Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-08 Minutess • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March 8, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED CU99-2: Southwestern Bell PP99-2: Altus Addition PP99-3: Robinwood LSD99-5: Walgreens RZ99-6: Mannon MEMBERS PRESENT Bob Estes John Forney Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Gary Tucker Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Brent Vinson ACTION TAKEN Denied Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions Approved w/conditions MEMBERS ABSENT Phyllis Johnson STAFF ABSENT Alett Little Dawn Warrick • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 2 Consent Agenda APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 8,1999 MEETING. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 22, 1999 MEETING. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Commissioner Forney, Commissioner Johnson, and Commissioner Tucker were tardy. s w Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 3 Old Business CU99-2: CONDITIONAL USE SOUTHWESTERN BELL, pp293 This item 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 request is for a cellular tower to be constructed on the site. Hunter Stuart was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendations Staff recommended approved of the request based on the finding required by §163.02 and the following conditions: 1. The applicant will supply a sample of the accent color to be used on the steeple for staff approval. 2. The route from the existing culvert off Hwy. 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 Hwy. 265 will require the approval of the State Highway Department prior to construction. 4. No part of the steeple shall be illuminated. Committee Discussion Stuart: We looked at several sites to possibly replicate what we are desiring to do with the subject project. One was located on Highway 45 East, 7/10ths of a mile east of the city limits in the Son's Chapel area One was the water tank on Township road approximately '/z mile west of the subject site and we also looked at an existing tower on Mt. Sequoyah that is owned by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Taking the first site which we refer to as Son's Chapel, that site would work providing coverage from the subject property east back toward the Goshen area. However, it did not serve the primary intersection of Highway 45 and 265 which was the primary cause of concern that we needed for the subject property to cover. We looked at the site on Township and it posed certain logistical problems for us. It was designed for co -location but the port that has been cut on the existing monopole stares at the antenna array of Alltel which is on top of the water tank which would potentially cause interference between our company and Alltel as we operate in the same band frequency. That site has been eliminated strictly from the • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 4 interference issue. If we impair them or they impair us, it is most likely to degrade both signals to an unacceptable level. Also, the advent of the water tank and its bulk creates what we in the industry call a shadow whereby we wouldn't be able to extend the signal past the blockage and it would create a hole from the antenna array that would not spread the signal out in a northwesterly direction. We looked at the third site on Mt. Sequoyah on the Southwestern Bell tower and it would provide coverage in a limited capacity straight down into the 45/265 area and almost get down into that valley but not quite. Out of all three sites, we still could not replicate the coverage that would be provided by St. John's Lutheran Church in the 45/265 intersection running north on Crossover up to Joyce Boulevard. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to please consider our request for this site. It is needed to provide an adequate coverage for our customers. I go back to the fact that we have worked with staff months ago trying to find out what the city wanted to see in the way of cellular development. They wanted shorter towers using stealth technology, and design for colocation. This tower definitely incorporates stealth technology, it's shorter, and it is designed for one additional carrier. I will be glad to answer any questions the Commission may have Odom: You said the one on Mt. Sequoyah works or accomplishes the goal that you have on Highway 265/45 intersection. Stuart: Not into the valley where the confluence of the shopping centers are. It comes down 45 but doesn't provide for what we wanted to provide for total coverage of that intersection. Odom: sort of -- Are you talking about complete noncoverage for certain areas or you talking about Stuart: Poor coverage. There is marginal coverage there now, Mr. Odom. Odom: There is marginal coverage. Stuart: Marginal coverage. Odom: Would it improve the marginal coverage that is currently there? Stuart: Not to the desires that we want to provide the coverage for our customers. Odom. I understand you want peak performance at every location, but would it be satisfactory enough to warrant putting the site on Mt. Sequoyah. Stuart: In my opinion, no, sir. • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 5 Odom: Did you work with staff when you were looking at that Township site or did you just simply do all of this on your own? Stuart: Did I work with staff? Odom. Right. Stuart: I've been visiting with staff but my contacts have been with my counterparts at Alltel and their Engineering Department telling them what we were directed to do. We had to ask the local company, Telacorp, for information on their tower to analyze it and then once we got that we went to Alltel and told them what we were proposing. They took it to their Engineering Department and said if we had to have this tower, they have to run some engineering studies and they don't know that they can bless this. If they thought I was asking for approval -- Odom: Who said they don't know if they can bless this? Your department? Stuart: No. Alltel. My counterpart at Alltel. I took this to them to tell them what we were asked to do by the Planning Commission. I stated the facts to them and they said that they would raise the interference issue. They said if I needed approval today, they would not give us approval. They want to study this and they are not prepared to address this today. Odom. Can you explain that in more detail the interference issue? We specifically requested that cell tower be built so that there could be collocation and now if the colocation is going to cause interference, what is the purpose of collocation? Stuart: I don't know why Telacorp designed their site the way they did, sir. It was an existing tower that I had to look at. They cut a wave guide for it on their pole where you hang your antenna array will look at a beam rep at the Alltel sectors. When you do collocations, we require 20 feet of vertical separation. If our antenna went to the very top of the low antenna, we wouldn't be able to provide to a 20 foot separation and the signals will walk on one another. The same radio channels exist. One of my customers could pick up an Alltel customer. Walk on the signal is where you have a garble with static and what we call cross talk. Odom: I thought logistically, we took care of those things, staff when we required the one on Township to be built. That was one of the requirements for the one on Township to be built. That was one of the reasons they wanted to build it higher than the water tower. Conklin: That is correct. Telecorp did indicate to us that that pole would be designed for • two additional carriers. I guess we need to clarify the port -- • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 6 Stuart: Imagine taking a 150 feet monopole and a 130 or 126 feet water tank. You have a wave guide for it cut at 130 feet. You have an Alltel antenna ray on top of the water tank. You have a wave guide for it cut at 130 feet. You're going to be steering into the antennas of Alltel. If you move down to the next level, you're still at the bowl of the tank and dropping down further doesn't provide the height we need to come back and cover the east. I looked at that site for several weeks before it dawned on us there would be interference with Alltel until we contacted them. Odom. Alltel is the one that is on the water tower? Stuart: They're on the water tower. Conklin: Telecorp is the provider that built the new tower. Odom: So we've allowed someone to build a tower that from a collocation standpoint is completely useless? Conklin: This evening is the first that staff has heard about this. What kind of • modifications could be made to that Telecorp tower that would allow you to be on there. • Stuart: None with the advent of Alltel being there on top of the water tank. Odom: I think we better examine that further and perhaps remove that structure if it is not going to serve the purpose of collocation. Conklin: Yes. It does concern me that one of the reasons for the height of the Telecorp tower was to allow two additional carriers. Concern was expressed by that provider at that time that possibly one of the additional two would have some trouble with the water tank. The water tank was one of the issues. Another issue was for the height to get over the top of that water tank. It was supposed to have been designed for two additional carriers. With regard to the port for the cables -- is that what is coming out? Stuart: It is designed for colocation. Logistically it will not work. Conklin: You said that they could not permit it. They thought you were asking for approval to establish your antenna array on the tower and they would not do that. Did they need to do more analysis? Stuart: Yes. We have to share radio frequency. We would have to develop our frequency plan for that tower. Show that to them. Compare it to their frequencies and then make the decision that no, you cannot do this or yes, you may. • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 7 Conklin: It that possible? Stuart: Yes, sir. Odom: Are you an engineer? Stuart: No, sir. I am a real estate man. Odom: Do you have an engineer here tonight? Stuart: No, sir. Public Discussion Odom: I need to remind everyone that we have already had one public hearing on this issue and I request that you keep your remarks to items that were not brought up prior and specifically, if you could address the collocation issue since that is what we are primarily examining tonight. But, if there is something new that you didn't have before, we would be happy to hear that. We have already spent a lot of time on this. The public comment was and is a part of the record from last time so all of the objections that were there before, we assume and know they are here now. We don't need to rehash those. Having said that, I am going to limit public comment to 6:00. That is 15 minutes. Tom Rosteck residing at 2384 Ferguson spoke in opposition to locating the tower at St. John's Lutheran Church. Mark Cartwright presented a poster depicting a scaled replication of the proposed cell tower and objected to allowing the cell tower on the grounds that it would have negative visual impact on their neighborhood. He also noted that City Council had discussed a moratorium on cell towers. Bob Sigafoos residing on Hardy Lane spoke in opposition of the proposed steeple and presented several pictures of existing church steeples for comparison. Craig Lanecek, who is an associate professor of electrical engineering at the University of Arkansas and his area of expertise is power engineering and he expressed concern about the term interference between towers and he further suggested that the City have an outside, independent person to analyze those results. They have an expert at the University of Arkansas, Professor Bill Waite. • Carrie Hester, a concerned parent of a child attending St. John's Day Care, spoke in opposition to the tower and submitted a petition of the parents, some for, some against, of the children at the • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 8 day care. Mr. Jeff Ward residing at 2450 Hampton Court submitted a petition of 141 signatures from residents in the neighborhood to go along with the 50 that were submitted at the January 25 meeting. Suzanne Morris residing 2568 Hampton Court opposed the tower as a concerned parent. She submitted at Internet article and a magazine article. Steve Parker residing at 215 N. East Avenue spoke in opposition to the cell tower and advocated collocation. Pat Coon residing on Country Way stated that her brother had a tract of property 1 mile due east which would be an excellent location and further, he had offered to lease that land to them. An unidentified representative of a parent at the day care presented a letter from Tim Hutchinson about EPA. • Karen Bonham spoke in opposition to the cell tower and provided topographical map information for elevations. • Further Commission Discussion Estes: Is this an analog or digital service? Stuart: It would be both. We offer both services. Estes: Those will be offered from this proposed tower? Stuart: That is correct. We put in both analog and digital radios. Estes: Do I understand correctly that you have identified an existing facility within a one mile radius but it is not ideal? Stuart: There is only one that I can factually say is within one mile and that is the tower to the west, owned by Telecorp, at the water tank. The tower to the East at Son's Chapel, I believe it is going to be slightly greater than one mile. The tower at Mt. Sequoyah I can say is greater than one mile. Estes: You need to be within a one mile radius? Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 9 Stuart: To accomplish covering the intersection of 45/265, I need to be as close to that intersection as possible. My ideal placement would be to build a 150 foot monopole at the intersection of 45 and 265. We elected not to do that after having met with staff and worked in a way to come up with something that would be out of the ordinary and not just a monopole. That is how we landed at St. John's Lutheran Church. Estes: Is it possible for you to collocate on the water tower? Stuart: Technically, yes, sir. It is. We could hang on the barrel of the tank. I understand there is a certain amount of resistance from public works with us doing that. Estes: Can you collocate on the large tower at that is on 45 East? Stuart: Yes. Estes: Are there problems with collocation on that tower? Stuart: No, sir. Odom: I thought the point about an independent engineer is a good idea but I would even like to here from Southwestern Bell's engineer. The fact that he is not here tonight prevents me from doing that. I find your presentation on your inability to collocate lacking. I think there is evidence that you can collocate. MOTION Mr. Odom made a motion to deny CU99-2. Mr. Estes seconded the motion. Further Discussion Ward: There are towers all over town. As progress continues and satellites and what not go up is there a way to get some of these towers taken down if some day in the future there is no need for them? Stuart: Well, I can't speak for the other companies but our company is contractually obligated to remove the towers once they cease to be functional for us. Whether it's by grid changes and they need to be relocated, or in the event technology renders them useless. We will be responsible for taking down our towers. I can't speak for Alltel but from what they've done in the past and I believe they have the same type of arrangement. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 10 Ward: Most people are going to cellular phones. I use them. It's become very important. I hate to look at the towers. They mess up the beautiful hillsides that we have and as technology develops, I feel like there will be no need for them in the future. Johnson: I understood you to say initially that the tower on 45 East would cover the region east of 265 but that it would not cover the 45/265 intersection. Stuart: That is correct. Johnson: Now I'm confused because I thought you said in response to the question from Mr. Estes that it would. Stuart: He asked if we could collocate on it. The triad of three antennas is one that we would have to use. My big obstacle is the one on Township Road by the water tank. Johnson: So the one east of town will or won't cover the 45/265 intersection? Stuart: No. It will not hit that intersection. Johnson: That intersection is the primary reason that you need the tower. Stuart: Yes. This is generated by the number of complaints we receive from our users at that intersection. Johnson: The Mt. Sequoyah location would serve 265 and 45 but it also would not get the intersection itself. Stuart: Not to the degree that we would like. It will get down into the valley but not to the degree we would like. It would not be optimum but it's useable. Johnson: In terms of collocating on the water tower, we looked at this issue, I thought, within the last two months and were told that the City would not allow additional colocation on the water tower on Township. Is that not correct? Conklin: That is correct. The Public Works Department worked with Telecorp and they indicated to them that they did not want to look at locating additional antenna array on that water tank. Johnson: We were told the City would disallow. Odom: That's why we allowed the monopole to go up there with the understanding that • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 11 there would be collocation available on it. I would encourage the applicant to work closely with staff and get the staff involved to do whatever they can to make that clear to the Telecorp people that whatever problems they are having, they need to work out. Otherwise, I think it needs to come back before us if they are not going to provide collocation on that site. Conklin: I would agree with you Mr. Chairman. It does concern me greatly that it looks like there is not the ability to collocate on that tower. We were told they would allow collocation and it would be designed for collocation. I'm not sure what has happened. I will contact Telecorp and try to find out some information. Shackelford: One of the public raised the question whether or not there was a financial benefit to the company for building it on the church location. Can you answer that question as to whether or not the cost of the tower would be a tax deduction to the company? Stuart: I'm not an accountant, sir. I don't know. That is not a relevant subject for me. I'm sure there is some benefit to the company about donating. The one we did in Little Rock, we did not donate to the church. It will be done at the expiration of the lease. The church requested this half ownership on the front end. It's half a dozen and six in the other to me. Shackelford: So your stance is this is specifically just the best real estate location possible for your tower. Stuart: Yes, for what I need to accomplish for my company, this is the best site. Estes: As we serve as an administrative administerial body, we are required to make specific findings of fact. One of those findings of fact that we must make before we site this conditional use is that this conditional use is generally compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. I find that an 8 story, 86 foot obelisk does not meet that requirement and I will vote for the motion to deny the conditional use. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion to deny conditional use 99-2 passed with a vote of 8-0-1. Ms. Hoffman abstained. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 12 New Business APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE Odom: I appoint the following to the Nominating Committee to elect new officers: Commissioner Ward, Commissioner Forney, Commissioner Hoffman. J • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 13 PP99-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT ALTUS ADDITION, pp258 This item was submitted by Robert Schmitt of RNS Enterprises for property located north of Highway 45 and east of Altus Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 7.01 acres with 4 lots proposed. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the project Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Right of way for Altus Drive must be dedicated from the easternmost existing right to way to the property's western boundary. 2. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives.) Commission Discussion Odom: Are there any further conditions of approval? Petrie: There are no further conditions of approval. Jorgensen: We are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Public Comment Brent Sterling, who owns the property to the north of the subject property inquired regarding the flow capacity of the water line. Further Discussion Odom. I'll defer to our engineer. Petrie: Mr. Jorgensen has provided us the calculations on that existing 2 inch line showing there is enough capacity for the 4 new lots and Mr. Sterling's lot. There is a limited number of new customers that will be able to go on that line but it is enough for those 5 new lots. Odom: Is it enough to cause concern that we should be requiring a larger line? • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 14 Petrie: I don't believe so for basically, three new lots We don't recommend any contribution. Sterling: What happens if additional development occurs between Highway 45 and my land and the flow is reduced to such that it's not desirable. Odom: We would normally require the developer to bring it up to the standard, wouldn't we? Petrie: In most cases we would. If there was a large subdivision, we definitely would require a larger line such as a 6 or 8 inch line. In this particular case, we do not recommend any improvements to the water line. Odom: I think he's talking about in the future. Let's say 5 years from now, someone comes in and wants to put a line in. Is Brent going to be out the money to fix the line because of all the people that are developing around him or is the new developer going to have to put in a whole new line. Petrie: There are several different circumstances that I have to look at. If it is just several single family homes that have been added over the years then in that particular case it would more than likely be a capital improvement project where the City would put in a larger line. If it's one large development, then we would expect that developer to put in a line. It really depends on what the circumstances are. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve PP99-2 subject to the conditions of approval. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 15 PP99-3: PRELIMINARY PLAT ROBINWOOD SUBDIVISION, pp298 This item was submitted by Robert Schmitt of RNS Enterprises for property located at Highway 45, west and south of Son's Chapel. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 7.40 acres with 7 lots proposed. Dave Jorgensen was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions. 1. All conditions placed on the project by the Washington County Planning Board as follows: a. Identify residential drive #4346 on the plan. b. Every property owner that has a recorded or prescriptive use of the existing easement and drive to be eliminated, must agree to the elimination of the existing easement and drive. A record of this agreement must be submit to the Planning Office, reviewed by the County Attorney, and filed for public record. The book and page number where the document is recorded must be referenced on the plat. Have a 30 foot future right of way provided westward from the cul de sac to the property line. c. Increase the easement along the south property line to at least 50 feet so it will be closer to the size of the original easement and will not inhibit those who use the easement from developing their property in the future. d. Next to the total acreage of each lot, identify the size of the lot excluding all access easements. e. Note the address of each lot on the plan. f Note that access to each lot is restricted to Woodcrest Lane. g. Submit an engineer's certification that the runoff from the development will not cause or increase flooding problems. h. Correct the location of the development on the vicinity map. Submittal of a correction deed for a property line correction or other means necessary to settle the discrepancy in the legal description with Virginia Harkin. 3. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utilities.) • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 16 Commission Discussion Odom: Dave, do you have any comments? Jorgensen: We are in agreement with all the conditions of approval. Odom. Are there any further conditions of approval? Petrie. No, sir. Public Comment None Further Commission Discussion Hoffman: On item number 2, we were going to get a property line adjustment determination prior to approval of this plat. Has any paperwork been submitted? Jorgensen: Yes, it has. Mr. Greenhaw prepared a document and it was signed. I talked to him this afternoon and he said that he had no opposition to this and is in total agreement. We can get a copy for the staff. Hoffman: I would request that be forwarded to the staff. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve PP99-3 subject to staff recommendations and submission of the correction deed. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 17 LSD99-5: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WALGREENS, pp290 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Walgreens for property located at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Township Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.59 acres. Matt Crafton, Tim Gallop and Kurt Jones were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission determination of the following items: a. Compliance with commercial design standards including proposed wall and free standing signage. b. Waiver from the requirement that the existing overhead utility lines along Township Road be placed underground. c. Waiver request from §169.06 D.L. of the Grading Ordinance. 2. Planning Commission determination of any offsite improvements to Township Road (Arkansas Highway 180.) Staff recommends the construction of an additional lane that is 12 feet in width the entire length of the Highway 180 frontage. 3. Planning Commission determination of contributions to go toward the extension of the 8 inch water line adjacent to College Avenue. The developer's engineer has provided a cost estimate of $11,554.40 for the entire extension to be constructed and a recommendation of $3,129.50 to be paid by the developer. Staff supports the proposed contribution in the amount of $3,129.50. A 10 foot temporary construction easement must be secured prior to submittal of a final grading plan for the area that the applicant proposed grading to the property line. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments including written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. 6. 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 • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 18 approval. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. Large Scale Development approval is valid for one calendar year. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits. b. Separate easement plat for this project. c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §159.34. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Commission Discussion Odom: Are there further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. Crafton: I am Matt Crafton. I am an engineer at Crafton, Tull and Associates here in Fayetteville. I would like to introduce Mr. Tim Gallop, the architect for this project from Callahan Gallop in Tulsa, Oklahoma and also Kurt Jones of our office here in Fayetteville. We had a representative of the developer that got stuck in Dallas due to the weather. He apologizes for not being able to be here. We do have one concem and that is for condition number 2. That being the improvements to Township Road. The City has asked that the developer construct an additional lane on Township Road and we have written a letter to you addressing our concern with that. The developer recognizes that there will be an increase in traffic and wants to contribute his fair share of that improvement. However, we believe the fair share would be significantly less than actually constructing that road. The developer has offered a $10,000 payment to that as his fair share of the improvements and we would ask your support of that. Odom: Staff, do you want to comment on that? Petrie: In most circumstances, when we have an issue on a substandard road where they request contributions for the actual construction at this time. The road is substandard. There is an open ditch there and this development will increase the traffic at this time. That is why we requested the lane to be added at this time. Odom: Are there other conditions of approval you wanted to address? Crafton: We agree with the rest of the conditions. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 19 Public Comment None. Further Discussion Hoffman: I guess you are referring to your letter dated March 4 In that it says that you discussed the situation with Joe Shipman at AHTD and that if the lane was constructed, it might not be able to be utilized when Township is widened in the future. Is that your main objection to this? Crafton: That is one objection. As Ron said, it is substandard. The lanes that are on Township are less than 12 feet. So the State Highway Department came in and widened that road. They probably actually have to go wider than 12 feet, so they are going to cut again into the Walgreens' property. There is no guarantee that they will be able to use the portion that Bencor actually widened. That is the point that he made to us. Hoffman: Staff, could you tell me we don't have current plans to widen Township on the board. Petrie: No, ma'am. Jim Beavers talked to Joe Shipman and there are no plans to widen Township Road. Hoffman: Has our traffic engineer or Perry Franklin looked at the situation with regard to the need for this lane? Is that why this recommendation comes from staff? Petrie: Yes, ma'am, from Perry Franklin, Mr. Venable, and Jim Beavers. All of us have looked at it and we all agree that an additional lane is needed. Crafton: In our conversation with Mr. Shipman, we understood from him that they have done initial surveys on this site to widened Township Road and they have done some environmental work. They have not set a date for those improvements but they have done some initial work on them. Hoffman: I guess my concern would be that the development is going to add a great deal more vehicle trips per day than is currently there in staff opinion. Petrie: Mr. Franklin has provided us traffic calculations showing a 1,322 vehicle per day in two way traffic. Hoffman: And do we have an estimate of what exists there now with the car dealership? • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 20 Petrie: No, ma'am. We do not. We do know the traffic on Township is approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. I do not know the present number of vehicles being produced from Nelms Chevrolet. Hoffman: We discussed this in some detail at Subdivision Committee and I guess I was under the impression that we had excluded any discussion or any worry about adding a turn lane on College just because of the impracticability of doing that and that we were going to require a lane on Township at this time simply to accommodate in and out traffic. I guess I'm surprised at this late date that we have the objection. Crafton: We made the objection as soon as we knew about it. I would add that part of the cost of widening Township Road is also moving a traffic signal that is there that benefits everyone that uses Township Road Also, we are going to have to relocate those high transmission lines that are on Township Road. Again, those benefit all the citizens of Fayetteville along there and not just this development. So, it doesn't seem fair to us that the development should have to pay for the new signal and the new power lines along there. It is a significant cost to do that. Hoffman: There is a small ditch but we didn't require a culvert. Petrie: No. That is the high point in the road and there is very little drainage in that existing open ditch Estes: Petrie: Staff, is the widening of Township in the Capital Improvement Budget? I've checked myself this morning and I could not find it. So, I do not believe so. Estes: My comments to the applicant are this. I can understand your objection and your point regarding widening Township and future improvements by the Arkansas Highway Department. I sympathize with that position. I am troubled by the $10,000. $10,000 wouldn't dig up the utilities. Crafton: That's true. The City has asked us in the past on a similar development to contribute % of a standard city street. That is where we came up with this $10,000 amount going by what the City has required before. That is where that dollar figure camp, from. We would also add that just down the street, Tom January Floors, that just went in recently as far as we know was not required to contribute anything to Township Road. We have that precedent also to look at. Estes: I suppose the way that I would respond to that is the traffic counts and the traffic generation would be greater for Walgreens than it would be for a retail flooring business. Staff, • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 21 would a standard City street be adequate for the intersection of Township and Highway 71? Petrie: No, sir. It would not. Estes: What would be required and what would we be the estimated % cost of meeting that requirement. Petrie: If you do factor in the utility relocations if that is what you're asking me, it would probably be in the order of $40,000 to$50,000. There are several unknowns at this time such as whether the telephone line would have to be relocated and actually who would be responsible because we do not have a utility easement for those lines that I am aware of. So, I'm not sure if the applicant would be responsible or if the utility company would. I have not been able to get an answer to that. Estes: As we upgrade from a standard city street, where would be going? What type of street would be required? Petrie: It depends on the thickness of the asphalt and the material underneath it. A street that they provided a cost for is only 3 inches of asphalt with 8 inches of SB2. To upgrade, we would be looking at a more substantial thickness in asphalt such as 3 inch asphalt, 4 inches of black base and then 4 inches of SB2 in that order. Estes: Is it your estimate that % of that cost would be $50,000 for the 180 feet? Crafton: The length of the property is about 320 feet. There are several unknowns with the utility lines. Estes: I'm troubled by the $10,000. Hoffivan: On the Highway 265 and 45 retail project we recently approved, we had that applicant put in an additional lane on 45 and I believe that it was more of a temporary nature until 45 was going to be reconstructed. Is there some method that this applicant could restripe and maybe widened the street not to current standards. That could be a temporary fix until Township actually does get widened because it's a State Highway. Petrie: It's a possibility but even those improvements for Glenwood Shopping Center will more than likely have to be taken out when the new improvements to 265 are constructed. So, there is always that chance. Hoffa Ian I'm referring to 45. I knew that 265 was going to be completely reconfigured. But there is a left turn lane that they are providing off of 45 into the center and there was some • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 22 amount of road improvement to be done but it wasn't being done to State Highway Standards. Petrie: I believe I know what project you are referring to. I believe that occurred at a later date when the Highway Department had a more complete set of plans that they could work with. Hoffman: In light of that, I think I would tend to agree with Commissioner Estes that if you did not at this time want to construct the additional lane that more escrow money would be a better idea. Crafton: I believe the developer would be amenable to some sort of negotiation toward that. It's just the widening is going to make it very difficult for the developer to do the whole project. He's that close on his budget and he just cannot afford to do that widening. We think this would be a great improvement to Fayetteville. It will be replacing a metal building with a nice masonry building. About 1/3 of the site will be landscaped. 31 new trees will be added to a site without any right now. We think it would be a good project for that area of Fayetteville. This widening is putting us in a position where it's going to be difficult for the developer to do it. Odom. Is it going to be widening out? I've never understood it. Is it going to be widened in the future or not? Petrie: We do not know when it will be done. Odom: Is that when it will be slated for? It's just not on the program. Petrie: Looking back to the history of this in 1991, it was thought that it would be completed in 5 years from 1991. Tucker: If we did require the widening at this time, does traffic benefit from that or is that just in anticipation of other widening and at that time will we get some benefit? Do you understand my question? Petrie: It would benefit this development in that there is an additional lane to get in and out of the development. I'm not sure if I've answered your question. It provides an intersection. It saves the City money in the long run by the City not having to tear up their improvements. Tucker: The staffs recommendation is that is the way to go with it. It is the most efficient utilization of all resources, capital, and material resources to go ahead and build at this time. Petrie: Yes, sir. It is. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 23 Odom: Haven't we asked for assistance on relocation of lights and utilities and so forth like that? We don't have the authority to spend City money but it seems to me like we have recommended to the City Council that they assist in relocation of lines or something. Conklin: In the past the Planning Commission has made a recommendation asking the City Council to participate. I'm not sure if it's been on utility lines. Jones: I would just like to make a comment about the $10,000. Historically, in fact, every project that I can think of and I've been involved in situations with substandard streets. The contribution on State Highway type projects has been 1/2 of the cost of a City standard street. That $10,000 would certainly not build a lane there. The cost of widening that street is going to be significantly more. Our claim is that this is the developer's fair share of that cost toward the eventual improvements to Township. We understand and as Ron mentioned in 1991, that was part of the Highway Department's plan to widen that street. That is a Highway Department project. We feel like some reasonable dollar amount with $10,000 as the starting point, the developer obviously has some room to go a bit higher than that. Based on my experience and what the City has required in the past, that has been the method for determining what is the developer's fair share. It has historically been 1/2 of a City standard street In situations where developer's have had to put in completely new streets, and these streets were designated by the City as a higher classification than a City standard street, such as a Collector, then the Planning Commission has actually recommended by resolution that the City contribute to pay for the additional cost over and above a City standard street. This isn't any different than those situations in our mind. The $10,000 number would certainly cover 1/2 of a City standard street. That's the history in that number. Forney: Does staff agree that $10,000 would cover 320 feet of 1/2 of a City standard street? Petrie: Just for the street itself, yes, sir. Ward: Kurt, on the building, how is it done if the state were going to widen Township now and Nelms Chevrolet was there. What would they have to do? Condemn the property along Township? How would that work? Jones: Hopefully, it wouldn't come to that. They would have to buy the right of way from Nelms and negotiate with Nelms to buy the right of way. We're dedicating all the right of way that the City needs. I don't know how the funding is set up on this Township project and perhaps the City knows. At one time, I thought that the funding for this was going to come from the Highway Department and the City was simply responsible for obtaining the right of way for the improvements to Township. I may be mistaken and perhaps some of the City staff has more information on that. That was my understanding back when this was part of their 5 year plan which obviously it never came to that point. • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 24 Hoffman: I think this highlights our need for more traffic information. In the past, any other development that I'm referring to, haven't we required 100% developer participation when they significantly increase traffic flows. Petrie: On several developments that is true. Hoffman: So, in the absence of knowing what Nelms generates versus what Walgreens generates, I feel that we cannot make an informed decision about contributions or about actually requiring the lane to be built without knowing the numbers. Odom: We have to be careful. The staff is saying that because of the increased traffic generation that it should be required. I don't think we as Planning Commissioners should be told the numbers and then we make the decision I think that we should listen to the staff because they are experts. Hoffman: I'm just saying that though in terms of being consistent. I feel that we really need to maintain a consistent pattern with this. • Odom. I would agree but if staffs recommendations are not supported by the numbers then certainly we could look to see that they were. • Hoffman: To put the project in perspective, we had long conversations at Subdivision Committee about Commercial Design Standards. I think it was the consensus of the Committee at that time that with the changes to the exterior walls and the exterior signage on the building and I noticed that you have added the additional screening around the project that you conformed with the Subdivision Committee's view of Commercial Design Standards. There was discussion about the sign and the height of the sign. Again, in the interest of consistency it is my feeling that the lower the sign or the smaller the sign the better. I am trying to keep in mind that we are infilling in a heavily developed commercial strip already. We have a commendable project in terms of the landscaping and site improvements. So, I have no problem with the retaining wall variance requested and staff was supportive of that. MOTION Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve LSD99-5 subject to staff recommendations granting the waiver for overhead utility and the grading. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Further Discussion • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 25 Odom: Look at item number 3, staff supports contribution in the amount of $3,129.50 with regard to contributions for the 8 inch water line. Hoffman: That would be included in my motion as a staff recommendation. Shackelford: What we are talking about requiring is the building of an additional west bound lane on Township that will run 320 feet and end. I'm struggling a little with the traffic pattern of the west bound lane causing a merging problem at the end of 320 feet. I think I would rather see a negotiated sum go toward an escrow to fix the street right when we get to that point instead of creating a lane that is going to run 320 feet and run out and not serve any immediate purpose in my mind at this point. Estes: I support Mr. Shackelford's remarks. I find the $10,000 to be diminimous. I would like to see something done in that regard. Forney: I haven't heard the staff say that they would make a second west bound lane. Would that in fact be the plan or would the addition of that lane allow a right hand turn lane in the south or east bound lanes to allow south bound turns onto 71? Petrie: I cannot say for certain. More than likely it will be two lanes west bound. Forney: I appreciate Commissioner Shackelford's comments and those of Commissioner Estes. It seems to me that we have too little information to make a better decision than that recommended by staff. I would be happy if this applicant was able to get with staff and give us some better information to make a better decision with. It seems to me that if the staff and applicant are able to come to some better number and sense of what the contribution should be, that we could potentially vote some form of amendment after this meeting as a way to amend the approval. Is that possible? Odom. Is that acceptable to the applicant? Crafton: Yes. That is acceptable. Hoffman: I concur with that. Could it go to Subdivision Committee and be approved at that level? Odom: Could staff not approve -- actually, it would have to come back before us Conklin: I think it would have to come back to the full Planning Commission. • Odom: Staff are you comfortable with working out this issue at a later date? Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 26 Petrie: Yes, I would. I would like to have a little bit more input from the Commission as to exactly what we will be working toward? Odom: We're not the engineering experts. We don't know what these things cost. That's why I think we are going to rely on you. What we are telling you is that staff has recommended that you want a full street to be constructed there. The applicant feelss they are not being treated fairly. They're going to offer $10,000 and we are saying that is not enough. We are sympathetic to their concern but we want to stick to as much of what you are saying is possible and try to come up with an agreement less than the total cost of what you are talking about but more than what they are offering. Is that the kind of direction you need from us? We can't sit here and say we want $100,000 when the project may only cost $50,000. Petrie. We will be willing to work with the applicant on that. We will bring it back before the Planning Commission. Odom. I think that what we are saying is that we are willing to accept something less than them building the whole street right now. Forney: I think the basis for my confusion is because if this were a standard development in a typical location, I would be asking for only 1/2 of a City standard street. But, because there are issues of additional traffic generation, it seems to me that we can't depend on that. We have a proposition from the staff to forego half of the standard plus moving the utilities, etc. It seems we need to find a compromise that we all think is fair We don't have that number tonight. I look forward to seeing what the staff and the applicant can come up with to help us make a better judgment. Odom: Something that is coordinated with maybe the percentage of additional traffic generation that they are going to generate at this site. Ward: I think there is traffic there now. It's not like a vacant lot. Nelms Chevrolet is very busy with all the service, and cars are in and out of there all day long. Hoover: I would like to make a recommendation that we look at this as a monument sign. Across the street from this site is Days Inn and that is a monument sign. I have a picture to distribute and I'm not sure if this meets our monument sign criteria. Odom: What's before us now is approval of the large scale development as it is before us. Would you like to proposed an amendment? AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 27 Ms. Hoover made an amendment that a monument sign should be used on this project. Mr. Tucker seconded the motion. Further Discussion Odom: As opposed as to what was proposed with this large scale development? Hoffman: Does she need to state the size of the sign they need? Odom: Actually, I think a monument sign would be significantly larger -- Crafton: Our problem with the monument sign is -- the City's sign ordinance really doesn't address monument signs. Under what guidelines? Odom: The Commercial Design Standards. Personally, I think the sign they have proposed is fine. I would love to have monument signs everywhere but I think that the sign that they are proposing is even less than what is on the site currently. Hoffman: How did the Days Inn sign come to be a monument sign? 1 was trying to be consistent under Commercial Design guidelines and adjacent property. Odom. You have a very valid point. Hoffman: The discussion in Subdivision Committee had to do with consistency with adjoining properties. We just approved the Sonic with a pole sign. Personally, I'm not as in favor of pole signs as I am monument signs but I will not vote for a monument sign on this site for two reasons. We have so much latitude under the Commercial Design Standards. I really want to try to be consistent in areas of town. If you were in Spring Creek Center, I wouldn't vote for a pole sign. You are also on a corner lot and I think that it might create a visual hazard. So, I won't be voting for the monument sign. Tucker: This is at a stop light so I'm not sure that the visual hazard is particularly relevant. The other thing is that this is the only way to move toward monument signs and replace pole signs is when we have an opportunity for redevelopment. We have that opportunity here. Forney: We go back and forth with these and I always struggle with them. But, because I was in on the Subdivision discussion, I feel pretty good about the efforts made in this project by the applicant. If they wanted to do a monument sign, I would certainly encourage them but the degree of landscaping that they are providing and the overall site development, I would not necessitate or require a monument sign. Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 28 Roll Call on the Amendment to the Motion Upon roll call, the amendment to the motion failed with a vote of 4-3-1. Commissioner Forney, Commissioner Hoffman and Commissioner Hoover voted against the amendment to the motion and Commissioner Ward abstained. Odom: Staff, are you comfortable with the underlying motion? Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Ward abstained. Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 29 RZ99-6: REZONING MARINONI, pp401 This item was submitted by John P. Marinoni for property located at 1143 Futrall Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.54 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R -O, Residential Office John Marinoni was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval and the following is required to bring the property into compliance with current city ordinances: 1. Curb and gutter shall be added to the east side of Futrall Drive along the full length of the applicant's property. 2. Screening shall be provided along the north property line as coordinated with the Landscape Administrator. 3. The exterior of the existing building, the drive and parking area, and any signage shall meet city design standards. Commission Discussion Odom: Does the applicant have any problems with the conditions of approval? Marinom: I am in agreement. Public Comment None. MOTION Mr. Estes made a motion to approve RZ99-6 subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Shackelford seconded the motion. Roll Call • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 30 Upon roll the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission March 8, 1999 Page 31 Other Business Odom. I have appointed the nominating committee and they shall prepare a slate for us to vote on for a new Chairman, Vice -Chairman, and Secretary which will be presented at our next meeting. This slate will be voted on the first meeting of April. Meeting adjourned at 7:00.