Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-25 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 25, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Room 219, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes CU98-28: Bakery Feeds PP98-12: CMN Business Park II, Ph II CU99-2: Southwestern Bell LSD98-27: Krauft MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes John Forney Lorel Hoffivan Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Gary Tucker STAFF PRESENT Jim Beavers Janet Johns Alett Little Ron Petrie Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved on Consent Agenda Tabled Approved w/conditions Tabled Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward STAFF ABSENT • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA The minutes of the January 11, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 3 CU98-28: CONDITIONAL USE BAKERY FEEDS (PP 599) This request was submitted by Jim McCord on behalf of Bakery Feeds for property located at 1348 Cato Springs Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial. The request is allow the present operation to continue operating as a center for collecting recyclable materials in an I-1 zone. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A complete list of all raw material sources and all raw materials used at the facility shall be submitted to the City Planning Division 1. (Amended) A complete list of all raw materials used at the facility shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. 2. The facility shall be allowed to operate between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday • through Saturday only. A schedule of hours that the facility is in operation shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. All waste water from the facility shall meet OMI's (wastewater treatment facility) requirements for pretreatment or surcharges shall be paid. 4. All spills of raw or finished materials on site or related trailer spills elsewhere shall be cleaned up and disposed of immediately. All spills shall be documented and reported to the City of Fayetteville Planning Division and the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs of any spills cleaned up by the City of Fayetteville. 5. The Conditional Use will be reviewed after a period of six months. If complaints have been filed against the applicant, the applicant will be required to provide odor equipment including but not limited to scrubbers, charcoal activated canisters and afterburners on site. 6. Any complaints or violation notices received by the facility for the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology must be reported immediately to the City of Fayetteville Planning Division. 7. An addition is to be constructed onto the facility providing total enclosure to trailers as they • unload. Double lock doors are to be installed at the receiving area entrances and exits. Doors will be closed when trailers are unloaded and when the feed making process is in • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 4 operation. 8. Grounds of the facility will be kept free from all debris and food products that might attract bird or other animals to the site. All raw or finished materials must be covered or totally enclosed at all times. 9. The conditional use permit authorizes a recycling facility to operate on site including property leased to the applicant at 1348 W Cato Springs Road. The existing stack and dryer shall be removed immediately upon the operation of the new 10 feet x 50 feet dryer and the 100 feet tall stack. 10. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits prior to undertaking any additional work on the facility. 11. (Added) No rendering processes will be permitted. Jim McCord, Local Council, Bill Reagor, President of Bakery Feeds or Griffin Industries, Inc , Kevin Murphy, Corporate Council and Ron Witcher, Plant Manager were present on behalf of this request. Commission Discussion Odom: Staff, are there any further conditions of approval? Vinson: There are two additional handouts. One is a letter from Jim McCord and the other was a complaint from Joyce Thomas. Hoffman: I would like to add one condition of approval and that would that no rendering processes will be permitted. McCord: That is acceptable. We appreciate the staff's thorough review of this application and we appreciate the recommendation of approval. The reason we are before you tonight is that Bakery Feeds proposes to invest $500,000 in purchasing and installing new equipment to modernize the facility, make it more efficient, and more environmentally sound and acceptable. The company proposes to install a new processing dryer that will enable the company to decrease operating hours substantially. The plant now operates six days a week, 24 hours a day. The new equipment will enable the company to substantially reduced operating hours. The company also proposes to install a new exhaust stack which has been permitted by the Air Division of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. They have determined that the new exhaust stack and the new dryer will substantially reduce hourly concentrations of emissions. There was an appeal filed by area • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 5 residents after the final permit was issued. I appeared before the Commission on Friday, January 22, 1999, to argue that the automatic stay be lifted to enable the new equipment to be installed. The Commission stated: "The Commission finds that if the stay for Air Permit No. 1552 -AR -1 is not terminated, equipment which would substantially reduce hourly concentrations of emissions from the Bakery Feeds plant and thereby protect the environment cannot be installed and there will be substantial prejudice. In order to avoid such substantial prejudice and protect the public health, safety and welfare, the Commission hereby orders that the stay for Air Permit No. 1553 -AR -1 is terminated this 22nd day of January, 1999 and Bakery Feeds is hereby authorized to proceed with installation and operation of the new dryer and exhaust stack authorized by Air Permit No. 1552 -AR -1." The reason Bakery Feeds is before you tonight is because it wants to make it's operation more efficient and more environmentally sound. The plant in the existing zone is a non -conforming use. Even though the plant merely desires to replace equipment, the staff determined that was an expansion of a non conforming use In order to be legal, a conditional use permit would be required because a recycling facility is a conditional use in the I-1 district. There is no question that this plant is, in fact, a recycling facility. It collects and processes feed based food by products which are unedible for human consumption into a dry feed ingredient for chicken and swine. These byproducts would have to be land filled but for the fact they are being recycled and reprocessed. In order to comply with the zoning ordinance, the company has requested a conditional use permit as a recycling facility to enable it to install the $500,000 in new equipment that will make the operation more efficient and more environmentally sound. They are trying to improve the operation and be an asset to the community. There have been recorded complaints in the past regarding odor. The new equipment is designed to decrease any odor problems. The Department of Pollution Control and Ecology has determined that there would be, in fact, a substantial reduction in hourly concentrations of emissions. I believe you have received the graphs the Air Permit Division has prepared which demonstrate the difference between the existing emissions and what the emissions would be with the new equipment. Regarding the conditions recommended by staff are concerned, the company believes that the conditions as proposed would require shut down of the plant. We need to go through the conditions. Regarding condition number 1 and the complete list of all raw material sources. That would require the company to disclosure its customer list which is confidential and is protected by the Arkansas Trade Secrets Law as outlined in my memorandum. I hope you had a chance to review both the memorandum I submitted and the memorandum submitted by Bakery Feeds in detail. I think they provide background material and information that would help you make your decision tonight. Johnson: At Agenda Session, we modified condition one. We would like to have a complete list of all raw materials. Would that be acceptable? • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 6 Reagor: Are you asking for just the type of materials that we have at our facility? Johnson: Yes. We will delete the sources. Reagor: A lot of the materials we have are grain based food products that come from a food manufacturer. We don't handle any hazardous materials at the facility. For example, bread from a bread manufacturer. They are food products that for whatever reason were not adequate to go out the front door so they went to the back door and came to our facility. McCord: Recommended condition two, specified limiting the hours of operation. Reagor: Currently, with the equipment we have, we are operating six days a week, 24 hours per day. The new equipment that we propose to put in would reduce those hours because it would be more efficient. The nature of our operation is that we receive material on a 24 hour, seven day a week basis from our raw material accounts. These are accounts such as Pillsbury and Tyson. They don't have a specific schedule that they can have us pick up on a regular schedule. They need us to pick them up on demand. It is our job to pick that up and process that in a reasonable period of time. Putting a time frame on when we can manufacture takes us out of the realm of being able to handle the material on demand. The new equipment will reduce hours which is in our economic interest We are trying to reduce hours but we still need the flexibility to be able to operate on demand. McCord: I want to point out that the existing plant is a lawful non -conforming use as it now operates. If the Commission does not grant the conditional use permit, the plant can continue in operation as it now operates. What the plant would prefer to do is have approval to install equipment, curtail operating hours, and reduce hourly concentrations of emissions. Without approval, the plant has the legal right to continue operation as per the status quo. They want to improve that operation and help the environment and neighborhood. Regarding condition three, and wastewater treatment -- the plant intends to comply with the City's wastewater disposal ordinance and the pretreatment ordinance. Regarding condition four, spill clean up -- it is in the plant's best interest to keep the premises as clean as possible. What is a spill? The condition is vague and we need it to be clarified. Reagor: Arkansas Pollution has a term called upset condition. If you have an upset condition, you are required to report that to them. By doing that it is public record and can be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. What is a definition of a spill? If it is a piece of bread or if it is a trailer load that turned over and as this is written both items would constitute a spill. Our commitment is to maintain good housekeeping practices. McCord: Regarding condition five, and the six month review period. That could be interpreted that if there are one or two complaints, the plant would be required to install odor equipment. There • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 7 needs to be a determination as to whether or not there is a significant odor problem. Just because there are a couple of complaints is it reasonable to require installation of scrubbers which are costly. Our state regulates these types of operations and they have issued an air permit which requires the plant to operate within the perimeters of the air permit. Regarding condition six, and the complaints and violations to DPC&E and reporting to the City -- those are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and are available upon request. Regarding condition seven, and enclosure of the trailer during unloading -- Reagor: When we filed for our Air Permit, we went through the process of doing calculations for allowable emissions and we fell well within the guidelines. That is why we don't need air scrubbers and it was determined by people with a more educated background in that area. One condition they did impose on us that is in the current Air Permit that has been issued is that when we dump the trailers that the doors are closed and that is a requirement of our Air Permit. As I read condition number seven, it is requiring us to build a building. The magnitude of the building you are talking about would need to accommodate a trailer that raises up so we're talking about a building that would have to be 50 feet tall and 100 feet long. That is not practical or economically feasible. This has already been addressed in the Air Permit. McCord: Condition eight regarding keeping the grounds free of all debris -- Reagor: Our management is required to have good housekeeping practices in place. We work very hard with this. Five years ago, when we first started, we had issues. The State came out and they gave us recommendations and we followed the recommendations Since that time, upon further inspection, they have found our grounds to be in good order. "Free of all debris that might attract a bird" is too vague. McCord: Condition nine reads, "The existing stack and dryer shall be removed immediately upon the operation of the new dryer and stack." Certainly the company will remove the existing dryer stack when the new dryer stack is installed and becomes operational. There is a testing period that is required to ensure that their equipment is operating properly and it will take some period of time to ensure proper operation. We would like this reworded so there is an opportunity for a testing period. Condition ten regarding the necessary permits prior to undertaking any additional work -- certainly that is understood and will be complied with. Reagor: Condition five where it talks about air scrubbers -- I think there is misunderstanding of what we are doing. We work in several states including Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, and Arkansas. We face regulatory issues in each state. We have done surveys about scrubbers. Not only as related to specific people in our industry but also in relation to the baking industry itself. We have proven that scrubbers are inefficient and don't work the same as after burners and the same with charcoal canisters. Engineering practices as related to our industry have shown that having the • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 8 extended stack is the best method for controlling any emissions. Scrubbers won't address those issues. We have tried a scrubber and it didn't work. Conditions two, five, seven, and eight -- we want to be cooperative but we also want to enjoy the right to run our business and go about our business. We feel we have taken a proactive stance in addressing any problems with our neighbors. We have an open door policy. We want the right to run our business. Public Comment Bob Reynolds, Alderman from Ward 1, Position 2 stated he had many phone calls. He requested that the Commission listen carefully to the public comment. He stated upon his inspection that there was a spill by a feed hopper and at the front drive which were being cleaned up with a shovel. He stated the truck was left empty for two hours. Kathleen Doss residing at 1125 Cato Springs Road spoke in opposition to the conditional use request. She stated that Department of Pollution Control and Ecology has not been helpful resolving their concerns. Further, she stated the stay order for Bakery Feeds was a result of their neighborhood's request for a third party intervention. She noted that Bakery Feeds requested the stay be lifted so they could continue operations. Ms. Little read from the report at page 2.4: "On June 1, 1998, a building permit for a warehouse storage facility was issued by the City of Fayetteville to the applicant. The permit was for the footing of a new building. It was indicated on the application for the permit that the use of the structure was for storage. There was no mention of new dryer equipment or new stacks on the permit." Ms. Doss stated the smell was unimaginable. Referring to page 2.8, "The thick, green 'goo' discovered discharging from the storm water detention pond at the site was not found to be unacceptable as a waste product to be received by the city but is a source of odor" she requested that the numerous sources of odor be addressed more thoroughly. She requested that screening and buffering be provided. Ms. Little stated that if the plant had good housekeeping and unloaded trucks within the facility then screening would not necessarily be required. She stated that it would be within the purview of the Planning Commission pursuant to §160.195 of the Code of Ordinances or §163.16 from the Unified Development Ordinance and she read as follows: "You are empowered before any conditional use shall be issued to require screening and buffering with reference to type, dimension, and character, if you deem it to be advisable." Ms. Doss stated the six month review was too long and that three months would be better. She stated she wanted to know who would handle the complaints. She stated that she was concerned that the capacity would be doubled with a bigger dryer and a bigger smoke stack. She read from the report at page 2.7: • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 9 "...The existing fifty -feet smoke stack is to be replaced with a one hundred -feet exhaust stack to help diminish odors from the air by lifting them to a higher altitude." Ms. Doss inquired as to the definition of rendering. Ms. Little stated that according to Webster's Dictionary is the extraction of grease by use of heat. Ms. Doss noted Bakery Feeds also operated a grease dewatering facility which produces odor. Mr. Tucker requested information on the noise pollution. Ms. Doss stated there was equipment banging and an outdoor paging system which was mainly noticeable during the night hours. Mr. James Harp residing at 1826 S. Ashwood presented a video tape recording depicting the conditions at the subject site including feed spills and smoke from the stack. He also presented a petition of people opposing the conditional use and a daily journal entry of pollution problems and contacts a copy of which is on file in the Planning Office Ms. Julian Watts residing at 2015 S. Vale Avenue spoke in opposition to the conditional use request. Mr. Len Schaper residing at 1940 Pratt Drive and former alderman stated during his tenure on the Council they had passed an ordinance regarding odor. Ms Little stated that was passed on May 21, 1996 and it provided that any facility which emitted odor must be located in I-2 and there must be a large scale development and it was only allowed by Planning Commission decision. The problem with this is, this facility began operating in 1994. The Facilities Emitting Odors Ordinance was passed as a result of this operation and this business had been in operation since 1994. The consideration is whether this is an expansion of that facility or whether it is a replacement. If it is an expansion, then the ordinance does apply and would not be allowed in except in I-1. If it is a replacement, I can't see how to make it apply. We responded to the consideration by recommending restricted hours of operation primarily because that is what the applicant said they would do. We included an extra day. Secondly, we responded to the consideration by recommending that the current equipment would have to be removed immediately upon installation of the new equipment. Mr. Schaper noted that businesses do not put in equipment which may double capacity so they can cut back on their hours of operation. Further, he noted that DPC&E was only responsible for protection of public health and not responsible for pleasant living environment in the City of Fayetteville or responsibile to protect the image of the City of Fayetteville. Also, he noted the facility did not employ a great number of people and the unemployment rate is low and they could find replacement jobs. Mr. Schaper noted that his business, The High Density Electronics Center, could potentially emit odors. He stated they have acid waste which is handled properly with the use of large fans and exhaust scrubbers. Lavonda Poor spoke in opposition to the conditional use on the basis of breathing problems, grain • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 10 spills, and rodent problems. She requested that Vale Street be rezoned commercial. Mr. Ron Austin, Alderman from Ward 1, Position 2, requested that the Commission follow the recommendations from staff. Mr. David Druding business owner at Vale and Cato Springs Road spoke in opposition to the conditional use and raised questions about the previous use of the property by Simmons and when Bakery Feeds actually began business. Ms. Little read from the page 2.3 of the report: "On September 19, 1994, the facility was initially permitted by the Air Division of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPC&E)...An "air permit" was issued to Bakery Feeds Inc. authorizing the facility to construct, operate, and maintain an air pollution control system with certain conditions..." Further Commission Discussion Murphy: I've been General Council for Bakery Feeds for three years and I frequently travel to meetings with Commissions, EPA, and negotiations. I have familiarity with what we are talking about. Except for companies such as Bakery Feeds, the products that we are talking about would go into a land fill. This is truly a recycling business. I wrote the Response to Staff Background Report contained in your packet at page 2.20 so you would have a better understanding of how the business works. This business is essential. It is also my job to listen to the community. We are operating legally and we will continue to do so if the Commission turns us down. They are 50% below what the permit allows. What we plan to do has been approved by the State. We use this in other facilities such as the one in Pennsylvania where the Chamber of Commerce gave us an award as to how we're operating which has this same system. We are listening. I don't agree with each and everyone of your complaints but we want to try and improve the premises. We have 26 employees and we intend to operate. We hear your complaints and this new $500,000 system is a large commitment. Condition five as written right now, if we receive one complaint it would force us to have a scrubber or other pollution control. These scrubbers are not in other Bakery plants and our data indicates they don't work in this environment for this product. We have scrubbers in our other business in Tampa, Florida. In this particular situation, we won't let this Commission shut us down for one complaint and do something that wouldn't work. Someone mentioned if we double capacity it that would double emissions. This may be a poor example but my daughter complained that the five year old computer is too slow and she wants me to upgrade the computer so it will work faster. It's not to work more hours. It is to work more efficiently. We know, in fact, that this dryer will allow us to work more efficiently and thereby reducing the hours. Why do the limits bother us? Because our customers don't have a set time for us to pick things up. That is a problem. This is also • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 11 a product that is degradable. If it sits it becomes an even bigger problem. Regarding the building permit and misleading the City, please refer to page 2.21 of your packet wherein there were two separate inspections. We submitted blue prints that were approved by the City. It had detailed drawings of the foundation for the dryer and the wheels upon which it was to be placed as well as the depth and the rebar configuration for the 100 feet stack. These were not typical blue prints for a storage facility. We were not trying to put something over on the City. This was obvious. Regarding the breathing problems, if the complaints are legitimate, let us spend the $500,000 to improve it. Reagor: I have met with staff and I feel it was improper for the word storage building to be on there. What was written there was just someone filling out a form. We apologize for that. The plans submitted are the plans we are trying to do. Regarding screening, with the new building the view across the railroad tracks will be a solid wall. If it would please the neighbors we would be glad to extend a temporary wall to cover everything. We will work to try and help in that situation. As far as doubling capacity, we measure that by the amount of raw material that we receive. The amount of material we receive is our capacity. We are not changing the receipt of material. We don't have plans for any more material to come in with approval of this application. We propose to put in an efficient piece of processing equipment. We are not doubling our capacity or emissions. In Arkansas Pollution's report and graph, what they are showing is that by having a higher stack you are putting the stink or pollution up in the land and air stream. Will it eliminate the odor? It certainly has worked in other applications and that's what we are trying to develop. Regarding noise, many of the people here participated in a meeting at the end of October sponsored by the Arkansas Commission. It was an open forum to talk about our air permit and what we had going on The issue of the noise was brought to our attention and we have eliminated any activity late in the evening such as unloading rail cars or having our phone system off. We continue to try and be responsive to people's concerns and complaints. In Mr. Harp's video, what looked like spills was really part of construction. We try to be a good corporate citizens and we have been recognized as such in many areas. Little: Regarding the hourly concentrations presently and the hourly concentrations after proposed percent increase in stack modification diagrams prepared by DPC&E, in the "y" portion of the graph in the middle there is 0 and it goes to 4,000 at top and -4,000 at the bottom. In the "x" portion of the graph it has -4,000, 0 in the middle, and +4,000 at the far right. All units are in micrograms per cubic meter. This is your information that you give us to say this is what it is now and this is what it is going to be in the future. Where was this measured? I asked both people at DPC&E for that information. I asked Chris, who prepared and graph, and he told me that Derek Brown could tell me. Derek Brown told me that Chris could me. Although you are hinging this to be your big proof that the new stack is going to help with the odor, I'm not able to tell much from • this nor could I get much information from DPC&E the people that I thought could help me. Can you help explain this? • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 12 Reagor: I will try. Arkansas Pollution people prepared this. Their engineers did the computer modules. Little: The meteorologist did the computer modeling and that is Chris. Derek Brown is the engineer and he received the information. Reagor: There is a gentlemen that was the point person on permit for us and a meteorologist did put this together. The general drift on this is, where we are proposing to be on the graph with the 100 feet stack speaks for itself. More importantly, this graph in conjunction with what we've done at other facilities coincides with results that we've had at other facilities. We didn't put this together. They brought it to the October meeting presented it to the citizens and to us. Little: You can't tell me where these hourly concentrations were measured? At the top? At the bottom? Reagor: My understanding is that the discharge off the stack and how it moves and returns to ground level. That is my understanding. Little: They are ground level? Reagor: That is my understanding. Estes: With regard to the conditions of approval, the complete list of allraw material sources -- if the City is going to be compelled from time to time to clean it up, we need to know what we are cleaning up. I am sensitive to your comments regarding trade secrets. Would you be agreeable to providing a complete list of all raw materials used at the facility? Reagor: As to types of raw materials that we handle? Estes: A sufficient description so if the City or City personnel are required to clean it up they will know what they are cleaning up. Reagor: I don't have a problem with that. Estes: With regard to the hours of operation -- I'm confused. It seems to me that you are telling us that what you're suggesting is going to result in decreased hours of operation and Alderman Reynolds spoke to that. If that is true, do you have any serious objection to limiting the hours from 6 in the morning to 10 in the evening? Reagor: The problem we have is with the equipment we are putting in there, if we had a even • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 13 flow of raw material coming in daily, we could meet the criteria of that easily. The issue we have is strictly that the raw material does not come in on any schedule. Estes: I am seeking a solution to some of these problems. I would like to vote for your conditional use. It seems to me that being a good corporate citizen also means being a good neighbor. We've listened to your neighbors. Is there no way that you can schedule the pickup of your materials? Reagor: That is the problem. We have a manufacturing facility, for example, Pillsbury, is manufacturing and all of the sudden the oven over heats and they have to scrap everything. Our contractual agreement is we have to pick it up. Estes: Can you hold those trucks at the Pillsbury facility and not bring them in to your Bakery Feeds? Reagor: No. We clear those trailers. They want it taken and we want to process it as quickly as we can. They are a food manufacturer. What we are processing and the end product that we produce is a feed ingredient and what we strive for is a nutrient content. We want to process it and get it into a dry, stable state as quickly as possible. Estes: days a week. You are telling us that you are going to need to be able to operate 24 hours a day, 7 Reagor: Yes. A sidebar to that is on average we won't have anywhere close to that. Right now, we only working six days a week and we try to refrain from working Saturday afternoons. It is in our economic benefit to minimize those hours. Estes: With regard to the waste water from the facility -- depending upon who you listen to and whose work you study, we are either at or close to our sewer capacity here in Fayetteville. The option that you would have to pay a surcharge and not pretreat concerns me. What are your plans? Do you plan to pretreat or do you plan to pay the surcharge? Reagor: It's our understanding we are in compliance at this time. Estes: Will you comply with the pretreatment orders? Reagor: We will do everything we can to get and stay in compliance. If they come out and say we are out of compliance, I think there is 60 days to correct it and we will do everything we can to get in compliance. Yes. I don't want to pay $3,000 every month. Our business philosophy is to solve the problem not pay the surcharge. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 14 Estes: Because we are either at or close to our capacity with our sewage treatment what I need to know is if it is going to cost you $10,000 to pretreat, will you spend the $10,000 or will you opt out and pay the $3,000 surcharge. Reagor: We will pay the $10,000. Odom: I want to know how may employees you have? Reagor: 26. Odom. How do those employees work? Are they on shifts? Reagor: What we are doing right now is running two 12 hour shifts. Odom. Are there 13 on each shift? Reagor: No. Part of them are truck drivers. On day shift, you will have 8 and on the night • shift, there is approximately 5 people. The remaining employees are truck drivers. • Odom: Are the truck drivers your employees? Reagor: Yes. Odom: Are they on shifts also? Reagor: We deliver the finished product during the day until 5 or 6 p.m. Sometimes that varies. The drivers bring raw materials to us, that is on demand situation. Odom: Will you be keeping the same number of employees? Reagor: What we're doing is working two 12 hour shifts. What I envision happening is going to two 8 hour shifts. We're all on the same page. My problem is simply because of the raw material pick up, I can in good conscious tell you I will abide by these numbers. Odom: But they will be on 8 hour shifts. Reagor: If we have a situation, day shift may work a 10 hour shift and night shift may work an 8 hour shift. The crew we have understand the need for that flexibility in our scheduling due to the nature of the raw material delivery. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 15 Estes: With regard to the spills of raw or finished product, would you be agreeable to recording the upset spills to DPC&E and to this Planning Commission. Reagor: Yes. That is filed with the DPC&E and a copy can be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Johnson: What is the definition in your regulations of "upset condition"? Reagor: They have a definition. I understand it to be would be an event which would contribute to pollution or put you outside the parameters of any permits that you have. You are to notify them immediately. Little: Such as if you have to start using fuel oil as opposed to natural gas. Reagor: That wouldn't be an upset condition. Little: That was one that was reported. There was a report of beginning to use fuel oil which • put you outside the parameters of your permit and so that upset condition was reported to DPC&E. Reagor: We never use fuel oil Little: You are permitted for it. Reagor: As an alternative fuel. As a secondary fuel • Little: Perhaps it was your emissions from the use of natural gas. My information is from DPC&E. It was an upset condition due to the use of fuel at the plant. Reagor: If there is an event that takes place that puts you outside of the parameters of your permit or is environmentally damaging you are required to advise them. Little: So is a grease spill on a street an upset condition? Reagor: Yes. Little: Is a gut spill an upset condition? Reagor: If we have a raw material trailer and you have a spill from that trailer on a municipality, it can be treated as an upset condition or you can be actively pursuing taking care of that issue and reporting it to the environmental people with your plan of action or what action that • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 16 you took. It can run the gamut from handling it ourselves or they will call in hazmat. Estes: How long do you anticipate this construction period will extend? Reagor: Approximately 45 working days. Estes: Do you have objection to the conditional use being reviewed after a period of 3 months? Reagor: This is double jeopardy. If we are limited to a 3 month period, and we put the equipment in and as the condition is written right now, if there is one complaint then this Commission can mandate us to put in scrubbers, after burners, charcoal filters or whatever they deem necessary. Estes: That is not what I was asking What I was asking is do you have any objection to this Commission reviewing and taking another look at this conditional use in three months? Reagor: I will because I will be in business. What is the alternative after that? In three months, if there is an issue does that mean I am shut down and I've already pulled the other equipment out as requested. Estes: Commissioner Hoflnan has added an additional condition of approval -- no rendering process. As I read through the papers that have been provided to us, I see that you have installed a grease dewatering process. To me that means rendering. Reagor: The definition of rendering that I work under is where all by product of processing whether it's feathers, chicken off fall, beef off fall is brought into a facility, gone through a cooker, it's pressed, the solid are separated from the grease and that is the rendering process. We have no intention of ever doing that. What we operate is a grease separation system. We run a truck on routes to various restaurants and pick up their spent cooking grease. They bring it to our facility and in our facility, we separate the water from the grease and that grease that we have created is sold as animal feed. That is called feeding fat. The water that we pull off that, we handle back through the bakery, so we're not running it down the sewer. Hoffman: Do you use heat in the process? Reagor: Yes. You either boil it or heat it to 200 degrees and is separates the water and fat. Estes: The installation of the grease dewatering process has been listed as a source of odor. The dewatering process is used to eliminate water from vegetable oils as well as oils from meat • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 17 products and this is a violation of condition 10 requiring that the ADPC&E be notified with any modifications or constructions to the facility. Will that violation continue? Reagor: We have approached this subject with Arkansas Pollution Control and we're within the limits of the permit. They are aware of what we do. There is not an issue with that. Estes: With regard to the facility producing sewage which is above the normal strength of sewage, Bakery Feeds is producing sewage that is 5000mg per liter where normal sewage output is 300mg per liter This brings me back to the degreasing operation. Will that degreasing operation continue? Reagor: Yes. The material from the degreasing operation is taken back through the Bakery. The discharge to the sewer is being monitoredt and we are sampling that as we speak. To our knowledge, we don't have any issues with OMI. Regarding surcharges, we have never had a surcharge placed on us. Regarding the storm water pond, we had inspection of that recently and it is the contention of the state that we probably don't even need the storm water pond so we can fill it in. Estes: Are you know moving beef, or swine, or poultry, off of or in to the facility? Reagor: No. We use grain based food products. Estes: The degreasing equipment is being used exclusively for restaurant grease? Reagor: Yes. Little: Is the product that is delivered to the plant is delivered in trucks that are owned or under lease or somehow controlled by Bakery Feeds and not owned by others? Reagor: The trailers are provided by Bakery Feeds to our raw material accounts. Some of the trucks are ours and some are owner operated. Little: Do you have lease agreements or contracts with them so they are under your control? Reagor: They are under contract to us Little: Please explain what restaurant grease is and what all is in that? • Reagor: It the grease used to fry the potatoes at, for example, McDonalds. That oil is periodically changed. We place containers at their facility that the grease is placed into and our • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 18 trucks run routes to empty those collection facilities and bring it back to our facility. Little: It's just the grease that is used for frying. That is not any grease that comes out of bacon or not any grease that comes from hamburgers or not any grease that comes out of animal products. Reagor: It's restaurant grease. I'm not going to tell you specifically that it is only for french fries. It is grease from their restaurant operation. Little: Where do they keep it until you pick it up? Reagor: There are containers on site that are provided by us that they place it in when they change it. Depending on the size of the restaurant, there are actually containers that are kept inside the restaurant. Little: Some are kept inside but some are kept outside. Johnson: After the new equipment is installed, will the odors be eliminated? Reagor: I'm not going to tell you they will be totally eliminated. What is the definition of an odor? I would tell you that what the result of the higher stack and placing the discharge off of the stack into the laminate air and moving it and diluting then it will be substantially reduced. Is it eliminated totally? I can't say for sure. Johnson: Do you think they will continue to be bad enough that residents will continue to lodge complaints? Reagor: Our experience at other locations is that it will be successful and the residents will be very pleased with the outcome. Estes: 5, and 7. MOTION The applicant has explained that they will not agree with conditions of approval 2, Mr. Estes made a motion to not approve CU98-28 because the applicant would not comply with recommendation 2, 5, and 7. Ms. Hoffman seconded the motion. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 19 Further Discussion Estes: I said 2, 5, and 7 in my motion but also 11 as added by Commissioner Ho man -- no rendering processes are permitted. I accepted the discussion to mean the condition could not be complied with. Reagor: Am I clear that on your definition of rendering it is a degreasing operation only? Estes: I will defer to staffs definition of rendering. Little: I looked it up in the dictionary and I was surprised to find that the definition of rendering, simply stated in Webster's Dictionary, said the removal of grease by the application of heat. It didn't mention any animal products. I don't think that is the same definition used by DPC&E and I know rendering plants are covered under a different SIC code than a recycling facility or a feed mill might be covered under. I would say that there is probably more to that definition than was discovered in Websters. Reagor: There is a marked distinction between a rendering plant and what we are doing. If I had the opportunity to show you a rendering plant and show you all the different machines and all the different steps as opposed to the isolated thing we are doing here. Estes: I also have been through rendering plants and that is why my motion seconded by Commissioner Hoffman was that I understand the applicant will not accept conditions 2, 5, and 7. I do not include condition 11. McCord: I want to re-emphasize that the existing facility is a lawful non conforming use. The conditional use permit is being sought to upgrade the facility and eliminate some of the objections that have been voiced by area residents. If the conditional use is not approved then the status quo continues and the objectional aspects will continue. Granting this conditional use will enable them to upgrade and eliminate the objectional aspects. As far as some of the conditions, I hope you had an opportunity to review the memorandum because the case law from other jurisdictions holds that the time restrictions that the staff is recommending cannot be imposed as a conditional use permit. There is no Arkansas Supreme Court decision. Other states say you can't do it. Forney: How did we get a legal non conforming use in an I-1? An I-1 zone allows for this conditional use. I look at the I-1 definition that says Light Industrial is designed to get together a wide range of industrial uses which do not produce objectional environmental influences in their operation and appearance. It seems the testimony tonight would indicate that may not be the case with this plant. I realize there was a former installation on this site. I think it is important for our community to understand how this situation arose and it might be good to clarify that before we vote. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 20 Little: I think it's an excellent question. As far as I know, I am the one that is to tell you whether something is a legal non conforming use or not I think there are two parts to this question. The part of it being a facility which emits odors, the current operation is most definitely a legal non conforming use because it existed prior to passage of the ordinance regulation that. Then we have issues about expansion. How did this get here in the first place? In 1994, the plant was permitted by DPC&E. I have not gone back to see whether it was permitted by the City. I don't know whether they got a building permit from the City during that time and I can only tell you that they would only have a Certificate of Zoning Compliance from the City if they did get a building permit. More than likely, if they sought the advice of the City, we would have told them that they could have gone there simply because it did the same business as the Simmons Mills that was there based on precedent. But in the absence of researching and finding out whether they actually had a building permit, I cannot specifically answer that question for you tonight. I can also tell you that if the City had a Business License, that you would not have situations like this occurring. You continually ask me, how did this happen? It happens because we have no way to control these types of business. If it's a legal use, then we don't get any other information from the businesses and the City of Fayetteville is one of the few cities in Arkansas that does not have a business license. We had one about 11 years ago and we gave it up when we passed the Advertising and Promotion Bill so that we collect the HMR tax but if we had a business license, I don't think that you would see as many of these situations as you see. Forney: I support the nature of this business. I think it is important to try and make the best possible use of waste. I'm concerned within the business of this Commission that we have a situation where we have I-1 zoning near residential zoning. Perhaps the case could be made that the existing operation is not legal or at least does not meet the standards as set out in our ordinances. The fact that it seems on paper to be like the previous installation does not make it so. I will vote in favor of the motion to deny this operation. Shackelford: Does staff agreed that if we decline this motion, they have the authority to operate business as is Little: Whether they are a legal nonconforming use or not, I cannot tell you without finding out if they had a building permit in which we certified that. That is not to say they are a legal non conforming use, it says that if we permitted, the staff made a mistake at that time. I would expect and I would trust that if the staff made a mistake at that time, the City would go along with that simply because we do try to be good corporate citizens and the word of the staff is the word of the City and you need to be able to depend on it. Shackelford: Business as it is has led to these complaints. I would like to us work toward a compromise where we can see if maybe some of these changes they are recommending might make it better for everybody involved. I don't think anybody is happy with the situation as is. They tell Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 21 us they have a way they can invest $500,000 and fix these problems, that might be better than to go on as is and have the complaints rolling in. Hoffman: The spirit of compromise has not been met in my eyes particularly concerning the hours of operations and the statements made about the continuing source of the odors coming from oils. Shackelford: There is more work that needs to be done. We need to have more compromise on both sides. Little: I don't think that the City wants this business to go out of business in this City and I'm not sure what the effect of a denial of a conditional use would be except to force that as a court action. I would like to suggest that the Commission table the item and give the staff additional time to work with the applicant and see if there might be items that we could come to agreement on. I want to be on record that I am not certain that the applicant has always been truthful with the staff and that has led to part of the problems that we are having. I would be looking at different types of conditions to see if there might be other things that we could assure the neighbors that the problems they are having will be addressed. One of the things I am talking about is items like spills and being asked to define that. I don't feel any obligation to try to define that. That word is used freely throughout DPC&E. It is a condition of their permit. It is not up to staff to define. I would like the opportunity to continue to work on it another couple of works. Odom. If we deny the conditional use application tonight, may they come back and asked for a conditional use with other restrictions at a later date. Little: No. Not for one year. Odom: Can they appeal that to the City Council? Little: No. Appeal is straight to the Court. Johnson. Procedurally, may I make a motion to postpone? Odom: I will rule that it can be heard. MOTION Ms. Johnson made a motion to postpone until the staff feels that it has whatever additional information could be helpful. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 22 Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Further Discussion Tucker. This is not to get away from public comments. They have been heard loud and clear. Little: I can't tell you that I will change one of conditions. I can't tell you that the next staff recommendation might not be for stronger conditions. It is an existing industiy. I represent the City and I would not like for the City to be in the business of putting an existing industry out of business without making every effort to make sure that we have done all that we can. Tucker: The problem is if we deny the conditional use, they can continue operating the way they are with the terrible results for the neighbors. The other is that they close and move perhaps in Fayetteville hopefully in a better zoning area Murphy: I will be willing to meet with the Commissioners and Ms. Little, along the lines of what Commissioner Shackelford said. Odom: I think delaying the decision is a mistake particularly when you have been on it for over two hours. I'm going to vote for the postponement only because the staff feels strongly and they rarely ask for additional time to try and work something out so I will support that. I will be fairly unyielding in any of my thoughts on the conditions of approval I think the ones that are before us now are sufficient. I don't know how much room there is to negotiate on these things. I would vote against the underlying motion to deny it simply because I think it needs to be approved with all of the conditions. This may not be a perfect solution but it is better than what we've got. It does provide the alley for people to come back with other grievances. Estes: As the movant, I also will vote for the motion to postpone and I adopt the chair's remarks regarding the conditions of approval I feel very strongly about those things and I don't know what can be done to persuade me otherwise. Forney: If this was approved at this level and the applicant found it objectionable, could they reapply with changed conditions in the future? Little: I think one year applies: "No application for conditional use permit will be considered by the Planning Commission within twelve months from the date of the final disapproval of a proposed conditional use unless there is evidence of changed conditions, or new circumstances which justify reconsideration submitted to the Planning Commission." • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 23 Given that wording, if you give them an approval that they may also come back to you. Forney: I am still not convinced that this is a legal non conforming use. Little: I'm not either. Forney: I don't want it to be interpreted in anyway of being in favor of the existing conditions continuing in any fashion whatsoever. We're hemmed in because if we vote against this then arguably the existing conditions will continue. If we vote for it, I believe the existing conditions will continue. I don't like either one of those choices. How would a citizen proceed in determining whether this is in fact legal? Would you have to go to Court? Little: They would first come down to our office and we would have a look at the files and they will have a look at the files and we might consult with the City Attorney. I think the answer would be available within a couple of hours of a visit to our office Forney: Given that response, I guess I would support the motion to postpone. I don't want • to make any decisions whether this is a legal use. • Roll Call on Motion to Table Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. Further Discussion Johnson. I would ask the staff to consider adding a condition of approval if they have conditions of approval dealing with noise abatement. I think the applicant has made a good case that the facility has to operate at all hours but if permitted that then I think that some of the noise must be abated. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 24 PP98-12: PRELIMINARY PLAT CMN BUSINESS PARK II, PH II PP173, 174 This request was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineering on behalf of CMN Property for property located south and west of Northwest Arkansas Mall. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 78.28 acres with 7 lots proposed. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission determination of the need for right of way dedication for the future "fly -over" as shown on the Master Street Plan. Subsequent to the special Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 1999, the at -grade crossings would require the planned locations of Steele Blvd. and Mall Ave. to change so that intersection with Highway 71B could be at right angles. 2. Planning Commission determination of the requested three variances: a. Defer tree replacement as a responsibility of the individual tract developers. b. Request waiver of the Master Street Plan for the construction of Shiloh Drive across the southern boundary of Lots 15 and 16. This is a continuation of what was approved for Lot 7 in Phase I. c. Request wavier to construct sidewalk on northern side of Shiloh Drive only. This is a continuation of what was approved for Lot 7 in Phase I. 3. The Developers have proposed a width of 36 feet for all streets in this development with the exception of a two lane bridge across Mud Creek. Staff recommends that this bridge also be three lanes with sidewalks on both sides paid 100% by the developer. 4. Planning Commission determination of the requested contributions for off-site improvements. At the Subdivision Committee meeting is was stated that the off-site contributions for the entire 309 acres are estimated at $134,000 to $140,000 and that 25% of this will be required for the proposed preliminary plat (Phase II.) 5. No building permits will be issued until a design theme for Commercial Design Standards has been approved by the Planning Commission (this may be accomplished by setting the theme with the first large scale development approval.) Sidewalk construction is to be in accordance with current standards to include driveway approaches and access ramps constructed to Ordinance #4005, Section §98.67. An • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 25 inspection is required prior to the concrete pour. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete. Green space and sidewalk widths are to meet standards listed under construction notes, IV A., B., and C. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 8. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations for grading drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots, 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. 10. Preliminary plat approval is to be valid for one calendar year. 11. All proposed improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. All utilities will be located underground. Wider easements shall be required if the easement contains any other utility. Fire protection and fire hydrant locations shall meet the more stringent of the published water standards or the Fire Chiefs request. Steel encasements will be required for waterlines under box culverts, wingwalls, and retaining walls. The waterline is to be constructed 10 feet from any retaining wall footing. 12. The individual lot developers will be required to provide access to existing and new manholes. The minimum distance from the edge of the sanitary sewer line to the easement will be 10 feet. Wider easements shall be required if the easement contains any other utility or if the depth is greater than 10 feet. The existing sanitary sewer piers in Mud Creek will need to be reinforced. Sewer lines shall have steel encasements under box culverts, wingwalls, and retaining wall footing. 13. The Corps of Engineer's approval will be required before any work is began in the floodplain, floodway, or any wetlands contained on the site. The City of Fayetteville will not provide maintenance to the proposed channel All bridge calculations will be submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Only the portion of Mud Creek immediately upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge will be rechannelized per the developer's agreement during Phase I approval. 14. The construction of Shiloh Drive on Lot 7 of Phase I will be constructed as a condition of approval for Phase II. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 26 Mel Milholland, Micki Harrington, Ernie Peters, and Jim Irwin were present on behalf of the preliminary plat. Discussion Milholland: The only condition that I can see that we might have a problem with would item 3. We desired a two lane bridge because there can't be any passing on it. The third land is basically a turning lane. What we want is to converge that into a 2 lane across the bridge and back out to 3 lanes on either side. We're coming up to Mall Lane which is an extra wide 2 lane. It varies from 30 feet to 33 or 34 feet. We originally proposed to go 2 lane all the way across the bridge and they came back and said they would like to have three lanes across those two lots and we agreed. We kept the 2 lane bridge. This is the first I knew that we were being asked to do a 3 lane bridge. Odom: Tonight is not the first time you've heard that. Petrie: That comment was made at the Subdivision Committee level. • Milholland: I had to leave that meeting early. Public Comment None. Further Discussion Odom: What is the plan for Mall Lane outside of this development? Will it remain 2 lane? Petrie: It is my understanding that Mall Lane is approximately 33 feet in width and 2 lane is typically 28 feet. At this time, there are no plans outside of this development. • Odom: Why do we need a turning lane on the bridge? Petrie: Primarily due to the configuration of the lots to the north and south of the bridge to provide stacking for any turning into these future developments. Milholland: I understand what he is saying. We only have two lots there and we're coming off of a much longer distance from Joyce Street to the end of existing Mall Lane and there isn't any turn lane there. Continuity with that would be just going across the bridge and go into the three lanes. We wouldn't even have to put three lanes in front of the first two lots for turning purposes. If you had 3 lanes in front of the first 2 lots that you left existing Mall Lane, you would be better off with • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 27 what you have at Mall Lane now. That bridge is fairly expensive to building for a third lane and that's the reason it is one of the factors. We request that you give consideration to our request. Odom: The flyover as shown on the Master Street Plan states that the staff agrees that the alternative flyover shown in Area A is acceptible. What is your position on the dedication currently of the right of way? Milholland: We have consented to that. Forney. As I look at the plat, I see two different options. One is Area A and the other is Area B. What you have consented to is the dedication of the right of way for Area A. Milholland: At our special meeting, Mr. Venable concurred with that and Mr. Beavers is here to speak for himself. Staff also concurs with that. Forney. We discussed this at length at the agenda session and I don't think I will be voting in favor of a plat that is limited to Area A. I think we need the flexibility allowed by the Area B • dedication. The Area A dedication seems to require that the right hand exit off of North College Avenue span over Sain Street. It will be elevated at that point and I fear it will create visibility problems for the properties along the Frontage Road. While I know there is the argument to be made that a left hand exit is not as ideal as a right hand exit, I see them all the time. We have a substantial one taking you from Highway 71 Bypass on up 71 towards Springdale as a for instance. I don't feel that is a compelling argument. We need to retain our flexibility on that issue with this plat. • Johnson: Regarding the at grade intersection, where did that wind up? It could be accomplished by down grading 71 Bypass at both Mall Lane and Steele Avenue. Little: Mr. Beavers, are you going to address us on the at grade intersection or do you want me to try and do that. Beavers: This morning, Mr. Milholland and myself along with Alett Little and Ron Petrie and Mr. Venable met and went over this project. Johnson: There were some Commissioners who were unable to be present at the Agenda Session. We had before us a couple of drawings that Dr. Alguire had prepared at our request showing a couple of at grade intersections at Mall Lane and Steele Avenue with what is now the Bypass. It seemed to most of us that those might be promising and that they might be beneficial to traffic flow in the area to allow traffic to get across the pass as Mr. Estes had talked about a few months back but also very beneficial to the applicant to get people in and out of their property. Mr. Milholland joined us at the Agenda Session. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 28 Little: At Agenda Session, we did have a pencil sketched drawing from Dr. Bob Alguire He had met with staff and proposed to us a number of at grade intersections. Let me explain what at grade intersections are. As you know right now, that portion of the Bypass which leaves the Bypass as it goes to Springdale and the portion of it that comes into Fayetteville, is also a controlled access highway. This means that there can only be access to the Highway by interchanges where people are allowed to merge in. An at grade intersection simply means there is no merge lane and generally it is controlled with a traffic signal. The areas that we talked about having at grade intersections were at Northhills Boulevard or as an alternative to Northhills, Wimberly Drive which is the other side of the medical park. The question that we talked about there is how we would tie into Steele Boulevard. It would be most helpful if we had a way to have a four way interchange and be able to cross completely across the Highway at that point. At this point, the decision to put it at Northhills or Wimberly Drvie, we tentatively made a decision that we would like to see it at Northhills Boulevard. There are two factors that go into that. One is the developer much prefers the alignment with Northhills Boulevard. The reason that is they have a substantial investment in Lot 7 and they have a buyer for Lot 7 that if we have to move Steele Boulevard over to coincide with Wimberly Drive, that it would impact the configuration of that lot. We are looking at Northhills. The other reason we are looking at Northhills is that Northhills does go through to Appleby Road, • whereas Wimberly Drive terminates at Monte Painter before you get to Appleby. Northhills will get you twice as far. The other areas that we talked about at grade intersections were at Mall Lane as it nears the Bypass and that would affect only the west bound lane of that road. How would we do that? First, the control of the Highway would have to be given back to the City of Fayetteville, not only by Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department but the Federal Highway Administration. It is a two fold request that the City will have to carry forward in concert with the developer. This is not the first time that a control access highway change to a limited access highway has been requested. I was present when Mr. Venable made a call to AHTD and asked Bob Walters their Chief Engineer if this might be conceivable and he said no. I believe it is an important thing for the Commission and the City to carry forward and support. The reason is because you turned down Phase I of this particular development because of your concerns about ingress and egress and managing traffic. I believe it is a really good way to address your earlier concerns. Mr. Beavers will have to design the road intersections to such a point that the Highway Department can talk to us about that. He estimates that will take over a month to do. This is not a short time process. We require additional information and Mr. Peter's is being contacted about traffic counts and dispersement of traffic or which way the traffic would go if these additional openings were allowed. I believe we have his concurrence and also the developers concurrence that the information will be provided to the City so this may go forward. We expect that we could have the answer and this is based off information from Charles Venable to this question in about a year We understand it would be a question that would take some time to solve but it's not something that would be indefinitely postponed. We should be able to get an answer to it. • Odom: So what do we do now to address it. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 29 Little: I think we ask the developer to assure us they will make every effort to align Steele Boulevard to Northhills Boulevard. Milholland: What we agreed to at the end of the agenda session and also at the meeting today with staff and Mr. Venable was to leave Lot 6 which is the southwest corner lot of Phase I that abuts Fulbright on the south and Steele Boulevard as approved on the east and leave that off of the market for a year to give the City time to pursue this and see if the Highway Department and the Federal Highway Commission would release access to the City where they could cross there. We are offering to cooperate to that point by taking it off the market. As far as Steele Boulevard as approved, we have a tremendous amount of effort and money invested not only by my client but by the buyer on several lots in Phase I that have a time frame. If that is not met, all the effort and money is down the drain. We hold to our position that we would have to access through Steele Boulevard and Shiloh as they are. If something miraculously happens, we are open to alternatives. We aren't going to build that street and put in curb and gutter on it tomorrow. We have a bridge we want to build across the creek starting around the first of June. We have to have at least the dirt work done down to the bridge and in the later part of the summer or early fall, we would be completing the street by paving, curbing, and guttering. We are willing to work as far as we can and take that one lot off the market so it could be an open door there. By the end of the summer, I hope we can have an answer from the Highway Department whether they will limit access or not. If it happens, we start planning how to do it. Ernie Peters and Mr. Venable talked today and they feel it will take time before the State and Federal Highway Department will provide us with an answer. I would like to address the issues of Mr. Peters working with Mr. Venable and getting the Highway Department the needed materials. We have to keep our commitments to our clients and the potential buyers or we'll loose all the momentum. Tucker. You're only giving 12 months time period on this? What if the process is still moving along after the 12 months? Milholland: 12 months is quite a length of time. We are willing to be cooperative and I think we would look at it again if there was no answer at the end of the time period. Tucker: It sounds optimistic to me in terms of dealing with two bureaucracies. Odom: They have an approved plat and they are willing to take one of the lots off of the market for one year. I think they are making a good business decision. Milholland: I think it was requested that we work with the City and try to come up with a solution. First we have to find out if it can be done through the Highway Department. We have 12 months to work with you and see if we can do that. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 30 Hoffman: Lot 6 will also have to process a large scale development. A year is fine with me. I think that is quite generous. Milholland: We do have someone very interested in Lot 7 and they have spent money in planning for that. Odom. Mr. Peters, were you going to study the connection from Steele Boulevard to Monte Painter Drive at one point? Peters: In the study that we did as part of Phase I, we suggested the prospect not of an at grade crossing from north to south but rather a diamond interchange at that location. That may not be feasible but we feel there is promise as suggested by Dr. Alguire that it would be feasible at grade if we get some cooperation from the State and Federal Highway Administration. It could be a real possibility. The City has indicated that could take place within a year. I think six months is probably realistic. We've recently done a similar study for breaking controlled access on an Interstate facility in Little Rock. It's been about a six month process. The State and Federal Highway Administrations have some very strict guidelines that have to be complied with in terms of what is studied and the issues that are addressed as well as the impact on the entire street network. It's not an easy process but it's one that we would look forward to working with the City on. Little: One of the concems that we had earlier this morning was the location of Mall Avenue as it is presently planned in this Phase wouldn't meet the 1,000 feet criteria that we think exists for the Highway Department. Do you know anything about the 1,000 feet criteria? Peters: What I think you're referring to is the 1,000 feet separation between major intersections on a limited access facility. It is now a controlled access facility and there is only access at interchanges. If it is downgraded to a limited access facility then you limit the number of access points. I don't believe that between the Gregg Street and the railroad overpass to College Avenue that there is really room for any more than one at grade intersection. From the preliminary look that I have given to it indicates that Steele Avenue along with Northhills is probably more likely than any kind of Mall Street connection across to the south. Forney: When you say that it can only handle one, are you talking about a cross intersection? Our discussions of Mall were only discussions of connecting to the west bound lanes. Would that allowed with a second full crossing intersection at Steele and Northhills? Some of the Commissioners were not present at Agenda Session where these maps were presented. We did not discuss Mall having a full crossing which could take you to the south side of what is now the Bypass. We only discussed a "T" connection at that point. The only place that we considered a full crossing from north to south was either aligning Steele with Northhills or Wimberly. So, what about one full intersection and second "T" connection. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 31 • • Peters: I don't think that should be ruled out. I think Mall Lane perhaps could be a west bound right turn and the south bound to west bound right turn or a right in/right out and not permitting any left turns at that location. That will need to be looked at as a part of the overall study that the Highway Department will expect to be done for any change of the access control. Forney: One of the reasons I have trouble with the one year period is that this looks to me to be the best potential solution to the access issues. I think this has real benefits for the developer but, I'm not sure the developer feels that way. If the developer does, then the one year is plenty of time as long they recognize the benefits and they are willing to give this time. Is this a viable solution for access to property north of the Bypass? Peters: We aren't making the decision whether the Highway Departments will grant a change in control of access. I think there is sufficient cause to believe if they are presented with enough complete information it is not a bad engineering decision to do so. I don't think Dr. Alguire would have suggested it if it was ill founded. I think it worthy of pursuit. Fomey: Do you think it will help access? Peters: I think there is benefit to this property and I think there is a lot of benefit to the entire city. It makes a more complete network of the street system. Particularly where we lack north/south routes across the expressway facility. That is an obstacle, the same as a river would be. Odom. What is staff's opinion of the waiver requests for A, B, and C under item 2? Petrie: Staff supports all three waivers. Primarily because they are in line with what was requested in Phase I as approved by the Council. Estes: When we first considered this in a rezoning, Mr. Peters and I had a good discussion regarding moving traffic in and out of the south part of the development. I appreciate what is being done with regard to Lot 6. I thank the developer, the applicant, Mr. Peters, and Mel for agreeing to work with the City staff in getting together the information that we need. This will be a herculean task to approach both a State Agency and a Federal Agency. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to approve preliminary plat 98-12 with the amendment to the first condition of approval, the second sentence to read, "...the alternative flyover as shown in Area A or B is acceptable." Odom. I think we have to make a choice. • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 32 Forney. We're talking about right of way dedication. Odom: You have to stay with one or the other. Forney: Area A is limited and Area B is more substantial. They have total acreage for Option A is 1.65 and the total for Option B is 4.62. Estes: I was trying to leave an option open and accommodate Commissioner Forney's comments because I agree that A could cause a problem. AMENDMENT TO MOTION Mr. Estes made an amendment to the motion for the second sentence to read, "...the alternative flyover as shown in Area B is acceptable." Further, the motion will grant the three waivers requested and is subject to all other conditions of approval. Mr. Hoffman seconded the motion. Further Discussion Johnson: What is the effect of the motion on our discussion about Mall Avenue? What does that do to Mall Avenue having a "T" intersection with the Bypass. If we want to hold that open, the motion should address that. Hoffman: If you're referring to the distance necessary to slow down from the flyover to get to Mall Avenue -- Johnson: No. On the plat as we are considering approving it, Mall Avenue only connects with Shiloh and if we would want to keep that open our motion must address a plat that would show Mall Avenue "T"ing in the Bypass. Petrie: It is my understanding that right of way is there. Odom: I don't know that as a part of a preliminary plat we can require the developer to cooperate on efforts and how we would form that motion. Johnson: I think our Minutes must reflect what we are anticipating. • Milholland: Earlier I made a comment that we concur with these conditions and my client was willing to cooperate with the City by holding onto to Lot 6 in Phase I. My comment was in • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 33 conjunction with the conditions of approval We have had the staff, Mr. Venable, Mr. Beavers, and Dr. Alguire all say Option A was safer and it is acceptable. Staff recommends it. My client has concurred with that along with holding onto to Lot 6. However, we do not concur with giving Option B. Odom. I understand. Milholland: They both have the same design criteria. Odom. I agree. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Mr. Odom made an amendment to the motion to allow the flyover as shown in Area A as opposed to Area B. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Further Discussion Odom. We can vote on the amendment first. It is for the reasons that Mel stated that I support using A as opposed to B. Staff has not said that B is preferable to A. Hoffman: I can understand the benefits to all for Area A. However, if we connect to that and not Area B, we then do tremendously effect the businesses on Front Street in a way that I'm not sure of. I would merely prefer to keep our options open and I realize that it is a greater dedication of right of way from your project. I don't take that lightly. But I also do not take lightly the rights of the businesses on the other side of the street. For that reason, I would not vote in favor of the amendment. Forney: That is also my reason for concern. We have heard from staff and we've heard from professional engineers on this subject. I understand that a right hand exit is preferable, but I know that left hand exits are possible. If the right hand exit did not have what I view to be a substantial impact on other property which we must consider in this process. I hate to see this developer have to give up more right of way to accommodate it. It is also worth considering, depending on what connections we get at Mall Lane in the future, there is some discussion that the flyover will not take place. Perhaps we'll find that we don't have traffic problems and that could be redeeded to the property owner. To commit to a design scenario that has such a substantial impact on the properties east of College Avenue is short sighted and unfair. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 34 Shackelford: We had discussed earlier the difference in Option A and Option B and one of the major areas of concern is the affect it has on Sain which I believe would be the cross street to get on Front Street to where people could still get to those other businesses. Would Option A in any way deter or interfere with that cross from Sain to Front? Milholland: It can be designed with no left turn arrows. Shackelford: Would it be up high enough that you could have traffic underneath it and still have frontage. Milholland: It would not require movement of Front Street. Tucker: I need clarification from Commission regarding their objection to Option A. Is it the safety issue or a visibility/economic issue for the existing businesses there? Hoover: Coming from a city of many spaghetti balls which it looks like this is what we are creating, when you do this you are creating a barrier to those other business and when it approaches the flyover, there will actually be like a berm of dirt before it opens undemeath and is supported by columns or pilasters. If you have been to any large cities, you see what this area is like which is basically a no man's land. No one wants to have property there other than to use it for extra parking. That's not very attractive and it's not conducive to businesses. I was for alternate B having it pulled over to the west side in order to concentrate that in one area. Hoffman: Is it possible to increase the radius on Area B and decrease the speed? Could we start it off to the left and take less of your property? We've talked the radius. Milholland: Both options are designed with exactly the same degree of curvature. Hoffman: Is it possible to decrease that degree of curvature on Area B. Milholland: You have to have the same degree of curvature. Tucker. Your answer would still be the same if speeds were reduced? Milholland: That is the minimum degree of curvature. Area A is safer. You will not affect the traffic going from this road north of those business to the right. Hoffman: It is possible to pull A over as it exits to the right so a no man's land is not created. Can the road stay one piece until it turns. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 35 Peters: We're not here to design this tonight. I think what Mel has done is to take the middle ground between Front Street and College and say he can build his exit in here. Should that move westward to more closely align with College, it would probably take a retaining wall. It would be higher cost construction. Physically it could be done so as not to encroach so far to the east. Forney. I don't think that would increase the visibility issue. It will make a more dangerous situation for people who are trying to make a right hand turn from the bank and go north on to College Avenue. You're talking about moving an opaque embankment right up against a 55 mph three lane road. I think we want to maintain our visibility there. One reason I don't much like creating an overpass there is because we are going to have people pulling up, looking around at fast traffic where as now we enjoy open visibility at that point. Irwin: We aren't saying this absolutely has to be done. All we're saying is we're willing to cooperate and give this land for future consideration on behalf of the State, Federal Government, and the City to all work together to try and make something. We're also open to working on the at grade intersection and a connection to Mall Avenue. Odom: We're talking about dedication of right of way, not building it. The developer has expressed a willingness to work with us. I think it is a great compromise. Johnson: Let's amend condition 1 in the second paragraph to deal with this work toward getting these connections: "The applicant will work with the City to attempt to gain approval of the State and Federal Highway Authorities of an at grade, west bound intersection connection Mall Avenue with Highway 71 Bypass. The applicant has also agreed to work in the same way to gain approval of an at grade intersection of Steele Avenue with Highway 71 Bypass connection with Northhills Boulevard and to that end will take Lot 6 in Phase I off the market for one year for this purpose." Odom: Are you okay with that language? Milholland: I don't have any problem with that. Harrington: Does this tie in any further with the flyover? I don't want this to have anything to do with an Option B. Odom: Area B. I will incorporate that into my amended motion which incorporates Area A and not • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 36 Johnson: This part is not relevant to the flyover. This is only to make a record of what we are trying to do. Harrington: I'm just trying to think how this all ties together and I don't think anybody disagrees with anything you have said but there is a concern that taking a lot of an approved plat is a huge concession. I understand everyone feels it is a fair concession and I think the applicant is okay with that. If this B ends up being a requirement, then that puts a question as to the Lot 6 issue. So it depends on how you tie the rest of the motion together. I certainly would support Conrad's proposal. Forney: Sain ends after 200 or 300 feet; however, that is not a cul de sac. That can't be potentially continued. Is that correct? Should we anticipate further development and lengthening of Sain? Little: The Master Street Plan calls for the extension of Millsap. Sain is probably a better alternative simply because of the large hill that Millsap would have to come down. If we could have both, that would be great. Sain is a private street. We understand from the owners of the property to the east, that they think the extension of Sain is a really good idea. We agree. You should leave open the opportunity to extend Sain. Beavers: Could you request that Mr. Milholland and Mr. Peters provide whatever traffic studies are deemed necessary to the Federal, State and City governments. Johnson: Are they willing to do that? Milholland: To see if they will give us a limited access rather than controlled access. I feel that the minutes of the meeting should carry enough weight with our proposed commitment on Lot 6 that it should not have to be a part of the leverage of the motion. Johnson: I don't intend this motion to do anything other than to make it of record because memories fail. So, if you want it somewhere else, fine. I understand that Lot 6 has been approved on a previous plat and we really have no recourse since it is an approved lot. Milholland: It is an approved plat and we are telling the Committee that we will do it and I don't see leverage against us to do that. Harrington: If you will read the motion back so we can hear how it all turns out here so that nobody looses the thread. Given what Phyllis just said regarding Lot 6, if the A flyover reservation is what is chosen, we are okay with it being in motion. Hoffman: It seems to me, we're trying to micro design something and we're not suppose to be • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 37 doing here at plat approval I just want to make sure that we keep our options open. If 13 is proved later not to be acceptable, I don't see why it couldn't be brought back to us at that time. Odom: You're tying someone's hands for 20 years with a possibility that may or may not happen. Hoffman: I think it was more like 6 weeks. Shackelford: Do you know approximately the distance in feet we're talking between Option A and Option 13? Milholland: It's on your plat. The Area A is .49 acres and Area B is 3.8. Little: The scale is one inch equals 200 feet, so by eye, it looks like 3/4 of an inch so that would be about 150 feet. Shackelford: So we're talking about moving a road 150 feet. Irwin: We agreed to dedicate the land and to think that we are dedicating 3.5 acres on the corner not knowing if it will ever be used seems a little bit excessive. If the Federal Government and the State comes back and says that they absolutely, positively have to have more land, then at that point, they come in and acquire it through the condemnation process or the negotiation process. All we can do at this point is to agree to go ahead and dedicate the land and I hate to give 3.5 acres of land and not know if it will ever be used or not. We started this process off thinking that we could all work together to get this accomplish. Hoffman: We had a great deal of discussion in the special meeting about the use of the land could be used for a parking lot and so on. At the very end, Dr. Alguire did say that for some consideration of a lease you can use the land until such time that construction is imminent. Irwin: No one would come in and buy the land in anticipation of it being used for another purpose. It would take away from the value and uses of the property. Peters: All of the engineering minds that have looked at Option A and Option B, including Dr. Alguire, Charles Venable, Jim Beavers, Mel Milholland, and myself, all are in agreement that Option A is the better alignment It has not been designed at this point. It's a schematic layout. We believe it's very feasible and would adequately serve the intent of the flyover as shown. To try and anticipate some other design such as Option B that requires considerably more right of way, this doesn't hold wisdom. Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 38 Johnson: The reason I don't think we should push for the larger land dedication is that we are faced with the present status of the Highway Department who feels it's not need, they won't pay for, and we won't build it. The applicant knows this as well as we do. None of us has ever thought this would built anytime soon, if ever. It seems to be that if it ever is built, the City will pay for it In light of all of this and the applicant's willingness to cooperate, I think we're being unrealistic to ask for Option B. Roll Call on the Amendment to the Motion Upon roll call the amendment to the motion failed by a vote of 3-5-0. Commissioners Estes, Forney, Hoffman, Hoover, and Tucker voted against the motion. Further Discussion Estes: Was there an amendment to that motion by Commissioner Johnson? Odom: No. If you care to offer an amended motion, you can do that. However, I don't think we can as a Commission request someone to take an approved lot off the market against their will. That is up to the applicant. Little: With regard to taking Lot 6 off the market, I think that the Planning Commission finds itself in the unfortunate situation of having to deal with a previous approval by the City Council during a zoning action The City Council agreed to allow this applicant to sell lots and put the money in escrow to pay for Steele Boulevard. That is a condition that no other developer in the City of Fayetteville has ever enjoyed. Every other developer in the City of Fayetteville has to complete their final plat and complete all their work before any of their streets are available. That's the situation the Planning Commission is in. The fact that the applicant agrees to take Lot 6 off the market is admirable because they do have this agreement with the Council. That is to be commended. On the other hand, they have a whole lot more freedom than any other developer has so the point of asking them to give up a lot is not unreasonable either. Odom: Can we require it? Little: No. Estes: If we were to not approve preliminary plat 98-12 this evening, would that allow the applicant to come back in some period of time? Little: They could come back at any time. • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 39 Estes: So if we were to decline to approve the preliminary plat this evening, the applicant could come back tomorrow? Little: I remember the last plat that the Planning Commission denied. I remember it was denied because you had questions about ingress and egress. I remember it simply went to the Council on appeal and the Council approved it. Now, I think we find ourselves in the same situation on Phase II. We don't have the answers on ingress and egress that we need to do the work. If you don't feel like you have the information to make the decision, I'll recommend that you table it. Hoffman: If we were to approve this plat with Area B, which I would very much like to do, could that portion only be subject to some discussion at the Council? Little: Any applicant that brings you a plat has the ability to appeal your decision to the City Council. They can appeal your whole decision. They can appeal part of your decision. They appeal the decision and when they get to City Council they talk about other things that they didn't appeal. I think you certainly may do that and they certainly have the right to appeal it. Forney: I am concerned about the two lane bridge issue. We have a wide road that narrows to a bridge that seems from a safety standpoint as perhaps not the best possible arrangement. I need assurance that is a good idea. Odom: The current motion requires that they build a three lane bridge. Johnson: I don't think you can tell that from the record. Forney: I'd like to clarify that. On the subject of the rearrangement of Steele Boulevard, I like the effort that Commissioner Johnson made to try and clarify what would happen. I don't think we have much force in this at all Johnson: I didn't intend any force. It is only for purposes of the record it is not intended as a condition of approval. Irwin: We're all for the at grade crossing at Northhills. Where we get killed is the corner. You're taking a piece of which half of it is in the flood plain anyway and you're taking 3.5 to 4.0 acres off the front and we're leaving a narrow strip that would make the entire 20 acres unusable. I have requested that rather than dedicating land, lets just restrict the land and find out what is needed later on then we could talk about it. My client has not agreed with this. We could say we wouldn't build any buildings on it and a future buyer would only be buying vacant land. Your asking us to • give the land today without anybody knowing how the interchange will be designed. We're taking staff recommendation that Option A is the best way to make a flyover work, we have agreed to work • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 40 with you and provide the necessary studies for access control and work with you on the at grade intersection, and work with you on the Mall Lane intersection. I think this is a package deal and it benefits everybody. We want to move this forward. Milholland: I was asked by Alett after the last Planning Commission meeting to determine how to get the flyover in. I was assuming you were wanting professional advise. Mr. Venable is retired from the Highway Department and he is a qualified engineer. Mr. Beavers has worked on highway bridge design and I understood you wanted us to give you some type of solution and we did and all the professionals agreed to Option A. 1 also was called during your Agenda Session and I had been in a meeting with my client in Springdale all day. I drove here at your request to discuss this issue. Before we left, it was asked by one of the Commissioners if we could cooperate with the City in trying to find another access even through it did not touch Phase II. I talked to my client that afternoon and my client concur they would hold Lot 6 for 12 months. I don't know what you're looking for. Odom: It is the decision of the Commission to move on with the Option B and it is within the right of the Planning Commission to make that determination based on the altematives. Mr. Estes we need you to clarify your motion. Estes: That is to approve preliminary plat 98-12, line two of the first paragraph of the first condition of approval... "the alternative flyover as shown in Area B is acceptable." The requested three variance in paragraph two would be granted and approval is subject to all other conditions. Odom: Regarding Item 3, the staff's recommendation was that the bridge also be three lanes with sidewalks on both sides paid 100% by the developer. Estes: Yes, it would include condition approval 3. Shackelford: The offer to keep Lot 6 off the market is that worked into this motion in any way. Odom: That is not a part of the condition of approval. I would be hopeful that there would be further discussion regarding the at grade intersection at Northhills. Roll Call on the Motion The motion passed with a vote of 6-2-0. Commissioners Odom and Shackelford voted against the • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 41 motion. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 42 CU99-2: CONDITIONAL USE SOUTHWESTERN BELL, PP293 This request was submitted by Hunter Stuart of Southwestern Bell for property at 2730 East Township, St. John's Lutheran Church. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional, and the lease site contains 0.02 acres. The total property owned by the church exceeds 8 acres. The request is for a cellular tower to be constructed on the site with an 18 feet by 18 feet base and a height of 86 feet. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will supply a sample of the accent color to be used on the steeple. 2. The route from the existing culvert off Highway 265 to the proposed site of the steeple base will be subject to the comments and suggestions of the landscape administrator. 3. The drive from Highway 265 will require the approval of the State Highway Department. • 4. (Added) The applicant must allow the colocation of one additional carrier. Mr. Hunter Stuart was present on behalf of the request. Discussion Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval? • Little: On Item 3, I believe that the culvert at the drive has already been installed there and I'm not certain when that was installed. It probably wasn't even installed by this applicant. I would like to amend Item 3 to say the drive from Highway 265 will require the approval of the State Highway Department. Odom. I don't see any condition on here other than in the background information to make the applicant allow more than one carrier on site. Is that not a condition of approval. Little: We did intend to do that. Please add condition 4 that the applicant be required to allow colocation of one additional carrier. Vinson: In the information we were provided by the applicant, he did say that there would be enough room provided in the town for a colocator but an additional structure may be required at the based but there would be enough room for a colocator in the tower structure. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 43 Odom: I think that is important enough to require as a condition of approval. Has the applicant had the opportunity to review the conditions of approval. Stuart: Yes. We have no problems with it. I am the Real Estate Manager for Southwestem Bell Wireless located in Little Rock. Approximately one year ago, maybe less, I met with Alett and her staff and individuals from Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission and what we brought home from this series of meetings was that the City would like to see shorter towers. When you have to impose on a community or residential area, you have to be cognizant of what needs are and what the architectural compatibility of the neighborhood is, and try to use stealth technology if at all possible. The area we needed to increase service coverage had to be at the intersection of 45 and 265. In canvasing the neighborhood, you have a concentration of commercial, but north on Crossover approximately 600 yards or so at the intersection of Township and Crossover was St. John's Lutheran Church that did not have a steeple. Our company within the previous year designed and built a steeple in Trusty Heights region of North Little Rock. There was no community resistance. We worked with a neighborhood that is very tightly controlled by the residents. They give a lot of input to the City and we worked with the neighborhood and designed the church steeple and we want to replicate that here in Fayetteville. The neighborhood lends itself to it. There is dense • foliage that shelters the proposed location of the tower. It will be a tower. It is 85 to 86 feet tall. It is a church steeple. When we vacate the premises, although we have a long term lease, the structure will stay It will be a steeple. It will always be a church steeple and it is built with the purpose of hiding our equipment. We have narrowed down the color scheme. What was submitted to you was a premature conceptual rendering. Architecturally, it is correct. The pink or purplish color will be brown. It will be a light brown with a white steeple top with the accent cross being a brown annondized aluminum finish. • Public Comment Tom Rosteck residing at 2384 Ferguson spoke in opposition to granting the conditional use. He submitted a petition and a copy is on file in the Planning Office. Bob Sigafoos spoke in opposition to granting the conditional use. Luella Combs spoke in opposition to granting the conditional use. Jeff Ward residing at 537 Clearwood Avenue spoke in opposition to granting the conditional use. Jim Windburn, the Vice President of St. John's Lutheran Church spoke in support of granting the conditional use. Further Discussion • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 44 • • Stuart: I appreciate the feedback from the residents of the community. We don't like to invade in residential neighborhoods taking heat like this. We had a trade off here, do we go down to the intersection and build a 130-140 feet monopole like other carriers and build in a commercial area. We were trying to do something along the lines that we felt the City wanted and that was to utilize the stealth technology by thinking outside the box. The industry is moving that direction. There are more innovative things like pine trees. As your market matures and you get spots where a 40 feet pine tree won't look out of balance you'll see a pine tree go up. They're using water tanks and roof tops in your market currently. When you're trying to address an area that has a definite need for increased service availability and that is what we have with this particular area you are faced with two options. You can erect something or leave it uncovered. We took the lesser of two evils by going to an area near the church that could utilize a steeple. The plan for the church when originally conceived called for the steeple to be built but funds were never available. We came in and maybe it was not what would have been originally built but we did come in and offer to build a steeple that is compatible with the master plan for the church. Many of you might know that we were in litigation in West Fork in March of 1997. One of the issues from the plaintiffs was devaluation of property. We had a local appraiser, Steve Cosby, do a thorough analysis from Bentonville, Rogers, Fayetteville and looked at property in neighborhoods and areas where towers had been built and found that no verifiable proof of decreasing property values by the advent of an existing tower or a tower built after a subdivision was in place. Odom: Was there an expert on the other side that argued it did decrease property values? Stuart: Yes. Mr. Cosby did not testify to property values but he did testify on other issues. Regarding health issues, in certain scientific studies there are countries such as New Zealand that is very concerned about RF emissions. Your microwave oven at home emits probably 1000 times more RF emissions that a cellular tower does. We worked with cities such as North Little Rock where we are mandated to put them on City properties first. We even have them on school campuses. We are concerned with the health of the community. Odom. What about lightning issues? Stuart: Lightning is a concern for us. We take significant cautions. We have a lightning rod on top. We have grounding around the tower. We will have several hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment housed in our equipment building at the base of the steeple and we will invite the lightning to us We anticipate a lightning strike. We are prepared for it. By being a tall structure, we will attract the lighting if there is a storm. We will be the one most likely to take a hit. Estes: Our report says there would be additional ground space to permitted the colocation of equipment for a second carrier at this site. Do 1 understand that you will allow colocation on your tower? • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 45 Stuart: Yes. The tower is designed for one additional carrier. Due to the height limitation it is very unlikely that a third carrier would want to come because of the tree canopy would deminsh the signal. So, we plan for one additional antenna ray within the confines of the tower and we have extra lease space that will house an equipment building or in the case of a PCS carrier it would house their equipment cabinets. Estes: In reading the material we were provided, I teamed that there would be up lighting on each side of the steeple. What is the candle power or how bright is that going to be at night? Stuart: I can't answer that question factually at the present. I can submit that to staff. The purpose is just to illuminate the crosses on the tower. Estes: Did I understand from your comment that there are other commercial sites within the city with a monopole that would suit your needs? Stuart: There is nothing in that particular geographic area that will suffice for us We could have come in and built a traditional monopole was what I was referencing. The closest towers that would work would be on Kennelworth Drive on Mt. Sequoyah and we have an antenna array on top of one of the buildings at Mt. Sequoyah. Odom: There is a brand new tower on Highway 45 about .7 miles from the city limits. That was conveniently built outside our regulations. Why can't you locate there? Stuart: Had we known there was plans for this prior to our negotiations with the church, we could have looked at whether it would have met our needs. This has been in the works for six months. I made a commitment to the church that we would carry this through. It wasn't until two weeks ago that I found out about the tower on 45. I talked to Mr. Vinson about it and he had no knowledge of it. I drove out personally last Friday and looked at it. Odom: Would you be able to operate off of that facility? Stuart: Realistically, I could. Odom: Who owns that tower? Stuart: It's owned by one my competitors, TeleCorp. Odom: Have you colocated with them in the past? Stuart: They are actually on ten of my sites. I'm not on any of there's at this time. I'm • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 46 looking at two of them in the metropolitan Little Rock area. We colocate with Alltel, Sprint, and TeleCorp. Odom. That is a hideous structure. I'm actually surprised that people are here opposing the structure that you have presented. I had much rather have this than what is on 45. But, since that is already there, I think that might be a viable option. Stuart: I do have a contractual arrangement with the church. There is a lease in place if that is of any consideration. Tucker. Is there any downside in terms of service of colocating on the tower on 45? Will it reach everywhere this facility would? Stuart: I can't answer that factually. We use a planning tool to do a propagation to evaluate what our signal would be. Until I got those coordinates and looked at an antenna ray, I would have to have my engineering department examine that. I will say it would satisfy a tremendous service area because it is so much taller than what I'm building. I know that I could increase my service to the east toward Goshen. Tucker: Do you know if there is still space available to colocate? Stuart: There is a tremendous amount of space on that tower. I don't know about land area but it's a 236 feet tower and there is only one carrier on it now at the top. There is ample space. Tucker: I am impressed with the presentation on this. We see more and more towers and they seem to appear in residential areas. I think yours is attractive and I don't think it would be a structure that would devalue neighboring properties but with another facility that would probably meet your needs -- Stuart: I can only assume it would satisfy our needs. I can't say factually that it would. Tucker: How long would it take for you to make that evaluation. Stuart: It would take my engineering department a matter of hours. We worked hard with the staff to come up with what the City wanted. They asked for stealth technology and to be denied because there is a hideous structure further down. I don't understand your logic. Tucker: It's there all ready. Now that we know there is an option to the monopole towers, we're less prone to agree with monopole construction. Since there isn't a lot of work to be done in determining if the monopole would work and perhaps we would save the community from another • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 47 tower. Stuart: How far does Fayetteville's ETJ extend? Little: We do not have extra territorial jurisdiction with regard to zoning. We do have with regard to Subdivision Regulations. Stuart: Was that subdivided for that? Little: No. It was not. Stuart: Should it have been? Little: I don't think a lease agreement requires a subdivision. Stuart: That's how we got into litigation in West Fork was on a subdivision within the county. Little: regulations. If you are subdividing or you are creating a lot then it falls under our subdivision Stuart: How do you know if that tower will be there within six months if litigation ensues? Odom. I think that you could certainly come back. I live in this neighborhood also and we are being inundated with towers and cathedrals and observation decks. This is the kind of cell tower that we need in this area to avoid all the other things that are going up. This is a fantastic alternative. I'm disappointed to see people speaking out against this. Stuart: If this does not extend my coverage to Joyce Boulevard which this tower will do. What kind of proof do I need to submit? Odom: Something to our engineering department so they can review it and make their own calls and be satisfied that what you are providing to them was accurate. Little: If you are going to analyze other site which would include the one out 45, we would need to see an analysis of the new tower that is on Township and analysis of the tower located in Johnson to cover Joyce Boulevard. Stuart: We have a tower not too far from the one in Johnson and I can tell you that one in Johnson will not work for us. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 48 Odom. We require colocating and everyone is building their own tower. MOTION Mr. Tucker made a motion to table CU99-3. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 6-1-1. Commissioner Odom voted against the motion and Commissioner Hoffman abstained. • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 49 LSD98-37: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT KRAUFT, PP 290 The next item was submitted by Neal Albright on behalf of Virginia Krauft for property located at 118 East Sunbridge Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 1.24 acres. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. (Denied by roll calf.) Planning Commission's determination of the need for cross access. Subdivision Committee recommended that cross access be provided to accommodate the previously approved project located west of this lot. The access should be 24 feet wide and centered at a point which is 150 feet north of the south property line. The parking lot should connect to this cross access and be constructed to the west property line. An easement should be dedicated to continue the cross access across this lot to the east property line as was approved by the Subdivision Committee. • 2. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. • 3. Relocate freestanding sign to conform to the City sign ordinance. 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 5 feet sidewalk with a minimum 4 feet green space along Sunbridge Drive which is continuous through the driveway. 5. Provide appropriate space for a minimum 2 cubic yard dumpster at the northwest corner of the parking lot to accommodate solid waste pick up requirements. This dumpster pad must be screened on three sides. 6. Plat Review and Subdivision comments including written staff comments mailed to the applicant and all utility comments. 7. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications, and calculations for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. 8. All utilities shall be located underground. Large scale development approval to be valid for one calendar year. • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 50 10. Prior to 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. Jim McCord and Neal Albright were present on behalf of the request. Discussion McCord: I have submitted a memorandum regarding the one condition that is objectionable to the property owner and that is a requirement to a cross access easement to be dedicated through the middle of the property. The property owner was under a misunderstanding about the cross access easement and the offer to dedicate one is no longer on the table. We request that the large scale be approved without any cross access requirement because the ordinance does not require cross access. It just encourages cross access. The developer is complying with the other requirements and is dedicating a 50 feet utility easement along the back of the property. We request large scale development approval without the cross access requirement. Public Comment None. Further Discussion Little: We recommended the cross access because Commercial Design Standards which are a part of your zoning ordinance, not a part of the Subdivision Regulations, do state that cross access shall be encouraged. It does not say shall be required. But on every other large scale development that we have made the case for cross access and 1 can think of only extenuating circumstance where providing cross access would have led us through drainage ditches where the Planning Commission has not made cross access a requirement of the large scale approval The vehicle that the Planning Commission has to use to make cross access a requirement is found in your reasons for approving large scale developments or your reasons for disapproving and the only that you have is that you would find that it would create or compound a dangerous traffic situation. You have to relate it to your traffic safety. The reason that the staff had recommended the cross access to the west be constructed is that we have already approved a large scale development to the west for Bill Keating. I do need to make it clear that the approval of the large scale development to the west has a vacant lot between the one that has been approved and the subject property. We required the stub out of this one to line up with what Mr. Keating had provided realizing that the one that came in the middle of that would have to meet that as well. The situation to the east was dust to recommend that there • • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 51 be an access easement located on the plat and our first choice for locating that did take it through some fairly large trees. The landscape administrator spoke up and said she would prefer to see it angled to the north and we concur with that. When Mr. McCord first submitted his letter, we did read it and we found that there had been a proposal for a cross access. I understand that has now been withdrawn. Staff supports it's original recommendation. If there was something else offered, we would look at it and try to give you our best advice. Odom: I thought there was some kind of access potential. McCord: I thought there was but I was advised by the co owner tonight that they forgot to dedicate a cross access easement. If the Planning Commission determines that a cross access easement should be required as a condition of development approval, then we would request that it be along the north property line to overlap with the utility easement. We request that a cross access easement not be required at all. Little: There is a 25 feet utility easement along the north and there is a 15 feet drainage easement. There are two separate areas. So there is a total of 40 feet. We would not recommend use of the 15 feet drainage easement but we could concur with the 25 feet utility easement. It doesn't line up with anything. It's not ideal but it does meet the spirit of your regulations. MOTION Mr. Forney made a motion to approve LSD98-37 with the stipulation that there not be a cross access provided but with all other staff comments. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion Forney: The nature of the business at this location is such that a cross access is not desirable. I don't think it would be as deleterious for the use as the applicant does but they do point out that it is not a requirement of our ordinance merely a suggestion. I think they will suffer for not having that access because it will make access to your property more difficult. This is not a heavily developed project but if in the future they decide to expand or sold to another use that would more fully develop the property, would we have the second opportunity to get the access. Little: Your second opportunity would come only if there were additions to the property which were over 10,000 square feet in area or which required the addition of 25 or more parking spaces. Otherwise, it does not come back to Planning Commission. • • Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Commission January 25, 1999 Page 52 Forney: It would go to staff? Little: No. Hoffman: I don't see a real need for the cross access for this property but what are we doing to the one adjoining it. Do we have a dedicated access? Little: To the east are vacant lots and we have not processed any large scale development. To the west is a vacant lot. Immediately to the west of that is an approval large scale on which we required cross access. Hoffman: I'm going to support the motion. Forney: This does meet the other Commercial Design Standards and I want the record to reflect that. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-2-0. Commissioner Johnson and Commission Odom voted against the motion. Meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m.