Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-08 MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 8, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Minutes of the September 24, 2001 meeting Page 2 Approved ADM 01-41.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville -Section 171.12) Page 2 Tabled RZN 01-20.00: Rezoning (Pancake, pp 522) Forwarded to City Council Page 9 RZN 01-21.00: Rezoning (Sager/Guisinger, pp 325) Page 10 ANX 01-3.00: Annexation (Hendricks/Harper, pp 321) Page 12 CUP 01-26.00: Conditional Use (Crandall, pp 484) Page 13 Forwarded to City Council Forwarded to City Council Approved ADM 01-39.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville -Section 168 (H)(5)(i) & 168(H) Page 21 Tabled MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bob Estes Nancy Allen Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Alice Church Don Marr Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas STAFF ABSENT Ron Petrie Hugh Eamest Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 2 Roll call and approval of the minutes from September 24, 2001. Estes: Welcome to the October 8, 2001 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling ofroll eight Commissioners were present with Commissioner Allen being absent. Estes: A quorum being present the next item of business is approval of the minutes from the September 24, 2001 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, discussions or comments? Seeing none the minutes of the September 24, 2001 meeting are approved ADM 01-41.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville -Section 171.12) was submitted by Kit Williams, City Attorney on behalfofthe City of Fayetteville. The request is to amend Section 171.12 of the Unified Development Ordinance (sidewalks). Estes: The first item of business is item ADM 01-41.00, it is submitted by Kit Williams our City Attorney on behalfofthe City of Fayetteville. The request is to amend Section 171.12 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Williams did you have a presentation that you would like to make at this time? Williams: A very short statement. It was brought to my attention by Tim Conklin on the first page of the proposed change, I did not think we had any changes under subsection A but, in fact, the last four or five words of that probably should be struck where it says "or a lot split is approved" because, as you see under application, indeed the provisions would not apply to lot splits because in fact, lot splits have no actual impact upon the infrastructure needs of the city. In order to make this ordinance make sense we would need to strike that "or a lot split is approved " Is that right Tim? Conklin: That is correct. Williams: The only other thing I can bring to your attention is the fact that Tim did receive an email from the firm that has been doing the impact fees study for the City. This firm was contacted not by us but by a person that did have to pay $4,212 for sidewalks which were not going to be built on her corner lot. As you can see, she then contacted this person herself, the impact fee people, and they also stated that it looked like that was improper and that that was too much money. This is the very development that brought to my attention what the impact of our current sidewalk ordinance was and I felt that was far beyond the reasonable proportionality of the impact of that development. Because of that • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 3 Estes: and because of some other sidewalk situations, I looked back and have decided that in my opinion, constitutionally, we need to change this ordinance. Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this administrative item? Seeing none I will bring it back to the full commission for discussion, comments or motions. As we begin, let me say this. I took quite a bit of time today to review this because it is an important issue before us as a proposal to amend an ordinance which of course our decision will be advisory only to the City Council. The cases that were offered to us in support of the proposition that the ordinance needed to be amended, Dolan v. City of Tigard, which is a United States Supreme Court case and Pennell v. City of San Jose which is a United States Supreme Court case and Goss v. City of Little Rock which is an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case. When those cases are sheppardized, and that is a method by which a person can go and determine case history, you can look at the citations where that case has been cited in other jurisdictions and can review the results of other appellate decisions and how they impact those cases. Each case has been noted to be a question of possible negative treatment indicated In other words, we should be very careful in relying upon those cases in reaching the decision to amend the ordinance. The reason for that is really very simple. What happened in Dolan was that the Court held that where exactions are challenged under the taking clause the local government has the burden of proving that the condition is rough proportional to the harm the land use sought by the property owner would have caused. The Court reasoned that the burden ofproof is then shifted to the government because the city has made an adjudicated decision to condition the person' s application for a building permit or a lot split on an individual parcel rather than a legislative determination classifying entire areas of the city. That is exactly what is before us in this sidewalk ordinance. This is not an adjudicated decision but this has been a legislative decision made by our Fayetteville City Council. In a most recent United States Supreme Court case The City of Monterev v. Del Monte Dunes. Monterey Limited, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument in Dolan of the rough proportionality standard as applicable to regulatory takings outside the context of exactions. Executory behavior has been defined and described as those circumstances where a local government demands costly concessions from a developer to receive an unrelated benefit that the government desires as inequitable results occur when this extortion randomly hits some permit seekers harder than others. Which of course is exactly the opposite of the case that we have before us because our sidewalk ordinances apply uniformly across the city and is also a legislative act and is not an administrative act. I wanted to bring that to your attention. Simply stated, what I am saying is that the cases that have been offered to us, when you sheppardize them, we are questioned that negative treatment is appropriate and I have Med to explain the reason for that. Simply stated, the reason is in City of Monterey v. Del Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 4 Monte Dunes, Monterey Limited, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that Dolan's rough proportionality standard is applicable to regulatory takings outside the context of extractions. Perhaps I have complicated things more than are necessary but I did want to bring to your attention the benefit of my work that I did today. I hope that edifies you. If anybody has any questions I will try to answer them. Hoffman: I won't question that. I think I understand that there is conflicting case law and I'm going to leave that at that. My concerns, put very simply, are that if we amend our sidewalk ordinance in this way we will not then have the opportunity to connect sidewalks on places like College, Gregg, heavily traveled streets that are important to have continuous sidewalks. It would seem to me that the basis ofthe complaint of this lady is certainly valid. A $4,200 sidewalk fee is quite a bit. I think there might be another way to accomplish this without completely throwing out the sidewalk ordinance to have it connect on redeveloped lots or lots that are being added to or things like that. I looked up in the Austin ordinances, our impact fee consultant is from Austin, I went and checked on things: In street development and improvements, in Austin it says that the cost of development improvement, which includes sidewalks, shall be paid by the city or partly by the city and partly by assessments levied against property abutting thereon and the owners thereof and such assessments may be levied in any amounts and under any procedure now or hereafter permitted by state law. Now I realize this is Texas and not Arkansas but it also then gives one thing that we're lacking in our current sidewalk ordinance and that is the right to appeal or request a variance based on an undue hardship. I would suggest that instead of changing this ordinance, we just amended it to allow for the in lieu of fee that we go ahead and put in something to the effect "that an interested party may appeal a determination of the City Planner or the Planning Commission under this section to the Board of Adjustments." Estes: Mr. Conklin, I have a question. If someone does feel aggrieved, the way our present ordinance reads it talks about if the City Sidewalk Administrator determines that the construction of a sidewalk would be unfeasible, if a person feels aggrieved under the present ordinance, what is their recourse and their remedies? Conklin: With regard to sidewalks, our Sidewalk Administrator is responsible for the enforcement and administration ofthe sidewalk ordinance. Chuck Rutherford is here today and I'll let him speak to that. Rutherford: In answer to your question, if it is decided that the money should be taken for the sidewalk instead of them building it for whatever reason, the sidewalk couldn't be built, they have the opportunity to go ahead and build that sidewalk anyway rather than pay the money, Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 5 Estes: that is the way the current ordinance reads. Chuck, ifa person feels wronged or feels aggrieved under the present ordinance, what is their remedy or what are their rights? Do they have any place to go? Do they have any avenue of appeal? Rutherford: I think you always have the avenue of appeal to the Planning Commission or the City Council. That is always there on any decision. Hoffman: Is that under our appeals section in the UDO? I don't think we changed that since this ordinance was enacted when we redid all the appeals under the UDO. If they would have some kind of mechanism to go. Rutherford. One thing to keep in mind, the major document that we follow on our sidewalks is our master street plan. Through the whole planning process we follow what is on that document. Estes: Tim, the reason I asked the question is I don't recall, and maybe my memory has failed me, but I don't recall anyone coming before this Commission requesting a waiver or variance under this ordinance. Conklin: Nobody to my knowledge has come before you. Just looking through this appeal section. There is no appeal of this ordinance at this time. Estes: With that discussed, perhaps a little more extensively than it should have been, I certainly agree with Commissioner Hoffinan's suggestion. I think anytime we have an ordinance there should be a mechanism or a procedure for someone who feels aggrieved to come and either ask for a variance or a waiver as may be appropriate or to appeal directly to the City Council. Williams: In fact, we are looking at a particular ordinance which we haven't fully gone forward with yet. It would be an ordinance that would basically cover any situation in which an owner ofa property feels like they are being asked to do more, pay more or dedicate more than the rough proportionality ofthe impact that their project is causing the city. A blanket appeal right. The reason we're looking at this is to insure that our Unified Development Ordinance will fully comply with the constitution that no one can attack the entire ordinance and say the entire ordinance, if it didn't have some saving provision like this, could be held unconstitutional. We feel like something like this that would take it before the Planning Commission, and I would rather go there than before the Board of Adjustment. I would • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 6 rather have that come to the Planning Commission and then with a subsequent possible appeal up to the City Council. If you go to the Board of Adj ustment the only appeal from there is court. I would rather see these sorts of things not end up at court if possible. We are looking at a generalized ordinance that would cover the entire Unified Development Ordinance and give someone who is aggrieved the right to come before this body and to state their reasons why they feel they are aggrieved. Estes: Mr. Williams do you feel it would be appropriate to table this issue pending that determination or to go ahead and be dispositive of this general summary? Williams: Why don't we table this for a couple ofweeks and take a look at that and see ifthat might be a better way to go. Even though we've been talking with the staff about this for quite a while I know you all haven't seen it fora long time. I don't think it is a problem to put it off for a couple of weeks and then take a look at it again. Estes: Is there a motion? • MOTION: Ward: I'll make a motion that we table this administrative item, ADM 01-41.00 and I'm still along with Kit. I think there is a chance of this being to some degree an unconstitutional requirement without some type of an appeal situation. There again, we're not the body that is going to make a final decision on this anyway. It really needs to go to City Council as far as I'm concerned. • Marr: I'll second that motion. Estes: There is a motion by Commissioner Ward to table ADM 01-41.00 and there is a second by Commissioner Marr, is that correct? Marr: Yes, Mr. Chairman I concur with Commissioner Ward's comments. Estes: Any other discussion? Hoffman: 'Just want to ask, Tim, as you develop the ordinance, I'm really interested in making sure we safeguard our ability to connect sidewalks on infill development. This is something that is quite important in the College, Gregg, downtown areas. As I look at this, this would not, in certain cases, give us that ability. Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 7 Conklin: Well, yes and no. Most businesses on College require more than ten parking spaces so they require a sidewalk in that case. Public: My comment addresses that issue. I paid the sidewalk fee. I didn't mind paying the fee but then they had to come back and pave it. I was like we should've just added paving as an amendment to it rather than having to have a sidewalk where itis applicable; now people can walk in front of our building because we paved it. We paid the sidewalk ordinance and the paving. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Marr to table ADM 01-41, is there any other discussion? Mr. Conklin, did you have a comment? Conklin: Ijust wanted to clarify for the public that this ordinance only applies to those developments that do not go through our subdivision and large scale development process Any new subdivision or large scale development, those ordinance requirements are part of that section where it talks about subdivision and large scale developments that would be required to have sidewalks. This is dealing with the permits that we deal with on a daily basis where they come in with a small addition or a small building and Mr. Rutherford has to administer this ordinance and determine ifa sidewalk is required or a fee is required. I just wanted to clarify that the City of Fayetteville is not doing away with sidewalk requirements in subdivisions or large scale developments. Estes: Any other discussion on the motion to table? Hoover: I too am concemed with Commissioner Hofnan about the infill lots and I think I've voiced my concerns to Tim about our 2020 plan stating that we are trying to connect sidewalks and make things pedestrian friendly and encourage altemative transportation. If we are not going to require sidewalks, there are several places downtown where there are some empty lots which would mean those would not have sidewalks and Dust think if we do anything like what is suggested here that we are tabling that we're going to have these spots that are not connected and the city does not intend to pave all these sites themselves. There is not a master sidewalk plan. There are priorities around schools but there are other infill areas that are not designated on the list as 1 understand. Chuck, what are the priorities? Rutherford: The priorities since 1997 when we started our in house sidewalk program, you're exactly right, was to concentrate along the schools and then move out from there. Hoover: Is it possible to have a master sidewalk plan? Would that help set up your budget or • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 8 perhaps get you a larger budget? Rutherford: One thing that we've been working on since the beginning of this year is a GIS Inventory of all the sidewalks in town, we've done a little bit with that. Currently, just last week, I spoke with our Public Works Director on how we can speed up that process. We don't have the personnel to just get out and do that. We have to take away from the construction we're doing to do that. We're looking into a way to speed that up. I think we need to do the GIS Inventory and then move in the direction of what you're talking about. Hoover: That would be great, thank you. Estes: Any other discussion on the motion to table? Seeing none, Renee, will you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 01-41.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0 • Estes: The motion to table passes unanimously. • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 9 RZN 01-20.00: Rezoning (Pancake, pp 522) was submitted by Colleen M. Pancake for property located at 302 S. Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The request is to rezone to R -S, Residential Small Lot. Estes: MOTION: The next item of business is a rezoning request, it is 01-20, submitted by Colleen M. Pancake for property located at 302 S. Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The request is a downzoning to rezone to R -S, Residential Small Lot. Staffrecommends approval of the requested downzoning based on the findings included as a part of your report. Is the applicant present? Would you like to come forward and make a presentation, that is not necessary but I want to give you the opportunity to do so if you would like to do so. Is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this rezoning request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for motions, discussions, comments. Marr: As Commissioner Hoover often says, I'm not sure we've ever disliked downzoning so I'll move for approval of RZN 01-20.00. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve RZN 01-20, is there a second? Hoover. I'll second. Estes: The second will go to Commissioner Hoover. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve RZN 01-20 and a second by Commissioner Hoover, is there any discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 01-20.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 10 RZN 01-21.00: Rezoning (Sager/Guisinger, pp 325) was submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Louise Sager and Paul Guisinger for property located west of Shiloh Drive, east of Deane Solomon Road and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned A- 1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to rezone to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Estes: The next item of business is also a rezoning request, this is RZN 01-21 submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Louise Sager and Paul Guisinger for property located west of Shiloh Drive, east of Deane Solomon Road and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to rezone to C -I , Neighborhood Commercial. Staffrecommends approval ofthe requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of your report. Is the applicant present? Brackett: Yes. Estes: Would you like to make a presentation? Brackett: I do not have a presentation but will answer any questions you might have. Estes: Commissioners, are there any questions of the applicants' representative? Marr: If I could get the applicant to maybe address the finding whether the zoning is justified and needed at this time. Based on your application, how would you answer that? Brackett. We have submitted to the City a large scale development for this property. It is Farm Credit Services. They have aportion of that building which is retail and that is why we are asking for the C-1 zoning. Estes: Bunch: Any other questions of the applicants' representative? Chris, on the sewer issue, how far away is the sewer line? I know there is a stretch in there on Shiloh where there is not sewer available. Brackett: It is not along Shiloh. As part ofthe large scale we're going to be extending the sewer to this property which will go west and then south across I believe Porter Road and then connecting on that. Wherever it turns the curve, I don't know if turns into Mt. Comfort or if it is Porter or whatever, but we're going to go west and then south to extend the sewer to this property. There will be sewer, it won't be septic. • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 11 Estes: Any other questions? MOTION: Ward: I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve RZN 01-21 rezoning this to C-1. I think C-1, Neighborhood Commercial is very appropriate for this particular piece of land since it is along 1540 and it is going to be used for basically office space. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested Rezoning 01-21? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission. There is a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 01-21.00, is there a second? Shackelford: I' 11 second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve RZN 01 -21and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Would you call the roll Renee? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 01-21.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 12 ANX 01-3.00: Annexation (Hendricks/Harper, pp 321) was submitted by Andy Feinstein on behalf of Don Hendricks and Eric Harper for property located at 4840 Constitution Drive. The request is to annex into the city approximately 8.74 acres currently located in the Planning Area. Estes: The next item of business is an annexation request submitted by Andy Feinstein on behalf of Don Hendricks and Eric Harper for property located at 4840 Constitution Drive. The request is to annex into the city approximately 8.74 acres currently located in the Planning Area. Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based on the findings included as a part of this report. Is the applicant present? Andy, do you have a presentation you would like to make? Feinstein: No, it is just my pleasure to present this annexation to the Commission and I am here to answer any questions you might have. Estes: Conklin: Estes: MOTION: Bunch: Estes: Commissioners are there any questions of Andy at this time? Mr. Conklin? I would just like to thank the developer of Bridgeport for working with Mr. Hendricks to file the paperwork and bring this forward and get Mr. Hendricks annexed into the city, thank you. Is there any member of the public, any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested annexation? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions or comments. I move that we recommend ANX 01-3.00 to the City Council. We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to approve the ANX request, is there a second? Marr: Second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Marr. Is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to approve ANX 01-3.00 and a second by Commissioner Marr. Would you call the roll Renee? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ANX 01-3.00 to the City • Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously and the annexation request will be forwarded to the City Council for final disposition and determination. • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 13 CUP 01-26.00: Conditional Use (Crandall, pp 484) was submitted by Marc Crandall for property located at 110N. School. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is for a multifamily dwelling (use unit 9) containing four two bedroom units in an R -O zone. Estes: Conklin: Estes: The next item of business that we have is a conditional use request submitted by Mr. Crandall for property located at 110N. School. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The request is for a multifamily dwelling (use unit 9) containing four two bedroom units in an R -O zone. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Yes we do. Those conditions of approval are: I) Conditional use approval shall be contingent upon the Board of Adjustment approving a 13' variance of the required 90' of lot width. The subject property is 77' wide and for three or more units 90' of frontage is necessary. 2) The project shall comply with tree protection and preservation requirements for the R -O zoning district. A tree preservation plan shall be approved by the Landscape Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) The retaining wall along School Street shall be reconstructed to eliminate the dirt and debris which falls onto the sidewalk. The engineering Division must approve plans for any retaining wall prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. Matenal for this wall shall be decorative stone or block, standard CMU shall not be permitted. 4) The structure shall be built using materials compatible with surrounding properties and shall reflect elevations submitted by the applicant for this request. 5) Any outdoor lighting installed in the parking lot or on the building shall be shielded and directed downward and away from adjacent residences. 6) The parking area shall be screened from adjacent properties. The applicant shall install a wooden privacy fence 6' tall or a continuous row of shrubs between the parking lot at the rear of the proposed structure and adjoining properties to the north and south. Shrubs shall be installed to screen the rear of the parking area adjacent to the alley, however, they Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 14 Conklin: Estes: Crandall: Estes: Marr: shall not block visibility of vehicles trying to access the alley or this side. 7) The parking lot layout shall be modified to include one ADA accessible, van accessible, parking stall and all standard stalls shall be 9' wide. 8) This conditional use approval shall be valid for one calendar year. Mr. Conklin, are there any additional conditions of approval? No there are not. Is the applicant present and does he wish to make a presentation? Yes Sir, I'm here and have a short presentation. We went back to the drawing board and tried to incorporate most of the comments we heard from the neighbors and the Commission the last time we were here. I think we've done a pretty good job and came up with a pretty good project so I'm hoping we can get approval this time. Thank you. Is there any member ofthe audience who would like to provide public comment regarding this Conditional Use request 01-26? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions. Commissioners? A question for Tim or Dawn, I know that the last time this came before us we had quite a bit of neighborhood comment. I am assuming we did the posting again for Conditional Use. I noticed that in the notes it says nothing was received from neighbors to date on the new proposal is that true through this time? Warrick. It is still true. Since Thursday we've not received comments, or specifically complaints, from any of the adjoining property owners. Mr. Crandall did do his homework before submitting this application and worked very hard to talk with several of the neighbors specifically before he made his application and reviewed his revised proposal with them. Since Thursday he has provided additional information to staff and to the Planning Commission with regard to proposed elevations of the three sides of the structure that you did not have previously and a revised site plan. That material should have been submitted to you Friday. Today Mr. Crandall also provided to us some more information with regard to the materials proposed for the structure. I am going to pass down a couple of brochures that he has given us I would like these back, so if you' ll just keep passing them around. This reflects the proposed siding material for the structure and that was one ofthe issues that was previously raised from some of the neighbors, the type and quality of materials that were being proposed for the structure. • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 15 Ward: Mr. Crandall, I know you were pretty frustrated with us at the last meeting. We couldn't tell you what we wanted designed or what we wanted but we wanted something different. It seems like now you have a structure that is very compatible. I'm very impressed with it with all the balconies and roof lines that have changed and so I think it is going to be a fantastic property that you are going to put there compared to what you originally brought to us and I hope you are very successful with it. Wamck: I would also like to add that since Thursday in our agenda session, I have spoken with the Solid Waste Division. Several of the Commissioners were concerned about the plans for waste disposal and pickup for this site. This particular site is relatively unique. The Solid Waste Division does not necessarily want to drive its trucks down alleys that don't have the required 20' clearance. They also don't necessarily want to drive their trucks down residential alleys at 5:00 in the morning and disturb the neighbors and deal with those sorts of complaints. We in the Planning Division do not want to deal with those complaints either if it is not necessary. They can maintain their vehicles on the main thoroughfares wherever possible. The division prefers that anything that contains more than two dwelling units, anything over a duplex, have containerized waste disposal. They do have exemptions for that. If this particular lot were to have containerized disposal and pick up off of School Street the retaining wall in front of the structure may pose a problem because the trucks actually lift the containers and they would not be able to maneuver the trucks to the location necessary to pick up off of School Street. Representatives from that division are still looking at this and will work with the owner as to the preferred method of pickup. At this point in time it looks like it may be a bag pick up situation but I can't guarantee that that will be the final consensus of the Solid Waste Division. They are not really enthusiastic about the idea of coming through the alley to do waste pickup. Staff at this point would recommend that they do bag pickup off of School Street, the main thoroughfare. I don't have a final answer as to the way that the trash pickup will function but they did tell me that if trash pickup is paid for by the owner as opposed to an individual payment by each of the different units that the owner can typically work with the Solid Waste Division to determine how the pickup will be carried out. Estes: Thank you Dawn, any other discussion? Any motions? Marr: Just so I know what I'm looking at here. There are two pamphlets, one is hardy plank and hardy panel, one is hardy soffit. Are you decidmg between these two? How are you going to use these? Crandall: That is atotal example of the whole product line that they have. They do make panelized • where it looks like it comes three or four panels on a sheet. What we typically use though • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 16 Marr: is the individual pieces that are about 6" wide and then they overlap so they are actually individual pieces of the hardy plank is what we use. Alright, one other question. On the south and north elevations, was there any consideration given to awnings or anything that makes those two elevations sized? I think you've done a great job compared to the last time you were here on the east and west side. I realize you don't have it perfect on every side of the building. Crandall: Ok, obviously we tried to get the east and west because those are the two sides that are actually seen. On the north and south we didn't try very much because we do have the other gable that is on that side that kind ofbreaks up that facade. On the back side of the building, both the north and the south are very close to the sides of the property within the setbacks and it is fairly heavily wooded. We didn't do a whole lot on those two faces because I don't think you're going to be able to see them very much. You can hardly see the existing house that is there now. We don't plan on doing much on the sides. We are going to keep that screened pretty much with natural vegetation as it is so we really concentrated on the two visible sides of the building. Marr: Crandall: Am I reading this right now that there are 10 parking spaces? Yes. These are two bedroom units, we have two per unit and then I put in two extra spaces because of the concerns that were raised the last time we were here about people having guests and people parking in the alley. 1'!! be honest, I still foresee these to be units that are rented to single people. I foresee the need for four or five parking spaces at most and then the rest is going to be overflow and guests and things like that. Again, trying to satisfy the neighbors' concerns about alley parking and street parking. Marr: Tim, one last question. Are there any landscaping requirements in a parking lot with ten spaces in this case? Conklin: Not in this situation. Along the street since they are placing the parking lot behind the building and allowing the parking to be screened by the building. There are not any landscaping requirements. Talking with Mr. Crandall today, he did talk about allowing the cane that is growing out there right now to remain in that open area of parking and the alley. I think even if it is removed as a part of this construction it will come back and provide some screening. Marr: So there is no adjacent property owner to this parking that would actually have this parking lot in view? • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 17 Warrick: Across the alley to the rear is the rear yard of another single family home. They have a garage or utility building back in the area of the alley and a parking space that would be adjacent to this proposed parking area. Marr: I appreciate your work on this this time. Bunch: On the question ofthe refuse since that is one of our findings, how do we need to word our finding on the refuse and solid waste and recycling situation? Conklin: I think that the Solid Waste Division has indicated to staff that they will work with the applicant to provide an acceptable method of receiving the trash from this project. Bunch: When we make a motion relative to this then the findings as stated need to be altered? Conklin: Staff will be working with the Solid Waste Division, it is a part of the City of Fayetteville, the City Planning Division will be working with our Solid Waste Division and the applicant to ensure the waste pickup can occur acceptable to all parties. Hoffman: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Crandall. With regard to the front elevation everything really looks great. You have some kind ofa Cape Code shingle effect. Is that the hardy soffit or is that another material? Crandall: I can't remember if they actually make that product but I've seen other projects where they actually take the hardy product and cut it up and overlap it and make it look like that. Hoffman: One thing that strikes me that might be an opportunity to get a little bit more interest on this south elevation, are you going to continue that same treatment? Crandall: We ran into this on Friday morning so the architect worked real fast. When he gave it to me this moming he said "Make sure they know we're going to put that same shingling effect on there." Hoffman: Ok, Ijust wanted to clarify that. You've got the four a/c units on the north property line I believe it is. Are those going to be naturally screened? I'm wondering, you said you were going to leave a lot ofthe vegetation on either side of the building. Are there fairly thick covers when they all four kick on at once we're not going to hear them? Crandall: That entire property line is pretty heavily vegetated and we're not going to be disturbing • that too much as we take out the building. So yeah, I don't think that is going to be a • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 18 problem. If I find there is going to be a problem we can go ahead and privacy fence those. I try to avoid privacy fencing whenever I can. Hoffman: I was just going to say if you needed to do anything you could put a fence like right up next to them or something like that if they were loud. Crandall: Also on that side of the property is the parking lot to the law office that is there. There is really nobody in proximity to that location. Hoffman: Ok, thanks for clarifying that. I dust have a suggestion on your north side. As you're coming up the street, if you've got heavy vegetation that covers the building, I think that is good, but if not, is it possible to add shutters to the windows for interest? It would be easy to do and it wouldn't make it look so blank. That is the side without the gables. I sort of feel uncomfortable making suggestions like that on the one hand but on the other hand we look at the stuff we approve and then we say "Gee, I wish we hadn't, I wish we would've asked for a little bit more." To me that is not something that is really expensive to ask. Crandall: No, that wouldn't be too bad. Warrick: Is that on the north or the south? Hoffman: It is confusing me, I'm going to let Commissioner Marr answer that. Marr: It is the north side. Warrick: Is it the gabled end or the combination roof end? Hoffman: It's the south side as you're coming south. Hoffman: It is the roof end. Warrick: That is the north side. Conklin: That is the north elevation facing the office building. Hoffman: I'm sorry, it is the north elevation. Conklin: You want shutters on all four windows? • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 19 Hoffman: Ifthat is acceptable to the applicant. I really feel uncomfortable just saying would you put shutters there. If it is something that you don't mind doing it might break it up a little bit. Crandall: That is fine. MOTION: Hoffman: I would like to make a motion to approve CUP 01-26.00 subject to all staff comments with the finding that the trash pickup be administratively approved unless there is another bigger problem and you could bring it back to the Subdivision Committee or something. Conklin: This doesn't go to Subdivision so we would bring it back here. Hoffman: That the elevations include items discussed if there is a problem with the noise with the units that they be screened, but not at the property line, just around the units, and that we have made the necessary findings. • Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hofliinan to approve CUP 01-26 with Commissioner Hoffman's comments, is there a second? • Marr: Estes: Marr: I'll second. We have a second by Commissioner Marr, is there any discussion? I just want to make sure I'm clear. There is no tree removal on this site? Crandall: No, there is a lot of tree removal on this site but there are no large trees, mainly shrubbery. There are really not very many trees on the site at all Marr: Ok. Hoover: I have a question. Are there any trees that are going to be cut down for this? Actual trees. Crandall: I think there is one tree that will probably end up in the middle of the parking lot. I have spoken to Kim on several occasions. She has told me she would go out there and take a look over the last month and I've not heard back from her so I don't think there are any problems. I am assuming I have to go through grading and drainage on this too and that is usually when these types of issues come up with Kim and with the Solid Waste people as well. • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 20 Conklin: Condition number two states `The project shall comply with the tree protection preservation requirements within an R -O zoning district. Tree preservation plan shall be approved by the Landscape Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit." Hoover: I have one other question for you. How did you come up with a 38' front setback? Was there a reason for that? Crandall: The normal setback was 30', we needed an additional 5' because of the special designation of the road in front which gave us 35' and then we have the bay window which kind of pushed us out a little bit so we just thought we would give us a couple of extra feet and we will probably have an overhang on the front, just some give or take. Warrick: In the R -O Zoning District with no parking in front of the structure it is a 30' setback. Hoover: I'm trying to understand, in our downtown district if 30' is really necessary. Warrick: Not all of our downtown area is zoned Residential Office. There are several different zones, especially C-3. Hoover: That's what I was noticing, the adjacent property is like a 5' setback or something. Conklin: There are structures that are a lot closer. That is a part of our ongoing effort to look at our downtown area. That is one of the things on the list we continue to work on. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve CUP 01-26, is there any further discussion, comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 01-26 and forward it to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Congratulations. • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 21 ADM 01-39.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville -Section 168 (H)(5)(i) & 168 (H) (5)(j)) was submitted by the Planning Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville. The request is to revise the Flood Damage Prevention Code by adding/revising the setback from a stream bank in certain flood zones. Estes: The remaining item of business that we have on our agenda this evening is an administrative item 01-39, to revise the Flood Damage Prevention Code by adding/revising the setback from a stream bank in certain flood zones. Mr. Conklin would you like to take a moment and explain to us why this request is before us9 Conklin: I'm standing over here this evening in order to explain what we're trying to accomplish with this ordinance amendment. This is a flood insurance rate map. They are published by FEMA, the Planning Division is responsible for our floodplain management for the City of Fayetteville. Sara Edwards is our floodplain administrator. These are the maps that we use on a daily basis to make sure that our flood damage prevention is up to code and that we're meeting our ordinance which is required by federal law for communities to adopt in order to participate in the national flood insurance program for properties to receive flood insurance. It is a federal program, we're required to enforce our ordinance. Our ordinance by the way, is more restrictive than what the federal government requires. We require structures to be elevated 2' above our base flood elevation and we do have additional standards. There are three areas on this map that we deal with on a daily basis. The first area is an area that has a detailed study. These are areas where the Corp of Engineers for FEMA have gone and done hydrologic and hydraulic models to determine how high the water is going to get. They set up a flood way, an area that we try to make sure all developments are kept out of. The rational behind this and the federal requirement is that we take a stream and you allow development within this floodplain area which is this entire area, that is this darker grey that you can't cause the water to increase by more than one foot. We have this area, Zone A, a detailed study. Another area that we have are these areas that are just grey on the map, they don't contain any flood way, there has been no detailed study, there is no determination of how high the flood waters will be during a hundred year storm. A 1% chance of a storm occurring at anytime in Fayetteville. Then we have a third area that we deal with in our office, that is these areas that are shown as a solid line on this flood insurance rate map. In these areas we also have a requirement for structures to be set back from that solid line. I will pass this down, Dust want to explain to the Commission the different areas that we have. The City of Fayetteville has been very fortunate since 1993, the Corp of Engineers and FEMA have conducted flood hazard studies and flood insurance studies. The difference in the name is who funds them. We have about 60% of our streams that have been restudied based on our 2' contours through our GIS system. We should receive the remaining 40% probably by the end of this year, subject to funding. They have told me that we should have all of our streams complete. • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 22 The only major river they did not look at was the White River. Fayetteville will have 100% of our streams except for the White River with a new hydrologic hydraulic study designating floodplain and flood ways with base flood elevations. The nice thing about this is that it is tied to our GIS system and we can go in and it matches the contours. Estes: Thank you Tim, is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this administrative item, 01-39? Conklin: One more thing. What we are changing, if you turn to page 6.2, on the bottom of that page, currently we have a distance from a stream bank when there is no floodplain shown, that is five times the width ofthe top of bank to top of bank. We are proposing, and that is the line where there is no grey area, it is just a line outside at the top of the water shed at the beginning of the creek, to change that from 5 times the width to 21/2 times for a set back. We are reducing the setback. We're also changing, which is not in this ordinance, the minimum setback, say 51/2 times is only 2 feet wide and you have 10 feet from 10 feet to 25 feet. That is not shown on this page, it is on the top of 6.3. In the Zone A, those areas that are shown just as grey, there is no floodway that has been determined. Currently, there is no setback. We have more of those grey areas where we don't have any setback from the center ofthe stream. That has posed some problems in our office. Keeping structures far enough away from the center of the creek. We are proposing the same distance of2%times from the center ofthe creek, or 25 feet. Staff has come up with 25 feet based on the grading ordinance requirements of staying 25 feet from the creek so that is where that number comes from. So in one instance we are reducing it at the very top of our streams, where they begin. In other places where we don't have any setback right now, we are establishing a setback. Those are the differences. I know this is a fairly technical ordinance. It is something that you hardly ever see us talk about here at the Planning Commission but in our office we deal with this probably two or three times a week. We do feel it is important that we establish these setbacks. They do have an option if they would like to do a detailed hydrologic hydraulic study to determine what the base flood elevation is in floodway for it to be closer to the center ofthe creek. Basically we're trying to have a buffer area away from these creeks where currently we don't have a setback. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them at this time. Marr: Tim, a question I guess. Have we had a history of flooding in these situations where we are increasing that which is prompting us to do it or is it purely a possibility? Conklin: We have had situations where due to the new detailed studies we do now have homes that may have not been in the floodplain that are now in the floodplain. I think anything we can do to at least have a minimum setback from the creek is going to potentially help get those • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 23 properties out of the floodplain. Right now there has been no detailed study. When the detailed study comes back sometimes those flood heights have gone up a couple of feet, in some areas they have gone down a couple of feet. It just depends on how accurate the old study was, which in my opinion wasn't very accurate. When they come back with a new one the floodplain boundaries have really moved around quite a bit to actually follow the contours of land to actually show where it will flood. We haven't had a situation where we had structures damaged because of this but we have had structures that probably should've been outside a floodplain if they would've set their houses further back from the creek which means anytime you have a federally insured mortgage, FDIC, you are required for the life of that loan to have flood insurance. With those structures, depending on how high they are, your flood insurance rates vary. In a way we're trying to protect our creeks, we're trying to protect current homeowners and future homeowners, and have at least a minimum buffer area from the creek. Right now when someone comes in in the Zone A, the shaded area, there is no setback based on this flood damage prevention code and that is what we're trying to establish. Marr: How does this protect a current homeowner in that situation? • Conklin: In a current homeowner, it doesn't. Marr: Ok, so it is really for future building then? Conklin: It will help staff. This is one of the things we do administratively. It will help us require homes to be setback at least 25' from the creek. • Ward: Tim, in Zone A would they have an option also of building up instead of setting back? Conklin: Yes, and we do have situations where they come in and we have to try and establish the base flood elevation. We look at contour maps and determine where that shaded area is in relationship to the ground elevation. They are required in a Zone A where there is no detailed study to have the highest adjacent grade in that Zone A to be 2' above that. The highest adjacent grade would need to be 2' above that. However, we don't know exactly how high the water will get because there hasn't been a detailed study. Once again, trying to set up a minimum setback. Another thing as staff that we have had trouble with, if you're in the shaded area you don't have a setback. If you are outside the shaded area and it is a solid line you have five times the width of the creek. It is just depending on whether or not it is shaded on the map or it is not shaded. We are trying to create a level playing field for all property adjacent to a creek that there is at least a minimum setback. Another thing to remember is that we should have all of our streams studied by the end of • • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 24 Ward: Conklin: this year. They have done a tremendous job of going as far up the stream as possible to delineate floodways. In that situation we know where to keep the structures out of the creek. It is our automatically set setback. It is the flood way boundary, you don't encroach into that area. This will impact just a few individuals where there hasn't been a detailed study. Almost of all our creeks will have detailed studies. Do they have either/or? I mean either a 25' setback or build up? We are trying to establish that. We have reduced the setback for those creeks that don't have any floodplam shown. Just because they don't have a floodplain shown we all realize that there is water in those creeks and they do flood. Right now we have a setback on those creeks of 5 times the width and then we jump over, so you're going downstream, you have a setback upstream. As you're going downstream all the sudden you go to an area where there is no setback which theoretically would have more water as you're going downstream. In an effort to balance this we've proposed to change the 5 times the width outside upstream and create that to 2V2 times and then the one that didn't have any setback to adopt a 2%z times. There was some compromise there from staff. We didn't want to set the same setback in both of these areas since we are creating more regulation within the Zone A where there currently isn't any regulation, but to recognize that as you go up stream it should be potentially less hazardous because there is less water upstream. Hoffman: I have a couple of questions. Are the definitions the same? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: Lets say we have a pretty big development or something come in in one of these areas, many times they will channelize an existing stream to work around the development. In that case they would then, by just the nature ofthe large development, be providing a detailed study? Conklin: Yes, if they are going to be channelizing there is going to be a hydrologic hydraulic study. They will be amending the actual FEMA map and establishing a floodway. Hoffman: So this doesn't prevent that? Conklin: No, in most larger developments they are doing studies already. They are looking through our stormwaterordinance to look at ultimate build out. This FEMA map doesn't look at ultimate build out. Our storm water ordinance actually requires more of a study to look at current land use and future land use and build out and how that impacts their drainage • • • Planning Comrnission October 8, 2001 Page 25 structures and they have to design those drainage structures for ultimate build out. We are doing a lot to protect the development actually being developed and to make sure that flood waters can pass through those developments. Once again, these are items that we deal with on a daily basis administratively. It is the detached garage, it is maybe an addition to a house getting 3' from the creek. Knowing that the Corp of Engineers is out there doing a detailed study at this time, that garage could be potentially within a flood way. We want to establish a minimum setback from the creek in those Zone A areas. Hoffman: Just to clarify, I didn't understand the answer to Lee's question too well. In arural urban area then, in a small lot where there is not much room to build, I guess I don't see any language in here that actually says they can provide an engineered solution to building up a way from the flood way. Marr. I agree that needs to be in there. You see that out in Elkins on building on the White River. Conklin: It talks about that under the suggested ordinance addition. This is a Zone A. In all areas designated Zone A on the FIRM detailed study has not been completed to specify the flood way and base flood elevations, no building or fill shall be located within a distance of2%times the width of the stream measured from top bank to top bank or 25' on each side, whichever is greater. The next sentence provides that out. "Provided the applicant may choose if not required by other provisions of this chapter, to provide a detailed study which delineates the flood way, hundred year floodplain boundary and base flood elevations. At such time study is provided, adopted by the City Council, the applicant shall meet all standards required when the base flood elevations are specified on the FIRM.", which is the flood insurance rate map. We are giving them an out. If they want to prove to us that the water is not going to impact their development, they have that right. Marr: Conklin: Marr: You are not giving them an engineering solution. You are giving them a study solution. Yes, a study. Right now there is no study. That Zone A could be 100' too wide or 100' too short. If you have an engineering solution that is comparable to 21/2 times the width of the stream or 25', I mean it has been engineered to have the same protection that that provides, why would that not be allowed? Conklin: I understand what you are saying. We also have provisions in our ordinance that allow individuals to apply with the City's approval to amend the flood insurance rate map, the floodplain map that I passed down. Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 26 Hoffman: Can we reference that section in here? I think it is important because what you've said is that they can provide a detailed study but it doesn't say what the study will get for them. Conklin: Ok, I see your point. For example, the Boys and Girls Club, they are changing the flood way floodplain out there where the ball fields are going. It is possible on larger developments when they can afford to do that. Ward: Can you kind of rewrite this a little bit where it would spell it out more? Conklin: Sure, that wouldn't be a problem. Bunch: Also Tim, on that same thing, if there is a situation where it is fairly obvious that the elevations are such, say a piece of property that has a severe hillside or a knoll or something of that nature, is there a provision where the elevations are obvious, is there a mechanism by which someone can locate closer to the stream bank? Is there an avenue to provide for exceptions when the terrain, since we are in a hilled area, we also have flat lands, where there is high ground that is obvious that aperson could build a garage closer to the creek bank if they are on a bluff or something like that? Conklin: Hopefully, a more detailed engineering study would remove that property outside of the floodplain if they are up on a bluff. Our maps are getting better with the technology everyday. We did have some situations where we did have people up on top ofahill that were in a floodplain. With the new data that we have tied to our GIS system that doesn't happen. With the remaining 40% coming to us by the end of this year hopefully that resolves those situations. One thing that staff has to abide by is that we can not change that flood insurance rate map. Only FEMA can change that map. Even if there is a mistake, we can send that data into FEMA and ask that they amend the map or revise the map but we have such good data to work with today that that doesn't happen often. Bunch: What we are looking at here is one little specific item in the grand scheme ofthings and we don't have before us the rest ofthe ordinance. When we are asking these questions we don't really know if it is covered by other parts ofthe ordinance or not. I think that may be one of the reasons we are fishing for solutions or exceptions. Conklin: This is an ordinance that you typically don't deal with at Planning Commission either. This is administrative, staffbuilding permit level type activity that we do on a weekly basis in our office. I can understand some of the confusion. I do like the suggestion of adding in there unless they amend the flood insurance rate map through the appropriate process they can remove that property out and build in those areas. I will add that if you do recommend • • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 27 Ward: Conklin: Hoffman: Estes: Conklin: MOTION: Ward: Estes: Hoffman: Estes: Marr: approval of this and forward it to the City Council. I will get that language in there to clarify that. Do you think we should table this? I don't think you should table it. Can we put a variance procedure in it? Mr. Conklin, if you are going to rewrite it, my preference would be that we do table it and rewrite it. I don't see how we can approve something knowing that there is going to be a rewrite on it. Our vote of course is advisory only to the City Council but we need to know what we are advising. Sure. Once again, I have verbalized what I was going to put in there. If you would like to see it in writing I certainly can get it to you in writing. This is not a pressing issue for our office. This is just something that we've had to deal with where one property owner is upstream where there is no Zone A and one property is downstream. One property owner has 5 times the width of the stream, upstream. The other property in the crosshatched area doesn't have any setbacks. We are trying to equalize our administration of this ordinance. 1 would like to ask that we table ADM 01-39 until we get this other language in there since you don't see it as a pressing need right this minute. I would like to table it. To be honest, it is a little bit complicated. I got to thinking about two or three things all of the sudden and now I'm confused. I move that we table it and see if we can change the language to some degree. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to table ADM 01-39. Is there a second? Second. We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman, is there any further discussion? I am probably going to vote against the motion, not because I don't think we need to know what it is. I think we've had some discussion about what point we want to add and I don't know what more we would see other than the sentence we just talked about unless there • Planning Commission October 8, 2001 Page 28 is some other discussion point that we think is being missed. I guess I would like to know what else we're waiting to look at other than that one item. We've often referred to Tim to administratively change language and so forth in other items and I certainly have the same trust in this situation. Shackelford: I too will vote against tabling this. I concur with Commissioner Marr's statements on this. I would also like to add that this is simply a recommendation to City Council and would have another up to three readings at City Council before it was approved it would have the appropriate language in it. I too will vote against tabling it at this time. Marr: I amjust curious if there is another item other than the one we specifically talked about as being missing or is it purely the language of that item? Ward: The language of it. Estes: Any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to table ADM 01-39 and a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Renee, would you call the roll please? • ROLL CALL: Upon completion of roll call the motion to table ADM 01-39 was approved by a vote of • 5-3-0 with Commissioners Marr, Shackelford and Church voting against it. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of five to three Is there any other business to come before the Commission? Conklin: There is no other business. I would like to remind the Commission and the audience that there is a trails and greenways forum coming up October 25 and 26. Any Commissioners that are interested please let me know. Thanks. Estes: We are adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 6:52 p.m. • • • ADM administrative item 01-41.00 Ie RZN 01-20.00: Rezoning (Pancake, pp 522) RZN 01-21.00: Rezoning (Sager/Guisinger, pp 325) 1 PLb MOTION LIrd 1\:\ NW Gra SECOND NDd el IRGG \cbCC D. Bunch 1 v 1 v i B. Estes `( V Y L. Hoffman 1 v 1o S. Hoover V 1 Y N. Allen ,i K -C. Pb56 01 A-bS 9 L i D. Marr Y 1 Y A. Ckorch i l Y Shackelford Y I t L. Ward Y Y V ACTION _0 _0 i.() ,(0h O.(� VOTE `Coven ibv ed Q • • • ANX Annexation 01-3.00: 321) CUP 01-26.00: Conditional Use (Crandall, pp 484) ADM 01-39.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville - Section 168(H)(5)(i) & 168(H) (Hendricks/Harper, pp -17k6 Le MOTION �unCj/1 WO11 f V 10. 1 y<1 a rG\ SECOND U '(\l\U(' ( V o .--o fer- AtA D. Bunch v V V l B. Estes 0 ct U V L. Hoffman J U Ki S. Hoover Y N. Allen / J C,M'(- ai 6(-7( j\656(Jl' D. Marr V U 2).11A. Church Y Y 1 Shackelford \ y Y 1I L. WardY U "Y ACTION „(-oVe, hp ii-Dve Gb (AN VOTE - b -U '0'D 5-3'©