Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 25, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED 10/11/99 minutes AD99-25: Master Str. Plan, pp168 VA99-14: Candlewood, pp294 VA99-13: Peoples, pp649 RZ99-31: Barnes, pp250 AD99-22: Cafe Nibbles AD99-26: H.M.T., pp484 AD99-24: Millennium 2000 AD99-23: Millennium 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT Don Bunch Bob Estes Lorel Hoffman Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Lieutenant Frank Johnson Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Postponed -see 11/8/99 mtg Approved Approved Approved Denied Denied MEMBERS ABSENT • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes - October 11, 1999 Johnson: The first item is the approval of the Minutes from the October 11, 1999 meeting. Are there any changes or corrections? If not, then they'll stand approved as distributed last week. AD99-25: ADMINISTRATIVE MASTER STREET PLAN AMENDMENT, PP168 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates. The request is to remove a proposed minor arterial street from the Master Street Plan. The proposed street is located north of Howard Nickle Road and west of Highway 112. VA99-14: VACATION CANDLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PP294 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of David Chapman of Candlewood Development, LLC for property located on Tots 40 to 44 in Candlewood Development. The request is to vacate the 25 foot sewer easement. Johnson. Is there any member of the Commission who would move to remove an item from the Consent Agenda? Is there anyone in the audience who would request that we remove either of these two items from the Consent Agenda? Seeing none, we will vote on the Consent Agenda. Roll Call Upon roll call, the consent agenda was passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Hoover and Commissioner Odom were not present. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS VA99-13: VACATION PEOPLES, PP679 This item was submitted by Mike Roetzel on behalf of Buddy Peoples for property located at 28th Court. The request is to vacate the undeveloped street right of way for 28th Court located west of Club Oak Drive within Edge Hill Subdivision. Buddy Peoples was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the street right of way vacation subject to the following items. 1. All easements be retained as request by the City and utility companies. 2. Provide a revised legal description of the proposed portion of 48th Court to be abandoned • that does not extend into the Club Oak Drive right of way. • 3. A property line adjustment shall be processed in order to combine lots 20, 25, & 26 into one large lot. This is necessary in order to avoid the creation of tandem lots. Only one structure shall be permitted on this property which will be accessed from Club Oak Drive. Commission Discussion Johnson: The request is to vacate an undeveloped street right of way for 28th Court located west of Club Oak Drive within Edge Hill Subdivision. This is on Country Club Mountain. The reason for the request of the vacation is that apparently, this site is too steep really to build a street in that area. The City has recommended that we recommend this vacation on to the City Council. We have a letter in our packet from Don Bunn, the City Engineer back in 1993, indicating that because of the sharp drop in the elevation from 20 then on to 40 percent drop in elevation, he would not object to this right of way being vacated. Staff, do you have additional information for us on the proposed vacation of this street right of way. Conklin: Staff has no additional information. I do want to point out to the Commission that we do have one adjoining property owner who is in opposition to the street vacation. Johnson: All right, thank you. I'll ask whether Commissioners have initial questions of the applicant concerning the vacation. Is the applicant or his representative here? • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 4 Peoples: I own 3 lots and 2 have the proposed street between them. Johnson: The staff recommends approval of the right of way vacation conditioned on 3 items. First, that the easements requested by the City and utility companies be retained. Second, that the applicant provide a new legal description of the portion of 48th Court that is going to be abandoned and finally that a property line adjustment be processed so that 3 lots, all of which you own, lots 20, 25, and 26 would become 1 lot. Peoples: Yes, ma'am Johnson: Initial questions of the applicant? Peoples: The street was too steep. We agree with the conditions. We are willing to utilize the 1 lot which is closest to the street. There would eventually be one home facing Country Club Road. Public Comment • Frank Scott, residing at 380 Ravenswood was present in opposition to the street vacation request. • Scott: My name is Frank Scott and I own the adjoining property to the west of the proposed street vacation. Originally, my mother owned this property and I purchased it from her when I moved back to Fayetteville about 1978. Prior to that, Tommie Taylor had developed a tract that shows 28th Street. It is now called 28th Court. Some verbal arrangements were made with my mother that this would be done. He did not develop it and as 1 understand it, he sold this to Mr. Peoples. In April of 1993, I was asked if I had any objections. This was clone in writing and I understood it had to be notarized. I notarized the fact that I objected to the vacation of the street. I feel this would seriously hinder the future development of my property which is on the west. Were the slope measurements done by the City or by Mr. Jorgensen? In 1993, I questioned Mr. Bunn who was then, the City Engineer of where those measurements were taken from. About 10 days ago, Randy Allen and I walked the area. The 40 degree slope is not that steep unless you get down into the drainage ditch. Drainage is another issue I need to address. If those measurements were taken in the drainage ditch, I can understand it. To the north and going west, it doesn't seem to be nearly that steep. I walked up it and I have a bad knee and a pace maker. I've seen other streets in Fayetteville that have recently been developed which seen to be steeper than that. I'm referring to some of the culdesacs on the east side of the country club. The other issue is drainage. I've had discussions with the City's engineer and until recently I was not able to get in the woods because of my health. But, now I take my grandchildren down there. They love to play in the woods We've noticed that the erosion has increased since the Club Oaks Development went in This is one of the reasons that Randy Allen and I walked down there. I wasn't able to take him on to where the worst erosion was but we got a view of it. There • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 5 has always been drainage through there because of the land's topography. I refer to this as an intermittent stream. When it rains heavy, it pours through there. All the drainage from the street comes to a point where it's funneled onto Mr. People's property for a short distance and then it goes onto my property and runs the full length. There are 2 issues. One is to retain access and the other is the drainage problem which has been increased by the fact of the development of Club Oaks. Johnson: The second issue is really not something that we can deal with at this level. Scott: I just wanted it in the record. I have a copy of the tract that was signed off on by the City in 1970 which shows the street as a "street" and not "court." Johnson: That's merely a naming issue and is not a significant difference. Joe Rodman, 2835 South Club Oak Drive was present in support of abandoning the right of way for the undeveloped street. Rodman: I am one house removed from the area that has been requested for vacation. I would like to ask that this be done. The property is wooded and runs behind my house. There is another property owner who also supports this who was not able to be here tonight. We would like for this street to be vacated. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: Ron, on page 4.7 in our materials, we are shown just a simple draft that purports to give us the grade as it runs along this street right of way. Mr. Scott asked whether or not the City knew if the figures were accurate. Do you know whether or not the City has done it's own checking to see about the accuracy of these figures or are we relying on what the engineer submitted in 1993? Petrie: We are relying on the information provided in 1993. Tim has supplied me a copy of the revised topographical information. I have quickly scaled the area and it looks like the maximum slope is only 20 percent instead of the 40 percent shown on the 1993 graph. Johnson: If the maximum slope on that right of way is 20 percent, is that a situation where the City would ever allow a street to be constructed? Petrie: The maximum slope under the minimum street standards is 15% for a distance of 300 feet. If it extends further than 300 feet, it has to be less than 10%. No. We would not allow that slope. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 6 Johnson: Are there exceptions ever to be made to that? Petrie: If there was an exception requested, it would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Johnson: It is a concern to me that there is such a large discrepancy between the maximum slope figures. I'm not sure to what extent we can rely on this information. Ward: What other access does Mr. Scott have to this property to the west of the property to be vacated? Conklin: Mr. Scott should answer the question. Scott: I have a private, one lane, gravel drive which I maintain that runs from where Ravenswood ends and my property begins. There are 3 houses which are served by the private drive. Johnson: Does your property touch Ravenswood at any point? Scott: I don't believe so. It could be just a foot or so. My neighbor has paved the driveway that is off my property but he uses the private drive. Johnson: You don't touch Ravenswood or Club Oak to your knowledge. Scott: No. Hoffman: What about Skelton? Scott: We don't have property extending that far south. Hoffman: I'm confused by this discussion and I would like to see a plat of the property to make sure we are not cutting off his access by vacating this portion of a street even though there is a steep grade. I'd like to know more about the alternate access points. MOTION Hoffman: I move that we table this item until we can be more fully informed. Estes: I second the motion. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Hoffman and second by Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 7 Estes: Let me see whether or not the mover will accept more detail. First, that we be provided by the applicant a more detailed map showing Mr. Scott's property and whether or not it touches any other street. Second, that we have additional information about the slope. Hoffman: That is the intent of my motion. Ward: I'm going to vote for approval of VA99-13 if he has any kind of access off of Ravenswood. This is a good vacation. This area developed after this property was developed to the west. Bunch: In the clarification, if we could see the proximity of Ravenswood right of way with Mr. Scott's property. It's unclear from the information we have. Hoffman: That should be included in the plat. Johnson: Specifically, we need to see what part of Ravenswood is built and what part is merely a right of way. I need to inform the applicant that approval of this action requires 5 votes and is a recommendation to the City Council who take the final action. This vote is to postpone our recommendation of this matter until we receive additional information. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Conklin: We need to have the legal description and additional information from Mr. Scott by Friday, October 29, 1999 to give us time to map that information. • • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 8 RZ99-31: REZONING BARNES, PP250 This item was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Bleaux Barnes for property located south of Appleby Road and east of Appleby Apartments. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 8 37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-1, Low Density Residential. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed R-1 zoning based on the findings included as part of the staff report. Commission Discussion Johnson: This is property is on the south side of Appleby and is across from the Washington Regional development. This across the street from the old farm house. The adjacent land use is A-1 across Appleby and otherwise it's adjoined by R-1.5, R-1, and R-2 properties. Staff, do you have additional information for us on this proposed rezoning. Conklin: Staff has no additional information on this rezoning. Jorgensen: We're here to answer questions and it's a relatively simple R-1 request, we hope. Johnson: Relatively simple would be appreciated. Are there initial questions to the staff or Mr. Jorgensen? Public Comment None. MOTION Marr: I'll make a motion to recommend approval of RZ99-31. Hoffman: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Marr and the second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve RZ99-31. I will remind everyone that rezonings require 5 positive votes and • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 9 are merely a recommendation to the City Council who takes the final action on the rezoning request. Roll CaII Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 10 AD99-22• REVOCATION HEARING FOR CU99-3 CAFE NIBBLES, PP213 This item was submitted by the Planning Division for property located at 3290 North Lee Avenue (Suzie Stevens of Cafe Nibbles.) The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office, and contains approximately 0.39 acres. The request is to rehear the original conditional use which was approved by Planning Commission on February 8, 1999. Suzie Stevens was present on behalf of Cafe Nibbles. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends revocation of the conditional use permit due to noncompliance with the original conditions of approval. The applicant's representative has stated to staff he will not comply with condition number 3 and would like the Planning Commission to consider granting a waiver. Staff would recommend the permit be revoked on November 25, 1999 if the conditions of approval are not met by this date. The conditions of approval shown in italics have not been met by the applicant. 1. The dumpster shall have screening on three sides and will be placed on a concrete pad as required by City Ordinance in coordination with the Solid Waste Division. 2. Landscaping shall be provided around parking areas as required by City Ordinance and in coordination with the Landscape Administrator. 3. The parking lot shall meet all requirements of the City Ordinance for parking lots. 3. (Amended) The southern curb will be restored to the original location as indicated on page 6.34 of the staff report. Concrete will be removed and landscaping will be added The proposed foyer entry on the south side and west corner of the facility shall use materials to match the front or west side of the existing building. Metal siding on the south side of the building must be bricked. All other additions must be approved by the Planning Commission. Improvements shall be made to Lee Avenue including repaving and applying curb and gutter to the east side of the street. 6. Maintenance shall be provided to the existing screening fence to the east and north of the properties. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 11 7. The new office facility shall meet requirements of the City Inspections Division. In addition to the original conditions of approval stated above, staff would recommend the following conditions to be added if the applicant is granted additional time to meet the original conditions or approval. 8. Water shall be turned off immediately and the business shall not operate if the conditions are not met within the additional time granted by the Commission. 9. The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met within the additional time granted by the Commission. Commission Discussion Johnson: I think the staff's position is not quite as harsh as this sounds. This came before us in February of this year as a conditional use because restaurants are not normally located in a R -O zone without granting a conditional use. At that time, there were 9 conditions that the Commission required in order to grant the conditional use. That matter was approved. After some months, some of those conditions were not met and some still have not been met. I believe the staff has been working with the applicant since June and then in September wrote a letter talking about those conditions that hadn't yet been completed. Has the screening matter been taken care of now? Conklin: The screening of the dumpster, to my knowledge, has not been taken care of. Johnson: We have then, condition 1 that was required back in February which is the screening of the dumpster has not been completed. It's my understanding the applicant has agreed to do this and I had understood they would do this today. Then we have condition 3 which is the parking lot requirements under City Ordinance. Then there is the other item about the screening fence to be repaired. That has now been done. We observed that when we went on tour last Thursday. Staff, what additional information do you have for us? Conklin: Staff has brought this back to the Planning Commission to look at what conditions have not been met. Our recommendation is to allow 30 additional days for the applicant to meet the conditions of approval. The applicant has worked with the City during the summer and fall. They have obtained a shared parking agreement. They are now parking vehicles in front of Liquor World. They have repaired their fence. They have provided the required landscaping which was inspected by our Landscape Administrator and approved. Basically, we're looking at 2 conditions. When we were there on tour last Thursday, October 21, they did have the fence contractor out there and I'm under the impression that it is just a matter of time before the dumpster does get screened. The main issue that staff has this evening, is with regard to the • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 12 parking lot. Last June, staff went out there and they requested to widen the street to provide parallel parking for customers to pull up and drop people off. They submitted plans to the City and at that time, I indicated they did not meet our Parking Ordinance. Later that summer, I discovered that the curb cut was widened. Please refer to page 6.33, which is the site plan submitted in February and was approved as a part of the conditional use request. On page 6.34, you have the site plan of what was actually built. Staff did work with the applicant and agreed to allow them to widen the street and also allowed them to provide an ADA van accessible space. Once the addition was constructed, it was discovered that it was impossible for someone parking in the current ADA space to get to the front door. Staff worked with the applicant and allowed them to have an additional space onto Lee Street. We do not agree to what's shown in the dark, shaded area. Basically, that resulted in the curb cut being widened to 41 feet. The original site plan indicates the parking stall striping at a 90 degree angle. This would allow vehicles to pull in and out of the parking lot in a forward motion. Right now, they are angled. In order to get vehicles out of the parking lot, they must back into the street. Our ordinance does not allow that. Angled parking is acceptable only when you enter one way, back out of the stall, and exit in the same direction that you pulled in. Those are the issues which are still unresolved. The applicant indicated to staff that he was opposed to removing the concrete and make the parking lot curb cut 24 feet. He is willing to restripe the parking lot. Currently, there is a landscaped island which prevents 90 degree angle parking and verbally he has agreed to removed that. Johnson: I understand that since we were on site Thursday, the applicant has agreed to change the angled parking and page 6.34 shows the 90 degree parking which is required. Conklin: I conducted a site inspection earlier this fall and at that time, they agreed to restripe those stalls to be 90 degree angles and remove the landscaped island. I'm not sure if they have changed their mind. Stevens: I and my husband, Jim Hatfield, own Cafe Nibbles. Johnson: First, let me ask about the angled parking. In conjunction with the angled parking, there is a small curbed planter. Are you willing to remove the landscaped, curbed planter and provide 90 degree parking stalls? Stevens: We did not want to change the angle of the parking until you had a chance on Thursday. That is why we did not. If that is what you want us to do, then we will do it. Johnson: If that is the Commission's wish, then you are not opposing that. Stevens: Absolutely. Johnson: What about the screening of the dumpster? Was that installed today? Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 13 Stevens: He was supposed to be there today. Mr. Bunch told me that he had driven by and didn't see it I'm dealing with a fence man who did not show up. Hopefully, he'll show up tomorrow. I have a signed a contract. I have done everything except go out there and help him build it. Johnson: So, that's not a problem and can surely be done within 30 days. Stevens. We hope. I'd like to have it done within the week. Johnson: That leaves us with the parking. Do you prefer to keep the angled parking? Is that your position? You don't oppose doing the 90 degree parking stalls if we require you to do it but you wish to discuss it. Correct? Stevens: Yes. Johnson: You do oppose reducing the entrance to 24 feet pursuant to our requirements. Stevens: Yes. After we looked at it with our concrete specialist, we discovered that it was so much easier for people to pull in and let people out and they would not have to pull back into the street to get into the parking lot. We have elderly patrons and many of them are let out at the front on the west side and they have thanked us many times for providing an area they can access easily and the driver can let them out and just go into the parking lot. It's surprising how many people have thanked us for thinking of things like that Unfortunately, it has been become a conflict with the Planning office and that is why we are here. Johnson: The applicant is willing to do the 90 degree striping for the parking stalls and remove the small, landscaped planter, if the Commission believes that is the better approach. The applicant prefers not to have to narrow the entrance to the standard 24 feet. It's now 41 feet. They widened the entrance without contacting the City or advising the City even though there had been contact on the street widening. Is that correct, Tim9 Conklin: That is correct. Anytime a business owner would like to widen a city street, normally the City will work the owner to widen that street. Once again, we agreed to allow them to do the additional ADA parking space to the north. 41 foot curb cuts are not allowed. Our standard is for 24 feet from back of curb to back of curb and that is what you review when we bring forward any large scale development. Estes: Is on premise alcohol consumption permitted in an R -O zone? • Conklin: To the best of my knowledge, our zoning ordinance does not restrict alcohol consumption by zoning district. • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 14 Estes: Looking at the materials presented to us, to the rear of the east side of the building there is a gravel area which is nominated as a gravel, employee, parking area. There appears to be a privacy fence which was a condition of approval for the conditional use. Is there a setback requirement from residential areas to residential office areas with conditional use approval for restaurant? Conklin: Are you referring to setback the parking area from an R-1 property to the east? Estes: Yes. Conklin: A 5 foot setback is required. Estes: Is that requirement being met? Conklin: That setback does not appear on either drawing and I have not inspected and measured for the 5 feet of landscaping. Estes: From the drawings we have, it appears there is 5 foot setback from the trash receptacle but not the gravel parking lot. Would staff require the 5 foot setback for the gravel parking lot to the R-1 property on the east? Conklin: The requirement is a 5 foot, landscaped setback. Estes: In some of the original material we saw, the building was described as a 3,000 square foot building and then we have a storage area to the east. In computing the square footage of the building, was the storage are included? If so, how does this impact on the occupancy load and the required number of parking spaces? I'm thinking ahead and I don't want to get into a situation where we're back here at a later time and the issue is that there is not adequate parking. Conklin: I am not sure how the square footage was calculated for this building. At the time this came to the Commission for conditional use approval, we discussed shared parking with Liquor World to the north We have received that agreement. Normally, we would look at the gross area of the building to calculate parking. Estes: Does the shared parking agreement satisfy the parking requirements for the square footage of this building? Conklin: That is my understanding. • Ward: Tim, if the south curb of the 41 foot entry was put where it's suppose to be, what would the curb cut measure? • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 15 Johnson: We're considering leaving the north entryway curb where it's at and requiring that they move the south curb back to it's original location. Conklin: That looks like 7 or 8 feet. Ward: So we're talking about 33 to 35 feet for the entrance curb cut. Marr: Ms. Stevens, at what point were you notified from the City that the parking lot configuration you constructed didn't meet the Parking Ordinance? When were you told the entrance was too wide? Stevens: That's a tough one. At what point? I realized we had a true problem on September 19 when I received a letter from the Planning office listing the 9 conditions and saying we had not met them. Another problem was the certificate of occupancy. I didn't know anything about the certificate of occupancy. I figured once the Fire Marshall, Building Inspector, and Health Department signed off, that we could open for business. I know Mr. Conklin and Mr. Hatfield, my husband, had discussions about the curb and concrete. 1 personally did not realize we had a serious problem. Estes: Tim, when were Ms. Stevens and Mr. Hatfield first notified there was a problem with the curb cut? Johnson: When did staff first learn that the curb was built 41 feet wide instead of 24 feet wide. Conklin: In late July or early August, we inspected the street and curb cut. In June, after the Public Works Director and I met on site with Mr. Hatfield, we discussed what would be approved. Probably one week later, he submitted a drawing showing what he planned to construct on the property. By phone, I indicated to him the drawing was unacceptable. I thought the applicant would bring back revised drawings. I never got revised drawings. Hoffman: Does the 41 foot driveway and parking lot meet our landscape ordinance? There is some landscaping in front of the building but there seems to be an absence of landscaping in the parking area itself. Conklin: Kim Hesse, the Landscape Administrator did go out there and did approve the landscaping. Normally, with a 24 foot drive, you would have additional landscaping in front of the parking stalls. She has approved the landscaping that has currently been installed. If concrete is removed, I would hope that additional landscaping would be placed in that area Typically, we would require trees. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 16 Hoffman: I'm in favor of a compromise approach and I like the idea of adding landscaping in the area that concrete would be removed from. Would you be willing to add trees and bushes in that location? Stevens: How many do you want? Johnson: Other questions? Public Comment Johnson: Please limit your comments to the issues which have not been resolved. That is the width of the driveway which is now 41 feet and cutting it back to 24 feet and those who might favor angled parking stalls. Those are the only 2 remaining issues which we have not resolved. Janet Gallman Ricker residing at 3255 North Lee Avenue was present. Gallman: I have forwarded a letter which I believe you have all received. I wanted to come forward and say thank you to Suzie. She has addressed a lot of the problems that were raised by my letter. I like Lee Ward's approach. I believe that extending the south portion of the island in the driveway and putting in an additional tree would soften the effect. Somewhere in between a 41 and 24 cut is a good idea. I appreciate the things she has done. Note that the new handicap stall is by the fire hydrant. I don't know if that is a concern. 30 days is reasonable to accomplish the remaining requirements and is a considerate thing to do. By no means, do I want you to shut them down. Don't do that. That was not my intent. Johnson: I think the staff as I said in the introduction, did not intend to go and shut them down at 9 p.m. tonight I think the staff has always proposed to give additional time knowing that there has already 8 months or so to comply with these conditions. Conklin: We do support allowing additional time to get into compliance. Mary Ann Greenwood, a friend of Suzie Stevens' and Jim Hatfield's was present. Greenwood: I think the angled parking is great. It fits very well. I've been there a number of times. It works very well. I think 90 degree parking stalls would be difficult. The other thing I would ask you to consider on the driveway is the way the University of Arkansas has handled the parking area in front of the Administration Building. They have not used concrete to decrease the driveway width. Instead, they have used stripping and reflectors. These citizens have committed a great deal of resources and time. These are people who meet a payroll and are supportive of Fayetteville. I would like to ask the Commission to think about this. We don't • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 17 need another bankruptcy or another business going to Bentonville or Rogers or places north. We need to work with our citizens. Odom: I apologize for coming in late and I will not vote on this issue since I came in half way through it. MOTION Ward: I move that we approve AD99-22 which is a rehearing of a conditional use allowing the applicant 30 days to get into compliance by screening the dumpster on 3 sides, that the parking will be with 90 degree angle stalls, the small island removed, and leaving the north curb in its current location thereby reducing the curb cut width, and additional landscaping in the area of the south curb of the driveway, and subject to all staff comments. Bunch: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward and second by Commissioner Bunch to approve AD99-22 which is a proposed revocation. I favor the motion. The angle of the parking stalls is a safety issue. Angled parking is only allowed in parking lots where you enter from one end of the parking lot and exit at the other always going in the same general direction. It doesn't work at this location because patrons must back all the way out of the parking lot into the street. Backing into the street is unsafe. As far as the curb cut width, it seems to me that this site is a somewhat unique site because this is a short street with a large development on the north end and a fire department on the south end of the street and the street has the appearance that it never will be a long heavily trafficked street so it seems to me the normal safety issues in the width of the entrance are not nearly so persuasive at this particular site because it is unique Hoffman: I offer a friendly amendment to the motion to include the addition of landscaping in the south driveway area. Ward: I accept that. Bunch: Is that 30 working days? Conklin: I used November 25th but I'll allow them the necessary time to get it done. Marr. On condition 8, is it necessary to turn off the water? Can't we just bring them back to the Commission? Johnson: I think the issue is how much staff time and Commission time do you want to give to a conditional use that has not complied with the conditions of approval in 8 to 10 months. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 18 People who get conditional uses have an extra duty to meet the requirements of the conditions. If they chose to build in the correct zone, they wouldn't have additional conditions. I don't take that as a friendly amendment. I take that as simply an amendment which requires a motion and second. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Marr: I will pose the amendment then to strike condition of approval number 8. Johnson: Is there a second? Seeing none, the amendment fails for lack of a second. Other discussion? We have the motion to allow Ms. Stevens additional time to get into compliance with the conditions of approval for the conditional use for Cafe Nibbles. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Odom abstained. • • • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 19 AD99-26: ADMINISTRATIVE H.M.T., PP484 This item was submitted by Greg House on behalf of H.M.T. Development Company, L.L.C. for property located north of Dickson Street and west of Rollston Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and contains approximately 1.13 acres. The request is to add a 5th story to the building by adding 1,264 square feet and to modify the building elevation. Robert Sharp and Greg House were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the proposed fifth story penthouse and revisions to the building elevations as shown on the submitted drawings. Commission Discussion Johnson: This project is known as the Three Sisters project. This was approved by the Commission in February of 1998. It has been before us another time for some revisions and now it is back again. We toured this project at agenda session on Thursday, October 21, 1999. We tried to get a sense of how much higher this building will be if the penthouse is allowed. We were told 17 to 19 feet higher than the highest steel structural part that we can now see. Tim, you asked the architect to bring us some drawings to show us what this change would add in height and to get an idea of the total size which is what is displayed here tonight. Conklin: The additional area has been highlighted on the elevations here before you. The drawings are also in the 11x17 booklet which was distributed with your agenda. We have also provided an addendum tonight consisting of 3 pages which has a photograph of the existing development depicting the exposed steel and the dimensions of the proposed penthouse. When we were on tour, there were questions about where the addition would be from the existing steel. Please refer to page 2 of this packet. The proposed structure will extend 17.5 feet from what is existing now. Sharp: I'm the architect for this project. The issue is the height of the existing steel structure relative to our proposed addition. What we are proposing is approximately 19 feet. That is the point of the highest ridge and it is 52 feet back from the street at that point. Shackelford: I will be abstaining from voting on this vote. Johnson: Thank you. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 20 Hoffman: In our original discussion of the elevations of the building, there were several members of the public who brought up the view of Old Main from Dickson Street. As you are driving down Dickson Street, will this penthouse be in that sight line. Sharp: This is a fairly small addition. There might be a brief moment that Old Main might be obstructed. Generally, it will set back a good distance from Dickson Street. Public Comment None. Further Commission Discussion House: I am the developer of the property. The pictures don't show the full scale of the project. We're only proposing to add a 30x30 square foot area. This wouldn't be a detriment to the project's height at this scale We think this is a nice addition that will add value to the property and is in keeping with the original architectural theme. I appreciate your consideration. MOTION Ward: I feel like the Three Sisters project on Dickson Street is a real boost to the whole street and this minor addition is not going to affect the view or anything else. This could have been 20 stories tall. Staff is recommending approval. I move that we approve AD99-26. Odom: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward and the second by Commissioner Odom to approve the 5th story penthouse on this project. Is there discussion of the motion? Conklin: The record needs to reflect the following comment from the Inspection Division: "An appeal from the technical provisions of the building code must be made to the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals and a variance granted before the 5th floor addition can be permitted." They have been working with our Inspections Division and Inspections must have the approval before this can be permitted. Johnson: I do have a concern about the height of the building. I originally was concerned about the scale of the building in that location and driving by and looking from the nearby parking lot on Thursday, I do think that the problem for me is whether or not the building is • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 21 compatible and if there is compatible transition between the adjoining developments. That is my concern. I believe the project is oversized for that particular location. There are plenty of places in Fayetteville where it would not be oversized The building is obviously very attractive. I think this is more building than the site warrants on Dickson Street. For that reason, I would oppose the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-1. Commissioner Johnson voted against motion and Commissioner Shackelford abstained. • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 22 AD99-24• REVOCATION HEARING FOR CU96-27 MILLENNIUM 2000, PP528 This item was submitted by the Planning Division for property located at 2892 Huntsville Road (Tony Catroppa of Millennium 2000.) The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.45 acres. The request is to rehear the original conditional use which was approved by Planning Commission on November 25, 1996. Marshall Carlisle, Tony Catroppa, Charles Washington, and Chad Monroe were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff does not recommend for revocation of the conditional use for the 800 square foot dance floor. This property is zoned C-2 which allows restaurants with entertainment and bars as a use by right. The conditional use revocation hearing should focus on allowing dancing at this facility to continue and how allowing dancing at this facility may adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Revocation of the permit will not require the business to cease operation as a restaurant with entertainment or a bar once all ordinance requirements are met. Complaints regarding noise are handled by enforcement of the noise ordinance; however, compliance with the noise ordinance was and still is a condition of approval. Staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the dance hall in addition to the original conditions of approval from 1996 which are included in the staff report after the new conditions: 1. The occupancy load shall be limited by the amount of off street parking that can be developed on site or a maximum of 600, which ever is less. This requirement is calculated as one parking space per 3 occupants. Parking lot lighting shall be shielded and directed downward and away from residential areas Light poles shall be 35 feet or less in height and fixtures shall be limited to low pressure sodium 3. A 6 foot high wood fence shall be installed along the entire north property line separating the dance hall and parking areas from the R-1 zoning to the north. 4. The business shall not open until the additional parking required is approved and • constructed. The parking lot shall meet all ordinance requirements and no variance from any ordinance requirement shall be requested to increase the amount of off street parking • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 23 on the site. The conditional use may be brought back to the Planning Commission at any time for revocation if valid complaints are received by the Planning Division. The water service shall be shut off immediately and business shall not operate if the conditions are not met. 7. The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any condition is not met. 8. The conditional use shall be automatically revoked if any additional Unified Development Ordinance violations occur. Currently, the applicant is in violation of the parking lot, grading and storm water management ordinances. Staff has requested the applicant resolve these violations immediately. Following are the conditions of approval associated with CU96-27 and the applicant must get and remain in compliance with them: • 1. Inspection by the Fire Marshall and Building Inspector. • 2. Compliance with the noise ordinance. 3. Provide 25 parking spaces (2 of which must be ADA accessible) and landscaping. The applicant must obtain a parking lot permit and drainage permit if additional parking is required by the Planning Commission. 4. Compliance with the conditional use criteria, section 160.195 with specific regard to refuse location, lighting and glare, and signage. 5. If there are any complaints within one year, the conditional use will come back before the Planning Commission. Committee Discussion Johnson: This is a hearing to determine revocation of a conditional use. This is a request to rehear the conditional use. The present name is Millennium 2000. It is across the street from Baker Equipment which is a tractor/equipment place on Highway 16 east. The staff recommends that the conditional use not be revoked. The issue before us tonight is a very narrow issue and it is the issue of the dance hall permit. That is the only thing that the Commission has a say about at this particular location. The zoning is C-2. I understand that the applicant has an alcohol permit or a liquor license of some sort. The applicant can serve alcoholic beverages. The Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 24 applicant can have music. The issue before us is whether or not they will be allowed to continue to have dancing at this location. There are other problems facing this applicant. It is presently closed for a totally unrelated issue and that is a parking issue. That is not before us this evening. There are some health issues that Washington County is dealing with. Those are not before us this evening. There were some Fire Marshall issues and those are not before us this evening. I want us to talk about the thing that we have authority over which is the conditional use for dancing at this location. Tim, go ahead, if you will and give us the additional background that you think we need on this. Conklin: This is a hearing to consider revoking the permit which allows dancing to occur at this facility. There was a conditional use that was approved in 1996 and this facility has had dancing over the years. Prior to it having dancing, it was a bar named Speedy's. It's been called Shooters, The Eight Ball Bar and Grill, Hots, Blue Star Cafe, and today it is called Millennium 2000. The issue is with regard to whether or not dancing should be allowed to continue at this facility and how allowing dancing to continue at this facility would adversely impact the neighbors. I have passed out to the Commission this evening, a color coded list from our police department on the complaints they have received and violations. They were allowed to open up for 30 days under Millennium 2000. The Police Department received 17 noise complaints, 3 complaints regarding parking on Huntsville and other private property in the area and 3 noise violations during those 30 days. The noise complaints are highlighted in yellow. The parking issues are highlighted in blue and the violations are highlighted in pink Once again, there have been 3 noise violations that have occurred at this facility. Those occurred on Friday, October 8th and on October 16th and 17th. Johnson: There are additional noise complaints listed on the first page that occurred in September. Why are those excluded? Conklin: I highlighted those in yellow because the condition of approval back in 1996 was compliance with noise ordinance. To my knowledged, there were no violations of that ordinance on those dates. What I'm trying to indicate on this sheet is to distinguish between an actual violation of the noise ordinance and a complaint that the Police Department received. Johnson: So, there have been various complaints. There have been 2 that have been verified by the Police Department as violations of the noise ordinance. Conklin: There have been 3 violations. On page 3, one occurred at 1:30 in the moming and that was actually Sunday, the 17th but they show 2 on October 16th. Johnson: Thanks for that clarification. Conklin: Just before our office closed this evening, we received a petition with 8 signatures • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 25 in opposition of the dance hall at this location and that has been copied and passed down to the Commissioners. Once again, this is zoned C-2. They are allowed to have a bar at this location. Their temporary certificate of occupancy expired October 18th. Staff will not allow them to open as a restaurant and bar until additional parking is provided. If the Planning Commission denies the permit for the dance hall this evening and they decide to do business as a restaurant and bar, they will not be allowed to resume business until the parking issue is addressed. They are required to get a large scale development approved. They have hired an engineer who has been in contact with the Planning Division and he anticipates submitting a large scale development. There are 2 additional lots west of this facility. They are also zoned C-2 and this is where they proposed to develop their parking lot. For informational purposes, the lots are zoned C-2 and you could additionally have 2 bars west of this facility as a use by right. Once again, we want to focus on whether or not dancing should be allowed to continue at this facility and how the dancing at the facility impacts the adjoining neighborhood. The dance floor has not been expanded. It was approximately 800 square feet in 1996 and according to the applicant's site plan it is the same size and location in 1999. The difference is that the building has been expanded. The previous businesses occupied half the building and now, Millennium occupies the entire building. It's gone from 5,000 square feet to over 10,000 square feet. The issue on parking will have to be addressed no matter if the dance hall continues or if they are only allowed to operate as a restaurant and bar. Johnson: I did receive a call from one of the alderman representing Ward 4 who advised he had gotten a lot of complaints about this particular facility. The complaints included both noise ordinance complaints and parking. I said that I would pass that information on to the Commission, too. Who is representing the applicant and tell us what additional information that you would have us consider this evening? Carlisle: We have the cart before the horse here. I will would like to introduce Charles Washington, who is the manager of this club. The owner is Mr. Catroppa who is present here tonight. I doubt very seriously if we would be here if we hadn't received so much publicity about the owner, Mr. Catroppa. I take that advisedly and so shall you. On September 18th, Millennium 2000 opened under it's new ownership and operator. All of this trouble stems from what happened on that occasion. Mr Washington did one heck of ajob because over 1,000 people showed up at his place on that night. I think it took everybody totally by surprise including the neighbors and for what it's worth, I'm sort of a neighbor. I live about 'A mile as the crow flies from this facility. Johnson: As the noise flies? Carlisle: As the noise flies. I guess they hired me to get this thing straightened out and get the club to comply with the ordinances of the city and do so in such a way as it can at least make the owner some money. That is the object. There is a terrible occupancy problem based on what • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 26 Tim has said about the available parking. We have plans we want to present to you. I'm not sure whether we can address the dance hall situation without the parking situation. The dance floor in this building is exactly the same dance floor that was there in 1996 when this conditional use was granted for that operator. Also coupled with this problem was the noise situation and we have addressed that very specifically. I'm at a loss on how to proceed. Johnson: I think you have put your finger on a problem and we need to be the most efficient in the use of your time, our time and your client's money. Tonight, we cannot deal with the parking lot development issues. That has not been prepared or submitted and is not before us tonight. We are not able to deal with the parking lot development issues. It's my understanding the development of parking is an administrative matter that staff will deal with directly and that really does not have to come to us or at least, it is not yet before us -- Carlisle: Let me tell you what I was told -- Johnson: My understanding is that developing the required parking will be a pretty expensive proposition and it could be a factor in what your clients will ultimately decide to do. I believe Tim told us that if the applicant goes forward they will have to build a lot of parking and comply with the large scale requirements and that would come before us. Conklin: They will have to submit a large scale development for their parking lot design regardless whether or not the conditional use for a dance hall is continued or not. Without the conditional use approval, they would be a restaurant with entertainment and they are required to have one parking space for every 3 occupants. Staff advised the applicant once we did receive complaints from the Police Department and Fire Marshall they had to meet the conditions approved for the dance hall in 1996 and that they had to come back to the Planning Commission for possible revocation. The Police are very concerned about the safety of people parking along Huntsville Road. Currently, there are no sidewalks. There were concerns about that. There were concerns about people parking on private property. Also, the City has received complaints about the noise. The original conditions of approval included that the operator must comply with the noise ordinance. Apparently, there are 3 citations that the condition is not being met. That required them to come back to the Planning Commission for this rehearing. Staff thought it was in the best interest of the applicant to bring this back to the Commission based on these complaints and these concerns with expanding the business and basically doubling the occupancy or doubling the size of the building for you to decide if dancing should continue at this facility. Johnson: It could be, Mr. Carlisle, that it is better to proceed first with the issue of the conditional use and the dance issue. I assume that if the dance floor is enlarged and you have 3 or 4 times the number of feet dancing is really going to change the nature of this issue very much. It probably is more a matter of music and sound dampening. Perhaps there is logic to dealing with this issue first because should the conditional use be revoked then that perhaps • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 27 answers all the other questions. I don't know whether the restaurant and bar might stand alone. Carlisle: Let me tell you what I understand the situation to be regarding the LSD. I called the Planning office last week and was told that staff did not want to proceed with the large scale development process which is on file until this meeting was over because this Commission might impose some other conditions which would affect their review and therefore, they wanted to get this behind them first. I don't know if that makes a lot of sense to me but that is the situation. We can talk about the noise and we can talk about what we have done to take care of the noise problem. Chuck is prepared to present to you what that is if that addresses the dance permit then we're prepared to do that and we're also prepared to tell you that we will comply with the parking requirements of the City of Fayetteville in every respect in order to meet that requirements. Mr. Washington has a meter which is exactly the same device used by the City Police to determine whether or not there is a violation of the noise ordinance. He has a record of every one hour reading every night that this club has been open. He has taken those reading every hour of every night. Not one time has that reading violated the City Ordinance. There may be a conflict between the device the Police used on 2 occasions. One of the citations is for noise after 1:00. Mr. Washington was told the citation was issued for any sound and it was a violation because it was after 1:00. The other 2 occasions, at least from the City Police standpoint, their measurement of the sound was higher than indicated by Mr. Washington's meter and was in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Washington, do you have that information? Washington: Yes. Johnson: First, let's determine what the best approach is in terms of the procedure for the Commission. Tim, go ahead and clarify for us why staff takes the position that we're really all better served if we deal with the noise ordinance issue first. Conklin: Once again, staff was working with the applicant on addressing the parking concerns prior to noise complaints being received. With any conditional use, once we receive complaints we look back at what was approved and what the conditions of approval were in 1996. We thought it was best for the Commission to rehear this item. Conditions have changed out there and there are neighbors complaining to the Police Department and there are safety concems. There are numerous complaints with regard to noise and this should come back to the Planning Commission. Staff has been working with the applicant and once there were valid complaints we advised the applicant that they might want to wait on large scale development of the parking lot until this matter was resolved. A complete, large scale development application has not been submitted to the Planning Division. Their plans were insufficient. We do not have a large scale development currently in process. Their engineer was informed of the plans not being complete and they have been told what is required for those plans to be complete and submitted to the City. Once again, we advised the applicant that he may want to wait until this meeting and see if they would be allowed to have dancing. • 0 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 28 Odom: The answer to the question is fairly simple I think the conditional use process requires that when there are violations of the conditions of approval for the conditional use that it come back for a hearing which stands separate and apart and on it's own merit from any large scale development. Large scale development is not an issue. When there are reports of violations of the conditions of approval, the staff is required to bring them back to the Planning Commission for a hearing on that specific issue. That is what is here tonight. It would be great to do it all at one time. The violation process is not here at the convenience of the applicant. The violation of the conditional use is here because violations have occurred and we must make finding with regard to those violations. Johnson: Thank you I think that is exactly accurate. I'm going to go ahead and deal with the issue before us which is the revocation of the conditional use. Staff believes this is an issue but the recommendation of the staff was for continuation of the conditional use. It's recommendation is in favor of the applicant's position. I want to make that clear. I want to limit the public discussion. There are many here tonight and I suspect one or 2 of them would like to discuss this matter. I want this discussion limited to the one matter before us which is the dance hall permit. I don't want to talk about the other issues. Let me pole the Commission and see if they want any discussion beyond the one issue which we have authority over which is dancing and not drinking, not having a club, and not having a restaurant, but dancing is what causes the problem here. Public Comment Gary Sorensen, residing at 425 S. Stonebridge Rd., was present in opposition to the matter. Sorensen: I am the President of the Wyman -Stonebridge Neighborhood Association. We started out as a neighborhood watch program. We have a petition which I would like to read: "This petition is to revoke the conditional use permit for property located at 2892 Huntsville Road. A meeting of the Wyman -Stonebridge Neighborhood Association on October 16, 1999 brings forth this petition to revoke the conditional use permit for Tony C's, Millennium 2000 restaurant and club located at 2892 Huntsville Rd. The Association finds this club to be a nuisance and intrusion on our neighborhood. We come to this conclusion from the excessive noise from the music, most noticeably the bass that reverberates inside homes even when windows are closed, and the increased traffic into our neighborhoods and increase of trash along side our streets, and the presence of undesirable in the neighborhood. Peaceful enjoyment of one's property is a treasured right in American Civil Law and we feel that the vile intrusion of this business takes away from our peaceful neighborhood where we once felt peaceful and secure. We ask the Planning Commission not only to look at the facts of the matter in terms of the zoning but to use their wide discretionary powers in regard to the rights of the residents of the • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 29 area " I have here approximately 73 signatures representing 65 homes of the approximately 90 homes in the neighborhood. I know Mr. Catroppa was not the original applicant for the dance hall. At that time, I remember 3 years ago, there were at least 3 of us that did come before the Commission. Myself, I did not get to speak because I work nights and I had to leave within the hour. I did not have a chance to speak at that time This was opposed by the neighborhood but unfortunately, we were not well organized. With the creation of our neighborhood watch, we have become much more organized and we would like to present this as a reflection of the neighborhood. This neighborhood stretches from Wyman Road and Crossover Road to the city limits and includes Huntsville Road and Stonebridge to the top of the hill. Johnson: Could you hazard an estimate of what percentage of the signers of the petition do you think live close enough to hear the noise from this establishment? Sorensen: At least 90 percent. I have spoken to the man that lives on the property with the city limits sign at Wyman Road and he has heard it. The folks on top of the hill on Stonebridge Road can hear it. I'm not an expert on sound but I've been told that the sound measuring equipment measures the highs and is incapable of measuring the lows. I'd like to confirm this. I'm not sure. It's not a real high noise, it Just thud, thud, thud, all night long. Johnson: Would you like to pass that petition around so that we could take a look at that. Sorensen: I'm sure this is not a legally binding of any kind but this is the best we could do. As a representative of the neighborhood, in the past, the noise has not been a problem. This began recently with the opening of Millennium. There has been an increase of traffic in our neighborhood and narrowing the focus that the dance hall or floor is going to be the centerpiece of this establishment and that's what's going to increase the traffic into and out of our neighborhood. A restaurant and bar, I don't think anybody would say much of anything about it if they closed at a decent hour or what we consider decent. This is a neighborhood of retirees. We have young families with lots of kids in the neighborhood and working class people. A restaurant wouldn't be minded so much. Dance halls bring in crowds They want as many people as they can get in there as possible to make a profit. This building has been expanded and requires parking for 1200 people and we believe that is a detriment to our neighborhood and property values and the safety of those living there. I'm sure there are others who wish to speak. Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Sorensen. I appreciate your gathering the petition and the names on the petition. We will take it that all of those people support your position. • John Mallicote residing at 2756 Holmes Drive was present in opposition to the dance hall. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 30 Mallicote: I am a resident in the Wyman -Stonebridge area. I would like to say that the previous businesses that have been at that address have not really been a problem in the neighborhood and since the dance hall has opened, the sound and other issues have become a problem. I trust that you will use your best judgment and responsibility in this matter for the citizens in this area. Johnson: When would you estimate the noise problems really came to your attention? Mallicote: Approximately mid September to early October is when I first noticed it. Johnson: How long have you lived in the area? Mallicote: We've lived in our home since 1996 and have seen most of the previous businesses at that address. Stephanie Mallicote, residing at 2756 E Holmes Drive was present. Mallicote: The noise actually started opening night. It was so loud that I thought it was my next door neighbor. The bass is what comes into our home. It is what keeps us awake. It is also the added traffic parking on our streets because of the overflow of patrons at this establishment. We don't like finding beer bottles in our yard. This used to be a really clean, tidy neighborhood. I think that Mr. Sorensen addressed the idea of the place expanding and if the parking lot is expanded it's not the right place for this type of establishment. It's also true and I agree that we never heard any bass noise or had problems with extra patrons parking on our street until it became a dance hall. When it was a bar or restaurant, we never had a problem. Larry McCawley, residing at 2715 E. Wyman, was present. McCawley: To give you a prime example of what the noise is, my house is halfway between Stonebridge and 265 on Wyman Road. Johnson: About how far from this site? McCawley: Probably a half mile. I can lay in my bedroom at night and hear this thump, thump, thump. Mr. Carlisle has lived there for years. I wish his house was up a little higher instead of in the valley where he's at and he would hear it. I can imagine what it is like for the people between my house and that club. It's got to be ridiculous. It's loud. It's annoying. The kids can't sleep. I can't sleep. Mrs. Isaacs, residing at 2665 E Travis, was present. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 31 Isaacs: Those reverberations are subsonic. We may not be able to hear them but we can feel them. There are houses on Holmes whose windows rattle from the reverberations. I was here in 1996 when this special use permit was first heard and one of the criteria for keeping that was indeed that the noise would be kept down. If this place is denied dance hall privileges, there wouldn't be any music and I'm using the word music in its broadest sense. There wouldn't be any reverberations if people weren't dancing. As Mr. Sorensen said, if this were a bar or a lounge or another sort of club and was not intrusive in our homes we wouldn't be here protesting. John Carson, residing 2691 E Huntsville Rd., was present. Carson: I'm actually the last house before you get to the club. As time went on, the noise has gotten louder. When it first opened up, it didn't seem that bad Johnson: When did it first open up? Carson: It started in October. One of the things I would like to address is the parking lot. At my house and I'm across the street from it and the way they have their parking lit up, if any of you have driven down the street, those lights hit you in the face coming up and down the highway. My property is lit up. You can come to my house and you can make animals on the house and we've had a lot of complaints about that. I have a rent house and my renter doesn't like it. I would like for you to address that when you take a look at the new parking lot. He can change the lights and move them to the west, if you let him have this parking lot and shoot it back at his business and light up his business. I have a business. I like my business lit up. I wouldn't like to light up your homes. This is what those lights are doing right now This evening, you could come to my house and it's lit up. I don't think any homeowner would want their house lit up. I'd like for you to take that into account when you take a look at this parking lot. Theresa Garrett, residing at 13671 Goose Creek Road was present. Garrett: I live about 2 blocks from this establishment. In the past month, I have had to wear 2 sets of ear plugs at night to be able to attempt to sleep. I can still hear the noise with the windows shut and the heater running. Johnson: Is there anyone else in the audience who would address us on the revocation of the conditional use. Once I close discussion to the audience, it won't be reopened. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: I have one question about the measurement of the noise. There has been a • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 32 reference to the bass being the larger problem. I think there is someone here from the Police Department. Do we have someone who knows sort of how the noise meter, if that's what you call it, works? I'm interested in whether or not it measures the effects of the bass. Could we have help with that question? Lt. Johnson: My name is Frank Johnson and I'm a lieutenant with the Fayetteville Police Department. The sound level meter does not distinguish the type of sound. I suspect it's the bass because it is low frequency sound that is most annoying to people. Johnson: Would you believe that the bass is measured as fully by the machine as is the treble portion? Lt. Johnson: Not the sound level meter. We can talk about the human ear. The sound level meter does not distinguish between base and treble. It just doesn't do that. Johnson: So, it measures what the ear hears. One of the speakers talked about the thumping that, I think, is what the gut feels and that is probably the bass. It may not measure what the body feels, just what the ear hears. Lt. Johnson: It's possible that someone can hear the bass and it would not be in violation of the City Noise Ordinance. There are environmental factors and without going into detail about the noise ordinance which I don't believe you want to do now, it's possible that a reading could be taken that is not in violation and someone could still hear the bass. Depending on the time, it might not be a violation. If it's after 1:00 and they can still hear the bass, then it would be a violation of the city ordinance. Johnson: Thanks, very much for that. Ward: How big is the building out there now and what is the maximum occupancy load under the fire code? Conklin: Maximum occupancy will be limited on the amount of parking they can provide on site. There have been calculations from 600 to over 800. Occupancy load, to my knowledge, is based on the number of door openings you have in the facility and the Inspections Division and Fire Division get together and make those calculations. At this point in time, my opinion is if they construct the parking west of this facility, the most I think they probably could get is approximately 600 people. Ward: That's even if they bring them in by bus loads? • Conklin: No. 600 is based on parking at one stall for every 3 people. Staff is not • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 33 recommending any type of off site shared parking agreement. Carlisle: We calculated the total parking stalls for the area at 222 spaces and 3 people to the car would make that 666. Mr. Washington would like to make a comment. Washington My name is Charles Washington. I am the manager at Millennium 2000. I understand that the free enterprise system does not include the intrusion of privacy of others and I will say that we have gone to great trouble and detail to work on that. We have done several things to correct the problems. I would like for our sound tech person to come up and address the sound specs of our system and what we have done to correct that. Johnson: Do you want to hear from the sound technician? Go ahead. Monroe: My name is Chad Monroe. I'm president and operator of Image, Inc. which is a sound and lighting company. I do installations of professional sound and lighting systems in night clubs and churches. We operate as Midnight Sound Works as far as lighting is concerned. Johnson: Do you know about the measurement of the noise? Monroe: I did the installation of the sound system at Millennium 2000. Johnson: What about the measurement with the sound meter? Monroe: The sound meter we use measures decibel levels. Johnson: Do you have an explanation for the discrepancy between the club's measurement and the Police Department's measurement? Monroe: I do not except that maybe the calibrations of the actual meters may have been different. To the best of my knowledge, on the last weekend they were open both the Police and the club made a reading at the same time to better calibrate the 2 devices so they made the same readings at the same volume levels. Marr. Have any adjustments been made to the sound system to reduce the reverberation? Monroe: I made a report on October 18. There are no layman terms when it comes to sound system settings and readings. It's very technical as far as different settings and frequencies and decibels. Basically, we have turned everything down. Hoffman: Have you tested your system since the temporary occupancy expired and was that done at night and have you actually put any sound dampening principles into effect since the • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 34 permit expired and what was the result of that? Monroe: On Saturday, October 16, during the afternoon after the club was ticketed on Friday night, I adjusted the sound system and made sure that it was not set to levels that would be in violation of the ordinance. They operated that Saturday night. Hoff an: On Saturday, were there any complaints with the new settings? Conklin: The 16th was a Saturday and they received 2 citations on the noise ordinance. Carlisle: Mr. Monroe, is it possible to adjust the sound system to satisfy the complaints that you have heard here tonight? Monroe: To the best of my knowledge, my adjustments when I left the club that day would comply with all the city regulations. Carlisle: What about the complaints about the bass sound that you've heard here tonight? Can you adjust that in such a way that it won't bother these people? Monroe: As far as I know, it's adjusted that way now. It was the last day they were open so they may not have realized it had been changed. Johnson: Tell us again what day was it that the adjustments were made so that you think the system was in compliance with all elements of the noise ordinance. Monroe: It was Saturday. Washington: It was Saturday the 16th. Marr: Was that in the middle of the day? It was adjusted in the middle of the day on the 16th? Washington: Yes, it was in the afternoon. Marr. Am I reading this report correctly that there were 2 complaints on the 16th and 2 violations the night of the 16th and 17th. Conklin: There were citations issued late on the night of 16th and early Sunday morning on the 17th at 1:30 a.m. or so. Washington: Those were after the adjustments. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 35 Conklin: Yes, after the adjustments according to this report from the Police Department which we distnbuted this evening. Washington: We have cut the reverb levels. We have unhooked 2 of the 4 subwolfers. Johnson: So, you believe that the 2 confirmed and cited noise ordinance violation reported by the Police Department are in error. Washington: Definitely. We tested the system at maximum. There would no way you could be in our building at maximum peak. We took readings around the neighborhood and we came back and adjusted the system down after we unhooked 2 of our subs. We went from pushing 3600 watts down to around 900 watts. Bunch: Have there been any other measures taken besides limiting the sound? Have there been any physical changes to the structure such as baffling or anything of that nature? Screening doorways? Washington: I have pictures of the areas that could leak sound which we have chalked and boarded up such as doors. We really changed our sound system. We unhooked 2 of the subwolfers and dropping to 900 watts were major and significant changes for us. At 1:00 a.m., we cut the power to the system even lower than 900 watts. We have taped off the system controls where you can't adjust it above the 900 watt level at all. Bunch: Is the operator of the system the same as the people who installed it or do you have your own sound tech in the club? Washington: They are, in fact, the same. Bunch: Mr. Monroe is the one who did the testing Saturday afternoon and was operating the system Saturday night and early Sunday morning? Washington: Yes, sir. Johnson: There are places where there are dance halls that have had noise ordinance complaints. Are there places where you can have a dance hall without having a conditional use in Fayetteville or do we have some that we have never seen because they were here before the beginning of time? Conklin: Most of them are grandfathered in. Dance halls in Fayetteville now require conditional use. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 36 Johnson. So, those that have had complaints on noise that we haven't seen are because they were very probably grandfathered in. Conklin: That's correct. Marr. What time does dancing start at the club? Washington: I would speculate around 10 p.m. We open at 8 p.m. Marr: Are the noise complaints prior to 10 p.m.? Sorensen: It goes from 10 until after midnight. Hoffman: I'm getting the feeling, to summarize, that the noise complaints and the dancing are directly related and I think that as the Planning Commission, it is our duty to hear the voices of the adjoining neighbors. I am very much reluctant to revoke anybody's dancing permit or business permit but I feel that the applicant hasn't taken enough measures to thoroughly insulate that building and shield the doors. I know there are several different methods which Mr. Bunch alluded to that could be employed. I know that if we revoke a conditional use that the applicant can't be heard for another 6 months or a year. Conklin: It is one year. Hoffman: I'm preparing to try to craft a motion that would not impose that time limit and permit the applicant to come back after making additional modifications to the building and testing with the Police Department and working with the neighbors to see if we can mitigate this noise problem. MOTION Hoffman: I move that we temporarily revoke this conditional use for a dance hall with the provision that if the applicant substantiates an appeal of the revocation that they be permitted to come back in less time than is stated in the Unified Development Ordinance. Estes: The original conditional use approval was subject to certain conditions. One of those was compliance with the noise ordinance. What we have before us this evening is that the occupancy load has increased substantially. We have 3 noise violations on record and I understand there has not been a full and complete adjudication of those violations but those are before us on the record. We have over 20 responses by the Fayetteville Police Department to this facility in a period from September 14 until October 19. We certainly have more than adequate information before us that dancing at this facility adversely effects this neighborhood. We have • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 37 signatures on petitions that exceed 70 in number. We have several people attending and several who have spoke. I will second the motion to revoke the conditional use. I am not so sure that we can modify a city ordinance by allowing this applicant to come back in any time less than permitted by the ordinance. Tim, what is the period of time in which this applicant may come back with a conditional use application? Conklin: Once again, when a conditional use is heard and a decision is made, there is a one year time period where we do not allow them to petition to rehear. Johnson: Is that by ordinance? Conklin: That is by ordinance at §163.02 D.: "Disapproval/Reconsideration. No application for a conditional use will be considered by the Planning Commission within 12 months from the date of final disapproval of a proposed conditional use unless there is evidence of changed conditions or new circumstances which justify reconsideration submitted to the Planning Commission." Hoffman: Regarding conditional uses, the Planning Commission has broad powers with which to set these conditions. We have seemingly almost unlimited abilities to impose varying number of conditions. I'm merely making this a condition of the revocation. I'm not trying to change the ordinance. My intent would be to try and achieve some kind of compromise with the neighbors and let this club have another chance before a year expires. Johnson: Before I rule on whether the motion is a motion. Please restate your motion precisely so that I understand. Hoffman: My motion is to temporarily revoke the conditional use pending further successful documentation of compliance with the noise ordinance. Estes: Do you put a time on that? Hoffman: I'm not sure. Are you saying you would favor an absolute revocation with the one year stipulation on rehearing? Johnson: I think your motion is unusual but that doesn't mean it's not a wonderful motion. State your motion one more time and see whether it garners a second. Hoffman: This is a motion to temporarily revoke the conditional use for a dance hall pending further documentation from the applicant to be submitted within a certain period of time that they are in compliance with the noise ordinance. Would other Commissioners weigh in on • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 38 the time frame? Johnson: We'll have a blank time frame I want to see whether this approach is going to gain a second. Is there a second to the motion? Then, the motion fails for lack of a second. Estes: I move revocation of conditional use 96-27. Johnson: Is there a second on the motion. Odom: I'll second. Johnson: I have the motion by Commissioner Estes and the second by Commissioner Odom that we revoke the conditional use. Mr. Washington, I will let you say one last thing. Washington: Can you explain to me what you just did? Johnson: The motion that we now have is to revoke the conditional use. If that motion passes with 5 positive votes, then this conditional use for a dance hall can't be brought back before the Commission until 1 year has passed. Washington: This is a basically like a death sentence. There's no way we can survive. Johnson: It's a death sentence to the dancing and the reasons are those that have been detailed over the last several minutes. It's not like it's without any notice or basis. Washington: I will say that we strived to comply with the areas addressed and put before us. All we're asking is for an opportunity to do business and provide commerce. We don't want to shut our doors and we will comply with any and all regulations within a reasonable time frame. We don't want to shut our doors anymore than anybody else. We provide services to many people. I wish I had the people here tonight that enjoy the entertainment that we provide in a good, clean environment. We want to conform with what the city is looking for and open back up. I wish we could reach a compromise without having to close our business. Johnson: I'm closing the discussion because I think we've fully discussed the issues before us. The one other approach I have thought of is to allow continuation of the conditional use in addition to the original conditions being that if there is one more substantiated sound ordinance violation that the termination be automatic. I think that there is sufficient information to shut this down now. I'm not sure whether we have ever revoked a conditional use in my memory. This is certainly a serious matter. We have before us then the motion to revoke this conditional use. Is there further discussion of the motion to revoke? • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 39 Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 4-5-0. Commissioners Bunch, Hoffman, Hoover, Johnson, and Ward voted against the motion. Further Commission Discussion Bunch: I would support a temporary period to give the applicant a chance to work with the neighbors and find a common ground and include stipulations that would give us some oversight in this. I don't know how to present that as a motion. Johnson: That kind of hands on business, I would not be interested in the Commission doing. Odom: I think that once the decision with regard to the revocation is made, I don't think there is any additional remedy. Further, adding more checks and balances on a system which the conditional use process was designed originally, does nothing more than circumvent the entire process. I think we're starting to see more and more revocations of conditional use. All of the negotiating and compromising is done on the front end on all of these. I'm, quite frankly, tired of seeing them. I'm going to start voting for more revocations. MOTION Hoffman: I'll make a motion to impose a condition for AD99-24 that immediate revocation result from the next substantiated noise complaint with citation under the noise ordinance by the Fayetteville Police Department. Marr: Second. Johnson: We have the motion that the conditional use be continued subject to the original conditions of approval which are found on page 8.3 of our packet and Commissioner did you intend to include the staff conditions? Hoffman: Yes, and subject to all staff conditions and adding the substantiated noise complaint by citation under the noise ordinance by the Fayetteville Police Department. Johnson: That would make 8 staff conditions of approval One of which addresses the parking lot lighting. Those are on page 8.1. There are 5 original ones on page 8.3. Then, there is one more condition and that is that there would be immediate revocation by the staff without further Planning Commission action if there is one more substantiated violation of the noise • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 40 ordinance by the Fayetteville Police Department. Estes: My concern with the motion is that at present, we have 3 noise violations before us. In our packet this evening, we were provided 1 copy of a citation. What is a violation? In other words, if this is going to be a condition of approval of this conditional use, we need to be absolute and have a high degree specificity. Are we talking about this applicant being cited by the Fayetteville Police Department for a violation? Or are we talking about a finding of guilt by the Fayetteville Municipal Court and if so, how do we afford this applicant his right to appeal de novo to the Circuit Court from that conviction? Johnson: Now, there's a lawyer speaking. Hoffman: I would assume that we don't need to address that because all of the ordinance would follow all that through due process. Johnson: The Commissioner's point is, of course, well taken and the point is does the revocation result from the Police Department writting a citation or does it mean conviction of the citation. Not every violation leads to conviction. Is it violation or citation or conviction? Hoffman: If he's not convicted in Municipal for violating the noise ordinance, then he doesn't have a problem. I assume that a substantiated police report would then follow through. Estes: This is a place I don't want to go. This applicant needs to know where he stands with this Commission. Are you telling him that if he receives a citation from the Fayetteville Police Department then his conditional use is revoked or are you telling him that if he receives a citation from the Fayetteville Police Department and then appears before the Fayetteville Municipal Court and is found guilty then his conditional use is revoked or are you telling him that he must appear before Washington County Circuit Court jury and be found guilty on appeal de novo? He needs to know what conditions you're imposing upon him. Hoffman: I intended that if he violated the noise ordinance and the procedures under that ordinance would dictate those rules and procedures. Estes: Are you saying this applicant receives a citation from the Fayetteville Police Department that his conditional use is revoked? I'm not being argumentative. This applicant is entitled to know what this motion means. Hoffman: Could I ask staff to go ahead and fill us in on what happens when you have a noise ordinance violation? Conklin: I would refer you to Lt. Johnson to answer that question. The Planning Division • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 41 does not enforce the noise ordinance or follow through on violations and citations. Johnson: Would you give the specific question again for Lt. Johnson? Conklin: Once a citation is issued, what is the process that they go through where we actually know there was a violation and when are they found guilty of violating that ordinance. Lt. Johnson: It has to go to court if the individual who received the citation decides to take it to court. That's it. It's like a speeding ticket. They are entitled to due process to present their case in Judge Moore's court. Johnson: Using a speeding ticket as an example, some times cautionary tickets are given. Is a citation issued every time that the police department finds that the noise ordinance has been violated? Lt. Johnson: Yes, ma'am. That is the department policy. Yes, ma'am. Johnson: Does the police department enforce the noise ordinance on it's own or does it only • check out the noise violations if it gets specific citizens complaints? Lt. Johnson: We can do either one. It is the officer's discretion if during his patrol he believes there is a noise violation from a vehicle or business, he can take a reading if he is certified and trained to do so. We also take readings from complaints. • Conklin: I was interested in what the time frame is from when the citation is issued until it comes before Judge Moore. Lt. Johnson. That vanes, Tim. I'm not sure what their docket is now. I would think it to be 4 to 6 weeks. There is so much involved here. The Prosecutor may decide that we don't have a case and he may dismiss the violation before it goes to trial. That's a possibility. There are all sorts of circumstances before it actually gets to trial. Johnson: Mr. Monroe, you have handled the sound system and you have done all the work to correct the noise ordinance violation problems. When were you first contacted to solve those problems? Monroe: The 16th was the day that they asked me to completely redesign the system. On several occasions, I had been asked to turn the sound system down moderate amounts but not anything as substantial as reworking the whole sound system. On October 16, I was asked to come in and reset the sound system and take the decibel meter that I have out to the property lines and out laying areas of the neighborhoods to make sure that we were in compliance with the • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 42 city ordinances. Johnson: Tim, do you know when the applicant was first contact by the Planning staff to tell them that there was a real problem with their level of sound? Conklin: I did not contact them directly. I assumed that the Police Department was in contact with them and took the readings because they were in contact with the owner of the club most of the times they went out there to take the readings. That is my understanding. Johnson: The motion is that we allow the continuation of the conditional use subject to the conditions originally approved, the conditions that the staff has presented tonight, and an additional condition which is that there would be immediate revocation following the next substantiated violation of the noise ordinance. Additional discussion of that motion? Hoffman: We do have a citation already in process. It has been issued. If this motion fails, I will immediately make another motion to revoke the conditional use permit upon adjudication of this citation which has been issued. • Carlisle: Ex pose facto. • Bunch: Since we include many of the other requirements, on page 8.3, item number 5 is in conflict. Conklin: Strike conditions 3 and 5 on page 8.3. I think that will remove the conflicts. Johnson: I'm not persuaded to vote in favor of the new motion. Marr: I need to make a comment. I seconded the motion but after listening to what has been said, I think it is ambiguous for us to do that and I will not be supporting the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 3-6-0. Commissioners Bunch, Estes, Johnson, Marr, Odom and Shackelford voted against the motion. Further Committee Discussion Odom: We could be here all night. I think at some point in time, the hearing has been heard. The revocation has been denied. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 43 MOTION Estes: In effort to reach some dispositive resolution, I move for a reconsideration of the main question and revoke conditional use 96-27. I voted for that motion. Johnson: Yes, but you were in the minority. I don't believe that you can do that but I can because 1 voted in the majority. I will make the motion. Estes: I will second. Johnson: This is motion to reconsider the original motion. The original motion was by Commissioner Estes and that was to revoke this conditional use. My understanding of the Robert's Rules of Order is that reconsideration can be done at any time but the person who moves reconsideration must have voted in the majority. I voted in the majority of 5 which defeated the motion and so then, I would move and this would have to have 2 votes to reconsider the first vote. Is there a second? Hoover: I'll second. I also voted in the majority of 5. Johnson: The motion is by the Chair and seconded by Commissioner Hoover. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion to reconsider passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. MOTION Johnson: I will move to revoke the conditional use. Is there a second? Odom. I will second. Johnson: There is a motion by the chair and seconded by Commissioner Odom to revoke the conditional use. Is there discussion? Hoffman: I just can't believe that we can't come up with some kind of compromise for these people. I know that conditional uses are sacrosanct but that this does appear to be a new venture and the other conditional uses were working okay according to the neighbors. This place sounds like it's been around about a month and I think that we are not giving them a fair shake by just revoking the conditional use flat out. I won't vote in favor of this motion. Johnson: I think there has been plenty of sentiment in favor of your position but I don't • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 44 think we have been able to come up with a workable solution to compromise. Hoffman: It's my understanding the only appeal for a conditional use revocation goes immediately to district court, is that court? It does not go to City Council. Johnson: That is correct. We have final say. Bunch: I will follow Hoffman's lead since there has only been one month and this is a change in theme for his club. I would like to find some way to work this out. Hoffman: I think there should be some way for them to do that in a very short period of time. Marr. I guess my feeling is and I really believe that as an individual that you should be able to dance period. 1 do think that should not infringe on someone's right to live and enjoy their home. I also think this club has been open according to the information since mid September and the complaints started the first of October and it seems that the sound person wasn't really seriously called in until after the third violation. Things have been done and there were still violations after adjustment I believe also the noise started with the dancing. I hate that there isn't a workable solution but based on the discussion and all the conditions in place to protect neighborhoods. I think that if there was any other club which was approved under a conditional use permit that violated this and was back before us and we had 70 plus signatures on a petition it would be a very clear vote and I will vote in favor. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0. Commissioner Hoffman and Commissioner Ward voted against the motion. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 45 AD99-23: ADMINISTRATIVE MILLENNIUM 2000, SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT This item was submitted by Tony Catroppa for property located at 2892 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.45 acres. The request is for approval of a shared parking agreement for 50 spaces located at 2229 Huntsville Road. Tony Catroppa, Marshall Carlisle, and Charles Washington were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request. The Planning Division has received complaints of individuals crossing and walking along Huntsville Road to get to the dance hall. There are no sidewalks in place. Also, staff is concerned about the distance of the shared parking lot from the dance hall being over one-half mile. Commission Discussion Johnson: The staff has recommended denial of the shared parking agreement. Exactly where is the parking located that is proposed to be shared? Conklin: The parking is located west of Crossover Road on the south side at the Total Gas Station. It's at the Jerry St. and Huntsville Road intersection. The applicant stated in his letter that he believed he could park up to 50 vehicles in this lot. Staff believes approximately 25 vehicles could be parked in this lot. It's approximately .52 miles from Millennium 2000. Staff is recommending denial. Some of the issues which have occurred with people parking at other locations include people going to or leaving the club and walking down Huntsville Road. The Police Department has complaints of people walking in the road because there is not currently a sidewalk. Staff does not recommend approval. Johnson: You have mentioned this part of Huntsville Road has no sidewalks and they are walking on the state highway for over one-half mile. Conklin: The applicant has plans and has bused patrons to and from these shared lots; however, there have been reports of people leaving the club and not waiting for the shuttle and they walk along the highway. Washington: My name is Charles Washington and I am the manager at Millennium 2000. This will be a short conversation considering we will not be around for awhile. There is opportunity for safe parking and we utilize a shuttle bus to transport people between the different parking lots. There is one shuttle driver and that is his only duty. • • • Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 46 Johnson: Do you have any way to ensure that none of the patrons would walk back to the shared parking facility. Washington: A lot of our problems stem from our opening night. 99% of our problems stem from one night. We weren't prepared for what happened. Basically, when you expect 200 to 400 people and 1,000 people show up, you're faced with problems. Public Comment Gary Sorensen, residing at 425 Stonebridge Road was present. Sorensen: I am the president of the Wyman -Stonebridge Neighborhood Association. We are opposed to this because there are no sidewalks. It presents a very unsafe environment for the pedestrian. We also are opposed to it because people go clubbing and they are drinking and they will end up in our neighborhood. How would you like to have somebody knocking on your door at 2 o'clock in the morning as has happened or go out to get your paper and find someone passed out on your front porch because they couldn't find a ride home or back to the bus. We are opposed to it. Further Commission Discussion Catroppa: I am the owner of the Millennium and Chuck is my manager. I also own the Tony C Transportation Company. We have buses, taxis, and limos. You asked Mr. Washington if he could assure that people would take the bus and I will say yes. We have 18 security people and 4 are in our parking lot. We can make sure nobody walks down that highway. Our small shuttle bus seats 22 passengers and it strictly goes back and forth. I can assure you that nobody will walk down that highway because the security in the parking lot will control that. I would like to add something about your prior decision. After the 16th, we had adjusted our sound system. The violation on the 16th was for music after 1:30 a.m. and we will appeal that. We understand the decibel meter readings. I only have 2 tickets and those were the only ones I signed. Friday the 15th, we had a violation. The 16th, I had my sound man completely reworked it. The 16th we did get a ticket but it was for music after 1:30 a.m. with a 48 decibel reading. That is in the police report. We did not get a decibel violation. We got an after hours violation. We contend that the 1 p.m. violation is not fair because any noise including a truck going by is over 72 decibels. We don't understand this. It needs to be refined and defined what "noise" is. The ordinance provides any noise they hear within 150 feet. Subsequent to our adjustments on Saturday, there were no decibel violations. It was a violation of noise after 1 a.m. We have the report. We have made adjustments. Johnson: The thing before us now is the shared parking agreement. • 0 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Page 47 Catroppa: My security is there to prevent drinking in the parking lot, fighting in the parking lot, and to keep people from walking down the highway. I can assure you of that. Bunch: I have a question about the petition. This appears to be the adjacent neighbors to the convenience store. Is that right? Conklin: We received this shortly before our office closed and we have not verified this information. MOTION Odom: agreement. Based on the staff report and comments, I move that we deny the shared parking Ward: Second. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0.