Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-26 Minutes• MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on October 26, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ,ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD98-15.2: Large Scale Development (Kantz Place, pp 371) CU98-20: Conditional Use (Skyline Drive, pp 486) CU98-19: Conditional Use (E.J.Ball Plaza, pp484) RZ98-18: Rezoning (Dixie Development, Inc., pp604) CU98-21: Conditional Use (McAllister, pp594) MEMBER PRESENT Bob Estes John Forney • Lorel Hoffman (arriving at 5:32 p.m.) Sharon Hoover Phyllis Hall Johnson Conrad Odom Robert Reynolds Gary Tucker Lee Ward • STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Tim Conklin Perry Franklin Janet Johns Alett Little Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION TAKEN Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Withdrawn Approved w/conditions MEMBER ABSENT None The minutes of the October 12, 1998 meeting were approved as submitted. • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 2 LSD 98-15.20: Large Scale Development (Kantz Pl., pp371) W of Hwy 265 and N of Hwy 45 This large scale development was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull, and Associates on behalf of E.J. Ball and Jim Lindsey for property located west of Hwy 265 and North of Hwy 45. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 15.23 acres. Present to address the Commission on behalf of the project were Tom Hopper with Crafton, Tull, and Associates, Ernie Peters of Peters and Assoc. of Little Rock, Bill Purcell (architect), Cathy Ball of the E.J. Ball Trust, and Shannon York with Wal-Mart. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Commission determination of the requested variances: Variance from the street standards for curves closer together, and smaller radius, than standard. Engineering agrees with this variance with posted slow traffic speeds (This variance was granted.) b. Variance from the requirement to locate the overhead electric along Highway 265 underground. (This variance was granted.) c. Non -conforming curb cuts to allow two 36 ft. drives for truck traffic. (This variance was granted) Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Planning Commission determination of allowable signage for the project. 4. The developer shall coordinate the proposed LSD parking lot construction and landscaping with the proposed AHTD improvements to Highway 45 and the City's required waterline relocation. The southern most line of parking, 21 spaces, may, or may not be allowed depending upon the final design of the Highway improvements and the City's water line relations. 5. Planning Commission determination of any additional onsite or offsite improvements. 6. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. • 7. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Staff approval of • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 3 final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. 8. A formal geotechnical report shall be required prior to approval of the grading plans. The retaining wall design and calculations, including safety rails to meet the more stringent of the SSBC and AASHTO, shall be required as a segment of the overall grading plan and shall be submitted for review and approval. 9. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk and 10' green space along Highway 45 for the section not included in the AHTD project to widen Highway 265 (Includes a short section of Highway 45 -refer to plat.) (This condition was amended to include construction of the sidewalk and trail to Kantz as a part of this construction.) 10. Contribution to pay for the City's share of the new sidewalks along Highway 265 and Highway 45 which will be included in the AHTD project. The contribution will be based upon bid construction costs and is estimated at $2.50 per square foot. The estimated length is 660 feet. The estimated total contribution is $9,900. 11. Dedication to the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department sufficient ROW for the widening of Highway 265 and Highway 45 contiguous to this property and as generally shown on the plat. 12. Downstream drainage improvements as determined by the City Engineer to possibly include the cross -drainage under Highway 265, an improved drainage ditch across Mr. Klinger's property and erosion/velocity control at Mud Creek Tributary. 13. All drainage, not within public street right of way shall be private and privately maintained by the developer or similarly approved entity. 14. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year If construction has not started within one year then the approval is void. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City to guarantee all incomplete improvements. 16. Provision of written assurance providing that no outdoor sales, display or storage will • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 4 occur at this location. (This condition was added by motion at the October 26th meeting.) Discussion Odom: This item has been before us on several occasions. There are currently 15 conditions of approval. Staff, are there any further conditions of approval other than those listed in the agenda packet? Little: There are no further conditions of approval, however, there are a number of items that you requested at your agenda session. One of those was to receive an elevation of the sign. So, that has been given to you tonight. The other was concem about the elevations and what they were to look like. So, you do have a new elevation of the front of the Wal-Mart Building as well as the remaining portion of the strip center. We asked for discussion regarding the connection to the northeast of the two parking lots for a pedestrian way and we asked for the Highway Department to be contacted concerning the left turn lane on Highway 45. Odom. A lot the concern and discussion of this project was a result of both this project and the construction work that is going on by the Highway Department on Highway 265 and 45. • Before we get into the applicant's presentation, I would like for you to give us an update on that. Franklin: The Highway Department is overlaying 265 and in the last couple of days they have come down to Highway 45 and 265 intersection going north. I believe today they have finished that and were in the process of striping. We met with their staff and we laid out a striping plan to give us a southbound right turn designated lane with arrows in it from just north of the Lindsey Mercantile driveway. That is an actual designed right turning lane. There is a southbound through lane and then a continuous left turning lane from 45 all the way to 412. When Citizen's Drive is opened up there will be already a left tuming bay which constitutes a center left turning lane. This will hold anybody going northbound making a left onto Citizen's, they would not be blocking and backing up traffic through that traffic signal. That is one lane northbound and three lanes southbound (right turning lane, through lane, and left turn lane.) We have finished installing the equipment at the 45/265 intersection. That intersection is now online with our traffic signal system. At Township and 265, we're going to install equipment in the next two weeks to get it online. When that goes online, we will be able to coordinate those intersections which we've never been able to do before. We will be able to establish timing patterns which will coordinate Township and 45 during the peak hour from 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock. We will hold traffic at Township, then when they get to Highway 45, the signal will be green and they will not stop. We will create gaps which should give ample time for any left turns. The Highway Department's completion date for the project due to the relocations of utilities could be anywhere from a year and a half to four years before the full project is finished. • There has been a phone conversation with the Highway Department and we've our concern about trying to start the job on the north end. But from what I understand, there are so many utilities to • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 5 be relocated in that north end, it is probably not likely that they will start the project there. Tucker: Did the City make a request to the Highway Department about putting a light at Citizens or was that the developer? Franklin: The developer performed the studies that we asked for. Then the City made a request for the Highway Department to evaluate the studies. The result was a letter from the AHTD saying if a signal is warranted, they will permit it and allow the developer to put one in after the development is completed. We will continue to monitor this intersection and the traffic flow not just for this development but all of the area. These are interim improvements and I feel like they will help the traffic flow on Highway 265. Franklin: We will create the gaps for left turns by coordinating the signal at Township with the signal at 45. From my observations, we are talking about a period of one hour of p.m. peak. Other times of the day, there are plenty of gaps to make left turns. If this doesn't work and we have the numbers to meet the requirements for signal warrants, then we'll make a request for a permit from the Highway Department even in the interim. According to Mr. Peter's projections, the warrant requirements will be met. Part of the conditions require the developer to provide a $60,000 Bill of Assurance to pay for that signal. Little: That is also in your packet. We have a Bill of Assurance with the developer that they will provide the funds. Forney: I need confirmation. You're saying that there will be a stripped left turn lane from this intersection all the way to 412? Franklin: Yes. Forney: Do you anticipate additional road widening north of the intersection within the four year time frame or none at all? I know that south to 16 there is supposed to be a road widening. Do we anticipate left turns onto Citizens across 5 lanes in the future whereas it's a 3 lane as of today? Franklin: The future project terminates at Kantz. It goes through the intersection and continues through 5 or 61anes and then it tapers down beyond Citizens to Kantz and terminates to a three lane cross section. Forney: When you talk about that as a continuous left hand lane, I know when I drive south of 71 or North College and I want to make a left hand turn near the IGA at Lafayette, I shouldn't. It is against the law for me to make that first turn. It is a solid line close to the intersection because in theory that is stacking for the left turn onto Lafayette going west. I have Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 6 to go down to the south end of the IGA site to turn in there to be legal. Franklin: I know what you're saying. I think there is a lot of confusion on what the left turn lane is for. I understand from Ben Thompson who is with Arkansas Highway Department that the center left turn lane law has changed. We need to research that. Forney: I guess where I was trying to lead to, was how soon are we allowed to make a left turn after going through a major intersection. There doesn't seem to be a dimensional rule of thumb I know that when I'm turning into the first turn into IGA, I think I'm breaking the law so I go on to the next one. But there is not real clarity about that. Would we ever anticipate stacking in that left turn to go left onto 45 East that would not allow you to get in the left hand lane to go onto Citizens Drive? Franklin: What you are talking about is occurring. Citizens Drive is 450 feet north of Highway 45. With this continuous left turn lane during peak times, there are more than 450 feet of cars backed up. Some of this is because a person making a right turn either drives on the shoulder or stays in the lane and waits and if he does, he blocks everybody. If there is more than 8 or 10 people making a left hand turn, they back up into the through lane and everyone is blocked. What we are trying to do is coordinate these signals so that this bunch of cars stops at Township for the 45/265 intersection. When you leave the Township intersection and get down to 45/265 you'll be deciding which lane to be in, you're not going to be stopping. Forney: Regarding the warrants for traffic signals, there seems to be about an informal policy of about 1000 feet that the State wants between traffic signals and I guess that is why the Kantz location was considered. If the signal at Citizens is 450 feet, do we have existing intersections signalized at 450 feet? Franklin: There are some closer than that. There's a big difference between signals that are isolated and operating independently like Township and 45. If you had a signal at 45 that is an independent traffic signal, you would cause all kinds of problems. When you talk about a traffic signal system where you are coordinating them and moving them through there then the distance between them becomes moot. We have a situation on Weddington at the Bypass where the signals there are 150 feet apart and most of the time during the day, those things are coordinated where you never stop to go through them and then during the a.m. peak you very seldom have to wait for more than one cycle of the lights. That is because we are in control of them. Tucker: How long do you expect that it will take you to get the lights coordinated? Franklin: I think a couple of weeks. There are some things coming up that we have no control over. The Highway Department is going to mill College Avenue and if they do, they will cut 20 or 30 traffic loops that we will have to coordinate with them to get out and replace. If that • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 7 happens, then we have to be doing that for a couple of weeks. Tucker: Conservatively by year end? Franklin: Yes. Reynolds: We've talked about Highway 265. Let's talk about the left turn lane on Highway 45. How soon is that construction expected? Hopper: We visited with Joe Shipman this afternoon with the Highway Department. He has given us assurance that a temporary left turn lane on 45 would be no problem for the developer to construct it. The actual design of that intersection west on 45 has not yet been determined in as far as exact striping. There is a transition between a 2 lane and a 5 lane that must take place in that area. At this time, the temporary turn lane has been approved and the final design for that intersection has yet to be determined. Reynolds: How many cars will stack up in that turn lane. 4 cars? Hopper: I would assume 4 or 5. I have not completed the design yet. Odom. Are there any conditions of approval that you would like to make a presentation on or on the overall project. Hopper: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Tom Hopper with Crafton and Tull. With us we have Ernie Peter of Peters and Associates from Little Rock; Shannon York with Wal-Mart to answer any of your operational questions; and, Bill Purcell to answer any architectural questions that you might have. We have read the stipulations that have come from staff and we concur with those. This property has been zoned for many years. This is not a rezoning that we are asking for. This is only a large scale. I feel like the use of this property for a long time has been determined to be commercial and we're just following through with that zoning that we have agreed that a Bill of Assurance will be filed to provide for the traffic signal at Citizens will be installed. We are asking that the final plan that was submitted and shows only the drive at Citizens and not a connection to Kantz other than the walking trail that was requested be made. We have made the changes to the elevations that were requested as far as the green stripe was concerned and the architects in Kansas City made those changes and Bill has those with him and will be glad to address them. Public Comments • Mr. Robert Sigafuse residing at 2689 Hardy Lane was present in opposition to approval of the subject project on the basis of lack of infrastructure and hazardous traffic. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Zed Johnson residing at 2181 W. Dowers Lane was present as an adjoining property owner. He requested that the plat be corrected to reflect "Zed" Johnson instead of "Ned" Johnson. He raised concern regarding the right of way requirements for the Highway Department plans (55 feet on the north side and 80 feet on the south side.) Further he was concerned about the location of Citizens Drive and the affect that car stacking would have on the access to his tract. Ms. June Ekenseair residing on East Oaks Drive was present requesting that the traffic issues in the area be addressed. Ms. Shari Mains residing at 4522 Gentle Oaks Lane read a prepared statement requesting the traffic problems in the subject area be fixed. Mr. Roger Collins, Executive Vice President of Harps Food Stores, was present in opposition to the proposed project requesting that it be delayed until the Highway Department plans are complete. Mr. Bill Clark residing at 823 Canterbury was present requesting the traffic problems in the subject area be fixed. Mr. Dan Coody residing on Mt. Sequoyah was present and requested that the Commission bring forth a resolution to hire a traffic engineer.. Discussion Little: I need clarification of the pedestrian access between the parking lots. Hopper: property line Little: Ball: Hopper: Johnson: Hopper: property. Johnson: We will agree to extend any pedestrian walk way from this development to the and from the property line to Kantz Drive if we have the ability to do so. Have you had conversations with that owner? No. We will do whatever legally we can to make that happen. What does that mean? On personal property we don't have a right to extend a walkway across personal We know that, Mr. Hopper. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 9 Hopper: If the City will give us that right, we will be glad to build the walkway. Johnson: Will you go further than that and make an effort to purchase an easement? Hopper: If we can purchase it at a reasonable price, yes. Johnson: Thank you. Reynolds- We thought that trail would be good for the neighborhood children and people could walk and jog to the store. Hopper: I think that will happen whether we build a trail or not. I think it is a good idea. Reynolds: It will either be dirt or pavement. Hoffman: I'd like some clarification on the right of way discrepancy on 45. Mr. Hopper, would you please address that? Hopper: I have in front of me the preliminary plans from the Highway Department. Those were the plans that Mr. Johnson has been asked to agree to and to sell property to the Highway Department. It shows 55 feet of property on the north side. The Highway Department is asking for 80 feet on the south side of the highway partly due to the judgment of the Highway that due to the slope they would need 80 feet on the south side and 55 feet on the north. We are dedicating the 55 feet of right of way on the north but have no control over what the Highway Department requested on the south. Hoover: Could we have Mr. Peters give his summary of the intersection. Peters: I concur with Mr. Franklin. I believe that Mr. Franklin will be successful in effecting coordination in the signals between Township and Highway 45 in that interim time period. I think once 265 and 45 intersection is improved that the coordination will be further enhanced. I think that there will be gaps created in the north -south through traffic on Highway 265 with that coordination which will be particularly important during the p.m. peak period which is the worst case situation. We have estimated the total traffic that we believe will be generated by this development at full development. We included some property that is not a part of this plat and in the worst case situation for the use on those two lots and that is fast food or something of less intensity, we have assumed the worst case situation. We believe that our estimates are such that the traffic signal at 265 and Citizens Drive will in fact be warranted when the development is completed. We believe that the Highway Department will verify that with counts that they make or counts Mr. Franklin makes. As the developer has indicated willingness to not only allow the signal but to provide the funding for it, I think that signal will be a reality. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 10 With the coordination of 45 and Township, another signal at Citizens will not impair that coordination. We have analyzed that and provided that analysis to Mr. Franklin. I believe that he is convinced that interjecting another signal in that stretch between Township and 45 will not adversely affect the coordination of the through movements. And if it should become an impairment to the left turns exiting at Citizens and trying to tum north onto 265, signal control interrupting 265 only at an appropriate time will provide for safe and efficient movement of those vehicles. I'd like to further add that what the Highway Department has planned for the intersection of 265 and 45 will be a great enhancement over and above a three lane section that Perry has indicated they have been working on in recent weeks. They will have a six lane section at 45 and 265. It will ultimately provide for dual left turns south bound and north bound from 265 onto 45. Initially they will only permit one of those two dual left turn lanes to operate because there will only be one lane to tum into onto Highway 45. The Highway Department has planned for an 81% growth in traffic in the design of their intersection and we believe that is more than adequate. Estes: Mr. Peters, traffic moving north on 265 enters the left turn lane to enter into the project. Traffic coming out of the project turns right and enters the center lane to go east on 45. This all happens within 450 feet. Are you with me on the scenario? How will that work? Peters: The 450 feet distance is one that in the area immediately north of 45 that center left turn lane will be an exclusive left turn lane. That is exclusive for south bound to east bound left turn movements. Estes: I understand that to be the case. Will the person leaving the development have to cross the cars that are stacking in that turn lane? Peters: That's not right. The distance that will be delegated to the exclusive left tum south bound to east bound movement based on the demand of left turn vehicle will not be more than about 150 feet. If they did as Mr. Franklin indicated stripe it today, the proof will be in the pudding. But, the exclusive area of left turn would probably only have to be made 150 feet. So that allows a distance from 150 feet north of the intersection on up another 300 feet to Kantz to be a viable interruption left turn lane that will serve for left turns into the convenience store and then at the point of Citizens Drive there will be available for storage of left turn vehicles onto Citizens. Estes: There will be 300 feet then between the 300 feet exclusive left turn lane and Kantz. One route that a vehicle could take would be to turn left on Kantz and go back through the neighborhood and cycle back down on 45 and take the left tum lane into the development. I see that as an alternative use of Kantz as a back access to the project. Peters: I do not disagree that some others may choose that route. I don't believe it will be • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 11 a convenient route of choice. There's nothing to my knowledge that would preclude a motorist from doing that. Odom: I think that you instead go up and turn left at the stop light and go up Highway 45 and turn right. Estes: That is another altemative. Once you cycle through that flow one would learn to come up and enter on the east side of the project. Would another alternative route be that people leaving the project would take the east exit and go on 45 and cycle back through the subdivision and come back out on Kantz? Peters: My response is the same. I don't believe that would be a route of choice but there is nothing that would preclude that. Estes: Peters: And by that they could avoid the intersection of 45 and 265. If that was their intent. Yes, sir. • Little: One of the questions that we were asked at the agenda session was, how much traffic do we have to have to get a signal at Citizens and Highway 265. I'm particularly concerned about what I just heard tonight. First of all, there are no out Lots as a part of this large scale. There's one piece of property. What I heard was the out lots might develop as fast food places and I know those to be very high traffic generators. I want to be sure that it doesn't take fast food places for us to get enough traffic on Citizens to warrant this signal. • Peters: It has simply been my assumption to try to anticipate what would be the worst case traffic operation to assume those fast food uses on that property. You're correct that the property is not added as a part of this development but we felt that we would have been short on our complete look if we had not anticipated some use for that property and associate that with this project. I believe that if that property does develop it may have driveways of its own that intersect with Highway 265 which -- Little: Please excuse me for interrupting. I don't believe that we could have talked all this length of time about the intersection with Citizens Drive and 265 for us later to consider additional intersections with Highway 265. I don't think the Planning Commission has considered that. I know the staff hasn't considered that. I'm very confident to say the staff would not recommend additional accesses to Highway 265 in the future. Peters: I understand In that regard, we have assumed that will probably be the position of the City and therefore have anticipated that a great deal of the traffic associated with that undeveloped property will take access internally through the site and have to use Citizen Drive • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 12 either on 45 or 265. So the traffic volumes associated with those uses are included in our total traffic projects. Meeting the traffic volumes is not a marginal situation. We have determined based on our estimates that two warrants will in fact be met and a third warrant will fall one hour short of being met. Only one warrant needs to be met for a signal to be justified because there is a total of 11 warrants any one of which can be met in order for a signal to be justified. Some of those are not related to the conditions here such as school zones and such as that. Even with the other undeveloped property taken out of the picture, I'm still confident that signal warrant will be met. Reynolds. Mr. Franklin, I have had some calls from the neighbors about not being able to install speed breakers and stop signs. At what point can you put stop signs and speed breakers? Aren't speed breakers outlawed? Franklin: I don't believe it is legal. We have a federal manual and that has precedence over state and city regulations. The State has adopted that manual. The City has adopted that manual. Stop signs are not for speed control. Reynolds: I think the neighbors were concerned about traffic control not speed control. Franklin: I thought that was a separate issue from what we're talking about tonight. We studied that street. We took two different counts then. We took two different counts this time. That street is a local street and is designed to carry 4,000 cars per day. Two years ago we counted 2,000 cars per day. One month ago, we counted several days apart and we counted 1,700 cars and 1,800 cars another. That street is carrying far less than the cars it is designed to carry. It's a street designed to carry cars from residential streets and disperse them to collectors and arterials. Reynolds: The neighbors were concerned about the time you took the census count on the cars. They said they thought you did it at the wrong time. Franklin: We did it 24 hours. 24 hour traffic counts. Odom: I think it was the placement they were concerned about. Franklin: We've moved them around. We've discussed speed control and where to place the sensors. There are maybe 50 to 60 of the 1,800 cars per day that speed. Stop sign define right of way. That is how they are defined in the Federal manual. Tucker. Who can tell me the hours of operation of the Wal-Mart? York: They will be 24 hours. • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 13 Tucker: Do you have any studies and I realize this is a fairly new from your Wal-Mart Supercenters? Do you have peaks in terms of when people frequent -- York: This is very different from a Supercenter. This is mainly a grocery store. Whenever there would be peak hours for a grocery store like weekends and after 5:00. Tucker: What do you anticipate being the average shopping time? York: This will vary. At the Supercenter, people tend to spend a longer time because it's a larger store with more items. As far as this smaller concept it is a grocery store: two-thirds grocery; one-third general merchandise. You will have everything from a meat department and a• bakery. Tucker: Is there any rule of thumb in the industry that you use? York: As far as for Wal-Mart, we don't have a rule of thumb for this concept yet. Because we only have one open. So this is a test for us. • Little: When this project was first brought forward they were requesting extra parking places. That has been removed so the Planning Commission didn't have to grant a conditional use. Will the store have outdoor display of merchandise? • York: We don't have a garden center at this location. The Bentonville location does not have outdoor displays yet. Little: that? Would you be willing to give the Planning Commission any kind of assurance on York: I could. Yes. Typically, our outdoor sales at a Supercenter are lawn and garden which we won't have or sidewalk sales with clothing and we don't have clothing either. Estes: Do you anticipate any outdoor storage? York: At a typical Supercenter we have outdoor storage mainly for layaway at Christmas. With this being the type of store that doesn't sell much in the way of toys or clothing or those items, I don't foresee outdoor storage. Estes: Would it be possible to obtain a written assurance that there would be no outdoor merchandise displays and no outdoor storage? York: If that's something everyone is interested in, I think that we could handle that. • • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 14 Estes: How many square feet are in this store? York: Roughly, 40,000 square feet. Estes: Twenty years ago, what was the square footage of a typical Wal-Mart? York: I would say probably right around this size. Estes: So we're looking at what a Wal-Mart was 20 years ago. York: Different merchandise mix but from a size standpoint, yes. Twenty years ago were we a general merchandise and this is two -third grocery and one-third general merchandise. Estes: I think it is important to know what the "turnover" rate of the shopping experience is In other words, how long people are in the store because that will tell us about traffic flows and it will tell us about frequency of visits. What are you're pricing points? York: Similar to an existing Wal-Mart Store -- Everyday low prices. Estes: I request that we obtain written assurances that we obtain no outdoor merchandise displays and there be no outdoor storage. Odom. I have added that as number 16 conditional of approval. No outdoor storage or display. Is anyone in disagreement with that? The amendment will stand. I was originally opposed and against this development when it first came through primarily because of the concerns that I had with the traffic. Staff has told us that the signal isn't functioning correctly and I didn't think that as a Planning Commission we should approve any development no matter whose bringing it before us when staff is indicating that the current infrastructure there does not work. You have gone to several meetings and worked with staff. I think that a lot of improvements have been done to that intersection to date and it sounds to me that with the Township coordination with Highway 265 and 45, a lot of those problems out there are going to solved. What I'm hearing from my staff at this point is that with these improvements and with the upcoming improvement to Township intersection that the 265/45 intersection will no longer fail. I will be supporting your project, and I appreciate your extra work. You have done a lot more than what other developers have done but in my opinion it had to be done before I could approve something. Reynolds: I would like to make sure from staff that we have what we asked for as far as design of this building. The stripe is not going to wrap around it's just going to be the front and the pharmacy side. • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 15 Little: That's my understanding. What we had discussed was two things. Beginning on the east elevation (pharmacy) there be additional design elements added - even a sign. That is now shown. As a part of that they added a stripe on the side of the building. So then at the agenda session, you were asking about why the stripe could not be continued along the front so that has now been added and it's my understanding that those are the only two locations. The remainder of the shopping center does have a strip element. It doesn't exactly match but it is very similar to that on the front of the building. Hopper: That is true. Reynolds- The roof mounted air conditioning, are you going to have those covered? Hopper: Parapets as shown which should take care of that. Motion Mr. Ward motioned to approve LSD98-15.20 for large scale development of Kantz Place with the granting of variances for the deviation from the street standards conceming the centerline radius and tangent distances and also granting a variance for existing overhead electric line along Highway 265 to be relocated within the Arkansas Highway Department right of way and the variance for nonconforming curb cuts to allow for truck traffic to be 36 feet in lieu of 24 feet along with the other 15 conditions of approval and all staff comments included. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Further Discussion Estes: My comments when I first reviewed this project were too little dirt for too much project. My concerns about traffic remain. I am of the opinion that until we have a light at Citizens, that we're not going to see Citizens used as the entrance and exit of choice for that project and that there will be traffic through the subdivision. However, the applicant has agreed to each of the conditions of approval and has met each of our requirements. My remarks are offered not to persuade my fellow commissions, but simply to explain why I will vote for the project. I do so reluctantly but after much consideration and reflection, I will vote to approve the project. Johnson- There's no provision in the motion for the sidewalk that will connect this project to Kantz Drive. • Amended Motion • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 16 Mr. Odom made a motion to amend the original motion that the sidewalk will be put in at the time. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Further Discussion Johnson: So the sidewalk then would go from this property all the way up to Kantz Drive and the developer would be required to do whatever is necessary to accomplish that? Odom: Yes. Roll Call - (Sidewalk Issue) Upon roll call the amendment to the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Further Discussion Johnson: In response to Commissioner Estes' concems about the traffic. I guess I have been persuaded that the traffic on 265 north of 45 intersection is going to work pretty well because as I understand that within a matter of days will be 5 lane with 3 south bound and 2 north. With those 3 south bound I think they'll get that traffic out of the way of anybody traveling north who wants to make that left turn. When Perry Franklin tells us that the lights can be coordinated so that it won't be backed up then I believe him. In terms of when the light goes in, I don't have a problem with the fact that the light won't go in on a State Highway until their standards are warranted and we're told that within a month it will be there. I think that those concerns have been well addressed. Reynolds: I would like for the staff to read the letter to the Mayor from the Highway Department. Page 1.9 (Ms. Little read the letter a copy of which is on file.) Forney: I want to confirm that there are 5 lanes as of today? I haven't been out there since the stripping. There is a right turn, a left turn, and a through. Franklin: Yes. Forney. Regarding condition number 3 is determination of allowable signage. When this was last reviewed at this level -- what do we have to ensure that this signage was roughly equivalent to that provided for the Harps and the Cozart development. I don't see a pole sign • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 17 where there was one on this site before. Are we strictly limited to the monument sign? Little: It is 75 square feet in area so this would be the signage for the entire development and I understand that is what they are agreeing to. Reynolds: How are they going to promote the other tenants that rent the rest of the shopping center? Hopper: The signage would be on the building. Forney: I see walls indicated that the intersection of Citizens Drive and 265 but not at 45. Is that right? Hopper: Yes. Forney: So there is only one monument sign? Little: One only. Forney: Like many of my fellow commissioners, I am reassured by Perry Franklin's presentation about the traffic problems that we have out there. I am still concerned about the degree of development. I appreciate that the applicant made significant effort to realign Citizens Drive to do away with some of the property identified earlier. However, it still is not meeting all of our standards. Citizens Drive is there. It is a public street. We've already made the left turn that close to that intersection - a part of this in any case I think there is a potential for making things a little bit easier if it wasn't developed quite so extensively. While I am not concerned so much about through traffic, my primary concern is the safety of that entrance and exit at Citizens Drive and the actual development of Citizens Drive itself. It seems to me that we should keep in mind not to develop this so extensively. There was an opportunity to have another exit further north where Citizens Drive not dependant on as the only way in. But it would have meant developing less square footage. Some of the compromises we're making are to accommodate a pretty intensive use of this site which I think is creating a lot of problems. Johnson: Am I wrong in understanding that there will be a left turn on 265 into the project as soon as the project opens? Hopper: As I understanding from Mr. Franklin, that turn lane is being striped today. Johnson: Are there a total of five lanes at Citizens? Franklin: At Citizens Drive, that far back from the intersection there will probably be 3 • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 18 lanes. A south bound, a center lane, and a north bound lane. They can only use the asphalt that's out there. There has always been more than needed for the north bound lane so what I got them to do was shift all that over and make the north bound lane a 14 feet lane. Just beyond Citizens Drive about 150 to 200 feet right about that drive at the stoplight at that point you're going to see a right turn lane, a through lane and a left turn lane all striped as such. Johnson: The three south bounds lanes will start a little further south than Citizens. Forney: I am assuming that the square footage of the proposed development has not changed. Has it changed in this presentation versus that which we was about a month ago? Hopper: No. It is still the same. Tucker: I'm going to vote in favor of this development also. To me the traffic issue is always one of what contribution of traffic problems this development would create or add at the peak times. I was never particularly convinced that shoppers would voluntarily go through all that traffic just to have the Wal-Mart experience. So, I didn't see them adding to the traffic that was going through that intersection at the peak times which were the times the citizens were concerned about. The improvements that Perry has already outlined give me considerable confidence that we have at least in the stop gap are good. Reynolds. I want to say that the State of Arkansas has worked on this project. The staff has worked on it. Mr. Beavers, Mr. Franklin, and the Planning Commission has been on this for months. I think we've got a good package and we're going to get that fixed out there without any problem and that's the reason we're going to vote in favor. Roll Call - (Approval w/conditions) Upon roll the motion passed with a vote of 8-1-0. Mr. Forney voted against the project. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 19 CU98-20: CONDITIONAL USE (SKYLINE DRIVE, PP 486) 150 West Skyline Dr. This conditional use request was submitted by Chris Villines of Telecorp PCS for property located at 150 West Skyline Drive. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is to construct an antenna and equipment cabinet on an existing 150 feet monopole. Mr. Randy Sheppard, Arc Engineer with Telecorp, Mr. Craig Hull, Site Acquisition Specialist with the Nickel Hull Group, and Mr. Chris Villines, Zoning Manager with Telecorp were present in support of the project. Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall paint the existing tower and the new antenna gray blue 2. A sample of the color to be used for the tower and new antenna shall be furnished and approved by the Planning Commission. 3. The tower must be repainted prior to the installation of the new antenna. 4. The cabinet structure shall be located within the existing wooden fence. 5. The paint color must be preapproved by staff prior to a final electrical permit issuance. (This condition was added after discussion and included in the Motion.) 6. Notification to Dr. Wallace that a paint color has been selected so he can approve same. (This condition was added after discussion and included in the Motion.) Committee Discussion Odom. Would the applicant come forward? Villines: We have no problems with the conditions on this. This is a simple attachment of antenna to an existing monopole. I would like to correct one thing. It is a 150 feet monopole instead of a 100 feet pole. The only this that we would like is the ability to attach out antenna and agree to paint the pole within 60 or 90 days after we go on the pole instead of doing it up front. The problem being it is going to take us some time to put together painters and get that part of it done. But, we're ready with the equipment to go ahead and get it up there and get it started. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 20 Reynolds. So what you're saying is that you'll give us a Bill of Assurance that the pole is going to be painted. Villines: Yes, sir. I will. Reynolds: And it will be painted before it's put into use? Villines: Well, what I'm wanting is if we could get an agreement to get it painted within 60 days of us getting the building permit and going on it. Reynolds: I think the sky blue was not our idea. I think it was your idea when you offered this project. It was suppose to be sky blue. Villines: That was Alltel's idea. Reynolds: We won't accept anything but that. I would be willing to give you a pass to operate that until the pole is painted. We need it done. Alltel or you promised to do that and I think that's what we need to see. Odom. Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Little: We do have one additional letter that has come forward from Dr. Wallace at Mt. Sequoyah. We do not have additional conditions of approval. Dr. Wallace was here earlier. He had a meeting. He told us he would have to leave by 6:30 and we also told him we didn't think this project would come up before 6:30. So, he was kind enough to put his concerns in writing to you. Odom: Are you passing it around? Whereupon, Odom read the letter from Dr. Wallace. (A copy of same is on file.) Public Comment Mr. Dan Coody residing on Mt. Sequoyah stated the tower has quite obtrusive and he wanted to be assured the tower and attachments would be painted. Further Discussion Johnson: The antenna is going to placed at roughly 125 feet of height. Is that placement at a 125 feet does that best maximize the possibility for future locations on this tower as well? In other words, I would think that the way to maximize this existing tower for additional users would be to put this antenna as close as possible thus leaving as much available space as possible • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 21 for future tenants on this pole. Villines: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that was in negotiation with Alltel We will only go where they will allow us to go and because of their future development of their system and for other reasons that are out of our control, that was the highest level that they would allow us to go at. Which means there may be some level in between Alltel and us that is available for co -location but that is not a question that we can answer. That is entirely up to them. Hull: The amount of works that are being installed along many other Alltel installations are sticking down and up and the ones that hang down are like 18 feet long and we have to have some separation from that. So if they hang them right off the same rack that they've got their other antennas on, then you've got a 20 feet range before you can even play. Johnson: Once your antenna is located, how difficult would it be to move it up or down the pole? Villines: Physically or in an agreement with Alltel? Johnson: Physically. Villines: Not difficult. Sheppard: It's not difficult. It requires all new equipment when you move it just because each run of coax that runs to the antenna has to be replaced with a brand new piece but that's about the only difficulty in it - besides making sure you can still mount the antennas in the same fashion to the tower. Johnson: It dust appears to me that is something we would want to look at in the future, is being sure that we can maximize the number of facilities on each pole by being sure we don't have wasted space on those towers. Tucker: The next item on the agenda is you also. How many more antennas do you anticipate? Will this be it or do you anticipate needing to come back to us? Villines: We believe this to be the only one to get our build out done to turn on the system. From time to time later on in the future and there is no way we can determine that at this point, you may need an additional site. But at this time, this is all we'll need. Tucker: With three antennas, you can cover pretty much what you intend to cover. Hull: We do have another site that is not under the purview of the Planning • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 22 Commission in Fayetteville. It is on University ground and is still in negotiation. Odom: But the two that are before us tonight are located on existing antenna structures, is that correct? Hull: Existing antennas and existing building, yes. Reynolds: Are you hooked at the antenna that's on Mt. Sequoyah? Villines: No. Hoover: I understand you don't have to get a building permit to install anything of the monopole or these additional antennas. Is that correct? Hull: Not to my knowledge. They are charging us to go through the paperwork on the one we just got approved as well as an additional one west of town. Hoover: So does that means the City inspects this after you have installed? Hull: There is an electrical inspection and if we pour any concrete or any other structural work. Staff right now is reviewing the one you approved prior for our access from Township Drive. They will look at different details. Hoover: Once it is installed, will these antennas be inspected? Hull: The electrical inspector is probably not going to climb the pole. That pole would be a matter of our people putting the installation on them and the electrical conduit and meter would the type of stuff the permit will involved. Hoover. Should be we worried about these antennas falling off? Hull: We are estimating a $50,000 cost just for this one installation. We're going to be nailing them down tight. Motion Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the conditional use and adding the following provision that the paint color be preapproved by staff and that final electrical permit be issued until the paint color has been approved and a date has been set for the painting. Ms. Hoffman requested that staff notify Dr. Wallace so he could look at the paint, too. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 23 Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. Further Discussion Johnson: I still a little confused Mr. Chairman as to what the change to condition 1 does to condition 3 that says the tower must be painted prior to the installation of the new antenna. Odom: We're just reiterating that both the tower and the antenna will be painted. Reynolds: We just want it clear so we know what we're getting. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 24 CU98-19: CONDITIONAL USE (E.J. BALL PLAZA, pp484) 112 W. Center Street This conditional use request was submitted by Chris Villines of Telecorp PCS for property located as 112 West Center. The property is zoned C-4 Downtown Commercial, and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is to construct an antenna and equipment cabinet on the existing E.J. Ball Plaza Building. Mr. Randy Sheppard, Arc Engineer with Telecom, Mr. Craig Hull, Site Acquisiting Specialist with the Nickel Hull Group, and Mr. Chris Villines, Zoning Manager with Telecom were present in support of the project. Conditions of Approval 1. The color of the antennas will closely match the colors of the existing building. 2. A sample of the colors to be used for the antennas will be furnished and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the installation of the antennas. 3. The equipment cabinet will be restricted to the center of the roof area of the Ball building. Committee Discussion Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval. Little: Chris Villines did bring us pictures tonight of antenna array that had been attached to a building in Little Rock. So those are being passed down for you. The antenna array are on the upper most portion of the building. There are two of them that 1 saw and they have been painted to match there. Odom. approval. Do you have any comments or questions with regard to the conditions of Villines: Just one. The drawings that we turn in for the application, page S-1, show the equipment cabinet to be some what off centered but not right in the middle of the roof. This is for design reasons. On the top of the plaza, apparently there are some beams running through here that will support it better. At the same time, this will not be a location that is visible from the street. I'm wondering if this is close enough to the center of the building to be okay with the Planning Commission. Odom: Staff, any comment on that? • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 25 Vinson: The only reason we had it to the center was to keep it from being seen from below and that was the spirit of that. Public Discussion Mr. Dan Coody residing on Mt. Sequoyah requested that these antennas be located on public facilities. Further Discussion Forney: I agree with Mr. Coody. There is something a bit offensive. This not an attack on this kind of business. I understand it needs to be done. We are seeing a proliferation of these. I think it's notable how much less distinctive they are on a building location as opposed to a new locations. So, things like water towers are the best possible locations. Motion Mr. Forney made a motion to approve the conditional use request subject to all staff comments. Mr. Odom seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 26 RZ98 18: REZONING (DIXIE DEVELOPMENT, INC.) NW of Leeper Rd. and Pump Station Road This rezoning request was submitted by Don Mobley on behalf of Dixie Development, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Leeper Road and Pump Station Road The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, and contains approximately 1.59 acres. The request is to rezone the property to I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. This item was removed from the agenda by the applicant. • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 27 CU98-21: CONDITIONAL USE (MCALLISTER) 4294 W Sixth Street This conditional use request was submitted by Edith McAllister for property located at 4294 West Sixth Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 3.79 acres. The request is to allow a retail shop in an A-1 zone. Conditions of Approval 1. The conditional use shall only apply to the existing concrete block structure. No outdoor sales, display, storage, or other activities associated with a business is allowed other than what is allowed under A-1 zoning. 2. The conditional use shall be revoked if and when the property is ever subdivided, rezoned, or developed under the existing zoning classification. 3. The building or uses of the building shall not be enlarged or expanded. • 4., The use of structure is limited to Wedding Apparel Rental Business and Antique Business. • 5. A review of the Fire Marshall and the Building Inspection Department shall be required prior to any business reopening in this location. 6. Signage shall be limited to 18 sf and shall be placed on the building only. 7. Auto parking garage, service stations, automotive repair, or other automotive uses shall not be allowed. Ms. Edith McAllister was present to address the commission regarding this request. Committee Discussion Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval? Little: No further conditions. Conklin: The applicant has signed the conditions of approval. Originally the request was to allow for a wedding and tuxedo rental to locate in this building. During the time the application was submitted, the applicant did not feel like that business was going to go in there. I have been informed this evening, we are back to the tuxedo and wedding rental business and therefore, the • • • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 28 Planning Commission can approve just that use to be allowed in that building along with the existing antique business. That would be our recommendation. That was what we originally took the application for. So condition 4 that says the use of the structure is limited to the uses allowed in Unit 12 - Offices, Studios, and Related Services and Unit 15 - Neighborhood Commercial, you could strike it and put the use for Wedding Apparel Rental Business and Antique Sales. McAlister: I would like to thank you for your consideration tonight. I'd like to that the Planning Director and her staff, especially Tim Conklin and Dawn Warrick for being such a help. Public Discussion None were present for discussion. Motion Mr. Estes made a motion to approve the conditional use request as amended. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 9-0-0. • Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 29 DISCUSSION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY RESOLUTION Discussion Odom: The last item on tonight's agenda is the discussion of the amendment to the Underground Utility Ordinance. (Odom read letter from Mr. Williams, a copy of same is on file to the Planning Office.) Staff, are we supposed to take any action on this? Little: What we have done for you is to forward the revised ordinance as the next page and just so that there is a way to get it back to Council, we did prepare for you a Resolution which would essentially adopt the changes that the Ordinance Review Committee had suggested. You may take action tonight or you may delay it for another couple of weeks. Whatever you feel would be appropriate time wise and staff is available to provide any other information you may need. Motion Mr. Odom made a motion to approve the resolution for the adoption of this ordinance and • forwarding it back to the City Council. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Further Discussion Hoffman: I will vote to go ahead and send the resolution back but a great deal of work did go into the preparation of this ordinance and I felt like it was a good idea to go ahead and put our new power lines underground. I feel that we should not give up on that idea and we should encourage the power companies as they are planning new service areas to go ahead and consider underground service whenever possible. Odom: I agree. Estes: How is this going to affect the North College project? Little: The overall project provides the power lines that are along North College to the rear. Estes: I thought they would be underground. • Little: No. They won't be underground. What we have is the assurance of SWEPCO, because that is SWEPCO's territory, that if we will obtain easements to the rear of the buildings Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 30 as they come through the development processes, that at such time that SWEPCO begins to reconfigure their service, in other words, at such time as SWEPCO decides that they are going to do a major overall replacement, that they would place them on the rear lot line still above ground. Estes: What percentage of our lines are above 12kv? Little: 99.5%. Estes: Is it a fair statement that if we approve this that we're not going to have utility wires underground? Odom: Now this is existing? Estes: I understand. Is it a fair statement that if we approve this that all existing utility wire above ground are going to stay above ground. Little: That's a very fair statement. Tucker: I want to express my sense of frustration about this. We had a special subcommittee of the Planning Commission and at least two hearings where we invited utility representatives for feedback. We approved it at the Planning Commission and on to the City Council level were the utility companies again gave feedback and were invited to pull the proposed ordinance and rewrite it to their satisfaction. It came back at 34.5 and above and then ever since then, it's been, well, we can't do that. Reynolds: I don't believe I'm in favor of this for the simple reason we have projects on Shiloh that we required the lines to go underground. We've got a good thing going out there and it's working well and I don't believe I'm going to send the message upstairs that we're never going to require lines underground again. I think it should be done on a job to job basis. I don't think this is fair. We've already required this to those developers out there. Hoffman: I thought they would come back and appeal. Some of them may have gotten built without this benefit. But recent projects would come back on appeal. Reynolds: I would like to see the lines underground. Hoffman. I agree. But, it seems like unless we have an ordinance to give us direction on how to proceed overall, we're going to have to be granting variances on every large scale development and that was very problematic to me. • • e Minutes of Planning Commission October 26, 1998 Page 31 Reynolds. Can we have Tom DeWeese come to one of our meetings and visit with us about the size of the cables that can go underground. And give us some leadership on that. Little: Mr. DeWeese has come to many meetings. I'm sure that if I invite him to a Planning Commission meeting or even a special session, I feel like I can arrange that for you. Reynolds. I have some questions for him. Odom: Let's do that at Agenda Session. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion failed by a vote of 2-7-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:35.