Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-14 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 14, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 00-24.00 Lot Split (Middlebrook, pp 140) LS 00-25.00 Lot Split (Krueger, pp 255) CU 00-19.00 Conditional Use (Krueger, pp 255) CU 00-17.00 Conditional Use (Lake Hills Church, pp 255) LSD 00-15.00 Large Scale Development (Lake Hills Church, pp 255) LSD 00-20.00 Large Scale Development (Cornerstone, pp 402) CU 00-21.00 Conditional Use (First United Presbyterian Church, pp 407) LSD 00-21.00 Large Scale Development (First United Presbyterian Church, pp 407) AD 00-28.00 Administrative Item (Williams, pp 481) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch Bob Estes Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Don Marr Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Ron Petrie Dawn Warrick Sheri Metheney ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved No Motion Made MEMBERS ABSENT Lorel Hoffman STAFF ABSENT None Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the July 24, 2000 meeting. LS 00-24.00: Lot Split (Middlebrook, pp 140) was submitted by Mike & Gloria Middlebrook for property located at 4110 N. Old Wire Road The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.65 acres The request is to divide the property into two tracts of 2.24 acres and 1.41 acres. Odom: Welcome to the August 14, 2000, meeting of the Planning Commission. The first item we have on tonight's agenda is the approval of the minutes of July 24, 2000 meeting and we have one item on consent. That is LS 00-24 submitted by Mike & Gloria Middlebrook for property located at 4110 N. Old Wire Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.65 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts of 2.24 acres and 1.41 acres. That is the only item on the Consent Agenda and that item will be approved without discussion unless a member of the audience or a member of the Planning Commission wishes to pull that item for discussion. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Does any member of the audience wish to pull that Lot Split item for discussion? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Does any Planning Commissioner wish to pull that item? Seeing none, I'll ask that you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call Consent Agenda passes on a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Shackelford arrived at 5:40 p.m. • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 3 LS 00-25.00: Lot Split (Krueger, pp 255) was submitted by Stanley Krueger for property located at 3169 Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 5 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3 acres and 2 acres. Odom: The next item on tonight's agenda is item number 2 under new business. That also is a lot split submitted by Stanley Krueger for property located at 3169 Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 5 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3 acres and 2 acres. The staff's recommendation is approval subject to seven conditions of approval. Staff do we have any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval. We do not have a signed conditions of approval. They are asking for a variance request for the sidewalk along Skillern Road. They do have a letter in the packet and will be making a presentation with regard to that. Odom. Okay. I will ask the applicant then to please come forward at this time. • Meineke: Hi. My name is Jim Meineke. I'm supposed to address the variance request, right? • Odom: Yes. That's correct. Meineke: Okay. My dilemma is that the sidewalk that's proposed would be in my in-laws front yard not in the front yard where I'm building a house. They don't want a sidewalk. I'm trying to keep the City happy and keep my in-laws happy at the same time. The way things work out, that can't be done. My best avenue to get my house built is to try to get a variance on the sidewalk. I went out there and looked at it. Can I show you a picture? Odom: Sure. Go ahead and bring it up here and we will circulate it while we are talking. Meineke: I'll just give you one since it's the most dramatic. That picture is from the west side of the property. Basically, where that telephone pole is it's on the property line and the Brookbury sign, the little rock sitting on top of that picture will be in the center in of the sidewalk if it was extended to the west about three or four feet. The only reason I took that picture was just to illustrate that to get on that sidewalk would be virtually impossible. The money is not an issue. I can put up the money or Bill of Assurance or whatever it would take. All I'm trying to do is postpone tearing up their front yard. Historically, my mother-in-law moved to Skillern Road about thirty years ago. They lived in the Skillern house. They • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 4 lived in this house since about 1970. Of course all of that development has occurred out there without any sidewalks. This is not her speaking it's me speaking. I would love to have sidewalks. I'm for sidewalks. I don't mind being first. I don't mind spending the money. My concern would be more that we are toward the tale end of the sidewalk business out there. Savannah has already been built. There is no sidewalk. It's about 50% of Skillern Road. It's about 1.1 miles long. Savannah by itself is about 4/10 or 5/10 of a mile. Coming from Old Wire Road going east there is not any sidewalk. That's been developed In the foreseeable future I don't see a sidewalk there. The City owns the land to the east as a green space between this lot and Savannah. I don't know when the City would plan on putting sidewalk in there. All I'm trying to do is to delay until there will be more sidewalks built and postpone disturbing their front yard. Odom: Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom. What I'll do now is ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to • address us on this issue to please come forward at this time. Seeing none I'll close the floor to public discussion on this issue and bring it back to the Planning Commission and the staff for questions and comments. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Staff, do you want to give us Chuck's view or what the staffs position is with regard to the requirement on the sidewalk? Conklin: The Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator did make a recommendation for the sidewalk to be built at this time. There is also a tract of land that was split a month ago for Mr. Kirby Walker which we did also require a sidewalk to be built at the time the lot develops up front. We did a tandem lot request also. Then we do have our City park in between this and Mr. Kirby Walker's lot so it is staff's opinion that a sidewalk is needed at this location today. The Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator did report to our Subdivision Committee that he has seen recently people walking on Skillern Road because there are not sidewalks. The position of the City is to have the sidewalk built today Odom: Staff don't we also have some type of overall plan to ultimately link neighborhoods to City parks and schools as well? • Conklin: That's correct. The focus has been with our sidewalk program to provide Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 5 sidewalks from neighborhoods to the schools and to our parks. This is consistent with that overall policy. Odom: Other questions or comments of perhaps the applicant or the staff? Commissioner Ward? Ward: Tim, if we did not require a sidewalk right now and we did take right-of-way and required the applicant to put the money in some kind of fund. Would that be something that would be appropriate to do as far as giving the okay now and building it later? I know that we haven't in the past. Conklin: That would be something new. We haven't typically done that in the past. If that's something the Commission is going to consider, yes, I would only support having the money here at the City in an escrow account and not a Bill of Assurance if that's the decision you make. Once again the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator and my opinion too I think the sidewalk should be built today. • Estes: Tim, if the sidewalk was constructed today approximately how many feet would it set back from the present right-of-way of Skillern Road? Conklin: It would sit back approximately 39 feet from centerline of the road. Estes: That would put it in about the middle of Mr. Meineke's front yard or 2/3 of the way into his front yard. Is that about right? Conklin: I would have to look at the survey. Your statement was, would that put the sidewalk 2/3 into his front yard. The sidewalk that's shown on the survey is actually shown outside of the right-of-way. I think there was a misunderstanding with regard to the ten -foot green space. That sidewalk actually goes into the City right-of-way so it's on public property. I disagree with that it's more like probably 1/4 of the way back into his yard. Estes: It would be 1/4 of the way back into the lot or into the front yard? Conklin: Into the front yard. Yes. Estes: It would be approximately 1/4 of the way into the front yard? Conklin: Yes. Right now they are showing it ten feet back beyond the forty-five feet of right-of-way dedication. That sidewalk should be within that forty-five feet of right-of-way dedication. • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 6 Estes: The second question I have Tim, is in the Capital Improvement Budget are there any plans at present to widen Skillem Road? Conklin: No there aren't. Estes: The tandem lot split that was done for Mr. Walker, has there been any construction on the lot facing Skillern Road? Conklin: No. Not as of today there hasn't been. Meineke: Can 1 show a couple more pictures? This kind of shows where the sidewalk would go. This is just a wider view of a shot of that sign. The sidewalk would just go straight behind the sign. I have it marked. I've marked a few x's on that. MOTION: Estes: It seems to me that at present there is no compelling and immediate need for the sidewalk. With that in mind I would move that we approve LS 00-25 subject to an amount of money being placed in escrow to be spent for construction of the sidewalk once required by the City. With the amount of the escrow deposit to be determined by the appropriate City agency. Ward: I'll second that motion. Odom: We have a motion and second to approve lot split 00-25 subject to staff comments with the additional requirement that an amount be placed into the City escrow fund for the construction of the sidewalk. Conklin: Typically, those guarantees for delayed improvements are at 150% of the cost. I would recommend that it be at least that therefore in the future we do have enough money to complete that sidewalk. Odom: I'd ask the applicant to please come forward. We are going to have to get your comment on the Motion we have before us which is to approve this which would require you to place money into the City escrow account for the construction of the sidewalk and the amount that would have to be deposited into the escrow would be 150% of the costs of the construction of the sidewalk. Meineke: That would be fine. Anything to keep from tearing up the yard. • Bunch: Since we don't have signed Conditions of Approval has the applicant have any Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 7 problems with any of the other Conditions of Approval? I notice that we don't have on record signed Conditions of Approval. Meineke: No. Personally, I don't but the Krueger's have asked me several times maybe you can just clarify it now, you have asked for an additional 15 feet setback is that just something that the City takes? Are they giving that to you at the time of the split? I didn't know what to tell them. Conklin: Yes. As a condition of approval our ordinances require that any time you are along a Master Street Plan street, this happens to be a minor arterial, you are required to dedicate that right-of-way. Yes, the City is asking that to be shown on your survey as a right-of-way dedication and when that survey is filed that will become City property. Meineke: Okay. Thank you. Hoover: I have a question about the Motion. When will the sidewalk actually be placed? Is that a condition on when they widen the road? How is that determined is what I'm wondering? Conklin: I was assuming that would be at the call of our Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator when he deems that appropriate. Hoover: Wouldn't that be tomorrow? Conklin: We have the money. Most likely, from what I'm hearing from the Commission, they are saying that it's not needed today. That when Kirby Walker puts his sidewalk in that most likely we will put this sidewalk in. I put that statement for the record that, no I don't think we are going to get the money and go ahead and construct the sidewalk. I think we will wait until the other sidewalk goes in. Odom: Does that answer your question? Hoover: Yes. Odom. Personally, I'm for the lot split. I do feel that there is a compelling and immediate need for the construction of a sidewalk. We have City staff who's specific job is to examine these issues and has personally observed people and children walking along Skillern Road and in my opinion that itself is enough reason to go ahead and require the construction of the sidewalk. I don't want to speak against the Motion because I'm for the lot split but I'm certainly against that portion of the • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 8 Motion. Meineke: I just had one other comment. After being out there and driving up and down the road looking at the likelihood of future sidewalks, I think just from knowledge which I don't know what goes on in the City and workings and what leverage you have over the subdivisions out there, but a reasonable and possibly achievable goal for the City, as far as sidewalks go is, on that street would be to link up Brookbury and Savannah. I think that's a reasonable goal. It would require that the City put a sidewalk on their little peace of green space. To me I would be very happy to build a sidewalk that's a short distance but would link the two major neighborhoods on that street. I don't see how there could be any other major sidewalk any where on the street. I would say it's 90% developed and I don't foresee any lot splits. Savannah is not going to have any lot splits. To the west I don't see any possibility of lot splits so that sidewalks will be built between this lot and Old Wire Road You are really going to be, in my opinion, I don't see much chance of having a sidewalk between Old Wire Road and this property. I don't see any chance of making Savannah build a sidewalk for their 4/10 mile. Little chance that there will be any connected sidewalk anywhere further to the east It is possible that you could link up Brookbury and Savannah entrances although their entrances aren't compatible with a sidewalk. At least you could get through that one small section. To me that would be a reasonable time to have me put in a sidewalk and I would be happy to do that at that time. Odom: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LS 00-25.00 passes on a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Odom voting no • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 9 CU 00-19.00: Conditional Use (Krueger, pp 255) was submitted by Stanley Krueger for property located at 3169 Skillern Road The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2 06 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is related and that is a conditional use submitted by Stanley Krueger for property located at 3169 Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 2.06 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the conditional use subject to six conditions of approval. Staff do we have any further conditions of approval? Conklin: There are no further conditions of approval This is associated with the lot split creating the tandem lot Brookbury Woods Property Owner Association did grant a twenty-five foot access and utility easement through their privately owned landscaped area to Brookbury Crossing. That will be the means of access to this property. Staff is also recommending that they not be required that they build a turnaround for the solid waste trash truck or build a screened trash container but bring their actual cans to the curb during trash pick up days and then bring them back after they are picked up. If they don't bring a can there will be nothing to pick up. That's our reconunendation and once again that goes along the lot split that was just approved. Odom: Do we have a signed Conditions of Approval? Conklin: No we don't. Odom: I will ask the applicant to please come back before us Paging Mr. Krueger. Mr. Meineke. Mr. Meineke, please come back in here. We have to talk about the tandem portion of it. We have just gone over the tandem part of it and there are six conditions of approval Have you had the opportunity to review those? Meineke: No sir, I haven't. Odom. You might want to look at them real quick because we are going to make a decision. Meineke: Is it on the agenda? Odom: Yes it is. Meineke: The only question I would have would be on number three The intersection? Is • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 10 it talking about the intersection of Skillern and Brookbury? Conklin: It's talking about the intersection of your private driveway and Brookbury Crossing. There would be a requirement that it be paved twenty-five feet back from the street. Meineke: My driveway would be paved. Yes. Conklin: You should have no problem with that. Meineke: No problem. They are all fine. Odom: Okay. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any member of the audience like to address us on the tandem lot issue? Seeing none I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: I move for approval of Conditional Use 00-19.00 subject to staff recommendations. Allen: Second. Odom: We have a motion by Commissioner Estes, second by Commissioner Allen for approval of Conditional Use 00-19.00 subject to staff comments. Any further discussions? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-19.00 passes on a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 11 CU 00-17.00: Conditional Use (Lake Hills Church, pp 255) was submitted by The Benham Group on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located on the east side of Hwy 265 north of Township. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.59 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in an A-1 district. Odom: The next item on tonight's agenda is item number four CU 00-17.00 which is a Conditional Use of Lake Hills Church submitted by The Benham Group on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located on the east side of Hwy 265 north of Township. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.59 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in an A-1 district. Staffs recommendation is approval subject to six Conditions of Approval. Staff are there any further conditions of approval? Conklin: No. There are not. Odom: I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Allen: I don't have a copy of the conditions but I'm assuming they are the same ones but • you never know. Can I see one real quick? First of all we have two items on here so my comments are going to overlap each other. I want to thank you for this. For this year and a half I have been here longer than some of you have and so I'll make this very brief. We were offered this property before it came on the market and we hastily did some work and talked to her a little and showed her what we wanted to do. Most churches, as you are aware, usually build too small then they add something later and then add something later. We had some consultants tell us what was the maximum number of people we could ever serve on this property given green space and access and all those things. They led us to around a 50,000 square feet building and that would give us enough space for parking and one thing or another. Also, because it was more building than we needed we proposed to have a little wing of three low -impact offices, possibly an insurance agent, an architect and a piano teacher and that would give us some rental income until we were large enough to need the space. In which we would turn it into a Sunday school space or church offices or something. So we asked to have the property which is A-1 zoned to R-0. Alett Little said that it looked like a good deal with multiple use. The least used parking lots in America are church parking lots. We were protecting the green space and all of that. Based on that, we bought it and one thing led to another. We came then for the formal thing and we were basically told it wasn't going to work and that our best shot at it was to withdraw our request. In the numbers of times we have come back the original conditional • use permit called for a building of 10,400 square feet. In fact that was the footprint of the building because it had a second story in it of about 5,000 feet. Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 12 One of our neighbors objected to how high the building was so we redid everything and put everything on one floor and lowered the height of the building and did some excavations to lower it even more. There is actually the same 15,000 feet there has always been it's just that this calls for an increase in the technicality of them. I spoke to Mr. Conklin the night we received our conditional use permit because it was sort of one of those things that just showed up. That is based on the original square foot of the building as opposed to the footprint of the building so it's always been right at 15,000 square feet. There is one other issue I want to talk about. Does anyone want to ask me anything about the square footage or did I make myself clear? Odom. Typically, what we do is that we have your presentation, then we open the floor to public comment, then we come back with questions and comments of our own. Allen: I was just trying to help. The other thing is about this is our church has owned this property for a year and a half, more or less, and since our church has been in session we have met in hotel conference rooms and rented office space. We have rented space from other churches. We presently rent Sunday morning space from a school. If you count up the conference rooms and rental offices and homes and swimming pools and parks that we have met in our church has met in 37 different places. Our motto has been "If you can find us you can go to church with us." We are hoping that this will be the final approval of this. We have taken it good natured when someone suggested that all of our attempts to re -zone this property are so we could sell it at a profit and move on. Someone suggested that somehow we have been less than candid with the City because what we really wanted to do was something else. Suggestions were to build a museum, library, or ajail. I understand why people might raise those objections but believe me our only desire is to build a church building. It's the hub of our various ministries of our church. Our church is a corporation. Our congregation voted unanimously to buy this property and to build on it. Even if I wanted to do something else, I couldn't do it. We bought this property and selected it in part because it has a sort of forest appearance and we have made great effort to save all of the trees that we possibly can. More than half of the trees are going to remain on the property untouched. We have made dozens of accommodations to the neighbors. I explained to you that a neighbor was concerned about the height of the building and as you are aware when you go from two-story to one-story it increases your cost considerably but we did that and lowered the height of the building. Our original plans called for a steeple, we dropped that. We have placed our driveway on the north edge of our property so that the driveway traffic would not flow the side of the property on the south because the owner of that property has plans to develop or something. Our children's playground, you will see in the drawing, is shielded Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 13 from both the neighbors on the north and east and also the neighbors on the south because there is the corner of the building and it's fenced in. I doubt either our neighbors on the north or any future neighbors we might get on the south will ever see or hear a child in that playground. Our plans also show that we built on the far western end of the property to keep our building as far as possible from the neighbor to the north In short, this is not the design we wanted in the beginning and there has been at least another dozen versions of our plans that would have met our needs better but we are willing to do it this way to accommodate the concerns of our neighbors. From the very beginning we wanted to be good neighbors and make this an asset to the community. The last thing I want to say about this is this is not just a private enclave for our little Christian club or some sort of a monistic. This is a place where we will serve only our own members but the people of our community. The facility obviously would be open to everyone and it's our absolute commitment that we want to be a positive influence on our neighborhood and we don't want to do anything that will impact our neighbors. I'm asking you to grant this approval and actually the one to follow and I'll answer any questions you have but my objection to the Conditional Use Permit as it stands now is, we have been doing this for a year and a half and no one has ever raised any questions about a daycare facility until this previous week when we were at the Subdivision meeting. Item number six is "No for -hire schools including public, secondary or daycare.) Well we never wanted to have a public school. We never wanted to have a high school or anything like that but we have always had in our hearts a desire to have a child care. I was a little stunned last week and I'm still kind of struggling with the reasons for this. We certainly would like to see this permit approved as it stands except item number six. We would like to see that one word daycare, scratched out. Other than that we have no reservations about it. Odom: Thank you. What I'll do now if there are other members of the audience that would like to address us on this request to please come forward at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tatge: My name is George Tatge I'm technical support for the College of Engineering Department of Electrical Engineering. I would very much like to see this church built. We have worked long and hard and as the Pastor said, our only goal is to serve the community both as a church and with the possibility of having a daycare center at some point in the future. Thank you. Odom: Thank you sir. • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Rimbey: Odom: Tidwell: Odom. Scoggin: Odom: Mr. Rimbey. Hi. My name is James Rimbey. I live at 2870 Crossover Road which is to the north of the property. Could I see a copy of the Conditional Uses. Can I ask for that now or is that in the next item? Are there other members of the audience that would like perhaps to talk while he is reviewing the Conditional Use? I would ask that those that would like to talk, if you would please go ahead and come up to the podium and stand behind each other so we can sort of save a little time that way. My name is Ellen Tidwell. I would like to speak in favor of the daycare. I have made several phone calls today to over a dozen day -cares and found six openings, none of which would take both of my children. I think that speaks to the need of daycare in this city not only for our church but as Pastor Allen said as a service to the community as well. Thank you. Hi. My name is Cliff Scoggin. I am a member of Lake Hills. I want to say I am looking forward to having our church built. I am also the CFO of Dent -A -Med which is a credit card company here in Fayetteville. We have about 75 employees and daycare has become a real issue for the young families. It's got to the point where I am hearing, instead of calling mom first when they have a child expecting, they immediately call the day -cares and try to get on the waiting list there. We are hoping that we can have this service and it will be one that will benefit not only the members of the church but a community as a whole. Thank you. James Rimbey again. Crossover Road I would like to just make a statement that I was going to make and then add two things to it. The statement that I was going to make is that we have had concerns about various aspects of this project. I would like to offer our thanks to the City Planning staff and the Commissioners who worked on the Subdivision Committee and reviewed the large scale development and working with us and with Lake Hills Church. At that point, I'd like to say the reason we have had concerns is that each time we are introduced to a plan or a development of the Lake Hills facility there is something different. I'm hearing now support for a daycare center. We have been dealing with a church all along and I suppose that it could be argued that a church and daycare center are the same thing, I don't know. This is new. This idea of putting a daycare center into it. The next statement I was going to make if Lake Hills holds to their representations they have made to us and the City then our concerns have • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 15 been addressed. I would like to suggest that we now move forward and get the project underway. But again I am speaking for a church. I have no idea what the daycare center is. I don't know whether it's a daycare center for all the children in Fayetteville. I don't know if it's a daycare center for the members of the church. I don't know what to say. Once again we have been, I don't like to use the word blind -sided but I did not know that this was ever a part of the proposition. I apologize but I don't know what to say. I'm digesting it. Thank you. Meredith: Hi. My name is Ladonna Meredith. I'm a member of Lake Hills Church and I'm also the secretary. I have been for the past six years. For the past few years I have prayerfully supported this project and I would really like to see us be able to have a building just for ourselves and for our church, like Pastor Allen said, and for an outreach to the community. I would also like to say I support the idea of the daycare. I talked to the Northwest Arkansas Childcare Referral Center today, we have a copy of the letter. I believe her name is Pat, she speaks about the need for more daycare in Northwest Arkansas, particularly on that side of town. I think we have enough copies for everyone if you would like to see that. Thank you Johnson: I'm Wendy Johnson I'm a teacher at Fayetteville High School and I attend Lake Hills. I just wanted to ask for your support for our building. We do minister to the community now but it will be so much easier when we have a building. Thank you. Elston: Hello. I'm Susan Elston. I have lived in this community for about fourteen years I have been a social worker and therapist in the community for about seven. Of course, personally, 1 stand in support of having a home for our church because we have moved around like Pastor Allen has said. I think that's just pretty normal for everyone to have a home finally. As far as the inclusion of the daycare with that again to me is the norm with the church. As a social worker, linking families with area resources which, one thing about Fayetteville that there are so many resources, this is just one more that is going to have a positive investment in children. That's going to be a direct correlation with what type adolescents and children that we do have in this community. The daycare along with the church is open to the community so it's not going to just serve these members but the community at large. Thank you. Heaton: I'm Nancy Heaton and I work for the American Heart Association here in Fayetteville. I am a member of Lake Hills Church and I would like to see us to be able to go forward with building this church. We have many dedicated members that go and set up at the school that we meet at, on Saturday night and we put down on Sunday. We take care of the school and we have done many ministries • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 16 T. Walker: Smith: within the community that a lot of people don't know about and we could do a lot more if we had our own facility. The dedicated people will take care of it. Thank you for your time. My name is Tara Walker. This year I'm going to be a senior at Fayetteville High School. I have been supporting this project for a couple years. I have been attending Lake Hills for about two and a half years now. I'm getting ready to go away to college and I was really looking forward to our youth group having parties and things at our new church. It's taken so long that now I may not be able to see our new church built before I leave for college. I really ask that you support this so that we can get this done for the upcoming youth members so that they can have fun and reach out to the community and help out also. Thank you. I'm Nell Smith. I'm the oldest member of Lake Hills. I would like to convince you that it would be a good idea to have child care at our church. I think some of you can even think back to your Sunday school classes a long time ago for some of you that Jesus said "Let the little children come unto me." He thought it was a good idea too. Mrs. Rimbey: My name is Marilyn Rimbey. I live on the north side of where the church will be built The objection that was raised in large scale development, to childcare, was not the fact that it was childcare but the fact that the area is so congested at that point in the moming when they would have to drop off children. If you have ever been at that intersection you know at that time in the morning it is really backed up. When they would pick up their children is backed up. There are times when I have to wait quite a long time before I can even turn into my own driveway. It is a three lane road. It has been termed that middle lane as "suicide lane". Anyone that is turning out when I'm trying to turn into my driveway, we are both trying to occupy the same space at the same time. That's one of my concerns. Every time I do, at this point, turn into my driveway, someone else comes into that lane to make a turn. That was the concern. It wasn't the concern that whether he should have childcare or not it was the location and the traffic problem. Thank you. J. Walker: Joel Walker. Professor at the University of Arkansas. Our church is trying to be a visible and viable part of the community. That is why we are trying to locate in a location that is visible. You heard it said earlier that our plans have changed a lot. That's because we are trying to be accommodating and trying to work with the City and work with the neighbors and trying to develop these plans to something that's functional. I believe it's time now, if you can help us, to get this plan underway. We would like to have a home for our church. I have seen this in my own life The church has a profound effect on my life and I've seen it have a • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 17 Hughes: Slusarek: Dawson: M. Walker: Odom: profound effect on others. I've seen ministry to marriages, ministry to those whose marriages have failed and many other ways this church affects the community. This church and other churches are a very viable part of the community and actually create community. We would appreciate it if you could help us get this started. Hi. My name is Shannon Hughes. I'm a member of Lake Hills Church. As Joel has said, it has had a profound effect on life. My husband and I started attending when our daughter was six months old and she's three and a half and we now have another child that's a year and a half. This is the only church that they have been in and they love it. They look so forward to going to Sunday school classes. As far as the daycare, I would like to say, my mother owns a daycare facility in Fayetteville and she has quite a large space and she is full to capacity. For the space of her building she can not take anymore kids. I've been there and heard her actually have to turn people away on the phone. There is a need for the daycare. She says she also knows of several other daycare owners in this area that are in the same situation. They can't take anymore children that she's turning away especially the infants up to eighteen months of age. Thank you. Hi. I'm Matt Slusarek. My family owns the property to the south of the Lake Hills property. I guess I just wanted to make it kind of clear that we've never really been against the church building on that property. We've never had an objection to them building a church. I guess our concern is obviously with the daycare. Like the Rimbey's said before is that this kind of came as a surprise. It has never been an issue before and had never been brought up that that was an intention that they wanted to include with their church property. 1 think more than anything it was kind of a surprise to us. Again, we are not really clear on whether the daycare is going to be just for the church members or going to be more like a business or commercial venture. That was mainly our concerns that we had at this point. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Randy Dawson. Local businessman, citizen of Fayetteville, a voter and father of five. I just wanted to say that in a lot of ways we have been in the wilderness on this project for a while. We feel like it is time to put it to bed and the cost has been tremendous to us both financially and emotionally. We would like to see it resolved. Thank you. My name is Margaret Walker. We've got the whole Walker family now huh? • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 18 M. Walker: I'm a high school English teacher. I actually teach in Rogers. I've taught English in Fayetteville, Springdale and Rogers for the last twenty years. I'm not sure why the objection is being stated. Teaching high school, I know that kids need discipline but they also need the daycare that brings them to that level, that grade level in high school where we work with them hopefully in a much better atmosphere because of the good daycare that they get. We hope that you will offer this opportunity for Lake Hills to minister in the community. We know that it is much needed and I hope that you will support it. Odom: Thank you Mrs. Walker. Ballinger: My name is Todd Ballinger. I'm also a high school teacher. My wife and child are standing outside, he was talking a little too much. We were starting to go to church there as it was growing because we would like to be part of a growing church. We were surprised as well when they said there might be a potential there couldn't be a daycare. It seems like most of the churches we have been in in the past and in this case, it's part of the church. I was surprised when our church might be could not have that same potential. We are in favor of that with our family as well. Odom: Thank you. Any other member of the audience like to address this at this time? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Marr: Allen: I have a question for the applicant. In terms of the desire for daycare, how large of a daycare operation are you looking at in terms of the number of individuals that would be there on a daily basis. I can give you a rather precise answer. When we designed this latest version of the building, we submitted the plans to the folks in charge of daycare for the state in Little Rock, Arkansas. They reviewed our plans, we've added some potty's and a few things so that it would meet all of the state standards. They came back and said that we could have as many as sixty children in this daycare We talked about it and we said we don't want to do that because, in fact the conclusion was, we really don't want to have more than thirty because during the course of a week if we have something going on we have to have space to take care of the children of people who are there working on mission committees or who knows what. So we just sort of in our mind set up for thirty. The concerns that Mr. Rimbey expressed and Matt expressed, I'm kind of sympathetic with them because until • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 19 this last Subdivision meeting nobody ever suggested that we wouldn't be allowed to have a daycare. For us, we put that in the same category as if somebody had said "I'm sorry you won't be able to baptize anybody here." Or whatever else, Sunday school, or vacation bible school. That was just part of our plan from the beginning. As you drive around the City you notice, I don't know about half or whatever, the churches have daycare. We have enough people in our church to fill those thirty spots but we have a commitment to help especially single mothers but families who are kind of under economic distress and so we are going to save a certain percentage of those spots for free or subsidized daycare. I can dust tell you this, we had a group of mothers that were organized before I found out about it, they were going to come here tonight and paint this place with kids. That was the way they felt about it. We have tried to deal with this responsibly and decently and respectfully from the very beginning. We have never showed up with our signs or talked to the t.v. cameras or done any of that kind of stuff. We have been trying to do this strictly by the merits of it. So, with that in mind, the hard answer is, we plan on making this available to thirty people. Frankly, I think probably we have thirty people in our congregation that would use those positions given the parameters of a few people who perhaps are not members but need assistance. That would free up thirty spots somewhere else in the City. The letter I gave you shows how the demand for daycare is and I have a little of a report to give you on traffic. I canJust tell you this before I give it to you, because this building is designed to hold sixty children. It's actually designed to hole fifty children and ten workers even though we don't plan on ever having more than thirty. I went ahead and did some work on sixty just so everybody would understand that we are not trying to hide half the building or something. Can I pass these out? This is our engineer here, Mr. Fox. This comes from two sources, the traffic volume map for Fayetteville/Springdale provided by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department and they say passing our location 2800 Crossover there are 15,000 cars per day. Second thing is, a bit of information here, the driveway of our church will be located 2,408 feet from the intersection of Crossover and Old Wire Road. The traffic at this intersection is flow controlled by radio computer Zink. You may look above the light there and you will see a little antenna that points out and all the number of cars are coordinated to speed that up. Parry Franklin who is the traffic supervisor for the City of Fayetteville looked at this whole situation, looked at the number of people we have and everything else, his conclusion was traffic in and out of this location for daycare would have, I asked if I could quote him and he said "certainly, he said it would have an "insignificant impact to the traffic flow on Crossover." It also says here that the expected number of children served by Lake Hills Care Ministry is twenty-five to thirty. The building was built to accommodate fifty children and ten workers. So, assuming sixty people, even though we don't plan on doing that, • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 20 these numbers at bottom here come from the Microtrans which I'm sure Mr. Conklin has access to, this is a nation wide statistical sampling of daycare centers, a daycare center with sixty children which is really twice what we are planning on having, this is what it produces on an average weekday. It produces, in twenty- four hours, two hundred and seventy-one one-way trips. That means if you come in in the morning drop off your child and leave come in the evening pick it up and leave that's four trips. If you do the math that means every person comes once and that only leaves a few extra entrances and exits. The reason is because many people come with more than one child in the car. The peak usage, you notice here it says 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. is twenty-six entering and twenty-three leaving. That's because three of them stay there because they are working there. Twenty-six cars in and twenty-three cars out. That would be in between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. This is based on the population of sixty so our numbers would be more like thirteen or fourteen or something. From 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the evening that would show twenty-four people entering and twenty-eight people exiting. I mean vehicles. Also, the fact that you need to consider that many of those 50,000 cars a day are going to go by that location to some other daycare so it's not like they added to anything. We have no Saturday or Sunday daycare that's just part of the report. Marr: Reverend Allen what are your proposed hours of operation of the daycare? Allen: Probably open the doors at 7:00 a.m. and close at 6:00 p.m. At this point that's the best guess I can give you. Marr. That's Monday through Friday? Allen: Yes sir. We never made a point of having a daycare any more than we made a point of having vacation bible school or church library or kitchen or anything else. It's just part of what we do. I apologize to our neighbors for not. We did specifically talk about, with the neighbors, we have no plans to build a school, no plans to build a high school, college, library, museum, zoo or any of these other things that usable in unit four. We just don't have any plans for that. Let me say one other thing, if I may. The Conditional Use Permit for this unit is called for. I would object to that only in this sense. If I were to go buy two acres and put up a building and call it We Care or something I would understand you wanting an Conditional Use Permit but this is as much part of our church as our library or anything else. So, to have a separate Conditional Use Permit just because we are going to have daycare as probably one of our probably a hundred different ministries that just seems like an intrusion into the programming of our church that I'm not sure that the City of Fayetteville wants to get into. I don't know how many other churches in the City that have day -cares had to get a Conditional Use • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 21 Permit, that would be an interesting thing to find out. By certain example if our current congregation came down here and asked you members of the Planning Commission to pray before you took a vote, people would scream separation of church and state all the way to Missouri. I'm just concerned that this is a bad precedent that the City decides to interject itself into the programming of our church. Someone has said now "What if you wanted to open a riding stable and call it a ministry, would that be covered?" I would say "No." I don't think there is another church in the City maybe even the state that has a riding ministry or whatever so we are not after that. We are after what most of the churches do in this City. That is have a daycare. We just have been caught blind -sided just like the Rimbey's and Matt because we never had a clue that this was going to be an objection raised by anybody. We designed this thing according to standards that are set out by the state. I guess I'm done. Odom: Staff just a question. Since it's been proposed, have conditional uses been required of other daycare facilities that are in other churches around town? Conklin: I can not recall any. Let me just make a statement. I am trying really hard to • work with Mr. Allen. I want Lake Hills to have their church and as staff we rely on what is submitted to the City of Fayetteville with regard to what's applied for as part of our Conditional Use application. On July 5, 2000, in our application, number three, a complete written description of the request. What is proposed by the applicant to include building size and square feet existing and proposed, number of off-street parking spaces to be provided number required. It talks about if you are going to have some type of business that we want to know hours of operation, number of employees, anticipated number of patrons, clients, children, customers average per day, peak hours, outdoor lighting. July 5, 2000 a letter that was written by Charlie Sloan a member of Lake Hills Church. "Lake Hills Church proposes to build a church with the following operating hours. Church Wednesday 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. Sunday 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Church or office hours Monday through Friday 8:00 to 6:00 p.m." That's all we received. With regard to child care I would be more than happy to have a Conditional Use application applied for. Use unit four does separate church from child care or nursery school. There is a reason why it's separated. I do believe that they need to get a Conditional Use. Once again, I am not opposed to Mr. Allen or Lake Hills Church applying for a Conditional Use for the church but the information that was given to us as staff was these are the operating hours and these were the uses. It didn't say anything about childcare until last Subdivision Committee. This was written by Charlie Sloan, a member of their church. Maybe he wasn't • aware of the childcare facility in there. What I'm trying to do as City Planner is to make sure I can inform the Commission and the public and the neighbors of the Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 22 anticipated impacts of this Conditional Use on surrounding properties and on our roads. That is what we are required to do as part of our findings. That is basically what I wanted to say with regard to getting the information to the City and what we are representing to the Commission. Estes: I have several questions for staff. Tim, if I understand correctly, what we have before us is a Conditional Use request, is that correct? Conklin: That's correct. Estes: It is a request for a church as a Use Unit Four in a A-1 zone, is that correct? Conklin: That's correct. Estes: In this Use Unit Four are churches separated from daycare? In other words are those two separate uses in Use Unit Four? Conklin: Yes. They are separated. Estes: If a person wanted to apply for a Conditional Use for a Use Unit Four church that would be one application and if they wanted to apply for a Conditional Use in a Use Unit Four for a daycare that would be a separate application, is that a correct statement? Conklin: That is correct. That's how I read that ordinance. Once again, when we get that application, we have twenty-one days to get it to Planning Commission. We also write a description of what is being requested, post a sign on the site, put a legal ad and a display ad in the newspaper. We rely on the information that is given to us. Once again, I am not opposed to someone applying for a childcare facility but that was information that we never received until last week. Estes: When was it first disclosed that there would be a Use Unit Four for a daycare center? Conklin: That was last Thursday. One finding that we are required to make is that it is compatible with the neighborhood so with regard to a daycare facility I want to make sure that there is adequate stacking room for the vehicles dropping off their children. Issues with regard to noise, if there is going to be an outdoor play area adjacent to a residential house, a single family home. Those type of issues. Screening of those outdoor play areas. Are they going to have outdoor light? Those are the type of things we consider and you would have a staff report in Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 23 Estes: front of you with this information. Basically, the questions that the Commissioners have asked this evening with regard to the number of children, how the parking is going to work, the arrangement of dropping the kids off, those type of issues. We would have that information. We would make a recommendation with regard to that information we do receive. There has been much public comment this evening that there is a pressing need for quality daycare in Fayetteville. I think we would have to presume that there would be daycare offered at this Conditional Use. Have any of these issues which you have discussed been considered by staff? Conklin: With regard to the drop-off area? I have not looked at that. Allen: Could I make one point at that? Odom. Just a second. We are going to wait until the Commissioner is finished. Estes: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Odom. Mr. Allen? Allen: I had a couple things to say but just at that one point. We submitted this drawing to the state people and I suspect their standards are at least as rigid as yours and they reviewed drop-off and they gave us a page of things that had to do with number of restrooms and exits and how high the windows had to be and that stuff. So, I think we have met any criteria. You may not have that in front of you and I understand that but I'm just saying that we've done that. That letter you read from Mr. Sloan, what was the date on that? Conklin: July 5, 2000. Allen: Well. We have submitted a newer letter than that and I don't know why you don't have it because I made a point of bringing it. It was available. Conklin: Yes. I know. I'm just stating that the application deadline that was submitted to our office, we have that Monday at 10:00 a.m. Wednesday the newspaper requires that ad to be submitted to their office. I'm not trying to make a big deal about this. I encourage Lake Hills Church to apply for a Conditional Use for a childcare facility. I encourage you to provide that information. Once again, my staff, we have two and a half or two days to prepare that legal ad and get it in the paper and that's the information we had. It was the hours of operation for a • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 24 Allen: Conklin: Allen: Conklin: Allen: MOTION: Estes: Odom: church. It didn't say anything about daycare That's the issue. That's true because until we were told we couldn't have one that was the first time the issue had ever been raised. Nobody had ever asked us anytime in the last year and a half if we were going to have a daycare We would have said "Yes." Nobody asked if we were going to have a kitchen or a library. It was just part of what we were doing. We did look at your hours of operation and I'm not trying to debate you on this issue, but that hours that this building would be functioning. Those are the hours that were listed and days. Well, I'm not trying to debate you either but the reason we were told we had to do that because you were concerned about the peak attendance and having to do with the parking. Since we only have like twenty cars for daycare we were concerned about Sunday morning that's why we did it that way. I'm sorry. It's just bad communication but that's why we did it that way. In the future I'll try better to make sure that when churches do come to apply for a Conditional Use they do understand that. I do want to try to work with the churches in this community and make sure that there are no misunderstandings. I just have one other brief thing and that is, I read this regulation. I have read it all. All the way back to the time we were try to re -zone and everything else. But in that Unit Four, Mr. Estes, it also lists libraries, it lists playgrounds and we are going to have both of those and I wouldn't think we would have to come back with a separate Conditional Use permit for a playground and a library any more than we would have to come back for a Conditional Use for a childcare. Based on that assumption. If I was going out and buy two acres and build a daycare that would be a different thing. Or build a library for that matter. I move that we approve Conditional Use 00-17.00 subject to staff recommendations. I second. We have a motion and a second to approve Conditional Use 00-17.00. Now I'm going to offer an amendment to the motion that I seconded. I support a daycare at your church facility however, I think it's going to require a separate Conditional Use permit to come back before us. My amendment is going to be to remove item number six which is that "No for -hire schools including public, • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 25 secondary or daycare shall be located within this facility." The purpose for my amendment to remove item number six is I want to make it clear that we will not not allow this. I think it is a use that can only be given to you by a separate Conditional Use permit but I don't want to say that you are not going to be able to have one. I think that you should be able to have one should you apply for a Conditional Use. Therefore, I offer that amendment at this time. Estes: I accept the amendment. Odom: Rather than go forward with another vote, what we have before us is an approval of Conditional Use 00-17.00 subject to the five conditions of approval that we have before with the removal of item number six "No for -hire schools including public, secondary or daycare shall be located within the facility. Is there any further discussion? Shackelford: Just a couple quick questions for staff to clarify for myself. According to the background information there has been a Conditional Use already approved for this development on April 26, 1999 with eight conditions of approval. Were any of those conditions addressing daycare? Was this addressed at any point prior to this? Conklin: No. Shackelford: Okay. The one that we are voting will supercede the one that is in place, correct? Conklin: That's correct. Shackelford: Okay. Thank you. Hoover: I have a question for staff. I'm sorry, at Subdivision I meant to ask this question. It wasn't clear to me. Are any of the trees being saved that are buffered between the street and the parking lot? Is all of that going to be cleared? Conklin: I believe that's all cleared. Odom. This is Just the Conditional Use. Hoover: Oh. I'm sorry. Can I wait until the next issue? I'm sorry. Comm. Allen: This may be kind of a non -sequitur and I wasn't here when you came before but I • note that it's about 30% larger than originally. It seems to be like it practically • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 26 doesn't fit on the land. I don't know if that's a concern. Odom. We need to talk about it at the Large Scale Development. Next item. Comm. Allen: Okay. Bunch: I guess I'm one of Just being guilty of requesting that the no public schools, daycare centers and such being inserted and I have no problem with removing it since there are in Use Unit Four it does require a Conditional Use application for those. The reason that I requested, in the first place, that be inserted was that the applicant has been less than forthcoming in telling us what they plan to do. Our Job here is that we rule on what information we have before us and we were put in the position of trying to pull teeth, you might say, to question the applicant with "What do you intend to do?" Since the applicant did not openly tell us what their intent was. That was part of what generated this was to create greater communications because we weren't getting much communication and we weren't able to determine the impact that this would have on the neighborhood and the neighbors. Apparently, the neighbors, they need to have some sort of assurance as to what is going in next door to them. Without making any further speeches or comments or anything so if you could please keep this as open a process as possible. When someone plans a large building and only wants to build once, a reasonable conclusion would be that what the uses for that building are have already been determined otherwise you won't commit to bricks and mortar. All we ask is for the courtesy to share with us what those long term plans are. That better helps us to determine whether or not this fits in with the community. Allen: I accept your comment. We answered the questions that were presented to us. Nobody ever said "What are you going to do here?" It was always just activities having to do with a church. That was as broad as anybody ever asked us. If anyone ever said "Are you going to have a daycare, a library." Just ask us, we would have been happy to supply that. The answers to the Conditional Use questions are all given and nobody ever asked us what we were going to do. I don't know what else to say. Odom. Thank you Mr. Allen. Any further discussion on the Conditional Use motion? Marr: Just one last comment. I am in full support of this. I would encourage you, quite frankly, I wish you had known this before and we could have settled it all here today. I know it's been a while. I appreciate your willingness to work with the neighborhood. I appreciate your willingness to bring individuals to speak to us • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 27 and understand the issues of the church today. I do encourage you to bring that back. I think that you have, at least in this case, my support as well. Odom: Any further discussion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU00-17.00 passes on a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 28 LSD 00-15.00: Large Scale Development (Lake Hills Church, pp 255) was submitted by The Benham Group on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located on the east side of Hwy 265 north of Township. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.59 acres. The request is to build a church. Odom: The next item which is related is item number five which is the Large Scale Development submitted by The Benham Group on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located on the east side of Hwy 265 north of Township. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.59 acres. The request is to build a church. The staffs recommendation is for approval subject to Conditions of Approval. There are twelve Conditions of Approval. Staff, are there any further Conditions of Approval on the LSD? Conklin: No there are not. Odom: Mr. Allen have you had the opportunity to review the twelve Conditions of Approval? • Allen: Actually, no. Odom: Then I shall read them. Item number 1 is that the approval shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use allowing for a 15,360 square foot church building. That's already been done. Item two is determination of parking required by code based on the number of seats in the auditorium. The applicant has used calculations based on the square footage of the building. If it is determined that the church building requires more than the parking that is provided on site, a shared parking agreement and parking waiver application will be required. Item number three curb and gutter shall be removed through sidewalk at driveway approaches. Item number four, the right of way dedication along Highway 265 shall be by warranty deed. Item number five, a copy of the filed access/ construction/ utility easement along the north property line allowing for the driveway to be built on the property to the north shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits. Item number 6, use of the building shall be limited to uses associated with a church, no spaces for lease shall be allowed. Item number seven, elevations submitted to the Planning Commission on the monument sign. Location and size of sign must conform with Chapter 174 Signs. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards. Item number eight, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox • Communications); item number nine, staff approval of final detailed plans, • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 29 Allen: Fox: specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements; Item number ten, sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 10 foot green space with a minimum 6 foot sidewalk; Item number eleven, Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year; and item number twelve, 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 (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. 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; d. Right-of-way along Highway 265 shall be dedicated by warranty deed. Those are the twelve conditions of approval that we have before us. The only exception I have is, we really don't have a design for our sign. We realize we will have to bring that back and present it. For right now we know where it's going to go basically but that's about it. Gerald Fox. I'm representing Benham Group, Lake Hills Church. I just want to make a couple of comments on the conditions I heard there. Number three, about the curb and gutter being removed. We have made those revisions on the plans. Also, number ten about the sidewalk and green -space, those are on the plans. Odom: So you don't have any objections? Fox: I don't think we need those conditions but we don't object to them. Odom: Okay. Let me ask then does any member of the audience that would like to address us on the Large Scale Development. I think that we can just go ahead and note for the record that all of those that previously spoke in favor of the Conditional Use, speak in favor of the approval of the Large Scale Development. If I state that correctly, raise your hand. Alright. We will note everyone is raising their hands. They are all speaking in favor of the Large Scale Development. Does anyone else wish to speak in addition to what we have previously spoken about? Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or motions. Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 30 Hoover: May I ask that same question to the staff about the existing trees in the front between the street and the parking? Conklin: There will be no trees preserved between the street and the back east parking lot. They will all be removed. Hoover: Are they removed to the building line? There is a space left between the parking and the property line on the south elevation. Conklin: There is a line showing on the plat of extended tree canopy to remain. If you look on page C-3. There's a bold dashed line. Hoover: That's all at the rear of the property. Nothing at the front of the building itself. Conklin: That's correct. Hoover: That's correct. • Conklin: There may be one tree on the southwest corner in our right-of-way that will remain. On site, no. The trees will be removed. • Hoover: Thank you. Odom: Commissioner Allen? You had some questions about the Large Scale Development? Comm. Allen: The same questions I posed. It just seems that the building is too big for the lot. I don't know how to put it any better than that. It just seems that it leads almost to the end of the lot. I had some concerns about how much larger it was than originally proposed. Allen: Well there are three or four considerations. One is, the square feet internally has always been the same. Our neighbors said that they didn't like it being as high as it was and the only way you can do that is to put it all on one level. We also were asked by another neighbor to move it as far to the west as we possibly can so it's not close to his house so we did that as well. We had to make the building the shape it is, if we tried to turn it let's say skinnier on the lot and deeper than you would have to dynamite and you would have a big ugly cliff hanging out kind of like the Williams Center. No offense to Mr. Meineke. We want to keep it sort of gentle and rolling. As it is we are only in the back about we are in only about six feet and in the front we build up about six feet or so. It's going to be a beautiful • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 31 building. If you can look at the picture here it's going to be striking. We have also worked at great length with the neighbors on both sides about setbacks and preserving the tree line and a bunch of things like that. We have accommodated every way we can. We are actually, to answer Ms. Hoover's question, we are actually more concerned about saving the trees than the City is. We have been told to bulldoze some trees that we would rather keep. Odom. Commissioner Allen, are you concerned that it doesn't meet the inspect requirement or setbacks. Comm. Allen: Yes. Partially. That's it. Odom. Staff are there any comments with regard to whether or not it doesn't meet setbacks or green -space requirements or so forth? Conklin: MOTION: Marr: Ward: Odom: Hoover: Allen: It's meeting our ordinance requirements with regard to tree protection preservation ordinance. Under A-1 there is no minimum percent canopy however the rare landmark tree section does apply and the Landscape Administrator has looked at this and has approved this plan. The setbacks did go to the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Adjustment did grant their setbacks for their building on the south and north property lines. Those have been addressed and granted. I would like to move for approval of LSD 0-15.00 subject to staff comments. Second. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Marr a second by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 00-15.00. Do we have any further comments. I have a few concerns about the project. One is when it looks like there is such a large area that we are not able to save any of the trees on the south side of that parking lot. Looking at the lot it seems very wooded. Is this an impossible task to do? That was our objection from the very beginning because we were required to build that water retention berm and build that. If it hadn't been for that we would have saved many more trees frankly. • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 32 Fox: There is another big issue too and that's meeting the concerns of the neighbors. As Mr. Allen noted, having everything as far to the west as possible, as far from the road as possible was very important to the neighbors. There's a whole bunch more property to the back then what you see. We are leaving well over half the lot undeveloped. Hoover: Right. I understand that but between the sidewalk and the parking lot is there any way to save any of the trees that are in that location. Fox: Not unless we move things to the back. Mr. Rimbey and Mr. Slusarek would object to that. That's been one of our things that we have been trying to work with them. Hoover: And the detention pond. Allen: There's one other thing since Mr. Bunch and in the interest of good communication, I spoke with some people unofficially and they suggest that we go ahead and ask for this approval and hopefully get and then we go and talk with the tree coordinators and see if we can't rethink because the parking islands are just sort of, you measure ten spaces to make one, if we can move those around to save some trees we will. That certainly is on our mind. I own a farm. I have planted over a thousand trees and I pruned three hundred. I'm keen on trees. We can save many of those trees if we are allowed to fiddle around with sidewalks and things. We were advised to go ahead and do this and try to work with the tree coordinator about it. Hoover: Another concern that I had was with the south elevation being the metal siding. 1 know that you can't see it from the street right now because there are trees in the neighbors yard. I guess I'm wondering if the neighbor ever cut down any of those trees it would be very visible from 265 at some point in the future. Since I have been on Planning Commission there have been a couple of projects that have come through that we would say "Oh, no you can't see that from the road " Then sure enough two years later you can see it from the road I'm just trying to be more conscious about when these buildings are asking for metal siding on certain elevations that we are lead to believe we are not going to be able to see. Which like I say right now we are not but I think we should be thinking a couple of years down the road. I guess my other issue is because this is pulled so far to the south which I understand that you did that because of all the neighbor concern which I appreciate that but that doesn't leave you any option for really screening on that metal siding. It's out of your control it looks like to me. I don't know what other Commissioner's feel about that south elevation. • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 33 Allen: Well the landscaped drawings there is quite a bit of screening. We have got a Zillion trees that have to go in here. Even if you save some of the older ones, there's all kinds of short things and tall things that are going to go in there. Hoover: I thought that with the retaining wall in there that you don't have enough room in there to get some trees but you have some bushes. Allen: One of those drawings shows the outline of the tree canopy and there's about fifty or sixty feet on the south side of the property line. I think your point is well taken that if they bulldoze everything right up to the property line but I'm assuming when they come for their development you won't let them do it. I understand what you are saying. Hoover: Your property line, from the building to your property line is how many feet? Allen. Twenty feet. Hoover: Twenty feet. Conklin: Commissioner Hoover, they are showing twenty-four leather leaf viburnum on their landscape plan. Hoover: Those are bushes, right? Marr: They are large bushes. Hoover: Large bushes. One other concern I have but I think that was taken in the motion before was, where the play equipment area is that that be screened from the road. I don't know if that's in this list of conditions of approval for Large Scale Development. The screening for the play area. Conklin: They do show landscaping screening in the parking facing west in those isles with shrubs and then they do have some trees. Hoover: Then higher up the elevation continues up, the play area is right in front of the building in the higher elevation. Conklin: It's hard to predict what you will be able to see with the landscaping in the parking lot. They do show a chain link fence for that playground area. • Allen: In fact, there is a sense in which we would like it to be visible from the street. We • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 34 Hoover: Odom: Shackelford: Petrie: Shackelford: Petrie: Fox: Allen: would like people to drive by and see the cool playground equipment or whatever it is. Thank you. Any further discussion? First of all I want to say that I am also in support of the church and plan on voting for the motion but I do have a real quick question for staff. Reviewing our Subdivision Committee minutes, Commissioner Hoffman had asked about the design and location of the detention pond. Her question was whether or not this could be changed to move part of the parking spaces from the back to the front. I'm just wondering if staff took a look at that request and what the findings where of that? I'm sorry can you restate your question? I didn't quite understand you. Reviewing the Subdivision Committee minutes, Commissioner Hoffman asked about whether or not the detention pond in back of the building could be changed in either size or location in an effort to move part of the parking from the back of the building back to the front of the building and asked that that be looked at prior to the Planning Commission meeting. I was wondering if that was addressed. It hasn't been looked at by City staff. It was my thought that was directed to the Engineer for the project to be honest with you. I can address that. We actually started out with that plan that you are talking about. The problem that came up is that we didn't have, there is a City code that requires a certain distance between the detention area and the building and we couldn't squeeze that in. We actually started with it that way and went to what you see. It's actually the second plan. Let me make one comment about that. We really didn't want that there of course. We had some other plans that didn't seem to work. We have to build a hole in the ground to retain water for one hundred year flood and Corp. of Engineers find that six inches of rain in an hour. There have been Europeans in Arkansas for two hundred years and there has never been a hundred year flood in northwest Arkansas. That's the first thing. Second of all, to meet the code we would have to have a hundred year flood impact us between 9:00 and 12:00 on Sunday. You work the numbers it's like once out of eight hundred years and we are having to build to provide for that because we wanted to retain part of that water on the • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 35 parking lot and we were prevented from doing that. This design is really not our choice. We have done this to accommodate the code and the neighbors frankly so we are having to do it and we are going to landscape this hole in the ground and make it look like a nice place so it won't look like just a sewer full of mosquito water. It probably won't ever have any water in it. It will be landscaped and it will look nice. Hoover: May I ask our City Engineer would you respond to that? I'm concerned also about a detention pond in the front of the building. Are there other options besides that? Petrie: Sure there are other options. When we received the plan there was a detention pond in the front of the building. It's not my job to tell them where to put their detention pond or even if they definitely they needed a detention pond. They hired an engineer and he placed a detention pond on this property. I don't think it was explored whether they could have improved from the downstream drainage to actually avoid this detention pond. I don't know. It's not my job to determine unless they don't show it, of course. It was there when we got the project and I don't know what else to say. I do want to say about the parking lot. I have said that that can be done. You can detain water in a parking lot. It is acceptable. Hoover: That's possible to do on this project? Petrie: Right. Hoover: Is that something they would need to talk to you about? Or their own engineer? Petrie: I would hope their own engineer will design it. We will review the design. Hoover: The City has in the past approved. Petrie: It specifically says in the drainage manual that is acceptable. Hoover: Thank you. Fox: I would be happy to respond to that as I did in the Committee meetings. The parking lot is sloping. It was my judgment as the engineer that we couldn't get enough volume of storage on the parking lot to use it. It is one option I always consider. It just doesn't work here. • Hoover: I guess you are saying it's not possible to do this on this parking lot? • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 36 Fox: You have a slope like that, you put a little deal here you don't get enough storage on the parking lot. Hoover: There are not ways of sloping the parking lot so you can hold more water? Fox: Right. You can't hold enough water to make an effect. Petrie: It would definitely take more grading than what's being proposed to make it effective. Fox: We have quite a difference in elevation between the road and the building now. If you were to flatten the parking lot out there that's making more of a difference in either getting up to the parking lot or getting from the parking lot to the building. We have plenty already. Hoover: Thank you. Odom: You thought Moses had a hard time finding the Promised Land. Any further discussion? Comm. Allen: It's been a while so I wondered was the original motion just to approve subject to these Conditions of Approval? Odom: Yes. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-15.00 passes on a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Hoover voting no. • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 37 LSD 00-20.00: Large Scale Development (Cornerstone, pp 402) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Lyndy Lindsey for property located at Futrall Drive north of Hanks Furniture. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is to construct an apartment complex with 120 units proposed. Odom: Ladies and gentlemen the next item we have on tonight's agenda is item number six which is a Large Scale Development 00-20.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Lyndy Lindsey for property located at Futrall Drive north of Hanks Furniture. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 7.47 acres. The request is to construct an apartment complex with 120 units proposed. Staffs recommendation is approval subject to ten conditions of approval. Staff are there any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: No there are not and I'm pleased to inform you that we do have signed Conditions of Approval. Odom: Then I would bring this matter to the applicant for any presentation that they care to make. Hennelly: My name is Tom Hennelly. I'm with Jorgensen and Associates. I'm a project engineer on this representing Lindsey Properties. This is a roughly seven and a half acre parcel north of Hank's Furniture right on the 540 corridor. Lindsey Properties is proposing to put ten buildings, twelve units per building for a total of 120 units on this property. It will be a typical well kept Lindsey development. That's about all I've got. Odom: Let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments for staff or applicant or motions. Allen: I notice this is kind of an unusual pie -shaped area and it appears that all the trees will be in that little peak of the pie. I wondered if it was possible for there to be trees any place else other thanjust at the very little point. Hennelly: Yes ma'am. We went to considerable lengths to maintain and preserve not only the rare trees that are on the property but the existing canopy as well. I assume you are talking about the northern tip of this plan. We are preserving through retaining walls and creative grading all of the landmark trees that are twenty-four inch or greater diameter as well as in the areas to the east of the development where we Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 38 were able to keep the grading out. The grading was the biggest problem in maintaining the canopy and the existing trees. To answer your question, all the canopy on the northern end of the this property has been maintained with the exception of where the sewer line is going in. Then every attempt was made within the development to maintain what's there. Odom: It would be important to note as well that there is total of 36.6 percent that is going to be on the site and there is only 20 percent minimum requirement. It has the support of Kim Hesse the Tree Preservation Coordinator. MOTION: Ward: I would like to go ahead and move for approval of LSD 00-20.00 Man: Second. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward, second by Commissioner Marr to approve LSD 00-20.00 subject to staff comments. Is there any further discussion? Estes: One item that I note is that the applicant is donating a fourteen foot access easement along the west side of the property line for a future multi -use trail. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the applicant for that donation that is not required. It's a very generous gift to the City and on behalf of this Commission, thank you. Odom. That's one "ahooga" to the applicants. Anybody else? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-20.00 passes on a vote of 8-0-0. • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 39 CU 00-21.00: Conditional Use (First United Presbyterian Church, pp 407) was submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of First United Presbyterian Church for property located at 695 Calvin. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.33 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in a R-1 district. Odom: The next two items on tonight's agenda involves first a Conditional Use and second an LSD for First United Presbyterian Church and as a member of that church I will be abstaining from the discussion and vote and will be turning the meeting at this time to Commissioner Estes. Estes: This is an application for a Conditional Use submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of First United Presbyterian Church for property located at 695 Calvin. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.33 acres. The request is for a church (Use Unit 4) in a R-1 district. Staff has made several recommendations which stand as Conditions of Approval. Staff are there any additional conditions for this Conditional Use? Conklin: There are no additional conditions.. • Estes: Do we have a signed by the applicant? Conklin: Yes we do. We have a signed Conditions of Approval. Estes: Is the applicant present. Would you like to come forward and make whatever presentation you feel is appropriate. • Hodges: My name is Kevin Hodges. I'm with Carter and Hodges Engineering. I would like to make just one clarification to these conditions. Item number five, the "no for - hire schools, including public, secondary or daycare should be located within the facility." There is an active children's ministries at the church and there is also an active Mother's Day Out as well as nursery for the Sunday schools but none of these activities are "for -hire" and that is our understanding for this condition. That being said we have no objections. Estes: Staff would you comment on the inclusion of item number five. Conklin: Item number five was to clarify that if they were going to have a for -hire daycare, public daycare at the facility that they would need to apply for a Conditional Use and that Mother's Day Out or church Sunday school classes that I would not consider those for -hire childcare facilities where you drop your child off at 7:00 or 7:30 in the morning and pick them up at 5:30 or 6:00 at night. That type of activity • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 40 would be church related. Estes: Anything else? Hodges: I think I've made myself clear Thank you. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: I'll bring the item back to the Commission for questions, comments, motions, discussion. MOTION: Marr: I would like to move for approval of Conditional Use 00-21.00. Bunch: Second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr, seconded by Commissioner Bunch. Is there any discussion? Would you call the vote please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CU 00-21.00 passes on a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Odom abstaining. • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 41 LSD 00-21.00: Large Scale Development (First United Presbyterian Church, pp 407) was submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of First United Presbyterian Church for property located at 695 Calvin. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.33 acres. The request is to build an addition to an existing church. Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number eight. This is related to item number seven the Conditional Use. Item number eight is a Large Scale Development 00- 21.00 was submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of First United Presbyterian Church for property located at 695 Calvin. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.33 acres. The request is to build an addition to an existing church. The addition will include a new youth building, new office, library, classroom, gathering space and a choir area. The addition will be approximately 19,270 square feet. The existing buildings total approximately 28,095 square feet. This will be an increase of building square footage of about 69%. There are Conditions of Approval. Staff, are there any additional conditions that are not listed as a Condition of Approval in our packet? Conklin: There are no additional conditions. We do have signed Conditions of Approval. I • would like to make one statement that the Tree and Landscape Administrator has reviewed the Tree Protection and Preservation Plan and has approved that plan. • Estes: Does the applicant have any presentation they would like to make to your Planning Commission? Hodges: Sir, I have no further presentation at this time. This is an addition to a building, much needed space. I believe the staff has presented it fairly well. I have no further comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Does any member of the audience that would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this Large Scale Development request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, motions. MOTION: Marr: I would like to move for approval of Large Scale Development 00-21.00. • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 42 Shackelford: Second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr that has been seconded. Is there any discussion? Any comments? Would you call the vote, please ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LSD 00-21.00 passes on a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Odom abstaining. Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 43 AD 00-28.00: Administrative Item (Williams, pp 481) was submitted by John Williams regarding property surrounding a monopole cellular facility on Markham Hill. The request is to address citizen concerns about the installation of underground utility lines to serve the site. Odom: Ladies and gentlemen, the last item on tonight's agenda is item number nine which is an Administrative Item 00-28.00 submitted by John Williams regarding property surrounding a monopole cellular facility on Markham Hill. The request is to address citizen concems about the installation of underground utility lines to serve this site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and decide if the evidence presented constitutes a violation of the 1987 Conditional Use permit. If the Planning Commission finds the Conditional Use approval has been violated, staff recommends Planning Commission hold a revocation hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting to determine what remedies can be imposed or to revoke the Conditional Use and to have the tower and equipment moved. Staff would you like to go over the background on this item? Conklin: There was a Conditional Use approved in 1987 for Contel, Inc. They constructed a monopole tower for cellular service at this Sang Street location also known as Markham Hill. At the 1987 meeting, information that I was able to determine what was approved was through those minutes of that meeting. That included an actual tower of 125 feet, a 125(28' communication shelter includes an 8 foot high security fence with three strands of barbed wire, a stand-by generator with muffler to reduce noise. Elevation of the tower to be at 1606 feet. Electricity would provided by only adding transformers for power. That no additional lines would be brought to the site. I pretty much tried to summarize those minutes of 1987 In 1988 the Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use for compliance with the 1987 approval. During that meeting, information was given that the building was increased in size from 12'x28' to 28'x56', that additional power would be needed and that new underground service would need to be provided from the center of the street to the tower. The Planning Director made a statement at that 1988 meeting that no FAA approval was required and the representative for Contel made a statement that the tower was 125 feet tall. The Planning Commission tabled that request in 1988 and encouraged the attorney's, City staff and SWEPCO get together to resolve this issue. In a letter that was sent to the City, basically the landowners and Contel agreed not to bring it back to the Commission that they did work out an agreement. I tried to summarize the current issues that have been brought forward and it's actually more than what's in the description. That includes concern over FAA approval of the tower with regard to elevation of the tower and the ground elevation. There is concern over additional installation of lines and not Just power, electric but lines in general are underground, but fiberoptic or any other additional lines that would be required or would be installed • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 44 to connect to this location or this facility. Also, that private property has been trespassed on by the installation of additional fiberoptic lines. I included in your packet and I will briefly go over these. A letter to Southwestern Bell from Lynn Wade concerned about the additional T-1 lines in the neighborhood. Basically, he was very concerned about additional overhead lines along Sang Avenue. A letter to Lynn Wade from Southwestern Bell stating that these lines will be underground. That was in 1995. An additional letter to Southwestern Bell from Lynn Wade that he was concerned that the additional lines would violate the Conditional Use. That was in 1995 In 1999,1 included this date in here because we did pass a wireless communication facility ordinance which does encourage co -location and allow the City Planner to approve additional facilities on existing towers. I also included a franchise agreement that the City of Fayetteville City Council passed on February I, 2000, granting permission for Alltel to be within our right-of-way with fiberoptic lines. I did include, after that, February 1, 2000 franchise agreement, we did get a letter to the City of Fayetteville from Lynn Wade concerned about the additional lines into the neighborhood. The City of Fayetteville did write back to Mr. Wade and outlined what remedies were available for Mr. Wade with his concerns about the additional lines. On April 14, 2000, Mr. John Williams wrote a letter to the Midland Group. This refers to fiberoptic lines that were coming up Sang Avenue that Mr. Williams believed to be on his property. Mr. Williams hired a surveyor and those lines were on his property and the Midland Group had to remove the conduit and put the conduit within our right-of-way. Then we have a letter from Cyrus Sutherland to the Midland Group concerned about fiberoptic lines that would be on his property. I wrote to the City Attorney on June 6, 2000, to get his advice on co -location on that monopole tower. All this information that I have given may be confusing to the public because they didn't have a chance to review all these documents. There is a relationship between all these documents and what is occurring up on Markham Hill and what the City is looking at with regard to wireless communication facilities. That letter is a letter to Mr. Rose stating that I was approached by another provider that they were interested in locating their facilities on that Alltel monopole. Being aware of Mr. Williams' concerns, I basically asked for advice if under that ordinance that was passed last year, August 31, 1999, I had the authority and the duty to approve co -locations on that facility. I just wanted to make sure there were no issues with approving those new co -locations, those new facilities. On June 12, 2000, the City Attorney did respond back to me and basically did state to me that in his opinion I should follow the ordinance that was approved by City Council. On July 21, 2000, I did receive a letter from Mr. Williams stating that he would like to request a hearing before the Planning Commission to go over his concerns. On July 28, 2000, I did receive a fax from Alltel regarding the information about the private property. It stated that it has been cleared up on Mr. Williams' property. Then we also, working with Mr. • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 45 Williams and discussing the height of the tower, did determine from our survey data here at the City that the ground elevation is 1495'. The FAA clearance approval stated that the ground elevation was 1480'. There is also a typo in the FAA clearance letter where it states it should be 1600... Let me take that back because I know that maybe some people disagree with that. When I refer to typo there is an elevation listed at 616 feet on that letter. It should be 1616 feet. Ground elevation in Fayetteville the lower elevations are about 1200 feet. So based on all that information I have given you I have looked at the minutes and I have looked at what was approved in those minutes. It's my opinion that when City Council granted the franchise agreement for utilities to go in our right-of-way, that they gave them permission to put the fiberoptic in our right-of-way. With regard to the FAA approval, I do have additional information this evening that was handed out. It was faxed to me Friday and today. That's probably a separate hand- out. It's labeled 9.42, 9.43, 9.44 and 9.45. On 9.43 Alltel did have the ground elevation surveyed. The ground elevation is 1495 feet based on survey. That matches what the City of Fayetteville has with regard to our topographic information here at the City. They also performed what they call a tape drop of the actual tower and their analysis of that is the tower is 104 feet high. That's on page 9.44. It's not the 136 feet as shown on the FCC and FAA registration documentation. In there letter they state that the ground is fifteen feet higher than the 1480 found on those documentation of FAA and FCC. However, that the 1495 plus 104 feet equals 1599. Their statement is that's seventeen below the overall height shown on the documentation. They have stated that if they need to they will re -apply for FAA clearance of this tower based on this new information. With regard to the private property issue, as a policy, when there is a dispute regarding trespassing on private property that is usually a civil matter. People take each other to court. They hire surveyors to determine if someone is trespassing. It's impossible for me to go up there and look and see if someone is trespassing on someone's property. I am not a surveyor and I don't know where the property lines are on the ground. Typically, if someone is trespassing we suggest they talk to their attorney and find out what remedies they do have. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Any questions for the staff at this point? Hearing none, I'm going to open the floor to public discussion of whether or not we should hold a hearing two weeks from now. Mr. Williams do you have some comments that you would like to make at this time? • Williams: Yes. I want to thank you and I appreciate your time. I want to thank also Tim and • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 46 the staff. They have been very helpful. Here's a note I thought might help to speed my part up here. I'll give you my notes. I'll go on to reference this for this meeting. I want to thank the Planning Commission and citizens who are concerned about this tower and some of the continuing problems relating to that. I was going to thank Mr. Don Michael. I did want to thank him for his article in the Friday paper because it made it sound like this might be a lot more interesting than I assumed it would be. If there are people here because of his article I appreciate it. I want to thank him for that. I want to ask you if you have the minutes of the 1987 and 1988 meetings? You do have them. Good. Do you have the original building permit? Conklin: I researched that this afternoon. I was unable to find the actual building permit. I could not locate that in microfilm. Williams: I will try to remember some of the information on that building permit. It has do with, of course, the original size of the building that was increased by 4 '/z times and some other things. One of the things I believe I remember is that because it seemed so unusual to me and it certainly put my mind to ease about that original permit was the fact that it Just required only a 30 amp service on that plan. If somebody can find the plans I would like that to be checked because I suppose you know that even a small house now might require 100 amp service. So a 30 amp service Just, I thought there is nothing about this if it's only has a 30 amp service. Well I better follow my notes. Item nine on tonight's agenda came about because of a letter I wrote to Mr. Conklin and members of the Planning Commission dated July 21, 2000. See a copy on the agenda page 9.8. If you have read that letter there is no reason for me to read it You've all read it? Odom: We've all read it, I believe. Williams. Okay. I think Mr. Conklin outlined what's in my letter as well as things we are generally concerned about. I'm glad you have those already because if you have read those minutes of the early meetings with the neighbors, with Contel and with the Planning Commission, I believe that there is evidence of changes, mistakes and what seems to be misrepresentations serious enough to question the validity of the original building permit and Conditional Use. That's really one of the reasons we are here. As indicated in the minutes of the meeting the neighbors were aware of airplanes approaching from Drake Field flying very close to the tower and sometimes even at the west of it. On one occasion I saw an airplane coming in from the west which had to pull up quickly and steeply to avoid hitting the tower. I don't have any witnesses but I would be glad to take a lie detector test about that. Finally, I teamed this summer 1 continued to although there were calls from • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 47 personnel at Drake Field recording the tower, I continued to try to learn if the tower had been approved by FAA. The minutes indicate such would be required even before a building permit was approved. Even before the building permit, Mr. Sorel said that FAA approval would be required. That, I believe, was in those early meetings. Finally, I learned this summer that I continued to try to learn if the tower had been approved by FAA. The minutes indicate such would be required Finally, I learned this summer that I could request proof of compliance with all federal regulations including FAA approval and I refer you to agenda page 9.28 which I assume you have read. On July 21, 2000, Mr. Conklin gave me a copy of the FAA form dated October 18, 1988. Almost a year after the building permit and Conditional Use were given. So you can see a copy of that on page 9.35. I found an error of approximately 1,000 feet in elevation of the AMSL. I showed the form to Mr. Fredericks at Drake Field. We agreed that 616 feet AMSL was a substantial error for Markham Hill Tower elevation. I took the form to Mr. Conklin. He mentioned the possibility of a type and said the elevation should be 1616 feet rather than 616. He gave me a copy of a letter from Mr. Johnell to Mr. Dale Baldwin dated November 2, 1987, indicating a 1616 feet ASML Although 1 notice in one of those early things that Mr. Sorel said it was 1606 feet. I have this question, why wasn't I given this information back in 1987 and 1988? It would have saved a great deal of time and money in long distance calls. I think in there you will find that I checked with people at the airport. They gave me numbers to call and I called those numbers and couldn't find any approval. Before going to see Mr. Conklin on Monday, August 7, 2000, a week ago, I went to ask Mr. Clyde Randall, Mapping Department, Fayetteville. His equipment showed the elevation, as Mr. Conklin has reported to you, the base of the Alltel Cellular tower at 1495 feet which would be a difference of 15 feet compared to an elevation of 1480 feet at the base of the tower. Although the present monopole height is shown, I hadn't received these things you got this afternoon or when did you get them? Conklin: I got the height of the tower this morning and Friday after 5:00 p.m. I got the other fax. Williams: Okay. Their antenna... Now what did you say the new height is? Conklin: The new height of the antenna is 104 feet high. Williams. It shrunk, I guess. I think there's been enough variation in the reports on the height of the tower that may be reasonable for us to be sure that we have accurate information. I didn't know about this new thing. I was assuming 125 feet as shown on recent plans. On top of this monopole there are aerials. Did that height include the height of the aerials on top of the pole? • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 48 Conklin: I think it would be more appropriate for Alltel to respond to their information. I would hate to interpret their form incorrectly. Williams: Okay. I just have had so many sets of information on it I just believe that it would be a good idea to be certain we have accurate information and that the accurate information be presented to whoever would be able to check it out to see whether it requires FAA approval. If it does then I would like for FAA to determine whether it might be approved In reference to lines on private property, a line was laid on our property, see the reference three in my letter of July 21, 2000. This line has been removed in my letter to Mr. Jim Smith, April 3, 1999, requesting removal and my letter to Mr. Bill Nuestel dated April 14, 2000, thanking him for removal of the cable from our property. They have heavy equipment and fairly large equipment. I must say that although we have these complaints that Mr. Nuestel and I became friends although we may be at opposite purposes. Mr. Sutherland is here however he has been out of town. Mr.. Sutherland, I have information here. Do you want me to present it? They have a copy of your letter. C.Sutherland: Well I don't. I suppose my prime position on this matter is the fact that the Alltel conduit and presumably the cable, I don't know yet whether the cable has been installed but I do think that the conduit in which the cable is to run has been installed, from Sang Street to Garvin Street which is about 925 feet, I'm not sure what the exact figure is but it's over 900 feet. The first 150 feet of that 900 feet is a piece of my property and then it joins the rest of my property which is about 8 acres and it continues down the side of my property until it reaches Garvin Street. I don't know this to be true but I suspect the line from Sang to Garvin runs across the largest distance of private property in the City. When I quizzed Mr. Nuestel of the Alltel Company on this he said, "Well our line is installed on the City easement that is a utility easement." I do know that running from Sang Street down to Garvin Street and along an additional 600 feet of my property there is a water line that goes from the water tower, very near the Alltel tower, down this on a twenty- five foot easement and presumably the Alltel conduit and fiberoptic lines would be installed within that twenty-five foot easement. I am relatively sure also that it does not confine it's passage along the water line easement, but on my property. I simply wanted this fact to be known by the City and the Alltel Company. That is my main reason for being here and being concerned with this is that I was told that the Alltel line would be installed or run along only within Municipal easements. As far as I know, the only easement on that 900 feet of my property is the water line easement but I don't think the Alltel line has been restricted to the water line easement. It falls most of it, a great deal of it, in fact, almost all of it, on my private property. I would be reasonably reluctant to ask Alltel to take it all up and move it over because this involved a great deal of machinery in our neighborhood. • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 49 Estes: Sizeable machinery and time and noise. I'm sure you have been aware of the citywide installation of this but I still contend that I think I probably hold the record for the passage of this line along my private property. That's it for now. Mr. Sutherland? C.Sutherland: Yes. Estes: Conklin: Estes: C.Sutherland: Estes: I have a question. I need some help and I don't know any better way to do this than to ask you to step up here if you could. We have been provided, in our packet with a drawing that I think, does that purport to show the fiberoptic line that Mr. Sutherland has talked about? No. I don't have anything that shows where the fiberoptic line is. Agenda page 9.41 is our City record. This area right here according to our drafting department is a twenty-five foot general utility easement. That is a waterline that they came from Garvin up to Sang Avenue through that utility easement. Where is your property Mr. Sutherland? I have this sketch which shows very clearly This is the line along which that goes and my property comes in about like that. My property, I have a little piece there and a little piece there and then a sizeable piece there. In your April 28, 2000, letter which is found at pages 9.12 and 9.13, you wrote that the Alltel underground cable for as much as the 920 feet. Can you show me on any of these drawings where that 920 feet is? C.Sutherland: Yes. Estes: Not on your drawing but can you show me on page 9.41 where that 920 feet is. This is page 9.41. C.Sutherland: I've not seen that before but I can tell you that the 900 feet is from Sang Avenue down to Garvin which doesn't quite fall onto this plan here. Estes: Conklin: I'm still having a problem. What is this line that transects from Haskell Heights? Is that the 920 foot line that you are talking about? No. That line on there is a centerline of a private drive. • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 50 C.Sutherland: That's an underground electrical line I think. A City power line. Conklin: That's a centerline of a street. That's what that line has shown. No one has any survey to know where the line is located. That's the argument. We don't know where that line is located. Odom: It's right here look. Estes: I see it, I just don't know what it is. Perhaps we could do this. Perhaps Mr. Williams and Mr. Sutherland with the help of Mr Lynn Wade, who I think is in the audience, if you could go to our packet and show us where that 920 feet is that you complain of and let me ask staff. Tim, is there anything in our packet that shows the 920 feet that Mr. Sutherland complains of? Williams: Yes, it's right here. This is that waterline easement that I was talking about and this is where it goes is south of the waterline easement. There used to be a street through there and it was given back to the property owners because it's hard. So he's saying that his line goes through here. Estes: Where's Garvin? Is that Garvin? Conklin: On page 9.41. Estes: Thank you Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Williams. Thank you. Conklin: To answer your question Commissioner Estes on 9.41 you should see an easement that's coming across here. Mr. Sutherland's property is going to be located south of that easement. Mr. Williams' property is located north of that easement. This is a twenty-five foot utility easement. Estes: That is a utility easement not a street or an alley? Conklin: That is not a street. That's a twenty-five foot utility easement. What Mr. Sutherland has claimed in his letter is that when they installed that line within that utility easement that they didn't install it within that, it was outside of it on his property. That the line was further to the south than that twenty-five foot utility easement. That utility easement does connect down to Garvin. We don't have a survey showing where those lines are located. Marr: Mr. Chair? • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 51 Odom: Tell you what Commissioner Marr, unless you have something that is just directly on point I want to finish with the public comment of it before we continue on with any further questions. Marr. My question was going to be, is there someone from Alltel here who could tell us how they installed it? Odom. There are people from Alltel in the back but what I would like to do first is to have the rest of the public comment before Alltel addresses us. Otherwise, we are going to go back and forth. Wade: If I may, I'm Lynn Wade, 100 North Sang. I'm here tonight as a neighbor and not as an attorney but maybe I can help clarify some of this. This has become a little bit more than we can all get our minds around because there are so many issues. If I may, very quickly, on the question of whether or not the recent fiberoptic was placed upon private property. My understanding is that there was twenty-five foot waterline easement running east and west. The fiberoptic line, we feel, is placed south of that easement. Sufficiently so that I have lost a maple tree to it. I would hope that maybe Alltel could give us a survey of where their line actually is and this could be determined and then they can resolve that with the Sutherland's as may be appropriate. I think were all the confusion and the errors that have come before us on the FAA issue I would think as a matter of safety the new figure should be submitted and hopefully that would be approved. If it's not, the tower would come down. The other thing that I struggle with is exactly what was the Conditional Use? I think we pretty well have it outlined with an addition that there would be no substantial increase in traffic. Then we have a question, is the granting of a franchise agreement and/or the granting of co -location on this tower a violation of those Conditional Uses? Our position would be that it very well may be because you are going from one user to a question of how many and I can't answer that because we don't know in the neighborhood of how many people are now using the tower, how many others have applied for it, how many would be permitted to apply under co -location, this is information we don't have. That's about as succinctly as I can put it. I would note in terms of the increase of traffic, there have been two wrecks within one block of our house within the last sixty days. So there is certainly an increase in traffic up there. As you all know the road that approaches is not a standard City road. It's a narrow little curving winding road. I would assume that's one of the reasons that the Conditional Use in the front end said "no substantial increase in traffic." Odom: Mr. Wade were those wrecks utility trucks? • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 52 Wade: I can't answer that. One of them was a hit-and-run with one of our neighbors the other one my step -son happened to be a passenger in a car It was a pick-up truck and I don't know for what reason they were up there. Odom. Any other member of the audience like to address us with regard to whether or not we should have a public hearing for the revocation? Alltel would you like to make any statement at this time? Montgomery. I'm Rob Montgomery with Alltel. As far as being on Mr. Sutherland's property, we believe that we are within the City utility easement as depicted by the City's maps. As for the tower, that will be born out in all of the stuff with the FCC and the FAA. We believe that everything is legal on that. All of the stuff as far as back in the 1980's we really don't know and have all the records to back all of that up. Anything that we have done that can be undone, we will. If it's something we violate. Right now we don't think we have. Do you have any questions of us? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: I'm sure that there will be. Let me just make sure there is not anyone else that wishes to address us on this issue. I'm going to close the public comment portion of this part and ask members of the Commission if they have questions of staff or Alltel or of the landowners? Ma'am did you want to speak? M.Sutherland: Well can I ask a question of Alltel? Odom: Actually, if you would like to address a question, I would appreciate it if you would pose it to me and then as Chair I will direct the question to the appropriate party. Your name please? M.Sutherland: Martha Sutherland. I just wondered if Alltel has in fact had a survey made of that easement? Odom: It was my understanding that their statement was that they believe that they were within it but have you in fact had a survey made? Montgomery: No we have not. Odom. Okay. • C.Sutherland: You did make a statement that the Alltel line was within the utility easement just now. I suppose that's the issue that I'm differing with. • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 53 Odom. Mr. Sutherland, I don't know if this is the proper body to be in front of to make a determination as to whether or not something is in the right property or not I think perhaps maybe it does go to the larger issue of whether or not the Conditional Use is appropriate. Although, I don't know that one of the conditions of approval would be that all of the lines would be laid properly within. I'm not sure exactly what the Conditions of Approval were. I would suggest that you examine that grievance perhaps with a local attorney to see what your rights are with regard to determining whether or not they are in your easement or not. I think you may have a remedy that outside of the Planning Commissions authority. Absent a Condition of Approval that states that they are required to do a survey I'm not sure that we can make them do a survey. That's the problem that I've got there. Staff are you aware of anything that requires them to do a survey? Conklin: No. That's the problem I face too. I can't order a survey or pay for it by the Planning Division. We get a call once a month with regard to a dispute over a fence or something else is on someone's property. That's what it takes. It takes a professional surveyor. It's up to the property owner's that believe someone is trespassing to prove that they either are or they aren't. Odom: I do have perhaps a question of staff and of Alltel with regard to the statements that there are inconsistencies with regard to the height of the tower. Staff, is it your position that they are higher than what was originally allowed. I would like the question that was asked by Mr. Williams about did the footage include the antennae's on top of the tower. Conklin: I can read you the form that Alltel faxed to me today. It states, tower height 104 feet ground surface to top of tower including platform. Then it talks about cellular antennae's. I'm on page 9.45 the very last one. It says cellular antennae mount type, sector site, panel, tip height 104/on alpha. That's a question for Alltel to interpret what that means. Odom: Would you interpret that for us? Montgomery. Yes. That does generally include the height of the antennae's and that may be some of the reason for the variations in the height's over the years. There may have been different antenna's on the tower at that time. Yes, the tower height has to include your antennae height. Marr. There are two areas that have tip height on this report. One says 104 on alpha. One is 112. Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 54 Montgomery: That would be the tip of the antennae. Marr. Okay. So one is with the antennae and one is the tower itself? Montgomery. Right. Conklin: So the total height of the tower with antennae sticking up above the tower is 112 feet. Montgomery. Well I don't have that in front of me but if that is what that says that should be right. Conklin: Here. Why don't you take a look at it. Odom: Tim, while he's looking at that, is 112 feet what was permissible? Conklin: They talked about 125 foot tower at the 1988 meeting. So yes. Allen: As the new kid on the block and the teacher not the lawyer, I'm really struggling with why this comes before our body at all. It seems like a civil matter that should go through the courts. Odom: I think that some issues have been brought out with regard to surveys and so forth that may have to do with more private individual rights that they need to address at another body. However, Tim do you want to educate us? A Planning Commission does have the authonty and obligation to review a Conditional Use. See, Commissioner Allen a Conditional Use was granted for this tower and should there be non-compliance of that Conditional Use then we have to have a hearing before we revoke that Conditional Use and that's why we are here tonight to make a determination of whether or not there has been non-compliance with that Conditional Use. That is my understanding. Conklin: That is correct and typically we would have our conditions spelled out and I could tell you whether or not they are in compliance and we would have a revocation hearing. I find it very difficult going back to 1987 minutes and based on comments that were made during those meetings, especially with regard to no additional lines because when I read those minutes it talks about overhead power. The concern was about overhead power. Yes, it does say "no additional lines" but I guess I have a hard time believing that included no additional lines underground with the change in technology and everything. I just have a hard time with that. If you refer to page 9.15 in your packet the reason why it is before you is our City • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 55 Attorney believed and I do believe this also that he states at a minimum due process would require a hearing before the Planning Commission at which those who complain and the alleged offender may be heard. The Planning Commission would then decide whether or not there have been violations and may fashion a remedy or in the extreme case revoke the Conditional Use. I believe this has been the policy of Planning staff. Yes, that's a true statement. Typically it's clear-cut. We know that if they were required to plant that tree and they didn't plant the tree, it's clear. In this I find it very difficult. So, they are here before you this evening to present their evidence and if you believe that what was approved in 1987 that they are violating that, then have a public hearing in two weeks to determine remedies or to revoke their Conditional Use and require that their tower be removed. Odom: Did you follow that Commissioner Allen? Allen: Yes I did. Estes: Tim, in the material that you provided us with, you summarize the 1988 meeting minutes and that's at the bottom of page 9.1 and over at the top of 9.2. Your summary reads the Planning Director reported no FAA approval was required. Is that your opinion twelve years later, today? Conklin: Twelve years later? I would say "No." Based on the towers that have been approved, they have required FAA approval. I was Just giving you the facts that when the issue came up in 1988 the statement was made that the City contacted the FAA and they said "No approval was required." I think it's clear that it's required because of the documentation that was provided to me from Alltel with regard to the FAA clearance with Contel and based on the other towers that have been built in Fayetteville. Estes: We have no superintendency authority over the FAA of course so I ask this question for informational purposes only. Has this tower been approved by the FAA? Conklin: We do have a letter or document from the FAA approving the tower. However, it states 616 feet on that document. That's one of the issues that Mr. Williams has brought up. I can tell you that I have worked hard with Mr. Williams and Alltel to try to clarify this issue and I would hope and encourage Alltel to get a final answer from the FAA and if they need to reissue a permit that they go forward and get that taken care of. • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 56 Estes: Another question that I have is, are we... Let me ask this, I was going to ask are we all in agreement but that would be rather presumptuous I think so let me ask this. The line that Mr. Sutherland complains of, is it in a utility easement or is it in a City street or alley right-of-way? Conklin: It is within a utility easement. That's a good point because the franchise agreement referred to City right-of-way for streets and alleys. This is actually a general utility easement which is different from what that agreement that City Council approved. Estes: That was my next question, as I look at resolution 14-00 which is dated February 1, 2000, the Conditional Use approved by this Commission and the Franchise and License granted by the City Council requires that the communication cable be placed in the street and alley right-of-ways. Is there any authority for placing this communication cable in a utility easement? Conklin: My understanding in a general utility easement, all utilities can go within those easements. You brought up an interesting point, we have some developers recently that will list which utilities can go within the easements since deregulation you are going to have more than one phone company and they don't want all those different companies within their project. My understanding is a general utility easement that grants authority for all utilities to go within that easement. Estes: Wait just a moment, Mr. Sutherland. I have one other question. To clarify the issue where we are now is a determination of whether or not this communication cable is outside the utility easement or in the utility easement. Conklin: Yes. It's impossible for me or you to determine that without having someone do a survey. Estes: We don't have that information available to us? Conklin: No. That's the argument. Alltel is claiming that the line is in the utility easement. Mr. Sutherland is claiming that the line is outside the easement. Odom: I'm not so sure that is even really an issue that we can even address. Estes: My question was, I was trying to narrow the issues Commissioner Odom. Odom: Okay. Estes: Is that where we are then? • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 57 Conklin: I hate to make that statement with Mr. Wade and Mr. Williams out there because the other issue is this issue of co -location and additional antennae's on there and I know it complicates the issue but I think Mr. Wade stated that he's very concemed that back in 1987 that it only allowed Alltel to go up there and every time you allow another carrier to go up on that pole that you will have some traffic generated. Odom: I want to try to bring this back real quick because I don't think that complicates the issue, I think it simplifies it. I think that it's really all that we can be considering tonight is the determination as to whether or not these new items that have come before us from the action of the City Council, mainly the Franchise Agreement, number two the co -location, whether or not that has made enough difference with regard to the original Conditional Use that another Conditional Use or revocation hearing should be held. I think that's what we really need to be focusing on unless there is some item that under the original Conditional Use that requires to make sure that the lines were properly placed. I don't think that we can be discussing those issues. That's what I would like for us to focus next on. Whether or not this Commission feels as though two new ordinances, the Co -location Ordinance and the Franchise Agreement Ordinance significantly changes the underlying condition of approval to the point that we need to have a re -hearing on this Condition of Approval Ward: In August 1999 we worked real hard and approved Ordinance number 4178 and it had to do with the impact associated with the development of wireless communication facilities in the City of Fayetteville. It said "Whereas the City of Fayetteville desires to provide a range of location for wireless communication facilities in all zones." It also goes on to say "Whereas the City of Fayetteville encourages co -location and site sharing at the new and existing wireless communication facilities; and Whereas the City of Fayetteville desires to enhance the ability of providers of telecommunication services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently." So I think those three things right there on the new ordinance that we passed last year really makes us think, what's the point of this meeting. Odom. I think there is a point to this meeting, they have some questions and they have the right to do it. To go along with what you have said Commissioner Ward, staff is it correct that any cell tower or tower erected in Fayetteville is under Conditional Use? Do you have some by right? Conklin: Some are by right that have been installed. Most are by Conditional Use. • • • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 58 Odom. Conklin: Odom: Sutherland: Odom: Estes: Most have been by Conditional Use that I have been involved with. Especially with the cellular and PCS service. I think that if we stated that the Co -location Ordinance that was passed required a re -hearing on the underlying Conditional Use that we are here about tonight we would be requiring it on every Conditional Use that we have granted in the past. I don't think that was the intent or purpose of the ordinance. Any other further comment on that? Does anybody have any comment with regard to the Franchise Agreement? If I may make one more statement about it. Mr. Sutherland, typically once we have closed the floor to public discussion or the public hearing we don't go back.and forth. Otherwise, we find ourselves here until one or two in the morning. You solicited this remark so here we go. The Franchise Agreement provides for the communication cable in the street and alley right-of-ways and that is my concern is that this communication cable is in a utility easement. Then there is the fact question which we are not prepared or qualified or are unable to address and that is whether or not that communication cable lies outside that utility easement. That's my only comment. You asked for comments regarding the Franchise resolution and now you have the benefit of my comment. Odom. And we're much smarter because of it. I would point out that I do think that the Franchise Agreement ought to be looked into with regard to a civil resolution of this person's case. I think that there may be some real issues with regard to whether or not Alltel followed the Franchise. I don't think that goes to the underlying Conditional Use. Montgomery Odom: I could probably clear that up if you let me say a word or two. Well, I didn't let him say anything so I'm not going to let you say anything. I'm not going to punish you because of that, what we do doesn't really have any effect on that Franchise Agreement anyway, I don't believe. The only other item which I feel may need to be addressed and I'm wondering whether or not Alltel will be willing to do it on their own, is with regard to clearing this matter up with the FAA with regard to whether or not that was a typographical error with the 661 feet or however much it was. I am specifically asking you, would you be willing to clear that matter up? • Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 59 Montgomery. We will request the FAA review the license for that tower. Odom: For me that would be the only remedy for which I would see that we would have the authority to enforce if we ultimately did have a re -hearing on the Conditional Use. I would ask that once you do that that you make the staff available as well as the surrounding landowners. Is there any further discussion? Is there any underlying Motion? You don't need a motion. If you don't move to have a re- hearing within the next two weeks then it's null and void. Mr. Williams? Williams: May I ask a question? May I make a statement? Odom: Yes. Williams. 1 appreciate it. Odom. Please go to the podium. Williams: I would like also to have some clarification on the difference between a utility easement which seems to me to imply that all kinds of utilities could go in that easement or an easement for a water line. I would like to know if the people who are in the water department would allow anyone else to get on their easement. I would like that as a question. Odom: Okay. I don't know if that goes to what we are talking about here but staff just for general comment, when you have given a water easement does that mean that you can do whatever you want to on that easement? If you can go over those requirements briefly. Conklin: I did ask our Engineering Division what kind of easement that was and they told me that it was a general utility easement. Williams: It's what sir? Conklin: They told me that it was a general utility easement on the plat. Shown on the plat. Yes, there is a water line in there, that's my understanding but that it was also a general utility easement. That's what I was told. Odom: What is allowed under a general utility easement? Conklin: My understanding, all utilities can go within that easement. Planning Commission August 14, 2000 Page 60 Williams: I would like confirmation of that. Odom. Then I would invite you Mr. Williams to visit with City Engineering. Is that who he would need to direct those questions to? Conklin: City Engineering or the City Attorney's office with regard to easement law. Probably the City Attorney's office has more knowledge on general utility easements. Odom: Alright. Is there any further discussion? Are there any motions before us? Seeing none there will not be a re -hearing two weeks for now for lack of a motion. Staff do we have any further items on tonight's agenda? Conklin: There are no other items on the agenda. I would like to make one announcement. The General Plan Land Use Update Subcommittee will be meeting August 24, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. in room 326. Odom. We're adjourned. • PacP 2 -m -or a .n,;(1 L6 c02+5 Vti rU,e_ grY1 CU fl - P 'Drs C&c e.rC a - m� S Co n c-dO` l� ru.�c�� l-i� 1-2z 1-cx� Ob 2t 1 00 L5 01cc1L'll�b r�k tin . MOTION �S tSJ SECOND 0/ /Card OJLcn D. Bunch ,% v \/ B. Estes 7 y �/ L. Hoffman O �f12X± Q,y �e,(jfi` - r ,_ - S. Hoover y Y N. Allen 7 D. Marr C. Odom Y P 1 Shackelford y (dose y — L. Ward )1 `�/ Y ACTION I -VSs& 0G'aed VOTE 1-0-b I i-0 gPaS0( Cj -o-C/ /� ( nSA-r kCbL c d-4/1 t V cs6 (i esCab W icxxv 9 kir oLu,r (YC L • ciLti s_vk LsD (moi C'T-C �l _ co ,141 •r,0i jy --1 I 15 rCh h loris Lsta U,r-r Cordch OD 2C skt b 1-l0 S Cu OCH I Lairiz 1 U I Untilth5 en CO �.� •t o MOTION -t- t-,rC Wand 's SECOND Ci,0(1-Th U 'd SD9Ch D. Bunch B. Estes V Y Y L. Hoffman - .-aft-i- —R - cbc_. y ,,r S. Hoover V N N. Allen y D. Marr YY C. Odom �� Shackelford 1 ! L. Ward Y (\/ / ACTION (%-t cc 5secl Ivy Cil VOTE S-0-0 1 -4 -co F -o-0 9 • • ,%(-u(b Cil op -z.i Lrst to clan 1-F -�i t_s--)D Prc �sr �dn-`-lions no.zl *Cflo_n , _Ln PL -D co -25s UJB 11iCurizi pPL-cl C rs�1i-4-i NI 4 00 (A7E-IOU MOTION Max r^ 1-AcuCC SECOND Ftnch I D. Bunch \S�Q� Y B. Estes 1 / L. Hoffman apC "t 3SQ - 3ic,l-1-\ S. Hoover N. Allen Y D. Marr `� y 7 C. Odom ` (j,js--ka -ln CI I -rl Shackelford / L. Ward / Y ACTION pc S � o�SSed VOTE 1— 1-0 el _ 1-0