Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-10 Minutesis 0 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 10, 1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Suchecki, Robert E. Reynolds, Joe Tarvin, Phyllis Hall Johnson, Ken Pummill, Charles Nickle, and Jana Lynn Britton MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary R. Head and Jerry Allred OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 26, 1994 were approved as written with a unanimous vote. CONSENT AGENDA: A. FINAL PLAT -STERLING ESTATES: Submitted by David Cox for Carl Ledbetter. Property is located west of Hillside Terrace and east of Highway 265. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and R-2, Medium Density Residential and contained 6.85 acres with 24 lots. B. LOT SPLIT N1: Submitted by Bob Ennis. Property is located south of Zion Road and east of Highway 265. MOTION Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton. The motion carried unanimously. W I • U Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING REZONING R94-50 JOHN WALKER - 3548 HUNTSVILLE RD The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning Appeal R94-50 submitted by John Walker for property located at 3548 Huntsville Road. The request was to rezone .51 acres from R-2, Medium Density Residential to R -O, Residential/Office. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the staff had no additional comments to the report in the agenda packet. Mr. Richard Fritz of 3586 Huntsville Road, an adjoining property owner, presented a petition to the Planning commission with thirty-one signatures of the surrounding land owners in opposition to the rezoning request. In answer to a question, Mr. John Walker explained the subject property was the old Duncan Liquor Store Building which had been in business under the grandfather clause. He added that, since the business had been closed, the zoning had reverted back to regular residential zoning. He stated his proposal was to clean the property up to house a small barber shop. In response to a request for clarification, Ms. Little advised the prior liquor store was a non -conforming use and noted the current zoning would not allow a liquor store. She added that, since it would allow multi -family housing up to 24 units per acre, the staff was recommending a rezoning to R -O which would allow for a neighborhood commercial type use. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Me. Little advised all of the subject property was currently zoned R-2 and it abutted R-1 zoning on the east Bide and R-2 zoning on the west. In answer to further questions, Mr. Conklin advised there was an existing single- family home across the street from the subject property with no obvious commercial use of the property even though it was zoned C-1. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to approve the rezoning of R94-50 subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Pummill, Nickle, Tarvin, Reynolds, and Johnson voting "yes" and Britton voting wino". Commissioner Suchecki arrived after this vote was taken. I Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING REZONING R94-51 CARL & ELIZABETH FITE - SW CORNER OF JOHNSON RD & HWY 71 The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning Appeal R94-51 submitted by Charles Hanks on behalf of Carl and Elizabeth Fite for property located at the southwest corner of Johnson Road and Highway 71. The request was to rezone 3.45 acres from A-1. Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised the staff had no further comments to add to their staff report in the agenda packet. Mr. Charles Hanks advised this property was located just north of the Northwest Arkansas Mall (north of Shoney's) where two old houses had been recently torn down. He stated he had heard no objection to the petition. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little advised there was A-1 zoned property to the west of the subject property. She explained the subject tract was split between the two city limits of Johnson and Fayetteville and noted it was her understanding the applicant had also petitioned the City of Johnson for a rezoning. She further noted the area to the south adjoined the Northwest Arkansas Mall which was zoned C-2 and designated as a regional shopping area in the General Plan. Ms. Britton pointed out there was a huge topography difference and a creek in between this property and the Northwest Arkansas Mall property. Ms. Little referred to the map on page 4.5 of the agenda packet and noted the flood plain was the area to the north of the line as shown on the map. She added • there was approximately an equal amount of the property out of the flood plain and within the flood plain. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the rezoning petition R94-51 subject to the staff's comments. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Suchecki arrived after this vote was taken. Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 4 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT-SWEPCO SUBSTATION CONDITIONAL USE CU94-26 SWEPCO - W OF HWY 265, S OF MANOR DR The next item was a large scale development plan for SWEPCO Substation and Conditional Use CU94-26 submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of SWEPCO for property located west of Highway 265 and south of Manor Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 4.78 acres. The Conditional Use request was for an electrical substation. Mr. Conklin advised the staff had received a letter from a resident of Hyland Park Subdivision with some inquiries. He answered the questions with the statement that a grading permit was issued on September 23rd for the site and he was working with the landscape architect on the tree preservation plan which had been amended to meet the city's requirements. Mr. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, stated he had a responsibility to give his best legal advice to the Commission, but he did not ever intend to substitute his judgment for theirs. He added he was not trying to sway the Commission's vote. He noted SWEPCO was proposing to locate their substation behind the City's Fire Station on Highway 265. He explained State law required that, in order for SWEPCO to get the transmission lines and a substation, the Power Company went to the Public Service Commission and apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which had been done in January of 1994. He advised in April there had been a hearing on the matter and SWEPCO had been obligated to notify those property owners of record whom had lines across their property. He stated two individuals, Mr. Goforth and Dr. De Palma, sought to intervene to protest the certificate to SWEPCO. He pointed out by the time the April meeting took place, • Dr. De Palma was the sole intervenor. Mr. Rose stated he was present at that hearing and his advocacy was he had no idea whether or not the safety concerns were good, bad, or indifferent but would appreciate SWEPCO's cooperation in either placing the substation somewhere else or buying the Fire Station. He advised on September 6th, the Administrative Law Judge delivered an order which allowed SWEPCO the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. He added the order cited with approval SWEPCO's consideration of seven factors in granting the Certificate: the cost of the facility; health and safety; engineering and technical concerns; ecological environmental disruption; disruption to or interference with existing manmade property uses (he noted the Fire Station would fit in this category.); disruption to or interference with planned manmade property uses; and aesthetic displeasure. He added the Administrative Law Judge stated SWEPCO had considered those things and accordingly granted the Certificate for both the power line and the substation and he had heard nothing at the hearing which would allow him to overrule SWEPCO's decision. Mr. Rose pointed out that decision meant the City, the Planning Commission, or the City Council were not an appellant court for the Public Service Commission ruling. He contended the ruling was definite as to the issues they considered. He advised those who disagreed with the ruling had the option to appeal the Public Service Commission's ruling. He further stated that, as far as large scale development approval (he referred to Section 159.54 of the City Ordinance.), the ordinances sat out the requirements for a large scale development and specifically stated what reasons the Commission could deny a large scale development. He pointed out the ordinance cited such things as a development plan not being submitted in accordance with the requirements of that section of the ordinance; that the proposed development would violate a state • ordinance, state statue, or a federal statue; that the developer refused to dedicate the street right-of-way, utility easements, or drainage easements required; that the proposed development would create or compound a dangerous t/ r • Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 5 traffic condition; that city water and sewer was not readily available to the property within the large scale development; and that the developer refused to comply with required on-site and off-site improvements. He noted, also, the large scale development plan was to require compliance with those requirements of some other sections (159.30 and 159.32) pertaining to streets, surface drainage systems, water system, sanitary sewer system, etc. He stated he did not believe there was anything in the court order regarding those items. Mr. Rose noted the next thing they had to consider was the Conditional Use which was required because the development (only the location of the substation, not the transmission lines) proposal was located in an R-1, Low Density Residential district. He pointed out among the uses permissible with a Conditional Use in R-1 was Unit 3, Public Protection and Utility Facilities, which consisted primarily of public protection and utility equipment which was not ordinarily located in a street right-of-way and could be significantly objectionable to nearby residential, commercial, and light industrial uses; had requirements for specific locations or needed to serve residential neighborhoods or other local areas, and were therefore permitted only on review. He added Section 160.195 of the ordinance authorized the Planning Commission the ability to grant conditional uses with such conditions and safeguards as were appropriate under the chapter or deny conditional uses when they were not in harmony with the purpose and intent of that chapter. He noted that it further stated a conditional use should not be granted by the Planning Commission unless certain things such as ingress/egress to property; off-street parking and loading areas where required; refuse and service areas; utilities with reference to location; availability and compatibility; screening and buffering; signs, if any; required yards and other open spaces; and general compatibility with adjacent properties • and other property in the district were considered. Mr. Rose further stated he did not believe the Administrative Judge's order took away the Commission's decision-making process or their ability to decide, but simply limited the very specific and rather narrow areas of their concern on the subject conditional use because many areas had already been decided by the Public Service commission including the health and safety of the area; engineering and technical concerns; ecological environmental disruption; disruption through interference with existing manmade property uses; and aesthetic displeasure. He reiterated the Commission had a decision to make, but it was a reasonably narrow one and his best advice to anyone in opposition was to take it to a Court of Law rather than to the Planning Commission. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representing SWEPCO, advised he and other representatives were present to answer any questions. He stated the overall site was 2 acres and the substation itself would be 150 by 200 feet (about 3/4th of an acre). He continued to say there was approximately .5 to 1 acre on the south side which could be used for access from Highway 265. He pointed out it was a permissible use under Use Unit 3. He noted there would be minimal impact on surrounding development since the site was on a hillside with a 12 by 16 -foot cut on the east side and a 12 to 16 -foot fill on the west side, located well below the fire station. Mr. Gray advised on the east side of the property between the fire station and the substation, a 7 -foot cedar fence screening was proposed. He further noted the total property around the station itself would have a 4 -foot chain-link fence. He noted to the west it was basically undeveloped with a gully 50 to 100 feet west of the property and to the south was undeveloped property. He further stated SWEPCO also proposed to build an 8 -foot exposed aggregate concrete panel fence around the station itself. He noted the gates were proposed to be wrought • iron with expanded metal and extensive landscaping was proposed. 3 • Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 6 In answer to a question from Ms. Britton as to whether the fence (4 -foot high chain-link) would be along the frontage property, Mr. Gray advised that would be left to the discretion of the Planning Commission and city staff. He added SWEPCO preferred to fence their property with a 4 -foot green vinyl fence between the substation and the fire station. In answer to further questions, Mr. Gray advised the cedar fence would be placed immediately west of the fire station and the Randall property. He noted the fence proposed between the fire station and the substation could be eliminated if the City preferred. Ms. Little advised the staff had requested that the fencing along Highway 265 be eliminated. Ms. Britton expressed opposition to a green vinyl fence along the frontage property noting it would bring attention to something that was not particularly attractive. In answer to a question, a Floyd Hornaday advised SWEPCO had one substation in the north part of Fayetteville, one in the central part of Fayetteville, one in the southwest part of Fayetteville, and one in the southeast part of Fayetteville. He went on to say a 2 -acre site was common for a substation. He advised the proposed substation would not resemble other substations within the city. He contended they were spending a lot of additional money to try to beautify and make it blend in with the surroundings. He stated they would not • locate the chain -linked fence going out toward the highway. He further advised the transmission lines would actually be buried underground adjacent to the substation and it would be a low profile type unit. In answer to a question in regard to lighting and fencing, Mr. Hornaday advised they would have to have some indirect lighting for security purposes and for adequate working light; the poles would be approximately 20 feet tall. He added the concrete fence would be solid. In answer to a question in regard to the electrical size of the proposed substation in relationship to the existing substations, Mr. Hornaday advised it would actually be a little smaller than the others. He pointed out the recent growth of the area and explained that, due to the expansions, they needed additional capacity. He pointed out their territory line, for practical purposes, was the east side of Highway 265 so they were limited in the number of choices of location in their territory. Ms. Little advised SWEPCO did intend to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right- of-way along the northern side of Highway 265 along their property. She added the City had asked for a Bill of Assurance on the sidewalk along Highway 265, but SWEPCO was requesting a waiver of construction of the sidewalk which would be a decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gray contended that, because of the rough terrain along that property, a sidewalk would not be useable. He added they requested a waiver or a bill of assurance to allow SWEPCO to construct the sidewalk if it was needed in the future. Mr. Steve Cummings stated there was a lot of effort to see that the proposed substation and transmission lines were unique with underground lines and a lot of other variations. He contended those requests were denied at the suit in . Little Rock on April 6. He stated on April 6, 1994 in Little Rock all three legal parties in the case gave their testimony to the Administrative Law Judge. He contended the judge, on September 6, 1994, ruled that a high-powered electric Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 7 energy transmission line should be built along the route requested by SWEPCO and the construction of a new electrical power substation on a 2.0 acre site chosen by SWEPCO as it's preferred route and site. He stated the court gave SWEPCO the right to start at the north central section of the north part of his property approximately 800 feet to the west of Highway 265. He gave an account of what took place at the hearing. He noted there had been a court ruling and he asked the Planning Commission to stand by that decision. Mr. Lamar Pettus, representing Gene and David Randall who owned property to the east and north of the proposed site, contended a substation was under no circumstances compatible in a residential neighborhood. He contended it did not meet the General Compatibility requirements for a residential neighborhood. He stated the only thing standing between the citizens of Fayetteville and SWEPCO was the Planning Commission's ability to make a ruling on whether the proposed site and the proposed uses were generally compatible with the concepts that existed in the neighborhood. He noted the Law Judge admitted it was readily acknowledged that health risks associated with EMF was a growing environmental concern nationally and there were a rising number of studies being done which argued there might be some health risks involved, but had added the technical and scientific evidence had not reached the level to convince him of any health hazard. Mr. Pettus stated a potential hazard, even if remote, was not compatible with a residential neighborhood. He contended the Planning Commission did have the power to exercise it's right to make a decision and allow the matter to be looked at again. He advised the right to appeal the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ran on October 6th, 1994 and unless a person was an intervener in that • case, they did not have the right to appeal. He requested the Commission deny the request for a conditional use because the system was not generally compatible with the neighborhood or the uses put forth in that neighborhood. He stated that, if the Commission granted the conditional use, he would encourage them to require SWEPCO to put in sidewalk the full length of the property. Mr. Maxey expressed concern in regard to hazards from electro -magnetic fields from various sources. He referred to a handout presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tarvin explained Mr. Maxey's concern was outside the Planning Commission's area of jurisdiction and, while they were sympathetic with him, they could not rule against the court. He asked that Mr. Maxey not to speak to that subject. Rick Johnson, an adjoining property owner expressed concern that SWEPCO's intent might be to change the route of the transmission lines in a way which would encircle his home with lines. He stated he preferred that it stay to the north of his property. Me. Little advised the latest concept plat approved on The Cliffs Addition had shown relocation of transmission lines. She added that, when she became aware that the Public Service Commission had not approved that route, she had contacted the engineer for the Cliffs and made him aware of the change. Mr. Jones, the president of the Fayetteville Firefighters Association, addressed the subject of compatibility. He contended that, if a command post could not be located within 200 feet of a high hazard incident, the firefighters should not have to sleep within less than that distance. He noted that, from his professional viewpoint, public safety facilities should not be located next to high hazards. He advised they were asking for more distance between the proposed • substation and the fire station than as shown. a Planning Commission Meeting 46 October 10, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Charles Ervin, a resident of Fayetteville, asked for more specific details in regard to the proposed lighting and landscaping. Mr. Henry Renegar, a resident of Rockwood Trail, expressed concern that there had been a lack of communication to the citizens in regard to exactly what was being proposed at the site and that the proposed substation would not be compatible with the neighborhood. A resident of 1651 Rockwood Trail asked for guidance from the Commission as to what was pertinent to be discussed. Mr. Jerry Rose reiterated the points he made earlier in regard to what the Commission had jurisdiction over. He added the discussion was mainly concerned with such things as drainage, streets, ingress/egress, screening, and buffering. Mr. Tarvin reiterated a court of law had already passed judgment on the points Mr. Rose had discussed earlier and an appeal of that court decision was not to the City Planning Commission. He added the Planning Commission's purpose was to consider the large scale development plan and the conditional use. The resident expressed confusion in regard to what the intent was of the power being transmitted out of the substation. Mr. Tarvin advised the Planning Commission had nothing to do with that and it was his understanding it had to do with SWEPCO and the Public Service Commission. It was explained by a member of the Commission that the Planning Commission's • position was to insure that the substation complied with the large scale development ordinances such as setbacks, landscaping, tree preservation, etc. In answer to further questions, Mr. Tarvin stated the Public Service Commission had superseded them in regard to the use of the land. Dr. Anthony De Palma, an adjoining property owner, stated that Ridgely Drive going north/south should be extended to his northeast corner which would go through the property that SWEPCO had purchased. Ms. Little advised that Ridgely Drive was not on the current Master Street Plan to be extended. Dr. De Palma expressed concern that all reasonable protection had not been taken and noted that transformers at the substation site would attract lightning and knock out the telecommunication equipment in the fire station thereby preventing them from responding efficiently and effectively to any emergencies. Mr. Tarvin advised the Order signed by the judge stated that health and safety had already been considered. Dr. De Palma recommended the Planning Commission ask SWEPCO exactly what constituted the substation and what went into it before they made their decision. He questioned if the substation was going to have a maintenance and storage facility also or be extended in the future. He reiterated that, from a public health and public safety point of view, it was more than just the locale of the fire station because it involved anyone located in the firemen's jurisdiction. He asked for clarification on the purpose of the wall and contended it would not keep the electromagnetic field from reaching the fire station. is In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little advised Ridgely Drive was partially paved south of Manor Drive. She added Ridgely Drive, as she understood it, ended at the north property line of the property acquired by SWEPCO. She Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 9 added a private drive known as Ridgely extended farther, but it was not a city street and that was the reason for not requesting any right-of-way along the eastern boundary. In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. DeWeese of SWEPCO, advised the fencing along the front portion of the property south of the fire station was not necessary for security reasons and they had no opposition to it being eliminated. In response to a request from Mr. Nickle regarding lighting, Mr. DeWeese advised SWEPCO would be sensitive to the neighborhood and only do what was necessary> He further advised they would work with the fire station. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. DeWeese advised they did not intend to operate any kind of a maintenance or storage area at the site. In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Little advised the grading plan had been approved and she believed the fire hydrant issue had been worked out with the use of the fire hydrant immediately to the north of this site. She noted the water line would be extended to the south with a fire hydrant placed at the entrance to the facility. NOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the large scale development plan for the SWEPCO Substation subject to the staff's comments and with a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk if it were necessary in the future. • Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7-0-0. NOTION Mr. Suchecki made a motion to approve the conditional use request CU94-26. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill. The motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7-0-0. Chairman Joe Tarvin had to leave the meeting at this point and was replaced by Charles Nickle. A5\ • Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 10 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ARKANSAS BOOR SERVICES ARKANSAS BOOK SERVICES - S OF MT COMFORT RD, W OF SHILOH DR, W OF POINT WEST ST The next item was a large scale development plan for Arkansas Book Services submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Arkansas Book Services for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road, west of Shiloh Drive, and west of Point West Street. The property is zoned I -I, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and contains 1.49 acres. Ms. Little advised the staff had nothing to add to their report of October 3, 1994 and noted the proposal was an expansion of an existing structure. Mr. Harry Gray, representing the developer, advised the expansion would almost double the size of the existing structure. He advised his client agreed with the staff's recommendations. NOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the large scale development plan of the Arkansas Book Store subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • A51/ Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 1994 Page 11 CONDITIONAL USE CU94-25 - PUBLIC PROTECTION FACILITY CENTRAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE INC - IAT 7 OF HAMMOND PLAZA The next item was a conditional use CU94-25 submitted by Central Emergency Medical Service, Inc. for property located in lot 7 of Hammond Plaza. The request was for a public protection facility. Mr. Conklin advised the staff had no additional comments. A representative of Central Emergency Medical Service, Inc. advised the site would be a second ambulance location. MOTION Mr. Pummill made a motion to approve the conditional use request subject to the staff's comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Suchecki. The motion carried with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. A�