HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-18 Minutes•
Mayor Dan Coody
City Attorney Kit Williams
City Clerk Sondra Smith
aye ev? le
City of Fayetteville Arkansas
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 1 of 34
Ward 1
Ward I
Ward 2
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 4
Aldermen
Position
Position
Position
Position
Position
Position
Position
Position
I - Robcn Reynolds
2 - Brenda Thiel
I - Kyle B. Cook
2 - Don Marr
I - Robcn K. Rhoads
2 — Robert Ferrell
I - Shirley Lucas
2 - Lioneld Jordan
A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on April 18, 2006 at 6:00 PM in Room 219
of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Mayor Coody called the meeting to order.
PRESENT: Alderman Reynolds, Thiel, Cook, Marr, Rhoads, Ferrell, Lucas, Jordan,
• Mayor Coody, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Sondra Smith, Staff, Press, and
Audience.
Pledge of Allegiance
Alderman Rhoads left the meeting at 8:00 PM
Alderman Reynolds left the meeting at Midnight
Mayor Coody welcomed the Spring International visitors.
Airport Board Presentation: Ray Boudreaux, Aviation and Economic Development Director
introduced the Airport Board members that were attending the meeting.
Bob Nickel, Airport Board Chairman gave the Airport Board Report. He presented the Mayor
with the City of Fayetteville Arkansas Airport of the Year Award for 2005 that was received
from the FAA.
Mayor Coody thanked the Airport Board and Airport employees for all their hard work.
• CONSENT:
Approval of the March 21, 2006 City Council meeting minutes.
Approved.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfaycttevi I Ie.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 2 of 34
Evans Handyman Services Contract: A resolution approving a contract in the amount of
$24,556.00 with Randy Evans d/b/a Evans Handyman Services for rehabilitation of a CDBG
eligible residence; and approving a contingency in the amount of $1,000.00.
Resolution 67-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
King Electrical Contractors: A resolution awarding Bid # 06-28 and approving a contract
with King Electrical Contractors, to provide electrical services for a term of one (1) year with
three (3) one-year renewal options.
Resolution 68-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Multi -Craft Contractors, Inc: A resolution awarding Bid # 06-29 and approving a contract
with Multi -Craft Contractors, Inc., to provide plumbing services for a term of one (1) year with
three (3) one-year renewal options.
Resolution 69-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Biobased Realty Extension Contract: A resolution approving a 90 -day extension to the
closing date for the sale of the former Water/Wastewater Operations Center to Biobased Realty.
Resolution 70-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Destruction of Old Police Documents: A resolution authorizing the Fayetteville Police
Department to destroy certain records pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-2-204,
Municipal Police Records.
Resolution 71-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Williams Tractor Co. Articulated Loader Purchase: A resolution approving the purchase of
two (2) acticulated loaders with attachments from Williams Tractor Co. in the amount of
$216,432.00 for use by the Transportation and Water & Sewer Divisions.
Resolution 72-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Tontitown Animal Sheltering Services: A resolution approving an Inter -Local Agreement
between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas and the City of Tontitown, Arkansas to provide
animal sheltering services to the City of Tontitown for the year 2006.
Resolution 73-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Alderman Jordan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Alderman Cook
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayettevi I Ie.org
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 3 of 34
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
CUP 06-1892 Temple Shalom: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding
the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the Temple Shalom synagogue on Rockwood Trail.
This item was Tabled at the February 21, 2006 City Council Meeting to the April 18, 2006 City
Council Meeting.
Carl Meyers, congregation member voiced his concern about a recent newspaper article about
the temple foregoing buying the Butterfly House to use for their synagogue. He stated he did not
feel the neighborhood acted in a very friendly or democratic way. He stated that feeling does not
extend to the City Council or any City representative. They feel they have been treated very
fairly by the City. He thanked the Council for the consideration they have been given.
Mayor Coody stated they would like to continue to work with the synagogue to fulfill their
mission.
Victoria Sowder, North Sequoyah Neighborhood Association stated they wish only the best for
the congregation of Temple Shalom. She stated their neighborhood felt they would be best
served by maintaining that property as a single family residence.
City Attorney Kit Williams handed out a resolution and read the resolution.
A resolution to grant the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of CUP -06-1892
and to deny CUP 06-1892 because applicants have withdrawn their request.
Alderman Reynolds moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Thiel seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously.
Resolution No. 74-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
ADM 05-1841, 05-1842, 05-1879 Hillside Overlay District: An ordinance amending Title XV:
Unified Development Code of the City of Fayetteville to amend various sections of the code in
order to implement hillside preservation and protection, establish a Hillside Overlay District
Zoning Boundary and map, and adopt and Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices
Manual. This ordinance was left on the First Reading at the February 7, 2006 City Council
Meeting. This ordinance was left on the Second Reading at the February 21, 2006 City
Council Meeting and was Tabled to the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting. This item was
Tabled at the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting to the April 18, 2006 City Council Meeting.
Alderman Marr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Thiel seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman
Rhoads abstained.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
A list of amendments were made to the ordinance. The following items were discussed.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accesstayetteville.org
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 4 of 34
Mayor Coody: Hillside Overlay District definition, will the City Council allow opt out
provisions for the owner whose land is fairly level, less than 8% grade?
City Attorney Kit Williams: I suggested this as well as will hilltops be included because
hilltops also can include some pretty level land. Looking at it as the legal representative of the
City 1 wanted to make an ordinance that would be as legally defensively as possible. 1 saw
where there were some benches or shoulders on some of the hills where the land was fairly level.
I felt if we left these in, which is the City Council's right if they want to, if we went to court the
most extreme case will be used against us. The level land would be sighted by someone that
would be challenging this ordinance and saying it is unfair to apply it to this fairly level land
when we don't apply the salve kind of requirements to land that is much steeper at the base of a
hill, 14% grade. Because of that I suggested another definition of the Hillside Overlay District
so that land that was 8% or less, the owner of the land could in fact opt out of this particular
Hillside Overlay District and lose all the benefits that the City Council has built into this.
Staff presented copies of the two maps they had generated.
Alderman Thiel thanked Fred Lampe from the University for helping the City staff in
generating the maps.
Mayor Coody also thanked Mr. Lampe and his staff.
Tim Conklin, Planning & Development Management Director gave a brief description of the
maps. One map was created to meet the definition of 8% above the 15%. The other map was the
Hillside Overlay District Map. He stated the University of Arkansas is not making any
recommendations in regards to which map should be used. The differences result in that what
was included in the Hillside Overlay District the hilltops would no longer be included with the
8% above the 15%. That is the main difference between the two maps. The policy decision that
needs to be made is whether or not the hilltop part is included or is not included.
Alderman Thiel stated she supports the map which includes all the hill area including the tops
and the benches because any development on hills including tops and sides displaces storm water
run off. She stated poor development and construction practices on hills create possible erosion,
flooding and foundation problems with anyone that lives downhill and it costs the taxpayers in
street and infrastructure repairs and maintenance The small percentage of land preservation
required by this ordinance is offset by the increased amount made available by reduced setbacks
and street width requirements. She stated she supports the Hillside/Hilltop Map.
Alderman Ferrell asked if most homes that are built on slopes are well designed and above
average in cost to build because of where they are building.
Tim Conklin stated the Building Safety Director has done a survey of engineers, homebuilders
and foundation specialist to determine what problems have been occurring in Fayetteville. He
stated since 1998 we have more stringent foundation requirements for a spread footing. For the
information three firms were contacted. He stated there is not a true correlation between where
the foundations were repaired and the slopes according to one firm. The other issue that has
been stated is the homes that are being built now there is more information and better
construction methods, foundations are being built beyond the minimum standards in some cases
and we have not seen a lot of problems. In some cases it is not the foundation it is the
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayetteville.org
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 5 of 34
• construction of the home itself due to modifications of the building plans. In recent time it has
not been an issue, in the 1960's and 1970's it was more of an issue according to one firm.
•
•
Alderman Ferrell: My observation has been homes that I have seen built on topography like
this are usually pretty nice homes and run off has been taken into consideration. if some of the
problems are coming from construction that would not necessarily be the foundations fault.
Tim Conklin: Yes. Just keep in mind that the Hillside Overlay District is an ordinance to help
allow development to occur and still provide the natural feature of the hillside and the natural
resources within the hillside. Beyond the construction of the home there are many features in
this ordinance that we have talked about over the years with regard to preservation of our hills in
Fayetteville.
Alderman Thiel: I would move we adopt the map entitled Hillside/Hilltop. This would be
adopting the map that basically has been continuously used throughout the Hillside Task Force
discussion and Planning Commission discussion.
Alderman Ferrell: Kit, the hilltop was one of your concerns wasn't it?
City Attorney Kit Williams: Yes. I am just looking at this from the legal point of view. It is
certainly up to the City Council but it will make it more difficult to defend in court.
Alderman Thiel moved to amend the ordinance to adopt the map entitled Hillside/Hilltop.
Alderman Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-3. Alderman
Lucas, Jordan, Thiel, Cook and Marr voting yes. Alderman Ferrell, Reynolds and Rhoads
voting no.
Alderman Thiel: 1 will move to amend the ordinance title and any references in the body of the
ordinance by replacing the word Hillside with the word Hillside/Hilltop. 1 think this was one of
Kit's concerns.
City Attorney Kit Williams: You certainly need to amend the definition of hilltop to include it
within the Hillside Overlay District.
Jeff Williams, a resident stated he lives on Mount Sequoyah and he is directly affected by this.
He stated he lives on a flat shoulder of the hill. He voiced his concern about this ordinance and
the hillside process. He stated he does not understand the problem the Council is trying to
address because the hills still look pretty good to him. The second concern he has is common
sense, does the lay person in reading the ordinance or by law does it make common sense to
them. He states there are certain aspects of this that do not make sense. He stated he lives on a
flat area and plans on adding on.
According to this new ordinance to add an addition to his house he will have to provide a tree
preservation plan, a grading permit even though there is almost no slope. He will have to get a
drainage permit, site analysis plan and an analysis report so he can have an engineered
foundation. He stated they have had zero foundation problems in the 21 years the house has
been built. This is adding $10,000 to $15,000 of expense to a small addition that he can't see the
value of, it doesn't make sense. He does want the hillsides protected. He is concerned about the
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayettevi I I e. org
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 6 0134
unintended consequences. From what he sees this could be an excellent ordinance but it isn't
yet.
Tom Terminella, developer stated there are concerns. He stated he can understand the hillsides
but he can not understand treating the flat part of the mountain any differently than the toe of the
mountain, if the problem is hillside let's address that.
Alderman Thiel: The tree preservation has increased by 5% for residential areas and 10% for
multifamily and residential office. I think this is probably the most important aspect of this
ordinance, the increased tree preservation and the minimum undisturbed area. She stated trees
and soil function together to reduce storm water run off. She read information from the Urban
Eco System Analysis in Benton and Washington County regarding this issue. She stated people
that live downhill are impacted by people that live uphill. 1 think this ordinance will help prevent
some of that impact.
Alderman Thiel moved to amend the ordinance title and any references in the body of the
ordinance by replacing the word Hillside with the word Hillside/Hilltop. Alderman Marr
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-3. Alderman Lucas, Jordan,
Thiel, Cook and Marr voting yes. Alderman Ferrell, Reynolds and Rhoads voting no.
Mayor Coody: The next issue is will hillsides allow taller buildings than elsewhere.
Kit Williams: This refers to RSF-4, RMF -24 and R -O.
Tom Terminella: I am comfortable supporting three finished floors in residential. If the
amendment before you tonight passes on R -O you are going to be increasing the amount of
preserved canopy and capping the height limitation. If you are going to increase the amount of
property for tree preservation or undisturbed area I don't see where it is logical to put a cap on
height. You can't get the density out of the property if you shorten the height limitation. This is
a problem for me and the property that I own. I am not clear on the height limitation on RMF -24
and R -O.
City Attorney Kit Williams: The height for RMF -24 is basically the same. It is 60 feet and
measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade prior to development to the
highest point of the structure, allowing three stories on the uphill side and four stories on the
downhill side of the building. If the building is placed on a graded pad then the height of the
building is reduced allowing a maximum of three stories as measured from the historical grade in
pre development. RMF -24 and R -O have the same language. In residential the building height
of 60 feet is measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade prior to
development to the highest point of the structure. My recommendation is that this height
limitation would be more defendable if it is citywide.
Tracy Hoskins, Paradigm Development asked the Council instead of measuring the height
from the historic grade level to measure the height from the grade of the street that is directly in
front of the structure.
A discussion followed on this proposal and the height limitation.
113 Wcst Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfaye teviIle.org
•
•
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18,2006
Page 7 of 34
Alderman Thiel moved to amend the ordinance as follows, the height in all single family
residential zones in the Hillside Overlay District to a maximum height of 3 stories not to
exceed 45' as measured from the lowest point of the structure, at the historic grade, prior to
development to the highest point of the roof of the structure. The height of the proposed
structure may only be increased above 45' by obtaining a variance after a hearing by the
Planning Commission. Existing structures that exceed 45' shall be grandfathered in and not
be considered nonconforming uses. Alderman Marr seconded the motion.
Tom Terminella asked how this affects vested rights as far as going vertical.
City Attorney Kit Williams: Every zoning law does restrict someone's rights on their property
one way or another. Those laws are constitutional as long as they leave a substantial value in
your property even though you may not be able to develop it exactly as you did before this new
law was changed and a new regulation was placed upon you.
Thad Kelly asked about the height limitations.
A discussion followed on the proposed amendment.
Alderman Thiel withdrew her motion. Alderman Marr withdrew his second.
Alderman Marr moved to amend the ordinance to eliminate the height requirements for
RSF-4 in the Hillside Ordinance. Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call
the motion passed 5-2. Alderman Lucas, Jordan, Thiel, Cook and Marr. Alderman Ferrell
and Reynolds voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Mayor Coody: The next issue is the application of tree preservation, grading requirements, etc.
for single family home builders and owners.
Alderman Marr moved to amend the ordinance to renumber §167.04 (A) (1) to (A) (5).
Alderman Thiel seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman
Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Mayor Coody: The next issue is should a single family house builder be required to submit a
tree preservation plan and a site plan or an abbreviated tree preservation plan pursuant to Section
167.04?
Tracy Hoskins stated when he does a large scale development preliminary plat he has to submit
a tree preservation plan at that time, to have an individual home owner come back and duplicate
the work is wasted money.
Tim Conklin: I would hope that when the developer and engineer prepare their tree
preservation plans they also could show what trees are on the lot. I think there would be an
opportunity from the private development side to assist the lot owners in providing information.
The owner/developer as he sells the lots may want to provide that information to the future lot
owners.
Alderman Jordan: What options do 1 have as a homeowner today? Can I take out all trees if I
want to?
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accesslaycttevi Ile.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18,2006
Page 8 of 34
Mayor Coody: Yes.
Alderman Jordan: The developer has to leave a certain percent but the person that buys the lot
can take all trees out if he wants to?
Mayor Coody: The tree preservation plan does not apply to a single family lot owner just the
developer.
Tom Terminella asked for the definition of abbreviated tree preservation plan and what happens
when the only tree canopy is in the middle of the lot?
City Attorney Kit Williams: There can be mitigation in that particular case some other place
on the lot. He also read the abbreviated tree preservation plan.
A discussion followed on the abbreviated tree preservation plan.
Jeff Williams voiced his concern about the ordinance and it applying to storage buildings.
Don Conner a resident voiced his concem about keeping the tree plan in for individual lots
because that is basically what this ordinance is supporting, trying to keep the soil from washing
away and the existing trees are a lot better than replanting trees.
Tracy Hoskins: Am 1 assuming that the tree mitigation ordinance we go by today will apply to
the single family lots as well?
Tim Conklin: It is the same mitigation but keep in mind the canopy is based on the lot not the
subdivision. Yes, if you have to mitigate you would have the same procedure to mitigate.
A discussion followed on the mitigation process and how individual lots are currently built out.
Alderman Thiel moved to amend the ordinance to remove all references to tree preservation
protection within single family residential developments and require that an abbreviated tree
preservation plan be required within single family residential developments. Alderman Marr
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Alderman Lucas, Jordan,
Reynolds, Thiel, Cook and Marr voting yes. Alderman Ferrell voting no. Alderman
Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Mayor Coody: The next issue is should all zoning districts be required to preserve 30% tree
canopy so the commercial zones must double their required canopy.
Alderman Ferrell: All zoning districts in the hillside?
City Attorney Kit Williams: Yes just in the hillside, it states Hillside Overlay District all
zoning designations are to be 30%.
Mayor Coody asked how much non-residential zoning falls within the Hillside Overlay.
Tim Conklin: Around 200 acres out of approximately 3,700 acres.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
acccssfayettevi 1 le. org
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18,2006
Page 9 of 34
• Mayor Coody voiced his concern about this and that it would be burdensome for the
commercial developers.
Alderman Marr moved to amend the ordinance to increase the tree canopy by 5% for all
zones that fall with the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay protection area. Alderman Jordan seconded
the motion.
Tom Terminella stated he is not willing to have the percentages of canopy changed on
commercial districts at all. He stated it is a significant monetary loss in value. He said that he
could not support this. He stated he thinks it should be collectively dealt with in residential;
there is such a minimal amount of property. I don't see the need to affect industrial and
commercial.
Alderman Thiel stated she is not as concerned with commercial because it is insignificant and
the affect down hill is minimal. She stated she is leaning toward the 30% on all residential if we
can just eliminate a percentage increase on commercial.
Alderman Marr: Currently the ordinance is 30% in all zoning designations. The 5% was
actually reducing that in some cases. 1 think it warrants discussion on whether these commercial
zones change. If 1 remember correctly approximately 95% of our overall hillside overlay
protection area is residential zoning.
• City Attorney Kit Williams: 1 originally suggested the 5% increase for all zones partially
because 1 was concemed about commercial zones being doubled from 15% to 30%. I don't think
it would be unreasonable to increase the tree canopy proportionally in all districts. 1 think the
5% increase would certainly be sustainable. I do think this amendment by Alderman Marr is a
good step in the right direction.
•
Alderman Thiel voiced her concern about the multifamily being increased.
Alderman Marr moved to amend his motion to be plus 5% on all existing residential zones.
Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman
Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Alderman Marr asked if there is any C-4 zoning in the Overlay District.
Tim Conklin: No.
Alderman Marr stated his concern is the neighborhood commercial zoning.
Alderman Marr moved to amend the ordinance to increase the tree canopy by 5% for the
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon
roll call the motion passed 6-0. Alderman Thiel and Rhoads were absent during the vote.
Mayor Coody: The next issue is should homeowners within the Hillside District be forbidden
from cutting down trees on their property if such tree is a significant tree or if more than 15% of
the tree preservation zone is affected?
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfaycttcvillc.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 10 of 34
Alderman Ferrell: Most of the homes I have observed that are built in the Hillside Overlay
District are nice homes. I think people have realized the value of having trees in their yards. I
would hate to burden the individual home owner with having to do that.
Mayor Coody: The concem I have is if we have a storm and we get a lot of tree damage we will
see people forced to break the law or lining up at the Planning office to be able to solve the
problem.
Tim Conklin: Staff is not opposed to amending the language to make sure we have the
abbreviated tree preservation but once that home is completed and a certificate of occupancy is
issued that we do not put easements on an individual lot and require them to come back to
Council if something does happen in the future.
Alderman Thiel asked if we support this would we be saying that you can cut a significant or
land mark tree or is that still protected.
Tim Conklin: If you support it we would not put a tree easement on the lot.
Karen Reese stated she thinks it is fantasy to say that homeowners will preserve the trees.
She stated she feels that we need to be protected.
Jeff Williams: I think what is needed is something recognizing storms and pruning of trees. If
you are going to clear cut your lot then you should have a process to go through.
Alderman Thiel stated she thinks people have the ability to deal with these issues.
Craig Brown stated his concern has to do with unhealthy trees and damaged trees.
Victoria Sowder asked about dead or dying trees.
Tim Conklin said the current tree ordinance does address that, it recognizes that they do need to
be removed. Selected thinning that does not affect canopy can be completed.
Mayor Coody: If someone has a ten acre lot that is heavily wooded and it needs to be thinned,
as long as the tree canopy is not affected and you are taking out scrub stuff that is never going to
amount to anything that does not take special permission is that right?
Tim Conklin: Under the current language in this ordinance it talks about selective thinning that
does not impact, that is correct.
Mayor Coody: 1 guess the only thing that I have any heart burn about is how much power does
the government need to have on individual lot owners and telling property owners which tree
they can cut. I think that if we have made the effort to preserve the trees up until the home
owner moves in then that is a huge step forward than where we have been. I think that is a major
improvement. I just wonder if this is a little bit more of an intrusion. 1 am the biggest tree nut
there is but 1 am also kind of leery about government intrusion as well.
Alderman Reynolds: How far do we need to go?
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfaycttcville.org
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18.2006
Page 11 of 34
Alderman Ferrell moved to amend the ordinance for the Hillside Overlay area to read once
the City issues a certificate of occupancy to the homeowner, individual lot tree preservation
areas are not binding upon such owner, however permanent tree easements established for
cluster developments shall remain enforceable by the City. Alderman Reynolds seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion failed 3-4. Alderman Ferrell, Reynolds and Marr voting
yes. Alderman Lucas, Jordan, Thiel and Cook voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent
during the vote.
Kit Williams: The ordinance now requires that a home owner will have to seek permission to
cut trees within a tree preservation zone.
Alderman Thiel moved to amend the ordinance to remove §167.04 (F) (3) (a). Alderman
Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
Alderman Thiel: How does a draining permit differ from a grading permit and is the expense of
the drainage permit to the property owner or the City?
Ron Petrie, City Engineer: They are two completely separate permits. The grading permit is
very specific. This ordinance is written toward developments, Targe developments in particular,
although it does apply all the way down to triplexes. It deals with your water quality when it
comes to erosion control and also the water quantities coming from a site. This recommendation
that you have is made for several reasons, one primary reason is because of what is already in the
works. Your storm water management ordinance requires an engineer must stamp it. My guess
is that it is a minimum of a $3,000 expense and is really not geared toward something this small.
Alderman Thiel moved to amend the ordinance to remove §170.03 (D) (1). Alderman
Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Coody: The next item is should the City Council make any amendments suggested by
developer's attorney Heartsill Ragon.
Alderman Ferrell: 1 read the recommendations and I do not see much support for any changes
although I remain very concerned.
Mayor Coody: Is the consensus then to not consider any amendments suggested by Mr. Ragon?
I think the answer is we are not going to make any amendments suggested by Mr. Ragon.
Kit Williams: I would suggest that you add at the end of the initial whereas clause a fifth one
which would state whereas the City of Fayetteville determines that its hillsides need additional
protection and preservation enhancements to lesson grading, drainage and storm water
problems and to preserve Fayetteville's beauty, clean air and clean water.
Alderman Thiel moved to amend the ordinance add an addition whereas clause that states
whereas the City of Fayetteville determines that its hillsides need additional protection and
preservation enhancements to lesson grading, drainage and storm water problems and to
preserve Fayetteville's beauty, clean air and clean water. Alderman Marr seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
Kit Williams: I have a new Section 8 Severability in accordance with §150.13 of the UDC.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
access faycttevi Ile. org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18,2006
Page 12 of 34
Alderman Marr moved to amend the ordinance to add a new Section 8 Severability in
accordance with §150.13 of the UDC if any section, part, word or phrase of this ordinance
shall be determined to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions section language of this ordinance. Alderman Thiel
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Cook was absent
during the vote.
Alderman Ferrell: Kit do you have any concerns that any of this could be ruled
unconstitutional?
Kit Williams: 1 certainly have concerns; I have expressed them several times to the Council.
Tim Conklin: I am a little unclear with regard to our land alteration requirements under 169 and
whether or not we made the undisturbed area the same percentages as the tree canopy
percentages.
Kit Williams: They chose not to pass that the last time so I did not include that as one of the
things that they needed to discuss tonight but they certainly could.
Tim Conklin: Staff is recommending that we mirror the tree preservation requirements with the
undisturbed land requirements under our grading ordinances. That is the discussion that we had
last time.
Alderman Marr: That is reducing what is in the ordinance currently?
Tim Conklin: The current undisturbed area is only required for subdivisions. This would be a
new requirement for large scale developments and individual lots.
Mayor Coody: So if someone had a lot that was vacant of trees they would have to preserve
30% of their lot even if it was just a grassy field?
Tim Conklin: The same percentage, right now it states 30%. Since your tree canopy
percentages are different, staff is recommending that we mirror those percentages. I think the
City Attorney is correct, the City Council chose not to amend that but this evening you did make
an amendment to that tree ordinance. Staff would recommend that you mirror the tree ordinance
with regard to that section in order to keep the land disturbance requirements the same as the tree
canopy requirements.
Alderman Thiel: Why was this not brought up whenever we were talking about 30% tree
preservation? Is the 60% undisturbed area still going to stay with subdivisions?
Tim Conklin: Yes. We are not asking to change the subdivision requirement, just the
individual lot requirement.
A discussion followed on the undisturbed land percentage.
Tom Terminella: I think in some cases that would adversely affect the land owner.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayettevi I I c. org
•
•
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18.2006
Page 13 of 34
Alderman Ferrell: The way different things are going it se ms to me that before long a property
owner is going to get to use 50% as he sees fit.
Alderman Marr moved to amend the ordinance to have the undistributed land percentage
match the tree preservation area percentage. Alderman Reynolds seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Alderman Lucas, Jordan, Reynolds, Thiel, Cook and
Marr voting yes. Alderman Ferrell voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent during the
vote.
A discussion followed on foundation requirements for accessory buildings.
Tim Conklin: We have a map that shows that 90% of the City has soil issues. My concern is
that this is just not on the hillside, if there is a policy issue with regard to requiring engineered
foundations we should have that discussion as a citywide issue.
Jeremy Pate gave a brief description of accessory buildings.
Jeff Williams: One way out of your current dilemma is to leave this off of this and do it as Tim
suggested citywide. The other thing is onerous types of requirements on these storage sheds
basically means you can't put a storage shed up because the requirements are going to cost more
than the shed. That is something you need to really look at when you are talking about citywide.
Alderman Thiel moved to amend the ordinance to exclude accessory buildings from
foundation requirements. Alderman Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed 6-1. Alderman Ferrell, Lucas, Jordan, Reynolds, Thiel and Marr voting yes.
Alderman Cook voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Mayor Coody: Is there any discussion worth having on looking at a citywide foundation plan. 1
think this does deserve a larger conversation.
Alderman Thiel: That is certainly something we can discuss in the future.
A discussion followed regarding the tree canopy within a PZD.
Alderman Marr: I thought we passed the PZD amendment to allow a creative and innovative
design to come before us and for this Council to make a decision whether or not we believe that
whatever we were not getting was offset by something that we were getting that was better. 1
believe that if the staff doesn't feel that we will certainly see that in their recommendation of the
PZD. 1 don't think we need any further notation on that.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0.
Alderman Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Ordinance 4855 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
RZN 06-1868 Chambers: An ordinance rezoning that property described in rezoning petition
RZN 06-1868 for approximately .20 acres located at 347 North Willow Avenue from RSF-4
Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre to RSF-8, Residential Single -Family, 8 units per acre.
113 West Mounlain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayetteville.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 14 of 34
This ordinance was left on the Second Reading at the February 7, 2006 City Council Meeting.
This ordinance was Tabled at the February 21, 2006 City Council Meeting to the March 7,
2006 City Council Meeting. This ordinance was Tabled at the March 7, 2006 City Council
Meeting to the March 21, 2006. City Council Meeting. This ordinance was Tabled at the
March 21, 2006 City Council Meeting to the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting. This item
was Tabled at the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting to the April 18, 2006 City Council
Meeting.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman
Rhoads was absent during the vote.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Jeremy Pate gave a brief description of the project and the three options that have been
proposed. He stated that staff recommends approval of the rezoning for this property.
Jim Key, Architect with KAI: I have been retained by Mrs. Wilson to consult with her
regarding the impact on her property on Lafayette Street that is adjacent to this property on the
north. He stated Mrs. Wilson is opposed to the rezoning. He stated the rezoning is not
compatible with the character of the Washington Willow Historic District and will have a
significant negative impact to the adjacent property owners. He stated the density, compatibility
in general and safety are a problem. He stated they would propose to leave the zoning as it is so •
that it will be compatible with the adjacent properties in the historic neighborhood. The
neighbors ask that the applicants consider development within the prescribed setbacks or they
consider as an option an addition to their existing structure.
Scott Lunsford, a resident of the neighborhood stated the Chambers request to remove the
dilapidated shed and replace it with a garage apartment has admirable intentions for them and
their and family but it is not quite as gracious for the adjoining property owners.
Karen Reece, president of the Washington Willow Historic District voiced her concern about
the proposed structure. She requested that the rezoning not be approved.
Mr. Chambers: I think when people talk about an apartment and the density they are
deliberately trying to mislead you. Every person that has spoken against this rezoning would
have to come and make this exact same request of you if they wanted to materially improve their
property because they are not in compliance with the RSF-4 zoning. We are doing what the City
staff has asked us to do and we have made compromises. We are dedicated to retaining the
property values in the neighborhood.
He presented the Council a letter from a real estate agent that stated in his opinion that adding
value to this property and the surrounding properties can be done by tearing down the existing
building and replacing it with an architecturally correct structure that is consistent with the area.
He thanked the Council for allowing him to speak and for their time.
Mrs. Chambers thanked the Council for their time. She stated it would be beneficial if they
could figure out some way to not make this such an adversarial format. She stated she feels they
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfaycttevi I le.org
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 15 of 34
• have tried to be very cooperative and that maybe things could have been done differently to have
more compromise along the way.
Cory Rogers, builder for the Chambers thanked the Council for their time. He guaranteed that a
good job would be done.
Alderman Thiel stated this is going to be very hard. She stated the conditional use has already
been approved to allow them to have the apartment that is not what we are looking at. What we
are looking at is enabling them to build back where they have an existing building now.
Jeremy Pate: The proposal has the new structure farther away from the north property line.
The zoning is contingent on meeting the building setbacks in whatever zoning district that the
property is located in.
Kit Williams: The Chambers have stated they will offer a Bill of Assurance but at this point 1
don't have a signed one.
Alderman Cook: 1 generally support adding density and garage apartments. I misjudged the
neighborhood because they are adamantly opposed to adding that into this neighborhood. They
feel like their neighborhood is already dense enough. The conditional use is the issue. The
Chambers have tried to do the right thing, they have done everything that we have asked them to
do and 1 certainly appreciate their efforts.
• Alderman Marr: I understand exactly what the Chambers are going through. In this case 1 am
•
not going to support the rezoning because it is a spot zoning.
Alderman Lucas: I agree, I think this is a spot zoning and I think it is important to protect
people's neighborhoods and respect the people that live there. 1 think the Chambers have done a
good job.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance failed 1-6.
Alderman Ferrell voting yes. Alderman Lucas, Jordan, Reynolds, Thiel, Cook and Marr
voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent during the vote.
The ordinance failed.
Amend §163.14; Wireless Communication Facilities: An ordinance to amend §163.14
Wireless Communication Facilities of the Unified Development Code. This ordinance was left
on the First Reading at the March 7, 2006 City Council meeting. This ordinance was left on
the Second Reading at the March 21, 2006 City Council meeting. This iter: was Tabled at the
April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting to the April 18, 2006 City Council Meeting.
Kit Williams: 1 suggested a substantial amendment to this in a memo to the Council. 1 met with
the cell phone companies concerning these amendments and the overall plan. The cell phone
companies were concerned that if they had a cell antenna already on a tower that had been
approved through the system they did not want to have any problems with having that antenna
replaced with something different. My suggestion on changing this is to simply remove the
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfaycttevi I Ie.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 16 of 34
reference to replacement antennas from the tower exemption section and cover the entire issue
under the co -location section.
Alderman Marr moved to amend the ordinance to reprove the reference to replacement
antennas from the tower exemption section and cover the entire issue under the collocation
section. Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to amend passed
7-0. Alderman Rhoads was absent.
A discussion followed on the proposed amendment and other proposed amendments.
Justin Eichmann, Smith Two Way Radio stated they would like to see more stringent
engineering building standards. He asked the Council what the triggering event is for the 90 day
suspension. My understanding of the ordinance is that it is triggered when you have an item that
has been referred to the Planning Commission.
Jeremy Pate: It states that if within a three month period the governing body of the
municipality, which is the City Council, not the Planning Commission, if they pass an ordinance
amending the zoning so as to prohibit a building structure or use, that permit could not be issued.
The trigger or timeframe is when the Mayor signs an agenda request that triggers it.
Justin Eichmann: It is my understanding that is an interpretation issue so if one were to appeal
an interpretation issue we would take that to the Board of Adjustments is that right?
Jeremy Pate: Yes.
Scott Lunsford: There were several items that we felt the applicant was deficient in. It was not
just the appearance there was also the coverage capacity map.
Kit Williams. Mayor, we are not arguing about this conditional use that was already decided by
the City Council.
Alderman Thiel: If we pass this will they have the ability to apply for a conditional use for
what they want to do now. If it is the same request without a substantial difference it would have
to wait a year for a conditional use to come back to the Planning Commission. It all depends on
what is being proposed.
Alderman Marr: 1 am in support of moving forward on this. One of the whole issues around
this discussion is we went through a process and we denied a conditional use. When we said
they need to go through the administrative process it was for the same use and antenna that they
had at the time they came to us, it was not to add things to the existing tower. 1 think this
ordinance change reflects what we were doing when we denied the conditional use. What was
the date of application for the administrative application by Smith Two Way Radio?
Jeremy Pate: The first administrative application was in November of last year, that could not
be approved because that request was not in substantial compliance or anywhere near
compliance with our current ordinance allowing administrative approval. There were drawings
that were submitted February 28th I believe and the actual application was submitted yesterday.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
acccssfaycttcvi Ile. org
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alderman Marr: So it is just getting in the process. 1 also think
other issues other than just the tower. It is not just how it looked.
Alderman Ferrell: When is the 90 days up for consideration?
Jeremy Pate: May 17th 1 believe.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the entire ordinance.
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18,2006
Page 17 of 34
the conditional use had many
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0.
Alderman Rhoads was absent.
Ordinance 4856 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Upper White River, LLC Cost Share: An ordinance waiving the requirements of formal
competitive bidding and approving a cost -share with Upper White River, LLC in an amount not
to exceed $17,909.00 for the upsizing of approximately 1370' of 10" water main to 12" water
main; and approving a contingency in the amount of $2,686.35. This ordinance was left on the
First Reading at the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman
Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Rhoads was
absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Reynolds moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman
Rhoads was absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Thiel: I am concerned about this and am looking forward to the day when we can
provide water to everyone who lives within the city limits.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 5-2.
Alderman Ferrell, Lucas, Jordan, Reynolds and Thiel voting yes. Alderman Cook and
Marr voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Ordinance 4857 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Amend Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations and Chapter 156 Variances: An ordinance
amending Chapter 16P • Zoning Regulations, Unified Development Code, to provide uniform
building height restrictions in Residential Single -Family Zoning Districts; and amending Chapter
156: Variances. This ordinance was left on the First Reading at the April 4, 2006 City Council
Meeting.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
acccssfaycttevi l le.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 18 of 34
Alderman Thiel moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Cook
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Rhoads was absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Thiel moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-2. Alderman
Lucas, Jordan, Thiel, Cook, Marr and Mayor Coody voting yes. Alderman Reynolds and
Ferrell voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Cook: You discussed earlier about defining building heights and we have this
ordinance and another one discussing building heights and how to measure that specifically is
what you mentioned. As far as the definition that we have in place with this ordinance and the
next ordinance are you comfortable with the way it is defined now?
Tim Conklin: We have some concerns with regard to hillsides. We really don't have a height
definition or how to measure height that is something we have been looking at. I recommend
that when we do set the maximum heights that we also come back and have a discussion on how
we measure that height.
A discussion followed on measuring building heights in residential and commercial districts.
Alderman Marr: On the ordinance that we passed earlier tonight we took out the limits but we
still left in the definition section, the definition of height. In terms of how we would measure it
within the Hillside Ordinance I think is defined within that district. 1 think we need to get a
height limitation set in our residential zones.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6-1.
Alderman Lucas, Jordan, Reynolds, Thiel, Cook and Marr voting yes. Alderman Ferrell
voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Ordinance 4858 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
RZN 06-1949 Ellis Appeal: An ordinance rezoning that property described in rezoning petition
RZN 06-1949 for approximately 6.03 acres located at 4230 Huntsville Road, from RSF-1,
Residential Single Family, 1 unit per acre and RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 Units per acre
to RSF-7, Residential Single Family, 7 units per acre. This ordinance was left on the First
Reading at the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman
Reynolds seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Rhoads
was absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
acccssfaycttevillc.org
•
•
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 19 of 34
Alderman Reynolds stated he went out and met with the adjoining property owner. He stated
Mr. Ellis has gone above and beyond to satisfy this neighbor. He stated the adjoining
neighborhood is in favor of this project.
Alderman Reynolds moved to amend the ordinance to add the Bill of Assurance as
submitted by the petitioners. Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed 7-0. Alderman Rhoads was absent.
Alderman Reynolds moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman
Rhoads was absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0.
Alderman Rhoads was absent during the vote.
Ordinance 4859 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Emergency and Non -Emergency Ambulance Service: A resolution to express the City
Council's intent to contract exclusively using competitive procurement methods with a single
entity for the provision of all emergency medical services and ambulance services for the City of
Fayetteville. This item was Tabled at the April 4, 2006 City Council Meeting to the April 18,
2006 City Council Meeting.
Hugh Earnest stated the creation of a region based Public Utility Model is the next logical step
for our County.
John Gibson, Washington County stated that the participation of Fayetteville in continuing this
existing region wide system is crucial. The County cannot have an ambulance system without
Fayetteville's involvement. He asked the Council to please remember that it is not only the
delivery of ambulance service within the City of Fayetteville, if you are traveling outside the city
limits and have an accident you would want the same quality ambulance service. He asked the
Council to continue to support them.
Mayor Coody: The quality of ambulance service is important to Washington County. Describe
to us why this is important to Washington County.
John Gibson: t do not think our current ambulance service is broken, we are growing so fast that
we certainly need a high performance ambulance system and we need an ambulance system that
is going to be responsive to a governing body and will guarantee response times in the City of
Fayetteville that are acceptable to you and will guarantee response times in the County. We want
that high performance ambulance service with those guarantees because we are going to have
more and more people to serve.
Mayor Coody: Why do you think that you don't have that performance guarantee now or the
performance now?
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
access fayettevi I I e.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 20 of 34
John Gibson: We do, we have a quality ambulance service but I think we are going to have to
take it to the next level to a high performance ambulance service because of the growth and
population of this area. One of the things that we have seen to be successful in other areas is that
if we have a Public Utility Model where one service will handle both emergency and non-
emergency services we then begin to see taxpayer subsidies go away.
Mayor Coody: How much does the County subsidize in ambulance service now?
John Gibson: Roughly $500,000 a year.
Mayor Coody: We subsidize $250,000 a year.
Alderman Reynolds: Are the other towns going to pay a portion of the bill?
John Gibson: They are now in different ways, some of them provide at no charge a place to
keep an ambulance and sleeping quarters.
Mayor Coody: If the County were to go to a Public Utility Model how would that change this
mix of larger cities in the County providing more funding? We would be trying to get out of the
subsidy business altogether wouldn't we?
John Gibson: That is correct.
Alderman Reynolds: How much of an increase are we talking about in services with your
model versus what we are running today?
John Gibson: I don't know how much but some.
Alderman Lucas: Are there enough non -emergency trips and income to cover the $750,000?
John Gibson: I don't know that, I can't stand here and tell you that for a fact because we do not
know how much non -emergency business is out there because that is currently done by private
companies and we can not FOIA their information.
Alderman Ferrell: A couple of weeks ago I asked, where they have Public Utility Models, how
many of them drew money from the municipality and he said every one of them. Is it your
expectation that the Public Utility Model will continue to move away from subsidy?
John Gibson: It is my expectation and my fervent hope that we move away from subsidy. I can
not stand here and tell you that next year we will not have to subsidize an ambulance service but
what we need to do is work toward that goal.
Alderman Marr: Currently you are getting the tax from the County and you are using $500,000
of it to apply to this service but the citizens of Fayetteville are also paying a tax to the County.
John Gibson: The subsidies for Central EMS from the County are coming from County sales
tax that are the County's portion of that sales tax money.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayettevi I le. org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18.2006
Page21 of34
• Alderman Marr: So our $250,000 is the only contribution that you get from citizens in the City
of Fayetteville for this service.
John Gibson: That is correct.
Mayor Coody introduced John Swanson the Director of MEMS, the Metropolitan Emergency
Medical System. The Mayor of Little Rock called and said the operation that is running in Little
Rock is running extremely smoothly and he could not be happier.
John Swanson, Executive Director of the MEMS unit in Little Rock. There are two components
to a Public Utility Model; the first is the actual oversight or the organizational guidance of
MEMS. They were created 23 year ago by the City of Little Rock. This is an independent
agency charged with running the ambulance service. We receive no subsidies and City of Little
Rock is not responsible for MEMS. MEMS is responsible to the Ambulance Authority and the
Ambulance Authority is a service provider. In the case of MEMS we are also the operator.
Other Public Utility Models choose to contract the service out to companies that compete
through a bid process. Throughout the 23 years we have not received subsidies from local
governments to operate our systems. We do it first on the basis of exclusivity, that we are the
sole emergency and non -emergency provider. We have been able to expand our service area in a
regional way to take full advantage of the economics of scale and the infrastructure that exists in
the functions that are fixed costs of operating a quality system. The larger you can economically
expand to take in the full advantage of the economy of scale; it portionally reduces the overhead
• cost on a per run basis. That has been the key to the ability of MEMS to be able to provide this
service for so many years without relying on public subsidy. I have to be candid with you and
say that 1 am not sure how long we can continue to do this subsidy free. About half of the typical
ambulance service monies that we collect come from Medicare beneficiaries. This January is the
end of a five year phase in period implementing a national fee schedule that has significantly
reduced the formula under which Medicare pays for ambulance services. MEMS has been able
to make adjustments through economies of scale and the exclusivity. The time standard we meet
for life threatening emergencies is 8 minutes and 59 seconds for 90% of those calls, the average
response times on all emergencies last year is somewhere between 5 or 6 minutes depending on
the community. There have been comments about the non -emergency component of this; we
factor in the demand on the system for the non -emergency traffic so the total system is sized to
meet the total demand that is placed upon us in a normal day. The fact that our system is larger
we can put a maximum effort against a specific event. Every year our system grows. Just with
the given population our service experiences about a 3% to 5% increase in the demand on us on a
daily basis. This year we have increased our units again. The Board that 1 am accountable to is
made up of members appointed by each of the communities that 1 serve. The second component
is who you choose to be your service provider. I can not guarantee you that it would be without
subsidy in this market. MEMS is not only subsidy free but it is also debt free. We are a public
non-profit entity, everything the system earns is put right back into it. In the beginning the city
guaranteed some bonds that MEMS repaid out of operations over subsdent years.
•
Alderman Ferrell: What would the benefit be to the Fayetteville taxpayer if we went to a
Public Utility Model?
John Swanson: The Public Utility Model is a public agency itself so it is totally transparent and
accountable. It is totally made up of community representation on the Board. If it is County
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
access tayettevi Ile. org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 22 of 34
wide and exclusive of emergency and non -emergency the additional revenues would serve to
decrease if not eliminate the subsidies that are being paid.
Alderman Ferrell: We already have an appointed Board with the existing ambulance provider.
I am struggling with what the advantage is.
Alderman Marr: Is there a population density that you look at for it being no subsidy versus
being a subsidy?
John Swanson: In my business we call it unit hour, the performance requirements that the
community imposes on an ambulance service will dedicate how many ambulance hours of
coverage needs to be established every hour of every day and the geographical distribution of
those ambulances to meet the performance standards that the community has set. The tighter the
time constraints the more unit hours you have to have. The density of coverage of ambulances in
the County will be thinner geographically than it would be in the City where the population
density is. If those time constraints were the same in the County it would take a lot more
ambulances to be able to provide the kind of response that you want so you are driving up your
cost against fixed revenue and that will dedicate the size of your subsidy.
Alderman Marr: I think that is one fear that I heard from some citizens is that this is a city
level service in a county geographical area. When you select this Board and you are an entity
that is providing more of the calls and a higher subsidy amount is the representation distributed
that way or is it equal representation on the Board?
John Swanson: The way Little Rock protected itself in this issue is that the Little Rock
Ambulance Authority consists of five members from Little Rock and two members from North
Little Rock. Those seven constitute the Little Rock Ambulance Authority and they are the only
ones that can vote on fiscal matters. There are also eight more Board members from other
communities but they. do not vote on financial matters.
Alderman Lucas: You have 41 ambulances for all the cities how do you make sure that you can
respond to their non -emergency trips?
John Swanson: We staff daily enough units to meet the demand that we anticipate. You never
know what the nature of the next call will be and where it will occur. You can develop patterns
of call distribution over time to give you a pretty good indication. We add about 30% in surplus
staffing to meet the anticipated emergency and non -emergency demand. The dispatchers decide
if it is safe for the system to do a non -emergency at that moment, we are going to give
emergency traffic first priority. As soon as another unit is available they are going to handle that
non -emergency call. We are obligated to respond within an hour to a non -emergency request. In
Little Rock we average 52 minutes, we meet that standard in every community that we serve. If
the standard was higher I would be obligated to add more ambulances to the fleet and increase
the cost of service in order to meet that new performance standard. It is my challenge to balance
the revenue generated against the resources that I can put on the street to do that and do it in such
a way that I can maintain a subsidy free balanced budget operation.
Mr. Swanson gave examples of the ambulance service that he provides. He stated a large system
can allocate services when needed with resources still available to meet the rest of the demand.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
acccssfayettcville.org
•
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 23 of 34
Alderman Ferrell: There is no other place to draw from than right here for us, if the model
grows that could be applicable but I don't see how it could be now. Do the communities you
serve have fire departments as first responders?
Mr. Swanson: They all have first responders.
Alderman Lucas: You are very dense in population down there.
Mr. Swanson: Actually not, some counties are very rural.
Alderman Marr: You said you average 5 to 6 minutes on 42,000 calls. What is the fire
departments response time?
Mr. Swanson: It depends on the community. Typically the fire department is 1 to 2 minutes
ahead of us.
Alderman Marr: Are there any Public Utility Models that operate without the municipal fire
departments being first responders?
Mr. Swanson. I am not aware of any.
Alderman Marr: What advice would you give a body that is considering a Public Utility Model
outside of what you have already said?
Mr. Swanson: The medical director.
Alderman Marr: Are you aware of any situation where the emergency and non -emergency
have different contractors or are they always the same contractor?
Mr. Swanson: Not that I am aware of. There is a tiered system that decides what emergency
system is sent and if they are sent with lights and sirens.
Alderman Marr: Have your community standards gotten tighter, stayed the same or been
reduced?
Mr. Swanson: The community standards for us have stayed the same. What has changed is the
relationship with first responders. The fire department use to run on everything we run on over
the years they do not do that. There are some calls they do not go on.
A discussion followed on volunteer fire departments and their response time.
Mr. Swanson: In 2005 we had 454 presumed life threatening emergencies and the average
response time was 10 minutes and 14 seconds. We had 738 presumed non -life threatening
emergencies and the average response time was 9 minutes and 52 seconds.
• Alderman Marr: Is the City of Springdale looking at being a member of the Public Utility
Model from a non -emergency base?
Hugh Earnest: That is correct.
113 Wcst Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
acccssfaycttcvi1le.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 24 of 34
Mayor Coody: Tony how does what MEMS is doing compare to what you do? What are the
differences?
Tony Hickerson, CEMS: The two main differences are exclusivity and size.
Mayor Coody: What do you see with the changes in the Federal laws?
Tony Hickerson: The fee schedule has been fully implemented now so there will be some
minor changes but the major impact of that has already passed us.
Mayor Coody: Do you expect our subsidy to remain stable or increase?
Tony Hickerson: It depends with what happens in the future and what performance you require
of us.
Mayor Coody: If everything stays as it is right now.
Tony Hickerson: Then we would not expect anything more than we are getting now.
Alderman Marr: How would a transition be handled?
Tony Hickerson: Typically the incumbent is given the opportunity to work for the new provider
if there is a new provider. I have supported and continue to support the movement toward the
Public Utility Model knowing that we will have competition from other providers for the service.
Alderman Marr: What percentage of the market do you think you do not serve because of non -
exclusivity?
Tony Hickerson: My guess would be 10 or more calls a day.
Alderman Ferrell: Other than the exclusivity of non -emergency would there be any other
significant changes?
Steve Aldrege, American Medical Response (AMR):
Alderman Ferrell: Are you moving away from subsidy in any of the communities that you
serve?
Steve Aldrege: On the emergency side which is about 65% of our business nationally there are
a great number of communities that we provide emergency medical services for that do not
require a subsidy.
Mayor Coody: Currently today do you get subsidized from those two Public Utility Models?
Steve Aldrege: Yes sir but we do not get subsidized in a whole lot of other areas where we
provide like services.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayetteville.org
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 25 of 34
• Alderman Marr: Those that you receive a subsidy from are they attributed to the community
standard requirement?
•
•
Steve Aldrege: It is really driven by the operating cost. If the user fees are not there because
there is not a sufficient volume of transports that we can bill for, then there is a need for subsidy.
Alderman Marr: In the areas where you are not doing a Public Utility Model are they also
exclusive markets?
Steve Aldrege. Some of them are and some are not. The ones that work the best are certainly
exclusive operating areas.
Alderman Reynolds: With the change in Medicare payments is that affecting your business?
Steve Aldrege: Most certainly.
Alderman Reynolds: If you come into this area and we have a large number of Medicare
people it would probably have to be subsidized?
Steve Aldrege: It would probably be irresponsible for me to make a statement like that without
having a window of opportunity to evaluate some of the information that is available.
Alderman Reynolds: Why were you attracted to come to this market?
Steve Aldrege: Our Business Development Department came through here and discovered that
this area is one of the fastest growing areas. With the growth going on and the service needs of
the community that was expressed to us it seemed like an opportunity to come in and compete
for the business. We are looking for responsible growth.
Alderman Marr: If Washington County went to a Public Utility Model and your group was not
selected would you still be looking at operations in Northwest Arkansas?
Steve Aldrege: Yes sir.
Hugh Earnest: The Public Utility Model (PUM) is a recent development from a public policy
perspective; it was developed in the 80's in response to how ambulance service was being
provided to large markets. In 2002 a national market study of all of the PUM's in this country
was completed, we will get a copy of that and provide it to the Council. In 2002 there were other
PUM's that were operating absence of subsidies.
Mr. Green, Physician Service Center: My experience was different in Little Rock, we called
MEM's for a non -emergency transfer and they said they would get back to us tomorrow. That is
where we started the idea of loading the patient in private cars and taking then to the rehab
facility which is probably not ethical or legal but it was something that we had to do to maintain
our license.
We opened the Physician Service Center in January, 2005 at the end of the year we completed in
gross charges $15 million out of the $15 million we collected $5 million. Out of the $5 million
all but about 19% went back into the market in Fayetteville, so we are definitely a part of this
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfaycttcvi I I c org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18,2006
Page 26 of 34
community. The biggest concern I have is the attitude of some of the private people that are
making their living off the non -emergency care.
Alderman Ferrell: Do you think the Central Arkansas model is an efficient operation?
Mr. Green: I have concerns about what is going on with Medicare as well. I think this is
something that you need to look at carefully. This will definitely impact the amount you
subsidize no matter what you do.
Mr. Wilcox: Stated his concern about the current system in Little Rock. He stated if you are in
the system or have hopes of being inside the system it is a fine system. There is a lot of revenue
generated, the government eliminates all of your competition and if you can't make a profit the
government will take care of that for you too. He voiced his concerns with the Public Utility
Model. He stated if the system is so good why do they need you to force people to use it?
Alderman Lucas moved to table the resolution indefinitely. Alderman Ferrell seconded the
motion.
Alderman Marr: 1 think we need to set a timeframe and make a decision. I think we have the
County waiting on us and without a timeframe we have a great ability for it to be months before
it comes back. I would rather have a timeline to research it and get information.
Alderman Lucas: If we table it can it be brought back at anytime?
Mayor Coody: Yes.
Alderman Lucas: 1 don't see us gaining anything by this. 1 do not think we have enough
population to support something like this and I don't want to have to increase our subsidy in
order to make it work, when we already have a system that is working.
Mayor Coody: I think the whole point of this was so we could decrease the subsidy.
Alderman Lucas withdrew her motion to table indefinitely. Alderman Ferrell withdrew his
second.
Alderman Reynolds: If it is not broke don't fix it.
Alderman Thiel: One issue has been the service and I think there has been concern about the
subsidy amount. The current provider is already servicing the County. Our provider has told us
by eliminating the competition and creating an exclusive market that will save us money. I don't
see how you can argue that. 1 am not saying that 1 am in favor of doing that but when you say
that this will not save us money, it has to save us money. You are creating an increased market
that has been shown to have more profitability. The change in the Medicare is going to change
things no matter which way we go. This resolution is not approving a contract it is to express
our intent.
Mayor Coody: And probably have better service at the same time.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
access fayettcvi I le. org
•
•
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18,2006
Page 27 of 34
Alderman Lucas: I don't know about that. That is one of the things that worries me, the
service.
Mayor Coody: 1 understand the concept of how they are working in Little Rock. I understand
the idea that they can add one ambulance and get a lot more regional service out of it. The
economy of scale seems to make sense to me.
Alderman Marr: I like the idea of tabling this because I think there is some value in hearing
further discussion from Springdale. I think we need a timeline where we fish or cut bait. That is
the reason I don't like tabling this indefinitely. My fear on tabling this indefinitely is we will
have to start again with the whole process of refreshing ourselves through this debate.
Alderman Thiel: I hope that we will get some information that we need between now and then
and not wait until the night of the meeting.
Alderman Marr: I think we need more information and if we don't get more information then
we move forward.
Mr. Swanson: Should you choose to keep Central and not put the system to bid then the current
governing board in the system that you have will probably function very well. If you intend to
put the system to bid with the Public Utility Model, I don't know that the central board would be
the appropriate oversight for a contractor from outside. If you choose to keep it as it is and just
extend exclusivity then what you have with Central and their board may very well be a viable
option for you.
Alderman Jordan: If I remember correctly at an agenda session I believe Mr. Wilcox presented
some statistics in some cities where this has failed. I would like to look at that information
again.
Alderman Ferrell: 1 have been told that Springdale is waiting to see what Fayetteville does.
Alderman Marr: It might be beneficial for the Fayetteville Council, Springdale Council and
County Quorum Court to have a meeting.
Alderman Marr moved to table the resolution until the May 16, 2006 City Council meeting.
Alderman Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to table passed 7-0.
Alderman Rhoads was absent.
This resolution was tabled until the May 16, 2006 City Council meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
Biobased Master Plan Layout: A resolution accepting the Master Plan layout for the
development of the former Water/Wastewater Operations Center presented by Biobased Realty
in conjunction with Biobased Technologies/Systems.
Ray Boudreaux, Aviation and Economic Development Director: This is a requirement of the
sales contract between Biobased and the City for the Cato Springs property.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
access fayettcvi I I e.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18,2006
Page 28 of 34
Thad Kelly, Cromwell Architects gave the Council an update on the project. They stated they
are not going to do a PZD. They stated they do have a walking trail that is within the property.
Alderman Cook moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Thiel seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the resolution passed 7-0. Alderman Rhoads was absent.
Resolution No. 75-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Composition of Planning Commissioners: An ordinance to amend §33.106 Composition of
Article VII Planning Commission of Title III Administration of the Code of Fayetteville to
require that at least two Planning Commissioners reside in each Ward of the City.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Reynolds: Ward I will lose members if we pass this. I think we need to have an
even amount of representation within the Wards.
Alderman Ferrell: This amendment would balance the number of Planning Commissioners
with Aldermen. My observation of the Planning Commission is that different Wards provide
uniquely diverse Planning Commissioners, two members from each Ward with the ninth member
coming from any Ward. 1 think we do want diversity and a mixture of people.
Alderman Cook: 1 do not agree. For me the number one goal is to appoint the most qualified.
Not everyone that we receive applications from is qualified. The most important thing in my
decision is if they are qualified.
Mayor Coody: I appreciate your interest in seeing more diversity. The one fear that I would
have if the Planning Commission is divided by Wards is that we would not be one City but a
City divided by Wards. Sometimes we need to have a more citywide perspective on issues.
Alderman Marr: I have thought a lot about this because I am one of the people that sits up here
that has been on both. 1 started my service on the Planning Commission living in Ward 3 and
during that term I moved to Ward 2. The thing that was always impressed upon me was getting
representation that reflects the views of Fayetteville, more so than I think from a Ward
perspective. I do think that there is a huge difference between a body that is elected to represent
the constituents that put you in office and people who are appointed to administer the ordinance.
My fear is that if we appoint Planning Commissioners by Ward that they will begin to think even
more so that they are representing a constituent base and may view things differently.
Alderman Ferrell: I appreciate everyone's remarks. I did not look at this that way that they
would react as a member of the Ward.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman
Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Rhoads was
absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
access f ayettevi l l e. org
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 29 of 34
Alderman Ferrell moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman
Rhoads was absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance failed 2-5.
Alderman Ferrell and Reynolds voting yes. Alderman Lucas, Jordan, Thiel, Cook and
Marr voting no. Alderman Rhoads was absent during the vote.
This ordinance failed.
Amend §161.18 District C-3 Central Commercial: An ordinance to amend §161.18 District
C-3 Central Commercial of the Unified Development Code by including a new subsection (f)
Restricting Height to six stories or 84 feet whichever is less; and amending Chapter 156:
Variances.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Cook: This is a piece of the Downtown Master Code that is being discussed so I
• brought this forward. My intention is not to try to kill the Divinity Building I think it will stand
or fall on its own merits. I brought this forward because there are citizens that feel very strongly
that building height is a compatibility issue with other parts of Fayetteville and it is also a
statement on what they feel is the character of Fayetteville.
•
Alderman Jordan: One of the reasons that I have supported this is this will also define the
character of the downtown area. I received a lot of calls on this regarding the height of
buildings. I felt it necessary to support Kyle on this and protect the downtown area of this city.
Alderman Ferrell: I have voted for enough restrictive ordinances tonight. I would like to see
more enabling ordinances than restrictive ones.
Alderman Marr: The thing that I like in the ordinance is the building height variance
allowance which allows someone to continue to bring forward a taller building to stand or fall on
its own merits. I think our desired standard is what is being presented here.
Alderman Reynolds: Being a business person on Dickson Street, I have talked to a lot of the
merchants. The merchants think we need something similar to this project to put more walking
traffic on Dickson Street to help their business.
Alderman Cook moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman
Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Rhoads was
absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
This ordinance was left on the second reading.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayettevi1le.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 30 of 34
Lierly Lane Sewer Service Extension: A resolution to allow extension of sewer service outside
the City's corporate limits on a 23 acre parcel on Lierly Lane adjacent to the city limits.
Tim Conklin: This item did go to the Water and Sewer Committee. The developer is at a point
in the subdivision construction process that a decision needs to be made whether or not a de-
centralized sewer system will be installed or will the City allow sewer to be extended outside the
city limits. The applicant has provided to you additional information, a letter from the State
Health Department that encourages when available to tie onto city sewer, a site plan that shows
which lots will have single family and which lots will have duplex Tots and there is also a letter
addressed to our Water and Sewer Wastewater Director regarding their request to tie onto the
city sewer system. They have provided an annexation agreement and have agreed to pay all
impact fees. They have agreed to apply for annexation within five days if this resolution is
passed this evening. If you allow them to tie onto the sewer the agreement is that it is not
contingent on the zoning issue, they would still be allowed to tie onto the sewer if the annexation
does not pass. They are adjacent to the City limits to the south of the Clabber Creek Subdivision.
Alderman Jordan: I did not support this the first time it came to the Water and Sewer
Committee simply because I was concerned about the capacity of the sewer. When they applied
again there were some conditions that we agreed on.
Alderman Thiel: They are expecting us to zone this to the standards they have put before us.
We don't have to do that right?
Tim Conklin: That is correct you do not have to do that.
Alderman Thiel: Why don't they come to us with an annexation and a zoning request?
Applicant: We carne to the Water and Sewer Committee eight to nine months ago and explored
the option of tying on to city sewer. At that time it was not approved. We knew there was
concern about the annexation policy and we believed that it was unlikely that we would be
annexed. When we received our approval from the State Board of Health they also had a letter
that recommended that the City of Fayetteville tie us on, with that we reapplied. We have agreed
to pay all the fees; in addition to that we will pay to connect the sewer to the existing sewer in
Clabber Creek. We think this is a win win for the City of Fayetteville. One concern the
neighbors had was the decentralized system.
Alderman Jordan moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Ferrell seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed 5-2. Alderman Ferrell, Lucas, Jordan and
Marr voting yes. Alderman Thiel and Cook voting no. Mayor Coody voted yes to pass the
resolution. Alderman Rhoads and Reynolds were absent.
Resolution No. 76-06 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
acccssfaycttevi I Ic.org
•
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 31 of 34
RZN 06-1986 Arora: An ordinance rezoning that property described in rezoning petition RZN
06-1986, for approximately 0.41 acres, located at 727 South School Avenue, from C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman
Lucas seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Alderman Rhoads and
Reynolds were absent. Alderman Thiel was absent during the vote. Mayor Coody voted
yes to suspend the rules.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Lucas seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Alderman
Rhoads and Reynolds were absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6-0.
Alderman Rhoads and Reynolds were absent.
• Ordinance 4860 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
•
VAC 06-1989 Wedington Place Addition: An ordinance approving VAC 06-1989 submitted
by Allen Jay Young for property located at lot 3RA, Wedington Place Addition, Phase 3;
vacating the access easement off of Steamboat Drive.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Jeremy Pate gave a brief description of the vacation.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman
Lucas seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Alderman Rhoads and
Reynolds were absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Lucas seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Alderman
Rhoads and Reynolds were absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6-0.
Alderman Rhoads and Reynolds were absent.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayettevi 11e.org
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 32 of 34
Ordinance 4861 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Solid Waste Drop Box Purchase: An ordinance waiving the requirements of formal
competitive bidding for the purchase of four (4) 20 -yard, eight (8) 30 -yard and nine (9) 40 -yard
drop boxes for the Solid Waste & Recycling Division; and approving a budget adjustment in the
amount of $75,000.00.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Marr: Is this budget adjustment in the Enterprise Fund?
Gary Dumas: Yes.
Alderman Marr: What is the pay back period on this investment?
Gary Dumas: 1 don't have that information. 1t will probably be under four years.
Alderman Marr moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman
Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Alderman Rhoads and
Reynolds were absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.
Alderman Marr seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Alderman
Rhoads and Reynolds were absent.
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 5-0.
Alderman Rhoads and Reynolds were absent. Alderman Cook was absent during the vote.
Ordinance 4862 as Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk.
Arbors at Springwoods Appeal: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding a
condition of approval for the Arbors at Springwoods Large Scale Development.
Jeremy Pate: I recommend that this item be tabled. The Planning Commission is reconsidering
it on Monday night and we will wait for the out come of that hearing.
Alderman Marr moved to table the appeal to the May 2, 2006 City Council meeting.
Alderman Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-0. Alderman
Rhoads and Reynolds were absent. Alderman Cook was absent during the vote.
This appeal was tabled until the May 2, 2006 City Council meeting.
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
access faycu evi I le. org
•
•
•
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 33 of 34
• Amend §166.03 Park Land Dedication: An ordinance to amend §166.03 (K) Park Land
Dedication of the Unified Development Code.
•
•
City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance.
Connie Edmonston, Parks and Recreation Director: Our Park Land Dedication ordinance was
adopted in 1981. It was collectively developed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
along with the Planning Commission. This ordinance was established as a devise to provide park
land and park amenities to meet the impact of new housing additions. Our ordinance provides a
reasonable dedication of park land or money in lieu which can be only be used for future park
land acquisition and improvements to the parks located within the subdivision's park district.
We look at our ten year Parks Master Plan to determine if a park is needed in a subdivision and
the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan and also the current park property
service area map. Our Park Land Dedication ordinance has been critical to the development of
our progressive parks system. In the past 25 years the ordinance has provided over 33 parcels of
park property for us. Our money in lieu of over the last 25 years has brought in $3.1 million for
park development and park acquisition. The impact of the parks ordinance has been tremendous
on the growth of our parks system.
Connie went through the formula they use on the park land dedication. Connie stated that
according to our ordinance this formula must be updated every two years. It was last updated in
2003. She also said the money in lieu of park land requirement must be spent within three years
of the year that it is accumulated and it must be spent in that park district.
Wade Colwell: The first item is updating the average cost per acre and we have come to a
figure of $40,000 per acre, this is an increase The second item is developments under one acre
and we feel like these developments should come under the Park Land Dedication ordinance.
We are recommending deleting the manufactured homes. The fourth item is deleting the major
development section. We are requesting a written request to bank land which would help keep
track of what is being requested. Items number 6 and 7 were not brought before the Parks Board
or the Planning Commission. As far as suitable park land we want to be specifically involved
with the land that is being brought into the parks. The development of the parks, we want to
have some say in the way those parks are developed.
Alderman Cook: The developments under one acre I think it is a very good point that a lot of
these infill projects that we have are adding impact to our park system but right now we do not
have a mechanism to collect anything from that. Is there any way besides changing the under
one acre that we could capture that money as opposed to saying less than one acre. I see what
your problem is but there has to be some way that we can capture fees for that.
Kit Williams: Yes they are impacting the system. My concern is if we make that change does
our ordinance become illegal at that point in time and no longer grandfathered in under the
statute that allowed our ordinance to remain in effect. That required that our ordinance allow an
option to pay a fee or to dedicate green space or park land in lieu of a fee. My concern is if you
have an infill lot that you want to build a house on, yes there is an impact but there is no option
for someone building a house to dedicate a park land. If we want to do an impact fee study and
get rid of our park land ordinance and pass a new impact fee for park land you can certainly do
that. If we don't want to have to go through the expense of doing that study then 1 don't think
we can go in the direction that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Parks
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfaycttcvi I l e. org
City Council Meering Minutes
April 18, 2006
Page 34 of 34
Department wants us to try to catch all this infill from these individual lots. I think if we do that
we run a very big risk that our ordinance will no longer be grandfathered in. As the City's
attorney I don't want to threaten our entire park land ordinance for the amount of infill lots that
we could charge for.
This ordinance was left on the first reading.
Meeting Adjourned at 12:45 AM
Dan Coody, Mayor
ad, ,
Sondra Smith, City Clerk/Treasurer
113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)
accessfayetteviIle.org
•
•
•