Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-18 - Agendas - Final FINAL AGENDA FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL MAY 189 1999 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council will be held on May 18, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. The following items will be considered : A. CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Approval of the minutes from the May 4, 1999 meeting. 2. CAUDLE PROPERTY: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into documentation for the sale of the remainder ( 1 . 15 acres) of the Caudle property, located at 295 S . Crossover Road, to Eastside Missionary Baptist Church for a purchase price of $ 17,400.00. The subject property was originally purchased by the City for Hwy 265 right-of-way purposes. 3. SUNRAY SERVICES: A resolution approving amendment #3 to the contract with Sunray Services, Inc. to transport and dispose of municipal solid waste and for operation of the City' s transfer station. B. OLD BUSINESS C. NEW BUSINESS 1. BOARDWALK ADDITION, PHASE 3: An ordinance authorizing the City Attorney to seek possession of certain land located south of Boardwalk Addition, Phase 3 and west of Highway 265 (Crossover Road) in the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, by the power of eminent domain, in association with the required easements for the Londonderry Drainage Improvements. Such property owned by Nancy Witt Lewis and Robert Lewis. Contingent upon the city council also approving Bid 99-49, Drainage Improvements for Boardwalk Subdivision. 2, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: A resolution approving a construction contract and project contingency for the construction of the proposed Drainage Improvements to Boardwalk Subdivision and Ridgely Manor Drive Area. A budget adjustment to fully fund the project. Establishment of off-site assessment for future developments which utilized the proposed drainage improvements. City Council May 18, 1999 Page 2 3, TOBIN TRUST - COURT-ORDERED POSSESSION: A resolution authorizing City Attorney to seek a court order for the possession of certain rights of way and easements from Patrick J. Tobin Trust on parcels of land located at 519 and 409 W. Poplar Street, Fayetteville in association with the City' s Poplar Street Improvement project. 4. VA 99-6: An ordinance for VA99-6 vacating a utility easement located at 3385 Natchez Trace as requested by Keith and Yvonne Burns for a specified portion of an alley located to the south and east of Lot 11 , Savannah Estates Subdivision, Phase I. 5. RZ99-7: An ordinance for RZ99-7 submitted by Neal Pendergraft for property located east of 2680 Joyce Street. The property is zoned R- 1 , Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 4. 98 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-O, Residential Office. 6. RZ99-9: An ordinance for RZ99-9 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Greta Smith for property located at 1755 and 1939 Hoot Owl Lane. The property is zoned A- 1 , Agricultural, and contains approximately 5 .45 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R- 1 , Low Density Residential. 7. RZ99-10: An ordinance for RZ99- 10 submitted by Glen Carter on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at 4786 North Crossover Road. The property is zoned A- 1 , Agricultural, and contains approximately 8.97 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-O, Residential Office. 8. RZ99-11 : An ordinance for RZ99- 11 submitted by Glen Carter on behalf of Mark Foster for property located at 4786 North Crossover Road. The property is zoned A- 1 , Agricultural, and contains approximately 48 .26 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R- 1 , Low Density Residential. 9. FIRST NIGHT: A resolution authorizing a request for funding from First Night of Fayetteville, a non-profit organization for $ 12,000 to fund the Fayetteville Millennium Celebration. 10. LIBRARY PRESENTATION: General financing plan for Fayetteville Public Library expansion. 11. BAKERY FEEDS: Discussion of whether or not the City of Fayetteville should file suit against Bakery Feeds as a public nuisance. 12. NO TAX INCREASES: A resolution prohibiting the consideration of tax increases by the City Council until the Wastewater Treatment issue has been put to a vote of the public. may , ROLL 120 GG YM NCT AT ISTIN DAVIS ✓ TRUMBO MAY(-)R HANNA oc9 REYNOLDS AUSTIN TRUMBO DANIEL ✓ ROLL qAMMq AUSTIN DAVIS TRUMBO DAMIET MAYOR 14ANNA 70 T 5 YOT LNG REYNOIDSs TRTIMBO DANIEL MAYOR HANNA g- SANTOS ✓ ✓ AUSTEN DAVIS TRTIMBQ nANIPI MAYOR HANNA . o cr co cI I /99 ROLL ✓ ✓ ✓ RRYNOT DR AUSTIN i✓ DAVIS TRUMBO ✓ ✓ �/ DANTE1 L07- MAYOR 14ANNA /Za 91 -la RFYNOT USS AllqTTN DAVILS ,✓ ✓ DANIEL ✓ ✓ ✓ MAYOR 14ANNA VIP UW 3� YM FNCT _A7 Az REYNOT ITS TRI IMRQ DANIFT MAYOR HANNA ✓ ,/ ✓ ,✓ ,� ,✓ ✓ ✓ ,✓ �✓ ✓ 7-/- 0. CI I M I ROLL ✓ ✓ DAVIS TRUMBO ✓ �/ nANTFT MAYOR HANNA DAVIS DANIEL MAYOR HANNA 249, SANTOR ✓ ,� Y01 TNCT REYNOIDS AUSTIN DAVER MAYOR HANNA ,✓ o -D z3- o C[rJ T ROLL SAMIDS DAVIS Q ty TRUMBO DANIFT SANTCA RPYNOT DS DAVIS TRTJMBQ DANIELMAYOR HANNA ✓ IVY P-0- 0 , SANTOR REYNOT DS nAVIS DANIFT MAYOR 14ANNA �a-o . 02 U AGENDA SESSION MAY 11 , 1999 FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 18, 1999 NEW ITEMS: 1 . Planning Commission Appeal from Simmons First Bank. 2. Resolution for prohibiting tax increases by the City Council. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1 . Resolution for First Night funding. AGENDA SESSION MAY 11 , 1999 FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 18, 1999 NEW ITEMS: 1 . Planning Commission Appeal from Simmons First Bank. 2. Resolution for prohibiting tax increases by the City Council. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1 . Resolution for First Night funding. CITY COUNCIL FINAL AGENDA COVER MAY 18, 1999 GIVEN AT AGENDA SESSION: 1. First Night: Additional Info - A resolution approving funding for First Night Fayetteville, a non-profit organization, in the amount of $ 12,000, for activities for New Year' s 1999; and approval of a budget adjustment 2. No Tax Increase: New Item - A resolution prohibiting the consideration of tax increases by the City Council until the Wastewater Treatment issue has been put to a vote of the public 3. Appeal of Planning Commission/Simmons Bank: Ruled to be an invalid appeal and will not be brought before City Council FINAL AGENDA: 1. VA 99-6: Additional information for vacation submitted by Keith and Yvonne Burns for property located at 3385 Natchez Trace 2. RZ99-7: Additional information for a rezoning submitted by Neal Pendergraft for property located east of 2680 Joyce Street. BLED IN MY OFFICE THIS _ 119 DAY OF 19& ny Clerk May 5, 1999 Heather Woodru$ City Clerk City Clerks Office 20 West Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Ms. Woodruff This letter is to serve as an official request of an appeal to the Fayetteville City Council in regards to the ruling by the Fayetteville Planning Commission concerning agenda item AD 99-4.00: Administrative Item (Simmons First Bank, ppl35). This item was in regards to semi-permeable parking that was requested to be placed in the rear of the structure in the employee parking places. The requirement is that the 8 places be placed in a semi-permeable material. The initial request was that the bank be allowed 24 parking places to accommodate its employees and its customers. The eight places behind the building are to be used for the employee parking. The building is approximately 3,000 square feet, which by ordinance would allow the bank a total of 18 parking places with the 20% allowable overage. Which brings the first item of contention with the ruling of the Planning Commission, I believe that by ordinance we are only asking for 6 parking spaces in excess of that allowed. However, the request is that all places be able to remain asphalt. During the Planning Commission meeting there was some question as to the sincerity of the fact that Simmons Bank and Nabholz Corporation had inadvertently paved the area with asphalt. I believe the words were a blatant disregard for their ruling. However, if I may explain the sequence of events that led to where we are today, I believe that you will see that the bank is making every effort to be in compliance with the planning commissions ruling. First lets start at the Planning Commission's ruling of the placement of semi-permeable parking. At that time, we asked what the makeup of semi-permeable parking was. We were referred to the Planning Division office. It was at that time that we received the information in regards to a Geoblock Pourous Pavement System by Presto. We felt that there must be other products out there that were as applicable or better. We began our own research while the construction of the building started. Thinking in our minds the whole time that the parking lot would be the last part to complete. We spent six months evaluating the appropriateness of the products and during such time the laying of the asphalt took place. The area preparation for semi-permeable parking and asphalt is the same in regards to the base of SB2. Hence, when the asphalt layer was working his way around the building the asphalt was placed in the semi- permeable area. It was noticed immediately. In discussion with Nabholz and Simmons Bank the decision was made to leave the asphalt in place and remove it when we determined the appropriate product to use for the semi-permeable parking. Otherwise, the area would have been an open gravel area that would have prevented the access to the building from the rear. Our final determination on the semi-permeable parking was that given the products that we had researched there was not an applicable product with a cost-effective approach. The cost of the eight parking places ranged from $ 10,000.00 to $100,000.00. Additionally, the less expensive products were deemed unacceptable as the area is full time parking for employees and the products we have found were for auxiliary parking and fire lanes. The salesman of the company, who stood to make the sell to Simmons First Bank, stated this point. The product will deteriorate quicker and have to be replaced more often under the circumstances of vehicles being parked on the area for eight to ten hours per day, five days a week. It is our conclusion that the products that are available for this sight is either not applicable or too expensive to cost justify their implementation. Additional problems associated with the use of this type of product are the deterioration of the surrounding asphalt and deterioration of the surrounding curbing. Especially during the winter months, as the water will be trapped in this area will have to dissipate under the curbing and asphalt. Should this water freeze under these areas, it would subsequently begin to break up the concrete and asphalt and place an undue burden of replacement. During the Planning Commission meeting on the 26`s of April, 1999, a commissioner questioned the use of brick pavers as a product approved by the Planning Division as semi-permeable. This was the first time we had heard of this as a qualified product by the city and as such were not in an appropriate position to discuss its appilcableness in this area. This application would consist of a sand base and the pavers being placed on top of that area. However, to keep the area semi-permeable they can not be grouted in and subsequently over time would begin to shift and break from the weight of vehicles being parked in the area. There is also still the problem of the deterioration of the curbing and asphalt. In conclusion of the circumstances that bring us here today, Simmons First Bank feels that semi-permeable parking does have applicable uses, but that this is not one of them. In addition to the aforementioned background of the project, I would like to note that Simmons First Bank placed sod and a sprinkler system in the area between the street and the sidewalk, which represents the area opposite of our right of way. The square footage of this area is 2,270 square feet and the square footage of the area in regards to the parking places is 1 , 150 square feet. This represents an area almost double the required semi-permeable parking area that the bank has beautified and committed to maintain, that apparently is not a requirement. If you were to look east of the bank on Joyce this area associated with Circuit City is not sodded and has six-inch and higher weeds that are continually growing out of the area. This is not said to cast aspersions towards Circuit City. Instead it is to state that this is a semi-permeable area that we are already taking care of that might not have been necessary, except that Simmons First wants to be proud of its facilities and wants the City of Fayetteville to view the site as aesthetically pleasing. In conclusion Simmons First Bank has in many instances gone above and beyond the letter of the guidelines for this construction project. We feel that we have built a building that both Simmons First Bank and The City of Fayetteville can be proud of The landscaping of the building went well beyond the scope of the plan submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. Simmons First Bank is willing to comply with any and all requirements of the planning commission. The exception would appear to be this parking issue, but it is not that we wish to be out of compliance, but that through a series of circumstances we are. We feel that given the cost of installation and the cost of maintenance that a request for the approval of the parking areas as they are currently is warranted. rely, i�; \vP Ru Joe ddell Vice President FMED IN MY OFFICE THIS 1lz_DAY OF 19�a S" Yy Clerk May 5, 1999 Heather Woodruff, City Clerk City Clerks Office 20 West Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Ms. Woodruff, This letter is to serve as an official request of an appeal to the Fayetteville City Council in regards to the ruling by the Fayetteville Planning Commission concerning agenda item AD 99-4.00: Administrative Item (Simmons First Bank, ppl35). This item was in regards to semi-permeable parking that was requested to be placed in the rear of the structure in the employee parking places. The requirement is that the 8 places be placed in a semi-permeable material. The initial request was that the bank be allowed 24 parking places to accommodate its employees and its customers. The eight places behind the building are to be used for the employee parking. The building is approximately 3,000 square feet, which by ordinance would allow the bank a total of 18 parking places with the 20% allowable overage. Which brings the first item of contention with the ruling of the Planning Commission, I believe that by ordinance we are only asking for 6 parking spaces in excess of that allowed. However, the request is that all places be able to remain asphalt. During the Planning Commission meeting there was some question as to the sincerity of the fact that Simmons Bank and Nabholz Corporation had inadvertently paved the area with asphalt. I believe the words were a blatant disregard for their ruling. However, if I may explain the sequence of events that led to where we are today, I believe that you will see that the bank is making every effort to be in compliance with the planning commissions ruling. First lets start at the Planning Commission's ruling of the placement of semi-permeable parking. At that time, we asked what the makeup of semi-permeable parking was. We were referred to the Planning Division office. It was at that time that we received the information in regards to a Geoblock Pourous Pavement System by Presto. We felt that there must be other products out there that were as applicable or better. We began our own research while the construction of the building started. Thinking in our minds the whole time that the parking lot would be the last part to complete. We spent six months evaluating the appropriateness of the products and during such time the laying of the asphalt took place. The area preparation for semi-permeable parking and asphalt is the same in regards to the base of SB2. Hence, when the asphalt layer was working his way around the building the asphalt was placed in the semi- permeable area. It was noticed immediately. In discussion with Nabholz and Simmons Bank the decision was made to leave the asphalt in place and remove it when we determined the appropriate product to use for the semi-permeable parking. Otherwise, the area would have been an open gravel area that would have prevented the access to the building from the rear. Our final determination on the semi-permeable parking was that given the products that we had researched there was not an applicable product with a cost-effective approach. The cost of the eight parking places ranged from $ 10,000.00 to $ 100,000.00. Additionally, the less expensive products were deemed unacceptable as the area is full time parking for employees and the products we have found were for auxiliary parking and fire lanes. The salesman of the company, who stood to make the sell to Simmons First Bank, stated this point. The product will deteriorate quicker and have to be replaced more often under the circumstances of vehicles being parked on the area for eight to ten hours per day, five days a week. It is our conclusion that the products that are available for this sight is either not applicable or too expensive to cost justify their implementation. Additional problems associated with the use of this type of product are the deterioration of the surrounding asphalt and deterioration of the surrounding curbing. Especially during the winter months, as the water will be trapped in this area will have to dissipate under the curbing and asphalt. Should this water freeze under these areas, it would subsequently begin to break up the concrete and asphalt and place an undue burden of replacement. During the Planning Commission meeting on the 26th of April, 1999, a commissioner questioned the use of brick pavers as a product approved by the Planning Division as semi-permeable. This was the first time we had heard of this as a qualified product by the city and as such were not in an appropriate position to discuss its appilcableness in this area. This application would consist of a sand base and the pavers being placed on top of that area. However, to keep the area semi-permeable they can not be grouted in and subsequently over time would begin to shift and break from the weight of vehicles being parked in the area. There is also still the problem of the deterioration of the curbing and asphalt. In conclusion of the circumstances that bring us here today, Simmons First Bank feels that semi-permeable parking does have applicable uses, but that this is not one of them In addition to the aforementioned background of the project, I would like to note that Simmons First Bank placed sod and a sprinkler system in the area between the street and the sidewalk, which represents the area opposite of our right of way. The square footage of this area is 2,270 square feet and the square footage of the area in regards to the parking places is 1 , 150 square feet. This represents an area almost double the required semi-permeable parking area that the bank has beautified and committed to maintain, that apparently is not a requirement. If you were to look east of the bank on Joyce this area associated with Circuit City is not sodded and has sit-inch and higher weeds that are continually growing out of the area. This is not said to cast aspersions towards Circuit City. Instead it is to state that this is a semi-permeable area that we are already taking care of that might not have been necessary, except that Simmons First wants to be proud of its facilities and wants the City of Fayetteville to view the site as aesthetically pleasing. In conclusion Simmons First Bank has in many instances gone above and beyond the letter of the guidelines for this construction project. We feel that we have built a building that both Simmons First Bank and The City of Fayetteville can be proud of. The landscaping of the building went well beyond the scope of the plan submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. Simmons First Bank is willing to comply with any and all requirements of the planning commission. The exception would appear to be this parking issue, but it is not that we wish to be out of compliance, but that through a series of circumstances we are. We feel that given the cost of installation and the cost of maintenance that a request for the approval of the parking areas as they are currently is warranted. Alinqerely, Joe Ruddell \v Vice President Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS AD99-4: ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SIMMONS FIRST BANK, PP135 This item was submitted by Joe Ruddell for Simmons First Bank for property located at 670 East Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1 .7 acres. The request is to reconsider the previous requirement of semi- permeable parking spaces. Joe Ruddell was present on behalf of the request. Commission Discussion Johnson: Simmons Bank is asking for a reconsideration of the action that we took some time last year having to do with parking. Ruddell : The asphalt is in place. It got there by the machine going around the bank, anything that had SB2 in it, they laid asphalt. As soon as it happened, we told them it wasn't supposed to be there but we were also in a situation where the request for semi permeable surface, we had no idea what semi permeable parking was or what it was suppose be. We were in a position where we were trying to evaluate what products were out there and what product to use. While we were trying to do that, the asphalt got laid. If we cut the asphalt out, there will be a big hole until we could figure out what product to put. We have just in the last month, actually determined what products are available and what products are applicable. That is where we are now. The reason we are here is the products that we have found are not appropriate. These are parking spaces that are used on a daily full time basis while the bank is open. With parking on those spaces full time the grass would never grow. It will be parked on 8 hours a day. There will be heat from the cars, oil leaking from the cars, all those types of things will be adverse to the grass. There is a letter in the packet from the person who is actually selling this product that the it is made to be utilized as auxiliary parking, fire lanes, and golf course cart paths. It is not a product to be utilized on a daily full time basis. That is my presentation. It is not an issue of why the asphalt is there and how it got there. The products that we have to use for semi permeable parking are not appropriate in this instance. This is full time parking that we are utilizing. We have to park in the back. Our security guidelines state that the employees have to be provided a safe and secure entry and exit area. It faces our lock door which can only be entered with a key. That is the reason we have to have this area in the back. If this is an issue of the beautification of the site, we have gone above and beyond the landscaping requirements. We doubled the amount of plants. We installed an irrigation system. Circuit City has 9 inch weeds and we sodded and installed an irrigation system. We've done a lot to beautify the site and we feel like putting in grass and trying to maintain that back there will cause an undue burden on the ( Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 5 bank. It costs $ 10,000 not including the removal of the asphalt to install this product. Then it is a minimum of $ 1 ,000 per year in maintenance not including replacing sod. We spent a lot to make this a nice site for both Simmons and City of Fayetteville. Our engineer stated that when semi permeable surfacing is done, the reduction in runoff is 1 %. Water is not running across the back, it is running across the side and down. We have good drainage control. The installation of semi permeables would interfere with the drainage flow. The water will settle in that area. The placement of the system against asphalt and against the curbing allows the water to settle in there and with the seasons, it will crack and subsequently we will have to replace that all the time. Semi permeable pavers are not appropriate. We would like to leave the asphalt. Hoffman: Did you consider an alternate location for the same square footage of semi permeables if you can't park on it 8 hours a day? Can it be relocated? Ruddell: If we put it in the front, how would our customers know that it is parking? Hoffman: Did you look at any driveway areas? Ruddell: We only have one entrance, so to get to our drive through, you have to circle the whole building. It would be driven on all day. Hoffman: You have in excess of the allowable parking. Ruddell: We have 9 employees. There are 8 parking spaces in the back. Those are all taken by the employees and that only leaves the places in the front for customer parking. Virtually every place in the front is full at certain times. We have 2 ADA handicap spaces. If you aren't handicap, you can't park there. I respect your opinion. This is an excellent product in specific circumstances but not for this project. Hoover: Did you consider any other products? I understand the staff gave you some other suggestions. Ruddell : There is a gravel pave product. Our problem with it is the majority of our employees are ladies who wear heels and it poses a safety risk to them and increases the bank's liability. It is basically dirt which will get tracked into the bank and it deters from the beauty of the structure. There is one product that would work. It is concrete that has holes in it. It would cost $ 100,000 to install it in 8 parking places. That is undue burden. Hoover: Did you consider pave stone set on a sand base? I talked to staff about that and they said that could be approved as permeable material. Ruddell : I would have to consult with the project manager. You'll still have water seeping Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 6 through which will freeze around your asphalt and curbing which will deteriorate and crack it. A site that is broken like that doesn't work. Hoover: Staff, did you give them some other products? Conklin: There was the concrete with the holes in it and they mentioned it cost $ 100,000 to put in 8 spaces. We also have approved brick pavers on a conditional use on Spring Street. We have allowed brick or concrete pavers to be utilized for semi permeable soil pavers. Hoover: I do know that the grass pavers he proposed here are being used by a chiropractic clinic that we approved on Spring Street. Conklin: That is correct. They are currently installing the grass pave for Dr. Roma Lisa Gray's office on Spring Street. Ruddell : Is that an area they will be parking in full time? Hoover: It's for their clients? Conklin: That is for their clients. Ruddell: That is the difference. The clients will come in for 30 minutes and they won't be there full time. We come in at 7:30 in the morning and be there until 6:00 in the evening. Hoover: I guess you're thinking about putting it in the rear. I think of it being used in the front and incorporated into the design. Ruddell: How will a customer know it's parking? Would you park on the grass? Hoover: It seems to me that it is overflow. We looked at this on tour and there was one car in front the bank at 3 :30 on Thursday. I was disappointed that when this was approved that you didn't go back and look at the design. It sounds as if all of this is an after thought. The chiropractic clinic thought about it in the beginning and incorporated it into their design. Ruddell: We originally requested regular asphalt parking. When you asked us to reduce it to semi permeable paving, we had no idea what the product was. We did a lot of research on this to find products and get cost estimates. It was at the end of the project before we tallied everything. Johnson: Did you do the research on the semi permeable pavers before you built the parking lot or after? Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 7 Ruddell: While it was being done. They ran the machine and poured it and as soon as it happened realized it was wrong. We said we could dig it up now and have a hole where you can't get in and out of the bank or we can wait until we have the product that we wanted to use and put it in. We have the necessary information and are waiting for your determination as to whether or not you agree that this product is not applicable. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: In the future, I would suggest that the Commission seriously consider what we are about to vote on tonight in terms of approving additional parking in excess of that required have we always required semi permeable pavers? Conklin: No. You have not. You have approved parking over the 20% amount as a conditional use for asphalt parking for restaurants. Ward: The main thing we are having trouble with is that we feel sometimes there is a blatant disregard for our decisions. We probably don't allow enough parking under our regulations. You need more parking. Ruddell : What we have is sufficient if we can keep the 8 spaces in the rear. Ward: I 'm not of the opinion that if they want to leave it there that we should fine them or penalize them. That would open a can of worms. Marr: I was not seated on the Commission at the time of the original approval. It seems that the Commission went above and beyond to approve additional parking. I am bothered by the fact that the construction was started before a resolution of the semi permeable paving material. That is sending a message that the requirement wasn't taken seriously. I would hate to set precedent that you can disregard a requirement then come back and ask our approval on what you chose to do. Odom: I know Joe Ruddell personally and I know that he would never do anything intentional or blatantly disregarding any authority. I don't think that is the issue. If we allow this we set a potential precedent for working with a developer and perhaps a blatant disregard of the conditions placed upon them and next coming back and asking for forgiveness later. r MOTION Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Odom made a motion to deny the request for reconsideration of the semi permeable parking spaces. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Johnson: I accept the motion and second to deny administrative time AD99-4. Is there discussion? Is the motion clear? That is to say that we would not allow the change that the applicant is requesting and they would have to remove the asphalt and replace it with another material. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7- 1 -0. Mr. Shackelford voted against the motion. Further Discussion Ruddell : In the requirements that you approved the parking overage, we were granted 18 places with 6 spaces being semi permeable. Now we have 8 semi permeable. Is it 6 or 8? Johnson: I think the staff needs to deal with that. Conklin: On page 3 . 10 of the packet: "Jones: He noted one of the items of concern was the parking issue. Little: She stated the applicant would need to provide further information about the parking issue. She inquired if (the) applicant was requesting 24 spaces. Jones: He confirmed (the) applicant was requesting 24 spaces. Little: She stated 18 parking spaces would be allowed by ordinance." So the answer to your question is 18 total parking spaces. Johnson: You need to address that with staff. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL MAY 49 1999 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on May 4, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas. The following items were considered: ITEM ACTION TAKEN Approval of the Minutes Approved Drake Field Deli/Gift Shop Approved Res. 59-99 Bid 99-43 : Purchase of six 4-wheel drive vehicles Approved Res 60-99 Bid 99-46: Walker Park pavilion Approved Res. 61 -99 Hwy 16 W. Widening Approved Res. 62-99 Assembly Road Storm Drainage Approved Res. 63-99 Sunbridge Drive Extension Approved Res. 64-99 Research and Technology Approved Res. 65-99 Chief Executive Officer Withdrawn Odor Control of Sewer Treatment Plant Tabled Water and Sewer Treatment Plant Approved Res. 66-99 VA 99-4: Regional National Cemetery Passed Ord. 4160 VA 99-5 : Regional National Cemetery Passed Ord. 4161 Cardinal Cab: Certificate of Public Necessity Approved Res. 68-99 Wastewater Treatment Plant Data Review Approved Res. 69-99 PRESENT Present: Mayor Hanna; Aldermen Reynolds, Austin, Davis, Trumbo, Daniel, Santos, Young and Russell; Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty; City Clerk Heather Woodruff; Staff; Audience and Press. Absent: City Attorney Jerry Rose. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL MAY 4, 1999 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on May 4, 1999 at 6:30 p.m in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Present: Mayor Hanna; Aldermen Reynolds, Austin, Davis, Trumbo, Daniel, Santos, Young and Russell; Assistant City Attorney LaGayle McCarty; City Clerk Heather Woodruff, Staff, Audience and Press. Absent: City Attorney Jerry Rose. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Mayor Hanna stated the City of Fayetteville has sent some equipment to Oklahoma City to help in the tornado cleanup. There would be a Town Meeting discussing the issue of school violence sponsored by the City of Fayetteville and the School District. It would be open to all parents and interested citizens, Thursday, May 20, 1999 from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. at the Walton Art Center. He noted the center could hold approximately 2,000 people. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES The approval of the minutes from the April 20, 1999 City Council meeting. DRAKE FIELD DELI/GIFT SHOP A resolution approving the modification to a lease with Air Host, Inc,. The modification provides for the cancellation of their lease to operate the Deli and Gift Shop in the Drake Field Terminal building. Air Host has requested the cancellation because their customer volume has decreased with the relocation of four of the five airlines to another airport. RESOLUTION 59-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK BID 99-43 A resolution accepting Ron Blackwell Ford as the lowest qualified bidder meeting specifications for the purchase of six 4-wheel drive utility vehicles, Bid 99-43 . These units will be utilized by the Fire Department and the Police Department. RESOLUTION 60-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK City Council May 4, 1999 BID 99-46 A resolution awarding Bid 99-46 for Walker Park pavilion to Heckathorn Construction in the amount of $64,618 plus a project contingency of $3,500 for a total of $68, 118. RESOLUTION 61-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK HIGHWAY 16 WEST WIDENING A resolution approving Bid 99-35, a construction contract, to Northwest Excavation, a division of Nabholz Construction, in the amount of $601 ,075.50 and a project contingency of $93 ,925 for widening of Highway 16 West for the relocation of water and sewer lines. RESOLUTION 62-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ASSEMBLY ROAD STORM DRAINAGE A resolution approving a contract for Assembly Road Storm Drainage improvements with Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc. in the amount of $58,575, plus a contingency of 20% ($ 11 ,715), totaling $70,290. RESOLUTION 63-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. SUNBRIDGE DRIVE EXTENSION A resolution approving a contract for Sunbridge Drive Extension with Red Deer Inc. in the amount of $268, 174 plus a contingency of 11 . 1% ($29,825.25) totaling $298,000. Approval of a budget adjustment adding funds to the project and a project contingency of $ 19,461 is also requested. RESOLUTION 64-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK A resolution approving a contract for Research and Technology Park for tree and shrub removal with erosion control with Tomlinson Asphalt Co., Inc. in the amount of $31 ,306.00 plus a contingency of 19.8% ($6, 194.00), totaling $37,500.00. RESOLUTION 65-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. Alderman Davis moved to approve the consent agenda. Alderman Daniel seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously. Page 3 City Council May 4, 1999 OLD BUSINESS ODOR CONTROL OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution establishing odor abatement and control as a priority in the design and operation of the City' s sewage facilities. Alderman Trumbo thought the resolution was at the front of their going forward with the proposed secondary wastewater treatment plant. Alderman Daniel thought this was very important. She noted the city could be very demanding in the operation and construction of the facility in regards to the odor control. Mr. Millard Goff, an area resident near the proposed plant, commended them on trying to be a good neighbor. He has seen the resolution and thought it was a good start. He questioned the source of funding and suggested setting money aside for the abatement of odor. In response to questions, Mr. Venable stated odor abatement would be included in with the design of the project itself. Mr. Goff asked if the city could set aside money to insure the plant would not smell. He stated a resolution without anything to back it up did not say a whole lot. Alderman Daniel thought it was premature to set money aside. She thought it would be included in the cost of the facility. She could not approve a fund at this point. Alderman Santos explained Mr. Goff was asking for a contingency allocation similar to a construction contract for cost overrun, with the exception this would be for odor abatement. Mr. Crosson replied they could not allocate money past their current budget year according to state law. Alderman Russell thought the resolution was a good start. When they contracted to design the plant and operate it there would be a clause in the contract which would hold people responsible for design and operation of the plant, and they would pay the city a penalty for the city to compensate people. In response to questions from Aldermen, Ms. McCarty stated the council would approve all contracts for the sewer plant. Alderman Russell stated he would not vote for a contract which did not include a clause where Page 4 City Council May 4, 1999 the city could hold them liable for failure to abide by the upmost technology that was in existence for odor abatement. Alderman Austin asked Ms. McCarty if they could require the contractor to put up the money in a bond or insurance, so they would have the money to fall back on to abate the odor problem. Ms. Carty stated they could look into it. Mr. Crosson added there would have to be a time frame attached to it. Mr. Venable stated it will be part of the contract. Alderman Santos explained the resolution was to state the city' s intent on how they were going to negotiate when they come to the contract. Mr. Clarence Starr, 54' Street, stated over a year ago they had voted down this thing. He asked how they got it back on the agenda. Mayor Hanna replied they had voted down an annexation. Mr. Russell agreed with Mr. Starr. The last time the citizens had been campaigning because they did not want a sewer plant. The whole city of Fayetteville had the right to vote in that election. The city should have promoted it better before the election. He thought part of the problem was the citizens did not have all the information. In response to a question from Mr. Starr, Alderman Young stated the bonds for the facility would be voted on by the people. Alderman Russell stated he had to go with the results of the election, that the citizens did not want a sewer plant. Ms. Donna Stan, an area resident, stated they had voted the issue down in an election. Now they were discussing bonds, she asked how they city had managed to go around the people who had voted this down and to spend all this money for the property. She asked why they were buying the land if they were not going to build a sewer plant there. Alderman Trumbo stated one of the options they were looking at was to build a wastewater treatment plant on the land. In his personal opinion it was money well spent for the option because of the current state statutes and the contiguous land with people willing to sell within the city limits. The city' s first option was to construct a plant there. If the people voted down the Page 5 City Council May 4, 1999 bonds then they would look at other options such as a golf course or sell the land. In his opinion it was money well spent because of the additional land which would provide added buffer and screening from the plant. He lived within a mile of the city' s existing plant. Ms. Starr stated they had lived there thirty years. When it comes time to vote on the bonds, they lived outside the city limits. They would not have the right to vote on the issuance of bonds because they were outside of the city limits. Alderman Trumbo added they were able to organize their opposition to the issuance of the bonds. In response to comments from Alderman Russell, Ms. Starr stated they did not vote against annexation. They would not have minded being annexed, but they knew from the beginning that the city intended to build a sewer plant. Alderman Russell thought a lot of his constituents would not be interested in the growth that would be allowed by the new sewer plant. Mr. Gary Adams, 46`h Street, stated if they did not do something about the odor it would drift through the main part of the city and the university. Mr. Bob Nickovicks, an area resident, stated the plant had gotten voted down. The land they were going to purchase was swamp land and was not what it was worth. He stated he would trade property with anyone else on the council or sell them his land. Mr. Bill Jowers thought the city needed to take time out to work out the details on the resolution. Mayor Hanna stated this resolution could be postponed until they got closer to what they were going to do. Alderman Austin moved to table the resolution until the details could be worked out. Alderman Santos seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously. WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT PLANT A resolution to exercise the city' s purchase options on three tracts of land on the west side of Fayetteville for the construction of a new sewage treatment facility. Land tracts to be considered are currently owned by James McClelland, H. M. and Norma Shipp, and the Broyles Farm. Alderman Trumbo stated they had looked at several options. The state has passed a law which required them to come within their city limits. He thought this was the best option the city had available at the moment with willing sellers and the current state statutes. The three hundred Page 6 City Council May 4, 1999 acres was more land than what they needed for a treatment plant, but they had planned a buffer in consideration of the surrounding people. Mayor Hanna explained this was part of an overall picture, the city was trying to get their permit approved. They had tried to cut down on the city's discharge permit, because the city was not moving forward with their plans for taking care of their wastewater problems. Whether or not they decided to build a plant on the west side, they still had to show the people who controlled their permits that they were making every effort to do something about their problem. They were being put in this situation by the state and federal laws. It was a tough decision. Alderman Daniel stated she had received calls from people who thought this was necessary and they needed to move on it. Alderman Santos stated he had requested the council to consider the odor abatement resolution first at Mr. Goffs suggestion so that it would ease the minds of people who lived in the area. He thought they needed to be up front with the fact that they were going to do everything they could to abate the odors. If they had to construct the plant they needed to do the best they could. Alderman Austin asked how the issue would be put to the public for a vote. Mayor Hanna explained it would be brought to the people as a bond issue for the construction of the waste water plant. Alderman Young stated he was in favor of purchasing the land to give the citizens of Fayetteville the option to let them decide what they wanted to do. If they voted down the bonds they would probably place a moratorium on A- 1 property. Alderman Russell encouraged citizens to not give up the fight. He personally voted against the annexation because he did not know that the city needed the plant. He did not have a problem submitting another vote to the people. The only thing that could make him support another sewer plant would be another vote by the people supporting the plant. Mr. Miller Goff, an area resident, stated there had been plenty of opportunities for them to take a different stance. He did not recall the city protesting Act 13-36. He asked if they had asked the attorney general for his opinion. He asked if they were in partnership with another town if the law would still apply to them. The city' s engineers thought another site was the best site. He thought the city had decided to proceed in this way because it would require less effort for the city to take on the neighbors rather than taking on the best site the engineers had recommended. Mayor Hanna stated the city had been trying to get the plant on the Illinois River. Those people Page 7 City Council May 4, 1999 came to the public hearings, 200 strong. It had been some of the worst meetings he had ever seen. The city had no support from people like him. They were sitting up there all by themselves. The hearing did not change their minds. A state law had changed their minds. He had gone to the Municipal League and called other mayors all over the state. He could not even get the support of their own representatives. Act 13-36 had required them to locate the sewer plant within the city limits. He did not like the idea of having the plant within city limits, but it was not his fault or idea. Alderman Russell stated he liked Act 13-36. He was not convinced it was a bad law. Mr. Jeff Erf, an area resident, asked the relationship between the engineering firm and one property owner, since they both shared the name McClelland. Charles Venable stated there was a relationship between the two. Mr. Jowers, an area resident, asked if there was a possibility to bring this decision to a vote of the people before they purchased the land. Mayor Hanna did not believe they could. Mr. Jowers stated there were other cities going through the same thing they were. He discussed the history of the development and the sewer meetings. He questioned why there had not been any more committee meetings. He asked what the intent of the committee had been. Alderman Trumbo stated that as chairman of the Water and Sewer Committee he had asked them to the meetings to get constructive criticism. They had aired all their views and he did not know what more could have been done. Mr. Jowers stated Alderman Young had questions which had never been answered. He stated the existing plant had been designed to service 69,000 people. They currently had 56,000 people. He questioned what had happened to the contract. Alderman Trumbo stated he felt that he had done a very thorough job of taking public input and gathering information. He felt due diligence was done in extreme measures. Mr. Jowers stated the purchase of the property was against the people's wishes. He thought that other people other than the City of Fayetteville that they were serving would join in a regional plant as soon as it was constructed. He thought the existing plant might be sufficient if a regional plant were to come along. He felt the land had been appraised too high and it would be difficult to sell. There were four other golf courses within five miles. He felt they needed to be better stewards of the taxpayers' money. He thought they needed another opinion. They had studies Page 8 City Council May 4, 1999 and no opinion. He asked the aldermen to vote by secret ballot, then reveal how they voted. Alderman Austin stated he had voted for the resolution to bring before the council on odor control which he thought they wanted. Mr. Jowers stated he had spoken with Mayor Hanna about a resolution on odor control. He had wanted to work on the resolution before it was in concrete. He had not been notified of the meeting. He asked for people to be up front with them. Alderman Austin asked what could have been added to the resolution that would have made it palatable to him. Mr. Jowers thought some money needed to be set aside and he did not think a million dollars was enough. Alderman Russell questioned if it would be more cost effective to put it to a vote or to go ahead and buy the property. Mayor Hanna stated they could not have a bond issue vote until they had let the contract. Alderman Russell replied they could expend the money on the six month option and then have a vote on the land acquisition. If it failed then the city had not spent their three million dollars. It would take longer, but he was willing to wait. Alderman Trumbo stated he was in favor of purchasing now. They could continue with their premitting process. In the worst case, they would own a nice property. Mayor Hanna thought time was important. Mr. Venable stated the permit was the most important. They had the possiblity of having their permit lowered. He thought they needed to purchase the property. Mayor Hanna explained if they did not have a specific piece of property the state would not conduct their study and they would not give them a permit. If they did not have the property then they would have to consider a moratorium on sewer taps or expanding the plant on the east side of the city. Alderman Young stated they were looking at the site short term. He was looking at the 300 acres as a potential sewer plant. He questioned what would happen 40 years from now. They might not build one now, but the people of Fayetteville may want to build one some day. Page 9