Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-10 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Monday, December 10, 1984 at 5:10 P.M. in the Board of Director's Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, Fred Hanna and Stan Green Newton Hailey, Barbara Crook, Joe Tarvin and Dr. David Williams Planning Consultant Larry Wimberly, R.L. Jeske, Don Paula Brandeis, members of Wood, J.B. Hays, Ervan McGuire, Bobbie Jones, the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chair Melanie Stockdell and the minutes of the November 26th meeting were considered. MINUTES There being no additions or corrections, the minutes stood approved as mailed. MOTION Green, seconded by Jacks, moved to hear item #8 first as it was the relatively routine. The motion passed 5-0-0. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE McGUIRE - GREEN ACRES ROAD The eigth item, heard at this time, was two requests for waiver of the driveway safety zone at two locations for property located at 2031 Green Acres Road and represented by Don McGuire. McGuire explained that he is requesting a variance to be allowed to place one driveway 12 ft. from the side property line instead of the required 12.5 ft. and to allow 21 ft. between drives on his property instead of the required 25 ft. 262 • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 2 MOTION Jacks moved approval of both requests, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Madison asked if McGuire had considered obtaining access to the rear of this lot for parking and McGuire explained that, although this is indeed a possibility, he would like to provide customer parking in the front of the structure for convenience. He also explained that having two drives in front would help facilitate parking. Jacks clarified that his motion did not include any variances that McGuire intends to request from the Board of Adjustment with regards to parking setbacks. The motion to approve both safety variances passed 5-0-0. Stockdell advised McGuire that a Bill of Assurance for future addition of sidewalk, curb and gutter is required; McGuire agreed. DISCUSSION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS MIISAP ROAD & IEE/BERTHA INTERSECTION The second item on the agenda was a discussion of the off-site improvement regulations with specific reference to Christian Life Center, 1285 E. Milsap Road and Donna Caudle's proposed child care at the corner of Lee and Bertha. Jacks gave some background to the ordinance that requires off-site improvements. He explained that, because the City did not (and does not now) have the funds to install street improvements as development takes place on unimproved streets, they have required each developer to provide these improvements as parcels develop, either immediately or in some instances by obtaining a Bill of Assurance stating that said improvements will be installed at the call of the City. Jacks said that the ordinance originally was meant to address Large Scale Developments which were one acre (or more) parcels but has been extended to include parcels that are smaller but which also create a need for improvements. He said if the proportion of contribution to be required of a developer could not be arrived at by using a "rational nexus" formula, then the percentage of acreage of the development could be used to determine the impact and percentage of said contribution. Jacks said he felt that, unless this ordinance was repealed, that the City needs to enforce it on a rational nexus basis for additions, partial unit development, access, etc. as intended. Jacks reported that McCord has advised that in Mrs. Caudle's case, she is asking for a Conditional Use which indicates a Commercial -type concern but she is also going to be residing in this location in an R-1 District which would make it difficult to consider it Commercial and perhaps, unfair to require Caudle to contribute to street improvements at this time or to require her to sign an agreement binding her to a Street Improvement District in thq future. V63 • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 3 Green said he thought that the ordinance states that will contribute the required funds to the City and the will make the improvements. After some discussion, that improvements are made in both this manner and by taking responsibility of improvement installation on his MOTION - ITBM 2.B. the developer City, in turn, it was agreed the developer own. Madison made a motion that the Commission decree Caudle's operation non-commercial and at this time no Bill of Assurance be required for street improvements. Jacks seconded followed by discussion. Green advised that if a Street Improvement District were formed by a majority of the owners (by the assessed property value), that Caudle would necessarily be required to be a part of that District and so he felt that it need not be part of the motion. Madison amended her motion by deleting any reference to a Bill of Assurance being signed with regards to a Street Improvement District. Jacks seconded this amendment noting that this will exempt Caudle from the requirements of the off-site improvement ordinance and the motion passed 5-0-0. This motion supercedes any previous requirement. Jacks next commented that Part II of a Bill of Assurance drafted by McCord for the Christian Life Center needs to be re -worded to reflect that the same piece of property is being referred to as in Part I of this Bill and that it addresses bringing Milsap between Hemlock and this developer's Tract A western boundary up to City standards. Green noted that the developer of this LSD has agreed to pay 100% of that cost and Jacks replied that he would like them to pay only their fair share. Jacks advised that, based on a percentage -of -acreage basis, the church would be required to pay about 83%. Madison added that the church is the main beneficiary of the road and subsequently it's improvements. Jacks said he felt it was not equitable for the church to pay the entire cost and Green reminded him that if percentage of acreage does not provide a reasonable portion of contribution then use might, and he added that there are only two other (single family) homes on Milsap at this location. Green pointed out that this road has been a private drive serving only as far as the cemetery. MOTION 2.A. Jacks moved that the Christian Life Center be required to pay for 100% of the future improvement of Milsap Road between Hemlock and the western Boundary of Tract A at any time further development takes place on Tracts A, B or C. Madison seconded and the motion to request McCord to reword the Bill of Assurance as stated above passed 5-0-0. 264 • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING REZONING PETITION R4-20 ZED JOHNSON - HWY. 45 WEST OF HWY 265 Th4\third item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R81-20 for Zed Johnson for property located on the south side of Hwy. 45 west of Hwy. 265. This item was tabled at the November 13th meeting and upon a motion by Jacks and a second by Madison (passed 5-0-0) this item was removed from the table for discussion. Consultant Wood explained that his concerns regarding the rezoning of this property to C-2 revolved mainly around the fact that there would be no access to the south part of the acreage. Wood said that Ervan Wimberly of Northwest Engineers, and himself had met with Mr. Johnson and developed a plan which would include Mr. Harris' property (to the west) and consist of an office park (mainly) on Johnson's property and low to moderate residential district on Harris' parcel to serve as a buffer zone. Wood recommended the change for the northern 450 ft. of Johnson's property to C-1 and suggested consulting with Johnson as to his desires for the zoning classification of the southern portion. Wimberly, representing Johnson, said that "Johnson has agreed with Wood's recommendation for the use of his land and if the Commission desires to rezone the southern portion to R-0 classification as Wood recommends, it is acceptable to Johnson although he is not concerned with that portion at this time. Roy Clinton, a former Commission member, stated that he was not opposed to this particular rezoning, but that he would like the Commission to consider a "sunset" law. He pointed out that the C-2 property on the southeast corner of the Hwy. 265/45 intersection had been rezoned in the 60's and not developed beyond one liquor store. He added that the R-2 adjoining the C-2 to the south and intended as a buffer zone, was the beginning of the deviation from single-family district. Because of the proximity of Johnson's property to the area of the Park Place PUD (Item #5) and the opposition expected regarding it, Wimberly requested that the Johnson rezoning be tabled until a time when it could be addressed on its own. MOTION Hanna moved to table this item; Jacks seconded and the motion to table passed 4-1-0, Stockdell voting "nay" 965 • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 5 APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES - S. OF HWY.62, W. OF BY-PASS Item 1/6 on the agenda, a request for an additional one-year extension for approval of the large scale development, Washington Mountain, was considered next. Jim Hill, representing Washington Mountain, said that there would be a re -hearing between this developer and the FAA sometime in April and a trial is expected in July of 1985. MOTION Madison made a motion to grant the extension as requested; seconded by Green, the motion passed 5-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R84-23 R.L. JESSE - 626 AND 628 W. DICKSON Item #4 on the agenda was next in consideration; a Public Hearing on rezoning petition R84-23 for R.L. Jeske for property located at 626 and 628 W. Dickson. Presently zoned R-3, requested is C-3. Consultant Wood recommended the requested C-3 district for the following reasons: 1. The property is being used and has been used for commercial purposes for a number of years; 2. There are commercial uses to the east and south; 3. The zoning district to the east and south is C-3; and, 4. The General Plan recommends commercial use for the property. Jeske was present to speak for this appeal. He explained that the neighboring properties are zoned C-3 except for St. John's Lutheran Church Student Center at Dickson and Arkansas Ave. He said he purchased the east part of the church property to provide building funds for the proposed new church structure on Hwy. 265. Jeske said the Student Center intends to continue "as is" and he added that there is no opposition to his C-3 request. Madison asked if this property could be used for apartments if rezoned to C-3 and Wood replied affirmatively. MOTION • Jacks moved approval; seconded by Hanna, the motion passed 5-0-0. 266 • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 6 REQUEST FOR VARIANCES IN THE CONCEPT PIAT OF PARK PLACE PUD ..... ............ J.B. HAYS — HWYS. 265 AND 45 Stockdell advised that the Planning Commission's objective is to discuss this concept plat in order to give the developer an informal indication of how they feel about it. She added that there have been two requests for variances of the code submitted for this plat, on which the Commission may take action tonight. Engineer, Ervan Wimberly and developer, J. B. Hays were present to discuss their proposal for the PUD area of Park Place which adjoins Highway 265 on it's east boundary. Wimberly stated that although a concept plat for this area had been submitted in 1981, there have been several changes and he felt it needed to be re -submitted. Wimberly said that at the time the first concept plat was submitted he thought the property owner to the south was in agreement with the proposal when in fact, he is not. Wimberly also made note that, while many letters of opposition had been received with regard to this plat, one had been received that was not in opposition. Wimberly advised the Commission that, because of some opposition he had received from the neighbor to the south, he has prepared another Concept Plat of this same area that is slightly different from that which was submitted to the Planning Office. Stockdell requested that the new plat not be addressed tonight. Wimberly advised that the setback for a "quad" within a PUD was originally 100 ft. and was altered to 250 ft. by the Board of Directors. Wimberly said he felt 250 ft. was in excess and was, at this time, requesting a variance to allow the building setback to be 50 ft. from the perimeter. He explained that Highway 265, which borders this PUD on the east side, is scheduled to become a five lane and he added that the units on this side of the PUD will face west, away from the highway. He said they have only one exit planned onto this highway because he they felt it would be safer than many individual driveways. Wimberly said he is prepared to move the major thoroughfare of this development to the southern boundary and to leave a 100 ft. greenbelt plus a 25 ft. building setback for a total of 125 ft. He advised that the plans for the total 108 acres of Park Place total less than 4 units per acre (3.8). He said within the PUD itself there will be about 216 units or 5.6 per acre. Wimberly said the PUD area will be condominiums similar to Windsor Townehomes near Highway 45. J. B. Hays, developer, added that seven units per acre are allowed and his plan will limit development to only 4 units per acre. 267 • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 7 Stockdell explained that in order to review this concept plat anew, the Planning Administrator has suggested rescinding any variances granted to the plat submitted in 1981. MOTION Madison moved that previous variances granted for the original concept plat of Park Place PUD area be rescinded. The motion died for lack of a second. Jacks explained that the PUD concept stipulates that, as long as the density is not increased, a developer may construct multi -family in the center portion of a project where it will not affect other residents. He said that there have been complaints that this is a method for developers to circumvent the ordinance which is why the City Board changed the building setback to 250 ft. from the perimeter. Roy Clinton, 2 Lover's Lane, stated that the intersection of Highways 265 and 45 has been distorted by the southeast forty acre tract and he requested again that a "sunset" law be considered for development in this area. He said he didn't have a clear understanding of the difference between apartments and condominiums. He said he thought an unsold condominium could be used as a rental unit. Clinton said he agreed with Jacks that a PUD was a way a circumventing the zoning ordinance. He said he felt that, if there were reassurance that these units would be R-1, owner occupied, much of the opposition would evapo- rate. Clinton said he thought Fayetteville was very much single-family (dwelling) oriented. He said he was opposed to the requested variances being granted the first time this plat was considered and is still opposed at this time and added that he felt the biggest problem was that there would be only one reasonable access point to the PUD area. Madison asked Clinton if he objected to condominiums and Clinton said what he objected to was the fact that the City doesn't seem to have any control over knowing what is a condo and what is a multi -family dwelling. Madison commented that the setback variance granted previously had applied only to the northern boundary of this development. Jones explained that the variance applied to the north boundary, the south boundary and parts of •the east boundary and presently, there have been 350 ft. added to the west boundary as well as a strip along Highway 265 which had previously shown single-family homes. She said that the variances will go with the land as applied to the original concept. Dick Wommack, 6 Lover's Lane, said he thought the previous concept plat had shown the road coming out approximately 250-300 north of the road shown in the present concept. Administrator Jones, demonstrated on a drawing board, the configuration of the previous concept plat for this development explaining that another 18 acres has been added at the south border of the PUD area. 96i • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 8 Wommack requested that the three year old plat not be considered. He gave a visualization of approaching this development from the south; coming up the hill from Highway 16 you will come upon Lover's Lane on the east side and the proposed entryway on the west side within 50 ft. He pointed out that besides the usual congested vehicular traffic, the truck traffic has greatly increased on 265 because it is a way to avoid the weigh scales in Springdale as well as an excellent route to the new Mexican Original plant. He said if the proposed structures are to face west, he would like to have a fence for a visual barrier so as to avoid the unsightly view of trash cans, air conditioners, etc. Wommack said he is not against development but he would like it to be consistent with the homes that are presently occupied. Hays explained that on the original concept plat, he could have planned to build small single-family houses that would sell for a higher price but he wanted to have a high quality development. He added that his townhomes on Highway 45 are selling before they are completed and he reported that he has planned a large recreation area complete with lake and tennis courts to serve this development in a quality way. Ann Justiss, 2850 Inwood Lane, expressed her concern regarding the density in this development which she felt takes the area in a different direction from that which has been in effect for the past 20 years. She said she needed to move from her previous home on Poplar Street because of the high density development taking place and felt that buying a large parcel of land in this area would protect her from that type of neighborhood. Madison requested a show of hands of those present to speak in opposition to this concept plat and most of the audience responded (many). Stockdell advised that the following aspects of this concept plat have already been discussed and requested that the audience address only those concerns that have not yet been brought up: 1. An additional road; 2. An assurance of R-1 occupancy; 3. Condominiums versus apartments; 4. Screening from backs of units; 5. Variance of the setback requirement; and, 6. The off -set of the proposed drive to Lover's Lane Green asked if there were a requirement for the proposed green belt and Jones replied that 30% of the entire PUD area was required to be designated as green area but no landscaping is required. George Bharen, 10 Lover's Lane, expressed his concern with what he felt has been no planned control into the City of Fayetteville. He said no one has addressed the problem of school busses and he added that he must carefully choose the time of day he will leave his house 269 • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 9 so as to avoid the traffic. Bharen said he resents the back sides of the proposed units facing the highway. He said he thought the density of this proposal will actually be higher than represented because of the area taken up by the lake. He said he felt there have been too many instances when citizens have been promised that, if they agree to a particular development, that it will stop there and the promises have proven false which tends to take away from the quality of life that these residents enjoy and hope to continue to enjoy. Bharen thanked the Commission for the job they do and requested that they give some consideration to the approaches to the City. Bill Letzkus, 1450 Canterbury (at the dead end of Lover's Lane) reported that the school bus stops at Lover's Lane on 265 and there seems to be no other place for it to stop. He mentioned that he had lived in Washington D.C. where many of the buildings have their backs to the street and when foreign diplomats visited, they were taken on a tour route so as to avoid those areas. Gary Flynn said he made the decision to buy at his location based on the R-1 zoning across the street. and he, too, expressed his concern for his two school -bus children needing service on Hwy. 265. He also pointed out that Park Place may develop as Winwood/Overcrest to Old Wire Road did, in a short-cut fashion. Rob Lewis, 1304 Crossover Road, stated that he felt the total fabric of this area is being jeopardized by the density proposed in Park Place PUD area. He pointed out that there are several single-family homes on large acreages immediately south of the proposal and he did not feel that placing the proposed number of units on Hays' land was consistent with what already exists. Lewis said the first time he had seen this plat was on Friday afternoon at which time he did not register his objection to the request for a 50 ft. building setback which he wished to express at this time. Wimberly advised that one of Hays' alternatives was to develop his property as single-family homes on 60 X 100 lots with a 25 ft. building setback in this R-1 zone. Several members of the audience construed this as a threat, but Wimberly assured them he was merely informing them of another possibility. Madison responded to a citizen's question that a preliminary plat would still need to be presented (including road proposals) if it were developed as single-family residences. It was expressed that, even though Dr. Hays has every intention of developing with high quality in mind, the possibility existed that he may wind up selling the tract to a party who did not feel the same. Hank Alzmann, 725 Rockwood, of the Highland Park Property Owner's Association, asked if anything could be done about the overloading of streets. Madison replied that one reason for denying a Large Scale Development 1s if it creates a hazardous traffic situation. Alzmann 270 • • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 10 reported that some area Planning Commissions are able to refuse to hear a wavier for a period of one year from the time it was presented and denied approval. Stockdell replied that the Fayetteville Planning Commission has a similar ruling with regards to re -zonings and Conditional Use requests. Jones advised that if the Commission grants a waiver at this meeting, the City Board will have 21 days in which to overrule it. Stockdell said that the concerns of the Commission along with the concerns of the audience will be presented to the developer for his consideration and the only items to be voted tonight on are the requests for variances. Wimberly explained that the reason he has planned for the Highway 265 entrance as shown is that, as an engineer, he felt it was the safest location. He also indicated that if Hays were to develop this property with single family homes, there was a possibility of there being 440 of them over which Hays would have no control with regards to percentage of rental occupancy. After some discussion, it was determined that the 50 ft. setback, if granted, would run with the land and would be part of a purchase if Hays should sell this acreage. Jacks said he felt the previous variances for this PUD should not be rescinded until the new plat is voted on. Madison said that according to the City Attorney, there are no vested rights in the previous plat. Jones stated that McCord advised her that, because a substantial amount of time has passed since the presentation of the original plat that it has expired. Jacks said he felt that when a new plat is presented, the old plat should be disregarded. Bill Justiss said he understood, and was opposed to, any reduction in the setback requirement as well as being in favor of visual and noise reducing screening. Someone suggested building the structures backing up to each other and someone else suggested building single-family homes around the perimeter and multi -family towards the inside. Madison said the PUD ordinance makes reference to stands of trees that form a canopy of 200 ft. or more being shown on the plat which has not been done. She advised that one intent of a plat is to show the natural character of the land. She said there needs to be another street intersecting with Lover's Lane as well as Cambridge Road to dilute the expected traffic. She expressed her objection to the requested 50 ft. setback and the excessive length of Revere Place which ends in a cul-de-sac and she inquired whether the open space will be public or private. Lastly, she objected to the jog off -set of Lover's Lane and Revere Place. She added that she thought there should be a sidewalk on Highway 265 as well as both sides of Revere. 271 • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 11 Stockdell expressed her concerns with the setback being 50 ft. from the street right-of-way and said she didn't think it served the purpose intended by the PUD Ordinance. She said she did not think a waiver should be granted for the maximum length of a dead-end street. She said she thought the jog configuration of Lover's Lane and Revere Place was deadly. Stockdell added that, as per a decision made with regards to the remainder of Park Place (at a Subdivision Committee meeting), she would not approve of this plat without considering a complete drainage plan including the lake and storm water retention basin which was to be provided by Wimberly. Green said he didn't see any point in voting on the requested variances at this point. He said he would rather wait until a preliminary plat is presented and concrete requests could be made of this developer. Hanna said he tended to agree that this development would allow the potential for too much traffic to enter onto Highway 265 and that two entrances on this highway would be better, with adherence to the 200 ft. "jog" requirement. He said he would like to see this plan developed further beside deciding on the request for building setback 'variance. Wimberly asked where Hanna would prefer to have an ingress/egress point located and Hanna replied that somewhere near the rock house would probably be appropriate. Jacks agreed that opposing streets should be aligned as much as possible and thought that Wimberly's information as an engineer was important to consider. Green said he was not too concerned with the Lover's Lane jog and added that he was not opposed to condominium development at this location. Madison asked if the internal streets would be private or public and Wimberly replied that Revere would be a public street and the others would be private. MOTION Madison moved to deny the 50 ft. setback request. The motion died for lack of a second. Wimberly said his desire was to make this development as acceptable as possible to the neighboring residents. He requested names and addresses of those in the audience who had voiced objections, indicating that he would keep in touch with them as to the progress on this project. MOTION • Jacks moved to table both requests for variances. Seconded by Hanna, the motion to table passed 3-2-0, Madison and Stockdell voting "nay". 212 • • Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 12 DISCUSSION OF REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED MAIL ON RE—ZONING REQUESTS The seventh item on the agenda was addressed next; a discussion of a request made by Director Orton to send all notification letters for rezonings from the Planning Office by certified mail. Jones advised that if the Commission approves of this request, an amendment to the code would be necessary. Madison asked if adjoining property owners included those across the street and Jones replied that it did and included property across the alley except in cases being presented to the Board of Adjustment. Madison asked what the cost of this action would amount to. Jones replied that it would depend on the number of people involved and indicated that the cost for one letter was approximately $1.55 . Hanna advised that he believed this request came about as a result of a recent rezoning request. He said that at the Board meeting that this rezoning was presented at, some people complained that they had not been notified of any action but he said the meeting was well attended. Jones replied that the Planning Office receives many complaints about citizens receiving pertinent material on Saturday or, sometimes, not at all even though they have been informed that these mailings are a courtesy only and not a code requirement. She added that some people find that they were not included on a mailing list when they should have been but the Planning Office depends on the petitioner to supply the names of adjoining property owners. Jones explained that the Planning Commission agenda is not currently prepared far enough in advance to take advantage of certified mail with return receipts requested. Madison said she was reluctant to place a further burden on the Planning Office but felt the problem would disappear if that office took respon- sibility for these mailings. Stockdell said she felt the Planning Office and Planning Commission had an obligation to the public to provide for input and if there were a more efficient method of doing so, then it should be adopted even though there may be problems involved. She suggested increasing the rezoning applicant's fee to cover the cost of the certified mail as well as clerical cost of preparation, perhaps on a sliding scale depending on the number of neighbors to be notified. She said perhaps an additional person could be added to the Planning Office staff to take care of this obligation in conjunction with other chores needing attention. 213 Planning Commission December 10, 1984 Page 13 Green pointed out that about 95% of those people who attend meetings are not adjacent property owners but neighbors in general. He pointed out that meetings seem well attended which indicates the public is being notified in some way and he added that he thought the Planning Office would not get the results any quicker. Jones said she felt that if someone knew that their certified mail contained a notification of an action to be considered, they may not make any effort to pick up that letter. She also noted that ads are run in the legal notice section of the newspaper in rezoning actions. Hanna said that, if a sign had been placed on his neighbor's property indicating a rezoning, he would be upset if he also had made a trip to the post office to pick up a letter advising him of this same action. MOTION Hanna made a motion to maintain the present method of notification for rezonings. Jacks seconded followed by discussion. Stockdell reiterated her feeling on obligation to the public and Jacks stated that, although he felt strongly that notification should be made, he was not convinced that certified mail would make a difference. Jones explained that the cover sheet of the agenda as well as the material relating to a rezoning or conditional use pertaining to a particular person is mailed to that person by regular mail on the same day the Planning Commission's (full) agenda is sent out. The question was called and the motion to maintain the present mailing system passed 5-0-0. LEGAL COUNSEL Because of problems encountered at tonight's meeting as well as several other recent meetings, Stockdell said she thought it appropriate to recommend legal counsel be present at each Planning Commission meeting. MOTION Madison made a motion to obtain legal counsel at each Planning Commission meeting. The motion died for lack of a second. Jacks said that, although there are times when counsel would be very helpful, he didn't feel it was necessary at each meeting and Green felt that an attorney was likely to request time to research whatever proposal had been presented, which would not help in the moment. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. p74/