Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-13 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 13, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of 08/23/99 Minutes RZ99-28: Realty Resources, pp364 PP99-7: Millennium Place, pp177 RZ99-29: Atlas Construction, pp367 MEMBERS PRESENT Donald Bunch Bob Estes Sharon Hoover Phyllis Johnson Don Marr Loren Shackelford Lee Ward STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Ron Petrie Brent Vinson Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Removed MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman Conrad Odom STAFF ABSENT • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 2 Johnson: Tim, is there one change to the agenda? Conklin: That is correct. Item number 4, RZ99-29 has been removed. That will be placed on the October 11 agenda. Approval of Minutes of August 23, 1999 Johnson: The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the last meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes as circulated? If not, then the minutes will stand approved as disseminated. • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 3 RZ99-28: REZONING REALTY RESOURCES, PP364 This item was submitted by William S. Hahn on behalf of William M. Weatherford and Larry & Brenda Swain for property located at 2200 and 2201 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.64 acres. The request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Michelle Harrington and William Hahn were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the proposed R-2 zoning. Committee Discussion Johnson: Staff, could you give us your explanation of this recommendation on this rezoning. Conklin: Staff did recommend approval of the rezoning. This site is located on Deane Street to the north is the University of Arkansas Experimental Farm. It does adjoin R-1 zoning on the east boundary. However, four of the structures on Sang Avenue are duplexes and one structure is a 5-plex. On the west boundary line, it does adjoin R-1 zoning and R-2 zoning. If you'll refer to page 2.6 in the agenda, Linda Jo Place on the western boundary has developed with townhouses and it's zoned R-2. Staff has recommended approval based on the findings in this report that additional multi -family residential dwellings in this area are appropriate and consistent with the 2020 Plan. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them at this time. Johnson: Commissioners, any additional questions of staff? Ms. Harrington? Harrington: My name is Micki Harrington. I'm here tonight representing Realty Resources, Chartered and Mr. Hahn, the representative, is here with me tonight. We are requesting as Tim indicated, approval of R-2 zoning on this property. We believe that it is a good location for R-2 zoning because of what is around it and across from it. It is an infill situation in an area that is very appropriate for it and it's serviced by the University of Arkansas bus system which hopefully will allow a lot of transportation needs to be met with the bus system and not require more cars to the University because the bus system is right there. We think it is a good place to put an R-2 development but we're happy to answer questions and help with details as you need. • Johnson: Do you have any questions of Ms. Harrington at this time? • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 4 Ward: How many units do you plan on putting on this? Harrington: It's not certain yet but they're talking roughly 120 to 140 depending on the site needs and demands. Johnson: Any other Commissioners with initial questions. Estes: Staff, how many units would an R-2 zoning accommodate? Conklin: R-2 zoning does allow up to 24 units per acre. This would allow 275. Estes: Thanks. Johnson: So, the maximum that you're contemplating, although, of course, you're not bound to this would be about half. Harrington: About 12 to 15 units per acre. Public Comment Richard Maynard, residing at 1717 N. Sang was present in opposition to the rezoning. Maynard: I'm here with my neighbors today. Should I introduce them? Johnson: No. If they wish to speak individually, they may. Otherwise, if they merely want to let us know that they support your position, they can do that through a show of hands. Maynard: I own the property at 1717 N. Sang. First, I want to make it clear that we do not object to Mr. Weatherford's selling of his property. We sit on Sang Avenue which is on the east side. We've all enjoyed that little bucolic pasture for a long time. We know it isn't going to last forever. We certainly don't want to interfere with his right to sell his property. Nor do we object to Mr. Hahn developing that property. In fact, in a way, I would welcome it. What we do object to is this drastic change to that neighborhood and to our quality of life and to our investments I moved here about 5 years ago and I looked around quite a bit in Fayetteville to find a place that I thought I would be happy with and that I could build a home. I did find a really nice piece of property. Ms. Lavender, one of my neighbor's here, her husband built it about 40 years ago but it hadn't been kept up. One of the first things that I was a little bit nervous about was there was a mobile home park across from me and as Tim said, there were several duplexes going south of me to Ms. Hoskin's home. She lives by the Baptist church there and she is here with us tonight. There's a 5-plex right to the south of me. It made me nervous. I came down to this office to find out exactly what the zoning was and it all said R-1. I didn't know what R-1 meant and I asked them about that and the reason those were R-1, they can say there are duplexes there now and • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 5 they can say there's a quad-plex there and there's a mobile home across the street. The mobile home may be different zoning but those were still R-1. Those were there before the city limits expanded so they were grandfathered in. Right now, that neighborhood that we are talking about is primarily R-1. It is primarily designed for low density residential. I can only think that your predecessors, the City Planners that came before, had a reason if those duplexes were there and that mobile home was there to call it R-1 and not see in the future that as R-2. What's over there on the west that is R-2 on Linda Joe Place and as Tim said, they are duplexes. In fact, until very recently because I don't have any real cause to go over there, I didn't know that they weren't single family homes. I don't know if they are rentals over there or if they are owned. Those are nice places there. They don't adversely add to the population density. I came down here last Thursday, just to get some clarification of what Mr. Hahn had in mind here and I did talk to Brent and he helped me out quite a bit on some things. The main thing that we were concerned with was what exactly did he have in mind. Did he have in mind what is over at Linda Jo Place? Those nice, well kept duplexes or did he have something else in mind. Brent told me he didn't really know. We really couldn't ask that. Once you rezone that, it seems like as I read this, you have quite a bit of latitude as to what you're going to put in there. As I look at 12 to 14 units, in an 11 acre space of land, I'm not quite sure how Mr. Hahn is going to that and keep the parking regulations and keep the green ordinance and by the way, I have a question on that -- Johnson: You're several steps ahead of where we are in this process. Tonight, we're only looking at the issue of rezoning. We can't get into green space issues and development issues. We'll look at that if and when this ever gets rezoned. Maynard: The only thing that I can see that he can probably do is go up and that means 2 story townhouses probably 8 units per building. That is going to be a drastic change. That is going to add so much population to that small area of land. Also, Ms. Doege knows more about this than I do and I'll let her speak to that, part of this is on flood plain. Again, I don't know what Mr. Hahn has in mind. How is he going to rectify that? Is he going to build up the land and if so, where is that water going to go inside of our own back yards? I realize maybe this isn't an issue that I can talk about tonight but we live there and these are concerns of ours. Access is another problem I have. The only access I see is on Deane Avenue. So, we have lots of concerns that maybe I can't address tonight or maybe you can't answer but that's a problem that we have. We would like to see something like Linda Jo Place, like something that is going to add to the quality of the neighborhood then we would be okay with that. We knew that property was going to be sold and developed at some point. We're not going to keep things as they are but we are trying to protect our quality of life because we live there and we own property there. In my own particular case, because it was R-1, over the past 5 years I have spent a lot of time, a lot money, I've taken out a second mortgage and worked a second job to make this into a home that I would be happy with. Now, you're going to change the rules on me. I don't quite understand what compelling need there is. If I can refer and I think this is something I can talk about, is on the final pages of this, the findings of the staff. I'm not going to comment on number 1. I don't know that much about it to comment on it. I will comment on number 2: • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 6 "A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed." The finding of the staff was that yes, it was justified and yes, it is needed. Our question is why? Why is it needed? I can only think of 2 reasons. If you're putting apartments in there for college students, the only reason that I can think of is that there's a dearth of college housing available now which is an interesting thing because I teach in a special program at the University. When I was on my way to the office yesterday, I went by the College Park Apartments. There's a big, red sign out there with apartments available $199 and up. I got an idea and I started calling other places. I called Faucette Properties. They have apartments available. I called Washington Plaza, just a half a block over from us on Deane and Lewis and they had apartments available. The program I work at is an English program for international students. They come to us before they go into the University. One thing we do get for them is housing. I talked to our housing coordinator today and asked how much trouble they had finding apartments for our students and she said none at all. There can always be more college housing. I understand that. We are a growing university. What concerns me is when that starts to take prevalence over the people who live and work in this city. There are houses available and there are places to put more college housing. What we have there in this property that he's asking to rezone and you're considering tonight is primarily residential. You don't have anything like you have to the east of us. You don't have anything like you have at College Park Apartments. As I said before, it's going to be a drastic change to that neighborhood. It's going to be change that will dictate how that neighborhood will be for now and forever. Like I said, we moved in there with an understanding and we know situations change. We understand that. I don't buy this that there is a compelling need to build affordable college housing at least right there. There are other places to do it. We'll always need some. The only other need I can see and I'm sorry to say it. This is a very valuable property. I wish I owned it myself. Somebody does stand a change to make a lot of money off this. It's a much more valuable property than mine is but mine is an investment, too. I'm not just talking about a dollar investment. Although, we're all concerned about that. We're very concerned about how this college housing is going to effect our property investment. More importantly, we're talking about our investment and our quality of life that we have there. Number 3: "A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion." Again, there is a bus line on Deane Street. It runs once an hour. Maybe, the University will increase that. Again, we live there. There's a lot of traffic going down Sang now. I guess I can't ask what the access plans are for this idea that Mr. Hahn has I can tell you there is a lot of traffic now. If you've ever come down on the bypass and gone off onto Porter Road about 8:00 in the morning, you will sit there for a few minutes. I've made that mistake. I visit my mother sometimes up in Bella Vista and once in a while I'll stay over and I'll forget and not take the cloverleaf onto Garland but I'll go to Porter out of habit. You can sit there for awhile as people • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 7 are coming off of Mt Comfort and then as it goes under the bypass it ells around into Deane. About an eighth of a mile which I'm sure there will be an access, we're going to have students coming out. Of course, not all of them. It will take them about 1 day to figure out the shortest route to the University is down Sang. That's a straight shot. There's no stoplight from Deane to Wedington and people speed down there. We put up with it all the time. We've called and complained and nothing ever really gets done about it. There is a school there. There is a trailer park right across from me. Kids play out there. They shouldn't but they do and that's a fact. There is Asbell School. If you can imagine for a second that kind of added traffic going down there. I don't know how you're going to change that. Are you going to put a stoplight there and back up traffic more? Or put a stop sign there? If you ever drive down there, pay attention. Right past the Baptist church, it kind of crests and right over that crest there's a cross walk. If you're going the 20 to 25 mph speed limit, there is no chance to stop. There's none. I'm not trying to say somebody didn't do their job. I'm just saying that I think if you took another look at that and imagine what the effect of the density of population that you're adding there. We're talking about 12 to 14 units or 120 to 140 new units. There will be at least a couple of people in each unit and we're talking about an increase of population of about 300 to 400 people and all of them have cars. We were all students at one time. We know what happens when we rush to get to school. When we get older, we become a little bit more responsible and you think about it. I cannot believe that this is not going to add adversly to traffic. It doesn't have anywhere to go except down Sang and over to Garland. This is going to add heavy traffic. I don't care if the University puts in 5 buses. Finally, I want to mention one thing about number 4. To me, it seems this zone was recommended primarily on number 4 as the best explanation. There may be water lines. There may be enough sewage capacity. We have a concern about the flood plain as I mentioned before. It seems like this is based pretty much on finding number four. The most important point, I saved for last and it's the last thing you have in your criteria which is 5.a: "It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classification." Why? That's my question. Why would that be impractical. That is a residential neighborhood. I don't care if people are renting there or people like myself and my neighbors own and live there. That is a residential area. It would be a beautiful spot for a home. It would be a beautiful spot for home for people of middle income and who could afford $60,000 or $70,000 homes. I know people and you do, too, who cannot find that kind of home in Fayetteville. They're to moving West Fork. They're moving to Farmington. They're moving to Springdale. I feel that is what you might be asking me to do because I can't afford a $90,000 home or a $100,000 home either. I have a home and I'd like to keep my home. I teach college students and I don't have anything against them but I know what I was like 25 years ago. I was a pretty good kid but I wouldn't want me then living behind me now. If homes are impractical, we don't care. More expensive homes or duplexes if you want but something that is going to fit in the nature of what • that neighborhood is. What kind of bothers me about this whole thing is that it seems like the burden to keep things R-1 is put on my neighbors and me. It's R-1 now and we're up here • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 8 having to convince you to keep it R-1 or at least get more specifications as to what he has in mind instead of leaving it up to him to give a compelling reason why they need to change this outside of making a great business deal. I hope to God that isn't your consideration tonight on the amount of money somebody has to make. If that's it, then we don't stand a chance because our properties don't come anywhere near that value. At the very least, I would ask you if you would -- what you decide here to tonight is going to have a tremendous effect on us and the neighborhood. It will change the nature of that neighborhood forever. Before you rush into a decision, at least give it a second look. You're welcome to come onto my property through the back gate. I have a good panorama of that view. Imagine what that neighborhood could look like. Also, try to imagine what it's going to look like with 300 or 400 college age students in there. We have to live there, ladies and gentlemen. You don't. Mr. Hahn doesn't. Mr. Weatherford doesn't. We are the ones that have to live there. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Maynard. Are there others who would address us on this proposed rezoning? Faye Doege residing with her mother at 1745 N. Sang was present in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Doege: I'm going to address one problem which is a little complicated. When those houses were first built on Sang Avenue, there were no apartment houses or anything across the street. There was no trailer park. My dad built those houses. Then they developed the Washington Plaza apartment house. That was fine. We needed low cost apartments for people. Unfortunately, one thing they did was to bring in 20 tons of fill and they raised the level of the land there. That wasn't too bad because that water had places to go. It went east and it went west and it went south. We had some natural absorbing areas there and one of the places that used to collect most of the water from Washington Plaza was a place where they decided to build this new apartment house, The Encore apartments which is across the street from our place now. Now, they have concreted all that land that used to absorb the water that ran off of Washington Plaza. Now that water from Washington Plaza washes through there onto Sang and across Sang into our property which has been causing a little bit of a problem but we have been able to get by. One of the reasons we have been able to get by is the kind of soil that we have over there. The soil on the west side of Sang is Captina silt loam It has a slow percolation rate but it has moderately good drainage so when we have a lot a rain, it will puddle a little bit but it will eventually soak in and you can't say that about every place in Fayetteville because there are a lot of places where it puddles and it will not soak in after a long, hot summer but it will eventually sink in. The place where most of the water goes from across the street and from our place and from the University Farm where it drains down Sang, is into this property where they want to build the apartments. That soil there is Pembroke silt loam and it has good drainage. Not only that, that whole area has excellent drainage because it used to be a vineyard about 50 years ago. A man named Rudolph had a vineyard there. That was low property there and he came in and put in drain tiles under all that property there. He used clay tiles with holes in them and he • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 9 buried them deep and planted his grapes on top of them. That not only helped him but it helps us now. We're getting all this extra water from the east and it is absorbing because we have this wonderful drainage system there. They're going to bring in these apartment houses and they're going to do like the apartment houses at Washington Plaza and Encore. They're going to put concrete and buildings and they're going to cover all that wonderful absorbing soil. They're probably going to raise it, too. If they go ahead and bring in all this fill and they raise this up a foot or two, the water will go back on us. Our soil isn't as absorbent as that and we're lucky we have that land next door but it isn't going to absorb it. It's going to be up to us and up to the people on the west side of Porter. I drove over there today and saw a woman who lives in one of the units on Linda Jo and I asked her if her unit had ever flooded. She said, no, it had gotten very close but it had never flooded. The unit 2 doors down from her had flooded this year. They actually had water in the building. That happened with the wonderful drainage system that we have on Mr. Weatherford's land. When they cover that up with concrete and they will cover it up with concrete and that's the way you build apartment buildings anymore to provide these wonderful places to park. They are going to flood. Are the engineers going to come and lift our houses off the foundation? I know we are not going to be able to live in our house if they completely pave all that property over there. Who is going to buy our houses when they flood every year? We're sunk. There's nothing we can do. The only answer I can see is for a reasonable person to put in either single dwelling or duplexes that continue to allow most of that land to be lawn which will continue to absorb all this rain. That way, we're not going to get their runoff and the people over on Porter aren't going to get their runoff. I know they have all these wonderful culverts planned and they'll have water running underneath. All that does is just shunt it off somewhere else and we're still going to have it in spite of whatever they plan. Further Commission Discussion Johnson: Several of those comments really go to issues that we would have to address and address very carefully but not at this stage The drainage issues are very serious. I think you'll find that the city, every year, does more and more to assure that new developments don't create new drainage problems In a place such as this, one of the best ways that you can keep up if this gets rezoned, once this development is proposed, is to follow it through the process and see what is being done about the drainage plan because it is my experience since I've been on the Commission that much more care is taken in '99 on drainage issues than even was 4 or 5 years ago. This is not the time when we have any authority to deal with that rather that is at the development stage. The other thing I would observe is there are 2 adjacent properties that in the foreseeable future, won't be developed in anyway other than as they now exist. The University Experimental Farm across Deane Street; I've not heard of any plan to do anything other than leave that for the foreseeable future as farm which helps the adjacent area in terms of intense development. The same is true on the smaller tract to the south which, I believe, has 2 churches on it. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 10 Harrington: I wanted to take a brief opportunity to make a couple of comments. With all due respect to Mr. Maynard and the neighbors over there. I don't believe that the impact is going to be as large as they think. I turned onto Sang and turned around in a large apartment building directly across the street from all of these houses. I'm afraid that this R-1 area is really no longer R -I. In reality it has not been for many, many years because of the number of duplex, triplex, 5- plex apartments, etc. I would like to think of this as a true R-1 but there is very little R-1 left in this area and has not been for some time especially with a mobile home park right there and the apartments that are already in existence. If this is done nicely as this developer intends to do and he does, of course, intend to comply with all the city regulations and there are many as Ms. Johnson has mentioned regarding the drainage. If there is a chance that it's not going to work, this project will not go in and that will be discovered at the development stage when the drainage is evaluated. The reason that R-2 is being looked at here is because it would be a very difficult property to develop as R-1 given the surrounding mixed uses across the street where there's a grain elevator, etc. It's not terribly conducive to R-1 and even with very small R-1 as you all know, you have many bitter battles in here about the lower price home and the small lot R-1 for the same reason that apartments are opposed. I believe that this developer intends to find a way to do to this in such a way that it will not be a negative impact on the area and will provide much needed housing. The need for housing continues to go up and maybe there are apartments available today but that doesn't mean next year and the year after. There is very little, if any, R-2 on this entire side of town available at this point. So, I wanted to briefly address those items. I have the realtor here who has explored the market very seriously and can certainly address your concerns about what the needs of the market are. I don't know if you want to take the time with that so I'll just look for direction on whether you would like to have some comments from him or from Mr. Hahn. Johnson: Commissioners are certainly free to raise questions to the people Ms. Harrington has made available. Estes: I have several questions for staff. The status quo is R-1. We must make 4 specific findings of fact to grant the applicant's request. The first finding regards the 2020 Plan which lists this property as residential. That finding is met. The second finding of fact that we must make is that the proposed zoning is needed. That's the first question I have for staff. Do we truly have a shortage of R-2 property? As I ask that question, I think about the Lindsey Development that is going in to the northwest of this. I think of all the vacant apartment ads I see in the Northwest Arkansas Times each morning. Is there truly a shortage of R-2 property in the City of Fayetteville? Conklin: Trying to answer your question accurately, as staff, we don't have a detailed market analysis to determine how much R-2 land is available in this community. We do know that there is not much R-2 land existing which is undeveloped in Fayetteville. When we looked at this recommendation and whether or not to recommend additional multi -family, this is an area where the existing land use is very mixed. It was on the U of A bus route and it was possible to • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 11 build additional apartments east of the bypass instead of on the other side of the bypass. As staff, we felt like it was justified at this time. Estes: The third finding of fact that we must make is that it does not appreciably increase traffic congestion. As I listened to the applicant's presentation, 140 units, 2 cars per unit, 2 day trips, that makes 560 trips. Upon what basis was the finding made that the proposed zoning would not increase traffic? Conklin: At this time, Deane Street, in my opinion does not have any traffic problems. If this does have students that live in these apartments, these students are not going to all be leaving at 8:00 in the morning. Looking at other apartments in this area, this morning there was little or no traffic when we were out there, even in the R-3 zone directly to the east on the east side of Sang Avenue. Estes: The fourth finding of fact is the determination that the proposed zoning will not alter population density. Listening to the applicant's presentation, I make the finding as a matter of fact that it will increase population density. How did staff reach the conclusion the proposed zoning would not alter the population density? Conklin: Let me clarify that the finding states that the proposed zonings would not alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. With regard to schools, I contacted the school district. The school district has told me that they will accommodate future growth and student population in Fayetteville. With regard to water and sewer facilities, at the time of development, our City Engineering Division, does sit down and make recommendation on what improvements are needed on site and off site to be able to handle the additional load. Therefore, as staff, we believe that finding can be met. Estes: I have no further questions. Ward: We were talking about the number of units they are proposing and with R-2 zoning, you can put in duplexes on this property kind of like the site to the west. It looks to me, quickly calculating, they could do 125 units of duplexes on this property with the density that we allow on duplexes. If the units themselves are not going to be any more than what is allowable as far as duplexes, I'm not sure that there is that much difference or would change that much as far as apartment complexes. MOTION Ward: I will recommend approval of RZ99-28. • Johnson: Is there a second. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 12 Marr: Second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Marr to approve RZ99-28. I remind you that a rezoning requires 5 positive votes and then if the rezoning passes at this level, it goes to the City Council for finalizing. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. Commissioners Estes and Hoover voted against the motion. • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 13 PP99-7: PRELIMINARY PLAT MILLENNIUM PLACE, PP177 This item was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Kirk Elsass with property owners Martha & Spencer Albright for property located at the northwest corner of State Highway 265 and Joyce Street. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 12.65 acres with 16 lots proposed. Chris Parton and Kirk Elsass were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Each lot shall be subject to the large scale development review/approval process. 2. Commercial Design Standards do apply to this development. A unified design theme • shall be presented with the final plat request for the subdivision In the absence of an approved theme, the first large scale development will set the theme for all 17 lots. • 3. Access for lots 11, 12, 2 and 3 shall be from Millennium Drive only. A shared curb cut for lots 1 and 2 is recommended. 4. Installation of water service crossings to provide for future irrigation demands including a two inch (2") main with gate valve per David Jurgens, Water & Sewer Superintendent. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments. 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. All improvements shall comply with the City's current requirements. 7. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a 10 foot green space along Hwy 265, and a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a 6 foot green space along Millennium Drive. A 10 foot asphalt trail already exists along the north side of Joyce Blvd. in this location. • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 14 Commission Discussion Johnson: Let me ask if the applicant agrees with the conditions of approval? Pardon: Yes, we have had a chance to look the conditions over and we have no problem with them. Johnson: You either have or will sign the agreement that all of these will be applicable? Pardon: Yes. Johnson: There are a couple that I would call to our attention. The staff recommends that we require that each lot would be subject to the large scale development review process. Without this specific condition, that would not be required. That is an additional requirement. Secondly, commercial design standards apply. Then number three deals with access and curb cuts. Four deals with service crossings. Staff, do you have additional information? Conklin: We have no additional information for you to review. • Johnson: Chris, do you have anything to add to what staff has prepared for us? Pardon: No, madam chair, I do not. Johnson: Are there initial questions? Public Comment None MOTION • Estes: approval. I move that we approve preliminary plat 99-7 subject to the conditions of Johnson: Is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Estes, the second by Commissioner Shackelford that we approve preliminary plat 99-7 subject to the 7 conditions of approval from the staff. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 15 Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 16 OVERVIEW OF THE NEW CELL TOWER ORDINANCE Johnson: At the agenda session on Thursday, Tim provided us with a copy of the new Cell Tower Ordinance which has been passed by the Council and which I believe has already gone into effect. He told us some of the substantive changes to the ordinance that we had operated under dealing with cell towers. Would you take a minute and call to our attention to the major changes that we will be looking at for cell towers. Conklin: The City Council did pass this ordinance on August 31 of this year. The moratorium was up on September 2 and they did pass this prior to it's expiration. This ordinance now requires conditional use approval for all new towers in all zoning districts. Before, A-1, I-1, and I-2 zoning district did not require a conditional use It has established requirements for noise. The noise from the tower and the equipment cannot be heard beyond the site. It requires compliance with federal regulations. It only allows for lighting on towers if required by FAA. The type of tower is now limited to monopole type towers only. The towers we have approved on Township, Mt. Sequoyah, and Mercantile, are single towers without any guy wires or lattice. They are limited to 150 feet in height and they have to be setback at least the height of the tower from any residential dwelling unit. That is something new. We have a setback or a fall zone that we are now requiring. It does encourage that they be designed and camouflaged to the greatest extent possible. If they are painted, they must be a neutral color. It requires a test where the applicant has to get a crane out on the site or send a balloon up and photograph it from 4 different locations and superimpose the tower on the photographs. This should help the Commission and staff and the neighbors better understand what the impact of the tower will be on the neighborhood. It requires a sight line representation drawing showing the trees and buildings that are between the tower and 100 feet out. It requires that towers meet all state, local and federal requirements for structural integrity and inspection of the towers. It requires a 6 foot high, wood board fence around the facility. It requires landscaping outside the fence with a dense tree growth and understory vegetation to help screen it. All towers do have to meet our current setback requirements under zoning. This ordinance does provide for collocation and this is done by administrative approval. Requests for collocation will no longer come to Planning Commission. Applicants can submit plans to extend up to 20 feet on top of buildings and add 20 feet onto existing towers without having to come back through the public hearing process This should encourage more collocation on the towers in Fayetteville. Exemptions have been added for personal use, hamm radio operator towers which are 80 feet or less. Temporary structures due to special events can be installed and they are exempt. Existing towers were discussed and they have been exempted and they can remain as they are in the City of Fayetteville along with emergency and utility towers for 911 services and utility regulating providers. The city will actively market our towers and buildings for collocation. If towers are abandoned, they must be removed within 90 days. Basically, that's a brief overview of the ordinance. If any of you have questions, I will be happy to answer them tonight or after. So far, we have not received applications for any new towers in Fayetteville. • • • Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 17 Johnson: This ordinance has already gone into affect. Is that correct? Conklin: That's correct. Meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m.