Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-16 - Agendas - Final FAYETTEVRLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS FINAL AGENDA FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL MAY 16, 2000 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council will be held on May 16, 2000 at 6: 30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. A. CONSENT AGENDA 1 , APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the May 2, 2000 City Council meeting. 2. MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT: A resolution approving a mutual agreement with Arkansas Rural Water Association and identifying the Mayor or his designee as the authorized representative. 3. SEWER REHABILITATION: A resolution approving Change Order Number 2 for the construction contract with Insituform Technologies, Inc. for citywide sewer rehabilitation construction, in the amount of $388, 158 . 50, and approval of a contingency of $39,000. This is a change order for a second term of a previous bid, approved and executed term contract. 4. TRACT #44 GAS EASEMENT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a 30-foot easement across property designated as Tract #44 containing approximately 2400 square feet for 16-inch high pressure gas lines for the Arkansas Western Gas Co. The property is the Fayetteville Fire Station on Highway 265 . 5. TRACT #3X: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a 30-foot easement across property designated as Tract #3X containing approximately 5700 square feet for 16 inch high pressure gas lines for the Arkansas Western Gas Co. The property is located at 897 N. Crossover Road. 6. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: A resolution approving a cost share agreement with Lindsey-Green Commercial Properties for drainage improvements between Millsap and Highway 71 . The cost share will not exceed $23 ,452. 50 (one-half of the estimated $46,905 .00 costs) without further approval. 113WESTMOUNTAIN 72701 501521-7700 FAX 501 575-8257 0 0 7, PHYSICAL FITNESS: A resolution adopting the revised Physical Fitness for Law Enforcement Officers Policy. 8. T-HANGAR: A resolution approving an amendment to Task Order No. 2 to the agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $7,935 .00. The amendment provides for the design and construction oversight for a second T-Hangar unit during the next construction phase of growth for general aviation at the Airport. 9. OZARK REGIONAL TRANSIT: A resolution approving a budget adjustment increasing the transfer to Ozark Regional Transit, an additional $20,000. 10. 61h STREET EXTENSION: A resolution approving a construction contract and project contingency funds for 6' Street extension road construction and 6' Street/S . School Avenue intersection improvement. 11 . BID 00-39: A resolution awarding Bid 00-39 to Roofing Systems, Inc. for replacing the roof at the Engineering Building (formerly TCA Cable), 125 W. Mountain at a cost of $38,605 . 00, and a 10% contingency of $3 ,860. 00. 12. BUD 00-40: A resolution awarding Bid 00-40 to Franklin and Son, Inc. for replacing the roof at Parks Complex, 1455 S. Happy Hollow Road at a cost of $267140. 00. 13. BID 00-43: A resolution awarding Bid 00-43 to Airworks, Division of MCC for HVAC at the Engineering Building located at 125 W. Mountain Street at a cost of $55,455 .00 with a 10% contingency of $5,545 .00. CITY COUNCIL May 16, 2000 LV AUSTIN DAVIS TRI JMB0 DANIFI SANTOR YOUNG MAYOR HANNA 0 RENNOT DS Al JqTlN TRUMBO DANIEL RANTUS MAYQR HANNA DAVILS TR I WRQ nANIFT SANTOS YOUNG May 9, 2000 AGENDA SESSION FOR CITY COUNCEL MEETING MAY 189 2000 EW ITEMS: N� OZARK REGIONAL TRANSIT: A resolution approving a budget adjustment Coo b increasing the transfer to Ozark Regional Transit an additional $20,000. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1 . MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT: Replace all pages in Tentative Agenda for item A.2. 2, Wh STREET EXTENSION: Additional information for item C. 1 . 3. BID 00-39: Additional information for item C.2. 4, BID 00-40: Additional information for item C. 3 . 5. BID 00-43: Additional information for item CA. FAYETTEVAILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS FINAL AGENDA FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL MAY 16, 2000 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council will be held on May 16, 2000 at 6: 30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. A. CONSENT AGENDA 1 . APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the May 2, 2000 City Council meeting. 2. VMUTUAL AID AGREEMENT: A resolution approving a mutual agreement with Arkansas Rural Water Association and identifying the Mayor or his designee (00 as the authorized representative. 3. VSEWER REHABILITATION: A resolution approving Change Order Number 2 (9 (-00 for the construction contract with Insituform Technologies, Inc. for citywide sewer rehabilitation construction, in the amount of $388, 158. 50, and approval of a contingency of $39,000. This is a change order for a second term of a previous bid, approved and executed term contract. 4. ✓TRACT #44 GAS EASEMENT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a 30-foot easement across property designated as Tract #44 containing approximately 2400 square feet for 16-inch high pressure gas lines for the Arkansas Western Gas Co. The property is the Fayetteville Fire Station on Highway 265 . 5. ✓ TRACT #3X: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a 30-foot easement across property designated as Tract #3X containing approximately 5700 square (o3_o6 feet for 16 inch high pressure gas lines for the Arkansas Western Gas Co. The property is located at 897 N. Crossover Road. 6. `IDRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: A resolution approving a cost share '/ agreement with Lindsey-Green Commercial Properties for drainage improvements (p 7 — 06 between Millsap and Highway 71 . The cost share will not exceed $23 ,452.50 (one-half of the estimated $46,905 .00 costs) without further approval. 113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501521-7700 FAX 501 575-8257 7. ✓ PHYSICAL FITNESS: A resolution adopting the revised Physical Fitness for Law Enforcement Officers Policy. 8. ✓ T-HANGAR: A resolution approving an amendment to Task Order No. 2 to the (V (Q-Oa agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $7,935 .00. The amendment provides for the design and construction oversight for a second T-Hangar unit during the next construction phase of growth for general aviation at the Airport. 9. ✓OZARK REGIONAL TRANSIT: A resolution approving a budget adjustment 7-Ov increasing the transfer to Ozark Regional Transit, an additional $20,000. 10. /6th STREET EXTENSION: A resolution approving a construction contract and project contingency funds for 6'h Street extension road construction and 6`h Street/S . School Avenue intersection improvement. 11 . 011) 00-39: A resolution awarding Bid 00-39 to Roofing Systems, Inc. for 649-0c) replacing the roof at the Engineering Building (formerly TCA Cable), 125 W. Mountain at a cost of $38,605 .00, and a 10% contingency of $3 , 860.00. 740 -0t) 12. VBID 00-40: A resolution awarding Bid 00-40 to Franklin and Son, Inc. for replacing the roof at Parks Complex, 1455 S . Happy Hollow Road at a cost of $26, 140.00. 7/`00 13, yf3ID 00-43: A resolution awarding Bid 00-43 to Airworks, Division of MCC for HVAC at the Engineering Building located at 125 W. Mountain Street at a cost of $55,455 .00 with a 10% contingency of $5,545 .00. 30 -7.ic.t.G CHECKLIST FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: E /(e /2000 AGENDA DUE: Draft Tentative Agenda Session Final DATE: DISTRIBUTION. T A F Staff.- T A F Bob Reynolds Mayor Hanna Ron Austin v John Maguire Z Cyrus Young I/ Nancy Hendricks Kyle Russell Charles Venable Trent Trumbo Don Bunn Bob Davis Marilyn Cramer Kevin Santos Steve Davis Heather Daniel / Yolanda Fields Jerry Rose Northwest AR Times Tim Conklin Morning News Alett Little AR Democrat-Gazette ❑ Draft Agenda ❑ Check for Additional Items 44 ❑ Mail Notification Letters to Applicants / Property Owners ❑ Tentative Agenda / ❑ Include all contracts 112927eo.✓t Foe C. /— I/ �i,e ANDA 50;q .i. e' Include budget adjustments ❑ All signatures on Staff Review Form A14&2v 5 it ��ri✓L C /—y Page numbers correct B� 24 copies of agenda packet distributed to Distribution 34 copies of agenda cover distributed to general staff 10 copies of agenda cover placed in City Clerk's office agenda cubbybox ❑ Put minutes cover (items approved) on front of agenda Continued: CHECKLIST FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 5' / A02000 ❑ Agenda Session ❑ Attendance ❑ Additional Information ❑ New Information ❑ Requested Information ❑ Distribute Agenda Session packet to anyone absent ❑ Make sure Lana / Marilyn have their copies ❑ Final Agenda ❑ Additional Information ❑ Minutes ❑ All signatures on Staff Review Form and executed contracts (other side) ❑ Include all contracts ❑ Include budget adjustments ❑ 24 copies of agenda packet distributed to Distribution ❑ 34 copies of agenda cover distributed to general staff ❑ 15 copies of agenda cover placed in City Council entry box ❑ Advertisement ❑ Display ad faxed to NWAT, Friday, 11 :00 a.m. ❑ Fax proof checked / returned to NWAT by Friday afternoon ❑ Cut out Final Agenda from Monday newspaper Cl Internet disk: approved minutes, agenda, public meetings to Kevin Springer ❑ City Council ❑ Roll tally ❑ Assemble and bring full agenda ❑ Resolutions / Ordinances: ❑ Resolutions / Ordinances assembled and signed ❑ Update Resolutions / Ordinances Book ❑ Attach correspondence / conversations to Resolutions / Ordinances ❑ Resolutions / Ordinances indexed and microfilmed ❑ Publish ordinances ❑ File ordinances at Washington County Courthouse ❑ Distribute originals and copies with cover letters ❑ Send ordinances for codification ❑ Thank you letters to speakers ❑ Send notification letters to applicants ❑ Index City Council minutes ❑ Distribute City Council minutes ❑ Planning ❑ Marilyn Cramer ❑ Arthur Andersen 0 Public Library MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL MAY 2, 2000 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on May 2, 2000 at 6: 30 p. m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Robert Reynolds, Ron Austin, Bob Davis, Trent Trumbo, Heather Daniel, Kevin Santos, Cyrus Young, and Kyle Russell; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk Heather Woodruff, Staff, Press; Audience. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting. SOCCER COORDINATOR: A resolution approving a budget adjustment to hire a Soccer Coordinator to administer the youth and adult soccer program for the City Parks and Recreation Division. MOVED TO LAST ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS. CLEVELAND STREET: A resolution approving an engineering contract amendment in the amount of $22,446. 00 with Crafton-Tull and Associates for changes to the Cleveland Street project. RESOLUTION 57-00 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. HWY 45 WATERLINE: A resolution approving an engineering design contract in the amount of $36,740.00 with McClelland Consulting Engineering for a new 12 inch water line adjacent to and on the new Highway 45 East White River Bridge to be constructed in 2000/2001 by the AHTD and approval of a budget adjustment. RESOLUTION 58-00 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CI7T CLERK. Alderman Heather Daniel stated a citizen had requested that Item 2, the Soccer Coordinator, be removed from the Consent Agenda. This certainly did not reflect her opinion but, she would like to hear from the other aldermen. She understood they could take a vote on whether the Council wanted to hear the item. City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 2 Alderman Trent Trumbo addressed Alderman Daniel saying that he would like to have a vote on it. He had mediated a meeting with the Parks Advisory Board on this issue at which time the different parties presented their sides. The Parks Board then made a decision. A definitive vote was taken to have the Parks Department take over the Soccer Association in Fayetteville. This item was the follow up to the Parks Board decision. He personally did not like to micro manage the boards appointed by the Council. They do a good job and have good, competent people. He believed the Council would be rehashing something that had already had a public hearing. Alderman Bob Davis told Alderman Trumbo that he tended to agree with him. He received a letter from an individual today. He questioned if the volunteers of the FSA, Fayetteville Soccer Association, were going to still be used with the new affiliation. It was his understanding from a conversation with Connie Edmonston and Bill Ackerman, that yes, that was the situation. They would be used for advice and to help them out. Alderman Trent Trumbo answered that unequivocally that was the case. These volunteers have done a great job. We have many volunteer groups that do a great job in the City of Fayetteville. That is why this is such a great place to live. The Parks Board had made the decision to add a full time person to the Parks Department budget, to schedule, manage and run the program. The soccer program has grown in leaps and bounds because of the good efforts and volunteer work of these people. Alderman Bob Davis said another concern of this individual was the cost of the new soccer league. Connie Edmonston had stated at the last Agenda Session it was going to be about $5 .00 cheaper than what they were currently paying. Alderman Ron Austin said, in other words, Item No. 2 has been pulled and the Council has to vote on the Consent Agenda. Alderman Trent Trumbo asked whether or not to pull Item No. 2 off the Consent Agenda. Alderman Cyrus Young said that was not the way it was set up. It was set up because of the Consent Agenda and one alderman could ask for an item to be pulled. Alderman Ron Austin said he believed that this was right. Alderman Ron Austin moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item No. 2 Soccer Coordinator being pulled. Alderman Kyle Russell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0-1. Alderman Cyrus Young abstained. RESOL UTION 58-00 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 3 Mayor Hanna stated that Item No. 2 would be moved to New Business. It will be Item No. 3 under New Business. OLD BUSINESS RZ 00-13.00 An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 00- 13 . 00 submitted by Charles Venable on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 1020 Harold Street. The property is zoned R- 1 , Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0. 77 acres. The request is to rezone to R- O, Residential Office. The ordinance was left on the first reading at the April 18, 2000 meeting. Mr. Rose read the ordinance. Alderman Ron Austin made a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Bob Davis seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rose read the ordinance. Mayor Hanna asked for public comment on the ordinance before he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 4246 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PERMIT REPORT A report from the City Attorney regarding the ordinance requirements for Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control permits and Grading permits for CMN Business Park. Mr. Rose stated that he had passed out the report and study that he had done regarding this during the Agenda Session and the Council should have a copy of it. He said he did not have anything to add to it. The Council was welcome to ask questions and he would try to help all he could in regards to understanding the permits. He noted that Mr. Jim Beavers, City Engineer, was in the audience, and if the need arose, he would be called upon to answer some of the questions. Mr. Rose said he thought he was a little ill equipped to answer the engineering side of this issue. Alderman Trent Trumbo said from the report that Mr. Rose handed out it looked like the City's Engineering Department was doing a good job in following the city' s ordinance permit process with all the development. City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Rose said he did not detect any reluctance on their part at all. In fact, there was just the opposite, a genuine desire and commitment to follow to the letter all the ordinances as they understood them. Alderman Trent Trumbo said he appreciated all the hard work, diligence, and professionalism of the City' s Engineering and Planning Departments to keep up with all of the city's development. Alderman Cyrus Young said he had a question regarding Mr. Rose' s report. Alderman Young noted that partial phase permits were mentioned in the report. On the one hand, the Administration is basically making up parts of the ordinances, and then Mr. Rose is saying that because it was not specifically prohibited, that it makes it okay. Later in the report it was mentioned that the Administration also said they were committed to following the letter of the City Ordinances. He was wondering which was correct. Mr. Rose said he did not find any contradiction at all. Certainly, his point was never to argue with an alderman. He tries very hard not to do that. He was certainly trying not to argue with Alderman Young now. He told him there was no place in which such a permit was not allowed and there was no specific authorization for that permit. He had searched for whether or not in giving this partial permit any specific part of the ordinance was in any way waived or changed. In other words, was anything substantially different by doing it this way? The answer he received from the Engineering Department was, no, that all of the requirements were still followed and still required. If a setback was required, if anything specific was required, it was required under the partial as well as under the permanent permit. Again, could you interpret this ordinance so as not to allow a partial permit? The answer was, yes you can. Interpretation was going to be a word that the Council was going to hear a lot of this night. This is another good example of that. Alderman Cyrus Young said that Mr. Rose mentioned variances. He had read Section 156.04 and it had dealt with the engineering aspects of it. Of course, again in interpretation, you could say that they could dream up partial phase permits, but he does not ever remember in their discussions when all this came up ever mentioning partial or phase permits. In fact, if the Council had discussed it, and went along with it, he was sure that they would have put something in there actual conditions to which permits could be approved. But he has never seen in those ordinances where partial or phase permits were mentioned. He said he might have missed it, but he did not think so. Mr. Rose said, again that was in the report. There was no mention of a partial or phase permit. There was none mentioned there also. Alderman Cyrus Young said his question was what could the people of Fayetteville do? How can they put something maybe in the front of the UDO, or something somewhere that could City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 5 prevent or regulate these interpretations to where it goes by the letter of the ordinances as they say they are doing without making parts of the ordinances up. Mr. Rose answered Alderman Young that he may have presupposed that everybody agreed with his interpretation of how this should be read, obeyed, and as it is written. That is not always so. He did not think he could ever eliminate an interpretation of a particular ordinance or particular statute. One thing that can be done is to have an appellate process so that you may appeal decisions that you think are a wrong or ill-advised interpretation. In this case, the City Engineer is the one who is obligated under the city ordinances to make these kinds of interpretations and calls. If you do not like the way the City Engineer is interpreting a particular ordinance, you may appeal his administrative decision to the Planning Commission. Occasionally, that Planning Commission decision, in the case of the Tree Ordinance tonight, will end up before the Council for their interpretation. Remember also, that these are your ordinances. You as City Council members, you as aldermen, are the ones that fashion them. If you see or detect an ambiguity in them or something that is happening that you do not believe is correct or what you or others in tend to be as written, you certainly have the power to amend that ordinance and to change that ordinance to clear up any ambiguity and clear up any measure of interpretation which you find to be ill advised. Alderman Cyrus Young questioned what actions that the citizens of Fayetteville could undertake if they saw any ambiguity or a weak places in the ordinance. Mr. Rose said they could talk to their alderman about an amendment. Alderman Cyrus Young questioned if the Administration follows the ordinance as written. Alderman Trent Trumbo said to Alderman Young that this is the confusion that they get. Mr. Rose said the Administration really believe they are following the ordinance as it was written. And Mr. Rose knows from Alderman Young' s conversation here tonight that he does not believe that. Alderman Cyrus Young stated that he knew what they discussed when they were in the committee meetings and when they were passing this. He remembered listening to the citizens and the citizens wanted protection. They wanted permits before anything happened. Mr. Rose said to assume that he accepted everything that Alderman Young had just said as completely factual and true. And Alderman Young was asking him what may he do to insure that what you believe is a wrong interpretation. How may that be correct? Mr. Rose said he saw a couple of things that Alderman Young could do. One, you as an alderman, may appeal to the Planning Commission the decision of Mr. Jim Beavers, the City Engineer, and he could have the City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 6 Planning Commission make that call for him. Two, you may seek to by an amendment to the present ordinance. You may seek to clear up any ambiguity and opportunity that Mr. Beavers as City Engineer would have to interpret it differently from the way that you want it interpreted. Those are the only two alternatives that he saw, but there may be others. Alderman Cyrus Young said that he would be visiting with Mr. Rose about revising both of these ordinances, specifically the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Rose answered, certainly. Alderman Bob Davis asked Alderman Young if he knew of some specific situations that he was concerned about. Alderman Davis questioned that perhaps Alderman Young was fearful that maybe his engineering firm is being treated differently than other engineering firms? Alderman Cyrus Young answered, no, it was not the engineering firms. It was the citizens. Mariam Bassett saw him at Springfest. She is living downhill from a subdivision up there. They fought that thing for about three times and finally it was approved. One of the reasons it was approved was because of the storm water management was giving her assurance that, "boy, don't worry ! " But he guaranteed that she was not happy. She is living downhill from the drainage. Alderman Ron Austin said he had a question for Heather, the Clerk. He knew that this discussion was going to be in their minutes. Would Jerry' s report be a part of their minutes and public record? City Clerk Heather Woodruff said she would attach it as an exhibit. (See exhibit A attached.) Alderman Ron Austin asked if she would please do that. Alderman Cyrus Young said that was the main reason for him requesting this. Even if they were not attached, if somebody wanted to read the report, it would be available. Alderman Ron Austin thanked Alderman Young. NO ACTION REQUIRED. Mayor Hanna asked if there were any other comments on Alderman Young's question. If not, they would move on to New Business NEW BUSINESS VA 00-2.00 City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 7 An ordinance for VA 00-2.00 submitted by the City of Fayetteville on behalf of property owners Albert and Marty Pennington for property located at 3 Wallin Mountain Road, West Fork, Arkansas. The request is to vacate a 30 foot utility easement. Mr. Rose read the ordinance. Alderman Trent Trumbo made a motion to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Heather Daniel seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rose read the ordinance. Alderman Bob Davis made a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third reading. Alderman Kevin Santos seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Hanna asked if there were any more comments regarding this ordinance? For the benefit of the audience, it was stated that this was an easement for a light that is used as a warning for aircraft going into Drake Field. They no longer use that easement. The light that is up there is battery operated and the gentleman asked to vacate the utility easement to clear the title on his property. If he passed it on to his heirs there would not be an easement listed. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 4247 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. STEELE CROSSING An appeal of a Planning Commission decision submitted by Alderman Kyle Russell regarding LSD 00-5 .00 (Steele Crossing Shopping Center). Mayor Hanna stated that Mr. Rose would explain what they were doing. Mr. Rose explained that two weeks ago the Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission' s decision to deny large scale development approval. The appeal was brought about by the developers. By action of this Council it was referred back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has now passed and approved the large scale development by 6-3 vote. Alderman Russell, as a member of the City Council, has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a large scale development. He thought it was important to everyone to look at what grounds the appeal was taken upon. It was a reasonably narrow issue. Alderman Russell bases his appeal on the assertion that the Planning Commission decision violates Chapter 167, the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. Alderman City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 8 Russell is, as required, reasonably specific as to what provision is alleged to be violated. He alleges that the plan approved fails to provide for what Alderman Russell believed to be a required 15% minimum canopy under the tree ordinance. They could agree upon some things. The city ordinances must be followed. They can not pick and choose only parts of those ordinances that they agree with or like. They have to go with the entire ordinance. They can not create variances or exceptions that do not exist. The ordinances can not be ignored. You must care about what they say. Everyone was believed to be in agreement upon that point. Unfortunately, that agreement does not always cast light upon how an ordinance is to be interpreted. Interpreted, again, is the key word. Sometimes it is the City Attorney who must interpret ordinances. Sometimes, as now, the ordinance itself specifically calls for a particular individual such as the Landscape Administrator, to administer, interpret, and enforce the tree ordinance. An appeal, incidently, of that decision is to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then is the ultimate interpreter of what goes on. In some instances, it ends up in the Council' s lap. In that case, the Council becomes the arbitrator of what the interpretation is of a particular provision or of a particular ordinance. The interpretation that the Council was called upon to make, required some background information. He wanted the Council to know that there have been interpretations of this particular issue in the past that he had been a party to. The issue of the 15% canopy requirement, or whatever canopy requirement, if you will notice in your UDO, it may be 15% or 20%, but whatever that canopy requirement is and whether or not there are any circumstances under which a lesser percentage may be accepted, has been the subject of discussions with his office since even before this ordinance was adopted in 1993 . He had discussed this with the landscape administrators, city staff, planning staff before there even was a landscape administrator, interested citizens and tree advisory committee members. Up until now, the ordinance had been interpreted to allow less than 15%. The rationale for that interpretation had been that under 165 . 05 E, Replacement Canopy, like or similar trees, it states, "In the event a tree cannot be preserved as required, the tree replacement as determined by the Landscape Administrator maybe required in lieu of the tree designated for preservation. " Some people that have discussed this issue with him, have stopped right there and have said that is sufficient for the Planning Commission to become the arbitrator through its tree preservation plan of whether or not an event has occurred so as to preserve or not preserve a particular tree. The event under which a tree could not be preserved, at least as to rare trees, as is the case is here tonight, was argued to him to be found under 167.05 B-6, "Removal when the Landscape Administrator determines there is no reasonable way the property can be otherwise developed, improved or properly maintained and the tree saved. " That decision would become part of the Tree Preservation Plan adopted by the Planning Commission on large scale development improvement. He considered it an illegally defensible way to interpret this ordinance. This appeal asked the Council to interpret that ordinance in a way that would require the 15% canopy either without exception or with extremely fewer exceptions than currently exist. For instance, an individual tree that could not be preserved because of a disease would be considered an exception. If that is what you decided tonight, he would seek to defend that position. The facts, he did not believe, were not very much in dispute, if at all. The issue was mainly one of law and City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 9 of the interpretation, again, of the city ordinance. The issue before the Council was not whether or not to follow the tree ordinance. The Council must comply with and not ignore the tree ordinance. The issue was whether or not the tree ordinance in front of the Council allowed a canopy of less than 15%. The Council could choose to follow the interpretation of the past seven years or the interpretation that was on appeal. He could not make that decision for the Council but he suggested that the ordinance, within legal limits, could say what you wanted it to say. He would suggest that at the very least out of tonight' s discussion, it might lead the Council to perhaps amend this ordinance or make some changes that would eliminate this ambiguity. Alderman Trent Trumbo asked Mr. Rose if the Council voted to override the Planning Commission' s decision, than this governing body was essentially saying that the Planning Commissioners, who were appointed by the Council to enforce ordinances, that they as a governing body on a 6-3 vote, did not abide by the ordinance in their vote. He found this ironic because two attorneys on the Planning Commission voted in different ways concerning that issue. It was up to interpretation. Mr. Rose said if you could find two attorneys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . interrupted. Alderman Trent Trumbo commented that he found it interesting that two well respected attorneys on the City's Planning Commission would have two totally different interpretations of the existing ordinance. Alderman Kyle Russell stated that he wanted to say a few words. Jerry took about half of his statement, but he thought that what he said was accurate. This was not an issue of interpretation. He thought the people who had interpreted the law one way for seven years were in good faith. He believed that he was also in good faith by bringing this forward. He wanted to apologize for any confusion created by his original letter of appeal and the mis-citations, not taking into account the UDO. He hoped that all of the Council received his corrections on that. Also, he wanted to say that he did not have anything personal against this developer. He was not trying to block the department store. He was not trying to keep this land from being developed at all. As the developer and the city' s landscape administrator had both pointed out, this ordinance had been interpreted and enforced a certain way almost since its passage in 1992. Unfortunately for the people, in his opinion, this interpretation was inconsistent with the language of the law and its intent. Unfortunately, for this particular developer, now is the first time this interpretation had to be brought to his attention. He thanked Kim Hesse, the City Landscape Administrator, for bringing this issue to all of their attention. He assured everyone that if he had been on City Council six years ago and he knew that the ordinance was being interpreted this way, he would have done this six years ago. If he had known this was being interpreted this way for an earlier project, in his on the City Council, he would have done this at that time, also. He had been familiar with the language of the law, but not familiar with the way it had been interpreted. They had a dispute in good faith as to what this law meant. The way the city's procedures were set City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 10 up, a staff member got the first chance to interpret the law and then a board or commission, and in this case the Planning Commission, and then the City Council, and then if a subsequent appeal occurred, a judge, and then that would be the one that really counted, he guessed, because he was the one they all would have to abide by. His appeal was based on the failure of the current plan, and in his opinion, the way the ordinance read and was intended to be interpreted back in 1992. Under those considerations, the plan failed to comply with the 15% minimum canopy requirement. As Jerry said, the general rule was that if a C-2 property was being developed and at least 15% of the property was covered in existing tree canopy, then you must preserve enough existing trees to keep, at least, 15% of the property covered in pre-existing canopy. The only way to get around the minimum requirement, was as Jerry quoted, in the event that a tree could not be preserved as required to reach the 15% thresh hold. Then and only then, may the Landscape Administrator use her discretion and authorize replacements to reach the minimum amount. This part of the ordinance did not include the word reasonable, as in "the property could reasonably be otherwise developed, improved, to be properly maintained and the tree saved. " Under this interpretation, it was his opinion that the reason this section was put in this way to get around the minimum canopy requirement in the ordinance, was not so there could never be exceptions to it, but as Jerry said, in his second option there, so that the City Council, the Landscape Administrator, the Planning Commission, would only have the authority to grant replacements in extreme circumstances. Examples such as, if you had a 50 acre lot with seven and one half acres covered in trees, and that was the flat part, and the rest of your lot was on a big mountain or slope and there were no trees on that slope. Then they would be required to let you cut down some of that 15% in order for you to be able to develop anything on that property within the current zoning. That was why he thinks this provision was put in. He did not think that they were in a situation with this particular plan where the discretion was even triggered to authorize replacements because these trees that they were talking about could be preserved as required up until the 15% minimum at least. It may require a smaller store, or moving the store, or a two story store, or it may require them to get a variance on their parking. He believed that, as Jerry alluded to his interpretation of this ordinance, this was not the kind of situation where the Landscape Administrator or anyone else had the discretion to waive that 15% requirement. There were situations where he thought that would occur, but he believed they were extreme situations and not this situation. As Jerry said, there was more than one way to interpret the ordinance. They could all agree to disagree if the Council felt they could not be preserved as required language applied to this situation. The Council could simply vote the other way on the interpretation question. He would like to see a judge interpret this law at some point so they would know. Also, so people like himself, who believed that it was intended to be interpreted this way would know whether they needed to change it or not. Until then he did not think they needed to change it. He thought the law as written was intended this way. He was taught in law school that when there was an ambiguity, you went to the legislative intent. He based his interpretation of this ordinance on two other provisions. One was the purpose section of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance that lists, he believed, fifteen purposes. They were tree friendly purposes. One of them was Purpose I under 167. 01 which was to preserve desirable City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 11 trees. The other, and he thought an ordinance should be read to maximize its purpose, interpreted to maximize its purpose wherever possible. The other provision he based it on was the 150. 07 which was the conflicts provision. The Rare and Landmark Tree Ordinance allowed for more discretion and could be said to have applied to this situation as well. This was not really a conflict, but an overlap since they were talking about rare and landmark trees that were also in the minimum canopy requirement. The city ordinance read that where a conflict arises between one section of the UDO and another section of the UDO the most stringent section shall apply. Given those two sections, that was what he based his interpretation of the ordinance upon. The Council was free to disagree. As Jerry stated, there was more than one way to interpret this and that was his interpretation and he believed Jerry was accurate in stating the issue and stating that this was a question of interpretation. He just did not believe this particular situation encompassed the "cannot be preserved as required" language. Alderman Ron Austin said he had a couple of questions for Alderman Russell. In the minutes of their last meeting on page two when Mr. Rose read the motion to remove the item from the Agenda and refer it to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, it stated , "and return to City Staff and the Planning Division with a plan that would meet the large scale development approval. " Alderman Santos moved that the Council include some experts to guide them and Alderman Russell seconded that motion. And then when the motion, he thought, was withdrawn showed a little approval of what they were doing. Then on page six when the motion was read Alderman Trumbo moved approval and he himself seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. He was just wondering in good faith what was Alderman Russell' s intent when he voted to send it back for reconsideration for a plan that would be acceptable? Alderman Kyle Russell said, sure, he would be glad to answer that question. There was language in that motion, as he recalled Mr. Young double checked to make sure that there was language in that motion saying the Council was sending it back to the Planning Commission in an effort for them to compromise, use good faith and come up with a plan that was acceptable and complied with all city ordinances. Alderman Ron Austin said that was not how that read. Alderman Kyle Russell said he thought there was language in the motion that said comply with all city ordinances. Alderman Cyrus Young said that was why he ordered a clarification of that motion. Alderman Ron Austin questioned if Alderman Russell approved those minutes. Alderman Kyle Russell replied that the motion itself was read by Jerry and that was what the Council voted on. The minutes were not what they voted on except for right now. City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 12 Alderman Ron Austin said they become the. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .interruption. Alderman Kyle Russell said the motion was what was binding upon the Council and that motion included language that said "comply with all city ordinances" . As Jerry said, there was more than one way to interpret this ordinance. If you believed this plan complied with the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance, Mr. Rose had said that was a legally defensible position in court. He had also said that his position was a legally defensible position in court. It is a reasonable good faith dispute as to whether this particular plan complies. He believed that this was not a situation which triggered the Landscape Administrator' s discretion to authorize replacements under the law as it is written. If the Council did not believe that way, They did not have to agree with him. What he was saying when he voted to send that back to the Planning Commission, was that he was going to approve a plan when it had 15% and that was in compliance with the city ordinances. There were a whole other plethora of ordinances involved in large scale development. Some of them required or authorize Planning Commission discretion in great negotiation and compromise. This one, he did not think was one until the Council got to that situation where a tree cannot be preserved as required. He was saying that he did not think they were in that situation. Alderman Trent Trumbo said he thought both sides were pretty adamant in their beliefs so, obviously, this would end up in a court for a judge to decide just as the Council did with the Town Center where the citizen's right was filed in the court. They had been through that and they lost on every issue except one remaining issue and he believed that this is where this issue is going to go. They had the Planning Commission 6-3 on different interpretations. The Council was probably going to have a 4-4 vote that night on different interpretations. He believed they should move forward and have public debate and vote on it. Alderman Kyle Russell said it may or may not go to a judge. If it didn't, he would abide by whatever interpretation was adopted that night. He would move to change the ordinance through the Ordinance Review Committee, if he believed that was what needed to be done. Obviously if it went to a judge, then they would all have to abide by the judge' s ruling until the ordinance was changed. Alderman Trent Trumbo answered in the affirmative. Alderman Kevin Santos said that one thing he would like to clarify was they kept talking about the 15% canopy preservation when they are talking about these trees, or almost 100% of them, are classified as landmark or rare trees which was the more strict, the more strident, stringent, whichever was the right word, a section of the ordinance, so actually the ordinance should have required that 100% of those trees should be saved. City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 13 Alderman Kyle Russell stated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .loud interruption from the audience. It was his position that the ordinance authorized Miss Hesse to require preservation of all those trees, but it mandates that the Council, at least, require preservation of the minimum. Alderman Ron Austin said that if you got into 100% issues, you would have some real problems because if they took, who was going to decide what was a bush or what was a tree. That was really a difficult thing. He said he was serious and if they got into absolutes like that, he believed they had a good plan here. He believed the Council needed to vote it and let it go or not. Alderman Cyrus Young said in response to that, as far as deciding which trees or whatever, the developer themselves specified that whole area for preservation on the original preliminary plat. If you went by the preliminary plat, all of them should be preserved. That was what he understood Kim Hesse to be saying. She said she could be reasonable. We don't have to preserve all of them so she goes to the ordinance and says, "well there is provision that requires 15%" . If 15% had been preserved, she would have gone along with it. Alderman Bob Davis said to Alderman Young that Miss Hesse did go along with it and in the Planning Commission she changed her opinion somewhere along the line and agreed to the compromise that was worked out, he guessed between the developers, Mr. Rankin and between her. In this ordinance 167. 0136 evidently where it talked about the Landscape Administrator had that ability to interpret this as she so desired. According to what he saw when he watched it that night on TV and also from what he read in the paper, Mr. Odom asked her twice if she was in agreement with what was being done and she said yes both times, that she had no problem with the 10.25 or the 10. 5 preservation of what was there. So, in his book Miss Hesse informed the Planning Commission she thought the compromise she had worked out was legit. Alderman Kevin Santos said he had the Planning Commission minutes in front of him, and where Commissioner Estes asked if this applicant' s proposal this evening satisfied this recommendation? And Hesse said, "awfully close. I mean, they have, what can I say, we all saw that this afternoon or morning is that the representation of that full canopy, they are preserving a real prime chunk of that" . He said he believed Kim was there at the meeting tonight and could speak for herself as to her interpretation. Interruption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alderman Kyle Russell said he would like that. Alderman Bob Davis said Mr. Odom also asked her twice towards the end before they took their vote, if it was in compliance, and both times she said yes. Alderman Cyrus Young said that was part of the appeal. Were they doing it correctly by the ordinance? City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 14 Alderman Bob Davis said he was going by what the City Staff at that point and time said before the vote. . . . . . . . . . . . . .interrupted by Alderman Young, that was your interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . .They were depending upon her comments to decide how they were going to vote. Alderman Cyrus Young said the Planning Commission was an independent body who was suppose to make a judgment too, just like the Council was going to have to make an independent judgment. Alderman Bob Davis said that this was true. Alderman Kyle Russell said he would like Miss Hesse to speak for herself if she was there. And he remembered watching the Planning Commission meeting on TV, as well, because he remembered her saying, he could not find it in the minutes, he had not read the minutes, but he remembered her saying that she was approving the plan even though it still was okay with her but it was not in compliance, or something like that. He would like Kim to explain that if she could. Mayor Hanna said he thought before they started putting people on the stand, he believed the Council needed to decide what they were voting upon here. One was, the Council was going to be voting on Alderman Russell' s motion to over turn the Planning Commission' s decision regarding large scale development. . . . . . interrupted by Alderman Russell saying he had not made a motion yet. . . . . . and he thought that was what the discussion needed to be confined to. Alderman Kyle Russell said the discussion was that his appeal was based on an interpretation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance as applied to this plan. Several Council members had stated that they were basing their opinions, at least in part, on Miss Hesse' s approval of the plan. So he wanted Miss Hesse to explain her approval of the plan and what seemed to him to be a contradiction in terms, at least when he saw it the first time, how she could say this plan was okay, yet that it was still not in compliance with the ordinance. Alderman Trent Trumbo said also, Kyle, you know he gives a lot of weight to six commissioners on the Planning Commission who voted the way they voted. Alderman Kyle Russell said that was fine for Alderman Trumbo to give that weight to it. Alderman Trent Trumbo answered sure. Alderman Kyle Russell said he was saying that under his interpretation of the ordinance, he did not believe that Kim or the Planning Commission or anyone else, had the authorize replacements to reach the minimum canopy until the Council got to a more extreme situation than what they were in now. City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 15 Alderman Trent Trumbo answered right. Alderman Kyle Russell said if you did not agree with that, if you agreed with the six planning commissioners, than possibly Miss Hesse' s approval of the plan, although he would still have liked for her to explain that, you did not have to vote the way he voted. Alderman Trent Trumbo answered, "sure. " Alderman Bob Davis answered, "right. " Mayor Hanna said he thought it was time for the Council to open the discussion up to the public. First, he asked the audience not to hold signs up. These might block other people's view which was not really appropriate in a Council room. Number two, there were two sides represented here, as Mr. Russell had alluded to and both of them had legitimate feelings about it. He asked both sides to respect one another. He asked for there not to be any outbursts in the Council room. This was really not appropriate. He said he believed it showed disrespect for the other group that did not happen to agree with you. They had a lot of discussion on this, and as he had said, unless he misunderstood it, and he thought the City Attorney had agreed that the motion that they were discussing was to over turn the Planning Commission' s decision on large scale development. Alderman Kyle Russell said he would say that was the issue the Council was discussing. He had not officially made a motion. Mayor Hanna said that was what the Council was going to vote on. If he wanted to, he was the one who called it up here. If he did not want them to vote, then the Planning Commission' s decision would stand. So he was going to open it up to the public. He asked to kind of hold the comments down. A three minute limit on people speaking was asked for. He wanted everybody to be heard that wanted to be heard, but they should avoid readdressing the same issues. The podium was opened to the first speaker. PUBLIC COMMENT Bob Kittinger: Good evening. I live at 3829 Gardenia Drive in Fayetteville which is in Ward 4. The matter that we are now discussing has unfortunately been divisively framed as an either or issue between business developers and environmentalists. Both sides would leave you to believe that the opposing factions are basically without merit. The real issue that we have here tonight transcends this specific development. What we are really talking about is the quality of live that we want in Fayetteville. To me quality of life is like a leg with three stools. The first leg of that stool is the City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 16 quality court of services provided by the city government. The second leg of that stool is the quality of our physical environment. And the third leg of that stool is our economic environment. I have lived in North America. I have lived in Europe and I have lived in Asia. I have seen some pretty bad areas. So, I have seen the effects of indiscriminate industrialization and I vehemently oppose that kind of mindless trashing of our environment but however, in this case, we have two intransigent sides, some that even wish to ban cutting of all rare and marked trees. Now if you are going to ban all cutting, there won't be any homes that will be able to be built. There won't be any businesses that we are going to be able to bring in here. And while I travel the Fulbright Expressway virtually every day, I have never witnessed anybody using that area that we are talking about in terms of a development. However, I have noticed lots of people enjoying the Farmer's Market on the Square. I have noticed our city parks, and even though that environment is not the original growth, as been planned, it is still being utilized far more than this original canopy that we are talking about. And this proposed big box store also plans to plant more than twice as many new trees as there is being eliminated. Eventually as we look at that place it might even start to look more like one of those artificial parks that people actually go to and relax and utilize. The third leg of the stool is our economic environment. All of us want good schools, city services, libraries, senior citizen centers, parks, bike trails, hiking paths, public transportation. Somebody has gotta pay the bill for that. Now if we chase away all the industries we have and we refuse to let any new industries in because we don't want to cut down any trees, even though they want to replace them. The tax burden ends up on the home owners, it ends up on all the people that rent. Somebody has gotta pay the bills. What I challenge all the citizens of Fayetteville to start doing, is thinking outside the box and work together to support the issues that we have to address to realistically improve our quality of life. Tonight I would urge our City Council representatives to support the Planning Commission' s decision to approve this responsibly proposed development of a business park and more aggressively engage our citizens and potential developers to interact so we can avoid this kind of divisiveness in the future. Think globally, act locally. Thank you. Mary Alice Serafini : Good evening. I am President of the League of Women Voters of Washington County. I think you are all aware that the League of Women of Voters here has worked for years for an adequate tree preservation ordinance in Fayetteville. Following a formalized study of the issues that were involved and a review of ordinances in many cities, the League City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 17 arrived at a consensus to support the Fayetteville Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance for the City of Fayetteville. We ask you to please enforce the true spirit of the Fayetteville Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. A lack of enforcement of this ordinance would be a clear violation and would set up precedent for the future that we do not want to deal with. Thank you. Patricia Mikkelson: I come not with statistics, although I have read studies to support this. My address is 2414 Blackberry Lane. I want you to know that this issue has been so emotionally challenging for me. It has challenged me to the very core. I have never been involved in politics in my life because I have felt so hopeless about the process of getting involved because it seems like whenever we ask our government to do certain things often it seems, it appears that economics rules the decision. And I am not here really to try to persuade you to do anything, but to share my heart and I know that you are people. I know that you value living on this planet. You must value integrity and you must value love. I am sure most of you have children. And my heart yearns for more than anything is for connection. Can you believe that? Can I speak about this at a Council meeting? 1 want connection with everybody. And I believe that if we can truly sit down and discuss and dialogue and let down our arguments and quit debating, that we can find a common solution that is win, win, win for the trees, for the people who are considered environmentalists and extremists, like perhaps myself, for the developers, for the businesses, for the government. I know it can be done. I am not good at remembering things. I am terrible at keeping track of research, but I have read books. I have read books that it has been done. The communities have come together in diversity and solved their problems. I want to do research on this. I will be presenting this to you and I hope that we can sit down and dialogue, and whatever the decision is tonight, I am going to focus on that because I am tired of coming to meetings. I must confess. I am not good at coming to meetings. I loved the sing-a-long in front of the Council. That was great ! I'll do that. So thank you and I want to thank everyone from the bottom of my heart, everyone for coming. You are all wonderful, all of you. Thank you. Anita Schnee: My address is 2399 Abbott Lane in Fayetteville. I am coming to this issue a little bit late so I don't have command of the facts as much as I would like. But I just wanted to tell you that I was listening to some music this morning as I was getting ready for work. What I was listening to was by a Nigerian man who comes from a village that was drown in a hydro electric • a City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 18 project in Africa. I was very moved by the music. It was very, very beautiful. The story was about how his village was gone but he really hoped that the values that the village represented over centuries would still be, live on in his music. The lighter notes were something about well, the village is nowhere, but it is also everywhere. And I am thinking, thank goodness, you know that is nice, here the people of Africa have electrical power, have the power to raise their standard of living, and there is this incredible musician still around from that village to spread the good word about the traditional values of that place. And then I stopped and I thought, wait a second, this is not nowhere, this is Fayetteville. We have an opportunity here to preserve trees that have been around longer than any of us on the planet and what is the trade off that we would want to do? Would we want another shopping center? There is something very wrong with that. It is one thing to drown a village in the name of giving electrical power to third world countries and people who are suffering. And it is a real different question to sacrifice those trees for another shopping center. There is something really wrong with this. Again, I am not sure of my facts and figures, but from what I understand we are sitting here tonight arguing about whether we are going lose 85% of the trees or 90% of the trees. That is not the debate I want to take part in. I want to find out whether there is a pasture next to this property where we can make Kohl' s Department Store welcome in Fayetteville, but not at the expense of the trees. And not to give a variance of an ordinance that would preserve only 15% of these kinds of landmarks. So. I thank you for your attention. And I will not be late to the issue again I promise you. Joe Williams: I live a 585 North Rockcliff Road. I realize the importance and the difficulty that you all must have in making this decision. It would be difficult to find fault with either side as there is strong grounds for either side of this issue. And we would have to accept the decision that is made, however, I think it is coming down to, as been said, this is a very ambiguous law. Until it is corrected one way or the other, in the past seven years it has been interpreted in one direction. I have watched these meetings on TV many times, but this is the first time that I have attended and the first time I have certainly spoke, so please bear with me. It is my belief that you accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission' s revised plan. They have done an excellent job of trying to marry both sides of the issue. In trying to follow the letter of the law as it has been applied by them and yourselves in the past while being fair and reasonable to all parties. Having grown up in Northwest Arkansas and raised my children for the past eight years here, I love Northwest Arkansas. For City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 19 many years I transferred many times in the United States with a former company. Having living in Chicago for two years, I had the opportunity to shop Kohl stores in 1990 and 1991 . Kohl' s is an excellent company and very customer service oriented while offering great values. They would be a great addition to our city. On the business note for the past several years, I have been employed in Fayetteville and have developed a solid business relationship with Kohl. As a vendor of Kohl, I find them to be an honorable company and sincere in keeping great looking stores inside and outside. About 300+ employees, 6- 10 of these jobs are dedicated to our Kohl' s account. With the jobs that will be offered in the construction work for this center and the jobs offered by Kohl' s, the other large anchor, and the remaining retail stores proposed, the investment of the developers and the taxes that will be generated, I once again recommend that you accept the revised proposal of the Planning Commission to allow the center to be built. The Planning Commission has faced this decision head on and they dealt with the problems and resolved them to their satisfaction. I hope you show the same sincere effort to resolve this in a fair and reasonable manner by accepting the Planning Commission' s decision to allow the center. Thank you. John DuVal : I live at 1131 Eastwood. In the papers, I believe the Planning Commission was praised for compromising but I would like to remind the City Council and the Planning Commission that a compromise is not always good. It is not always a reasonable thing or a fair thing. We are usually glad when people compromise rather than going to war over some issue. If some fanatics had planted a bomb in this room and were threatening to set it off, that might be time to compromise, but I can't imagine any reason for wanting to compromise a good law, a fair law, a reasonable law which is on the books here in Fayetteville and which I believe was never meant to be compromised. Thank you. Andrea Fournet: Does everyone want to take a deep breath? I live at 1214 North Shady Lane, Ward 2. I don't know if you have talked about the petitions that you have, no? Alderman Kyle Russell answered, "feel free to. " Andrea Fournet: We had 600 petitions, 600 names and now there is 48 more here. And they represent, I went ahead and got Ward numbers because I wanted to make sure that everybody was represented. Some people were saying, "I never from anybody in my ward" . Well, there is probably, over the 600 City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 20 signatures, there is an equal amount from every ward of people signing. And basically the petition is just asking you to up hold up the current tree ordinance. And I wanted to, this is, a pictures speak a thousand words, so I want to get this on television. Basically my background, I'm now a yoga teacher, but my background is environmental science and urban planning and I was a real estate broker. I worked with developers. It is not about them saying, "get out of here, don't do it" . You know, they have had to come far because they started at zero. But if they had started at fifteen, they would not have had to come from zero or at the 15% or whatever the current tree ordinance says. It is a misunderstanding, I believe, and a mis- communication by the parties involved because the law has been for seven years fluctuated, nobody has held the line. We are setting a precedence. My question is that it is about a legacy. A legacy, because I was here, I moved here when you guys passed, not all of you on the Council, but when it was changed from agriculture to 300 acres to commercial, and there was an issue about that. The biggest change in the history of Fayetteville and with that change comes these problems. If we can stick to what we currently have, then those eventually, of course the developers are going to fight it tooth and nail. But the economics are here. They will stay. They will come. On a side note I made a call to corporate headquarters of Kohl' s and they kind of scratched their head, and you guys can verify this for me, we don't know about a store going into Fayetteville. So if you guys can verify that for me. Are you from Kohl' s? No. You' re not. I have the name. I have the number. I don't know! Nobody ever called me back. They said, "hmmmmm, we'll have to get back to you" . So, thank you. Steve Frankenberger: I live at 414 West Prospect here in Fayetteville. Ron, I think the other night at the Agenda Session you made the statement that your constituents were calling you to compromise this, to make it go away. I think everybody in this room would like to make this issue go away. But if I were to put together a plan to make sure that this kind of fire fight happened every time, this is the way I would do it. I would vary from the 15%. I would treat every time a plan came up, I would treat it differently. 15% equals 15%. It is simple math. I think the surest way to make sure that we have a fire fight down here every time someone starts a chain saw, it is to vary from it. Question? Why aren't we compromising and varying from 15% up, instead of from 15% down all the time? I don't see it! I think this is a sure fire way to generate controversy, animosity and hard feelings amongst the good people of Fayetteville. Compromise. It is a good thing. This is not the time. Let' s compromise up for the next City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 21 eight years to make up for, the next six years to make up for the last six years of compromising down. Mayor Hanna said he was going to stop the public comment if the noise level was not reduced. Steve Frankenberger: How many developers would want to operate under that kind of condition? The people of this town that are in the opposition from the developers, tree cutters, if you want to call them. We have held our nose and bit our tongues and set on our hands for six years when we should have been up here speaking. It is now time for the developers to sit on their hands, bit their tongues and hold their nose, and let' s go the other way with this. You may not like it. It may not be something that really feels good but it is fair. It' s fair. Let' s say no to this one. This is not the last lot in Fayetteville that is available for development. There are other place to go. There are no more trees like these. Thank you very much. Kim Russell: I live at 2861 Strawberry Drive. And I just want to say that a law is a law is a law. You made a 15% law. Stick with the 15% law. You are going to make an exception to one developer and another developer is going to come to town and you are going to say, "oh, well, you made an exception for the Kohl, why don't you make an exception for the Target? Why don't you make an exception for Old Navy? If you make exceptions to a law, people are going to be breaking the law all the time. That is like, oh, this person over here, the speed limit is 60. Oh, I was going 65 . Well, okay, you can go but the next person 1 stop, he didn't go 60 so I'm not going to let him go. I'm going to write him a ticket for $250 or however much it is. You have to abide by the law whether you are the mayor, or you're five. I mean, you abide by the law. It' s a 15% law. You are not going to fluctuate. If the developer, developers come and go and we will have plenty of them come to our town. And plenty of them will come and go. And we will have great stores. And our economics will be just fine without them. Or if they come and accept it, they accept it. If they don't, they don't. That's all I have to say. Janice Ryan: I live at 506 Adams Street represented ably by Kyle Russell and Cyrus Young. I would like very much to thank both of you for what you have done on this issue. I recently took a trip down to Houston to visit family and coming back up I drove through Dallas, Plano, Richardson and McKinney, Texas, an area in which I lived for about 30 years. I passed two Kohl's stores that had not been there the last time I was through that area. I wished I could have stopped and gone in, but I had dogs in the car City Council Minutes May 2, 2000 Page 22 and I couldn't. They were big, ugly hunk of concrete boxes sitting in the middle of big empty parking lots. I saw not a tree. I saw nothing attractive. I was really very disheartened because I had heard through these meetings which I have attended and or listened to, that were a store that we would welcome to the area. After looking at the exterior of these stores, we are not going to welcome these stores to our area. They are ugly! And to cut these trees down for any purpose is just an abomination. This is not our purpose here, to destroy our city. I have lived in places where that is what they did. These places are still available for anybody to go move to them. They will cut down every tree you want to go build a house or department store or 500 department stores in Plano, Texas. You will have no problem doing that whatsoever. But I don't anybody sitting in this room wants to live there. I don't think anybody in this room wants this place to look like that place. At least, there it is flat. If you cut the trees down, your hillsides are not going to slide into your neighbors land. If we cut these trees down here, we' re in a lot of trouble. I look at these hills here and see them covered with trees and it is ajoy to look at them. I worry how much longer will I be able to look at them. How much longer until when I look at those hills is it going to look the hills of San Francisco where you see nothing but building, building, building, building. I really hope that you all will do what we have asked you to do and stick with the tree ordinance. Thank you. Kay DuVal: I live in Ward 1 at 1131 Eastwood also. I thought that since we both vote. That is the street that is known by it's description, the one that runs up the hill from the Root School basketball courts. Everybody knows that. My first concern that good laws and good ordinances be upheld. I do care about the trees but less someone think that I don't about people and jobs, I want to state clearly that people and jobs do matter me. 1 care about the people who use to work at Campbell and Lewis Brothers, and later, Campbell and Bell on the Square, and Mr. Guy, and Montgomery Ward, and Anthony' s and Service Merchandise. I care about the people who work at Stage, Steinmart, Silktree Factory, Home Depot, jobs in all of those businesses which have filled the spaces vacated by former businesses. I worry about the jobs people hold in the Mall, at Sears, Penny' s, Dillard' s, and all the smaller stores that appear and disappear practically over night. Bigger is not necessarily better. I think a store the size that Kohl's plans to build doesn't create new jobs it more likely recycles old jobs. And when Kohl' s, if it ever is supplanted by a bigger, newer idea it, too, will vacate the premises, leaving Fayetteville with a giant size empty building and a bigger slab of concrete over dead soil