Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-20 Minutes200 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, November 20, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor David Malone, Directors Lancaster, Todd, Osborne, Noland, Colwell, and Henry; City Manager Don Grimes, City Attorney Jim McCord, City Clerk Angie Medlock, and Administrative Assistant David McWethy. ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the mayor called the meeting to order. SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY 200.1 1he_'first item for consideration was an ordinance authorizing Fayetteville's participation in a Regional Solid Waste Authority. The mayor explained that this ordinance would authorize Fayetteville to cooperate with 29 other cities in the Northwest Arkansas area in a solid waste authority. 200.2 The city attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Colwell, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 200.3 Director Colwell, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 200.4 Director Todd stated that he understands the importance of the solid waste authority, but was concerned that each community is to have equal authority in the organization. He said he feels Fayetteville will have the financial burden of the group but will only have one vote out of the 29 communities involved. Director Henry noted that the other communities cannot obligate the City of Fayette- ville if Fayetteville decides not to stay in the project. 200.5 In response to Director Todd, the city attorney explained that if the contract was not agreeable to any of the cities, those cities would not be obligated to sign the agreement. Director Henry commented that the other localities amount of parti- cipation may be as significant a part of their incomes as Fayettevilles' participa- tion is of Fayetteville's income and she feels their needs should be considered in setting up the project. 200.6 The city manager said he feels this organization is an attempt to see how many cities are interested in a project and he feels they will at a later date have an arrangement similar to the Beaver Water District to administrate the program. Mr. Grimes commented that the Board could indicate to Regional Planning that they feel the governmental entities contributing the largest amounts should have more input than the smaller communities. Director Todd asked if the service delivery contract will be long-term and the city attorney responded that it would have to be long-term in order to market the bonds. 1 10-20-79 201 There being no further discussion, the mayor asked if the ordinance 201.1 should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2574 APPEARS ON PAGE 35 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. PROPERTY TRANSFER/ Ken Lazenby The mayor opened discussion on a resolution authorizing the mayor and city 201.2 clerk to execute a quitclaim deed transferring a small parcel of city property located on the north side of Mt. Comfort Road, east of North Oakland, to the CD property owner to the north, Ken Lazenby. 0 Lazenby explained that the property in question was originally deeded to 201.3 00 the City to widen the intersection at North and Garland Streets. Lazenby ex- plained that he would like to have a quitclaim deed to the property so that he could better maintain it. He commented that he had been taking care of this Q strip but felt he could better continue to do so if he owned the property. In response to Director Colwell, Lazenby said he had owned Lot 11, next 201.4 to the property in question, for approximately one year, and had had an appraisal done on the city -owned property, which stated that the city -owned property has no value. Director Henry commented that should the City widen the Mt. Comfort intersection, they would have to reacquire the property from Mr. Lazenby. Director Colwell questioned the square footage of the property, and it was 201.5 determined that the legal description submitted was in error Lazenby, in response to the city attorney, stated that he did not feel there is an abstract to the property in question. Director Colwell stated that the strip of property could be used in con- 201.6 junction with Lot 11, already owned by Mr. Lazenby, for multi -family develop- ment parking area. Mr. Lazenby commented that if the City would assure him that the property 201.7 would be maintained, he wouldn't care if the City retained the ownership. The city manager noted that the City plat book shows this strip of 201.8 property as a part of Lot 11, and recommended further consideration of the request until a correct legal description can be furnished. Following further discussion, Director Todd, seconded by Noland, moved 201.9 consideration of the request be tabled. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. REZONE PROPERTY: W. Sixth Street The mayor stated that the Planning Commission had recommended by a 9-0 201.10 vote that a 1.79 acre parcel of property located on the south side of West Sixth Street, approximately 300 feet west of Razorback Road be rezoned from I-2, General Industrial District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. The city attorney read the ordinance for the first time. No one was 201.11 present in opposition to the rezoning. Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the 201.12 ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Hnery, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayordeclared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 11-20-79 202 202.1 202.2 Di rector and the ordina Ayes: Noland, Nays: None. The mayor decl for the third Ayes: Noland, Nays: None. The mayor decl for the third There bei pass. The rec Ayes: Noland, Nays: None. The mayor decl Todd, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended nce placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. ared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance and final time. The recorded vote was: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. ared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance and final time. ng no further discussion, the mayor asked if the ordinance should orded vote was: Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. ared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2575 APPEARS ON PAGE 47 OF ORDIiANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 202.3 The mayor opened discussion on an amendment to the sign ordinance which would provide that the Board may consider granting a variance for a sign which will be non -conforming, if the sign meets the requirements of the "reasonableness test". 202.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Todd. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Ca11 Lancaster. 202.5 The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordi- nance for the second time. 202.6 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. 202.7 The mayor called attention to a letter from the city attorney and included in the director's agendas which indicated the city attorney felt the sign ordinance should be amended to clarify the jurisdiction of the Board of Sign Appeals. 202.8 The city attorney explained that the amendment would provide the Board of Sign Appeals to permit free-standing signs in the R-0 zone and set out that the Board of Sign Appeals may apply the "reasonableness test" when considering continuation of a non -conforming on-site sign. He said under the present terms of the ordinance, the Board has no grounds by which to allow a noncon- forming sign to continue after the amortization period. . 202.9 Director Todd asked if the "reasonableness test" is different from what the city attorney has advised in the past and the city attorney said it is --in the past the Board has had the authority to grant a variance only when there was a "practical difficulty" such as terrain. McCord explained that the Board should use the "practical difficulty" test in granting a variance for new signs, and the "reasonableness" test when considering allowing the continuation of a non -conforming sign. 202.10 Director Lancaster and Director Todd agreed that they' would be applying "double -standards" as these provisions would be different from what has been considered in granting variances in the past. 1 1 11-2049 203 Director Todd said he feels the City Board should take the position of 203.1 past Boards in not allowing non -conforming signs to continue. The mayor explained that the city attorney has advised that if the Board does not allow a reasonable time for amortization and allow a provision for considering a variance, the ordinance could be considered unconstitutional. The city attorney stated that there is case law from other jurisdictions which says if a sign variance pro- vision is not provided, the ordinance is unconstitutional. He commented further, however, that the Arkansas Supreme Court has not yet been faced with this issue. Director Todd commented that he feels the variance provision should be 203.2 more limited that what has been proposed. The mayor explained that there will be two types of sign variances --one for existing signs and one for new signs. When considering a variance for a new sign, the Board would need to apply the "practical difficulty" test which considers things such as configuration of the Q) lot, and a "reasonableness test" when considering ekisting signs, which applies 0 to things such as the salvage value of the sign and relocation costs. CO Director Todd was also concerned that the provisions for the "reasonableness" 203.3 test may be more liberal than the previous ordinance provisions. In response to Director Todd, the city attorney explained that the current 203.4 ordinance would not allow a property owner having a free-standing sign in the Q R-0 district to appeal to the Sign Appeal Board, even if requiring him to remove the sign would be "unreasonable". Director Todd asked if they could eliminate the provision for a free-standing sign in the R-0 district and the city attorney stated that the amendment would not change that provision, it would simply allow a property owner in the R-0 district having a free-standing sign to apply for a variance to allow his free-standing sign to continue. Director Lancaster stated that he would vote for the amendment, on the 203.5 basis that this is a legal point advised by the city attorney to be incorporated into the sign ordinance. Director Todd agreed with Lancaster. The mayor then called for a vote on the ordinance. The recorded roll call 203.6 vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2577 APPEARS ON PAGE 53 OF ORDiIdIANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. SIGN APPEAL / Jo Bennett The mayor stated that an appeal from the literal provisions of the sign ordinance was submitted by Jo Bennett, 2415 N. College Avenue, property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. The petitioner had requested permission to erect two wall signs on one wall and the ordinance allows no more than one wall sign per wall per business, up to four per building per business. Jo Bennett explained that the middle portion of the wall is glass and she cannot utilize that area for the sign. She said she would prefer to put the name of the business on one wall and a description of the services on the other wall. Director Henry commented that the total of the two signs would be approximately 105 square feet, and the petitioner could have a sign of up to 150 square feet on one wall, if she chose to do so. Director Lancaster questioned the hardship on this appeal and the city attorney advised that the petitioner would need to meet the "practical difficulty" provision as this is a new sign. Todd stated that the petitioner could meet the requirements of the ordinance if she had a smaller sign. In response to the directors, (Bennett said she would not have a free-standing sign if allowed a variance far the two wall signs. 203.7 203.8 203.9 204 11-20-79 204.1 Director Todd said one wall sign on one wall would be visible from the road, and he did not see the difficulty in the petitioner meeting ordinance requirements. 204.2 Director Osborne moved the variance be granted on the condition that no free-standing sign be erected on the property at any time. Director Noland seconded the motion. 204.3 In response to Colwell, the city attorney indicated that if a new tenant wanted to continue having two wall signs as granted by this variance, that tenant would also be subject to the condition that no free-standing sign would be erected. McCord said the variance would run with the land. 204.4 Director Todd stated that he would vote against the request as he does not feel it is in keeping with the spirit of the sign ordinance, and he does not feel it necessary to advertise all of one's services. Mayor Malone noted that when the sign ordinance was originally proposed, the Board was trying to encourage people through the sign ordinance to advertise in a different way and limit signs to identification and direction. Malone commented that this variance bothers him in that he feels the petitioner is using the sign as a form of advertising. 204.5 Director Osborne amended his motion to reflect that the signs appear substantially as presented to the Directors in the agenda material. Said motion died for lack of a second. 204.6 Director Osborne commented that he felt the Board would be denying the petitioner the privilege they are granting to others, who don't have glass in the middle of their wall. Osborne noted also that one hardship the petitioner would have is that you could not see a sign on any of the other three walls of the building. 204.7 The mayor then called for a vote on the motion by Director Osborne that the variance be granted on the condition that no free-standing sign be erected on the property at any time. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Colwell, Henry. Nays: Malone, Lancaster, Todd. The mayor declared the motion passed. SIGN APPEAL: Dr. Benjamin Sacks 204.8 The mayor explained that the petitioner, Dr. Benjamin I. Sacks, was requesting permission to continue using an existing non -conforming sign located at 840 North College Avenue. The ordinance would require this sign to be set back 16 feet from the street right-of-way. 204.9 Sacks explained that if he moved the sign back 16 feet, it would not be visible from the street and the sign is the only way people know where his office is. Sacks said he would be willing to cooperate with the City in working something out on the location of the sign. 204.10 In response to Director Todd, Sign Inspector John Dietzen said there is a large tree which would block visibility of the sign should it be moved back into conformance. Sacks said if the sign were moved back on to the parking area, he would lose at least two parking spaces. Colwell asked Sacks if he felt the sign would be visible moved back on the south property line and Sacks said he felt the sign would lose visibility to those driving down the road. 204.11 Following a short discussion, Dirertor Noland moved to table the request until the next meeting to give the board members and the petitioner time to look at alternate locations for the sign. Director Colwell noted that the petitioner could have the address only on the sign and leave it in its present location. 1 1 11-20-79 Director Todd suggested the sign inspector mark where the closest point for a sign to be in conformity would be, so the directors could try to better make a determination on allowing a variance. Director Todd suggested also that the sign inspector make a recommendation on visibility of the sign at the con- forming location. Director Osborne seconded the motion to table the request. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. 205 205.1 205.2 SIGN APPEAL: Bryce Davis 0) The board next considered an appeal from the provisions of the sign ordi- 205.3 0 nance submitted by Bryce Davis & Company, Inc., 1617 North College Avenue, 03 property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. The petitioner had requested to be able to continue his sign located 3 feet from the property line and the ordinance requires a 26 foot setback for a sign of this size. Q Bryce Davis said the sign was originally put up to take into consideration 205.4 Q safety, as well as visibility. He said the sign is sitting high enough up so that cars coming out of Davis Plaza can see both north and south. Davis said the sign had originally cost $500 and he felt he had gotten his money out of the sign. Davis said the sign is used for identification purposes only for tenants who do not have frontage on North College, which he feels should be considered the hardship. Director Noland noted that a previous Board has made provisions for wall signs for identification of those shops in Davis Plaza. Director Todd suggested the sign could be set in front of the north building 205.5 in conformance with the sign ordinance. Responding to Director Colwell, Davis said he furnishes the Davis Plaza sign 205.6 for his tenants. In response to the directors, Sign Inspector Dietzen said the only sign which would be allowed at the present location would be an sign with an address only on it. Director Colwell asked Davis if the tenants could share the wall space and 205.7 Davis indicated he felt it would be unsafe to have wall signs on the building, as cars would have to look away from the road to read the wall signs. Director Colwell pointed out that in Oak Plaza Shopping Center and Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, there are tenants who do not have signs on the highway. Noland commented that the intent of the ordinance is to get signs back away from the road. Bryce Davis said he feels the hardship is that if the sign was moved back 205.8 to a point where it would be in conformance, it would not be seen by the general public driving down College Avenue. Director Henry moved to deny the request. Director Osborne agreed that if 205.9 the Board granted this variance, it could set a precedent for College Avenue. Director Todd seconded Henry's motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the request for a variance denied. 1 SIGN APPEAL: KMCK Ronald Bumpass was present representing the petitioner, KMCK, Inc., on a request for a new sign to be located at 2650 North College Avenue, property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Petitioner was requesting a roof sign in lieu of a wall sign. Mr. Bumpass explained that the petitioner is planning to locate a sales office at 2650 North College Avenue, and are hoping to be allowed to use a roof sign in place of a wall sign. He said the Board of Sign Appeals has the authority 205.10 205.11 11-20-79 206 206.1 to grant a variance to allow a roof sign. 206.2 Director Osborne disqualified himself from voting on this appeal, as he felt he could potentially have a conflict. 206.3 Mr. Bumpass stated that the Board can grant a variance where the petitioner can show that a wall sign would cause a difficulty and when the petitioner can demonstrate that the roof sign will be keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Bumpass explained that the roof of this building comes very close to the ground and there is really no wall to which they could attach a wall sign. He said the sign would be less than 150 square feet and approximately 10 feet from the ground. He said he felt the Board could justify granting of a variance due to the uniqueness of the architecture of the building. 206.4 The mayor commented that he has difficulty with the sign keeping with the intent of the ordinance, as the proposed sign itself appears to be advertising. He said the original intent of the ordinance was for people to use signs for identification and use other means of advertising. 206.5 Following a short discussion, Bumpass requested the Board table the request so that he may work with the petitioners to see if they would like to redesign the sign. Todd asked if the roof sign would be in addition to a free-standing sign and Bumpass said it would be. Todd noted that this particular business would not be a high -traffic generating use and he does not see that both signs are necessary. Mayor Malone agreed and said he can't see that a radio station sales office needs more than one sign. Director Noland asked that if the petitioner still wishes to request a variance, that they also submit a drawing of the free-standing sign to be used 206.6 Director Noland moved to table the request. Director Henry seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Abstain: Osborne. The mayor declared the motion passed. CD AUDIT AMENDMENT 206.7 The mayor summarized that the next item for consideration was a resolution authorizing the execution of an amendment to a contract between the City and Scarbrough and Murtishaw, Certified Public Accountants, for payment of an additional $849. 206.8 In response to the directors, the city manager recommended that the additional payment be authorized, as it took the auditors more time than was originally estimated to complete the audit. 206.9 Director Noland, seconded by Todd, moved the manager's recommendation be accepted. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Malone, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Call: Osborne, Colwell. The mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. I1a-1q APPEARS ON PAGE H5 CONDEMNATION / Garland Avenue Sidewalks 206.10 The mayor explained a resolution had been proposed authorizing the initiation of condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of two easements necessary for the construction of the Garland Avenue sidewalks. 206.11 Mr. Devore asked how the City had decided on the assessed value of the property to be taken and the mayor explained that the appraisal had been done by a local appraisor. He explained that if the property owners and City could not reach a settlement, the property owners would still have time to negotiate OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. 1 1 1 11-20-79 207 after condemnation proccedings have been initiated. Devore commented that he 207.1 had had an appraisal done on the property and it was much higher than what the City had offered. There was some discussion on the fact that the property is a non -conforming commercial use in an R-1 district. John Harris, 1525 North Garland, was concerned that the sidewalk would 207.2 be placed inside his hedge, and indicated he felt a new hedge should be installed to separate his home from the sidewalk. The city attorney assured the property owners that he would be willing to 207.3 work with them on settling the condemnation out of court, and asked that they contact him in order to further negotiate on the easements. Noland, seconded =:by Osborne, moved the condemnations be authorized. 207.4 The recorded vote was: 0) Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Ma1kne,:Colwell, Henry, Lancaster. Q Nays: Todd. CO "The mayor declared the motion passed. CD RESOLUTION NO. 113-11 APPEARS ON PAGE 1 1 1 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. ENGINEERING CONTRACTS / Community Development Next the Board .considered award of the following engineering contracts 207.5 for Community Development street, sidewalk -and sewer projects: McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, for a fee not to exceed $7,675, the engineering plans for sewer lines for E. Huntsville Road, 18th Street, and Morningside Drive. McClelland Consulting Engineers, not to exceed $27,800, improvements ' for Storer Avenue (Cleveland to North), Porter Road (Hatfield to Deane), Helen St. (Ray to Jerry), Jerry Ave. (Huntsville to Helen), and Ray Avenue (Helen to Lee). Milholland Engineers, not to exceed $21,624, paving of 5th Street (Sherman to Happy Hollow), Sherman (5th to Huntsville), and 7th St. (College Ave. to Locust). Northwest Engineers, not to exceed $18,000, sidewalks on Washington Avenue (7th to 15th), Huntsville Rd. (Rock to Wood), Rock St. (Mill to Willow), Wood Ave (7th to McClinton), Duncan (Center to 6th), and Government Ave. (6th to the National Cemetary). In response to Director Todd, the community development director explained 207.6 that the engineering contracts would cover all engineering, including on-site inspections. The city manager commented that approval of these contracts would be subject to the city attorney's review. Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved the contracts be awarded as 207.7 recommended. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 118-79 APPEARS ON PAGE 128 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. FIRST NATIONAL BANK / Planter Bricks on Square - A request had been submitted by First National Bank for permission to 207.8 change the shape of, and color of bricks used in the planters on the east side of the square. The brick to be used would match the brick in the First National Bank's new building. 11-20-79 208 208.1 The city manager explained that this item had come up previously and the City Board had sent the request back to the Parks Board for a recommendation. Mr. Grimes said he had seen the brick which is to be used and recommended the request be granted, as also recommended by the Parks Board. 208.2 Director Todd, seconded by Noland, moved the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board be approved. The recorded roll call vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. PARKS GRANT AMENDMENT 208.3 A resolution was proposed authorizing an amendment to a Heritage Con- servation and Recreation Service grant request, for improvements to Walker Park. The amendment deletes $50,000 in improvements originally scheduled for Lake Fayetteville Park, and $11,000 in landscaping and tree planting at Walker Park. 208.4 Director Henry, seconded by Malone, moved the amendment be authorized. The administrative assistant stated that his recommendation is that the City pay the entire $261,000 city share as originally planned, even though the HCRS grant will only be $200,000. He noted that the Board would need to appropriate $55,000 as the Community Development department only has $206,000 available at this time for the local match. In response to the directors, the community development director indicated there is $45,000 in the 1975,76, and 77 budgets allocated for Ridge House which has not been used. Todd said he felt any money in the 1975 budget should be cleared out. 208.5 The mayor called for a vote on the motion to authorize the amendment to the HCRS grant. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 114-79 APPEARS ON PAGE 118 AOF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. PARKS - Walker Park 208.6 The administrative assistant stated that the Board needs to consider a resolution dedicating a 7 -acre and an 8 -acre parcel of property north of Walker Park as park land for a period of 25 years. 208.7 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved the resolution be approved. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 115-79 APPEARS ON PAGE )1 8 c OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT / Hwy 265/71 and Hwy 62/71 208.8 A resolution was proposed authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute an agreement with the Highway Department for relocation of water lines in the Highway 265/71 and Highway 62/71 areas. 208.9 Director Noland moved the agreement be authorized. Director Todd seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Todd. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Call: Lancaster. The mayor declared the resolution passed RESOLUTION NO. 116-79 APPEARS ON PAGE 119 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. 1 1 11-20-79 209 ALLEY CLOSING / Rock Street, East Avenue The city attorney read an ordinance closing and vacating an alley, 209.1 running north from Rock Street, between Block and East Avenues, and closing and vacating an alley running east from East Avenue, between Center and Meadow Streets. Director Noland, seconded by Lancaster, moved the rules be suspended 209.2 and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Call: Colwell, Henry. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance forthe second time. 01 Director Todd, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be further suspended 209.3 O and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Lancaster, Todd. CO Nays: None. Q Absent at Roll Call: Colwell, Henry. Q The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance Q for the third and final time. There being no public opposition expressed, the mayor asked if the ordinance 209.4 should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osobrne, Malone, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. Absent at Roll Ca11• Colwell. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2578 APPEARS ON PAGE 54 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. FAYETTEVILLE PLUMBING "Act 9" Bonds The city attorney read an ordinance authorizing the issuance of $310,000 in Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Fayetteville Plumbing. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. There being no opposition, the mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared that the ordinance had passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2576 APPEARS ON PAGE 49 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. 209.5 209.6 209.7 209.8 11-20-79 210 PARKS EQUIPMENT / Award of Bid 210.1 The Community Development department had recommended award of bids for ten items of playground equipment to Tom Beverly and Associates for $5,924.00 and to Bergfield Associates for $1,089.00. 210.2 Director Osborne moved the recommendation be accepted. Director Lancaster seconded the motion. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed. AWARD OF BID / Big Toy 210.3 The city attorney read an ordinance waiving competitive bidding require- ments for the purchase of one Model SB -1 "Schoolyard Big Toy" for Root Park. 210.4 Director Colwell, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 210.5 Director Colwell, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the motion passed and the city attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. The mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. Nays: None. The mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2579 APPEARS ON PAGE 56 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. 1980 REPORT TO THE PEOPLE 210.6 The mayor noted that they had authorized award of bid for printing the "1980 Report to the People" at the previous Board meeting. He acknowledged that the bid had been awarded to low bidder, Calvert -McBride Company of Fort Smith. OTHER BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR HIGHWAY 71 EXTENSION 210.7 The city manager introduced a encouragement for the extension of by Noland, moved the resolution be Ayes: Noland, Osborne, Malone, Col Nays: None. The mayor declared the resolution p resolution expressing Fayetteville's Highway 71. Director Osborne, seconded approved. The recorded vote was: well, Henry, Lancaster, Todd. assed. RESOLUTION NO. 111-79 APPEARS ON PAGE 121 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII. POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE 210.8 The administrative assistant distributed copies of a letter to be sent to Pollution Control committee members for the Board's consideration. The only suggestion was from Director Henry, who recommended that he reword the letter to reflect "as recommended by EPA policy". The administrative assistant also furnished a copy of the proposed display add for upcomina committee vacancies. 1 11-20-79 OFF-STREET PAR!K1NG DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 Director Osborne presented copies of a supplementai.plan for Off—Street Parking211:1 Development District No. 1. He said the district's attorney had asked him to submit this new plan for the Board's approval. The mayor acknowledged receipt of the plan and asked that consideration 211.2 of this item be postponed until the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director Todd called attention to the proposed change in CD policy for 211.3 streets. The mayor asked that this item be placed on the next agenda for the Board's consideration. 211 LAKE WILSON DAM 0 Director Todd also called attention to a letter from McClelland Engineering 211.4 O considering the Lake Wilson Dam. In response to Director Todd, the city manager indicated that he is not ready at this time, to submit a recommendation on what action the City should take concerning the dam. Director Todd asked if any grants O are available for this type of project and the city manager indicated he is not Q aware of any grants which could be used for the dam. MINUTES The minutes of the October 30, 1979 and November 13, 1979 meetings were 211.5 approved as submitted. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:oo p.m.