 453 October 17, 1995 Alderman Hill commented that the original 135 days to complete the project had now been changed to 180 days. He urged everyone involved to stay on top of the project and ensure that in 180 days the center will be opened. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for public comment. There was none. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 131-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. C. WATER LINE CONNECTION Vice Mayor Bassett introduced consideration of an ordinance prescribing connection fees for developers tieing on to a new water line along Salem Road running from the southeast corner of the Salem Village Subdivision to the south side of Mount Comfort Road. This ordinance was left on its first reading at the Oct. 3 Council Meeting. Vice Mayor Bassett stated City Engineer Don Bunn has suggested the Council table this item to give him an opportunity to visit with City Attorney Rose. Alderman Parker agreed and stated the item should be coordinated with the City Attorney. Alderman Parker moved that this item be tabled until the engineering and legal staff could get together. Alderman Williams suggested the ordinance be read for the second time and be left on the second reading with no action taken, thus moving the ordinance along in the process. There were no objections to this. Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty read the ordinance for the second time. Vice Mayor Bassett opened the floor for comment from the audience. There was none. CONSENT AGENDA Vice Mayor Woody Bassett introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion, or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a "Consent Agenda". A. Minutes of the October 3, regular City Council Meeting. 454 October 17-,1995 B. A resolution approving a.budget adjustment in the..amount of. $125,193 and awarding a construction contract to Buildings Inca in the amount of $176,993 :for the construction of a materials storage building at the Street Division. RESOLUTION 132-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. C. A resolution approving a budget adjustment and a grant application for ,a grant !from the Selective Traffic Enforcement project through the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. RESOLUTION 133-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. D. A resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Arkansas Western Gas -,Company easement which will provide a 15 foot wide permanent easement and a 30 foot .,wide temporary construction easement for several City properties adjacent to and parallel with Razorback Road. RESOLUTION:25-35 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE: Williams, seconded by Young, movedthat the Consent Agenda be accepted. Upon roll call, the motionpassed on a vote of 8 to 0. ANNOUNCEMENT - JUVENILE HALLOWEEN PARTY Vice Mayor Basset announced that the City of Fayetteville Juvenile Concerns Committee is sponsoring a Halloween party for area high school students. It will be on Monday, Oct. 30, from 6 -p.m. to 10:00 p.m., at Georges. There.will be no alcohol.. There will be live music by Punkinhead and over $500 indoor prizes. The cost for admission is $2 if you are in costume, $4 without a costume and $5 for non -students. Snacks. and' -non -alcohol :drinksrwill be available. For more information call 582-9481 or 442-0379. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Vice Mayor Bassett introduced- consideration of a resolution approving the 1996-2000 Capital Improvement Program. Ben Mayes stated that the staff had input from. the<Parks and Recreation Commission, the Airport Commission, the Water and Sewer Committee, and the Street, Committee. Mr. Steve Davis, the budget coordinator, gave a short presentation giving the Council an -overall view of the capital improvement program. • r �.r 455 October 17, 1995' The City of Fayetteville has a capital improvement program that provides major policytand financial planning tools to the Mayor and City Council directing city-wide capital improvements. It incorporates input from the Mayor, City Council, citizens and City staff. It provides an overall view of coordination of capital improvements that maintains existing capital and provides a method for meeting future needs. The CIP lists capital improvement needs, places them in priority order and schedules them for funding. Projects included in the CIP have a cumulative cost in excess of $10,000. They include infrastructure improvements such as streets, bridges, drainage, water and sewer lines, traffic signals as well as parks, library funding and sidewalk improvements. It also includes routine replacement of City vehicles and equipment and improvements to City facilities and grounds. Mr. Davis listed the factors included in establishing priorities. Priorities are reviewed and updated annually. Mr. Davis explained that the CIP is financed primarily by the City's 1% sales and use tax, operating funds from water and sewer funds, shop fund, solid waste fund and airport fund, as well as grant revenues for airport improvements, community development and State grants. Mr. Davis presented an overhead chart showing the schedule of sources and uses of projected project areas over the next five years totaling $58.1 million. Mr. Davis explained that 33.8% of the total projects are for water and sewer improvements. Streets make up approximately 26% with bridges and drainage totaling approximately 5%. Parks and recreation total 3.4% of the total. Mr. Davis reviewed further information for the Council regarding the improvements funded by the City sales tax. Alderman Schaper asked if the Council, by approving this five year plan, will be approving the specific items that have been discussed and modified for next year's funding. Mr. Mayes stated that would be a separate approval. This is a five year plan that will be updated annually. Each year projects will be re -prioritized with input from the community, Mayor, aldermen, etc. The 1996 portion of the CIP will move into the budget for 1996 but the CIP does not appropriate the funding. The budget for 1996 will probably be presented in November and that is when the funds are appropriated. Alderman Schaper asked if this plan as presented tonight would include the changes and recommendations made, for instance, by the Street Committee last night. • October -17, 1995 Mr. Mayes stated that the plan within this documentisthe plan as it was originally put out. If changes need to be made as recommended by the Street Committee, they should be made tonight. Alderman Williams stated that the Street Committee in earlier meetings did look further than just 1996. They looked at several long range plans and items that might not have been on this plan. Vice Mayor Bassett asked Alderman Williams to give a report on the last Street Committee meeting. Alderman Williams stated that the Committee approved most of the projects slated for 1996 with the exception of three projects. Alderman Williams outlined these three exceptions and the questions raised at the meeting regarding these projects. The first, listed under bridge and drainage improvements, is the Steel property bridge cost sharing where the City would agree to 4 - lane the bridge if rezoning is approved and if the road is built. Questions were raised- involving whether the property would be rezoned and if the money would be needed next year, .if the ;road would not be built next year. The second project is the $500,000 addition to the money already set aside for the Salem Road extention to Mt. Comfort Rd.. -This with the $800,000 appropriated last year,would-be enough to finish that project. However, Aldermen Schaper and Daniels want`�to have a meeting in Ward 4 with residents to look atthat optiorf.as.=•well" as other options. After this meeting, another Street Committee meeting will be held. The money should be held and not committed until a recommendation is made. The final item is the cost sharing being done with the Cliffs. $245,000 has been earmarked to finish the boulevard now in the budget. There has not yetbeen any unanimous. opinion onwhat should be done with this issue. Vice Mayor Bassett stated that the funds will still be there. They could either be appropriated for this particular project if the City decides to proceed with it or it could be spent on something else on down the road. Mr. Mayes stated that these items: had been discussed after the Street Committee meeting. The staff recommendation would be to leave the bridge project in the plan as it is. If the zoning does not go through, it will obviously-be`changed at a later date. On the Salem Road extention, the staff recommended the monies be left in and earmarked as Ward 4 relief. Sz; 457 October 17, 1995 t. Alderman Schaper clarified that his and Alderman Daniel's position was that Mr. Venable needs to check with the State Highway Department about the possibility of some of the options that have been discussed. Once they have a firmer idea of what is both technically and economically feasible, a Ward 4 meeting could be held for further discussion. Mr. Venable agreed and stated this might not be possible before the first of January. He felt the money should be kept in the budget in some manner until everything can be brought together. Vice Mayor Bassett stated that $800,000 was appropriated last year for this project and $500,000 proposed for this year. This money should be set aside for use in this ward once the staff and Council have reached an agreement on a plan. Alderman Williams stated the money should primarily be spent on collector streets and not on local streets. Alderman Parker stated there should be a time to get neighborhood input on this issue and that this was not the time to discuss it. Parker, seconded by Schaper, proposed a motion based on the recommendations of the Street Committee. The three parts of this recommendation would be, 1) to remove the Steel property bridge cost sharing from the 1996 CIP, 2) to remove the $245,000 Cliff's cost sharing from the 1996 CIP and 3) to take the $500,000 slated for the Salem Road extention and put it into a Salem Road area fund which could then be used in whatever direction everyone agrees is best. There was some discussion among the Council regarding the various items under consideration. Alderman Williams stated that although the Salem Road extention is a worthy project, he is not willing to commit another $500,000 on the project if Council is not going to build the roads that will go all the way through. He explained that he is not in favor of saying this money could be spent anywhere that particular neighborhood wants to spend it. He stated it is not fair to the rest of the city. Alderman Schaper reminded Alderman Williams that this item would still come back before the Council as a proposed project. Alderman Parker added that the $245,000 for the Cliff's project would be to connect the four -lane boulevard where it now exists in the middle of the Cliff's development over to Happy Hollow road. Though this is on the Master Street Plan, it came to be on the Master Street Plan about the same time as the Cliff's development came through. There are 600 units there and he feels the developer should pay for this. • • r •{ 458 October 17, 1995 Alett Alett Little stated that the connection of this street -is to Hwy :265 andiit4has been on the Master Street Plan since the changes were made in 1985. Alderman Parker stated that this boulevard would primarily handle the traffic out of the Cliffs. He feels the citizens' money should be spent elsewhere rather than building a road just to handle straffic from the Cliffs. - 4 Alderman Williams stated.the road would not just handle traffic from the Cliffs. The only part that the citizens will be paying for is for upgrading the .road to a boulevard. It -will eventually go through, will cross Hwy 265 and go up toward Highland Park. It will intersect Hwy 16 East and will be a great way to try to relieve some of the pressure on the Hwy 16.- Hwy 265 intersection which has been a real problem. This project makes a lot of sense. It has been a tradition that when the City asks -for boulevards, they do cost sharing. This is a good development and a wise use of the City's money. Alderman Schaper stated that he has no problem with spending the money on a boulevard. However, the arches over the entrance to this roadway make it look like --a private entrance -to an:apartment complex. Alderman Miller stated the does not feel this will be viewed as a private roadonceit is made known that it is not a private road. Alderman Williams stated that there would certainly need to be a street sign on the road making it obvious that it is a city street. At this point it only goes into the apartment complex but with the money being appropriated now, it would be built the rest of the way through. He would like to see theboulevard come all,the way:'to (t 4th Street.• , f Vice Mayor Bassett stated he was on the Council when this project: was approved and the Council made a commitment at that time to cost' share and build this boulevard. People would realize quickly that the street does go through and is not a private road. Alderman Parker stated that the original proposal for the City staff had a gate shack and fence which conveys the impression that this road is actually a private drive for the Cliffs. • In response to a question from Alderman- Hill, Alderman Parker restated his earlier motion. Alderman Williams stated that the Street Committee -did -not actually come up with those recommendations. The Street Committee simply wanted to postpone both the Cliff's cost sharing and the Steel property bridge until further information can be obtained. 459 October 17, 1995 There was discussion about what the Street Committee recommended. Alderman Williams explained that the recommendation of the Committee was that the Council postpone the Steel property bridge until further information could be obtained regarding the rezoning. They recommended that action be postponed on the Cliffs project pending gathering of further information and another Street Committee meeting to discuss this information. On the Salem Road extention, the Committee made the recommendation that the money should be spent for traffic relief in that area if needed. Vice Mayor Bassett stated that there was a motion on the floor and unless Alderman Parker withdraws the motion, a'vote would need to be taken. Alderman Hill asked McCarty if Alderman Parker's motion would accomplish what Alderman Williams stated the Street Committee recommended. Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty stated there was a difference between "remove" and "postpone". Vice Mayor Bassett stated that the Council would vote on Alderman Parker's motion if he wished, but it would be more appropriate to vote on each of the matters individually. Alderman Miller asked if this was an appropriate time to deal with this issue or if it might be more appropriate to discuss it when the Council is working on the 1996 budget. Alderman Young agreed with this. Alderman Parker stated as far as the motion and the recommendation of the Street Committee, if the Council approves the CIP tonight then they will not be holding back for consideration these specific items. In order to hold off recommendation that these individual projects proceed as they are on paper, they need to be removed from the CIP. They can be added back later. Alderman Parker explained that he was not going to withdraw his motion that these items be removed because the Street Committee stated they did not want to recommend these specific projects. However, they did want to recommend the many other projects on the CIP. Alderman Parker again restated his motion. Alderman Young stated it was his understanding that they would first be voting on Alderman Parker's motion and then would be voting on the entire CIP. • 460 October 17, 1995 .., Alderman Williams explainedthat the only problem.:he .had with-' Alderman Parker's motion is that it is possible that in a couple of weeks the Street Committee willmeet again and another; recommendation will be made on some of these projects. He,stated he agrees that they should not be approved as stated in the CIP. Action should be postponed on those three projects untiltfurther1 information is available. :, *_, Vice Mayor Bassett opened the floor to public comment. There was none. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for any further comment from the Council before a vote was taken on Alderman Parker's motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote.of 8 to 0. Alderman Williams stated that several residents in Ward 1, especially around 24th Street, called him with concern when they heard the Council might not be approving the much needed improvements on 24th St. He is pleasedthat these improvements are going to be approved. Williams, seconded by Daniel, moved that the CIP be approved. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for any public comment on the Capital Improvements Program. There was none. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to O. RESOLUTION 135-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. REZONING RZ95-31 Vice Mayor Bassett rezoning .57 acres .Agricultural to R-1, & Kay Pike. introduced consideration of an ordinance located at 5556 Tackett. Drive from A-1, Low Density Residential as requested by Harold The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend the rezoning. Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty read the ordinance for the first time. Williams, seconded by Schaper, moved to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the second reading. Upon rollcall, the. motion was passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty read the ordinance for the second time. 1 461 October 17, 1995 Young, seconded by Williams, moved to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3933 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK REZONING RZ95-32 Vice Mayor Woody Bassett introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 27.72 acres located south of Zion Road, east of 71B, and west of Crossover Road from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential as requested by Jack Torre on behalf of Zion Valley, LLC. The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend the rezoning subject to a Bill of Assurance limiting the development to 100 units. Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the first time. In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Alett Little stated that this particular property does touch the property where Sterns adjoins it to the east. She stated Alderman Daniel's question about what will happen to Sterns will be addressed at large scale development. Ms. Little explained she does understand the Council's concern that Sterns Street not be extended; however, it is a feature of the master street plan so there are quite a few issues to be discussed. Alderman Daniel asked if any improvements would be required on Zion Road of the developer. Ms. Little stated that the developers had been cautioned that improvements to Zion Road, including additional right-of-way widening and construction of a sidewalk will be required. This property also lines up with the Vantage Square property and there will be a need for Vantage Square Road to be extended, providing a connection between Zion Road and Joyce St. Alderman Schaper stated the only reason this property needs to be rezoned as R-2 was because the developers want to put in townhouses. Putting in townhouses allows the developers to keep a lot of the land in green space which is very desirable. • 462 October 17, 1995 Alderman Parker expressed his support for the proposed develdpment because it has residential units near where people shop and work. He expressed his concern about the Sterns St. situation and would like to see the Council keep its commitment not to link up Sterns. Alett Little stated that this project had been offered with a bill of assurance, which is included with the Council's packet. This bill of assurance does limit the number of units to 100. The developer has communicated with Ms. Little that they would like to have 104 units and it had been their_understanding that was the number being discussed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Little stated that the Council needs to make a whether to stick with the 100 units as quoted assurance or to allow the developer to change to decision tonight intthe,,..-bi11. of F ?' 104 l'units. l _ Alderman Williams stated that 104 units would still be within,R-1 zoning except that it is to be townhouses. He stated he had no ; objection to changing the bill or assurance to 104. a In response to a question from Alderman Williams, Ms. Little'st* atedi. she did'not feel the change would be a problem with the Planning Commission. The petitioner stated that 104 units would be adequate In response to a question from Vice Mayor Bassett, Ms. McCarty said a new bill of assurance would need' to be drawn up in order to change the number to 104 units. Alderman Williams stated this should not be decided .at this meeting.. The petitioner will be given the opportunity to bring forward another bill of assurance with the:correct number of units and the residents involvedshould have the opportunity to comment. The ordinance was left on the first reading. REZONING RZ95-36 Vice Mayor Bassett introduced consideration. ofan ordinance rezoning .37 acres located at 1625 Giles Road from R-1, Low Density Residential to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential as requested by Melanie Stafford on behalf of Gaylia S. Dalton. The Planning Commission voted 5-3-0 to recommend the rezoning ,subject tora Bill of Assurance. limiting the structure.to 3 units and restricting expansion of exterior walls. Assistant City 'Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the- -first time. 4 • October 17, 1995 463 Alderman Daniel explained she had looked at this house and had talked to the staff. Daniel suggested the City inspectors look at the building. There might be some structural problems with the building. Alderman Miller explained he also looked at the house. He stated it is a very old house but the Council is not here to fudge houses. The basic consideration is whether there were other units in the area comparable to this. The house will not change in appearance but will provide low rent housing for those who need it. Alderman Daniel stated her concern was that the house did not look structurally sound. Alderman Hill asked what the staff recommendations were for this rezoning. Alett Little stated that at the time this request came before the Planning Commission, the staff recommended a denial of the request. About a year ago the Planning Commission had recommended that the property be left at R-1 but that a conditional use be granted for the duplex. Staff made their recommendation to be consistent with the earlier Planning Commission action. The Planning Commission is familiar with the property and they have had recent rezoning actions to the west of the property. Their recommendation changed from the staff recommendation. They did go with the requested R-1.5 zoning with the offered bill of assurance that the construction that has been started there be completed, upgrading the exterior but limiting construction to no greater than the current outside walls and also that no more than three units would be constructed. The Planning Commissions recommendation was simply to allow this property to be reconstructed and brought up to code. When work is done on the building of course the building inspectors will go out and inspect the work and insure that it is brought up to City codes. Alderman Parker stated that this bill of assurance would eliminate the possibility of putting another structure up on the property with more units. Alderman Miller also asked the Council to keep in mind that opening up the additional 800 square feet will also allow the developer to have more rent to put back into the building. Petitioner Melanie Stafford stated that when the property was purchased, Ms. Dalton had a professional inspection done on the building. The determination was that the building still had quite a bit of good useful life to it and that it was still sitting on a firm foundation that would last a number of years. 464 October 17, 1995te Ms. Stafford asked if it would be possible, in the future,,totear down the old structure and build a new three unit structure. Alett Little stated she believes the bill of assurance as offered would restrict the reconstruction to the current footprint or outline of the building. She suggested if the petitioner wanted to offer something different from that it should be made clear. Alderman Parker asked if that restriction would apply to vertical construction as well as the outline. Ms:.Little stated she believed that the way the. bill of assurance was currently written it would restrict to the current footprint anddoes"restrict to no more than three units. Alderman Williams expressed his concern, about the adjacent properties which are primarily single familyunits. ;Ms..Stafford stated she and Ms. Dalton both visited the owners of ..the .single family properties adjoining this property. Neither of the neighbors had a problem with •finishing .up this building and making it a triplex. They simply requested that there be.continued regentrification of the property. Ms. Little statedthis is a large lot with the structure occupying only about one fourth or one fifth of the total lot areaso there is quite a bit of lawn around the structure. Alderman Daniel asked thestaff if there were any special parking requirements for a triplex. Ms. Little stated that they will be required to meet the parking lot ordinance which requires one parking space per bedroom. In response to a question from Alderman. Schaper, Ms. Stafford stated there would be five bedrooms. Ms. Little stated the ordinance does state the parking lot would need to be paved for five or more spaces but the landscaping is waived until you reach ten parking spaces. Williams, seconded by Miller, moved to suspend the rules and move the ordinance to the second reading., Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance'to Plthe time. second r ' Schaper, seconded by Miller, moved to suspend the rules andmove the ordinance t� the third andfinalreading. Upon roll call; the motion passed on a vote of 8 to -0. • October 17, 1995 • 465 Assistant City Attorney McCarty read the ordinance for the third and final time. ! Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3934 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK OTHER BUSINESS SISTER CITY COMMITTEE Alderman Daniel stated that the Sister City Committee is organizing a delegation to the Dominican Republic. It looks like this will be in the last week in November. She stated representatives from the community were encouraged and welcomed. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Alderman Daniel stated she felt the cost would be around $800 to $900. Alderman Daniel stated if anyone was interested in the trip they should call the City Clerk and get in touch with Alderman Daniel in that way. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.