Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-07-16 Minutes1 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 16, 1974 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on Tuesday, July 18, 1974, in the Director's Room of the City Administration Building at 7:30 P.M. Present: Administrative Assistant David McWethy; City Attorney Jim McCord; Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk; and Directors Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson, and Stanton. Absent: City Manager Donald L. Grimes Others Present: Representatives of the news media, Eva Street property owners, representatives of the Baldwin Piano Company and Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Sid Davis representing Mr. Duane Nelson, Mr!.. David Malone representing General Growth Properties, and members of the audience. Mayor Russell T. Purdy called the meeting to order, and, following a brief moment of respectful silence, asked if there be any corrections to the minutes of the Special meeting of June 24, 1974. Approval of the Special minutes had been deferred at the July 2 meeting to allow certain revisions to be made. City Attorney McCord explained that he and the City Clerk had re- viewed the tape recordings of the Special meeting and had revised the minutes accordingly. He requested a minor addition to sentence two of paragraph five on page 96 by inserting the word "even" to cause the sentence to read: "Mr. Putman said even if the case..." There being no further amendments or corrections to the minutes of the Special meeting, Mayor Purdy declared the minutes approved as amended. He then asked if amendments or corrections were necessary to the minutes of the July 2 regular meeting and there were none. The Mayor declared the minutes approved as submitted. ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION The City Attorney read the proposed Ordinance calling for a special election to vote upon a two million dollar revenue bond issue to help finance a proposed plant expansion for the Baldwin Piano and Organ Company. A motion was made by Director Stanton, and seconded by Director Murray, to suspend the rules to allow the second reading of the Ordinance. In a roll call vote the motion was passed unanimously by the Board. Upon completion of the second reading, Director Murray made a motion to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Utley and was passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board. Following the final reading, Mayor Purdy invited dis- cussion. A representative of the Baldwin Company said the revenue from the bonds would be applied to the construction cost of additional facilities needed to accommodate the increased production of electric organ keyboards «S nom. 107 107 108 Mr. Herschell Friday, bond counsel for the City, told the Board that the Baldwin Company would deed to the City the title to the facilities and the land on which they will be located. In turn, the City would lease the facilities and land to the Baldwin Company with rental payments being applied to the retirement of the bonds. At the end of the bond period, Baldwin Company would have the option to purchase the land for a nominal fee. The City would incur no obligations should the Baldwin Company de- fault in payment of the bonds. Mr. Friday said the financing details had not been finalized but when the Ordinance for the issuance of the bonds was submitted to the Board, financing procedures would then have been finalized and would be recommended to the Board. Following little additional discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: "Ayes", seven;"Nays", none. The Ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor. ORDINANCE NO. 2024 APPEARS ON PAGE 1460F ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV Mayor Purdy then asked if Section 7 of the Ordinance should pass The vote being unanimous, the Mayor declared the emergency clause adopted. City Attorney McCord said a tentative date of August 27, 1974 had been set for the election, contingent upon the election committee's approval. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD STREET COMMITTEE The recommendation being considered by the Board is for the condem- nation of property to allow for the extension of a parallel access road west of Highway 71 North to connect with Stearns Road and the south en- trance of the Northwest Arkansas Plaza. The Board had tabled the recom- mendation at the July 2 meeting to allow the Directors to consider a new proposal made by Mr. Duane Nelson to dedicate right-of-way for a road that would be located behind Nelson's Funeral Home and connect with the access road. Mr. David Malone, legal representative for General Growth Properties, presented a brief history of the development of the Northwest Arkansas Plaza. He said Fayetteville had had a different Major Street Plan when General Growth had come to Fayetteville and requested their property be zoned. The Plan at that time had called for a collector street to be located somewhere in the area, Mr. Malone said. At the time General Growth submitted their plat, he stated, they were told that the south road at the south edge of the development should be brought up to collector status and they should plan to dedicate right-of-way and build the frontage road in front of the General Growth property. He said it was the thought of the Planning Commission the south road would eventually extend west and would be the collector street for the area. Mr. Malone said when Mr. Nelson submitted his Large Scale Develop- ment Plan for the Ramada Inn and Nelson's Funeral Home, Mr. Nelson was asked if the existing access road was to be tied in with the Sears frontage road and he had indicated that he did not wish for the road to be connected for some time. Mr. Malone said the City then adopted the present Major Street Plan which relocated the major collector street in the area and designated 108 1 Stearns Road at its present location as a major arterial street. Then, he said, General Growth began to try to talk with City, State,and County officials to try to develop a way to provide access to the street pro- posed in the area. Following several accidents at Zion Roadand Shephard Lane, legislators and officials requested a meeting with the State Highway Department to discuss what could be done to solve the hazardous traffic problems. At the meeting, Mr. Malone said, all types of alternatives were discussed. Following the meeting, the Highway Department summarized their recommendations as being the installation of caution lights at Zion Road and Shephard Lane, the opening of the frontage road, and full signalization at the Stearns Road intersection. Mr. Malone said recom- mendations from the Regional Planning Commission and from an independent traffic consultant (retained by General Growth) were that the speed limits be reduced, flashing caution lights be installed at both entrances to the Plaza, and the extension of the access road from the Plaza south to Stearns Road. Those recommendations, Mr. Malone stated, corresponded almost exactly to recommendations of the Highway Department. In view of the expert advice from specialists in traffic problems, Mr. Malone asked that the Board take action to open the access road. Mr. Nelson's proposal for the road to run along the sewer easement was not thought by General Growth to be feasible because of the many turns drivers would have to negotiate. Another proposal to locate the road west of Nelson's Funeral Home then north to the Plaza would cost accord- ing to estimates obtained by Mr. Malone, in the neighborhood of $65,000. and would be much too expensive. The latter proposal would entail the relocation of a barn, fence, and cattle guard and would involve special construction to alleviate difficult drainage problems. Mr. Malone was of the opinion that General Growth was facing un- necessary difficulties in opening the access road and was being pressured to build a road behind Nelson's property which would benefit Mr. Nelson much more than it would benefit the Plaza. Mr. Malone said a road from Johnson Road to the south edge of the Plaza property was planned for the future when the property west of the Plaza was developed; however, he stressed that no road would be built until the propertyywas developed. Then Mr. Malone told the Board that General Growth was willing to enter into an agreement with the City which would hold the City "harmless" to all costs for the road if the access road were opened. He said if the property along the access road could be condemned immediately and in a manner not requiring a deposit or bond to be entered into the registry of the court, General Growth would pay condemnation costs following a de- termination by a jury as to the actual amount of damages. At the conclu- sion of the case, Mr. Malone said, the City would have the opti6nn at that time to decide whether or not to complete condemnation or to stop proceed- ings. Mr. Malone's statements being concluded, the floor was yielded to Mr. Sid Davis, legal representative for Mr. Nelson. Mr. Davis contended that the condemnation procedures as proposed by Mr. Malone might not be legal and indicated that the City and General Growth might face legal complications if the condemnation procedure were followed. He also contended that General Growth's main concern was to open the access road for the use of their tenants. He asked the Board not to forget the damages Mr. Nelson would suffer if the access road were opened. In discussion from the Board, Director Stanton asked if the left turn lane at Shephard Lane would be closed regardless of which proposal 109 109 area 110 were adopted and Mr. Malone said the closing of the lane had not been approved by the Highway Department and that General Growth could not agree to close it until tenants had been consulted. Director Murray was of the opinion that the City would not be getting anything for its money unless a road was constructed behind Nelson's Funeral Home to run North and connect with the Plaza. Director Noland than asked how much right-of-way Mr. Nelson was willing to donate and Mr. Davis told him sixty feet or.however mudh'r. right-of-way was needed. Mr. Malone, in reply to questions from the Board, said the least objectionable location for the road would require taking a portion of the southwest corner of the funeral home property fot a road to run in a northwest direction towards the Plaza property. This proposal would require the road to have gentle curves but it would alleviate the problem of having to relocate the barn and fences. Mr. Utley felt the Board had lost sight of the original purpose of the Board Street Committee's recommendation to alleviate the traffic hazards existing in the area and felt all the proposals were stemming from a request to be considered by the Board for the rezoning of General Growth property west of the present Plaza. Mr. Utley agreed that Stearns Road at some future time would have to extend west to cope with the expected growth of the area. However, he felt the immediate problem was to solve the traffic hazards presently existing without regard to what was needed to serve General Growth properties. Mayor Purdy reminded the Board that the issue at hand was whether or not to condemn the property for extension of the access road and an influencing factor on the final decision would be whether or not the parties involved could reach an agreement to accommodate both parties. His main concern was whether the City could attain a satisfactory solu- tion to the traffic hazards. The only reasonable compromise, in his opinion, was for the road to cut across a corner of the funeral home property and gently curve northwestward toward the plaza. After a brief recess, Mr. Davis indicated that Mr. Nelson would consent for the road to be constructed either across the corner of the funeral home property or behind the barn but that he would want to get figures as to how much property would be involved before he made any committments in regard to the location of the road. The City Attorney then told the Board he believed there was authority in the State of Arkansas for the proposition that the condemning authority could abandon condemnation proceedings after judgment is rendered. He also said he knew of no case authority on the issue of private enterprise paying condemnation costs. If the condemnation were for a public purpose he said, the fact that the cost was assumed by a private enterprise might not render the entire transaction illegal. However, should the condem- nation be submitted to chancery court for a determination of whether the taking was for a public purpose, the fact that private enterprise had paid for the cost of condemnation might have some bearing on the outcome of the case. He then read the Resolution calling for the condemnation of Mr. Nelson's property to allow the opening of the access road. Mr. Malone said his client would be willing to cooperate with Mr. Nelson to implement the proposal for the location of the road but could not commit itself for the paving of the road. Mr. Davis assured the Board that Mr. Nelson's offer would still be good if the Board voted the Resolution down. 110 Upon motion by Director Carlson,, seconded by Director Stanton, the Resolution was submitted to a vote of the Board in which there were four "Ayes" and three "Nays" recorded?` Failing to obtain,a two thirds • vote, the Resolution was declared rejected by Mayor Purdy. Mayor Purdy then requested both parties involved to continue efforts to construct a road that would help alleviate traffic problems in the area of the Plaza. REQUEST BY EVA AVENUE PROPERTY OWNERS Eva Street Property Owners had requested the Board of Directors to review methods used in estimating costs that would be involved in the paving of Eva Avenue. A petition requesting cost estimates for the paving had been submitted by the property owners on May 21, 1974 and the results of the cost study were presented to the Board in the form of a Resolution on June 18. The property owners contended that the estmates were not arrived at in an equitable manner; therefore, they requested the Board to review the estimates and the method used to obtain the estimates. David McWethy, Administrative Assistant, explained that the estimates had been based upon the assessed value of each lot, the street frontage of each lot, the zoning patterns of the area, the size of the lots, and the terrain of the area. One problem in de- termining the cost estimates, Mr. McWethy said, was the fact that one side of the street is undeveloped and resulted in the property owners on the developed side of the street bearing most of the burden for the paving costs. Mr. Wylie Holt, 1002 Eva Street, felt the estimates were inequit- able because the burden of paving costs would be placed with property owners living on the developed portion of the street, whereas if the estimates were made on a footage basis, the cost would be shared more fairly. City Attorney McCord said he had researched the methods used in obtaining the estimates and the laws pertaining to the assessing of street improvement districts. In a memo from McCord, included with the agenda, Mr. McCord said the Act applying to street improvement districts state that "assessments will be made against each lot or parcel of real property in the district based upon the cost of the improvement and the benefits accruing to such lot and parcel of property, with all such assessments to be according to the value of the benefits and uniform." Mr. McCord said the Board might want to consider whether or not the present method used conforms with the law as noted in his memo. Mr. McCord stated that should the Board decide the present method conforms with the law, the property owners could forego filing within sixty days of the Resolution stating estimated costs and assessments, the necessary petition to organize the district. Then, at a later date, the property owners could return to the Board with a new petition after the undeveloped properties had been developed. Another alternative for the property owners would be for them to institute their proceedings for a separate improvement district with their own commissioners and assessors. They could also challenge the assessments in the Chancery Court if they felt the assessments were unfair. *Those voting "Aye": Orton, Purdy, Utley, and Stanton. Those voting "Nay": Noland, Murray, Carlson. 111 111 112 Director Orton felt the Board would consider an alternate method the property owners might suggest if it would be in conformance with the law. The City Attorney suggested a real estate appraiser might be re- tained to determine the enhanced value of the properties should the paving be done and have the appraiser report to the Board. Too, he suggested the City consult a real estate appraiser about the method and formula now used for determing the cost estimates or for the purpose of devising another formula. Mayor Purdy said the Board was willing to assist the Eva Street property owners but that the Board could not set up another arrange- ment for their particular district. He requested Mr. McWethy-'addtthe City Manager to consult a real estate appraiser for the purpose of reviewing the present methods used and the possibility of devising another formula. ORDINANCE TO RE -ZONE PROPERTY The petitioners, General Growth Development Corporation, requested rezoning a 60.66 acre tract of land at 4201 North College from R-1 (Low Density Residential) and R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and R-0 (Residential Office). The land is located directly west of the present Northwest Arkansas Plaza complex. Mr. David Malone, representing General Growth, said his client proposed to extend the present complex westward and the R-0 zone would serve as a "buffer" to the proposed residential area. In regard to the commercial zoning, Mr. Malone said his client could develop the same amount of square footage in;8hd torrent zone by redesigning the proposed construction. However, Mr. Malone stated, it is General Growth's goal to re -align the mall to take advantage of the terrain. General Growth agreed with the Planning Commission's suggestion to table the rezoning request for a portion of the land lying west of the Plaza until access to the property could be provided, but General Growth did want a definite decision from the Board as to the request for the commercial zoning to allow them to complete plans. Mr. Malone said the current access facilities would serve the addition with no additional parking facilities needed. Although the Plaza experiences some access problems, Director Stanton stated that he felt the Plaza provided adequate traffic facilities at the Plaza and agreed that additional parking spaces would not be needed. Director Orton expressed her opposition to addi- tional density in the Plaza area until existing traffic problems had been solved. Director Stanton replied that he did not feel it would be to the City's disadvantage to approve the rezoning and leave the solution of traffic paoblems for later consideration and negotiation by the parties involved. Director Noland felt the traffic problems would be alleviated by the time General Growth was ready to start construction on their addition. The City Attorney then read the Ordinance for the first time. A motion made by Director Stanton to suspend the rules to allow for the second reading was seconded by Director Noland and passed unanimously in a toll call vote of the Board. Following the second reading, Director Murray motioned to again suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading. The motion, seconded by Director Stanton, passed in a unanimous vote of the Board. 112 The final reading being completed, Mayor Purdy asked if there be any further discussion. Director Orton again stated she opposed the rezoning for R-0 until the traffic problems had been alleviated and made a motion to amend the Ordinance by deleting the request for the R-0 zoning. The motion died for lack of a second. Director Utley was of the opinion further expansion and rezoning of the Plaza would be contingent upon the solution of traffic problems and as long as the contingency existed, the parties involved with the access road would work more cooperatively in solving the problems. Mr. Malone said the contingency on the R-0 zoning might be acceptable to his client but that General Growth was of the opinion the R-0 zone would provide a buffer to the residential areas. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was' "Ayes", six; "Nays", one -- cast by Director Orton. The Ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor. ORDINANCE NO. 2025 APPEARS ON PAGE 152OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE TO REZONE PROPERTY Petitioners Paulene Reed and Marel Griffith requested rezoning for a 4.0 acre tract of land located at 2275-2289 South School Avenue from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial). After the initial reading of the Ordinance, Director Murray made a motion tossuspend the rules to allow for the second reading. The motion, seconded by Director Utley, received a unanimous vote from the Board. The Ordinance was then read for the second time by the City Attorney. A motion to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading was made by Director Murray and seconded by Director Stanton. The vote of the Board was again unanimous and the City Attorney read the Ordinance for the third and final time. Mayor Purdy invited the Board's discussion,and there being none, asked if the Ordinance should pass. In a roll call vote of the Board the results were: "Ayes", seven;and;"Nays", none. The Ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor. ORDINANCE NO. 2026 APPEARS ON PAGE 1530F ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed Ordinance, read for the first time by the City Attorney, would approve the Large Scale Development plan submitted by Hamopah, Incorporated for property located at 675 Lollar Lane and would accept and confirm the dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements. The first reading being completed, Director Stanton made a motion, which was seconded by Director Murray, to suspend the rules to allow the second reading. The City Attorney read the Ordinance for the second time after the motion had received a unanimous vote from the Board. A motion to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading was made by Director Murray and seconded by Director Carlson. In a roll call vote of the Board, the motion was passed unani- mously. Following the third and final reading, the Mayor called for 113 113 114 • discussion from the Board, and none being offered, asked if the Ordinance should pass. Seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded during a roll call vote. The Ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor. ORDINANCE NO. 2027 APPEARS ON PAGE 1S50F ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The City Attorney read the proposed Ordinance which would accept the Large Scale Development Plan of Long John Silver's Sea Food Shoppe to be located at the northwest corner of Sycamore Street and North College Avenue. The Ordinance would also confirm the dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements. Director Murray made a motion to suspend the rules to allow the second reading and Director Carlson seconded the motion. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote of the Board. After the City Attorney had completed the second reading, a motion was made by Director Noland and seconded by Director Murray to further suspend the rules to place the Ordinance on third and final reading. In a roll call vote of the Board, the motion passed unanimoafly and the Ordinance was read for the third and final time. After a brief question and answer period, the Mayor asked if the Ordinance should pass. Upon roll call vote of the Board, seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded. Mayor Purdy declared the Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2028 APPEARS ON PAGE 1560F ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR STREET LIGHT INSTALLATIONS The City Manager had requested authorization to expend $4,785.61 to install eighteen 400 -watt street lights on Highway 71 North between Zion Road and Johnson Road. Correspondence from the State Highway Department, Southwestern Electric Power Company, and the City Manager pertaining to the project were included with the agenda. Following the reading of the Resolution by the City Attorney, the Mayor asked for discussion. There being no discussion, Director Stanton made a motion to adopt the Resolution. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and was passed in a roll call vote of the Board. Mayor Purdy declared the Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 54-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 66 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER AND SEWER EXPENDITURES The proposed Resolution would authorize the expenditure of up to ten percent of the amounts in the 1973-74 water and sewer budget for normal departmental operations until such time as the 1974-74 budget is adopted. Included with the agendas Were copies of the proposed budget to be considered by the Board at a later date. A motion to adopt the Resolution, which was read by the City Attorney, was introduced by Director Carlson and seconded by Director Orton. There being no discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the Resolution be adopted. The vote of the Board was unanimous and the Mayor declared the Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 55-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 67 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV 114 1 1 PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARD OF BIDS Bid Number 262: Water $ Sewer Department Mobile Radios - A recommendation to reject the low bid of Jim's Radio and T. V. of Springdale was submitted by Paul Mattke, City Engineer because the bid did not meet specifications. Mr. Mattke recommended the bid be awarded to Charlie Price, d/b/a Motorola of Little Rock in the amount of $778.94 per unit. Four mobile units would be purchased -- three for the Water and Sewer Department and one for the Finance Department. An Ordinance to waive the formal bid requirements was then read by the City Attorneysafter which Director Carlson introduced a motion to suspend the rules to allow the second reading. The motion, seconded by Director Stanton, was passed with a unanimous vote of the Board. Following the second reading, a motion to further suspend the rules to allow the third and final reading was made by Director Noland. The motion was seconded.by Director Murray and passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board. The final reading being completed, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance should pass. Upon roll call vote of the Board, seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded. The Ordinance was declared passed by Mayor Purdy. ORDINANCE NO. 2029 APPEARS ON PAGE 157 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV Bid Number 265: Cast Iron Pipe - Mr. Paul Mattke, City Engineer, in a memo to the City Manager, recommended rejection of all bids stating, "...none of the responsive bidders complied with our specifi- cations. Each contained escalation clauses and minimum quantity re- quirements, thereby rendering their bids unacceptable." He also asked that the Board consider an Ordinance to waive formal bid requirements and allow the purchase of the cast iron pipe on an as -needed written quote basis. An Ordinance to waive the formal bid requirements was read by the City Attorney. A motion was made by Director Stanton to suspend the rules to allow for the second reading. Director Murray seconded the motion which the Board approved in a unanimous roll call vote. After the City Attorney had completed the second reading, Director Murray motioned to further suspend the rules to place the Ordinance on third and final reading. Following a second to the motion by Director Noland, the motion was unanimously approved in:a roll call vote of the Board. Therebbeing no discussion following the third reading, the Mayor asked if the Ordinance should pass and the results of the roll call vote was unanimous. Mayor Purdy declared the Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2030 APPEARS ON PAGE158 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS Mr. McWethy requested, on behalf of the City Manager, authoriza- tion to purchase fencigg materials through the waiver of formal bid requirements. The fencing materials would be used for right-of-way along the Highway 265 as per agreement between the City and Phyllis Street upon acgpisitwon of the right-of-way. The materials would cost approximately $9,000.00, Mr. McWethy told the Board. He also - 1 115 115 116 told the Board that the City Manager's Office had been contacted by the State Highway Department and was told the Highway Department was ready to proceed with the Highway 265 project. The City Attorney read a prepared Ordinance to waive the formal bid requirements for the fencing materials. A motion to suspend the rules to place the Ordinance on second reading was made by Director Murray and seconded by Director Utley. The motion passed in a unani- mous vote of the Board after which the City Attorney read the Ordinance for the second time. The second reading completed, Director Murray made a motion to further suspend the rules to allow the third and final reading. Director Noland seconded the motion which was passed in a unanimous roll call vote of the Board. Mayor Purdy then declared the Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2031 APPEARS ON PAGE 159 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Board's consideration, Director Stanton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion, seconded by Director Murray, was unanimously approved by the Board. ATTEST: CITY CLERK • 116 APPROVED: MAYOR A .°,