Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-12 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETfEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville City Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 12, 1988 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, B.J. Dow, Butch Robertson, Gerald Seiff, Gerald Klingaman and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: J.E. Springborn, Jerry Allred and Julie Nash OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Sharon Duncan, Jim Gibbs, Richard Osborne, Dave Sorrell, John Williams, Gerald Renegar, Elaine Cattaneo, Larry Wood, members of the press and others Chairman Jacks asked if anyone had any objection to moving item 119 (Review of the Conditional Use for Contel Cellular) forward on the agenda because Dave Sorrell, the Contel representative, has an airplane ticket for 6:30 p.m. A member of the audience stated that all the neighbors had not arrived yet because they thought this would be discussed toward the end of the meeting. Chairman Jacks advised that they would go ahead with the agenda and discuss #9 when the neighbors have arrived. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (IAT SPLIT # 1) OTTO & ANNA WOLF - W OF HWY 71 BYPASS, N OF OLD FARMINGTON RD The first item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (1st Lot Split) submitted by Otto & Anna Wolf and represented by Sharon Duncan. Property is located north of Old Farmington Road, west of the Highway 71 Bypass and zoned A-1, Agricultural. Sharon Duncan stated that as far as they know this lot has never been split before and they want to split it 50/50. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the 3.29 acreage is the total before the split. Ms. Duncan answered, yes, that is the acreage before the split. Chairman Jacks advised that the reason for the Lot Split ordinance is to try to prevent development by metes and bounds splitting without the necessary improvements, etc. The Planning Commission is really called upon to assess each case to make sure that is not being done. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak for or against this lot split. 711 • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 2 MOTION Robertson moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 6-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R88-14 NORTHWEST CORNER OF !H?LMAR & LEVERETT STS - JIM GIBBS The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning request (Petition it R88-14) submitted by Jim Gibbs, First National Bank of Fayetteville. Property is located at northwest corner of Melmar & Leverett Streets including 5, acres and request is to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to R-3, High Density Residential. Chairman Jacks asked if they wanted to rezone this so that a convalescent home would be allowed there. Mr. Gibbs answered yes. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that he didn't have anything to add to the report in the agenda for this rezoning. Jim Gibbs stated that he would like to make a correction in the second paragraph on the background information in the agenda which should read that "40 beds will be semi -private and eight will be private". Chairman Jacks stated that what the Planning Commission is called upon is to assess whether this property is reasonable for R-3, High Density Residential, zoning in this particular case the convalescent home. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this request. Z.L. Thomas of 920 West Elm stated that he owns the property north of this property. He stated that he would like to know more about who is doing this and primarily the drainage they have planned for it. Chairman Jacks stated that the drainage is another issue that will come up, but right now the Planning Commission has to decide if they feel that this property is appropriate for R-3 zoning and more specifically for a convalescent home. He advised that they begin by assuming that it will be engineered properly and they will insist that it be done if this does proceed. Mr. Thomas stated that this was misrepresented in the newspaper as being east of Leverett rather than west of Leverett. Chairman Jacks asked if he is objecting to having this rezoning petition proceed tonight. Mr. Thomas answered, no, that if the drainage issue will come up in another part, he was not objecting to zoning this to R-3. Chairman Jacks advised that the drainage issue will be brought up when they come through with the Large Scale Development Plan. Mr. Gibbs advised Mr. Thomas that they will gladly talk with him before they 75 • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 3 proceed with the Large Scale Development Plan. Commissioner Hanna pointed out that this is something that the Committee for the Elderly studied. He stated that this is one of the cases that he would like to see them do something about where this kind of facility is allowed in all zoning districts by conditional use. In this particular case, for instance, they could allow this on a Conditional Use without having a rezoning and that would also insure that the property that they are considering rezoning would be used for this particular purpose. David Johnson with REMAX Realtors stated that the only reason that the R-3 zoning was requested was because that was the way they were told to go. Chairman Jacks stated that what Commissioner Hanna is saying is appropriate because they can't make there zoning contingent on something unless they offered a Bill of Assurance in the beginning. NOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend the rezoning from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to R-3, High Density Residential, seconded by Dow. The motion to recommend the rezoning passed 6-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (1ST LOT SPLIT) GERALD RENEGAR - 1000 CROSSOVER RD, The third item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (1st Lot Split) submitted by Gerald Renegar. Property located east of Crossover Road (Hwy 265) across from Manor Drive containing 4.11 acres, more or less and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Commissioner Seiff asked for clarification where the lot split is going to be. Mr. Renegar stated that the split will be east of where the travel trailer is currently parked. There will be 1.5 acres on the front piece and approximately 2.5 acres on the piece with the existing home on it. Commissioner Klingaman asked if there will be a new access road cut on to Highway 265 or will they share the common driveway. Mr. Renegar stated that there might possibly be a new one but they have no definite plans to that degree. He stated that he is considering building a small home on the front piece to occupy and letting his son have the back lot. He noted that he wouldn't want to be tied to a specific answer on that. Chairman Jacks advised that all things being equal they would have to assume that another access would be cut unless they made it a condition of the lot split approval. Mr. Renegar stated that he will just say that it will require another access onto Highway 265. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this request. 7Co • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 4 Commissioner Robertson asked if it would not be feasible to use one point of access onto Highway 265 for both pieces of property rather than have two driveways onto the highway. Mr. Renegar answered, yes, that it would be feasible but he did not want to mislead the Planning Commission by saying that they would not require another access. Commissioner Dow asked John Merrell if he had an opinion or statement that he would like to make on this request. Mr. Merrell stated that he had been out to look at the property in question and his past experience is that tandem lots sometimes do create problems. However, he stated that in this case he sees no major problems so he would recommend that it be approved. Commissioner Robertson stated that he would be inclined to approve the tandem lot split but he would not be inclined to go for the two accesses when one would do the job on a busy highway like 265. Chairman Jacks stated that he could tie that to the Conditional Use which is the next item on the agenda. Commissioner Dow stated that she agreed with Commissioner Robertson on that. She stated that she felt the further north the access point is, the better off they would be. MOTION Robertson moved to grant the Lot Split as requested, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 6-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR A TANDEM LOT GERALD RENEGAR - E OF CROSSOVER (HWY 265) ACROSS FROM MANOR DRIVE The fourth item on the agenda was a Conditional Use request for a Tandem Lot submitted by Gerald Renegar. Property located east o4eCrossover Road (Highway 265) across from Manor Drive and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. MOTION Commissioner Robertson moved to grant the Conditional Use for a Tandem Lot with the condition that there will be only one access for both properties, seconded by Hanna and followed by discussion. Commissioner Seiff clarified that this would not necessarily mean that the one access would have to be the existing exit. Commissioner Robertson stated that he is Just saying one point of access for this. He noted that he would not want to pin it down to the north edge because whoever builds there may want to be on the north side of the property line for aesthetics. The motion to grant the Conditional Use passed 6-0-0. 77 • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 5 APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS JOHN BURCKART - S OF APPLEBY, NORTH OF DRAKE The fifth item on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale Development Plan for the Village Apartments submitted by John Burckart and represented by Ery Wimberly. Property located south of Appleby Road and north of Drake Street with 9.75 acres, more or less and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, with 160 proposed units. Commissioner Dow advised the Planning Commission that the Subdivision Committee had approved this Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review comments and a Bill of Assurance for improvement of Appleby Road along the east side of the frontage. She explained that on the west side there is some frontage of Appleby Road that they do not own, but the property that they do own would be required to be improved. Instead of asking them to do it now, they would accept a Bill of Assurance on it. Chairman Jacks asked Ery Wimberly or Mr. Burckhart had any problem with this. Mr. Wimberly stated that Mr. Burckhart was agreeable to that. Mr. Wimberly asked if there is a time limit on the Bill of Assurance or is it on the call of the City. Commissioner Robertson stated that it would be at the call of the City. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the garages shown on the plat were fully enclosed garages. Mr. Wimberly answered, yes, but all of those may not be built as indicated; they may build a portion of them and see if they can rent them separately. If there is no demand for them, they may not build them all. Chairman Jacks asked if they had dropped the other entrance off of Drake Street leaving only one. Mr. Wimberly answered, yes, there is only one entrance off of Drake Street. Wade Bishop of 540 East Appleby Road asked for clarification about the Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Dow explained that he is asking for a Bill of Assurance on the portion of Appleby that this project fronts on. Mr. Bishop stated that the point he would like to raise before the Commission is that all of the south half of Appleby Road is substandard to City specifications. He stated that he is on Appleby Road or going up and down Appleby Road 10 to 12 hours everyday and there is a tremendous amount of traffic that is generated on that road. He noted that it is fast becoming a major thoroughfare street with the apartment complex on the west end and this proposed unit that is 77% as large as it is. Traffic backs up a block long trying to get onto North College and backs up in the Wal- Mart parking lot. He strongly urged the Planning Commission to look at the dangerous traffic condition that will be created if this project if approved in this intensity. If this should be granted, he stated that he feels someone should have to carry out the City street there the width of this property. The fact that Mr. Nelms is selling them the property, maybe he should be responsible for that section where the property extends on west of the driveway. Connie Freeman of 315 Village Drive in the Regency North Subdivision stated that 78 Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 6 she lives on the corner of Jason and Village where Appleby Road comes up. She stated, therefore, that she is very much aware of the major traffic problem. She noted that she calls the police about three times a week about speeders and Mr. Franklin from the Street Department is aware of the problem. Having another 160 units there is just going to make the traffic unbearable there. She suggested that some traffic counts be done there to realize the problem. Commissioner Dow asked if Mrs. Freeman was seeing a lot of cutting through the Regency North Subdivision traffic off of Appleby. Mrs. Freeman answered, yes, that is a major problem. Chairman Jacks stated that unfortunately this is a reactive planning society were improvements follow development rather than precede development. He advised that they do have, however, the ability to refuse to approve this Large Scale Development if they feel that it would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. Commissioner Dow stated that they had noted Perry Franklin's comments at the Plat Review which agree with what has been said. Mr. Franklin stated that he would do some research to find out what the current traffic volume is on Appleby Road. She asked John Merrell if Mr. Franklin had contacted him about any research going on relating to this and if Mr. Merrell had a recommendation on this. Mr. Merrell stated that he didn't believe Mr. Franklin had completed the research and he is concerned about the volume of traffic in that area and the intensity of development in that area, but he is not prepared to make a negative recommendation on the development. He advised that based on some of the comments that he has heard at the meeting tonight, it might be appropriate to consider delaying the action on this until the next meeting to enable them to get some additional traffic information from Mr. Franklin and perhaps some of the other concerns. Chairman Jacks asked if the improvement of Appleby Road in the offing and what about the timing on extending Drake Street. Larry Wood answered, yes, and extending Drake Street is on the list, but the date hadn't been tied down yet. Ery Wimberly advised that they are aware of the traffic problems and Mr. Burckhart will be paying for the improvements of his portion of the street as Mr. Bishop has done in the past. He noted that the remaining portions of Appleby Road certainly do need to be improved from this on out to College Avenue. The major part of that frontage on Appleby Road remaining is a large commercial track which will be developed someday. He stated that he doesn't think it would be a reasonable requirement for Mr. Burckhart to improve that frontage of the commercial property there at the corner of Appleby Road and College Avenue. In this particular case, there are other points to consider such as the fact that they do have access on this site directly to Drake Street which is on the Master Plan as a "collector" to be continued on through to Gregg Street. Therefore, a large part of the traffic out of this development will go to the South. Mr. Burckhart plans to have numerous speed bumps to deter through traffic through the complex. • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 7 Chairman Jacks stated that if Drake Street was completed, it would probably have a lot to do with the traffic problem over on Appleby Road. Mr. Wimberly stated that Mr. Burckhart has agreed to improve that remaining portion of frontage which he owns to the East which will leave approximately 400' down to that commercial property. Wade Bishop stated that he wanted to point out that this property was zoned R-2 in 1970 and there has been contacts made with the other property owners around here and they realize there is a serious traffic problem He noted that the property owner to the East had been approached about an ingress/egress through there property onto Highway 71 (North College) somewhere in the area of Herman's Rib House. He also pointed out that if they will have people going through there complex to get to Gregg Street, why not have a street required through there built up to City specifications. He stressed that he hoped the Planning Commission would not give a hasty answer to a problem that will be with us for decades to come. John Freeman, the spouse of Connie Freeman, stated that one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the rezoning of the property just west of this for a Medical Clinic and the traffic it will create. They do have a hazardous traffic problem and he would appreciate some traffic count numbers and some consideration of what everyone in the area wants for out there. Commissioner Dow asked Mr. Merrell how long it might take Mr. Franklin to get those numbers together. Mr. Merrell answered that they could probably have them by last of the week and he stated that he would like to have the staff take a look at Mr. Bishop's suggestion on the other street possibility. Ery Wimberly advised the Planning Commission that if they would like to delay this until the next meeting, it would be acceptable. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to table this until the next meeting, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Robertson voting "no". Chairman Jacks advised that they would now proceed with the ninth item on the agenda ( Review of the Conditional Use for Contel tower). REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - CONTKL CELLULAR, INC. JOHN WILLIAMS - SANG AVE AT HOTZ DRIVE The ninth item of consideration on the agenda was a review of a Conditional Use granted to Contel Cellular, Inc. for a communications antenna tower on November 23, 1987. This review was requested by John Williams and other neighbors. Property is located on Sang Avenue at Hotz Drive and zoned R-1, Low Density 7c • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 8 Residential. John Williams of 140 N Sang stated that he was one of several neighbors that are present to express their concern, present information and to ask questions regarding the Conditional Use, the zoning, the construction, the proposed operations of the Contel communications tower located near them on Markham Hill. He thanked the Planning Commission for this opportunity to express their concerns and the people in the Inspections & the Planning Office for providing information relative to this subject and this project. In brief review, he stated that some of them were notified of the Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1987 during which they would consider a Conditional Use request for the construction of a Contel antenna tower. Prior to the meeting, several of the neighbors met and discussed this. None of them necessarily wanted a tower but they felt that if they were given certain assurances 1) especially that no additional power lines would be required, 2) that there would be no substantial increase in traffic in the area, and 3)that the signals from the tower would not interfere with their radio, television or telephone reception or service they would go along with it. Mr. Williams stated that the neighbors there are very much aware that airplanes approaching Drake Field from the North often fly very close to this location and during periods of low clouds, airplanes come in very low. Some of them questioned this location as possibly hazardous to aircraft, but they assumed that it would have to be carefully checked out and approved by FAA before a Conditional Use was granted. He referred to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1987, and stated that he finds what seems to be serious discrepancies in Mr. Woolsey's statement as recorded in the minutes and what now exists or seems to be required. These include the need for additional power lines (new and additional poles) and a request from SWEPCO for new easement. He stated that they were notified of this and met with a representative of SWEPCO on August 27th. Also, the height of the tower with the antenna extending several feet above what was listed in the minutes as 125'. However, it is shown in the drawings as 150' and the antenna sticks up above even higher, perhaps 6 or 8'. He went on to say that the size of the building at the base of the tower was described as 12' x 28' (an unmanned communications shelter) and now it is shown on the drawings as 28' x 56' which is about 4 1/2 times as large in square foot area. There is an asphalt parking lot area to the East of the building which is large enough to accommodate several cars. He advised that these changes have caused some of them to wonder whether there has been changes in the intended present or long-range use of this facility possibly different to those on which the granting of a Conditional Use was based. These questions and concerns seem sufficient to them to request the Planning Commission's preview and reassessment of this Conditional Use. He noted that Mr. Woolsey had stated on two occasions in the minutes of the November meeting that there would be no need for additional power. Mr. Williams stated that there are some serious questions that will come up later • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 9 regarding FAA requirements or approval. Rick Osborne stated that he is sympathetic to these neighbors concerns having lived in that neighborhood himself for 5 years. He noted that he understands the neighbors desire for no new or additional poles for this. He quoted from the minutes of the meeting of November 23th meeting which states "Mr. Woolsey added the power requirements would either be a single or 3-phase and would be a 400 amp service" and they do plan a 3-phase and a 400 amp service. He noted that Mr. Woolsey did say that there was sufficient power at the location in question and all they would have to do is add transformers to the location, but SWEPCO changed it. He stated that Contel is not trying to pull something on them. If SWEPCO told them it was sufficient at the site that is what they came and said. Chairman Jacks advised that those minutes do say that no additional lines would be brought in. Mr. Osborne stated that is what Mr. Woolsey was advised by SWEPCO. He didn't intentionally misrepresent it. He noted that they have a letter addressed to Dave Sorrell (Contel representative) dated today from Floyd Hornaday of SWEPCO showing the power coming west on Center Street to the intersection of Center and Sang and there going underground continuing straight west 415' and then straight north to the property in question. He stated that they will have to put in larger poles to support heavier wires. Mr. Osborne noted that the traffic issue has not changed from what was stated in the minutes. The turnaround paved area was put in there because they were worried about getting stuck and there will not be anyone up there every day or vehicles parked up there all the time. As far as the interference issue, he stated that FAA & FCC and everybody will get involved if this equipment is interfering with TV or radio reception. He advised that Contel has 17 operating systems right now around the country and there aren't any problems anywhere else with interference. As far as the FAA approving this, he noted that they took the liberty of having John Merrell, Planning Director, talk to the FAA directly today and they do have verification that no approval from them is required. As far as the height of the tower, Mr. Osborne stated that it is 125' even though the plans say up to 150'. Chairman Jacks advised that there is some conflict in the records as to how high it is. Mr. Osborne stated that he is putting it on record today that it is 125' although the antenna does go 6 or 8' above the tower. Mr. Osborne agreed that the size of the building is more than four times the size that was discussed at the earlier Planning Commission meeting. He stated that they came back to the City and talked to Mr. Wood and asked what they needed to do because they needed more space and Mr. Wood assured that he could approve it. Mr. Osborne stated that they did what they were told. He noted that the major items that might still be of concern are the size of the building and the poles. He said that they would go along with whatever SWEPCO says they have to have to support this. The new poles will be put in from Razorback along Center Street to Sang which is 4 or 5 blocks. From Sang they go underground and stay underground through their neighborhood on due west for about 415' and due north to the site. • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 10 Chairman Jacks asked John Merrell if he had talked to FAA and if they verified the fact that there is not approval required from them. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, that he did speak to a representative of the FAA and was told that they didn't require approval. Mr. Osborne stated that he doesn't believe this building or anything except the antenna and the tower are visible from anywhere around there. Mr. Williams stated that it is not visible now because the leaves are on the trees. He stated that he and the neighbors were just mentioning a number of things that seem to be different and they were concerned about whether this suggested a change in the intended use. Mr. Williams stated they didn't measure the tower height but he did ask one of the surveyors how high it was and he said 150'. He stated that it seems to him that there needs to be a little more formal kind of information perhaps letters formally indicating whether it is approved or not and he would like Mr. Hammerschmidt to review those letters. He noted that he would like to know if a microwave system is planned for this, etc. Chairman Jacks stated that the minutes reflect that the FAA had been contacted and apparently their consultant was contacted. Mr. Osborne stated that John P. Allen contacted them and he was with the FAA for twenty years. Chairman Jacks brought it up because they were contacted by the people at the airport with some concern about the tower at that time. He advised that they were apparently told at the last meeting that the FAA had been contacted. Commissioner Klingaman stated that the tower is apparently built on the low end now for what usage is anticipated in the next year or two. He asked if there would be people stationed there or will the traffic increase in the event that this goes well. Mr. Osborne stated that at no time will anyone be stationed there. When it needs to be repaired, routine maintenance or checked someone will go up there and check it and get out. Chairman Jacks stated that it has an emergency generator as he recalls. Dave Sorrell, Network Coordinator for Contel Cellular, stated that back in the beginning when he contacted Northwest Engineers to do the site plan for the project they had not determined how high they were going to build the tower. So they kept that site plan and it was approved by the Planning Commission and when they actually submitted the drawing to Mr. Wood for the actual building permit, it showed the 125' tower and that was the one that was approved. Mr. Williams stated that the height of the tower might make a difference in whether they need FAA approval or not. Commissioner Hanna stated that he tends to agree with Mr. Williams that it looks like the Planning Commission shouldn't have they approve something like this without getting any written confirmation from the FAA, but it is a little too late to go back and say they have made a mistake. Mr. Osborne stated that the FAA would come and get an injunction and they would take it out if it were wrong. Commissioner Hanna stated that it seems sort of odd to him that they didn't get written confirmation. • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 11 Mr. Sorrell explained that John Allen is an airspace consultant that they use on every tower that they design around the country. According to him, the rule for the FAA is that a tower over 200' above average ground level (AGL) has to be lighted and approved by the FAA. But even on a tower that is less than 200', they consult Mr. Allen on he recommends. He noted that this was the procedure that was followed here and were informed of by the gentleman that John Merrell talked to today with the FAA office out of Dallas. He advised that Mr. Merrell had a conversation with this gentleman to discuss this particular situation and the FAA advisor said that this tower does not require submittal. He stated that they need to keep in mind the number of towers that are going up around the country. If they have an consultant that tells them that they don't have to have FAA consulting for a particular tower, they don't want to bog down the FAA system and submit towers that don't have to be submitted. He noted that he flies in and out of that airport all the time too so he is concerned. Commissioner Hanna asked if he thought that John Allen had came to Fayetteville and looked at the site. Mr. Sorrell stated that they do it by charts and contour maps. Commissioner Hanna stated that seems like a lot of responsibility to put on Mr. Sorrell and the Planning Commission. Chairman Jacks asked John Merrell if he felt like in his conversation with the FAA representative today that there was no question about the height and the exact location of the tower in relationship to the approach pattern, etc. Mr. Merrell stated that there seemed to be no question in the mind of the representative that he talked to today; the representative stated that he had personally discussed the matter with John Allen and he seemed to be confident about it. Commissioner Klingaman asked what the height of the tank that is next to the tower is. Mr. Sorrell answered that it was 88'. John Williams stated that because of the questions about FAA approval, he checked with Mr. Struebing of FAA Electronics at Drake Field and with Mr. Fredricks, the airport manager, and Don Owens, manager of the flight control tower at Drake Field and none of them knew of a permit as of last Tuesday. He advised that they had given him telephone numbers in Little Rock to call and in Oklahoma City and he called and they knew of no permit. Mr. Wade stated that he would like to come back to the question of the power line itself of which the minutes reflect that no additional lines will be brought in. The letter dated September 12 that Mr. Osborne gave him from Floyd Hornaday refers to a set of plans of August, 1988 that are not here but addresses the line extension from Razorback Road up Center Street, part of which is unopened, past the Sutherland's house, the Nickels' house to Sang Avenue and to his understanding is that this 3-phase service requires a new pole. It can not go on the existing poles. He asked if there was a representative from SWEPCO here at the meeting. Mr. Osborne answered, No, there is not, they will meet with the Planning • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 12 Department on an informal basis. Mr. Wade stated that they are concerned because they were told no additional lines and now the south end of the neighborhood is going to be confronted with new poles coming through with arms on the poles and all of that will be above ground up to Sang Street and at that point they go underground some 42" inches in conduit and requires manholes every so many feet and some trees will probably be lost. He stated that he would really like to know what they plan to do on Center Street since this letter does not address that. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Woolsey called him and stated that Contel had agreed to take all the lines underground. Since there is service closer to this just to the north and west of this tower there is a sizable easement which may not be 3- phase, but he would like some checking into the possibility of coming up there and letting the easement be on Mr. Archer's property since he is the one who is benefiting financially from this. Mr. Osborne stated that as the drawing given to him by Mr. Burrack of SWEPCO depicts, the underground easement is on Mr. Archer's property. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Woolsey had explained to him that they were willing to go underground and he assumed that he meant underground totally. Mr. Sorrell stated that he met with Mr. Burrack this afternoon and he explained that the problem with the existing pole line is that they would have to put in switching equipment and such as that which would be a problem. Mr. Williams stated that whatever he does with bringing in more power has no bearing as he understands it, it is in addition to what they already have because they don't need 3-phase power. Chairman Jacks noted that they are operating the tower with the power that is there at the present time. He asked if SWEPCO wants to bring in 3-phase service. Mr. Sorrell answered, yes, because they don't have any air conditioners operating and only have about 1/3 to 1/2 of that cell side operating. Chairman Jacks clarified that the power that they are proposing is really replacement of the existing poles up Center as far as Sang and Mr. Williams is concerned about a bigger, much more obvious thing visually. Mr. Wade stated that he isn't sure that they are talking about replacing existing poles, they may in fact find double poles because of telephone and cable poles. Mr. Sorrell stated that the telephone company owns all the pole lines and the utility companies have a utility agreement that the telephone company is supposed to provide the poles and the power company puts there stuff on it. In this particular case, the power company can't get the telephone company to move very quickly so they are going to come in and replace that pole line with new poles. Cyrus Sutherland, (of Haskell Heights) a resident of the undeveloped portion of Center Street, stated that it would be very desirable to all of them if electric power were underground, but when you start considering the physical impact of doing that here, there would be so much destruction of property along that line that would be involved. He stated that apparently, the present proposal is that Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 13 they will bring 3-phase up Center Street on the existing poles or new poles. What the residents along there are interested in is what sort of impact that it will have on there property to replace the poles with new poles. Mr. Osborne stated that SWEPCO told them that they would need new poles which would be replacement poles. Chairman Jacks advised that they are getting off into a lot of detail that probably doesn't have a place at this particular time. He stated that it sounds like there are questions that exist on the part of the residents. He stated that the question is how does the Planning Commission want to proceed with this. He noted that he feels like the Planning Commission understands the issues and what questions remain unanswered. Mr. Sorrell stated that Contel feels like it is bringing a service to the City of Fayetteville and they are just trying to get the place operational. Mr. Sutherland stated that he wants to clarify the point that they are bringing additional power up Center Street and since Mr. Archer leases his property to Contel and there is access to Contel's tower up north Sang Street across Mr. Archer's property to the tower, they feel that would be a better solution than bringing the power up Center Street. Mr. Williams stated that there is a large easement and a possibility of bringing power just up to Mr. Archer's place and then it is a shorter distance across to the tower and it would just be between Mr. Archer and SWEPCO. Commissioner Robertson stated that they are talking about bringing the power up Sang instead of over Center Street, he stated that he thinks if SWEPCO were here they would find out that 3-phase is not available in every power line that runs through the City. It has to be at a specific place. He stated that is the problem with bringing it down Sang rather than Center Street. Mr. Williams stated that it seems to him that it should be checked out to see if it would be feasible. MOTION Robertson moved to table this request until the next meeting to allow the legal representatives, SWEPCO and the City staff to get together and try to resolve this, seconded by Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Dow stated that she feels that is a good motion because maybe with some communication here from the right people it could be resolved. The Planning Commissioners are not the right people to ask about the power lines. She stated that she would like a little more information on how the airport management feels about the height of the tower and if there is any concern with the airport. Therefore, maybe the staff could find out some of this information before the next meeting. Commissioner Klingaman stated that so much of this is centered around the power lines and with the little bit of information that they received about this • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 14 review, he was not looking at power lines when he was out at the site. The motion to table passed 6-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR APARTMENTS IN AN R-0 ZONE FOR EAST OAKS APARTMENTS LINDSEY CONST - ALONG EAST SIDE OF EAST OAKS DRIVE The sixth item on the agenda was a Conditional Use for apartments in an R-0, Residential- Office, zoning district submitted by Lindsey Construction and represented by Jim Lindsey. The property is located along the east side of East Oaks Drive (Lots 19,20 & 21 of Block 2 of Kantz Place Addition) and includes 2.67 acres more or less. Jim Lindsey stated that when they had this subdivided, apartments were a use by right in the R-0 zoning. The whole area around this is multi -family use and they would like to have the Conditional Use approved on the basis that it was the original use and they request that it be consistent with what is there. Commissioner Klingaman commented that the pads are already bulldozed off and they are in a situation again where they are approving something after the construction. Mr. Lindsey advised that they are allowed to do the dirt work on the site without ever having a building permit. He stressed the fact that the City has not given them a building permit yet. He noted that they are taking that chance; if the Planning Commission decided that this Conditional Use was not proper, he has just wasted the money for the dirt work. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to grant the Conditional Use, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 6-0-0. APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EAST OAKS APARTMENTS LINDSEY CONSTRUCTION - ALONG E SIDE OF EAST OAKS DRIVE The seventh item on the agenda was approval of a Large Scale Development Plan for East Oaks Apartments submitted by Lindsey Construction and represented by Jim Lindsey. Property located along the east side of East Oaks Drive (Lots 19, 20 & 21 of Block 2 in Kantz Place Addition) and zoned R-0, Residential -Office and including 2.67 acres. Commissioner Dow advised that this was approved by the Subdivision Committee subject to Plat Review Comments. MOTION • Commissioner Dow moved to approve this Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review comments, seconded by Seiff. The motion to approve passed 6-0-0. 60 • • • Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 15 WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ( LOT SPLIT #2) SAN MATHIAS - NE CORNER OF S TR LLERN & OLD WIRE ROADS The eighth item on the agenda was a request for a Waiver of the Subdivision Regulations (Lot Split ill) submitted by Sam Mathias. Property located on the northeast corner of Skillern & Old Wire Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and containing 3.5 acres more or less. Sam Mathias stated that this has been recently rezoned from Agricultural zoning to R-1, Low Density Residential, with the stipulation that there would be no more than 8 lots. He noted that what they are wanting to do is get Lot Splits and put three - 3.5 acre lots there. He advised that the Planning Office did the first Lot Split administratively. Kennedy Deaver of 3129 Skillern Road which is right across the street from the lot in question. He stated that she mainly wants clarification on this so that he understands a little better what is being asked He asked if this 3.5 acres is part of the 10 acres that was rezoned a few months ago. Chairman Jacks answered, yes. Mr. Deaver commented that when this area was rezoned to R-1, it was approved with the stipulation that there would be no more than 8 lots developed there. He asked if as it stands now, instead of 8 lots, there will be only 3 lots there. Mr. Mathias answered, yes. Mr. Deaver asked if access to this lot would be from Skillern Road. Mr. Mathias answered, yes. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the Lot Split, seconded by Robertson. The motion passed 6-0-0. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE HUNT CLUB ADDITION BRAD WRIGHT - SW CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE RD (HWY 16 E) & HUNT LANE The tenth item on the agenda was an approval of the Preliminary Plat of The Hunt Club Addition submitted by Brad Wright. Property located at the southwest corner of Huntsville Road (Hwy 16 E) and Hunt Lane and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential with 10 acres more or less. Commissioner Dow stated that this was approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting subject to Plat Review comments and the off-site improvements that were included in the Plat Review were half of Hunt Lane the length of the property and it was felt that the Planning Commission might consider a Bill of Assurance on that rather than require it at that time. She asked the Planning Secretary if proper notification had been received. The secretary answered, yes. 81 Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 16 Chairman Jacks asked if Mr. Wright was in agreement with this. Mr. Wright answered, yes, and that he would like to go with a Bill of Assurance on Hunt Lane since it is a good, hard -surface county road. Chairman Jacks asked if the Postal Department has seen the way these streets are set up with two streets intersecting at the middle cul-de-sac and how do they know where the address changes. Mr. Wright stated that he already has the tentative addresses on this from the street department. Chairman Jacks asked if these were not checked out with the Post Office. Elaine Cattaneo noted that Jim Johnson, Water Service Representative, assigns the house numbers and he suggested that the street names be changed on this. Mr. Wright stated that he discussed this with Jim Johnson and told him he would like to keep it all one street. However, it was at Mr. Johnson's suggestion that they changed it. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought it should stay one street. Chairman Jacks advised that he thought the Police Department, the Fire Department and the Postal Service should be consulted on this and there opinion should probably take precedence. Mr. Wright stated that he agrees with Chairman Jacks and he did take issue with Mr. Johnson on this. Commissioner Hanna asked John Merrell what his feeling on the street names on this. Mr. Merrell stated that he has mixed emotions on this issue. He noted that Jim Johnson is actually is employed by the Public Works Department, therefore, he doesn't supervise him. He stated that if he were the developer, he would have made his proposal exactly the way Brad Wright did. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the Plat Review comments with the suggestion that the street be named a single name and that the emergency services and Postal Department be consulted on this, seconded by Seiff. Con» issioner Dow asked what the objection was to the original street name. Mr. Wright stated that the original name was "Paddock" and there is an existing street by that name. He noted that he suggested to change this to "Joanna Street" and have it stay all one street. However, Mr. Johnson stated that they would need to change this to two streets. Chairman Jacks asked if Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief, had commented on this street situation. Mr. Wright stated that when Mr. Jackson saw the plat, it was only one street. The motion to approve this passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission September 12, 1988 Page 17 The minutes of the regular Planning Commission meetings of August 8 and August 22 were approved as mailed. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned around 7:00 p.m.