Board of Directors

MINUTES BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 7, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held on M onday, M arch 7, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., Board Chambers, City Hall, with Assistant M ayor Peggy M aruthur presiding. The invocation was given by M s. Jessica Orsack, and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Assistant M ayor M aruthur. Assistant M ayor M aruthur called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1 Roll Call Roll call was as follows: Present: Directors Peggy M aruthur, Elaine Jones, Steve Smith, Carroll Weatherford, Bill Edwards, and Tom Daniel, total 6. Absent: M ayor M ike Bush. 2 Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the agenda be approved. Upon discussion, City M anager Kent M yers noted that the owner of the property regarding Agenda Item No. 31H (Knickerbocker and Darch Hotels) is unable to be present to answer any questions. However, the Board can continue with the staff report. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Jones, that Item No. 31H be t abled until the next meeting; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors M aruthur, Jones, and Edwards, total 3. Voting “no”: Directors Smith, Weatherford, and Daniel, total 3. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion failed. Assistant M ayor M aruthur then called for a vote on the motion to approve the agenda; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 3 Approval of Minutes of February 21, 2005 Board Meeting A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the minutes of the February 21, 2005 Board M eeting be approved; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 4 Recognition of Guests Director Edwards recognized M r. Ken Smith and is his first time to attend a Board M eeting. CONS ENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda consisted of the following: 5 Public S afety Report (February 22, 2005). 6 Budget Transfer - Clinton Plaza Elevator Inspection ($1,860). 7 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-55 Approving Certain Bid Awards (a) Pipe, Valves, Clamps, Etc. - Utilities [awarded to Arkansas Water Products in the amount of $11,680.15 and Hughes in the amount of $4,439.47]; (b) M owing - Various Departments (annual supply contract awarded to Spa Landscape, Elite, Tru-Cut, and Preston); and [c] Polymer - Utilities (annual supply contract awarded to Stockhausen). 8 ProposedResolution No. R-05-56 Authorizing Revisions to the 2005 Budget (Civic Center Bonds). 9 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-57 Authorizing the Filing of a Grant Application with the State Aeronautics Department for Grant Funds to Reimburse the Airport for Replacing the Air Conditioning/Heating System in the Terminal Building at the Airport. 10 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-58 Awarding a Contract for Engineering Services (Rep lacement of Heating and Air Conditioning System in the Terminal Building at the Airport) to B&F Engineering, Inc. 11 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-59 Authorizing the Filing of a Grant Application with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the State Aeronautics Commission for Airport Runway 5/23 Rehabilitation and Lighting Replacement. 12 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-60 Awarding a Contract for Engineering Services (Rehabilitation of Runway 5/23 Overlay Project and Replacement of Edge Lighting at the Airport) to Grimes Consulting Engineers, Inc. Board of Directors M eeting 2 March 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . 13 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-61 Authorizing the M ayor to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with NRS Engineering for the Highway 70 West Utility Relocation Project. 14 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-62 Awarding a Contract to B&F Engineering for Engineering Services for the Park Avenue Water Improvements. 15 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-63 Awarding a Contract to B&F Engineering for Engineering Services for Wastewater Line Replacement at Dr. M artin Luther King, Jr. Expressway and Central Avenue. 16 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-64 Approving the Extension of Water and Wastewater Service to Bella Place Subdivision. 17 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-65 Approving the Extension of Water Service to Emerald Drive. 18 ProposedResolution No. R-05-66 Adopting the 2004-2024 Water and Wastewater M aster Plan for the City. 19 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-67 Authorizing the Increase of Purchase Order Amount to Aries Industries for a Sewer Television Truck. 20 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-68 Approving the 2005 Drainage Program. 21 ProposedResolution No. R-05-69 Extending an Annual Supply Contract for Low Pressure Sewer System Grinder Pump Replacements with Environment One Corporation for 2005 and Approving a Budget Transfer. 22 Propos e d Resolution No. R-05-70 Granting a Limited Use Easement to M ary Ermey Wilson (110 Third Street). 23 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-71 Expressing the Willingness of the City to Utilize Federal-Aid M onies to M odify Traffic Signal at Highway 7 (Central Avenue) at Trivista, Greenwood/Alcorn and Hobson. 24 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-72 Authorizing the Filing of a Grant Application with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department for Completion of Hot Springs Creek Greenway, Phase 2. Board of Directors M eeting 3 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . 25 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-73 Awarding a Contract to B&F Engineering for Architectural and Engineering Services Related to Entergy Park, Phase 3. 26 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-74 Authorizing a Grant Application with Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation for Art in the Park. 27 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-75 Adopting a Permit Fee Schedule (Arkansas M echanical Code, 2003 Edition). 28 ProposedResolution No. R-05-76 Adopting a Permit Fee Schedule (Hot Springs Plumbing and Gas Code, 2003 Edition). 29 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-77 Appointing Dana Priddy to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. 30 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-78 Appointing Terry D. M iller to the Central Business Improvement District No. 2 Board of Commissioners. 31 Proposed Resolution No. R-05-79 Awarding a 2005 Annual Services Contract to B&F Engineering for Surveying Services. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the Consent Agenda be approved; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors M aruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel, total 6. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion unanimously carried. Assistant M ayor M aruthur then read the title of each item on the Consent Agenda. NEW BUS INES S 31A Proposed Resolution No. R-05-80 A res olution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARYEMERGENCYDWELLING UNIT AT 103 ASHLAND STREET PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 4948,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A mot ion w as made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the resolution be adopted as read. Board of Directors M eeting 4 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M .  Upon discussion, M r. Jerry Raetz, Planning and Development Director, advised that M r. Rynders’ property, located at 103 Ashland, had a fire on January 9, 2005; and he has recently been released from the burns unit at the Arkansas Children’s Hospital. M r. Rynders has made application to locate a 35-foot travel trailer at this location for six months to allow him to clean up the property and start the rebuilding process. He stated that the ordinance allows for the applicant to return six months from today to request one, six-month extension. Assistant Mayor M aruthur then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors M aruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel, t otal 6. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the resolution was declared adopted. 31B Proposed Resolution No. R-05-81 A resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF FEDERAL- AID ENHANCEM ENT M ONIES FROM THE HOT SPRINGS HIGHWAY 7/BATH STREET CROSSWALK PROJECT TO THE HOT SPRINGS M ULTI-USE TRAILS GRANT,” was taken from the agenda and read by title only. A mot ion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the resolution be adopted as read. Upon discussion, M s. Jean Wallace, Parks and Recreation Director, advised that the request is to approve the consolidation of two existing transportation enhancement grants that have been previously authorized by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. She explained that the Bath Street crosswalk on Highway 7 came in under budget. According to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, the remaining funds became available to transfer to another previously approved transportation enhancement grant project. She stated since Ent ergy Park multi-use trails project is a transportation enhancement grant and is currently underfunded, it qualifies for the transfer. M r. Robert Walters, Highway Department Chief Engineer, recently sent a letter authorizing the transfer and outlining the federal cost share and the local match requirements. It is an 80-20 grant; and there is $26,080 available from federal funds and the City match of $6,520. This will increase the Entergy Park Trails amount to $72,471 and by adding in the City’s match, it will make a total project of $78,991. The match money is available in the City’s budget and she had requested it at the end of the year to be carried over in anticipation of getting to use the money for the trails. Director Weatherford pointed out these funds can be used for the crosswalks in CBID No. 3, which he would prefer, because those crosswalks had to be eliminated and are needed. M r. Steve M allett, Public Works Director, advised that the Bath Street crosswalk and the crosswalk in front of M ountain Street were approximately $42,000. Therefore, he is estimating those crosswalks will be $30,000 to $40,000 for doing the three sides around Bridge and Central. Director Jones questioned where the Parks Department would have received the money had Board of Directors M eeting 5 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . they not had these funds, and M s. Wallace advised she is investigating every opportunity for grant funds for a trails system. She had learned of the surplus money and called the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department and found out that it was eligible for Entergy Park trails. She added that she will probably have a $250,000 to $300,000 trail system. City Manager Kent Myers commented that it is the Board’s option where it wants to transfer the money. He added that both projects qualify; however, the City has a commitment to Entergy to complete Entergy Park by the end of 2008. The City has approximately $300,000 worth of trails to build in that park in the next 3½ years. If the City does not fund it with grants, then at the conclusion of the project, the City may have to request a sizeable contribution from the General Fund. He noted the City will continue to apply for grants and pursue any and all funding that it has to meet that commitment. Director Weatherford mentioned that the City has 3½ years to do Entergy Park but has six months to get Central Avenue and CBID No. 3 completed and before the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department paves it. He stated he would like to see those crosswalks done like Bath Street and M ountain Street. Assistant Mayor M aruthur then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Director Edwards. Voting “no”: Directors Weatherford, Daniel, Jones, Smith, and M aruthur, total 5. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion failed. Whereupon the resolution was declared failed. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Jones, that the funds be moved to the CBID No. 3 project which is for the one intersection at Central and Bridge Street; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye: Directors M aruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel, total 6. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion unanimously carried. 31C Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-23 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING ROSECREEK COURT AND ROSECREEK PLACE AS PUBLIC STREETS,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Smith, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Daniel, duly s econded by Director Edwards, that the ordinance be passed as read; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors M aruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel total 6. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. Board of Directors M eeting 6 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . 31D Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-24 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ARKANSAS M ECHANICAL CODE, 2003 EDITION,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Daniel, that the ordinance be passed as read; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors M aruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel total 6. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 31E Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-25 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE HOT SPRINGS PLUM BING AND GAS CODE, 2003 EDITION,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and up on the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the ordinance be passed as read; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors M aruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel total 6. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 31F Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-26 A n ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE REZONING TO R-3, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO INCLUDE A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 NINA PLACE,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Jones, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Weatherford, duly seconded by Director Edwards, that the ordinance be passed as read. U p on discussion, City Attorney David White explained since this is a Zoning Code amendment, it will require a 2/3 super majority vote or 5 votes. M r. Jerry Raetz, Planning and Development Director, explained this is an application to Board of Directors M eeting 7 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . rezone a parcel of property of a little more than two acres on the south side of James Drive, at 110 N ina Place. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the development of a garden home subdivision. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning by a unanimous vote, and the application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the number of homes that can be located on this property, whether it be R-2 or R-3 zone, this property, if it were allowed to remain as R-2, would support the construction of six homes. If it were rezoned to R-3, it w ould support 11 homes. A copy of the development plan was distributed, which is in the P lanning Department waiting for application to determine whether they can proceed with this development plan. D irect or Daniel questioned in changing from R-2 to R-3 if there is any possibility that apartments could be built on that property, and M r. Raetz advised they could not. He added that apartments are not permitted use in either of those two zones. Director Daniel asked if there could be any commercial use, such as doctor’s offices; and M r. Raetz advised there could not. Director Daniel said that in looking at Nina Street, north to south, there is a gate that goes into Country Club Village. He questioned what would happen to that gate, and M r. Raetz advised that since they have not reviewed the development plan, only the rezoning application, they have not give full consideration to that. He noted there have been preliminary discussions as to what they may discuss with the property owner when they get to the development plan review stage. Director Daniel noted there will be a 57-foot wide easement for in and out with a 15-foot berm median. He commented 12-foot driving lanes are allowed, but there are also 9-foot parking lanes on each side of the street. M r. Raetz stated that allows for the 21 foot in width on either side, plus 15-foot berm median in the center. Director Daniel questioned if there would be any additional homes put in there if it is done according to this plan. M r. Raetz advised if this particular development plan were to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and accepted, that would be the one that is filed with the Circuit Clerk for record, and that would be the number of parcels and the size of the parcels for sale. Director Daniel questioned if houses could still be built should it stay status quo, and M r. Raetz replied that they could built six. Director Daniel questioned the benefit to the City, and M r. Raetz explained there would be two more homes that would be paying property taxes to support the school district in which they are located and the uniqueness of this subdivision with a 57-foot right-of-way to only support eight homes. D irect or D aniel questioned the property values, and M r. Raetz stated he believed the proposal would increase the property values of that neighborhood. He added that the Planning Commission does not consider the size of the home as long as it is not too excessive to start creating problems with the building codes, etc. Director Edwards pointed out this subdivision will have one way in and one way out except in case of an emergency and that gate will be a break-away gate for emergency vehicles. Assistant M ayor M aruthur asked if the zoning were approved would the owner be locked into the plat that will be submitted, and M r. Raetz explained that the rezoning issue would not lock in the developer. If this were rezoned, mathematically 11 homes could be located on that parcel of land with the new zone. He pointed out that is not what the applicant wishes; but in order to gain the ability to have the smaller lots, this is the main reason why they have requested this. Board of Directors M eeting 8 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M .  A s s is tant M ayor M aruthur said it would leave it open for more development if this is approved; and Mr. Raetz replied if this is approved, there could be a total of 11 homes placed at this location. Assistant M ayor M aruthur asked if there can only be a maximum of 11 homes because she had heard 16. M r. Raetz replied those were numbers discussed without having the numbers in front of him, but mathematically it could support 11 homes. City Attorney David White said he thought there was an assurance there would only be eight homes. M r. Raetz explained after the rezoning vote tonight, this will determine the development plan that is going to be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. If the Board passes t he rez oning ordinance, they will submit the plan that the Board was presented tonight for consideration. He explained they cannot submit that presently because it does not meet the R-2 s t andards. Those lots average about 8,300 square feet, and R-2 zoning requires a minimum of 12,000 square feet. He said that is the plan that will be submitted to the Planning Commission for the subdivision plan depending on the Board’s vote tonight. If the Board chooses not to rezone this property, then the Planning Commission cannot hear this plan. M s . Sus an Hayes, 118 Parkridge, representing residents on her street, said they are supportingtheir neighbors on James Drive in opposition to this proposed garden homes. She stated they would like to maintain their subdivision and keep it as single-family dwellings. She added they do not feel this would add to the neighborhood and feel there would be a traffic problem with traffic one way in and one way out. She asked that the Board vote against the ordinance. Director Daniel pointed out that the homes are single-family dwellings. Director Weatherford said there are numerous lots on James Drive that seem small, and M r. Raetz replied that the lots on the south side of James Drive do not measure up to the R-3 standards. They are smaller than the ones before the Board tonight. M r. Paul Hogue, 200 James Drive, said his property is on the east side of Nina Place; and he was assured by Planning Department assistant (Rick Stauder) that if this did not pass, a maximum of four houses could be built. There were eight originally proposed, and that proposal was eliminated because the lady who lived on James Drive would not give an easement to M r. Bennett. There was a vote by the Planning Commission, and they were told after the public session had ended that eight houses could be built. He said he is the only person who uses Nina Place and uses it as a side entry to his house to park his car and has been using it since 1969. He pointed out that he has no problem with what he wants to build or do there, but his main objection is that he does not want to be “run over.” Also, there are no public utilities including trash that go down that street at the present time. He commented when Country Club Village was built, they paved Nina Place. It was part of the subdivision that he is in, and the crash gate was installed and that street was named a fire lane. He added it was never opened to Country Club Village or anyone else, and he would like to leave it that way. He noted that everyone on James Drive, the next street, part of the third street over from them, and Country Club Village signed a petition opposing it. M r. David Campbell, a member of the Planning Commission, stated when this came to the Board of Directors M eeting 9 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . PlanningCommission, they looked deeply into the south side of James Drive. In looking at the fact that the lots are small on James Drive and the fact that there is a large complex next door to it, he said the R-3 zone seemed to be a natural for this area regardless of how many houses could be built on it because the south side of James Drive is essentially an R-3 subdivision as it is. He commented the lots on James Drive are smaller than these lots. Director Jones asked how many people signed the petition, and M r. Campbell said it was around 30 to 40. Director Jones pointed out that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting s t at e t here are eight houses, and M r. Campbell replied that the figure of eight was mentioned. Director Jones asked if he could build six houses whether the Board approves it or not, and M r. Campbell said that he could. Director Smith questioned if these are fairly quiet developments and also with garden homes, with one or two at the most living in these units; and M r. Campbell said that is correct. City Attorney David White questioned the difference between this and Country Club Village t hat it abuts, and City M anager Kent M yers advised that Country Club Village is a retirement community. This is lower density than Country Club Village, which is a high density development. M r. Ray Owen, Jr., attorney, said that he is present on behalf of James and Lynn Bennett and distributed a detailed plat and pictures of houses they would like to build in this subdivision. He stated this 2.5 acres off of James Drive is a piece of property that has been in the Bennett and Cook Family for more than 50 years. He said they would like to make this an eight-lot subdivision but have it an attractive subdivision of garden homes. The land is presently zoned R-2, and they are askingthat it be rezoned R-3 so they can use their property for the eight garden homes in accordance with the subdivision that is there. He stated they would have filed this subdivision already, but they were not allowed to do so because the ordinance had not been changed. If the Board changes the ordinance tonight to make it an R-3, they will file this tomorrow. He stated the unique part of it is the cul-de-sac with a median to allow one way in and out traffic. They plan to market these homes in the $200,000 range. He said that M s. Hayes had spoken in opposition to this, and her neighbors were concerned about this; but they live three streets over. There is James Drive, M elwood and Parkridge, so he is not sure how they would be affected. Assistant Mayor M aruthur asked if there is any guarantee that no more than the homes that have been shown could be built, and M r. Owen replied they will be glad to file an affidavit tomorrow in the Circuit Court records saying they would use this plot plan to develop that property. Assistant Mayor M aruthur asked if the affidavit would be transferable if this property were to be sold by the developer; and M r. Owen explained if the affidavit were made in such a way that it included the legal description of the property, then in his opinion the purchaser of any property like that would be bound by it. City Attorney David White said that it would, at a minimum, be enjoinable which means that the City could block any further development if they did not adhere to the original plans. The Board has been given enough assertion tonight that there is only going to be eight houses; and beyond that, Board of Directors M eeting 10 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . it might be actionable under the City code for a criminal violation for violating city code. Both civilly and criminally, the City is on solid ground so far as taking action to halt any further development that would be outside the scope at this point. Assistant M ayor M aruthur questioned if there would be any reason this could be zoned as a PD, Planned Development District; and M r. Raetz advised that this could be zoned as a PD or an application could have been presented to the City. They considered several different scenarios, and Planned Development was one of them. The Planned Development portion of the Zoning Code requires a fairly substantial investment by the property owner prior to getting to the application stage for the City to receive an application. He stated this particular property owner has chosen to work on the development plan at the same time as requesting the rezoning application. Therefore, most of the development engineering work that is required to consider a PD has already been done by virtue of tryingto prepare the subdivision plan. At the time they started discussions on this, this was chosen to go R-3 as being the type of zone that fit the Comprehensive Plan. The City has adopted the Future Land Use portion of the Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant was in concert. Director Weatherford questioned if they could build more than the eight homes on there if it were PD; and M r. Raetz advised if it were a PD, it is a negotiation between city staff and the developer to come up with the final plan. He said they could have requested more than eight homes; and when they brought the proposal before city staff, then they would negotiate it to the best interest of the City. Once they were at that point and had the engineering development plan, they would submit that to the Planning Commission for their public hearing and before the Board for consideration. He added they can ask for anything in a PD, and the staff is trained to negotiate that to a good project for the City. M r. Owen stated that he plans on building it the way it has been submitted to the Board with the eight lots, the median, and the 57-foot drive. Director Smith stated he is going to support this project and thinks the safeguards are in place to answer the concerns of the neighbors. He noted by virtue of the affidavit, it will take care of that; and after looking at the pictures, it will be a welcome, quiet addition to this area. Assistant Mayor M aruthur asked if the affidavit would definitely lock in the plat and that if the property were to be sold by the present owners, that there would be no change and it would be guaranteed. City Attorney David White said he could not guarantee there would be no change. He stated he does not know what a new property owner would do with the property. He added they probably could not accomplish a sale within a day, but the City has been made assurances tonight and p reviously this is going to be an eight-house garden home style variety development. He pointed out there is an affidavit that has been prepared by M r. Owen that he is going to reduce the final form tomorrow. Even without it, he stated there have been enough assertions via the plot plan that is more than sufficient to sustain a cause of action, certainly civilly and probably criminally, against whoever would try to go outside the bounds of this particular project as it has been presented. Assistant Mayor M aruthur then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors M aruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel t otal 6. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the Board of Directors M eeting 11 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . ordinance was declared passed. 31G Proposed Ordinance No. O-05-27 An ordinance entitled, “AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING A M ANUFACTURED HOM E OVERLAYDISTRICT TO INCLUDE A PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2211 SPRING STREET,” was taken from the agenda for consideration. A motion was made by Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be read for the first time by title only; and upon voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. The ordinance was then read for the first time by title only; and upon the question “Shall the ordinance be passed as read?” and upon motion of Director Edwards, duly seconded by Director Weatherford, that the ordinance be passed as read. City Attorney David White advised that it will take a super majority to pass (5 votes). M r. Jerry Raetz, Planning and Development Director, explained this is an application to extend an existing manufactured home overlay zone that is located at Festival and Spring Street. The applicant owns property adjacent to the existing manufactured home overlay district, and they are asking to extend that to include the 11.8 acres they have adjacent to this. Director Jones said she is under the impression that is the only manufactured home that will go there, and M r. Raetz advised that is correct. He added a manufactured home overlay district allows for the placement of a manufactured home on a parcel of land; and it has to be less than ten years of age. It must have paved driveways, skirted, and porches. M r. Tom Huddleston, 163 Cameron Terrace, stated he wants to sell his place in the County and place a mobile home on his mother-in-law’s property to be closer to her. He stressed there will not be a mobile home park on this property. Assistant Mayor M aruthur then called for a vote on the motion to adopt; and upon roll call, the following voted “aye”: Directors M aruthur, Jones, Smith, Weatherford, Edwards, and Daniel t otal 6. Absent and not voting: M ayor Bush; motion unanimously carried. Whereupon the ordinance was declared passed. 31H Report on Darch and Knickerbocker Hotels M r. Bart Jones, Housing Administrator, and M r. M ike Scott, Acting Building Official, stated that a memo was included in the packet regarding an inspection he and M r. Scott did on February 14 on the structures at 228 Prospect and 226 Prospect and found them to be structurally sound. The building at 226 Prospect has a leaky roof, and the back of it needs to be closed in a little more. At 228 Prospect, it needs some work on the back. The owner has a permit and renewed his permit sometime after February 14 and has assured the City he is going to secure the building. He said it is structurally sound; and if it is secure and is kept clean around it, then it is not against the law to Board of Directors M eeting 12 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . have a vacant building providing that building is secure. Director Smith said he looked at the property today and questioned the time line on permits. He noted that it appears the last permit was pulled on 2003 and asked what type of permit it was. M r. Jones said the verbage reads if owners do not discontinue work for any six- month period, that permit is open-ended. If they buy those buildings and want to take 100 years to renovate them, that is really none of the City’s concern provided they comply during that process. He said they have to keep them secure, keep people out of them, and keep them structurally sound. He commented that has not always been the case with these structures. He stated that he is trying to keep M r. Girolamo within the law, as well as the City. Director Smith stated the way he looked at the Knickerbocker today, there is no back to the building. Also, there is no roof; there is an unreinforced masonry wall which stands alone and is not connected to anything. He commented that he can see through the building, can walk through it, and has a challenge on how that is secure. M r. Jones pointed out that he said it was structurally secure, and it is not going to fall down. He noted there is a dividing line where he is trying to end that building, and he has torn off quite a bit along the back wall. He has also framed in metal studs up that line. There is one wall section that sets off by itself, and there is a wooden floor system that is completely exposed. He said that he and M ike Scott were there on February 14, and he asked if he had to take that part down. He was advised that the City could not tell him to take it down, but he needs to secure that part or take it down. He assured them that he would and is talking about buildingsome type of slanted roof system off that one straight wall and covering that. He stated that is in the works whichever way he decides to go with it. D irector Smith asked what type of material is being used pointing out that it is already peeling off and appears as if it is some drywall. M r. Scott advised that it is an exterior drywall material, and most of the existing construction is heavy timber construction. He stated that all of t he new studs are metal studs; and the drywall on the outside is an exterior drywall, which is designed for that. Director Smith asked if the exterior drywall is designed to peel and deteriorate, and M r. Scott advised if left out in the weather long enough, it will do that. However, it is an exterior drywall but is probably not designed to stay out in the weather that long. Director Smith questioned if it is going to have to be replaced, and M r. Scott said if it is deteriorated enough, it would have to be. Director Weatherford stated that the Knickerbocker is not secure and is not closed up. He stressed that it still has access to it. He pointed out that the City has discussed this for two years and ten years before that. He questioned why the City has condemned this several times already. M r. Jones explained that the condition of the structure was different at the times it was condemned. He stated that M r. Girolamo has replaced those structural joists on all levels of those buildings. Director Weatherford stressed that it is still open, and M r. Jones said he would not argue with that. He added at one time, it was 96 percent secure. Director Weatherford said it is still open and not getting any better, and the roof is off one of them. He questioned how it is structurally Board of Directors M eeting 13 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . sound if the roof is off. He said it is a wooden structure and has been rained on and cannot be structurally sound. M r. Jones stated that when he and M r. Scott looked at it on February 14, there was no doubt water was getting in that building; and eventually those new timbers would deteriorate from the water. He said that at the present time, his assessment is that the building is not going to fall. However, if it is left as it is, it will eventually deteriorate until it falls. He noted that M r. Girolamo has made some improvements on it. Also, there are some other ways to address this, and the City can give him a citation to appear in court if he does not secure the building. He said these are not two buildings he would feel comfortable bringing to the Board again in their current state and saying they want to condemn them based on their condition. Director Smith said it looks as though the last correspondence was in February 2004, and a letter was sent to the owner requesting he secure the structure. He asked if there is anything in w rit ing from the owner or if he obtained a permit or just acknowledged the letter. M r. Jones advised that after the letter if he came and pulled a permit and proceeded with that work and worked at it for another six months but never called for an inspection, then there is not a written history of whether he got 100 percent completed with that. The City checks it periodically, but it never was 100 percent completed and was closer than what it is at the present time. He emphasized that the City tries to work with people, and he was making progress. Director Smith asked if he pulled a new permit on February 14 as opposed to a renewal, and M r. Scott advised that they updated his current permit. He said they discussed the procedure and that he needed to have activity on the site every 180 days. If not, the City could void the permit; and he would be pulling a new permit every 180 days if the City caught him working. The City updated it at that time because they did an inspection at that time, which buys him another 180 days to get another inspection done. Director Smith asked if there is a permit for each structure, and M r. Scott advised that he has a permit for each structure; and each permit covers the scope of work that he is doing. Director Smith asked if he pulled two permits, and M r. Scott advised that he had two permits, and the City updated both of them at that time. City M anager Kent M yers advised that M r. Girolamo came by his office on Friday and indicated he was going to be out of town. He told M r. Girolamo that he did not think the Board would take any action tonight. However, the Board may want it back on the agenda for some action in 30 days. He suggested that since the Board would not take action for 30 days, that he take advantage of the 30-day period and spend time securing that building. City Attorney David White asked if he can draw a comparison between this property and the three houses that were located on Oak Street that the City condemned. He said they had a problem with the notice, and tore down the three houses and the City lost in the District Court. What little gain the City received in the District Court, the City was reversed out on in appeal at the 8th Circuit Court and ended up costing the City $60,000 or $70,000 by the time it was through. M r. Jones advised that took place in 1993 and 1994, and he came to work in 1995. In that Board of Directors M eeting 14 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . case, the City did not give proper notification. When the City has proper notification and condemns them, then the owner has the option of making repairs. He can pull a permit, and he can start fixing them up. If he alters that building or changes the condition from the way it was at the time it was condemned to the way it is now, the City has to start over from the beginning and go through the process again. He said that staff does not bring them to the Board if they do not feel like they present a hazard to the community in some way. He commented he would not feel comfortable bringing these structures to the Board for condemnation based on their condition. City Attorney David White said that in staff’s view, this property is at least comparable to the Oak Street property or perhaps at this point in a better state of rehabilitation than what Oak Street was because Oak Street did not have any rehab done to it. M r. Jones commented those were vacant, abandoned structures; and the owner was out of s t ate and did nothing at all. Whereas, there is a person here and they do periodic work on the structures. Director Weatherford read from a memo dated December 30, 2002, which stated that on M ay 5, 2003, the structures were inspected, pictures taken, more progress, and 95 percent complete. On August 28, 2003, structures were inspected, pictures taken, material from 228 Prospect has been removed, and structure is open to the elements again. On February 10, 2004, 228 Prospect is still open to elements, pictures taken, and no progress. On February 11, 2004, a letter was sent to the ow ner reques t ing that he secure the structure. On February 16, 2005, a memo stating both structures are basically structurally sound at this time, which means there does not appear to be an imminent threat of either one collapsing. The back of 226 Prospect is 95 percent secure same as two years before. He commented that the owner has not done anything in two years. M r. Jones explained that is on the outside, but he has replaced the structural members on the inside. Director Weatherford stated the owner is dumping up there now, and the backs of these buildings are not secure and have not been for a number of years. Assistant M ayor M aruthur recognized M r. Robert Nagy, who spoke on behalf of these properties. M r. Nagy said he is glad to see M r. Girolamo is trying to save these historic structures. He noted these buildings have some problems and asked if anyone has gone into the building on Bridge and Central. He noted that M r. Girolamo built a restaurant in that building. Director Weatherford replied that M r. Girolamo will not let them in. City M anager Kent M yers advised that the City was in that building two weeks ago. D irector Weatherford asked if he has a grease trap in that building, and M r. Bart Jones replied that he is not far enough along. M r. Nagy said that is M r. Girolamo’s building and is a nice restaurant but it is not open at the present time. Board of Directors M eeting 15 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M .  Director Weatherford asked if he has a permit on that building, and M r. Scott advised that he does in the amount of $3,000 or $4,000. He pointed out that it has not been structural, and he has built furniture and tables and a bar, which is all cosmetic. He noted that the City does not make him pull a permit if he is going to build a concrete bench or a concrete bar. Director Jones commented the last time he came before the Board, it did not belong to him and was the Landmark. M r. Nagy replied that it was the corporation. City Manager Kent M yers pointed out that the Landmark is not on the agenda for discussion and is a different issue for the Board to consider. M r. Nagy said that M r. Girolamo is doing it legal, and it is not a hazard. Director Weatherford pointed out that the Board may not take any action tonight but believes the Board needs to set it off for 30 days and have some kind of answer. City M anager Kent M yers said it is the Board’s decision to place it on the agenda in April but does not need to take any action tonight. Director Smith suggested that the City use the 30 days from tonight and see what kind of activity is taking place and deal with it in 30 days. Director Weatherford questioned the status if within 30 days he does not have these buildings enclosed. Mr. Jones advised that the City can give him a citation to appear in M unicipal Court, and the judge can fine him $250 a day for each day he does not comply with that secure notice. Director Weatherford asked if the City allowed him to use exterior jet board as a permanent material, and M r. Jones advised that the previous building official approved that material to secure the exterior. Director Weatherford said he has used it before as an exterior, but he covers it with something. He stressed that is not a permanent exterior cover. D irector Smith said that in a letter dated February 16 regarding 228 Prospect (Knickerbocker), the sentence reads that the back is not secure. M r. Jones replied that is correct. Director Smith asked if the City is on record as saying it is not secure as of February 16, and M r. Jones advised that the back of the structure has not been completely secure as in impervious from the elements. He added it never quite made it to 100 percent secure. City Attorney David White pointed out that it bides him more time. Assistant M ayor M aruthur said the Board has heard the staff report and discussion; and if the Board wants to place this on the agenda, it needs to do it at the agenda meeting and consult with the City Attorney. Board of Directors M eeting 16 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M .  OTHER BUS INES S 32 Board of Directors Items Director Edwards commended the Water and Sewer Department for work they did on Fifth Street from Grand Avenue going south. Director Jones reported that she and Director Smith will be leaving for the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, DC on Saturday, and the City M anager will be leaving on Thursday. Director Smith reported that a special election will be held tomorrow on an added attraction at M agic Springs and urged citizens to vote. Assistant City Attorney Brian Albright announced that he circulated a memo congratulating the Police Chief and the City regarding a lawsuit filed in Federal Court. The 8th Circuit Court of A p p eals has affirmed the decision handed down by the U. S. District Court, and the City has prevailed in that lawsuit. He commended the Arkansas M unicipal League in handling the case, and the Police Chief and his department for supporting the Arkansas M unicipal League in providing the information they needed in order to prevail. Assistant M ayor M aruthur urged citizens to vote tomorrow. She stated if street lights are out, citizens may call 1-800-ENTERGY and give the street ID tag number and the street name. 33 City Manager’s Report City M anager Kent M yers gave the following report: 1. T he t rip to Washington DC will be for the National League of Cities Congressional Conference. There will be one-on-one meetings with Senator Lincoln, Senator Pryor, and Congressman Ross on M onday and Tuesday of next week. If the Directors have any items to add to the list for discussion, they need to contact him by the end of the week. He will provide the Board with a full report upon returning. He noted there are many issues facing Congress at the present time t hat impact Hot Springs (Community Development Block Grant funding that is scheduled for elimination or a major decrease; the bathhouse funding; and other issues). 2. Ms. Lois Baker, Public Information Assistant, is suffering an illness and unable to work for several weeks while taking chemotherapy. Temporary help is needed in the Public Information Department since it is a two-person department. If there are no objections from the Board, he would like to get a temporary employee in the Public Information Department for several weeks to help with the City newsletter. He asked that the Board approve hiring a temporary employee for no more than sixweeks at a total cost not to exceed $3,300. He pointed out it does not require Board action Board of Directors M eeting 17 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M . tonight, and the action would take place during the mid-year budget meeting. In reply to Director Edwards, City M anager Kent M yers advised that the City is looking for s omeone with technical assistance, such as setting up the camera equipment, assistance with upgradingthe website, laying out the Citywide newsletter. Director Edwards stressed that the City wants to hold M s. Baker’s job until she can return. City Manager Kent M yers stated that it will be temporary in nature only; and if M s. Payne were allowed to retain this person, it would be with the understanding not to exceed six weeks. He said he hoped M s. Baker would be able to return to work; but if not, then the City would have to advertise for that position. M s. Terry Payne, Public Information Officer, said she has no additional comments but is present to answer any questions. Assistant Mayor M aruthur asked if this is going to require a vote tonight, and City M anager Kent Myers advised that it would not. He said if the Board has any concern or problem with it, then staff will not proceed. However, if the Board has no objections, then staff will proceed and bring back a cost number for Board approval once the final number is determined, which will be over the next six weeks. There were no objections from the Board. 34 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m., to meet again on M onday, M arch 21, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: _____________________ APPROVED:__________________ Lance Hudnell, City Clerk M ike Bush, M ayor Board of Directors M eeting 18 M arch 7, 2005 at 7:00 P.M .