Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-28 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 28, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 98-26.00: Large Scale Development (Hanna, pp 643) Approved PP98-9.00: Preliminary Plat (Guinn, pp 296) Approved CU 98-17.00: Conditional Use (Entel Technologies, pp 291) Approved MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Lorel Hoffman, Lee Ward, Gary Tucker, Bob Estes, Bob Reynolds, John Forney, Sharon Hoover, and Conrad Odom. STAFF PRESENT: Janet Johns, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Alett Little, and Tim Conklin. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Odom: Requested correction to page 17 of September 14, 1998 minutes to reflect what the waiver requests were and the vote should be corrected to reflect 4-4-0. The minutes of August 24, 1998 and September 14, 1998 as amended were approved. LSD 98-26.00: Large Scale Development (HANNA, pp 643) Lot 16, Fayetteville Industrial Park This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton-Tull on behalf of Burt Hanna for property located at Lot 16 of the Fayetteville Industrial Park (south) at the northeast corner of Borick Drive and Armstrong Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 46.74 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Clarification of the developer's intent and the Planning Commission determination of any improvements to Borick Drive. The drawing indicates an extension of approximately 550 feet with a standard cul-de-sac. The City has recently overlaid Borick Drive to Combs Park. Staff requests that the developer provide the cul-de-sac shown on his drawings. Clarification of the developer's intent and the Planning Commission determination of phasing for this project. • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 2 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations (where applicable) for grading drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, street (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. The drainage report and grading plan furnished is considered preliminary and a separate "final" report shall be required. Fire protection to meet the more stringent of the City's water standards or the Fire Chief's request. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' green space along Armstrong Drive and a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 6' green space along Borick Drive. 6. Street light installation at 300' intervals on all street adjacent to this development if they are not currently in place. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. If construction has not started within one year then the approval shall be void. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat c. Completion of all require improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. 9. All parking lot requirements including one tree per 40 linear feet. Mr. Kurt Jones was present representing the large scale development LSD 98-26.00. Odom: There are eight conditions of approval (condition nine was added by motion). The first two requiring clarification but other than those requiring clarification do you have any objections to those stipulations? • • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 3 Jones: I'm not sure I have those conditions. Odom. (Read the first eight conditions as delineated above.) Discussion ensued regarding the cul-de-sac. Little: The cul-de-sac was a request from the solid waste division. Odom. The cul-de-sac is shown on the plat. Jones: We have shown that on the plat. There should not be a phase line. Johnson: Requested phase line be taken out. Estes: Because of a potential matter in my office, I will recuse. Odom. Opened the floor for audience comment. Braay• I'm Bob Braay with Superior Industries. I had a question regarding whether or not there would a truck entrance on Borick Drive. Little: There are two entrances to Borick Drive. One of those leads to a loading area. Jones: The rear of the eastern most access will be a truck access. Braay• The only other question I have is regarding the cul-de-sac. The City just finished bringing that down but they didn't make it a cul-de-sac turnaround. Will that be a part of this improvement? Odom: I think that was what the staff was wanting to clarify. Beavers: That's shown on the plat. I haven't seen it, and perhaps you can tell us, but the street has been improved all the way to the end of the property and this proposal includes a cul- de-sac where trucks can turn around. Odom. Any other comment? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public comment. Further discussion ensued regarding the cul-de-sac. • Little: I received a comment from Sharon Hoover about the existing trees along the public right of way. I responded to her that this is an industrial building not subject to • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 4 commercial design standards. Under commercial design standards you are required one tree every 30 feet. There are also parking lot standards which provide one tree every 40 linear feet that abuts a public right of way. There are two areas on the southwest corner of the property and so there should be trees there. We need to add those trees in there. Jones: One per 40? Little: One per 40' so that it meets the parking lot standard. It's a perimeter landscaping requirement. Discussion ensued regarding change of landscape administrator. Odom: parking lot. The motion needs to include the condition of the landscape requirements for the Discussion ensued regarding the phasing. Reynolds: Are you going to build this in two phases? Jones: Just one phase. Reynolds: At what point are you going to put your cul-de-sac9 Jones: In conjunction with the site development. Reynolds: I want you to look out for the health and safety of the people at Superior. Discussion ensued regarding the grading permit. Hoffman: Do they have a grading permit for this already? Beavers. Yes, they do. Hoffman: On the plans I noted they had a percentage for the tree preservation but I can't tell exactly what the plan for that is. Beavers: We made an inspection and had a meeting and we talked about the trees. Kurt was there. MOTION Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 5 Ward: I recommend approval subject to the nine conditions of approval. Reynolds: Second. Upon roll call the motion carried by a vote of 8-0-1. Mr. Estes recused. • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 6 PP98-9.00 PRELIMINARY PLAT (Guinn, pp 296) Highway 45 E and Co. Road 83 This item was submitted by Don Phillips on behalf of C.L. Guinn for property located north of Highway 45 and east of County Road 83. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately five acres with four proposed lots. This subdivision is located in the county, north of Highway 45 and has frontage along Oakland -Zion Road Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments furnished to the applicant or his representative, and all comments for utility representatives. 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. • 3. Compliance with the requirements of Washington County. 4. The County office of the Arkansas Health Department shall approve all septic systems. Mr. Don Phillips was present representing the project. Odom. Have you had the opportunity to review the four conditions of approval? Phillips: I have those and I am in agreement. Odom opened the floor for audience comment. No comments were forthcoming from the audience. Odom opened the floor for Planning Commission comments. Hoffman: I read something about the county dedicated easement that goes back. Discussion ensued regarding County requirements. MOTION • Reynolds: I move to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments. • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 7 Johnson: Second. Odom. I have a motion and a second. Are there any further comments? Hoffman: Is the staff satisfied with right of way requirements and sidewalks? Little: This is in the county so both sidewalks and roads are going to be under their jurisdiction. Upon roll call, the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9-0-0. Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 8 CU 98-17.00: Conditional Use (Entel Technologies, pp 291) 1060 East Township Road This item was submitted by Craig Hull of Nickle-Hill on behalf of Entel Technologies for property located at 1060 East Township Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 1.22 acres. The request is to construct a monopole on an existing water tower facility. Staff recommended approval based on findings included in their report and subject to the Planning Commission making the findings required by §160.195 and the following conditions: 1. The City Council's approval of a lease agreement. The applicant shall design the proposed 152' tower to allow for the co -location of at least two other wireless communication carrier. Mr. Craig Hull with the Nickel -Hill Group from Fayetteville, Mr. Chris Villines with Entel Technologies, and Mr. Randy Sheppard, Engineer, were present to representing the conditional use request. Hull: After considerable discussion with City Engineering and the Public Works Department of the city they do not want more stuff on top of their tank. I talked with Dave Jurgens and we concur on that situation. Essentially, when it's real cold outside and you've got ice on the structure and if you have to put people up there you're making more hazard on his people and equipment. What we've tried to do in working with the site, is to construct a monopole directly opposite of the only residence that up there on top of the hill so that he won't see it. Odom: So the lease agreement is still going to be required to do this. Hull: Yes. Odom: What's your position on the other portion of the provisions? Villines: We can accept those conditions. These are conventions that we usually place on ourselves. All our poles now will hold two additional carriers in addition to ourselves. Also, one of the things that this poles has is a flange on top of the pole. If an additional carrier comes in later on and says that pole is not strong enough to hold us, we can add an extension to it. Of course, they'll have to come before this board again for a conditional use permit. But they can come before you and ask for a conditional use permit adding an extension to it to satisfy their coverage needs. • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 9 Odom open the floor to public comment. No comments were forthcoming. Odom opened the floor to Planning Commission discussion. Johnson- I have a question about the photo that we were presented. This is a mock up because the pole that shows up in the picture doesn't exist. But I thought the water tower that does exist already has a tower on top and this picture doesn't reflect it. Sheppard: This is correct. From that angle on the ground you can't see the apparatus that is on the top of the bowl. Discussion ensued regarding the exhibit. Tucker: And the top of the tower is elevated? Conklin: The height of the tower is 120 feet. Reynolds: If you go east on 15th Street, and look directly back to the north on Mt. Sequoyah • you can see that. Little: That configuration is Alltel. We don't currently have any cellular or other equipment on Mt. Sequoyah except for the arrays for radio equipment for the City Police Department and the other departments that use radios. Discussion enused on the Alltel tower on Mt. Sequoyah on Assembly. Little: It's a monopole. Hoffman: And that was also required to be accessible to other companies and other companies made use of that? Little: It was required to be made accessible to other companies. No other companies have made use of that. I believe that we will hear why earlier that this company would like to make use of that monopole. Hoffman: Have the neighbors all around the surrounding the area been notified and have you received any comments from those people? Conklin: We did not receive any comments from any neighbors. But they were notified. • Hoffman: Were they notified in the paper or were they notified in writing by Planning? • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 10 Conklin: Yes. As we are required. Reynolds: On this monopole that you are talking about installing two more -- can carriers come onto the pole? Is that going to be the limit on that pole? Three. Are we going to be looking at some more down the road? Villines: It will be the limit on that pole. Generally, you try to engineer a monopole to hold anymore that three carriers, it's going to look like the water tank that's already up there. So we're trying to keep the size engineered for two additional carriers. Reynolds: You've got an antennae on the very top. Are the other ones going to be dishes? Villines: The way its engineered, because we can't predict exactly what, but it is engineered to hold two additional carriers with apparatus much like our own. There's no way we can predict or engineer for that. That's what we expect to be happening in the future. Reynolds: So for the minutes sake we'll just say that you are not going to install more than three antennae on that monopole. Villines: Yes, sir. Now each one of those will have to come back before you anyway. Johnson: Last week we had an interest in seeing whether or not this pole could have in fact be placed on top of the existing water tower. This is a different reason from the one we've heard tonight. The reason last week was that you couldn't weld on top of the water tower because then you might affect the safety of the drinking water supply. Conklin: I did contact them about the engineers looking at the feasibility of welding on to the existing structure. The question was asked whether or not the existing Alltel structure that's welded up on the tank could be welded to hold an additional structure. Hull: We had our structural engineer come and look at the tower and the structure could be welded with some modifications. And if you design a system that would get us the 15 feet of additional separation, either one would be fine with us In working with the City, public works wanted an alternative facility. So we deferred to Jurgens' request. Reynolds: You can't put all the atennaes on top of that water tower. You have to get about 20 or 25 feet from the other antennae. Hull: Right. You have to have some vertical separation in order to not interfere with each other. I think Mr. Jurgens was right. We would have more ice forming. You're talking 100 feet above the ground and a light on top. That would create a never ending cycle of • • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 11 responsibility for the City. Little: If you were to go on the existing substructure with Alltel -- your structural engineer has been on the top of the tank and he feels like it is technically feasible for your arrays to sit at the top of the structure. This would be a way for your company to raise their array there without having to do welding that would affect the tanks or cause any problem. Hull: That's correct. Little: And your separation that would be required between your arrays and other arrays is 15 feet or 20 feet? Hull: We have a configuration that requires 15 feet according to the engineers . Little: And so you agreed and you are choosing to install a monopole in deference to the City and to the City water and sewer manager who said that if this other facility is installed that when ice forms, and it is more likely to form at that height, the ice would make the operating conditions more hazardous And for that reason, you are willing to construct a totally different facility. Hull: That's correct. It is my job to secure the site and decide what position. 1 believe there were also comments from the staff about receiving additional income for the city. It up to you to determine the land use first and what is best for the City. Reynolds: I would like to call the attention of the Staff and the Commission on page 3.11 there is a letter concerning the Township Water Tank Property. I think we may need to review that. That is Kevin Crosson, director of public works and it makes it plain that all we will accept is a monopole for this project. MOTION Estes: I move that we approve conditional use 98-17 subject to staff comments. Ward: Second Odom. Is there other discussion? Johnson: I think it's preferable to minimize the number of these in so far as we can. Certainly the city staff is firmly convinced that it doesn't want this on the water tower. I think • that we need to heed that but if it can be a safely placed on top of the tank I would prefer that. The city would still lease the property and the pole can still be placed but I think it preferable to Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 12 have one structure. Forney: These things are proliferating across the landscape around the region. Do we have any sense that we won't end up with seven or eight on this site? I realize you are making efforts to co -locate but each company is going to need their own installation and with competition you could have many, many more. Villines: That's true. There are six PCS licensees We are the very first PCS company coming into the Fayetteville market. What you all have to do is realize that site is a very strategic point because you already have the vertical tower. I mean what you have to do is take a look at each applicant and require that they build their poles so that they can co -locate additional carriers on it and make them understand it's not a requirement but something that you very, very strongly recommend. Of course that's something that we're looking into for additional revenue as well. But as each new carrier comes in you can make them build strong enough poles to handle additional carriers as well. Forney. Does that mean six PCS licenses locally? Villines: That in every market across the country. Unless the FCC decides to issue additional licenses, from a practical point of view I believe you will see six PCS providers like in New York City but you're not going to see six companies in northwest Arkansas. You'll also see some companies share facility locations so that they can roam back and forth. It's very technical but instead of six new antennaes coming up it would be more like three or four. Forney. So we could end up with another monopole site as well. I think. Villines: Yes. It is possible. Little: I have a question for you. Is your separation 15 feet? Villines: Roughly 15 feet above what's there. Little: If your array were on top of the water tower what height would they be? Villines: The top of the ours would be roughly 140. Little: So what your doing on the tower would be 140 feet. Villines: Right. • Little: So what deciding factors go into building a 152 feet tower when a 140 feet would • • • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 Page 13 be adequate. Villines: The tank obstruction creates an effect called shadowing. Hoffman: How high if an additional company co -located? Would they have to go on up higher? Sheppard: It could go higher or lower. Discussion ensued regarding the site acquisition diagram and various ground elevations. Little: What are the relative heights of the Sequoyah and Township locations? Hull: Township is 200 feet lower in elevation and in order to get the same coverage area, the tower would have to be a 190 feet. Discussion ensued regarding alternatives for the Alltel facility and the construction type and physical constraints in adding Entel's facility to the existing structure on the tank. Upon roll call, the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:25. • fgasarr P►J t FK858.fr HJT FeESE T Pat • Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 1998 51APP Bu : cr1-HSS, ESN LEES) WArCK) UTILE) CONKLJtJ LSD 98-26.00 Hanna PP 98-9.00 Guinn CU 98-17.00 Entel Technologies MOTION LEE- WL1ZP P-2I►JOLh5 LST -S SECOND r -Ey MG LOS, 7jPmsyN >r W Alp P. Johnson \(e5 `( V L Hoffman VES V L. Ward 2 y V G. Tucker '`' LS / 7 B. Estes V Y B. Reynolds \IPS YD 7 J. Forney Yes Y y S. Hoover NES V y C. Odom V 1 \ ACTION E^APE( eD OWIzi0D (Ilea sr VOTE 8-4- t PQ' C uomt-RoosLq bouImoosi 51APP Bu : cr1-HSS, ESN LEES) WArCK) UTILE) CONKLJtJ