Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-22 Minutes• PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 22, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Minutes of the October 8, 2001 meeting Page 2 ADM 01-39.00: Administrative Item Page 3 ADM 01-41.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville -Section 171.12) Page 6 CUP 01-11.10: Conditional Use (Golden Corral Corporation, pp96) Page 17 • LSD 01-9.10: Large Scale Development (Golden Corral Corporation, pp96) Page 20 LSD 01-33.00: Large Scale Development (Country Inns & Suites, pp 402) Page 25 ACTION TAKEN Approved Forwarded to City Council Tabled Approved Approved Approved PPL 01-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Heritage East, Phase II, pp 565) Approved Page 30 ADM 01-42.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville Planning Area) Page 43 Forwarded to City Council ANX 01-4.00: Annexation (Foster, pp398) Page 48 Forwarded to City Council RZN 01-22.00: Rezoning (Foster, pp 398) Page 50 Forwarded to City Council CUP 01-27.00: Conditional Use (Bass/Shewmaker, pp 483) • Page 52 Withdrawn by applicant Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Nancy Allen Don Marr Donald Bunch Sharon Hoover Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Hugh Earnest Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT Alice Church STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 3 Roll call and approval of the minutes from October 8, 2001. Estes: Welcome to the Monday, October 22, 2001 meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. The first item of business is the roll call. Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll six Commissioners were present with Commissioner Church being absent, Commissioners Hoffman and Marr arrived at 5:35. Estes: A quorum being present the next item of business is approval of the minutes from the October 8, 2001 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, comments or amendments to the minutes from the October 8, 2001 meeting? Seeing none they will be approved. ADM 01-39.00 Administrative Item to revise the Flood Damage Prevention Code by adding/revising the setback from a stream bank in Zone A and Zone X flood zones. The proposal is to change the setback from a stream where a flood plain has been delineated from 5 times the width of the stream channel or 20 feet to 2.5 times the width of the stream channel or 25 feet whichever is greater. The second proposal is to establish a setback from a stream bank in a floodplain where a detailed study has not been provided (Zone A) at 2.5 times the width of the stream channel measured from top of bank to top of bank. Estes: The first item on the agenda under old business is Administrative Item to revise the flood damage prevention code by adding and revising the setbacks. Before we begin the discussion ofthis item, Renee would you let the roll call reflect that Commissioner Hoffman is now present and attending? Tim, are you going to make a presentation regarding this administrative item? Conklin: Yes I will. If you refer to page 1.2 it outlines the options of what you can develop in a Zone A, this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting in order for the Commission to have more detailed information with regard to how this impacts individual's property when they develop within an area that is designated as a hundred year floodplain as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. The proposed amendments include requiring a setback from the stream 21/2 times the width of the stream channel or a 25 foot setback, whichever is greater. If the applicant would like to see if that data is inaccurate, they could apply for a letter of map amendment through FEMA which the boundaries could be changed. Another option would be for the applicant to hire a professional engineer to do adetailed hydrologic hydraulic study which would delineate a floodway. A floodway then would act as the setback. The applicant could modify the channel and we've included that section of the ordinance that allows an applicant to modify the channel and thereby relocating the stream on the property or if the applicant believes that the regulations need • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 4 Estes: to be varied, they could apply for a variance to the Planning Commission. Once again, we are trying to establish a minimum setback within a Zone A which is a hundred year floodplain with no detailed study shown on a FIRM map. The second amendment would be to revise the setback. We currently require, upstream from the Zone A, five times the width. In looking at our Flood Insurance Rate Maps, typically, as you go further upstream, your floodway narrows. On average what we found is about a 50ft wide floodway which would correspond to that minimum 25 foot setback. In one area we are establishing a setback in the area upstream we're reducing that setback but that setback more corresponds to what a floodway would be on that property. We are trying to offer protection for both upstream and downstream properties. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them at this time. Thank you Tim. Before we take public comment on this proposed administrative item, Renee, would you let the roll call reflect that Commissioner Marr is now present and attending? Thomas: Yes. Estes: Is there any Commissioner who has a question of Mr. Conklin before we proceed to public comment? Bunch: On our map on page 1.5, showing Zone X on page 1.4 we do not show Zone X in the revised ordinance, could you clarify that please? Conklin: Zone X represents areas that are outside the hundred year floodplain. There are actually two areas that are classified as Zone X, one is an area of the 500 year floodplain where flood water depths are less than 1' and also every area outside that area is also called Zone X. It is within this Zone X where we have streams shown as a solid line on the Flood Insurance Rate Map that this ordinance applies to. We go back to the definition of a stream, a stream is defined as any water way that shows up in a Flood Insurance Rate Map, that is a solid line. That is where we have the current setback of 5 times the width. Once again, looking at floodways and how they have been delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, typically, they are about 50 feet. To kind of give you an idea of what a floodway is, it is an area that they require that development be free and clear of, it carries the flood waters, high velocities. When they establish the floodway, they take in both sides of the bank and they pull it in to establish the floodway. Under federal law the water as you fill in the floodway can't rise more than one foot. That is what a floodway is and it is to make sure that if you fill in the entire floodplain that you still have carrying capacity and you don't increase flood waters over one foot. Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 5 Estes: Any other question of Mr. Conklin before we proceed to public comment? PUBLIC COMMENT Estes: MOTION: Ward: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this proposed administrative item to revise the flood damage prevention code by adding or revising the setback from the stream bank? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion or motions. We've done quite a bit of work on this Tim and it makes sense to me and I will make a recommendation that we approve ADM 01-39 administrative item to revise the flood damage prevention code with the setbacks and I guess that is all I need to do. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve ADM 01-39 is there a second? Hoffman. I'll second. Estes: I'll give the second to Commissioner Hof pian. Is there any discussion? Any comments? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve ADM 01-39 and a second by Commissioner Hoffman. Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-39 is approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 6 ADM 01-41.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville -Section 171.12) was submitted by Kit Williams, City Attorney on behalf of the City of Fayetteville. The request is to amend Section 171.12 of the Unified Development Ordinance (sidewalks). Also to include discussion of an ordinance under development addressing rough proportionality of requirements of UDO of the City of Fayetteville. Estes: The next item on our agenda under old business is an administrative item submitted by Mr. Kit Williams our Fayetteville City Attorney on behalf of the City of Fayetteville. The request is to amend Section 171.12 of the Unified Development Ordinance, Sidewalks. Mr. Williams do you have any presentation that you would like to make at this time? Williams: Mr. Chairman Ijust want to say that I appreciate the comments that were made at the last Planning Commission meeting. We've looked at that. I've gone back and redoled my efforts on researching the law. It is still my opinion that the rough proportionality test is appropriate for this sort of development exaction that Fayetteville is now requiring and can require in most circumstances. I still believe that when it comes to a single family home in an infill lot that what we have required when the ordinance actually became effective has been beyond the rough proportion of the impact of that development on the sidewalk traffic. Because of that, I do think that this ordinance, I have gone through with the staff prior to ever presenting it to you, I think it is constitutionally required and I am here to answer any questions you might have on that. As I have said numerous times, this does not affect the City's ability in our subdivision ordinances, that when someone builds a new residential subdivision the sidewalks can certainly be required in there because the test there would be if the subdivision was not there they would simply not have any need to put the sidewalks in at all. Therefore, the impact of that subdivision is what requires the sidewalks and so I think we are on firm constitutional grounds there. Apart from that if you all have any questions I would be happy to answer them or any comments you might further want to make. Estes: Are there any questions of Mr. Williams before we ask for public comment? Hoover: What is the definition of rough proportionality? Williams: That is what I tried to give you in the October 18th memo. It was defined by the Supreme Court. In the case of Dolan v. City v. Tigard, they said that "we think", I'm quoting the Supreme Court, "We think the term such as rough proportionality best encapsulates what we hold to be the requirement of the fifth amendment, no precise mathematical calculation is required but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Basically, what they are trying to say on that I think to paraphrase them is • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 7 that the city must look at the impact this development is causing to the city and whether it be roads, streets, sidewalks or whatever and if what we require the developer is the rough proportionality of the impact that the development is having on the city then everything is fine. If it is way out of kilter which I think it is with single home infill lots then I think that we have a problem and we need to address that problem which is why I brought this forward. Estes: Any other questions for Mr. Williams? Williams: Dtd that answer your question at all? Hoover: Yes, thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT Estes: Is there any member fthe audience who would like to comment on this administrative item, the proposal to amend the sidewalk ordinance? Seeing none will bring it back to the Commission for motions, discussions or comments. Conklin: You did ask me to talk with our consultants who are in town this evening with regard to our impact fee study. Clancy Mullen is here in the audience if you have any questions or would like to ask him any questions this evening or I can briefly go over what we discussed. It is up to you. Estes: Mr. Conklin, did you inquire of Duncan & Associates as to if it was permissible to include an impact fee of sidewalks in the current and ongoing impact fee study? Conklin: Since our consultant has volunteered to speak to you tonight I would rather have him, instead of going from the consultant to me to you, you can hear it exactly from the consultant if you don't mind. Estes: Alright. Conklin: I would like to introduce Clancy Mullen with Duncan & Associates. They are here this evening to discuss part one of our ongoing impact fee study for water and wastewater. At 7:00 there is a question and answer session in room 326 for those who are interested. Mr. Mullen. • Estes: The one question that I had was first of all the impact fee study part one is titled water and • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 8 waste water, I presume it does not include sidewalks, is that correct? Mullen: That is correct. We are also doing roads and parks but we are not including sidewalks in there as part of our contract. Estes: Have you formed an opinion as to what the additional cost would be to include sidewalks in the impact fee study? Mullen: It would be difficult to give you a price off the top of my head, I hadn't really considered it. I don't know that it would fit. Part of the cost of doing a study like that is the fact that you are having the meeting concurrently. We only have a couple of meetings in this contract. If it meant coming back obviously that would have some of the impact on the cost. Let me give you a little bit of my take on sidewalk impact fees. We have not done a sidewalk impact fee and the kind of fee that you have today I'm not sure that we could do something that is similar to this. It would be like having an impact fee for a local street. You don't have impact fees for local streets. Yours is like a fee in lieu. You don't have fees in lieu of local streets because you have to have a street to have access to your property obviously. It is a local benefit to the property. Sidewalks are kind of in that mode. They are typically considered if they are part ofan internal subdivision, a local improvement that is benefitting the property. Either they are required as part of the development it is an assessment district on a front footage basis. I haven't seen an impact fee designed and I'm not sure how one would go about doing that kind of impact fee. What we have done for the city of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, we did an impact fee for bikeways and trails. It was done similar to a road impact fee in the sense that there was a master plan for bikeways and trails, there was a clear rational that this plan was designed to relieve the streets oftraffic We based a fee based on traffic impact. Essentially you've got a defined system improvement that would be a system wide type of plan that would move people around the community as opposed to intemal local subdivision improvements. Estes: Any other questions Commissioners? Hoover: How would you suggest, what we are talking about on our sidewalk issue here is how to determine how much impact a development has on an area. If you have an infill lot which is the question that I keep having that we are not going to require sidewalks on infill lots and that could be in the downtown area where people are possibly walking more than they might be walking out on Joyce Ave. or on College. How do we determine how much the impact is and that is where we are stuck. • Mullen: I would have to defer to the City Attorney on the issue ofan infill lot where it is separate • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 9 from a subdivision if there is a different kind of connection there. I mean I am not a land use specialist. We deal in impact fees and to try to quantify what the cost of it is. The way you are doing it now you are basically taking the frontage and what would it cost to put in the improvement and saying pay that fee in lieu and we will do that somewhere else I see that as difficult to establish an impact fee because an Impact fee needs to be proportional to their impact. Their impact, like I said, the only way we've been able to do an impact fee for anything close to this, and that was a bikeway and trail system, was to base it on trip generation not on frontage. Hoover: You've never done a sidewalk study based on trip generation? Mullen: It wasn't a local sidewalk improvement, it was bikeways and trails. Hoover: That could be different than actual sidewalks. It is a little bit of a different animal I think than trails. Mullen: I think it would be, whether or not, if you have a fee that is put in escrow to build it later. I think that is a different animal than taking the money and spending it somewhere else. Hoover: You are saying to build it later in that location? Mullen: Right, just a deferred dedication requirement as opposed to really a fee in lieu. Estes: Any other discussion, questions or motions? Commissioner Hoover. MOTION: Hoover: I still have questions about the contention about the infill lots and there are several comer lots in the downtown area that would never have sidewalks. I can understand that the issue here is trying to be fair to everybody. Is that my understanding? I understand that right now our City Attorney is saying that right now we are not being fair to the single property home owner, is that right? Williams: I am saying that what we have required here in a couple of cases that I am aware of is beyond our constitutional power to require. It is not whether or not we think it is fair it is what the Supreme Court has laid down in its test of rough proportionality and I don't think that there is any way that we can meet a rough proportionality test when there is a single house or a single person or a single family when at this time a single person is required to donate in lieu or give in lieu of building sidewalks over $4,200. That is way more than • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 10 what anybody could justify in a way of the rough proportionalty of the impact of this person moving into that house. What I'm saying is that we need to follow the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court the Fifth Amendment's guarantee was designed to bar the govemment from forcing some people alone to bear the public burdens which in all fairness and justice should be born by the public as a whole. I think it is wrong for us to try to require these individual lot owners to have to pay way more than what their real impact of their building that house is. When it is really an impact that you and I and all of us in Fayetteville need to pay. That is why we have appropriated money to build sidewalks and that is the better way to handle this. That is the only way in my mind, not just fair way but that is the only constitutional way when we are talking about infill Tots with single family homes. That is why I brought it forward. If I didn't think that it was constitutionally improper for us to go forward on this I wouldn't have done it. Then it would be apolicy decision but I feel like this is actually aconstitutional issue that we need to change our ordinance to some extent. This isn't a giant problem, we don't have a whole bunch of these coming through but I just felt for the ones that we are having come through we need to change our sidewalk ordinance for these particular types of occasions which I think we can not properly defend as being roughly proportionate to the impact of that particular development. Hoffman: I agree with most ofwhat Kit is saying except that I think that in reading the memorandum of the 18th where it talks about no precise mathematical calculation is required but the city must make some sort of individualized determination. I think the thing that brought this up was the $4,200 requirement and that a lot owner with a corner lot was required to pay $4,200 for a sidewalk on a very steeply sloped lot. I like the wording of the proposed draft to the UDO for the appeal very much. I think that that would be an appropriate route for this person and other people to pursue when the cost is obviously out of bounds. It seems to me that, with the rough draft the way you have it, I am still concerned about the infill lots next to the schools that would not give us, except the city, any way to provide a sidewalk, and when we are under a budget deficit and seem to continue to be and we are talking about having to charge impact fees for development, this has not really been a problem as you said except maybe in a couple of cases. Why couldn't we just have an appeal process instead of changing the sidewalk ordinance so we can still get our connectivity? Williams: Certainly the City Council under your recommendations one way or another can decide what they want to do with Unified Development Ordinance. My feeling is that when it comes to a single family infill lot even if it hadn't have been a comer lot it would have still been over $2,000 on one side. I think that is still going to be far in excess ofwhat would be the rough proportionality of that single person coming in and building that house so I • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 11 think that I am not going to make any policy argument that we should be encouraging infill lots or anything else. I will make a policy argument that in those sorts of circumstances that I have selected here, a lot split, a single home, a single duplex, I don't think we ought to force those people to come down and ask. We are requiring sidewalks in many, many other situations. In other words, I didn't say triplexes. A builder of a triplex might come down and say this is too much. Then you would have to decide but I think that it is not really right to force citizens to come back and appeal and appear in front of you when it should be almost obvious that there is no way that the city can withstand its burden to show that there is a rough proportionality. I would rather just not burden those people to have them come down here. It is up to your recommendation and what the City Council decides to do and thanks for the comments on the rough proportionality because regardless of what you decide on this I do think we need the rough proportionality amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance. Hoffman: If a person develops in a subdivision, if a person develops a new subdivision and the property owners go and buy a lot in a new subdivision you are paying in the price of the lot for the sidewalk that has been required. In essence how are we treating infill lot owners differently, whether positively or negatively? Williams: It is very similar to what our expert here said when he talked about local streets. If the subdivider or the subdivision owner when he builds a subdivision, a local street is like a local sidewalk, it is there for the local use basically and until the subdivision is built you don't need that local street and so it is a subdivider's responsibility to build that as well as the sewer and the waterlines and the sidewalks. I think that is a different situation than an infill lot where you already have usually a street there, there might be a sidewalk, might not be a sidewalk and someone is just building a lot and when this particular subdivision was done, we didn't have a sidewalk ordinance requiring all subdivisions to have them. I think that is really the basic difference there between that and when you would have an entire subdivision being built. Hoffman: I will stop with this. I disagree on that one point and I don't see that the city can afford to build all the sidewalks when you think about Root School, City Hospital, University of Arkansas area, the rental houses around that area as those are redeveloped and they will I think with the University's expansion plans and so forth. lust don't know that there is a way to determine what the city is going to be held responsible for to build those sidewalks as they come around and am kind of worried about the budget on the city side too. • Williams: I certainly share those concems but unfortunately, the Fifth Amendment doesn't allow us • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 12 to say "Well for budget reasons we are going to ignore the fifth amendment and put it on the property owner." I certainly share those concems and I know that the budget is tight. However, I just don't think in these particular circumstances that we can require the home owner to do it. Hoover: I have got another question, I guess Tim, when we worked on other ordinances, like I'm on the outdoor lighting ordinance committee, and we have samples of other ordinances across the country. One issue that I'm having with this Kit is that I'm not seeing anything else of what other cities are doing. Conklin: We did do research in Arkansas but I know you didn't like the answer last time. Hoover: In the outdoor lighting committee we have gone beyond Arkansas. Conklin: Yes, we can look outside of Arkansas. I think the issue here too is the time the Subdivision was developed, everybody in the subdivision bought lots within that subdivision and developed and they weren't required to put a sidewalk in and now we have some subdivisions with one or two lots left with really no plans in the next 10-20 years or even longer to put sidewalks in that subdivision. Those are the biggest issues we are dealing with are the infill lots. I guess to get back to your question, we can do some research and see what other cities do. However, in Arkansas, this amendment would follow what a lot of cities do in Arkansas. Hoover: I think this question is more complex than what we can do here and I hate to suggest this but I think we need a sidewalk committee to really look at this. I appreciate our outdoor lighting committee, which I know it has gone on longer than we intended but I think that we are doing a very thorough job and I just don't feel here that I really know exactly what is going on and I don't have these examples from other places to draw on. I don't know how everybody else feels about that. Estes: My thinking is that this is a complex issue. It is a complicated issue. I don't think it is as simple as a person would think on first inspection. An example would be that if you had an infill lot that was next to a school, common sense would say that we need a sidewalk. If you have an infill lot that is out on Highway 45 perhaps a year would go by or two years would go by before there would be any pedestrian traffic in front of that lot and there may never be any pedestrian traffic in front of that lot. Using the rough proportionality test, how much are you going to assess the owner ofthe infill lot next to the school and how much are you going to assess the owner of the lot on Hwy. 45 east. That is just one example of some ofthe complexities that I see. I certainly agree with Mr. Williams, our City Attorney • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 13 in the remarks that he has made. I think it is very important to point out that the ends do not justify unconstitutional means. Just because the intent is pure and good does not mean that we can ignore the constitution to achieve that end. That too is a complex issue. The lower courts as I have reviewed the reported cases and I spent last week not reading and studying but simply quickly reviewing the head notes of over a thousand cases so I wouldn't walk away with the notion that I don't understand this rough proportionality test. It is not as simple as it has been presented. I think it deserves more study and I would certainly be in favor of such a motion. MOTION: Hoover: I would like to make a motion that we create a Sidewalk Committee to thoroughly study this issue that we have been discussing tonight. Allen- I'll second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoover to form a committee. Commissioner Hoover, have you given any thought or consideration to who would appoint that committee? Hoover: I think that would be up to our chair. Estes: Alright. A motion by Commissioner Hoover that the chair appoint a study committee and that motion has been seconded. Is there any discussion? Williams: The City does have a Sidewalks and Trails Committee already in existence. 1 have met with them about this particular issue already. I don't think the Planning Commission needs to establish a new committee when there is already a Sidewalks and Trails Committee that when this ordinance was first revised back in the Spring which allowed the money in lieu of for the first time, it went through that committee and I think that if there needs to be any more committee work that should be the place. However, my opinion as your City Attorney is that we are now operating unconstitutionally. I don't like to see that with the city. I think we need to get moving and make a decision This is a very minor change to this ordinance, a change that can keep us from operating unconstitutionally. We have gone very slow with this. I wrote my initial memos on this in the Summer. Here it is late October. I am concerned that I know government acts slowly, but I am concerned that in this particular case I believe we are potentially acting unconstitutionally in this case and I would like to have a quicker action I think than referring it back again to various committees to look at when this is actually a legal issue not a policy issue. It doesn't make any difference in a lot of ways what other cities have done because everybody has to • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 14 follow the United States Constitution. Everyone has to follow what the Supreme Court says so I am a little bit concerned about having this drawn out too long. Hoffman: If the need is that pressing and I think we are only talking about the couple of property owners. I was looking at the rough draft of the possible ordinance within Chapter 155 for appeals and we go ahead and start our due notice on that, get the appeals portion of this moving, I would be in favor of putting an appeals process in place to give these property owners some relief as soon as practical. I feel the same way as Commissioner Hoover and Allen that the rough proportionality or some method or some means needs to be looked at for these other infill lots. I understand if we have got something on top of Markham Hill or somewhere where anybody is rarely going to be walking in traffic that that is one thing. I am really concerned about traffic safety, safety for the children, and I don't mean to sound like I'm waiving the flag there or something but I really think that that portion of this ordinance needs more study. Could we notice this and run it through more quickly than the sidewalk portion of it just to get the other people? Williams: You will have to ask our planner about the notice. I think you were planning on doing a notice on this rough proportionality amendment. Conklin: Yes, and we will put that in the paper under state law, we are required to give 15 days notice any time we amend our Unified Development Ordinance. We will do that and plan to hear that at the November 26 Planning Commission meeting. Ward: Tim, do you have a wild guess of how many infill lots that are not developed out there that do not have sidewalks9 Conklin: There are quite a few. Before this ordinance Mr. Rutherford, our Sidewalk Coordinator, would pick me up and take me out there to look at them. Let me throw an idea out here. Is there any way, our City Attorney, we can have subcommittee meetings, but I believe Mr. Williams has stated his opinion and I'm sure it is not going to change anything, having subcommittees on this issue. Is it a possibility ofrepealing this ordinance and reinstate the ordinance we had before which allowed us to do sidewalks on infill lots? The issue is that collection of the fee. That is the issue that we are dealing with. If they build the sidewalk, we have not been challenged on that. It is the issue ofthe collection ofthe fee that is kind of how I look at it. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoover and a second by Commissioner Allen for the chair to appoint a study committee to consider the amendment to the sidewalk ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 15 Shackelford: I guess I'm going to weigh in my opinion here. I have seen a couple of these come through where individuals developed on these outlots. I remember as we went through this process thinking that this ordinance put some sort of undue hardship on them in that type of development. Obviously, I'm not in favor of anything else that could be viewed as a barrier towards further development in the city. Obviously, I'm taking a vested interest in this. Basically where I'm coming from is, I'm not an attorney, when I need a legal opinion, I hire an attorney, I listen to the attomey and I take his advice. I think that is what the city has done. I think we have a legal opinion from the City Attorney and I think we ought to listen to that. If we have an unconstitutional ordinance out there then we probably need to address it. I am not going to vote for any measure that would table this or lengthen this process out any further. Marr. Estes: I just had a question I guess for the Commissioners who are supporting the motion of a committee to study it. The one thing that I've heard from Kit that I would support. In some ways Loren's comment just now, is that the unconstitutionality of what we are doing as a city 1 think is something that needs to be addressed. One statement that Kit made that I tend to agree with is that if it is an unconstitutional requirement I can't imagine what I would see in another city that would address that issue. I too would like to see some other cities ordinances. I think on some things we've done an excellent job, I think the definition of family was something we did some great research on across multiple places and it gave us good data to make decisions on I certainly support the concept of understanding what is out there but I don't see how it relates to the issue before us to make this more constitutional. Secondly that I would like to hear some feedback on, what prohibits us from going back and adding or continuing with a committee to address whether or not we want to change the ordinance or recommend to the City Council to change the ordinance. We do it all the time on other things and I don't think we are bound by having to wait to get our ordinance in line to do the changes that we might want to improve on. I would like to hear a little bit why we couldn't go that route verses why we would want to stop the whole thing. If I may attempt to respond to that in part Commissioner Marr. I don't want to vote for something that I don't feel is as good a work product that we could possibly get out of this Commission. I just don't feel that 1 am prepared to do that at this point in time. Commissioner Shackelford seemed to indicate that we have seen these issues before. I want to be corrected if I'm wrong but I don't believe as a Commission we have ever seen this issue. That is part of the problem. These matters don't come before us. We've never 'seen this before that is why we need to take a look at this draft that has been prepared by our City Attorney regarding appeals from the Unified Development Ordinance. One ofthe problems that I see and I hate to keep going back and reiterating that it is a complex and • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 16 complicated issue but when you read some of these court decisions, what they talk about is they talk about that these are adjudicated decisions made by staff and they are not legislative or administareial decisions made by a Commission or by a City Council. They are an adjudicated decision made by staff and the aggrieved constituent, the aggrieved citizen has no place to go. That is I think what Commissioner Hoffman was talking about is can we put both of these things on a fast track so we can see them at once. I guess the seminal problem that I see is that these are administrative decisions. We have not seen any of these, we don't see any of these, they are handled by staff and an aggrieved citizen has nowhere to go. We need to give notice and we need to study carefully the proposed ordinance change on the right ofappeals from the Unified Development Ordinance at the same time we look at handling this rough proportionality issue. If I am asked to vote on this proposed ordinance and send it to the City Council and then if I voted for that and then I was asked to appear before the City Council and explain exactly what I was doing and why I was doing it I couldn't do it because there are just too many unanswered questions. Now if we get the ordinance providing for appeals from the Unified Development Ordinance before us and we get to look at the rough proportionality issue in the ordinance then maybe we could have a product that we can either vote up or down and send to the City Council. I hope that is responsive, Commissioner Marr, to your question and ifI'm wrong in anything I've said, correct me Mr. Conklin. Conklin: I have no corrections. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoover and a second by Commissioner Allen for the chair to appoint a study committee to consider the rough proportionality issue. Is there any other discussion? Williams: Is this the sidewalk or the... there were two different ordinances. One is where you would allow it to be appealed if the developer felt that it was beyond rough proportionality. The other ordinance was the sidewalk ordinance. Which was your committee supposed to look at? Estes: I understood the motion to be the rough proportionality. I would like to see both of these back at the same time but we're going to have to do the 15 day notice period to get that done. Any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion for the chair to appoint a subcommittee to consider an ordinance repealing section 171.12 passed by a vote of 6-2-0. • Estes: The motion passes by a vote of six to two. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 17 CUP 01-11.10: Conditional Use (Golden Corral Corporation, pp 96) was submitted by Robyn Wilgus of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of Golden Corral Corporation for property located at the SW corner ofNorth College Avenue and Main Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 13.23 acres. The request is for 90 parking spaces in excess of that permitted by the UDO. Estes: Davidson: Estes: Davidson: Estes: Estes: Wilgus: The next item of business is a conditional use request. This is.. . Did you have public comment on sidewalks or are you taking public comment on sidewalks? We did. At the beginning? Ok, I thought you discussed and then went to the public and I'm sorry about that. The next item of business is a conditional use request. This is item number 3 under new business. This is a conditional use request by Golden Corral Corporation for property located at the southwest corner ofNorth College Avenue and Maine Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 13.23 acres. The request is for 90 parking spaces in excess of that permitted by the UDO. Staff recommends approval ofthe conditional use based on the findings included in your staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. Planning Commission approval ofthe accompanying large scale development and all conditions associated with that project. Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation that you would like to make on the conditional use request? This is the request for 90 parking spaces in excess of that permitted by the UDO? Yes Sir. Currently the ordinance that we have requires, for restaurants, one parking space for 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area. My client is proposing to build a 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant which will seat approximately 390 people. They also expect to have at their peak hours up to 40 employees on site. Under the current ordinance that would allow only 52 parking space with a 20% overage allowance which would equal 62 parking spaces. When you ratio that out that comes to about 7 customers to car with no spaces left over for staff. We felt that the 152 is reasonable. Normally they like to go in with 155. Do you have any questions about that? • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 18 Estes: Does any member of the Commission have any questions ofthe applicant's representative? Does that conclude your presentation? Wilgus: I don't have anything further. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this conditional use request? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for any questions of the applicant's representative any discussion or motions. Conklin: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, you did receive a letter this evening that was not in your packet on the noon deadline on Friday when we got your revised agendas out. I just wanted to make you aware of that. MOTION: Ward: Marr: I feel like we tried to get a different type of parking passed through council before where we would allow more parking for restaurants. I guess ifa restaurant comes through us it has to have more parking. Golden Corrals I guess have a lot of busses and large vehicles coming in there and out of there. 1 think it is a request that should be appropriate for allowing more parking. I am going to go ahead and make a motion to approve CUP 01- 11.10 for Golden Corral Corporation. I'll second that. I do have a question for Tim if I could. I don't even know if you remember way back when we tried this. When we tried to amend the parking requirement in this case, do we know what the proposed amendment that we had would have allowed under those conditions? Conklin: 164. What I calculated was one per four seats, 390 seating plus, and I can't remember if we did peak employees but they had 40 employees, that was 137, multiplied it by the maximum amount of overage, 20% and came up with 164. Marr: I guess my comment and I'm probably going to say this every time. It is kind of like Loren's not wanting to table, I kind of feel like this about restaurant parking. It just seems ludicrous to me that we have to see every single one of these with 60% of what is being asked for is what is able to be approved that we can't get closer between a tighter band even after the 20% waiver. It is something that we might want to look at, another try as opposed to having every one of these come in front of us but I certainly support the waiver in this case. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Marr to • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 19 approve CUP 01-11.10, is there any other discussion? Hoffman: I just want to note that in the letter ofJennifer Michaels, she has apparently talked to Mr. Petrie and I just wanted to make sure that they are going to be following all the drainage ordinance requirements with regard to the parking lot and its adjacent to the water shed for Lake Fayetteville. Petrie: Just real quick, I just wanted to make sure the Commission understands, we have no ordinances when it comes to water quality coming offthe parking lots. That will be a part of the new Phase II regulations that is mandated by the EPA. At this point only water quality that is entering a designated wet land must be addressed on water quality except for of course during construction the sedimentation. For this particular project they have left a real nice buffer in between the parking lot and the creek. What is coming off the parking lot the majority of the runoff is in a sheet flow condition. It is not being point discharged which helps to spread it out more. Hoffman: My question was meant to address did we meet the current ordinance requirements. I don't mean to imply that we are requiring filtration, that is coming I think but not quite yet. Petrie: They have met the preliminary requirements at this time. Hoffman: Ok, thank you. Estes: Any other discussion or questions? Hoover: I would just like to make one comment, I'm not generally in favor of more parking and concreting everything but in this particular case the extra parking spaces are in the rear of the building, excuse me, they don't call it the rear, you can't see it from the street, let me put it that way. 1 think some day it would be nice to have some type of ordinance that if you would like more parking spaces if they are behind the building so we can't see them from the public way that that would be acceptable whereas I would not like to see 150 spaces right there next to the curb of the street. Estes: Any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve Conditional Use request 01-11.1, this is a conditional use and will require five affirmative votes, any other comments or questions? Renee, would you call the roll? • ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 01-11.10 is approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 20 LSD 01-9.10: Large Scale Development (Golden Corral Corporation, pp 96) was submitted by Robyn Wilgus of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen on behalf of Golden Corral Corporation for property located at the SW corner of North College Avenue and Main Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare commercial and contains approximately 3.49 acres. The request is to build a 10,330 sq.ft. restaurant with152 parking spaces. Estes: The next item on the agenda is the large scale development for Golden Corral Corporation for the property located at the southwest corner ofNorth College Avenue and Main Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.49 acres. The request is to build a 10,330 sq. ft. restaurant with 152 parking spaces. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval. Tim, are there signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. 1. Planning Commission approval ofa requested conditional use for90 additional parking spaces. By code, 62 spaces are allowed and a total of 152 parking spaces are being requested for this restaurant. 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards including signage. a. Staff would like to bring to Commission's attention that neon is being used according to the photographs provided by the applicant. b. A pole sign is being proposed which is 26.6 feet tall and approximately 75 square feet in area. The applicant is requesting a variance from the required 40 foot setback. This variance will have to be approved by the Board of Sign Appeals. c. All utility equipment located on the ground shall be screened by vegetation. 3. Approval shall be provided from the City of Springdale for the water and sewer connections to Springdale water and sewer mains located along Main Street. 4. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staffcomments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) 5. Staffapproval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 21 6. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum five foot sidewalk along Main Drive according to the City of Springdale's specifications. An assessment in lieu of installation in the amount $7,802.64 for the sidewalk along College Avenue was assessed as a condition of approval for the lot split which created this tract. 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 8. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Is the applicant present? • Wilgus: Yes. • Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Would you tell us your name and your address please? Wilgus: My name is Robyn Wilgus I'm with Freeland Kauffman & Fredeen in Rogers. I am representing Golden Corral for this project. As you know from the previous conditional use, we are asking for approval for this large scale development to build a 10,330 sq. ft. restaurant with 152 parking spaces. I believe that Dawn has the materials for it. Estes: Does that conclude your presentation? Wilgus: No, I was going to pass that around. My client feels that this is a very good location for this project and they are very eager to build in Fayetteville. They have gone through considerable trouble to try and work with the city ordinances. We've redesigned the building facade in the rear which was one of the points of contention at the Subdivision Committee. I believe you should have copies of the revised building elevations for the facade along Main Drive. Estes: Are there any members of the Commission that have questions of the applicant's representative at this time? Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this proposed large scale development for Golden Corral Corporation? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, questions for the applicant's representative or motions. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 22 Hoover: I just want to thank the applicant. This north elevation has greatly improved since we were at Subdivision and I think it definitely meets the commercial design guidelines. Hoffman: Dust have one question. On large scale developments we seem to in the past have been able to approve the signs at this level without sending it to some other body since we have a rather broad range of authority over large scale developments can we just approve the sign? I think it is in keeping with what is in the area and I certainly have no problem with it, can we just go ahead and take care of it at this time? Conklin: By ordinance, those variances go to the Board of Sign Appeals so I don't think there is a way to not do that. Hoffman: I thought in Spring Creek Center we did something. Conklin: We have limited the types of signs the ordinances will allow through commercial design standards and approved those. We have not granted those variances. Those do go to the Board of Sign Appeals. Hoffman: I tried. Conklin: I would like to thank Golden Con -al, they have worked hard to meet our ordinances. They enlarged the lot they have to meet the tree preservation plan. We did approve a conditional use to enlarge the parking lot. Along with that, there is additional landscaping as you add additional spaces so we are not just paving the entire site, we are landscaping the site. I think the Commission is aware of that and the public is aware of that. When we do approve a conditional use they do have to meet other ordinance requirements. As the site is enlarged they are going to save more trees and they do have to plant more trees in the parking lot. With regard to building elevations, staff worked hard with the applicant to bring something to you tonight that meets our commercial design standards and we worked very hard to ensure that we can bring development to you that you can approve and I would like to thank Golden Corral for working with us to revise that north elevation because it will be a nice looking elevation facade entering into Fayetteville from the north so thank you. Allen: I wondered if you gave some consideration to something other than the pole sign? Wilgus: We did look at that, we looked at several different monument signs as an option. The problem is that as you come down North College, going north, our side is considerably lower than the level of the road. A monument sign would be virtually invisible. Ward: At Subdivision we discussed most of these issues and I thought the pole sign was going to be appropriate not only because of the way the lot sits but the other properties all being • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 23 Allen: Marr: in Springdale all have pole signs right there. It is not like this is the only one that is going to have a pole sign. The banks, the Locomotion, everything in that area has a pole sign. This would be almost putting the Golden Corral at a disadvantage not to have a pole sign in this particular instance. I understand that but it just seems to me that we are forever making exceptions for the pole signs. This may be a good place to make another one, I can see that they have made a lot of efforts but at some point we have to stick by our guns. I actually think a pole sign is allowed, it is the set back that we are discussing in terms of making an exception as to whether they are allowed to have a pole sign, it is my understanding that they can. That is not the exception we are making. It is the distance from the road that we are making an exception on if that helps you. Allen: It does, thank you. Marr: Certainly, have we done public comment on this? Estes: Yes. MOTION: Marr: I would like to move for approval of LSD 01-9.10 with the finding that we meet the commercial design standards. We certainly don't have any unpainted, unarticulated walls, we don't have a square box like structure and I don't believe that our sign is out of scale. The flashiness in terms of the neon I think is certainly acceptable, based on my experience of seeing Golden Corral's around the country. With that, I will move for approval of that. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 01-9.10. Is there a second? Shackelford: I'II second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any discussion, comments, any questions of the applicant's representative? Bunch: I think it would behoove us to recommend to the Board of Sign Appeals our thinking on the sign even though we are not the ones that have the approval, I think it would be good for us since we have taken comment and have examined this to possibly include in the motion a recommendation to the Board of Sign Appeals reflecting our thinking on this issue. Estes: Mr. Conklin, do I understand correctly that neon is being used but it will not be animated? • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 24 By that I mean it will not flash? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: It will be a static neon sign? Conklin: The neon will not flash, blink, move, it will be constant. Marr: I guess my motion, I was going under the assumption of the requirements as outlined in staff comments as a condition as guidance for the sign committee. If it is something different that you would like I would certainly do that. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 01-9.10, is there any further discussion? Renee, would you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-9.10 is approved by a vote of 8-0-0. • Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 25 LSD 01-33.00: Large Scale Development (Country Inns & Suites, pp 402) was submitted by John Wary of Morrison -Shipley Engineers, Inc. on behalfofN WA Hospitality LLC for property located at Lot 5, Wedington Place. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.80 acres. The request is to build a 12,665 sq. ft. building with 65 units. Estes: The next item of business to come before the Commission is a large scale development, Country Inn & Suites submitted by John Wary of Morrison -Shipley Engineers, Inc. on behalfofNWA Hospitality LLC for property located at Lot 5, Wedington Place. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.80 acres. The request is to build a 12,665 sq. ft. building with 65 units. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of approval. Mr. Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No we do not. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1. Planning Commission determination ofcompliance with Commercial Design Standards and Design • Overlay District requirements. Staff is in support of the proposed elevations, site plan, and requested variances. • A. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement of one curb cut for every 200 feet of frontage. This property has 322 feet of frontage and the applicant is proposing two curb cuts. The first curb cut is approximately 105 feet from McDonald's curb cut to the south. The two curb cuts on this property are 200 feet apart. As part of the lot split which created this lot, a requirement was placed that a curb cut would be directly across from the curb cut of the approved large scale across Steamboat. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement that only one wall sign be permitted per business. The applicant is requesting four wall signs. One on each side of the building. C. Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner to preserve the scenic appearance of the corridor. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward to the parking lot and light spread shall not reflect into the adjacent neighborhood. Lighting shall not exceed 35 feet in height and shall utilize sodium lighting fixtures. D. All outdoor storage of material and equipment shall be screened with natural vegetation. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 26 3. Staffapproval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 4. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 5. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Project Disk with all final revisions d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements". e. Parks fees paid and/or deed received for parks land dedication. Estes: Is the applicant present? Ward: I must recuse from this particular item. Estes: Ok. Conklin: We do have signed conditions now. Estes: Ok, is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation you would like to make? Wary: Estes: Actually I don't have a presentation of such. At this time we are asking for your approval of the large scale plan and I will be glad to answer any questions that you have. Does any member ofthe Commission have any questions ofthe applicant's representative at this time? Hoover: The applicant might explain the color chart because I was at Subdivision but a lot of Commissioners were not so I think you need to explain the materials and the colors. • Wary: Estes: These are the colors we are actually using, this green is the color of the roof. This is closer to the actual color of the building than the actual elevations. Any other questions of the applicant's representative? • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 27 Petrie: Estes: Conklin: Estes: Shackelford: Petrie: Marr. Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: I have to apologize for this. This has not been a condition of approval but during preliminary meetings we had notified the applicant that this is a requirement so I do apologize for this In this area there is a $200 per R-1 lot usage for sanitary sewer improvements in this basin. I do not have that total number, the assessment that that would be for this project other than to say it will have to be computed based on the R-1 lot standard usage and that is a $200 assessment. I apologize for not having that in the report. Thank you Mr. Petrie. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested LSD 01-33, Country Inn & Suites? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments and motions. I would just like to thank the applicant. They have worked hard with the city. We've had several preappl ication meetings. They are within our design overlay district. They are also within the Wedington Place subdivision. We have spent a long time to make sure that they understand what the ordinances are and they are requesting several variances. Staff is 100% in support of those variances and I would just like to thank the applicant for taking that much time to do preapplication meetings with us prior to submittal. Thank you Mr. Conklin. Just for my edification. Ron, you confused me a little on that. It is per R-1 lot so can you ball park it? Will your calculation be this piece of property could have been six lots, therefore, how does that work? The number I don't know and I amjust going to have to get some text books or if we have some city data exactly how much does a motel generate when it comes to sewer. We know exactly how much it generates per a R-1 lot, about 200 gallons per day. I will have to consult with the information I have and use that. My guess is it is probably approximately $50 per room, that is an approximate. It may be less than that, I don't think it is more. Is there not currently a guideline for commercial development? Why would we be using a residential guideline in this case? The assessment is based entirely on the usage from an R-1 lot, $200 per lot assessment. That is the only thing I have to go by. I may have just confused you more. I have a breakdown of retail commercial as opposed to R-1 usage based on square footage. Didn't we just do a Marriott over on Millsap? This is only in the Hamstring Creek Basin. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 28 Hoffman: Oh, because of the lift station. Petrie. Right. Hoffman: Are you going to be charging the sewer rate based on the number of units he has got because that could get costly. That would equal a single family dwelling or do you take a percentage of that because of the vacancy rates and so on. Petrie: I can tell you it will be approximately $3,000 to $5,000. Hoffman: Does the applicant have any problem with that, do you have any comment on it? Wary: No, probably not. Petrie: 1 would certainly agree if there was some disagreement between the applicant and the number I would ask that he come back to Subdivision or Planning Commission to discuss that. I really hate to see this held up for something that is obviously my mistake. Hoffman: We were just trying to figure out what you were talking about. Petrie: Sure. Wary. My one question is will I have the ability to visit with you about this? If we can provide some historic data as to what the costs for hotels. Petrie: Right. That would really be the information we really need. Estes: Any other discussion or motions? MOTION: Hoffman: I will make a motion for approval of LSD 01-33 and in that motion I intend to include the variances for the curb cuts, the waiver for the curb cut and the waiver for the wall signs for the business due to the location of the building and the need to be seen from the bypass. I also do find that they are in compliance with the commercial design standards. Estes: Does your motion also include condition of approval number 7 as articulated by Mr. Petrie? • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 29 Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Estes: It does and I would just emphasize that if the city departments and the applicant can work together towards that assessment to a mutually agreeable assessment. If not, it will come back to the Subdivision Committee for their review. I believe it could be approved at that level. I believe that if the Commission grants the ability to do that it can be. If you do have to make another board appearance it would be to the Subdivision Committee over the sewer rate and that the Subdivision Committee could grant that approval. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSD 01-33, is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffinan to approve LSD 01-33 and a second by Commissioner Shackelford, any discussion or comments? Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-33 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 30 PPL 01-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Heritage East, Phase 1I, pp 565) was submitted by Landtech Engineering Inc. on behalfofNorthwest Builders for property located between 15th Street and Huntsville Road on the east of Curtis Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 11.4 acres with 40 Tots proposed. Estes: The next item is approval ofa preliminary plat, this was submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalfofNorthwest Builders for property located between 15th Street and Huntsville Road on the east side of Curtis Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 11.4 acres with 40 lots proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Mr Conklin, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Those conditions of approval are 1. A decorative safety fence to be approved by the Planning Division shall be installed on the north, west, and east sides of the detention pond which does not obscure the view within the common area. A minimum of 25' of right-of-way from the centerline of Curtis Avenue shall be dedicated in accordance with the Master Street Plan. 3. Access to Lots 7-11 will be limited to Sherman Avenue. A note should be added to the Final Plat which states this requirement. 4. A note shall be added to the fmal plat which limits the development of these lots to Single Family Residential and covenants reflecting this requirement shall be filed prior to final plat approval. 5. The entire detention pond is required to be sodded with concrete pilot channels connecting the inlet and outlet structures. 6. All drainage located outside of the street right-of-way including open ditches, swales, channels, and the detention pond shall be privately maintained by the Property Owner's Association. The filed covenants shall contain provisions for this maintenance responsibility. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 31 8. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 9. Payment of parks fees will be due pursuant to the current fees enacted at the time of final plat approval by the Planning Commission. 10. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include four foot sidewalk and six foot greenspace along Fairlane Street, Sherman Avenue and Nelson Drive. 11. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Estes: Is the applicant present? If you would come forward please, tell us your name and your address. • Gabbard: My name is Leonard Gabbard, I'm from the west side of Fayetteville, 12543 Hwy. 16 West in Fayetteville. I am with Landtech Engineering and I am representing Northwest Builders here tonight. I have no formal presentation but I stand ready to answer any questions which you might ask of me. • Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Gabbard at this time before we ask to take public comment? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this proposed preliminary plat for Heritage East Phase II? I fso, would you come forward and tell us your name and where you live and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Walker: My name is Theresa Walker, I live 1215 Emily, it is on the corner of Sandy and Emily, it is on the corner of the property we are talking about. There are several issues I have that I think should be addressed. There are some large trees in the area that I would like to see preserved in some way. Right now there is no area for the kids to play in. There is Southlawn apartments which is not really any kind of park or anything to go to. I have three small kids that are stuck in that neighborhood. You can't walk anywhere because ofthe traffic on all sides. Traffic no matter which way you go if you are exiting out through • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 32 the north end of Curtis you have to exit on Huntsville Street which is dangerous If you exit out on to Hwy. 16 you are across from Mexican Original, that is also dangerous. The way that Curtis Avenue is angled onto where it meets Emily there is a lot of brush and overhang that on numerous times I've almost been hit because the angle of the street. There needs to be something done there. Sidewalks and drainage I think is a big issue also. My last question is the detention pond, I'm not familiar with what that is and where it would be located. Estes: Mr. Petrie, can you give us an explanation and perhaps answer Ms. Walker's question, what is a detention pond and if you will show her where it is located on the plat. Petrie: The detention pond just for general, this area, a majority of the subdivisions in this area were put in prior to any type of storm water management ordinances. Therefore, they really lack the ability to carry any additional storm water. One of the different scenarios that is acceptable is the construction of a pond that actually has the capability of withholding water when we have large rains. Water can accumulate in these ponds and it can slowly be released into the system to mitigate any increase in runoff. Walker: When it is not full of water it would be empty? Petrie: That is correct. It should be designed to drain and not hold any water after the storm. It is a fairly large detention pond, it is a fairly deep detention pond. Walker: Is this on a knoll area? There are a lot of hills out there. Petrie: There will be some significant grading to make this. They are going to build a berm on this end and will have to cut into the hillside on the north side to do that. Walker: It would be fenced? Petrie: Not all the way around. At this time we are recommending anyway that they fence on all sides except for the side open to the street, Nelson Drive. Walker. That side would just be open? Petrie: That is right, that is certainly something that the commission should consider. Walker: Flooding is a big issue in that area. When we do get a lot of rain, I'm on the bottom side • and it will fill up almost completely into my driveway and I have kids who like to go out • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 33 Estes: there and plug up the drain. With regard to your tree comment, the site is currently 3%, the developer proposes to preserve 1% and replace 2%, thus the total canopy on the site will be back to 3%. The issue on the sidewalk, one of the conditions of approval is sidewalk construction along Fairlane, Sherman and Nelson. Walker: Ok. The trees, what part are they going to preserve? There are some really large trees in that area, I know that the trees are an issue with the city. Estes: Mr. Conklin, do we have a tree preservation plan? Can you tell us what is going to be preserved? Conklin: Sure. Ron is going to go over that. Keep in mind that in a single family residential or actually, this is a single family zoned R-2, residential development. The tree preservation requirements do set a percentage for a developer to try to achieve preservation. However, after the subdivision is final and the lots are sold, homeowners can go in and remove those trees. There is no permanent guarantee that someone that buys one of these lots will keep the tree. Walker: Ok. Estes: Ms. Walker, did you have any other comments? Walker: Just a request that I would like to see some type of park space. There are 44 homes, there have got to be some more kids moving in. As it is there is nowhere for the kids to play, nowhere for them to go. Conklin: With regard to the issue of our park land dedication ordinance, this did go before the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, they did vote to accept money instead of requiring the developer to set aside land for park land. The fees that they will be paying are $18,800 to the city of Fayetteville. Walker: That doesn't do my neighborhood any good though. Conklin: Once again, that decision was made at the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, all developers are required to go before them prior to the Planning Commission. • Marr: What is the closest city park to this location. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 34 Walker: Happy Hollow. I am pretty certain it would either be Happy Hollow which you would have to cross Huntsville Street to get to it and then there is also the baseball fields on Industrial Dr. which you would have to cross Hwy 16 to get to. There are the American Legion baseball fields but that is just considered private property and it is just a baseball field, nothing to get to. Conklin: I think she covered them all. Happy Hollow school which is on Ray Street north of Huntsville Road. The city has anoint use agreement to use their facilities. The baseball fields down in the Industrial Park. Walker: Then there is Walker Park which is over a mile away. Hoffman: Do you remember on the master parks plan what parks plan were planned for this location or vicinity? Conklin: I don't have that illustration, their master plan with the circles on it showing their priorities. Hoffman: Could we provide her with a copy of that perhaps? I don't know if you heard about that but they have a master parks plan under consideration and they have the city divided into quadrants, I know that there is something in your quadrant. I can certainly sympathize with your point of view of not having anything available in your immediate vicinity. Walker: There is just nothing there for the kids to do. My kids ask all the time if they can walk to school and I have to tell them not unless you want to take your life in your own hands and cross Huntsville Road There is no traffic lights or anything for them to cross, no pedestrian access. Conklin: I can get that to you, we will send that to you. Estes: Thank you Ms. Walker. Marr: We have had some discussion about the fence that goes around this detention pond area, is there a reason why it is not reflective on the preliminary plat? If it is I can't find it. It is a requirement or condition of our approval, it seems to me that it ought to be on the drawing. Petrie: More than likely that condition was discussed but it was never placed and the applicant probably never knew that was a condition until after he submitted the plans. I think in some Subdivision Committee meetings we discussed whether it was needed but we never • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 35 Man: Estes: really made that a condition of any approval. Unless I'm reading something wrong, condition one was a decorative safety fence to be installed on the north, west and east side of the detention pond. It is a condition today and I guess if we are going to approve it as a condition, I would like to see it reflected on the plan unless there is some reason we don't want to. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this proposed preliminary plat 01-5? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the full commission for discussion, questions of the applicant, comments. Allen: I wondered about the Parks Commission report as to why no land was dedicated for park land in this area. Estes: I had the same question and that of course, we are not privileged to see that because it is not a part of our packet. Dawn, is there an explanation? Warrick: I was looking to see if we had the minutes from the Parks Board meeting, I believe we do. Justification is stated as "the Parks and Recreation Division is interested in obtaining additional park land in this section of town but would prefer a larger land dedication, the city has recently purchased 19 acres approximately one block west of this proposed development and the American Legion ball field is located across the street. Both ofthese properties will be available in the future as new park sites." The minutes go on to say "A discussion was held concerning collection ofpark land fees, currently the park land fee rate is determined on the date of final Planning Commission approval unless it is approved at the final Subdivision Committee level to decrease confusion City Attorney, Kit Williams is looking at options to change this process. Staff recommends the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board only vote on accepting money in lieu, accepting land dedication or accepting a combination without specific amounts." There was a motion and a second to approve the money in lieu as stated in staff's report for the item before you. Estes: Warrick: Petrie: Where is the 19 acres to the west? I don't know that I can answer that. The 19 acres, the access is located ofofHuntsville. If you are looking on your vicinity map, the one mile radius, you will see a subdivision to the north and west of this and Just the land immediately the west of that subdivision. • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 36 Hoffman: That is more like 6 blocks west. Is that the A-1 zoned area on Huntsville? Petrie: Yes, right there where that A-1 is. Hoffman: That does put the park right over there. Williams: That is not actually park land, the city purchased that land, there were some drainage problems and my understanding was that it was cheaper to buy the land than to fix the drainage problems that were coming onto that land. That is right now just general city land, it is not necessarily park land. Hoffman: Ok, thanks Kit. Hoover: Does Curtis have sidewalks on it? Petrie: I think that it doesn't. • Gabbard: If you look on page two of your aerial photography that we submitted I think that you will notice that there is a sidewalk along the west side of parts of Curtis. If you will follow along, can you see it? There is a white strip along the west side of Curtis that is on the aerial photography. • Estes: Bunch: Any other comments, any questions? We have on the drainage, much of that is to be handled later, as part of one of our conditions of approval, one of the questions that I had at the first part is we are showing a detention pond but we aren't really showing any means of getting much water into that pond. Gabbard: All of the water is being caught at the north end of the subdivision. I'm sorry Ron, maybe I should've let you address that. Petrie: Gabbard: No, go ahead please. Ron and I worked extensively, I went out on the site, walked it, talked with a lot of representatives down in the area of Emily. We do have a situation out there where the current infrastructure in place is not capable of handling water. On the detailed plans that we will submit following the approval of the concept of the way we are attempting to handle this drainage, there will be a storm conveyance system that will run the full north • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 37 south pretty much down the middle of the subdivision. There has been a considerable amount of time and effort spent and actually I feel very comfortable with my design of the detention pond and I feel like it is at this point finalized. As far as the conveyance systems to get that to it, you know we have certain ordinance requirements in regards to ponding widths and stuff and I would prefer to get into those details at a later date with staff, more technical and I know those are feasible items that can be designed. The detention pond was a very, very critical issue in this whole, well critical path of design because if we couldn't get it to work then pretty much we didn't have much option downstream. No matter what, if you look at the second page on my drainage report you will see what drove my design was not necessarily the post developed and pre developed flows but the capacity of the 30" corrugated metal pipe that runs down off this site just north of Ms. Walker's lot and basically that pipe is only capable of carrying about 33cfs. As you can see in my detention pond outlet design I've tried to get my outlet structures to be about 22 I believe is what I designed. At the maximum, on my hundred year flow I'm releasing 22.13 cfs by computer modeling. As you can see, if I hadn't had the restriction that I had downstream, the ordinance would have only required me to have detained and released only 93cfs. I've really had to cut back the release, hence, the size of that pond has been tremendous. It is very deep, basically, that pond when it is operating at full capacity will have almost 4acre feet total to make it. I think I show on the hundred year you've got 3 acre feet and by the time you take into account your free board, it is an extremely large pond. It was deep enough to where we had to go through some benching on the thing due to your grading ordinance requirements. I know that will work, I know that will meet whatever demands you have. In regards to the fence at the time Mr. Petrie and I were reviewing this he said a fence may be required, that would be at the wish of the Planning Commission and our developer has no trouble doing it and showing it on the plat, but at the time of submittal we did not know which way that really needed to go and hence, subsequently a decision has been made and we are very happy to comply with it. Estes: Mr. Gabbard, I have several questions regarding the detention pond, the plat shows it to be 2' deep, is that correct? Gabbard: Pardon? Estes: The plat that we have shows the pond to be 2' deep is that correct? Gabbard: 22' deep I believe. Estes: 22' deep, is there a safety shelf? Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 38 Gabbard: Yes, that is a 10' bench that I was just referring to. Estes: Why is there no safety fence on the south side of the pond? Gabbard: I was assuming that what we would have according to what Ron just mentioned, is that we would be putting a safety fence on all sides except the side next to the road, is that correct? Did I misunderstand? Petrie: That is what the conditions state. There are no requirements for fencing in our drainage manual. This is above and beyond whatever manual. Estes: Right. I have made previous comments on this commission that because of some of the accidental drownings we've had in this community, I want a safety shelf and I want safety fences. Gabbard: Mr. Chairman, whenever this pond tops out at the hundred year storm, it will only be about a foot and half above a 10' safety shelf that will be basically flat. Ifa child does slide into the pond when it is operating at full capacity, at least they will be able to stand up and if they don't walk any further they could get out. Estes: Right. Now back to the elevation. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm looking at the plat and it shows top bank elevation 1223.30? Gabbard: Yes. Estes: Then detention pond common area high water elevation, hundred year, 1221.27? Gabbard: That is correct. Estes: That is a 2.03 feet difference. Gabbard: Freeboard. Estes: Ok, but the depth? Gabbard: The depth of the pond is basically.. . Estes: Where do I see the 22 feet? • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 39 Gabbard: Well, the contours that are in the bottom of the pond, the heavy ones, I'm sorry, they are not annotated, but the bottom of the pond, it is on a 3 to 1 slope and each one of those index contours is representing 5' difference in elevation. If you start at the bottom of the pond, you go up basically about 15' before you get up to the top bench. You go 10' then you hit the bench and then you go and that is when you hit the 10' bench. Estes: Ok, I was not counting the contour lines. I would like to see noted on the plat those numbers and I would also like to see the safety fence on the plat. Gabbard: On the plat and on the detailed plans? Estes: On the final plat. Gabbard: Yes Sir. Estes: As a condition of approval which is condition number one. Marr: In your comment, is that fence to be all the way around it, all four sides or the three that are in the current condition? I have the same concern that you have and have received multiple letters from various developments about the safety of people getting into these things and accidental drowning. Does anybody else have any feeling on that or are you comfortable with just the three sides and using the street as the front. It seems odd to me that the one side that is not fenced is the side closest to the street where someone would walk into it. Estes: Commissioner Marr, I would like to see a safety fence on all four sides. Bunch: Condition one says every side but south which is next to the existing house where the street side would be the east side. I think that is confusing people that the discussion has been difference from what is written on the condition one. Marr: Petrie: I'm trying to understand by reading this map, north, east and west and then hearing the comment of it not being fenced on the street side has been said in this discussion. 1 guess maybe which is it first and then secondly why wouldn't we have it around all four? I think there was some confusion on direction when that was written. It is the street side that the condition itself was meant to exclude which would be the south side. The north, west and east • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 40 Estes: I would like to see safety fencing on the perimeter of the detention pond, the circumference of the detention pond, safety fencing around the detention pond. Gabbard: Estes: Bunch: Gabbard: Bunch: Petrie: MOTION: Marr: Warrick: Regardless of what the intent is, we have no problem doing all four sides. Is there any other discussion? One ofthe questions I was asking and I wasn't trying to get into the details of the drainage but I was looking more or less for the location of the drainage coming to the detention pond to see if there were drainage easements since this is a preliminary plat and we're getting the various utility easements and drainage Pavements and that sort of thing on here. That is one ofthe reasons I was asking about the location so we could make sure that all the easements were there and potential buyers would know what piece of property they were buying and what encumbrances there were on those. Yes Sir. I understand it is kind of difficult for us to approve something when the drainage calculations and methods are to be determined later but at the same time we are responsible to make sure the easements are on there. This is something that is routinely done when we have a preliminary plat and a final plat, is to actually have drainage easements decided on on the construction plans. They shouldn't be selling any lots until we have a final plat and those easements are shown correctly. I've given general guidelines on my technical plat review comments about what those requirements are for pipes and stuff like that. I would like to move for approval of PPL 01-5.00 with a couple of changes. I would like condition number one to read that the decorative fence should be installed around the entire detention pond and I'll leave it up to the city to determine the wording whether that is circumference or north, south, east and west. I would also like the fence shown on the preliminary plat and the elevations that you outlined in designating the depth of the detention pond to be added also so that it clarifies that and then subject to other staff comments. I would like to make an observation. It was brought to my attention that there was a section of this plat that adjoins Curtis Street that sidewalks were not shown but should • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 41 have been included as a condition along the western side of lots 8, 9, 10 and 11. According to the city's master street plan, sidewalks are required on both sides of all streets. Therefore, they should be required in that location as well. Estes: Thank you Dawn. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve PPL 01-5, is there a second? Ward: I second with the addition of Dawn's comments. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Ward, is there any discussion? Allen: I wondered in the process of developing your plans Sir if you talked with the neighborhood association? Gabbard: I talked with several neighbors, not particularly an association. I have been in conversation with two different individuals in regard to the flooding that occurs out there on Emily. What were you referring to? • Allen: I just wondered their comments. Gabbard: They are very concerned about their drainage as they should be. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve PPL 01-5, Commissioner Hoffman, did you have a comment? • Hoffman: I have a comment going back to the park land dedication. I assume that all of those meetings are announced, however, having served on the Subdivision Committee, I think it would be a good idea ifthe Subdivision Committee regularly made it a habit to discuss park land dedication before it comes to the Planning Commission. I am going to go ahead and vote for approval of this project because it is a phase of another, it is a second phase, it is a smallish development, it doesn't have a large amount of acreage, it is only 11 acres. Typically we see these little infill or pocket parks or something in subdivisions that have larger acreage. When you add up the whole thing it would be good planning if when we start out with a brand new one to really look at putting a park in. I just wanted to say that as a matter of rhetorical comment basically. Allen: Marr: I share those same concerns. I agree also. I'm not sure it wouldn't be appropriate at least from the Commission to Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 42 maybe send a document from us to the Parks Advisory Board and letting them know the concems of the neighbors and the need for parks in this. I felt better when we originally found out that there was 19 acres that the city owned that might be developed into a park until I heard that it was flooding and might not be usable for such a thing. I think they ought to know that at least from our standpoint when development comes and they are recommending it at least in this part of town, we need to consider how to get some land verses dollars. It seems to be one of the few areas that we don't have anything very close that doesn't go across pretty industrial streets. Warrick: I will forward your comments to the Parks Board. Bunch: 1 too would like to forward some comments to the Parks Department. I know that when they presented us with a budgetary type future plan and we questioned how it would compare to the 2020 plan and other plans that a group like this uses, this is a prime example of the rational that we were requesting from the Parks Department on their plan. It isjust a good example to highlight what it is that we need from them and I believe I don't know what the status is but that plan has been deferred and is supposed to be presented back to this body next month I believe. Warrick: On October 12th staff met with various divisions, the Parks Division, the Sidewalk Coordinator, Planning Division and several others met to come to an agreement as to how those plans would be better coordinated and brought back to the Planning Commission for further action on specifically the Parks Master Plan. That should be coming back to you within the next two to three meetings. Hoover: May I make a comment just for the neighbors in this area? I don't know if you have a neighborhood association formed, if you don't, you need to contact the city to leam how to do that. I think that is going to help you out in trying to generate a park in your area. You need to organize. Walker: Who exactly do I contact? Hoover: You can contact the Community Affairs Department at the City. Warrick: The Community Relations Division, Maureen Hoover would be a good contact person for you. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Ward to approve PPL 01-5, is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 43 ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of calling the roll the motion to approve PPL 01-5 with certain conditions was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. Thank you. Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 44 ADM 01-42.00: Administrative Item (City of Fayetteville Planning Area) was submitted by the Planning Division on behalf of the City of Fayetteville. The request is to amend the Planning Area Boundary. Estes: The next item on our agenda is item number 7, this is an administrative item, it was submitted by the Planning Division on behalfofthe City of Fayetteville. The request is to amend the Planning Area Boundary. Dawn, do you have a presentation that you would like to make on behalf of the Planning Division? Warrick: I will start off by telling you that in June, 2000 the Planning Division brought to the Commission an update to the city's Planning Area Boundaries. What that was mainly meant to do was to incorporate and to accommodate changes to the city limits of Fayetteville, Farmington and Springdale as we had all done various annexations prior to that date, they had not been reflected on our Planning Area Boundary. What the revision in June of2000 did not do was resolve certain conflicts where Fayetteville as well as other jurisdictions had both claimed certain areas within their planning area boundaries. After that was adopted, the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission stepped up and volunteered to work out those areas of overlap between the various jurisdictions with regard to their planning area boundaries. This evening the Director of the Planning Commission, Jeff Hawkins and one of their planners, John McClarty, are both here to talk to you about what they did to resolve those conflicts and what we are presenting to you this evening is an amended planning area boundary, our GIS division has created a written legal description that matches it. There are five or six changes, some where we are taking in additional land and some where we are giving up some properties that were originally within the City of Fayetteville' s planning area. Basically the differences are highlighted in your staff report on page 7.1. The current planning area boundary is 57.86 miles long and contains an area of 55,142 acres which is 86 square miles approximately. Ofthat 86, 45 is within the city limits of Fayetteville and 41 is within the planning area outside the city limits. That is what we have right now. The proposal this evening is to modify that planning boundary and the effect would be a 53.5 mile long planning area boundary which contains 54,342 acres, 84.9 square miles. Ofthat again, 45.8 within the city limits and a reduction to a total of39.82 square miles within the planning area outside the city limits. I will ask either Jeff or John to present the documentation on that. Hawkins: I'm Jeff Hawkins, I'm the Director ofNorthwest Arkansas Regional Planning. John has worked on this since before I came to work here. I would like to ask John if he could go over with you the deliberation that he has had with Farmington and Greenland and with your staff. • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 45 McClarty: I will kind of explain the process we went through and then if you have any questions you can ask me and our Director here is probably more familiar with some of the legal implications ofthe planning jurisdictions and territorial jurisdictions. If we get into that level ofdiscussion I might defer to him a little bit. Basically we did have planning area overlaps between Fayetteville, Farmington and Greenland. At the request of really all three cities it was a problem for developers and property owners who had a piece of land that was claimed by both cities as their planning area and they wouldn't know who to go to for a subdivision or a lot split or sometimes they would go to both or neither, it has been confusing for evidently several years. What we did was get the planning areas, we established the areas of overlap and then I went to Tim Conklin and then Jackie Yarbrough of Farmington and Lonnie Meadows of Greenland and we just kind of hammered out what made sense. This map you are seeing here is kind ofa reduced version. We took every area of overlap and blew it up on a bigger map. One of the things that we tried to do was we divided the areas of overlap up into either section lines or half sections or in some places it got so minute we were down to quarter, quarter sections. We just had all the parties look and some of it was pretty self evident ifa quarter section was contiguous to one city and not the other then we would assign that to the city it was contiguous to and vice versa. Most of it divvied up pretty easily. What you see here, hopefully,1 gave three maps to Tim, so I'm hoping that those that were interested really looked at the map closely. From your vantage point there it is hard to see what we've accomplished. I can Just show you, these areas right here, a classic example is this right here in Farmington and Greenland both claimed that area. We just tried to take a section line a quarter section and divided it right down the middle. There was a lot of cleaning up. Farmington had some planning areas in their description, some areas that they wanted annexed. This map isjust kind of the simple version, the red line is what Fayetteville had and the green is what we are proposing to you. The reason we want to show there is no conflict, this just basically shows Fayetteville losing ground on the planning area but the Greenland map looks the same and the Farmington map looks the same because they are all giving up half of the overlap area. Some of the major differences though is that Greenland had planning area way over here around Lake Wilson so that wasn't a 50/50 split, they just basically gave all that up and then Fayetteville is taking in a big chunk here around Lake Wilson because you have a park over there and it was never in your planning area. We just kind oflooked at it as what made sense and one ofthe rules of thumb is to try to stick with sections and quarter sections so when somebody goes down to figure out what planning area they are in that their legal description will tell them whose planning jurisdiction they are in. The rule of thumb of what might be a city's annexation within the next 20 to 25 years. There has kind of been a tendency of the cities, Greenland, their Planning Commission met and approved this. We talked to them today and they are pulling in some more. It is just kind ofthe idea that at one time the cities had a tendency to go out as far as you can and take • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 46 as much planning area in as you can and we are seeing the reverse of that now because you have rural people that might live five miles away from Greenland or West Fork or Goshen or something and they are wondering why they have to travel in five miles to ask to get a lot split or something. That is kind of what we've come up with, Greenland has agreed to this new planning area and the Farmington Planning Commission will be meeting November 19th to look at these same boundaries. An additional legal aspect of this is that if you approve this today it really needs subject to, there needs to be an agreement between all the cities that you are all agreeing to the territorial jurisdiction here. The law requires basically if two cities are merging into each other that you just go equal distance and then within that equal distance territorial jurisdiction then you can designate your planning area. One of the problems with that is that equal distance line would be this kind of curving, crazy kind of line based on both cities boundaries as they meet each other. It is really better for all parties to have it be along section lines or quarter section lines so the equal distance rule is hard apply real specifically but to not have the equal distance rule apply you need an intergovernmental agreement as to what will be that territorial jurisdiction. Your approval of this plan will need to be contingent upon the cities, which would be the City Councils entering into another intergovernmental, intercity agreement that they are playing with those territorial jurisdictions, that they are not just true equal distances. If you will notice, the Fayetteville planning area comes down and at one places touches the city limits of Greenland. Greenland has to agree to that, which they have, but we need that as a formal agreement. It is kind ofa complex issue but we tried to make a simple map and present it to you. I hope you looked at this prior to tonight because it took quite a while to get all the parties to agree and there was quite a bit of work that has gone into making this map. Any questions? That is the end of my presentation. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: MOTION: Ward: Thank you John. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on the proposed adoption of the revised planning area boundary? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the commission for comments, questions of Jeff or John or motions? It sounds Tike the city has done a lot of work on this and it was kind of unfair for citizens that had property in let's say Farmington and Fayetteville had to come through both cities and maybe even the county to get approval on one project so I would like to move for approval of ADM 01-42.00 and that we adopt the new boundaries between all the cities involved and that would also would make it subject to final agreement between all cities involved. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 47 Allen: I'II second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Allen to adopt the revised planning area boundaries. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-42 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. Thank you John, thanks Jeff, we appreciate all of your hard work. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 48 ANX 01-4.00: Annexation (Foster, pp 398) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalfofMark Foster for property owned by Eugene Nottenkamper and Anthony Turchi and located north of Wedington on the east side of 51s Street. The request is to annex into the city approximately 30 99 acres located in the Planning Area. Estes: Brackett: Estes: Brackett: Estes: Brackett: Estes: The next item on the agenda is ANX 01-4.00, this is submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property that is located north of Wedington on the east side of 51st Street, the request is to annex into the city approximately 30.99 acres located in the planning area. Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation based on the findings which have been included as a part of your report. Is the applicant present? Yes. Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? I have no presentation, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Will you tell us who you are? Chris Brackett, I'm with Jorgensen & Associates here in Fayetteville. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Commissioners, do you have any questions at this time of the applicant's representative? PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: MOTION: Hoffman: Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this requested annexation? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, questions of Chris or motions. Any motions or discussion? In preface for making a motion for annexation because I think this is appropriately located, I J ust want to note that on page 8.6 this is going to be a 30 acre development should it be approved, that we do have on this in our packets a report from Enc Schuldt with the Parks Department that does say that the impact of the proposed annexation would be ofa level or type that would require a park or fees in lieu. I would just like to go on record and say that I would like the Planning Commission to really be involved, take a more active roll in • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 49 our parks dedications and locations. With that being said, I will go ahead and move for approval of this annexation. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve ANX 01-4.00, is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: A second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any discussion or comments? Williams: I have one question. I don't see the notification of the fact that we are running out of sewer capacity. Have you been provided that form? Brackett: Yes. Warrick. The form has been signed and it is in the file for the project. Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve ANX 01-4.00 any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ANX 01-4.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. This is advisory only to the City Council and will now move forward to the City Council for their determination and consideration. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 50 RZN 01-22.00: Rezoning (Foster, pp 398) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property owned by Eugene Nottenkamper and Anthony Turchi and located north of Wedington on the east side of 51" Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 30.99 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1. Residential. Estes: The next item of business is number nine on your agenda. It is the companion rezoning request. It is submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behal fof Mr. Mark Foster for the property located north of Wedington on the east side of 51st Street, the property is now zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 30.99 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings which are a part of your packet. Chris are you going to make a presentation on behalf of the applicant? Brackett: Just to say that we feel this complies with the 2020 plan for the city and it is also applicable for the surrounding area. I would feel it is acceptable zoning for this land. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: MOTION: Is there any member ofthe audience who would like to comment on this RZN 01-22? Seeing none I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, comments and motions. Shackelford: I concur that this is within the context ofthe 2020 plan and it seems to be smart growth rezoning this residential given the surrounding property. I will go ahead and make a motion for approval of RZN 01-22. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve RZN 01-22, is there a second? Marr: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Marr, is there any discussion? Marr: I do have one comment and I guess it is maybe to the same question that Kit asked but I guess finding four about whether it undesirably increases the load of public services including school, water and sewer, I'm Just verifying, I know we have a form signed that could be an issue. In the last time we went through this Tim talked about we were keeping • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 51 track of the number of things that are approved and the city's ability to handle that. Does this fall under that window? Warrick: Our Public Works Department is tracking residential development with regard to sewer capacity, what we have, what we need for development that is being approved and they have told us that they will notify the Planning Division and the Planning Commission when and if we are in a situation that we should not be approving additional residential developments. Specifically, with regard to sewer capacity. We are working under that knowledge that they've provided to us. We do have a sewer capacity warning form that all applicants are requested to sign at the time of application, at the time they bring their requests to the Planning Division to come before you and it does state that we do not guarantee capacity at the time of development. That is the way that we are functioning right now. We have not been told that we should change the way that we are developing or the way that we are processing developments through the system at this point in time. Marr: I wanted to get the no guarantee on the record for this finding. Warrick: There is no guarantee. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve RZN 01-22, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 01-22 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero as advisory only to the City Council and the rezoning request will now be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Brackett: Thank you. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 52 CUP 01-27.00: Conditional Use (Bass/Shewmaker, pp 483) was submitted by James Key of Key Architecture on behalf of David Bass and Richard Shewmaker for property located at 603 W. Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.12 acres. The request is for a dance hall. Estes: The next item, the last item on the agenda is a conditional use request submitted by James Key of Key Architecture on behalf of David Bass and Richard Shewmaker for property located at 603 W. Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.12 acres The request is for a dance hall. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions. Dawn, do we have signed conditions of approval? Warrick: Not at this time. Estes: Key: 1. Compliance with City noise ordinance. 2. Occupancy shall not exceed 239 persons or that number set by the Fire Marshall and Building Inspector, whichever is less. 3. Modification of the egress (door to be replaced to open in direction of egress) shall be completed and approved by the Fire Marshall prior to this facility opening as a dance hall. Is the applicant present? Yes Mr. Chairman, my name is James Key, I'm here on behalfofthe owners Mr. Bass and Mr. Shewmaker. I don't have a formal presentation per say other than to reiterate what is presented here in the report, that we have filed the applicable application, paid the appropriate fees, we have notified approximately 40 some property owners of record of some 60 some odd properties within proximity of this property. We have received confirmation from the U.S. Postal Service of the receipt of those notifications and that documentation has been provided to the city. The owner is in agreement to all three conditions of approval and is prepared to sign and submit this acceptance of that. I did not get a chance to get this copy of the report until late Friday and was out of town. 1 just haven't had a chance to present it to them for signature. I talked to them this evening and they are in full agreement to these conditions. We met with the Fire Marshall, the Building Inspection Department representative toured the facility last week. They were in agreement, the only condition they knew that we needed to address was item 3 which was the one door being rehung to swing in the direction of egress and I believe everything else • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 53 is acceptable. As the staff has said here that you know, the granting of this conditional use request is in keeping with the character of the area and would not adversely affect the public interest. The general compatibility with adjacent parcels as the summary closing on this report is that the use of this property as a dance hall is generally compatible with the adjacent and surrounding areas. This area of downtown Fayetteville is considered the entertainment district of the city and the majority of the established uses in this area are night clubs, restaurants, shops and other types of activities which are compatible with the proposed dance hall. I am asking that you consider the conditional use and grant approval of it based on the report before you and the findings. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Thank you James. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested conditional use? If so, would you come forward and tell us who you are and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Underwood: That is a long time to sit, I can appreciate your position. I can appreciate the lateness of the hour and I will try to keep it brief. My name is Bill Underwood, I own property adjacent to the Shewmaker property where the service station used to be and the Underwood building. I believe that a property owner should have the right to do what they want to with a piece of property as long as it is legal and doesn't infringe on the neighbors. In fact, l did not oppose the Blue Parrot permit which is the martini bar that is in that location now. I feel like that the dance hall is a different story. I guess I remember too well the dark days of Dickson Street that many of you remember in the 70s and the 80s, when we had muggings and rapes and stabbings and multiple murders on Dickson Street because we had too many bars and too many dance halls and too many honky tonk places. The landing strip, Ken's Pizza, Whitewater Tavern and so I've been of the impression that dance halls as a different animal attract trouble. I asked the police department to provide me with statistics and I have here the police reports of the ten dance halls in Fayetteville over the last three years, which is as far back as the police reports go. They have made a total of 3,420 police calls in that three year period. The most serious of the calls are fights and disturbances. The worst offender, probably not surprising to you, is Doc Murdocks. They had a total of 67 of those, which is 8% of their total calls. What did surprise me is that Dave's on Dickson in the same location that this applicant is applying for, was the second worst offender with 39 calls. That is 12% of their total police calls. I'm concerned about the dance hall attracting trouble because it seems to be a place where mostly singles come. They drink and they dance and somebody cuts in and somebody gets mad and they fight and that is why the police reports reflect what they do I'm also concerned about the trash and the litter that go with them. Don Dingledine who • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 54 Estes: has University Auto which is adjacent to Doc Murdocks, behind Doc Murdocks on College, says that it takes his staff roughly 35 minutes each morning to clean up the trash and litter when there has been a dance the night before. That seems to go with it. I am concemed about the parking, increasing the capacity to 239 people, many of which would come as singles. I don't know how many cars that generates, but it is bound to impact the Walton Arts Center a lot which weekends are the heavy time. That is also the heavy time for the Walton Arts Center. It seems to me like that will impact that as well. I am concerned about the noise. I think Richard has done a good job, Richard and Dave on decorating this property with the open french doors on the main floor, but with those doors open and the noise inside, that is going to be like a big megaphone coming right out onto the street. I am in the process of I hope, building a two story building on the station property, I have a tenant that is University related, no lease has been signed but I have the verbal ok. Also, I have the verbal comments that they are not going to be as interested if there is a dance hall next door. I am concerned from that standpoint as well. A lot of people on Dickson Street have spent a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money to bring forth the Dickson Street improvement district which has renovated the street. 1 am proud of what the street offers now. We have the enhancement district which is in the process of being finished and will be completed next year. David Glasser is the architect of that plan. I would just hate to see the street go backwards by having a dance hall on the street and I encourage you to vote against this conditional use. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Underwood. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested use? Yes, if you would come forward and say your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments please. Rapert: Hello, my name is Jimmy Rapert. I have owned and operated several restaurants and bars in the downtown Dickson area for over 12 years. You may recall I appeared before you on April 9th, approximately five months ago. At that time several people chose to speak at this portion of the meeting, only one person got up to oppose our application fora dance club permit, it was Mr. Shewmaker. At that time Mr. Shewmaker sited Planning Commission language, it said "general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in that district" Mr. Shewmaker's quote was "I don t think that it is compatible at all." Well, I'm a little unsure what his compatibility was between a residence and commercial, but we are certain that if he felt ours wasn't compatible and if you recall, it was the Dickson Theater which is on the east end of Dickson there. If he felt ours wasn't compatible his application is an even stronger case for incompatibility. I would like to cite a couple of reasons why I say that. Mr. Shewmaker has a long history of complaining about noise on Dickson Street, many of you here remember the lengthy discussions that went on about George's and its beer garden and its loud music. He complained to the • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 55 extent that George's altered its space and to enclose and to become more compatible with his residence there. Most recently he had a tenant, Sound Warehouse, who was in the space that we are discussing tonight who chose to terminate their lease early because of a countless number of complaints to the City of Fayetteville and complaints to the tenants of Sound Warehouse. I had a business relationship with Sound Warehouse, still have, and have many occasions to be in that space and can testify that at any given time that I was there the music was never loud enough to where we couldn't have this conversation that I'm having with you right now. His application is for a dance club which being in that business, I can assure you it is considerably louder I am asking you to render a decision that is fair to all parties that have suffered through relationships with this man as documented by the police logs for four years. To allow him to decide which snapshot in time the rules apply to him is not fair to the people who play by the rules everyday regardless of whether it is in their best interest or not. Thank you. Estes: Thank you Jimmy. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this issue? Seeing none, oh, yes Sir, will you come forward please and tell us your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments? • Bandy: My name is Benton Bandy, I've been a thirteen year resident of Fayetteville. Once again, I'm very interested in the Dickson Street area. I'm part owner of a business there, Dickson Theater, which my partner has spoken of and I am excited about what is going on on Dickson Street. I am here essentially to speak against Mr. Shewmaker's application for a few reasons. I think that Mr. Shewmaker has been taking advantage of using Planning Commission, City Council meetings and getting rules changed for himself for long enough. Watching City Council meetings where he has gotten things approved that I was amazed at because I was a tenant in his space when it happened. Things like that. I would like to say that he has been bullying the other land lords around his building and his tenants for quite a while. In fact, I would like to actually read a little article that I pulled out of Arkansas Business Journal and it seems somewhat funny but after you have lived through it as a tenant of his and probably as a neighboring landlord of his, you might understand. It is titled "My Club Good, Your Club Bad" On April 9th Richard Shewmaker went before the Fayetteville Planning Commission to complain about a private club going in at 227 W. Dickson Street, four blocks up the street from his residence. "It is going to have a tremendous negative affect upon the residential customers of Dickson Street" Shewmaker said. According to minutes from the Planning Commission meeting. Shewmaker asked the Commission to vote against the proposal for a private club, second run movie house at the location but the Commissioners approved the proposal, thank you, by a vote of six to three and renovation there is under way. Now Shewmaker has decided • to lease the space at 603 W. Dickson Street, directly under his second floor residence to • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 56 Estes: Dave Bass who plans to open a private club there called "The Blue Parrot" by late August. Shewmaker was a vocal opponent of George's Majestic Lounge next door and complained regularly that music played at Sound Warehouse which previously occupied the603 W. Dickson Street location was too loud. George's constructed a concrete brick wall and installed a canopy over the beer garden to try to keep the noise down and not disturb Shewmaker. The Sound Warehouse owners have moved that business to Block Ave. The warehouse Shewmaker owns to the south of Dickson Street building is also leased to Bass who has a bar, nightclub there called Dave's on Dickson. We are not sure if Shewmaker is against private clubs on Dickson Street or just against competition in general since two of his properties in the area will house bars or maybe he is just against that private club since it is being opened by two of his former tenants at the Dave's on Dickson location. As a former tenant I can tell you that he has used bullying tactics long enough. I think that if you vote to approve this he is just going to keep doing it and he uses these to his economic advantage even though we should be looking at the whole of Fayetteville. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this issue? If there is, would you come forward and state your name and provide us with the benefit of your comment? Davidson. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I would like to say my name is Sharon Davidson, I live in Fayetteville. I would like to say some of what I would have liked to have said last year at the sound ordinance meeting when Mayor Hanna refused to allow me to speak in response to Mr. Shewmaker. Ok, I will try not to get personal but I do believe character is an issue here and I do believe we have issues oftrusting this man with anything he says he is going to do. The pavement aspect, ok, I don't know the condition ofthat building. I would like to know the date that he complained about the pavement because until he decided it was a problem I think he was really happy getting that paved. Now, lets get to the point of why he ended up in that place in the first place. It was a good investment wasn't it? Now, when he chose to try and close down the oldest beer garden in Arkansas for personal motives meaning he opened the club, he couldn't manage the club, he couldn't get any business in his club, he was losing money, what is the way to get the money? Shut down George's they have all gotta go over to his club, no problem. Well, he ended up getting a little bit of what he wanted under false pretenses, could not sleep. Now, when that there.. . Estes: Ms. Davidson, we have a conditional use request before us, if you would please limit your comments to the conditional use request. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 57 Davidson: Ok, my comments on that there.. . Estes: No, let me speak, just a moment please. Davidson: Yes. Estes: We have specific findings of fact that we must make to grant this conditional use request, if you have comments that you feel would be beneficial or helpful to us in resolving those issues then let us have your comments. Davidson: Yeah, I do, I'm sorry it takes me a little while. Estes: Ms. Davidson, No personal attacks. Davidson: I'm not saying anything.. . Estes: No personal comments. Davidson: I'm not saying anything about his personal life. It is an issue as to whether we can trust the man. This is civility that the mayor wanted to bring up. This is people like Mr. Israel who comes in, these are people, can we trust them to do the right thing? The right thing is I would like to knowthat he is not going to sue us if his building falls apart shaking under bass vibrations. Ha, ha. This is not that funny you know. He had a problem with his building shaking, falling apart, we paid him, is that fixed? We do have noise issues, we do have the bass, dancers in there shaking around. 1 am very serious about this because I think the man has done us all dirty and I also want to make sure. Of course personally, I think that is where a club should be. We have a club behind it. He has got a guy managing the club behind it, it is doing well because he is letting someone else manage that. I can't come up here and say it is not appropriate place to put the club. I can come up here and say that from his past behavior, question and actions it may not be a safe place to include that many people in. I would like to verify it is and that the money that we paid for whatever in that whole process of the complaint of the building safety and damage done. If we have to revisit that issue because we are going to have a whole lot of people in under the floor of that very building we are worried about crumbling. Now that is a real issue. Thank you Sir. Estes: Thank you Ms. Davidson. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this conditional use? You are the applicant Mr. Shewmaker and you have a representative so 1 am going to allow him to speak in your behalf. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 58 Shewmaker: I just wanted to comment about some of the statements that were made. Estes: Seeing no other public comment I will bring it back to the applicant, Mr. Key if you have any rebuttal. Key: Not necessarily rebuttal. I just want to say that we have presented the signed statement of the acceptance of the three conditions that have been requested of the applicant. As is stated in the application and as represented in the report, ft is our intention to comply with the noise ordinance. I think some of the concerns that have been expressed here tonight perhaps are unfounded. I do feel as well that a lot of the comments here were not based on the merits of this particular application and should be considered as such and ignored. We have done everything we need to do to comply with these in terms of the safety of the building. I have had it inspected by a structural engineer for use, for consideration of actually renovating the subbasement level. There is no problem with the quality of the building in terms of safety for 239 occupants. The Fire Marshall, the Building Inspection Department has inspected it. We have adequate exits, exit lights, emergency lights, all of the necessary facilities. Estes: Thank you James. I will bring the matter back to the Commission for discussions, motions or comments. Hoffman: I have a couple of questions for the applicant. I am going to just talk about this dance hall in terms of dance halls a, b, c, d, e and falong Dickson Street. We have quite a few dance halls and I believe that some of the questions that we've asked previous dance hall applicants have to do with hours of operation, sound mitigation procedures, parking and impact to adjacent property owners. I haven't really heard any of those questions addressed. Key: They have all been addressed in the application Ms. Hoffman. Our hours of operation are from 5:00 until 2:00 a.m. on I believe Tuesday through Friday, until 1:00 a.m. on Saturday evenings, actually, Sunday mornings. Hoffman: Let me stop you Just a second. Can I ask staff at this time is that consistent with our other dance halls, d, e and f. Do we have similar hours of operation? Warrick: Yes. Hoffman: We keep track of those and we make everybody play by the same rules? Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 59 Warrick: Most of the hours of operation for dance clubs, especially those that have alcohol, are governed by the A.B.C. as far as the hours of operation that they are permitted to be open. Yes, the rules are standard. They are in keeping with the other dance halls that the Planning Commission has approved. Hoffman: Key: That brings me to the second question. The sound mitigation. In terms of sound mitigation, and the concern for the adjacent residential tenant, in the process of renovating this space for the current use which is an assembly occupancy private club, The Blue Parrot, there was additional sound proofing installed at the ceiling level, the ceiling floor level between this occupied space and the residential space above it. In addition to a fire rated ceiling enclosure. We've added a considerable amount of additional sound dampening, sound attenuation materials as well as fire rated ceiling materials in addition to what was currently there with the intent ofproviding a true isolation between the residential occupant and the assembly occupant. Other sound mitigation, obviously, we do have open doors we've installed as Mr. Underwood commented. It is a great addition to the street. It is not our intent to have a loud ruckus honky tonk. We are not intending live music. We have not had any space allocated for live music. It was simply our intent to allow a slightly higher concentration of gathering during special events. Partly this was prompted by the fact that the club has been well received. We anticipate a lot of pedestrian traffic and users from the University and we've seen that that has been the case. During the Tennessee game the owners had a visit from the Fire Marshall with a concern that there were perhaps too many occupants in the space. It wasn't overly crowded, there wasn't live music, there weren't fights going on. We felt that it would be wise to consider looking at how we could increase the occupancy legally. One means of doing that was to limit seating by removing some of the tables and chairs and allowing for a higher concentration of gathering at what is considered a concentrated use by the building code and Arkansas State Fire Prevention Code, Building Construction Volume Il. Which allows for concentration of seven square foot per person as opposed to fifteen square foot for people when you have seating and tables. Quite simply that is all we've done, we've looked at removing some ofthe seating facilities to allow a slightly higher concentration of use with the intent, we will have piped music, we've got a sound stereo system in there. This is not intended to be anything comparable to the Dickson Theater, to Dave's on Dickson, to George's Majestic Beer Garden or anything of that nature. This is not a live music venue, it is a club facility in which we want to provide dancing capabilities of our users, our customers. Hoffman: Do I understand correctly that the doors are going to be open? • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 60 Key: During fair weather and as long as we are in compliance with the noise ordinance, it is our intent that the doors be opened when they can be. In the event that there was a huge gathering or we intended to have music at an elevated level perhaps that would necessitate closing the doors, I think obviously, that would be done to prohibit any interference from the noise ordinance violation. Hoffman: The reason 1 asked that is because you have, I think renovations, I want to really promote mixed use development on Dickson Street, not just dance halls and bars and there is a renovation going on for some condos across the street and 1 know that everybody's argument is well they choose to live there so they need to put up with the noise, but you know, noise is noise. Key: We really anticipate that those residential users will be customers of this facility due to convenience and location. It is our intention to be a good neighbor. I think a mixed use is something that is desirable from all standpoints. Hoffman: With regard to the adjoining property owners, the hours of operation are not going to be during regular business hours for a business oriented office type use? Key: No, it is solely operating after typical business hours. Hoffman: Ok, thanks. That answers my questions. I appreciate it. Estes: Commissioner Allen? Allen: Yes, I have had several people call with concems about this. One big concem is parking. How much parking is there right there with the building? Key: This property, I can't remember the exact square footage, contrary to the statement that was made here earlier. This is not the same property that houses Dave's on Dickson. This is a small piece of property that is approximately 46x96 I believe. It is basically the size of the building. There is no onsite parking. This is a C-3, Central Business zoned property, it goes from property line to property line. We rely on public parking for our facility. There is lots of public parking available to us within the area. Warrick: I can add a little bit of information with regard to parking and how it relates to the city's UDO. In 1995 the City Council approved an amendment to the City's parking lot regulations with regard to the C-3 and C-4 zoning districts. The area along Dickson Street including this site is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. What that amendment did was • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 61 eliminate the requirement for any additional parking for existing square footage when there is a change of use of the structure. This particular proposal is to change the use from a night club to a dance hall. No additional square footage is being proposed. Therefore, there is no additional parking requirement. Estes: Thank you Dawn. Allen: So where do they go? I guess they go on over to George's? Key: No, they park in the public lot that is at the Walton's Art Center, they park at the public parking spaces available from the Dickson Improvement District. They park at the public lot at some of the properties adjacent to this that aren't occupied at night that allow that type of use any given night of the week for the entertainment district. They ride the trolley, they walk from campus, they walk from the adjacent residential. Allen: Does Mr. Shewmaker continue to live on the property above the property, is that correct? Key: Currently, Mr. and Mrs. Shewmaker both do live on the property. They live in the residence that is located on the second floor above this facility. Allen: I was wanting to know whether or not there was a difference in feeling, concern about noise now from the occupant. Key: I don't want to put words into Mr. Shewmaker's mouth, he was wanting to come and. speak tonight. I was a little tardy getting to the meeting and I had offered to speak on behalf of the applicants. I know that he was going to get up and speak and I will gladly represent him at this occasion. Dust want to caution that I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth. It is my understanding that between this date and earlier this year that a decision was made after trying to rent this property for a retail mercantile use without much success due to the proximity of direct parking by the front door which most mercantile retail shoppers want, the decision was made on the property owner's part that perhaps the type of business that was occupying this property was the best use. Based on that he accepted an offer from a business owner to come in and join him in putting in a business that would allow this facility to be occupied and utilize and generate income rather than being a vacant property along this portion of the downtown strip. Allen: • Key: So that offset his concern about noise? Well, I think everyone always has concern about noise as well. As I said earlier, we have • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 62 taken all precautions to try and limit the overflow of noise from this use to the adjacent residential tenant. Obviously, as aparticipant in this business, as a landlord of the property he does have some control over this particular use and this particular tenant. Hopefully, I know there was a comment made in an article in one of the papers by Mr. Conklin in response to one of the comments of one of the Commissioners was that hopefully this applicant would not be filing a complaint against himself and I can guarantee you that will not happen. Marr: I have a question for Mr. Shewmaker. Key: Can Mr. Shewmaker approach the panel? Marr: Absolutely, I think he will need to. My question was that I was one ofthe Commissioners that actually voted against the last request and I did that based on your comments, they were certainly a part of the factors that I considered. The impact of the area, the issues of parking, trash, noise, several other things that came up in our discussion last time. I would like to hear from you because I heard the argument last time that swayed my vote to vote against it. What is different because it is you this time. Help me understand what the issues are. Shewmaker: If you will let me say just a few things prior to that I can maybe help answer that question but I will directly answer that question. Often times when you don't respond to criticism there is an assumption that you accept what is being said. Often times when you want to address criticism you lose your temper. I am going to address the criticism and I am going to try not to lose my temper. There have been personal comments made about me here tonight. The only way I know to answer those is to very calmly answer those in a personal way because there are some personal problems between some of the folks you've heard speak and myself. Some of them I know, some of them I don't know. We purchased this building in 1990. What was going on in 1990 was something that Mr. Underwood eluded to and had been down there a long time. I can tell you that I saw elementary school children carrying cases of beer across Dickson Street, not on one occasion, a lot, it happened all the time. That is a violation of the law. I am going to first ask, I would gather that everyone up here believes that we are supposed to abide by the law in order to have a civilized society, that is one of the best things and things that we really have to do so I am just going to assume that everyone feels that way. We purchased the building prior to a contract to award the construction ofthe Walton Arts Center or the art center parking lot. There was a hole and people fell in the hole. There was one man that died not too long after that. It was a horrible place. I was confident that since it was next to the campus, first of all, I couldn't believe that it was that way. I didn't go to the University of Arkansas • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 63 Estes: so I never did see the transition of good to bad or bad to good or whatever happened but I felt like there was a promise there. I have always been involved in economic development my entire life from public side even to private bond issue perspective. I've helped people build hospitals, airports, projects of this nature over numerous counties in western Arkansas. I saw the possibility there and the hope to do something and I want to tell you I've lived to see a lot of it accomplished and I'm real happy, I'm real proud of what everyone has done pulling together. That doesn't mean that you don't have some problems. I had some problems when certain laws were not abided by. Those were noise ordinance laws. Mr. Shewmaker, if I may for just a moment, your presentation has been made by your representative, you were called to the podium to answer a specific question of Commissioner Marr. If I may restate that question as I understand it, it is this. That is, we each well remember the comments and presentation that you made before this Commission in the past, we are having trouble, I'm personally having a great deal ofdifficulty reconciling your past remarks with your present petition to us this evening. Could you answer Commissioner Marr's question, what is different? Shewmaker: So you are interested in the things that trouble you about my past remarks being Jimmy Rapert's application for the Dickson Street Theater and today? Estes: Yes. Shewmaker: That is the only time I've ever had any.. . Estes: You have spoken in opposition of the very application that you now present to us this evening, what is different? Why is your conditional use different simply stated? Shewmaker: I spoke in opposition to a particular project. It was the location ofthat project which was bordered behind it with a whole bunch ofhouses, not one, like my own, a whole bunch of houses. The comment was made that I was the only person that spoke in opposition to that. That is not at all correct. About 20 people were here, they selected one person to speak for them if you will remember that old lady, I don't know her name. That person spoke for those people. I did know for a fact, and I will tell you today that housing is the most important increment to make Dickson Street work. There was an offer to buy that property for housing, I knew that, I was hoping that that would happen because that is what we need there. The difference between mine and Mr. Rapert's is yeah, it is my building. I have never complained about noise, and this is what has been sold, that I am a noise Nazi, I complain about noise. I have never complained about any noise that met • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 64 the legal limits down there and I have only complained about noise at one place as I recall and that was at George's some time ago. Since Ben took it over in the last year or so, we have not had any problems at all over there and I think he would tell you that. I believe there was a comment made in the paper about Thunder Valley, about one of the problems out there is that you have management changes all the time. That does create a problem, learning how to control your mechanical basis and things of that nature. The biggest project ever built on Dickson Street was across the street from this particular project, to my knowledge there has not been any problems with it. There was a lot of voicing from people in that building about that particular project. If you ask me whether I'm interested in Mr. Rapert having one place down there catering to 18 and up or whether Johnny Tyson might want to invest more money in the Dickson Street area, I'll take the latter any day. I don't know ifthat completely addressed the question because I tried to stay in light of it. It is a little bit personal but that is what you have heard in opposition to me. I objected to that because of the relationship to the housing area. This particular project has a relationship to mine, that is only one, that is the one that I live in upstairs This particular project does not have live music in it. Ladies and gentlemen, that is where the problem comes in, live music. It is not that it isjust someone speaking like that, it is these things that have tremendous amplification and each player in the band has his controls and there is a second master control back at the end of the building. It is very difficult to control that stuff. If you have got a little stereo system like they have in that project now that has got four speakers in it it is not intended to make a lot of noise. It was an establishment intended to attract people that did not want noise. I don't know if I've answered your question. I am very, very interested in Dickson Street, the Brew Pub, you can tell me when to quit, to shut up, those of you that have not lived here forever do not patronize that area. The Brew Pub, Nicks Fine Dining, Cable Car Pizza, I pumped both of those projects Quinos was a little place where Does is now. He spent all of his money there, a young man from Fort Smith with $50,000. He came to get his occupancy permit and he was told by the city "you owe us $26,000 before you can open the door", he didn't have $26,000. The reason that he was told that was there was a rule that said that if you don't have the parking and the whole street was vacant because no one wanted to go down there then, but if you don't have the parking you have to pay us $26,000. A lot of people felt that that was unjustified so the effort to come up with a blanket parking variance was my effort and I think that has instilled a lot of continued development which we'll have more and more and more. Some people want me to be quiet and I would like to shut up too but I can talk about it all night long. There was a meeting in this room where a council person even showed up and opposed the three sister project, the Planning Director at that time was in strong opposition of the three sisters project. They asked me to come and to try to work with them and I did. Some people may refer to that as bullying or getting your way, I dare to say that I don't come down here to try to get my way or try to bully, that • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 65 Estes: Shackelford: Estes: Shackelford is the most idiotic thing in the world to say about me. Any tactic that I've ever used, wouldn't it work if I tried to bully you? How do you do that? That is just a few of the projects that I have spent the last 10 years working on. I will spend the next 10 years working on more projects like that because these types of complaints will not force me to quit. I don't know if I've helped in any way. If you have another question about that I would be more than glad to answer it and I promise you I won't take as long this time. Thank you Mr. Shewmaker. I just want to make a comment and share my thoughts a little bit. As Planning Commissioners we are challenged to make our decisions on the finding of facts. I don't believe that our votes as Planning Commissioners can be or should be punitive or based on comments or situations that have happened in the past. I think that we are challenged to look at this issue, look at this proposal as it is presented as a single instance. I think that we are really challenged to look at the impact on the adjacent property owners. In specific, the finding that we have to make is the request will not adversely affect the public interest and 1 think that is where we need to concentrate our efforts at this point. I would like to hear comments from other Planning Commissioners based on those findings for this specific request. For whether or not we think that this will have an adverse affect on the adjacent property owners. I can respond to that in part. I agree with some of the comments that have been made that dance halls are different. The reason that I say that is because we have the historic data to support that proposition that dance halls are different. I believe that this will adversely affect the public interest. An additional finding of fact that we must make is general compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. That is not disjunctive, that isjunctive. We must make a finding that is compatible with adjacent property and by that I mean the property next to it. I do not believe that this is compatible with adjacent property, by adjacent property I'm referring to Mr. Underwood's property and I'm referring to the retail space across the street. It is for those reasons that I personally can not make the findings of fact necessary to prove this conditional use. I appreciate that and that is what I need to hear. I am basically undecided on this at this point and I want to hear some other comments, some direct comments on the merit of this case and the findings of fact on this case so that we can make our decision and move forward. • Hoffman: I have a couple of questions, I guess rhetorical questions, in my mind as well. I am trying to keep the personal aspect of the discussion that has been made here tonight out of it. I • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 66 have asked myself the question would I approve a dance hall underneath a residence and my answer to myself is no. That doesn't matter who owns the residence, it is just that it's a fact that there is a residence above it and that there will be more residences close by on this end of the street. I think that asa Planning Commission it is not our business to be punitive or to enter into any kind of personal debate on which landlord and which tenant did what on Dickson Street but we have to look at the Dickson Street area as a whole and do our best to come up with a reasonable application of our conditional uses and our property uses. I do want to encourage mixed use development on Dickson Street. l think it is what makes it vital I think that the mix of retail, residential, nightclub life and so on make it what it is. I have seen, I guess I can compare it to Austin's 6th Street in a small way. It is not nearly as large as 6th Street but 6th Street did go through some changes. They have a 6th Street overlay district and they have very strict rules about what can be put in there and how the sidewalks and planning are and so on and so forth. They have a lot of bars and they cater to the UT crowd and there are problems with underage drinking and with overcrowding with parking and things like that so they are trying to maintain the historic character ofthe district without letting it go to be such a total bar scene. I am kind of leaning towards, and I agree with you, I don't know. You just have to take everything in, I try not to make up my mind until I come to the Planing Commission and hear all sides ofthe story but you have to take each individual case on its own merit and think what would I do if someone came and asked me to approve a dance hall primarily, a dance hall underneath a residence and my answer would be that would be a kind of far fetched idea. Hoover: I had a question for Commissioner Hoffman. Are you saying then that if we had the same site that there was nothing above this dance hall, there was no residence above it, would you still think that? Hoffman: I would be willing to relook at it. I would say that that would be a different circumstance. Hoover: What I'm trying to find are the differences between this one and the last one that got approved and that is the only difference I can see is that this residence is directly above it. Rather than having any distance between it like we did the last one. Hoffman: Well the last one had the streets and the parking problems and we did come up I think with some, there were some changes that were made, they were not approved on the first go around if I remember correctly. They did mitigate some oftheir issues and did change their program up somewhat I believe. • Hoover: It seems to me on the issue of a dance hall, I don't have a problem with a dance hall Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 67 because I'm not totally convinced that this means that there are going to be all these bad things that necessarily happen in a dance hall. The thing that is different about being a dance hall as opposed to being a bar is the occupant load and this adds something like an additional 110 people. Hoffman: It doubles it. Hoover: It doubles it, now that is an issue I could see looking at that is very tangible as opposed to can we always say a dance hall brings trouble. I don't know that that is necessari ly true. Marr: Key: I agree with you Sharon. I think one of the things I struggle with is just my own, if I had to separate philosophical belief and the ordinance. I am not a footloose kind of guy, I don't think we ought to be telling people when they can dance and when they can't dance. I do think we have a responsibility to compatibility and zoning and impact of that activity. I want to make something clear because I actually was one of the three that voted against it last time. I struggled with it because I pretty much live what I would consider in the downtown area, over near Wilson Park and had gotten a lot of feedback on the particular request and really considered what was said at the meeting that night, the number of people, the impact expected, I think we have heard from some business owners here tonight that are in adjacent properties. We've talked about the concern of the impact on their business and that is certainly an impact on public interest that I struggle with. I think occupancy is another. I think we struggle with parking already on this end of Dickson Street. I certainly understand there might be some walking traffic from the University but I think that creates issues. I'm a big proponent that 1 think we need to get out of the mind set that every time requests a bar or a dance club that it needs to go on Dickson Street. I think that Dickson Street is one entertainment area of Fayetteville, I don't think it is the only nor do I think that everything should be shoved into that. 1 think that misuse is extremely important. I already look at that space as considered as an entertainment space, I don't know that the increased occupancy is good for the surrounding businesses and that is why I don't support it, very similar to why I didn't support the last one. Not so much the retail issue but at that time the residential issues and some of the feedback that we got. I don't think that just because we dance it needs to be on Dickson. 1 think it goes back to impact. IfI might, I would like to ask a question ofChairman Estes particularly before you continue with a motion or a vote on this issue. I would like you to elaborate Mr. Estes if you don't mind on what is the difference between this and the last application. You commented in reference to the business adjacent to this, particularly, Mr. Underwood's property which is at this point is an abandoned gas station. The adjacent retail across the street, I see this • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 68 Estes: as not much different, in fact, with the proximity of the other entertainment venues this is much more conducive and I've worked closely with the staff and the city and they are of the opinion that this is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Obviously, there is a difference in opinion between the staff and the Commission. We had a retail restaurant, particularly, the Ozark Mountain Smokehouse adjacent to the former applicant that was approved. We had a large misused retail facility directly across the street who did have some owners who were opposed. What is different in that case than this to make this more undesirable than that was desirable in terms of a conditional use for a dance hall? The adjacent property to the west is Mr. Underwood's property. We have approved development. He has told us that he is following through with that approval and has even gone so far as to tell us that he has a commitment from a tenant. Across the street is Mr. Tux. I don't know how in the world a dance hall undemeath a residence adjacent to upscale commercial retail is compatible with adjacent property. Key: When the use times are not contiguous and overlapping, I don't see how the argument could be made that they are not. Estes: Key: Estes: It is general compatibility with adjacent properties. Right and the staff has ruled that they felt that it was compatible. Well I disagree with that. Hoffman: Is the objective just to get more people in during games? If you have four little speakers in this place you can't really hear the speakers over all these people. Key: The intent is to allow for a higher concentration of gathering. Hoffman: Ok, well you don't have to dance to be able to do that, all you have to do is take away the tables and have adequate exiting and the building inspection department.. . Key: By building code at that point we're allowing for a concentrated use and the building code definition of a concentrated use is dancing. Hoffman: No it isn't. It is no fixed seating or no table seating. You have people standing around, it is one person per 7 sq. ft. They don't have to be moving, they can be standing there talking. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 69 Key: We were advised by the city that we needed to pursue a dance hall permit due to the fact that we wanted to allow congregation of a dance level. Hoffman: Well, that was what my question was. Is the object dancing or is the object to get more people in? I thought I heard you say when I asked the question that it was just to get more people in. Key: Yes, and that is what we stated in our application. The intent is to get more people in. Hoffman. It doesn't require dancing. According to the Building Inspection Department, what they have done and they have reviewed this to their satisfaction they have said that you need to swing the egress doors out to have 269 people. To me, if the Building Inspection Department is satisfied with that then you could indeed have a concentration of that many people and many bars do. Key: As long as we don't allow them to dance we don't need a conditional use? Hoffman: That is correct. Key: The city is in the business of footloose enforcement. Hoffman. What was the name of the place? Marr: I think that is a question for the City Council. We are here as an administrative body and that is what we look at. I would encourage you because I don't disagree with you on that point but I would encourage you that this is not the place to address that. Key: I understand and I'm not here to be adversarial by any means, we are just trying to do what is right. Hoffman: I'm not trying to be either, I'm trying to say that there provisions, I think, that meet whatever your needs are that may not be something that we have to talk about here even. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Hoover: I had a thought. 1 just was thinking of this in a new way. When I think of it as residential above I keep thinking of Richard living above, but if I separate that out and think what if it was four apartments above a dance hall and they were independent people who had nothing to do with the people that were running the dance hall below then I would certainly • Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 70 have concerns about how that mix used compatibility would be even though I'm very much for mixed use but there has to be some kind of control on it, some type of restraint. When I think of it that way with independent people up there then I do have a problem because there is no buffer zone between the dance hall and residential as there was in that other dance hall before. Hoffman: There is not now. Hoover: Yes, and there is not any buffer now in this situation. Marr: My question is do we have somebody that has a motion to recommend approval or are we waiting for some other motion or are we waiting for no motion? Key: If I could direct a question to Mr. Williams? Estes: Commissioner Ward has the floor. • Ward: In order to get this thing on down the road, when I came here I was with the idea that I would probably approve a dance hall even though I am a Southern Baptist deacon because I think that it is a recreation area and I've always been for anything that would bring people to Dickson Street and keep improvement. I did find it very disturbing that probably the most vocal opponent to the Dickson Street area as far as the dance hall at George's the new Dickson Street Theater dance hall, he was very, very vocal against those types of things as far as noise ordinances and on and on and on. I had a lot of ideas and I'm kind of worried about it. • Key: I understand. I think Mr. Shewmaker addressed the situation and the particulars of the differences. Ward: From what I can tell from the other members at this I don't think we are going to approve a dance hall, it is a night club already. I am going to move that deny CUP 01-27 for a conditional use for a dance hall. Key: I'd like to just say that we will withdraw the application. We have no desire to have you vote on denying it, we'll just withdraw it. We will work with the city to establish our occupant load as we would like to see it based on our exiting capacities. Shewmaker: Is it my understanding that we can get a heavier load of people Kit? Planning Commission October 22, 2001 Page 71 Williams: The interpretation must come from the City Planner, he is in charge of interpreting the Unified Development Ordinance and he is not here right now. Key: As I said we would like to pull the application. MOTION: Ward: Then I'll make a motion that it be tabled. Estes: The application for CUP 01-27 is pulled at the applicant's request. Dawn, is there any further business to come before the Commission, any announcements? Warrick: The only thing I would announce is that there is a question and answer session in room 326 that is going on right now with regard to the impact fee study. You all are welcome to join that if you have any questions of the consultant, otherwise, I have nothing further. Estes: Bunch: Any other business? Dawn, do you have the particulars on the trails seminar that is this week at Mount Sequoyah? Warrick: Yes, there is a greenways and trails seminar that is going on this week. I believe there is a reception Thursday evening at the town center and then conference sessions all day Friday at Mount Sequoyah Assembly. If you want further details you can contact Renee in our office. Estes: Any other business? Any other announcements? We'll stand adjourned until the next regularly called meeting. Meeting adjourned. 8:40 p.m.