Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville March 5, 1996, at 6:30 p.m., Administration Building, 113 W. 89 City Council was held on Tuesday, in the Council room of the City Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, Jimmy Hill, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, and Kit Williams; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of staff, press, and audience. ABSENT: Alderman Len Schaper CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with seven aldermen present. He noted Alderman Schaper was absent due to a death in his family and Public Works Director Kevin Crosson was in the hospital recovering from surgery. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Alderman Daniel moved to nominate Jack Stewart and Chuck Rutherford to the Environmental Concerns Committee; Gary Tucker, Robert Reynolds, and Mark Sugg to the Planning Commission. Alderman Miller seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. LAKE FAYETTEVILLE SOUTH Mayor Hanna asked if there were any objections to moving agenda item 2a up to discuss at this time. Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration a resolution naming Lake Fayetteville South area to Veteran's Memorial Park. Walter McKinney, representing veterans, stated naming a park memorial was a most appropriate action. We would join thousands of communities across the United States with memorials. Veteran groups look upon it as an honor and planning to have a dedication, hopefully on July 4. as a the such are McKinney called attention to a letter he had which was written to his father by General Eisenhower in 1946. The general wrote he held the conviction that in honoring an individual the government honors itself. McKinney looked upon the City of Fayetteville as honoring itself by honoring veterans. He regretted there were not more representatives present from various service organizations, but there had not been sufficient notice. He did have a short list of committee members prepared and was ready to go if this was approved. 1 4 t k 4 90 March 5, 1996 Mayor Hanna mentioned that Mr. McKinney had approached the -City wondering how we could honor veterans. By.having a,memorial park, there could be a place to erect plaques and memorials to recognize various veterans and units that deserve recognition. As a veteran, Alderman Williams deemed it an honor to move in favor of this resolution, to name the Lake Fayetteville South area the Veteran's Memorial Park. Also a veteran, Alderman Parker seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to O. RESOLUTION 26-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OLD BUSINESS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items that have"..been brought before the Council but were tabled or no decision made -to. allow further information to be presented. A. REZONING RZ96-1: An ordinance rezoning 3 acres located on Moore Lane from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to' C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Gary_Stearman. Mayor Hanna noted this item had been tabled on its third reading. Alderman Bassett moved to take it off the table. Miller seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance, although it had had its third reading when tabled. Mr. Chuck .Trantham was present to represent Gary Stearman and answer- any questions. Alderman Parker remembered that the question in people's minds was that since part of this property is in the overlay district and part of it is not, would the property development as a whole conform to the provisions of the overlay district. Trantham said his client had no objections to the total tract complying with the overlay district's requirements now and in the future. In response to a question from Little stated General Plan commercial with mixed use to north of Moore Lane. • Parker, City Planning Director Alett 2020 shows this land as regional the immediate west and industrial Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. There were 2 none. 91 March 5, 1996 Alderman Daniel thought one reason this request was tabled was that Alderman Schaper was absent on that night. Alderman Miller agreed stating one of Schaper's concerns was that this may detract from the high-tech park going in there. Alderman Parker asked if there would be a bill of assurance regarding the entire tract complying with overlay district requirements. In response to a comment from Mayor Hanna, Little stated that by ordinance only the property within the overlay district needed to comply with its requirements. The other part is voluntary and they would have to voluntarily offer a bill of assurance. Mr. Trantham stated they voluntarily submit to the overlay district requirements to the tract owned by Mr. Stearman. Alderman Daniel expressed her and Ward 4's appreciation for Mr. Trantham's and Mr. Stearman's cooperation. Alderman Parker also appreciated Trantham's cooperating with the delay to answer questions and to allow for the absence of one of the aldermen. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3952 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK B. REZONING RZ96-4 - An ordinance rezoning 1.73 acres located at 3250 W. Sixth Street from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Joe Gaspard on behalf of Clyde Widders. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Young asked the petitioner why he requested C-2 and why R - O would not be acceptable. Joe Gaspard, petitioner, replied that the main reason he wants C-2 is he is afraid that if a person wants to open a small restaurant they would not be able to serve wine or liquor on anything other than C-2, or that is his understanding. Alett Little clarified that C-2 is required for retail liquor stores but C-2 is not required for restaurants serving beer or wine. Restaurants may also be a conditional use under R -O and would require additional action by the Planning Commission. March 5, 1996 Private clubs wanting to serve mixed drinks -are under restaurants and allowed anywhere. restaurants are allowed.•.. Mayor Hanna informed the Council there had been a mix-up regarding the street number. The planning office was originally given the wrong address. Using this address, they informed Mr. Gaspard it was C-2. The property was sold and purchased under the assumption it was C-2. Mr. Gaspard stated he understood the Council's desire to reduce strip zoning on commercial, but a lot of. what is there now was there before this Council was seated. He wants to fill in some of this area where there is not much chance for salvation considering what is already there. This would not greatly contribute to any unpleasant scenery as that area has already been damaged. Giving some of the history of the property, he noted it was in fact commercial even before it was taken into the city. In response to a question from Alderman Daniel, Mr. Gaspard stated his sale was conditional upon it being zoned C-2. He could not at this point tell the buyerhe might be able to get a. conditional use. The word "might" is enough to freeze him. -- Alderman Williams received.agreement from Little that C-1...would allow a restaurant as of right, only for R -O would they have to go back to Planning Commission.- He -noticed that one of the' four people voting against this on the Planning Commission wanted it to be C-1. rry .; , Mr.•Gaspard did not recall the conversation taking place as it -was recorded in the minutes. He thought he'd been asked if he knew the difference between C-1 and C-2. He'd said his understanding was that C-2 would allow the sale of alcoholic beverages whereas C-1 would not. He did not challenge the record but stated these were his thoughts. He pleaded for C-2 as.that was the condition the sale would go through on and C-1 would diminish the value; R-0 would diminish it further. -He is trying to do the best for his client. . e In response to a question from Alderman Williams, Gaspard stated this property does not back up to Old Farmington Road.' Alderman Young stated we shows this to be mixed use matches mixed use is R -O. in R-0, they can do that. sale'. have just passed a land use plan -Which . The zoning we have right now that best If someone wants to put in a restaurant There is no need for C -2 -other than the 4 93 March 5, 1996 Mr. Gaspard asked Little if under R -O they had a restaurant with a conditional use, would it allow the serving of wine and beer. Little responded that if the wine and beer is served within a restaurant it would. Mr. Gaspard stated this would put the monkey on his client's back to come back and try to get a conditional use. Alderman Parker offered as consolation the idea that by taking transcripts of this meeting, with the Council's comments and its understanding of the intended use and the availability of conditional use, to the Planning Commission, there would be a high degree of assurance of success. If it is turned down at the Planning Commission, it could be appealed to the Council. Alett Little stated the staff would support the conditional use for R -O at this point. Alderman Miller has viewed this property. There is commercial on both sides and a total wasteland across the street which is zoned agricultural now. What needs to be looked at and kept in mind here is whether or not this is appropriate use of the land and is it consistent with the land use around it. We are looking at C-2 on one side and C-2 on the other, and we are going to make these people jump through hoops on R -O. We have consistent use, commercial on both sides. There will be commercial on the other side of the street eventually. Alderman Parker commented that he disliked terming commercial development of a particular type inevitable on that land. We have a problem with strip zoning along some of the entry corridors of the city. We've put a hideous amount of work into coming up with the 2020 plan to guide future development. The 2020 plan shows this area is for mixed use, probably precisely because there is already a lot of strip development out there. C-2 is not consistent with the 2020 plan, and the 2020 plan is the adopted policy of the City of Fayetteville. R-0 is not only compatible, it will allow the projected use of the property with a conditional use. Alderman Young pointed out that the rezoning done just before this is C-2 but also matches the land use plan. The closest zoning we have now is R -O, which allows a broader range of uses. Alderman Williams stated that consistency must also be kept in mind. The Council had another petitioner come before it a couple of months ago with property on the other side of the road, and the Council did rezone it to some extent but not commercial; it was R -O 5 94 March 5, 1996 r • F= even though she wanted commercial also. This whole.area will be a problem. from now on. Alderman Miller agreed with the R -O done earlier as it was much further out, adjacent to a residential neighborhood. This one has commercial on both sides; that's what must be considered. Alderman Daniel noted across the street is still A-1. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Gaspard stated he knows of no negative comments,.or objections made by surrounding landowners and neighbors. This ordinance was left on its second reading. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion or contracts and leases which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a Consent Agenda:' - Minutes of the February 20 regular City Council meeting. A resolution awarding a contract to thelow bidder, Harrison Davis Construction Co.,'; in the amount of $168,000 for the construction of a 13 unit single engine aircraft storage unit at Drake Field. RESOLUTION 27-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. , A resolution granting a utility easement to•Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. RESOLUTION 28-96 AS RECORDED IN THE .CITY CLERK'S OFFICE D. A resolution awarding a construction contract to the low bidder, J&L Construction, in the amount of $154,924 plus a.5o contingency for construction of a pavilion at Lake Fayetteville South and restroom/concessions at Lewis Street Soccer Complex. RESOLUTION 29-96 AS RECORDED.IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE E. A resolution approving the destruction of records as requested by the City Clerk. • RESOLUTION.30-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE A resolution approving the renewal of a.five year 6 95 March 5, 1996 contract with the City of Greenland authorizing the City of Fayetteville to provide stand by fire suppression for Greenland and accepting an annual compensation of $45,000 from Greenland. RESOLUTION 31-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE G. A resolution approving a budget adjustment recognizing a $35,000 contribution from TCA Cable for capital expenses of the PEG Television Center. RESOLUTION 32-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Alderman Young moved to accept the Consent Agenda. Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a contract with Greiner Southwest, Inc., for master plan update service to be performed for Drake Field. In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Kelly Johnson, Assistant Airport Manager, stated they have forwarded the contract to the FAA and have spoken to them regarding some of the optional items to be funded. They have not received final word on exactly which of the optional items the FAA will participate in, but they will participate in the basic plan at a 90% funding level. The basic is plan is about $190,000, with about $150,000 in optional items. Johnson explained the optional portions of the study are some photogrammetric mapping and some utility mapping that the FAA has initially indicated they will participate in, which is about $50-57,000. The FAA is saying the air service study is not an eligible item. They also questioned their funding ability on the economic impact study, which is about $32,000. Johnson stated we are unable to enter into the contract until we hear definitely on what they will participate in and what they won't. We will enter into a contract according to what they will fund. We will look at dropping or funding from another source the items the FAA won't fund. Alderman Williams stated there is need for an updated master plan considering all the possibilities of another airport we are in competition with. 96 March 5, 1996 Alderman Williams moved to accept the resolution. Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 33-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE VACATION VA96-3 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinaricei`vacating a' portion of the utility easement located at 1325 Pine'Creek'Drive-as requested by J&P Utilities. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Hanna gave some background on this. It has been through planning and before the Board of Adjustment. They are asking us to vacate 2' of a 25' easement. The utility companies have signed off on this.. The Board of Adjustment has approved it. The loan on the property cannot be closed until the utility easement is cleared up. The house is already built. Alderman Williams did not seehow this is an emergency for the people of Fayetteville. We need to be careful about passing emergency clauses. City Attorney Rose stated he did not think an emergency clause was necessary in this ordinance. The ordinance is fully in effect after its passage and approval without an emergency clause. Roses's understanding of an emergency clause is that .its chief reason for existence is because ifthe people of Fayetteville are unhappy with a particular ordinance of general applicability, they may then take it out and put it on a referendum election before the people. They have 30 days in which to do that. Some items that we pass by ordinance which are required by statute such as this are not referenderable. In other words this is not a notice of general applicability. We are passing no general law. However, the bank specifically asked for an emergency clause. Rose made up the most innocuous emergency clause that he could think of. With somestretch of the imagination perhaps the public welfare is affected by the fact that this house is already built on an easement. If the bank will take it, he is satisfied with it. It is up to the Council whether or not to vote for it or against it. Dennis Flemming, Lindsey & Assoc., stated he'd checked with the lender. The situation is that the citizen will lose his lock on his loan which could result in his having to pay points or a higher interest rate and possibly lose the house. He is currently living in the house. The lender has told him that as long as there is 8 97 March 5, 1996 that 30 -day period, they will not close the loan and the lock will expire prior to that time. Alderman Williams stated he did not mind suspending the rules and going to the final reading but he needed to see an emergency before he could vote on an emergency clause. Alderman Miller agreed that he did not want to trivialize the emergency clause but in this case it is a small thing and of no harm. Alderman Parker stated there are numerous occasions where people could make a little better business deal by cutting 30 days and we could be inviting this kind of thing in the future. We have used it so seldom, he hesitated to use the emergency clause but did not mind at all moving through several readings. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Parker moved to suspend the rules and go to the third reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. He noted that the vote on the ordinance would require a separate vote for the emergency clause. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3953 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK Mayor Hanna told the petitioner that according to the information the City Attorney has given tonight, the ordinance should be enough for the bank to close on the loan. It would be better to take this to the lender rather than to take the chance that a vote for an emergency clause would fail. The feeling here is that the emergency clause does not apply to this particular instance as there is no emergency for the general public and for this type of ordinance an emergency clause is not needed. The bank can contact the City Attorney's office about this. GUARANTEES IN LIEU OF INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS • • 98 March 5,1996 Mayor. Hanna•introduced consideration.of an ordinance amending subdivision regulations of the Code of Fayetteville allowing .for the deposit of U.S.-currency or an irrevocable letter of credit for the delay of certain required. improvements.. The Planning Commission voted 6-0-1 to recommend the ordinance. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Young gave background on this. This is a revision of .an ordinance approved about one year ago. When he was writing the first ordinance, he agonized -on the -large-=scale development aspect of it, trying to separate it out from the regular subdivisions but could not find a quick way of doing it. In discussing this with Alett Little, she came up with the idea of separating large-scale developments into two sections, residential and commercial. This became the key to rewriting the ordinance. Now a small large-scale developments, basically duplexes and various small.things, are lumped in with the subdivisions; but large large-scale developments have to go in .all at once. Another change is .letters of credit as opposed to bonds. Letters oficredit are a plus for both sides. The biggest advantage to the City is that they will not have trouble with bond companies:. As long as the City provides a cover sheet on the letter of..credit explaining that the work has not been:done or whatever,_ then the money is transferred immediately. • Other.than these changes, this ordinance is basically the same as the original. Alderman. Daniel moved to accept the ordinance. Dave Jorgensen, from the audience, passed out information in support of•a general change.- He read.a letter he'd written to the Council regarding sidewalksinsubdivisions. He .referred to -a sketch of a typical roadcrosssection in a subdivision included in the letter. He noted there is no possible way the sidewalks can accommodate the various loads that they are subject for during, construction. ,' 4 , ,. It is not prudent to construct a sidewalk immediately after street construction. It is not the proper, time. Jorgensen asked.'the- Council to change this requirement and suggested that sidewalk construction occur after house construction and be inspectedJby:the City along with the final house inspection:. In addition,•he askedt that the .developers be allowed to use the lettei of credit "° mentioned in the proposed ordinance to pay for the sidewalks that are not constructed, although he would like to see the sidewalk time period be extended to three years because it is not feasible to accomplish some of the things that happen within a subdivision 10 99 March 5, 1996 within a 270 day period. He would like to see the 270 days reduced on the final pavement. In the proposed ordinance, the developer is allowed 9 months to put in the pavement, which doesn't normally happen. Three months would be better. Jorgensen realized the Council and public would like to see sidewalks connected, but it takes at least nine months to a year to build a house within a subdivision and he would like the sidewalk construction to occur in a more natural sequence. When lots do not have sidewalks in the three year period, the City can tell the developer to close in the gaps, with the letter of credit assuring this will be accomplished. Alderman Daniel stated she disliked getting this information at the last minute as input from the staff is needed. She did think it sounded like a good suggestion as she understood some sidewalks are being damaged by construction. Alderman Williams noted that under subsection D of the proposed ordinance, it says if the improvements have not been constructed the City has two options, one is to do it and the other is to extend the time. He felt the City will be reasonable. He wondered if sidewalks should be singled out or be treated as other improvements and have the staff use their good judgement as to when the sidewalks need to be installed. Mayor Hanna stated Jorgensen has given the Council good material and made good points. He agreed with Alderman Daniel that more time would be needed to talk to staff and to consider this. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out that if a sidewalk is installed on a lot without a house, there is a problem of removing concrete and where it will go. A bigger problem is who would pay for the sidewalk that gets messed up in the construction process of the house. The City would not be interested in paying for it, although it would be on City right-of-way. Alderman Young agreed this is a complicated issue. He was surprised at the idea of reducing the number of days to put in the asphalt. Three months is a short period of time, especially in winter. The base does not have to be set up; it only has to be in place. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, it was explained that a letter of credit is a guarantee that the money is in the bank. The guarantee is from a bank and renewed yearly. The developer's money is tied up and in the bank for this period of time. Alderman Parker was hesitant about the suggested three years. 11 March.5,.1996 First; they.do have the ability to extend the letter of.credit, but also to reduce the amount to cover only those things yet .to be constructed. A development could go in within a year or a year and a half and there would be another year and half of people slogging through the mud. Mr. Jorgensen agreed but referred to his suggestion that sidewalk construction occur at the time of house construction and be inspected at the time of the final house inspection. Mayor Hanna suggested leaving this on its first reading to get all the information and input needed. RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY PARK. Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution awarding a contract to Hammer, Siler, George & Associates for Phase .I consulting services in the development and marketing of the Research and Technology Park, pre -approval for staff to authorize subsequent agreements for Phase II & III, and approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $184,500. Alderman Williams asked if there was an emergency on this or could it be postponed until Alderman Schaper returns to explain it. Charles Venable, Assistant to the Public Works Director, stated this is something that does need to be dealt. with and it was Alderman Schaper's wish that the Council do so tonight. Alderman Miller stated that either the Council is behind this park or it is not. If the Council is for 'it, we must find out if it is feasible. He would support the resolution. Alderman Parker moved to pass this resolution. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a-vote'of 7 to O. RESOLUTION 34-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OTHER BUSINESS STREET COMMITTEE Alderman Williams reported the City Council:Street Committee met last week. They discussed the need to move the four-laning of Joyce Street from Highway 265 to Old Missouri Road up from next year to this year. The engineering work has been` budgetedsbut:the',, construction needs to be moved up because a portion of Joyce Street. is failing now and needs to be reconstructed as soon as possible. 12 101 March 5, 1996 The approximately $1.3 million budgeted to extend Salem Road north to Mt. Comfort Road this year has been delayed by the requests of Aldermen Daniel and Schaper; therefore, this money can be used for the Joyce Street project this year. The Salem Road extension can use the funds allocated for Joyce Street widening in 1997. The Street Committee unanimously passed a motion to recommend an $800,000 transfer of funds. The staff also recommended that more of the unused Salem Road extension funds be expended this year to reconstruct Maple Street between Vandeventer Avenue and College Avenue. A box culvert has failed there and the street department believes this reconstruction project should be contracted out. It has been budgeted for next year and could be moved forward. The Street Committee unanimously passed a motion in support of preceding with this approximately $400,000 project using some of the remaining funds reserved for the Salem Road extension. The Committee recommended against widening Maple Street and removing any trees growing between the sidewalk and the street. If both of these project funds are transferred, there will still be approximately $182,000 remaining. The Street Committee then examined a staff recommendation and recommended by unanimous motion to build a two-lane boulevard on 20th Street off South Street into the University of Arkansas engineering south complex, using some of this additional money. This is part of a previous commitment made to the University in conjunction with the enlargement and upgrading of the engineering south complex and the beautification of that area near Cato Springs road. This proposal will be brought to the City Council in the near future. The City Council took no action on the request that we fund 20% of the cost of the bridge over Clear Creek on Johnson Road. That cost will be about $100,000 and is in conjunction with our extension of Joyce Street through the City of Johnson to Johnson Road. This is the bridge north of that intersection. We are already funding and paying for the extension of making the one -lane bridge a two-lane bridge south on Johnson Road. The Street Committee was concerned because at this point the City of Johnson has not offered to pay anything to improve this bridge which is located on their major north -south road. The Committee was also concerned that there could be additional costs of land acquisition and moving utilities. It could be upwards of $100,000. The City staff will study this more and report back concerning the additional costs and what the City of Johnson might be willing to do to support this major project, which would improve their traffic flow and benefit their citizens. 13 • 1 al 102 March 5, 1996 Williams stated the Council has received a memorandum from the staff,anda resolution concerning ainamendment to the Capital Improvement Projects list that would shift the money from the Salem Road extension this year to the. Joyce and Maple Street project from next year and then replace that money next year when we decide what to do with the Salem Road extension. With the proviso .that Maple Street will not be widened nor the trees removed without further Council action, Alderman Williams moved that this resolution to the CIP be approved'. Alderman Parker wondered:if that proviso would also .include that there would be no substantial investment of time nor -engineering plan drawn up which would be -for wideningthe road and .removing trees. .Let's not put ourselves on that road if that's not where we want to`go. The Council did not look at that on the tour. He asked if the Council could also have the understanding that the' City will not proceed toward widening or removal until it:.comes before the Council. : Tr S` Charles Venable -answered that the first thing to be done.is,to determine what the City is going to do, if anything. The box culvert must be replaced and that may be all we want to do'. ..We need to hire someone to do •some boring to determine what'is there, then we can determine what can be done with the street. There' would not be a problem going back to the Street Committee and reporting what was found. With those provisos -against widening Maple Street and taking out trees, Alderman Parker seconded Williams' motion. Mayor Hanna stated this is a resolution to approve the proposed amendments to the 1996-2000 CIP as'outlined by Alderman Williams. He will ask staff to see if there are funds to at least move forward on part of Salem .Street traffic improvements. That may be brought to the Street Committee before the spring is over. Alderman Williams noted that Mr. Venable has informed the Committee that it looks like we will get a traffic light at Salem Road and Wedington. Alderman Young pointed out that a lot of people have been assuming that Salem Road was going to be extended. Somehow it has gotten on hold. Between now and the next budget, someone needs to decide whether or not it is going to be extended. Mayor Hanna stated there has never been discussion about not extending Salem Road. The only discussion has been a delay because oftmoney. 14 103 MA12CH 5) Fcbruary 20, 1996 Mr. Venable stated there is still $183,000 left which had been planned to be used for engineering for this. Alderman Daniel stated she was involved in getting the Salem Road project stalled on the request of a constituent there. She has begun to talk with people of the Salem area between Mt. Comfort and Wedington because she wants their input and cooperation. Something does need to be done and there may be other options for moving traffic. Alderman Parker added that the chaining of money to the East Joyce Street area is really to some extent required by other things done in rezoning large areas for commercial around the Mall. We've redone the intersection and increased the area's ability to handle traffic to help complete the loop. This will allow Joyce Street between 265 and the Mall area to handle the traffic a lot better now. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 35-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, COMMITTEE MEETINGS Alderman Miller stated the Environmental Concerns Committee is scheduled to meet March 20 but he will be out of town. He will be contacting members about changing the date to March 27. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 15