Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-25 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on September 25, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN FP 00-3.00: Final Plat (Summersby, pp 410) Approved Page 3 RZ 00-22.00: Rezoning (Massey, pp 522) Forwarded Page 10 Reconsideration of LS 00-25.00: Lot Split (Krueger, pp 225) Approved Page 14 LS00-25.00: Lot Split (Krueger, pp 225) Approved Page 17 AD 00-32.00: Administrative Item Forwarded (Amendment to Ordinance #4178) Page 23 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT • Nancy Allen Bob Estes Don Bunch Conrad Odom Loren Shackelford Lee Ward Sharon Hoover Lorel Hoffman Don Marr • STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Sheri Metheney Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 2 • • Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the September 11, 2000 meeting. Odom: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the September 25, 2000 meeting of the Planning Commission. The first item we are going to go over tonight is the approval of the minutes of the September 11, 2000 meeting. Do we have any corrections or notations? Seeing none, those minutes will stand approved as they are. Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 3 FP 00-3.00: Final Plat (Summersby, pp 410) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located south of Meandering Way. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 40.23 acres with 52 lots proposed. Odom: The first item that we have on tonight's agenda is a Final Plat FP 00-3.00, submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located south of Meandering Way. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 40.23 acres with 52 lots proposed. Staff's recommendation is approval subject to nine Conditions of Approval. We did get an addendum with those nine Conditions of Approval. Do we have a signed Conditions of Approval? Conklin: I'm not sure. Odom: Do we have any additional Conditions of Approval? Conklin: No. The only issue that was remaining was the location of the sidewalks. Our Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator is here this evening with regard to that recommendation. We do have signed Conditions. Odom: I'll ask the applicant to go ahead and state for the record who you are and let's go over the Conditions of Approval. Brackett: I'm Chris Brackett. I'm with Jorgensen and Associates. I'm here on behalf of Mark Foster. As you know this is the final plat. I guess the only major issue, I believe, is the sidewalk. We have met with Chuck Rutherford and Kim Hesse on the site and I believe we worked out a compromise as far as that's concerned and it shows a four foot sidewalk on the uphill sides of all three east, north and south streets and that is due to the grade. This development is on the side of the hill mainly. The reduction is only two feet but to grade out the additional two feet would cause quite a bit of extra grading and would take out a few more trees but some of those trees are questionable as to the condition they are in. Right now it's mainly due to the grade. I guess that's all I have on that. Odom: There is a notation in Condition of Approval number one, the Planning Commission determination of the requested variance for sidewalk placement throughout the subdivision as shown on the final plat In order to limit the grading onto the lots the applicant is proposing that several lots have four feet of green space between the curb and sidewalk. The remaining lots will have the required six feet of green space. Then there is the notation, see the table on the Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 4 • • lower right hand corner of the plat. The Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator and Tree Landscape Administrator are in support of the proposed plan. Is that correct staff? Conklin: That is correct. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Okay. Do you have any other presentation you would like to make at this time. Let me do this. Let me open the floor to public discussion and ask is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this final plat? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the Planning Commission. Ward: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Ward. MOTION: Ward: We have been out there and looked at the sidewalk situation and since the staff is going to recommend approval for you Chris, I will go ahead and go along with that. I don't think it's something we want to do very often. We have our policies and regulations and they make good sense to me and everyone else on the Commission. We know you are trying to save some trees out there and I will go ahead and recommend approval of FP 00-3.00 for Summersby. AMENDMENT: Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I will second with just a friendly amendment to that motion. There has been discussion about where sidewalks are sorely needed in the City that are being put in subdivisions that may be less used than in areas such as along College Avenue. I would like to leave the applicant the option to come back to the Planning Commission if the sidewalks are not constructed when and if the sidewalk ordinance changes and if there is an escrow fund to be donated to. I would like to leave you that option not to have to construct sidewalks on both sides of these cul-de-sac streets if you should choose that. Otherwise, the motion is just as per staff recommendation. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 5 Odom: Let me make a clarification of what we have before us. We have before us a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve FP 00-3.00. In addition to that we have an amendment to allow the applicant to come forward at a future date to ask that the money for the sidewalks be placed into an escrow account? Hoffman: If such an account is ever established. If that is established that should be an option available to the applicant should he not be at that phase of construction at that time. Odom. Do we have a second to the amendment? Shackelford: I'll second. Odom. Okay. We have a motion and a second for an amendment to the underlying motion. Any discussion with regard to the amendment? Marr: Mr. Chairman? • Odom. Yes, Commissioner Marr? Marr: I just have a question for Commissioner Hoffman on that amendment. Help me understand on that amendment, why you believe we need to have that? Hoffman: I understand that there is discussion going on at the staff level and council level to use monies that are typically spent by the subdivision developers for streets such as cul-de-sac streets that are not heavily trafficked where one sidewalk might suffice on that street and in lieu of building sidewalks on both sides of the streets, staff you can correct me if I'm wrong but this is the gist of the discussion, that the extra money be placed into an escrow fund. It's not an ordinance. It's not been proposed by anybody officially but should it ever come about, I think it's a good idea. I would like to leave this applicant the opportunity to take advantage of that. Conklin: There has been discussion with regard to looking at alternatives to actually building a sidewalk if it's deemed that it's not necessary or appropriate to build in certain locations to have the possibility of placing that into funds. There has not been an ordinance that has been proposed but I'm aware that staff and several alderman have discussed that issue. Odom. I would like to go on record in speaking against the amendment. Here is why. I • think what we have right now is nothing more than a twinkle in someone's eye to Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 6 • • work on and develop a plan that is going to be months, if not years, in the making. I think if we allow for this kind of amendment and this kind of offer to subdivisions that are coming through, I think it's just going to put a lot of extra work into what the developer does and may delay what the developer is going to do because they want to fall into that exception. Correct me if I'm wrong Tim, I don't think that they were even talking about not requiring that subdivisions do it, it was really more designed and designated for people that are doing singular lot splits where there is a coming from nowhere and going to nowhere sidewalk and that's where the problem was sort of creeping up. Am I correct? Conklin: That is correct. The issue of the lot splits and having the sidewalk being placed on a piece of property that the adjacent properties will not develop in a long time. That was the issue. In this situation, we will have a sidewalk that will be continuous and will connect. That was a requirement at preliminary plat level. Once again this is the final plat and basically they are held to all the ordinances that were in place when this came through the first time. Odom. Further, let me just state, that I can foresee under no circumstances in which I wouldn't think that this neighborhood wouldn't be better off with sidewalks. Hoffman: On both sides? Odom: Where they are currently planned. Conklin: That discussion originally, probably five or six years ago, we only had sidewalks on one side of the street so there was a decision that was made years ago with regard to sidewalks and that we wanted sidewalks on both sides of the street. That was a decision that was made by City Council. Hoffman: I guess I missed... Marr: Mr. Chairman? Odom. Commissioner Man? Marr: I guess my only comment, and I agree with your comment regarding the amendment, I would have difficulty supporting the amendment only because I believe that we are creating an escrow account opportunity for something that doesn't even exist yet today. I'm not sure we want to open up a can of worms in doing that for things until we have an ordinance or direction that says this is something you may have some leeway with. I guess I'm just not sure it's not Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 7 • more defined or that it needs to be more defined. I'm not sure I would want to give up two sides of the street based on the ordinance requirements today. Hoffman: That was not my intent to give up two sides of the street but I thought that I heard in our agenda session on Thursday that in some cases these cul-de-sac type situations, I'm not talking about the through streets in subdivisions at all but dust the cul-de-sac situations where you have short portions of the street. It might not be necessary where you don't have through traffic. Conklin: That really hasn't been a problem with the new subdivisions. Everybody is aware that there will be sidewalks on both sides of the street. Once again, if City Council decides and Planning Commission decides that it is more appropriate to have them on one side of the street, the ordinance would have to be amended but that's what we went from. We went from subdivisions with sidewalks that would just go around the cul-de-sac and end to now requiring sidewalks on both sides so that would be a change in policy for the City of Fayetteville. Hoffman: Well, if that's the feeling of the Commission, I don't have a big problem withdrawing the motion but I would like to see us move in the direction of putting sidewalk money into the more appropriate and more needed spots. That was the spirit of the motion and I'll withdraw it and we can go and I will just second the original motion. Odom. It's not necessary for you to withdraw your motion, you may have support for it. We might as well just vote on it since we have it before us. Hoffman: That's fine too. Odom: Any further discussion on it? Marc I agree with the spirit of the motion. Odom. Let's move forward on it. Call the roll on the amendment. ROLL CALL ON AMENDMENT: Upon roll call the amendment to the motion for FP 00-3.00 fails on a vote of 2-6-0. Odom. I do agree with you but the motion, at this time, is premature. • Bunch: Mr. Chairman? Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 8 • • Odom: Yes, Commissioner. Bunch: In the original motion, is that basically addressing the variance because I never heard the word variance used in the motion or does that just include the variance described in article 1 of Conditions of Approval? Ward: All Conditions of Approval and staff comments. Bunch: I also have a question for staff. Odom: Okay, Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: In the areas where the green space between the curb and sidewalk has been reduced from six feet to four feet, was that predicated by requiring two feet of green space between the sidewalk and retaining walls should they go in or is this just arbitrarily to allow addressing the grade? Conklin: My understanding, it's due to the grade of the lots and not the retaining walls. Our requirement is to have the sidewalk setback. The reasons that they have given are that the grading of the subdivision and lots is too steep in order to get the sidewalks put in properly. They can probably address that better than I can. Brackett: The reason for the comment conceming the retaining wall in our discussion with Chuck Rutherford, the way that the lots are graded now, he can see people coming into the lot and seeing right where the slope begins putting in a retaining wall and then putting in landscaping. He wanted to make it clear on the final plat that that's not in accordance with the City ordinance that the note on the final plat is that City ordinance as it is, it's not a special condition just for this subdivision. The ordinance is that retaining walls have to be two feet from the right-of-way. He just asked that it be stated on the final plat just to maybe avoid some confusion when these lots are developed. Bunch: In effect what we are doing here is we are allowing two feet less grading out of the right-of-way. We are not shifting the sidewalk over two feet to accommodate the green space, we are actually restricting the right-of-way by two feet? The grading out of the right-of-way? Brackett: We are reducing the grading into the lots on that side by two feet but the sidewalk is going to be two feet closer to the curb. The right-of-way hasn't changed, if I'm understanding the question. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 9 • • Conklin: The question is, are you going to grade the entire 50 feet right-of-way out or is it going to be reduced by two feet by not having the sidewalk setback? Are you going to have the sidewalk and then as you go up the lot the grade of the lot is going to go right up against the sidewalk. Brackett: There is a one foot behind the sidewalk that has to be graded out but that will not reach the right-of-way if I understand the question. There will be nine feet behind the curb will be what's graded out. There is an additional two feet there until you reach the right-of-way. There will be from where it's graded two feet until you reach the right-of-way. I believe that's your question. Bunch: So that means if retaining walls have to be put in, will they be on the property owners property or will they be on the right-of-way? Brackett: Yes sir. They will have to be two feet on the property owners property off the right-of-way. That's the City ordinance. Ward: That's regardless of what happens with the sidewalk. Petrie: They should also be ten feet from City utilities. That will be added to the plat. Brackett: Yes. I have added that. Odom: Commissioner Marr, did that answer your question? Bunch: Commissioner Bunch. I'm not Commissioner Marr. Odom: I'm sorry. You guys need to change seats. The Don's. Do we have any further discussion on the underlying motion? Let's vote on the underlying motion to approve FP 00-3.00 subject to all staff comments and granting the variance request as outlined in number one of the Conditions of Approval. Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call FP 00-3.00 passes on a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 10 • • RZ 00-22.00: Rezoning (Massey, pp 522) was submitted by James Key, Architect on behalf of James Mitchell Massey for property located at 28 S. University. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The request is to rezone to R-3, High Density Residential. Odom: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is a rezoning request RZ 00-22.00 submitted by James Key, Architect on behalf of James Mitchell Massey for property located at 28 S. University. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The request is to rezone to R-3, High Density Residential. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the request of rezoning based on the findings as included as part of their report. Staff are there any further Conditions of Approval? Conklin: There are no further Conditions of Approval. Odom: Mr. Key? Identify yourself for the record and make your presentation. Key: My name is James Key, architect. I'm here on behalf of the owner Mr. Massey to request rezoning of this partial lot. As was stated it's a .186 acres. It's the south 80 feet of the original lot 13 of the County Court plat. That lot had been split some time in the past with a commercial development on the north 42 feet of it which currently houses the Razorback Laundry and convenience store next to a small computer outlet and Wes' Barbeque. You are all probably familiar with it. This property currently houses a single-family residence which is unoccupied. The owner has recently obtained this property and would like to look at downgrading this zoning from a commercial lot to a R-3 High Density Residential which, in our opinion, is compatible with the neighborhood. I think the staff has agreed. I would be glad to field any questions you might have. Odom: Before we take questions, Mr. Key, let me ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this rezoning request. Please come forward at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT: Thompson: Hello. My name is Ken Thompson. Two years ago, this time of year, I stopped in and visited with my old bible teacher, Earline Shoemaker who lived at this house and residence. I was doing a little campaigning and I was asking for her vote and she questioned me pretty closely about the candidate I was representing. I took the opportunity to ask her about her house there because 1 was kind of curious and she said it was built in 1836. It's the remainder of a ten pen house that has been Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 11 there. I guess she and her husband came in the forties or fifties and lived there probably fifty years or more. She passed away, I guess, last year at the age of 99. I was thinking that this has stood around for a good many years. I don't know if anybody of note ever lived there but somebody was a neighbor of early notables of Fayetteville. It dust seems like a postage stamp size property. It was cared for and looked after by a series of residents. She said it was the second oldest house in Fayetteville, it probably wasn't always in Fayetteville - Fayetteville has grown around it, after the Ridge House. She looked into it and told me what she knew. Sometimes when these things are gone we kind of regret that they have passed away and left for ruin or whatever. Archibald Yell's house or the Waxhaw's Estate. People talked about it until it was no longer salvageable and have moved his law office and use it and it's kind of cherished. I would think that perhaps, it's been a nice little house and perhaps can serve a hundred years more for a retired couple like the Shoemaker's who came from Ohio and settled down here. I guess you could drag it down and grade it and make a parking lot or some more housing for students which is probably needed but it's served well and it's kind of a nice little house. I think it ought to be preserved. That could serve as a family residence for someone. That's all I have to say. Odom: Thank you Mr. Thompson. Any other member of the audience like to address us on this rezoning request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments of the Planning Commission. Shackelford: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Shackelford. Shackelford: Prior to getting started, I'm going to have a conflict of interest on this so if you would abstain me from the vote. Odom: Thank you. Ward: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Commissioner Ward. Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 12 MOTION: Ward: I looked at down -zoning this from commercial to residential and this seems like a very good area for multi -family and I see next to it C-1 on one side and I-1 on the Allen: Odom: Hoffman: Odom: Hoffman: Key: Hoffman: Key: other side so I will go ahead and recommend approval of RZ 00-22.00. I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward, second by Commissioner Allen to approve Rezoning 00-22.00. I'll remind members of audience that the rezoning request is nothing more then a recommendation for City Council. This will now go before the City Council with either our recommendation that we approve this item or if it's denied the applicant has the right to appeal that to the City Council for action there as well. Any further discussion. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner. I have a question for the applicant. Have you looked into the possibility of saving this house. Even as old as it is, it could be a very significant historical home. I personally have not been contracted by the owners to look at the restoration potentials of this property although I have toured the property and granted it was a very fine home in it's day. I'm not sure of the history of when it was built and the history since that time but the house is very much in disrepair at the current time. Considering the industrial zoning adjacent to it, the high density residential directly adjacent to it across the street, I don't think it's practical to look at developing this as a fine single-family home. The redevelopment cost would be considerable for a single-family residence which would be, I think in the owners and my opinion, not really desirable considering the location of the site. Could it be incorporated into the apartment design in some way? I don't believe that it could due to the proximity of how the house is sited on the site. It's basically centered and pushed to the front. It sits ten to twelve feet within the setbacks. If it were to be developed as it is, with additional development added to it, we would have a problem with parking and access to the site because currently it is not positioned such that a drive access could be obtained around it to get parking to the rear and it's positioned so far to the west, the front of the lot, that there is no potential to get parking to the west of it, in • Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 13 • front of it. I don't think that it's feasible. Granted it could be a nice residence but considering the commercial zoning of the lot and considering the neighborhood, I don't think the owners considered it as a practical measure at this point considering the redevelopment cost and the inherent lot value in the neighborhood. Hoffman: I take it from your statement then that there is no historical marker attached or any official historic designation attached to the structure? Key: Not that I or the owners are aware of. I. was not aware as the gentleman stated it was potentially the second oldest house in Fayetteville. I have had the pleasure of working on some restorations and historic districts, particularly the Davis Brumfeld house which was dated 1852. I find it hard to believe that this house is older than that. It very well could be, it does have some fine detailing in it. As I stated, it is very much in disrepair. It would probably cost more, at this point, to try to save it and restore it than it would be to tear it down and build a new single- family residence on this lot. However, considering the proximity in the neighborhood and various other things, I don't think it's feasible to even do that at this point. The reason we are here requesting the rezoning also is that it's not practical to be developed as a commercial lot unfortunately. It's too small. It's twelve foot in grade above the adjacent commercial property which had been developed quite some time in the past. I would like, if at all possible Ms. Hoffman, to try to save this house and incorporate it into this development, unfortunately given the circumstances, I don't think that that's practical. Hoffman: Well knowing that but also knowing that rezoning is not a demolition permit, it does not equal a demolition permit, I will go ahead and support the request for rezoning. Key: Thank you. Odom: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ 00-22.00 passes upon a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Shackelford abstaining. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 14 • Reconsideration of LS 00-25.00: Lot Split (Krueger, pp 225) was submitted by Jim Meineke for property located at 3169 Skillern Road. The request is to reconsider the conditions of approval for LS 00-25 which was approved August 14, 2000. Odom: Item number three on tonight's agenda is -aLot Split request LS 00-25.00, submitted by Jim Meineke for property located at 3169 Skillern Road. The request is to reconsider the conditions of approval for LS 00-25 which was approved August 14, 2000. I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Meineke: I'm Jim Meineke. I think what I would request at this time is a motion almost identical to the one that was past last time with the addition that the sidewalk be moved to the area that has been discussed between Chuck Rutherford, Mr. Conklin and myself, which is more satisfactory. The other thing I would like to say is, I would like to encourage all of you to consider what you touched on on the first item on the agenda. This is my second sidewalk that I built in the City, the first one was about eight years ago. At the time, I expressed some desire to have that sidewalk money used someplace else and there was simply no mechanism for that. We built that in front of my business and it's not used which I suspected. After the last meeting that I came here, I watched the sidewalk a lot more closely. Pedestrians do go down to Highway 265 every day and they go right past my sidewalk, it's too far away and it doesn't go anywhere. It's not connected on either side. It has been unused and I think the City is missing an opportunity to take that money and put it somewhere else. In this case, it's a little bit of the same feeling. I think this one has a better chance of being used but I would prefer to take that money and use it somewhere else where I know it would be used on a regular basis and right away. That being said, if the motion is similar to last time, we locate this sidewalk in the position that we have discussed, I would be glad to do that. Odom: Let me ask real quick. Staff, is there an agreement with regard to the location of the sidewalk? Conklin: Staff has met with Mr. Meineke on site and we have walked the actual location of where the sidewalk would go. Yes, we are in agreement with that. The original condition of approval required it to be placed back at the right-of-way line with a ten foot green space. This will allow, if you reconsider this approval, will allow the sidewalk to vary from that requirement and to be placed in front of the landscaping, in front of the applicant's in-law's house and actually wind the sidewalk through a wooded area over to our Fayetteville City Park to the east. • Odom: Staff, do we first have to vote to grant the reconsideration? Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 15 Conklin: Odom: Conklin: Yes. Then we would restate a lot split motion at that point in time? Yes. I would recommend that. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me ask first, is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Bunch: Odom. MOTION: Bunch: Shackelford: Odom: Marr: Conklin: Seeing none, I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions, comments or a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Bunch. I move we reconsider LS 00-25.00. I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, a second by Commissioner Shackelford to grant the reconsideration. Any discussion? Mr. Chairman? In reading through the minutes, I thought we had discussion on the placement of this sidewalk but I don't see anything in the minutes. Can somebody refresh my memory about why we didn't address this at the original approval or if we did, what was the discussion? We did and I apologize you had in your packet the Conditional Use minutes, not the Lot Split minutes. That's our fault. We got you the wrong set of minutes on this project. There was discussion on it with regard to what the Master Street Plan did require and that is a minor arterial street and requires 35 feet from centerline, a ten foot green space and six foot sidewalk. At that time we discussed the issue of building the sidewalk now or delaying it and taking a letter of credit or money in escrow and then actually building it when the sidewalks are built further to the • Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 16 east, which is Kirby Walker's. He has received approval for a lot spht from this Planning Commission. Also, in between the Walker's and Mr. Meineke, there is a city park. The City would participate in the future of building the sidewalk to connect. After it was approved Mr. Meineke contacted our office and informed us that his in-laws were not agreeable to have the sidewalk with the ten foot green space and the reason is because that sidewalk would be way far back into their yard. There is existing landscaping and trees that were planted years ago. I went out there with Chuck Rutherford and Mr. Meineke and we walked it and we looked at, if you did build a sidewalk, where the most logical place would be for that sidewalk. Of course they wanted it in front of the landscaping and so we worked our a compromise to keep it back off of the street curb as far as possible but keep it in front of the landscaping and then bring it back even further off the curb as you go to the east and then eventually connect it into where the city park is located. That's what we looked at. Basically we were told, here at the City that this lot split, they would not be able to proceed with it unless there was some type of compromise with regard to the location of the sidewalk and after going out there and looking at it with the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator, it does seem reasonable to place the sidewalk in front of their landscaping. Odom. Any further discussion on the reconsideration? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion for Reconsideration of LS 00-25.00 passes on a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 17 • • LS 00-25.00: Lot Split (Krueger, pp 225) was submitted by Jim Meineke for property located at 3169 Skillern Road The request is to reconsider the conditions of approval for LS 00-25 which was approved August 14, 2000. Odom. Now we have before the Lot Split LS 00-25.00. Bunch: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes. Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: Since we do not have a copy of that lot split in front of us, I don't know exactly how to approach this on amending which particular article. I know that we need to change the article that addressed the sidewalk location. Conklin: Sure. It's condition number four. It basically states "Staff has required sidewalk. construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum ten foot green space, a minimum six foot sidewalk along Skillern Road. We need to amend that to state that... Odom: Do you have the Conditions of Approval there? Conklin: Yes I do. Odom. Let me just have those and I'll just read those into the record since none of us have those in front of us. Are we striking number four in it's entirety and replacing it with this language here? Bunch: We haven't made a motion yet. Odom. Let me just read the Conditions of Approval that are before us on LS 00-25.00. Number one, Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use allowing a tandem lot which is what we have. Number two, proof of filed easement signed by property owner's association allowing access and utilities to the new lot. A signed easement has been provided, however, it has not been filed. Item number three, the new residence to be located on the 2.068 acre tract shall connect to the public sanitary sewer system. Item number four, which is the one that we are discussing is, Planning Commission determination of a waiver of the subdivision regulations requiring the construction of a sidewalk at the time of approval. The applicant is requesting to build a sidewalk at such time that the sidewalks are built along Skillern. There is no time frame indicating when Skillern Road will be approved. Staff has required sidewalk construction in accordance with the current Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 18 standards to include a minimum ten foot green space with a minimum six foot sidewalk along Skillern Road. Item number five, payment of park fees in the amount of $470. Item number six, Plat Review and Subdivision comments, which includes the written staff comments mailed to the applicant and/or his representatives and all comments from the utility representatives. Item number seven, staff approval of final detailed plan specifications and calculations where applicable for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets both public and private, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the Plat Review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval All permits shall comply with the City's current requirements. Those are the Conditions of Approval of LS 00-25.00. Conklin: Chairman Odom? Just one other thing, Planning Commission did approve in that motion to take money into escrow for 150% of the cost of improvement and to delay that until the City needs that sidewalk built. Odom: Either build it now or give us 100%? • Conklin: 150% of the estimated cost. Odom: 150% of estimated cost. Okay. Bunch: Mr. Chairman? Odom: Yes Commissioner Bunch. Bunch: I have a question for the applicant. Odom: Go ahead. Bunch: If we reconsider this and allow relocating the sidewalk would you be building the sidewalk now or are you still wanting to put the money in escrow to build it later. • Meineke: What I would really like to do is to put the money up and let Mr. Rutherford, whenever he comes forward at any time, if there is any delay a few weeks would be a token that I could give to my in-laws in trying to work with them. The sidewalk location is fine with them. Any delay that I could buy, I would go for that certainly even if it's a small amount of time. I understand that there is probably going to be sidewalks added in that area fairly soon and we would expect to put them in at least by then if not right away. If I could buy a little bit of Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 19 time, that would be wonderful. Odom: You understand that by buying a little bit of time is going to cost you 150%? Meineke: Money has never been an object. Odom: That was approved but I guess we still had the problem of the placement. Meineke: Really what I would be asking for, at this point, is the same thing that was approved before only agreeing to put the sidewalk at the new location that we have discussed. Odom. Okay. Bunch: With the proposed relocation of the sidewalk does that in any way affect the time frame of other sidewalks being built on City property and how does it affect the alignment of sidewalks lining up with the adjacent park property? Conklin: The Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator, when we met out there we discussed how to • bring that sidewalk back out to provide a ten foot green space on the City Park property. It is planned to meet that standard to the east and to tie into that future sidewalk. Bunch: Any idea about time frame? Conklin: Once again, the sidewalks were delayed with regard to Kirby Walker's lot split, as soon as that lot sells and there is a building permit, that sidewalk will go in at that time. We would be looking at putting the sidewalk in and having the City possibly putting the sidewalk in at the park. That way you would have a continuous sidewalk from Brookbury Crossing almost all the way up to Savannah. It will provide access from Brookbury to the City Park. Marr: Mr. Chair? I guess I just have a question for the City also. Odom: Commissioner Bunch, are you finished? Bunch: I am now. Odom: Go ahead Commissioner Marr. • Marc Sony. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 20 • • Odom: That's alright. Marr: My only concem is to make sure the City is not concerned about setting any type of precedent of working with one property owner and I just don't want to open up a can of worms where there are sidewalk zig-zags all over the City because we are trying to accommodate an in-law. No disrespect Mr. Meineke. My concern is do you feel comfortable we are not creating anything we are going to be dealing with on an ongoing basis. Conklin: As always, I tend to want to make sure we meet all the ordinance requirements. In this case, the alternative is to have no sidewalk and no lot split. With regard to Skillern Road, it's not on our CIP and I don't think it's going to be widened probably for fifteen or twenty years. There is a whole generation of children that will be able to use this sidewalk between the two subdivisions and once they are built they can get over to the park and provide a safe place for pedestrians I'm recommending it. I think it's a good compromise. Going out there, it does, without having the road widened at this time, it does place the sidewalk pretty much inside their front yard and within the landscaping that is up along the street. I can understand their concerns too. Odom: Personally, I think there ought to be an automatic in-law exception to everything. I have the good fortune of living with my in-laws in the same town so I understand and sympathize with your position. I think that this kind of goes more to the heart of what Commissioner Hoffman was talking about at the beginning of the program, we are dealing with a tandem lot split. Hoffman: I don't know if I dare make another motion about that. Marr: I may support it now. Odom: It's one of those things that you want to hear on a case by case basis and that's why I think this is a good compromise in that regard. Go ahead you can come back up to the microphone. You are still on the hot seat. Meineke: This may be a little far fetched but I wouldn't mind adding on there, if by some scenario of this twinkling of an eye comes to a reality, it would be nice just to tack on there that if Mr. Rutherford so desired and a slush fund came into existence that they could use my money anywhere they want. Odom: If you want try to field that one again. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 21 • • Hoffman: I would like to point out something. If this did come about, I would assume anybody could come and appeal that without me specifying that in a motion. Conklin: Typically you have ten days to file an appeal. With regard to this one, originally, just so you are aware I did have Mr. Meineke file an appeal with the City Council. After he filed that appeal we did go out there with Chuck and look at the conditions and therefore asked him to come back before the Commission and modify that Condition of Approval Pretty much when you approve a development there are ten days for the City Alderman or the applicant to appeal your decision. I try not to keep on bringing things back to you. Hoffman: I know. I guess after a new ordinance has passed that might materially affect a project, an Alderman can bring forward and appeal without coming back to Planning Commission or something like that. Isn't there a vehicle in our Bylaws or Ordinances for that? Conklin: Hoffman: Ward: MOTION: Bunch: Just like the Preliminary Plat you approved earlier this evening with Summersby, they are required to meet all the ordinances that are currently in effect at that time. Our ordinances do change. We have at least two committees looking at two different ordinances right now that have proposed changes. We don't go back and require those developments to comply with those changed ordinances. I try to be reasonable and look and see how to bring things back. I guess on this one if he never filed the lot split and he wanted to file a new lot split a year from now, he could do that and come under whatever regulations we have in affect at that time. Well I tried. My feelings on this is that I'm glad we kind of worked out a compromise on the placement of the sidewalk because it was really going to impact your in-laws with where we were requiring the placement of it. I really feel like there is a big demand right now for that sidewalk to be in ASAP there is a lot of traffic out there, kids going from one place and the other, seeing their friends from one subdivision to the other one. Personally, I would like to see the thing get built as fast as possible and hopefully we can connect the other sidewalks out there That's the main thing I see out there. I think there is a big demand for a sidewalk out there right now. I move that we re -approve LS 00-25.00 with the amending of condition number four to allow variance sidewalk location per agreement with City staff. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 22 Allen: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion and a second to approve LS 00-25.00 subject to all staff comments with the restructuring of item number four to allow for the construction Ward: Odom: of the sidewalk pursuant to the agreement between the staff and the applicant. Will that also include for money in lieu to escrow for 150% of the cost? Yes. Since that was part of the original motion. Okay. Any discussion with regard to the motion? Call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LS 00-25.00 is approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 23 AD 00-32.00: Administrative Item (Amendment to Ordinance # 4178) Wireless Communication Facilities to clarify Section 163.29(E)(2), exemptions regarding same type and height of existing tower structures. • • Odom. Item number four, if we can make it there, is AD 00-32.00 which is an Administrative Item, Wireless Communication Facilities to clarify Section 163.29(E)(2), exemptions regarding same type and height of existing tower structures. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve an amendment to clarify the intent of section 163.29(E)(2) "Exemptions" regarding the same type and height of existing tower structures by determining the maximum distance a replacement tower can be built from an existing tower and determining if replacement towers should be allowed to be increased in width. Staff does not recommend changing the maximum height allowed for existing towers or new towers. Staff does support allowing the same 20 foot increase in height allowed for existing towers to apply for the replacement towers. Do you want me to read the background or do you want to talk about it? Conklin: Why don't I just briefly go over why I have brought this to the Commission this evening. Several weeks ago Arkansas Western Gas approached the City of Fayetteville with a request to replace their existing tower that is located up on Mount Sequoyah. Our ordinance that was passed a year ago last August allows for the replacement of existing towers of the same type and kind. What they brought to me was a request to replace their tower with a tower that is 42 inches wide. The current tower is 15 inches wide. It's a guy tower which means you have the lattice type structure with guy wires supporting the tower. The other issue was that they wanted to replace it 20 feet to the north of their existing tower. In my opinion, I do not consider that to be the same type and height of tower under that section of the ordinance. I could issue a permit if they want to demolish their 15 inch tower and replace it with the exact same type and height in the exact same location. I could issue that permit administratively without any public hearing at the Planning Commission however, it's my opinion that when you start having a different location, a different width, it's something different. The reason why they can't demolish their current tower and build a new one is that Arkansas Western Gas currently has their facilities on there including up to seventeen other providers including Washington Regional Medical Center with the hospital ambulance service and Washington County share this. Therefore, demolishing the existing tower would discontinue the communication service provided to the gas company and the other providers. In my opinion, it does seem reasonable that if you are going to replace the tower, especially if you have emergency providers on the tower, that you would have to build a new one next to it and relocate the antenna and the equipment over there and then demolish the • • • Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 24 existing one. Therefore, I agreed to bring this forth to the Planning Commission for clarification. This is not a public hearing on whether or not Arkansas Western Gas should build an additional tower up on Mount Sequoyah. The request is to clarify that section. Should we allow replacement towers to be within a certain distance of their existing tower structure and should we allow the width of the actual tower structure to be increased. The reason for the increase is to be able to co -locate additional providers and antennas on the tower. That is in support of the purpose of the ordinance that was passed a year ago. A decision was made in Fayetteville to encourage co -location versus numerous towers serving very few providers. This is not a cell tower. There are no cell or PCS providers located on this tower. It is primarily radio communications between emergency offices, the hospital, Washington County, Arkansas Western Gas and others. It's a little different from when we talk about cell towers or PCS towers. Typically, those are monopole, meaning that it's just one single pole not supported by guy wires. In agenda session on Thursday, there was.a lot of discussion with regard to amending the ordinance and that impact that ordinance would have on all existing. tower structures. You requested that I speak with our City Attorney, I did talk with the City Attorney this morning with regard to my interpretation of this ordinance and what can be done to look at what Arkansas Western Gas is proposing. Basically, I've already stated and it's in your staff report that I'm uncomfortable approving anything administratively that has a different location and a different width and if the Planning Commission would like to clarifythat section, I want something on paper within the ordinance that gives me the authority to approve something administratively with regard to something like what Arkansas Western Gas is proposing. Since then a lot of concern was brought up also with regard to self support towers and towers that don't have guy wires. Reference was made to the self supporting tower on Highway 45 that is east of 265. In order to try to more narrowly look at what we are trying to attempt with this amendment, I have handed out a memo that I drafted today with regard to the type of towers and that is if we want to consider amending the ordinance to only look at guy towers and also look at possibly limiting the maximum width the tower may be. It could be three feet, four feet or two feet. I'm not sure what the maximum width would be for an existing guy tower. One of the questions that came up is why limit it to this type of tower? Typically, a guy tower the actual tower structure is going to be more narrow than a self supporting structure because they have the guy wires to support the tower. Typically, visually, there are some arguments out there that they are more aesthetically pleasing, from up on top of the hill you really can't see the guy wires, versus having a self supporting tower that has to be much larger in size in order to have the height that is needed to broadcast their signal. That's one thing that I have recommended this evening is to limit it just to guy towers. If you are going to look at allowing increased Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 25 • Odom: width to only allow that on a guy tower. Overall, I can understand Arkansas Western Gas, their concerns, with trying to replace this tower What they are trying to do is to provide a tower that will have more co -location. They have requested that they be allowed also to utilize the 20 foot extension on top of an existing tower, that can be approved administratively. For example, they have their existing 170 foot tower, they wanted to put a 20 foot extension on that tower and put an additional antenna on that extension. That's administrative. Therefore, I think they somewhat get punished by, I hate to make someone actually put that extension on there and then come to my office to get their new tower approved with 190 feet. I think that could be clarified too, with regard to allowing that 20 foot extension on replacement towers also since they automatically have that on their existing tower. Overall, the ordinance, in my opinion, needs to be clarified. If the Planning Commission decides that the same type and height means exactly the same type, a guy tower, with exactly the same height they currently have and the exact location that is fine if you want to amend the ordinance, that will definitely provide some clarification for me. Once again, I have to look at these as an administrative approval on replacement and I believe it is a replacement but there need to be some limits on the size of expansion and width and how far from the original tower can it be located. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. I know we are not talking about Arkansas Western Gas but this amendment would directly affect that installation up there. Their proposal is to replace the existing tower and they specifically state if we were allowed to build a 210 foot tower, a few feet of extra height, we would be able to accommodate additional co - locations. However, under the terms of what you are proposing, they would not be allowed to build a 210 foot tower. The maximum they would be allowed to build would be 190 feet which is what they currently have plus the administrative 20 feet, is that correct? Conklin: 170 feet is the current tower and then they have some antenna up above that. The ordinance allows the 20 foot extension including antenna height. For example if you have a cell tower or panel up there you would have to actually build some tower structure to get it 20 feet higher. I look at that as a 20 foot extension. No, I am not recommending that they be allowed to build a 210 foot tower. I'm trying to meet the intent and spirit of this ordinance when it talks about replacing the same type and kind. If it's decided that that means exactly the same type, land, location and everything, and they want to choose to move it 20 feet to the north, my interpretation of the ordinance that they would have to comply with all the provisions in the newly enacted ordinance, which would require them a monopole tower, maximum height of 150 feet tall with Planning Commission approval. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 26 They have some concerns with regard to that requirement in the ordinance with regard to the actual height with the antennas they place on the tower that they cannot communicate through a solid monopole type structure and that's another argument they made with regard to the need for a guy tower at this location. Bunch: Before we entertain comments, how much of this are we able to accomplish as a Planning Commission? Since this is a city ordinance, would we merely be recommending an amendment to the ordinance to be sent to City Council to have them vote on it. Odom: Yes. As much as we would like to have the power to amend ordinances we don't have that power. What we would do would be nothing more than a recommendation for the City Council to take the final action on. Bunch: In other words, in this recommendation that we have in our packet it should read that "staff recommends Planning Commission recommend approval to the Council" rather than us doing the approving. We would just merely be recommending an amendment and a clarification to the Council. • Conklin: That is correct. Same as we do on a rezoning. • Odom: Any other preliminary questions before we begin with discussion? Okay. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Let me ask now if there are any members of the audience that would like to address us on this issue, if you will please come forward at this time. Stand up behind each other so we can sort of keep things moving along. Smith: My name is Mike Smith and I'm with Smith Two -Way Radio. I'm here on behalf of Arkansas Western Gas. It's real crucial that we get to replace this tower, there is a lot of emergency services on this that is essential to the City of Fayetteville. What I think that we are asking for is the twenty foot extension, making it 170 foot tower to 190 foot tower. You have to bear in mind that our antennas are on top of our structure at this time. When you add that twenty feet to it, our antennas will be on top of the 190 foot structure bringing it close to your 210 foot mark. That's basically where we are at. Odom: I need some clarification from staff on that. It's my understanding that if you have a 170 tower and you are allowed a 20 foot extension that would bring the height of your tower to 190 feet and I understand that you may have an antenna on Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 27 top of that. Conklin: The height is measured from the top of the antenna so right now if they wanted to extend their tower up and put some microwave dish on it or something, my opinion is let them put a 20 foot extension from 170 feet up. Right now, they have long antennas up above 170 feet. I would not include that as the existing tower height. The tower height is 170 feet. They are allowed to go 20 feet up more including the height of the top of the tallest antenna. Smith: The problem with that is we don't gain anything. We are still at 170 feet. Odom. I'm not really sure I understand. I tell everybody I'm 5'7" but in truth I have 2 inch tennis shoes on when I do that. Is that what we are talking about here. If we give them 20 more feet, does the very tip top of the tallest antenna 190 feet? Conklin: That's how the ordinance defines height. Once again, we are not talking about Arkansas Western Gas. In a sense we are talking about Arkansas Western Gas that's why we are here this evening but the ordinance, I'm trying to administer this ordinance with regard to replacement of existing towers. Right now it says "Existing towers may be replaced with the same type and kind." It also gives me a provision in the ordinance to allow extension of height for existing towers. It allows me to go up an additional 20 feet without bringing it back before the Commission so anything above 20 feet is not allowed. If they want to build a new tower, they can't build a tower 210 feet tall. The maximum height of towers is 150 feet. These are the ordinance requirements. Once again, I'm trying to look at the intent of the ordinance. They have an existing tower. The City Council when they past the ordinance stated that all existing towers can be replaced with the same type and height. We are not really talking the same. I'm not recommending that we change that. I'm recommending that we clarify it with regard to can they be located adjacent to there, build it and for a two week period of time you are going to have one tower side by side, two towers up on Mount Sequoyah and then tear the old one down once equipment is moved and what's a reasonable relocation distance for that and then also decide is it appropriate to increase it from 15 inches wide to 42 inches wide? How much is too much? Is 6 feet too wide? Is 30 feet too wide? There has to be a limit on the width of these towers. I'm just trying to get some clarification and if you as a Commission believe that it means you replace your tower with a 15 inch wide tower the exact same height, that's fine. There's no need to change the ordinance because we can clarify that and say it exactly means you have a 15 inch wide tower, you put a 15 inch wide tower closest to that exact same location. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 28 • • Smith: Our understanding about type was monopole, self supporting and guy. Type to us is a guy structure versus a monopole or versus a self supporting structure. Allen: Could you explain to us the necessity for the tower being that much taller. Is it just non-functional at this height any longer? It won't suffice for the community needs? Smith: Well the tower is full at this time. It holds Washington County Firecom, Washington Regional Medical Center and all of Arkansas Western Gas gas pressure readings that come from all over the river valley back into here and all locally right here. The tower is full and the tower won't hold another antenna on it. What we are asking for is to give us 20 more feet so we can move those antennas up to make more room for more antennas that will deal with the Arkansas Western Gas more pressures that are required to come in, some of the University plan issues that they need. That is a large hub right there for gas control Also, by moving the tower up 20 feet and being able to put those antennas on top will increase the coverage for Washington Regional Medical Center and Washington County Firecom. Right now all the ambulances like in Madison County, soon Carroll County will be coming into Northwest Arkansas. That happens every day. When those patients are sick in that ambulance, they call the ER and the farther out we can reach them the better off we are. Adding 20 more feet to the tower will help that situation and also help Arkansas Western Gas get their gas readings. I hope that clarifies that. Allen. I understand the tower has been there about 50 years. Smith: The tower has been there 40 plus years. Allen: Would this extension, I know it's hard to project such things, but what period of time do you see it sufficing if we allow it. Smith: We want to build a tower for the next 40 years Arkansas Western Gas doesn't want to replace anything for a long period of time. We want to put the structure there and leave it there for another 40 years. As the wireless world changes so does Arkansas Western Gas needs change and so does EMS and Washington County Firecom. Arkansas Western Gas has been gracious enough that they have never charged those entities anything. They have let them on there for free just to help serve the community. They way we read the ordinance is we could add twenty feet to the tower. That means to us is that we add twenty feet to the tower that pushes our antennas up. There was an issue about building a tower twenty feet apart. That is just for construction needs. I have to keep that tower built until Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 29 I have the other one in place because I can't shut down the ER, Washington County or the gas users. I have to move off twenty feet away from that tower to build a new tower. We might be able to tighten that up a little bit and make it fifteen feet but I can't build it so close that we will be getting into the foundation of the original tower so I have to move it back a little bit. Allen: Thank you. Marr: Just a point of clarification for me, I want to make sure this discussion, for me anyway, doesn't tum into an approval or a denial of an Arkansas Western Gas tower or an emergency tower, that we are looking at in terms of recommendations for amendments for this particular thing. There is a part of me sitting here thinking that an emergency, obviously the people who recommended the ordinance felt the same way because there is already one exemption in here for emergency towers under a lower height, I think it's important, at least for the public, I'm not sure if today's thing is on the actual emergency tower, Arkansas tower but more on the amendment comments. My thought is if we are going to get into discussion on the reasons to have, in this particular case because of emergency requirement or things of that nature, that we handle that specifically to. it's own item if it comes back to us. I don't know the protocol for it but my decisions or the things that I would look at would be much brooder than this one specific tower. Hoffman: 1 agree with Commissioner Marr and not trying to be real specific about it, I asked the question in agenda session and I would like the gentleman that just spoke if he would to please come back up and answer this question about relocation of some of these antennas. In general, in looking at approving an amendment to an ordinance, it seems to me that we should be considering all other options before amending the ordinance. There seem to be different types of towers that have different technologies. Under this type of technology, and I don't want to talk about any specific user, could a two-way radio user a non -cell phone type user, relocate onto another tower from this tower to avoid having to increase the height? Smith: Do you mean taking a user off this structure and putting it on another structure? Hoffman: Yes. Moving it somewhere else. Is there any other structure available technologically? Smith: Not on Mount Sequoyah. • Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 30 Hoffrnan: I think that's germane to the ordinance itself that if we are going to amend the ordinance we need to know if the guy wire technology is the only one available then we have to deal with it in this manner. So is your answer "No" you can't relocate any of these types of users to other towers? There is several on Mount Sequoyah but they are monopole or whatever. Smith: There are a couple of monopoles on Mount Sequoyah, but the way the antennas are set, you take a cell site - they have panels and they are all the way around the tower. We use one antenna. On a guy tower, it can see through that instead of a metal object that a signal hits. What it does, it creates a shadowed area. Instead of using several antennas, we use one. That's the difference in technology. Is there places on Mount Sequoyah that we can move the ER, Washington County Firecom? Not at this time. No. Hoffman: Thank you. That's all I needed to know. That to me establishes a need to re -look at this ordinance in terms of replacement types of structures. Stewart: My name is Roberta Stewart and I live on Rockwood Trail right across from the gas field. I still did not understand about the size of this tower because as he said the "same type tower" and if it is the same 'type tower but just a little bit taller, that seems to be okay. I gather it's not from what I heard you say earlier. Conklin: They currently have a 15 inch wide tower. One side is 15 inches wide Stewart: I understood the width. Conklin: They want a 42 inch wide guy tower. It's 42 inches all the way from the ground all the way to the top. It doesn't taper. Right now you have 15 inch wide tower from the ground 170 feet up all the way up to the top. They want a tower that has an increased width. I was sitting down in my office and trying to figure out, is that the same type of tower? Then also the issue was that it's not going to be in the exact same location which is another problem I had. I was sitting down in my office going "Is this actually a replacement tower or is this a new tower?" That's why we are here tonight, to look at the ordinance. Stewart: Right. It seems to me it would be easy to... Is there a reason we couldn't see a picture of this? There surely is a drawing or a picture of this tower that is proposed, right? The gas company must have given it to you all or somebody. Conklin: I believe the gas company has a photo of that. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 31 Stewart: I want to be sure there are no dishes on the tower. Moving it up 20 feet, moves it also higher as best I could tell by walking the road. Conklin: According to Arkansas Western Gas it's about 37 or 38_inches.higher, .ground elevation at 20 feet to the north. Stewart: So it's going to be higher in that respect already because the ground is going to raise it about 4 feet. Conklin: That is correct. Stewart: Who would object to Washington Regional using it or anybody else using it. That's going against apple pie and mom right? I just want to be sure that if that is what it's for, if they need to increase the height for that reason and service the community in that way,it's not for additional servers that's why they are trying to raise the tower. Conklin: The increase in width is to provide the capability for additional servers to go on the tower. • Odom: • Radio servers. Conklin: Or cellular or PCS. Stewart: Right but I'm assuming this service is for these emergencies or the things that were listed at least, in the memo. Conklin: No. Not necessarily. It would also include the potential for cellular or PCS service. Stewart: Does that mean that the tower could change and not be just a straight tower? Conklin: You would have antenna raised like you see on cell towers with the panels. I think they are about six feet long in three clusters around the tower. It would look different. Stewart: I don't see how that is quite the same type as far as looking. Besides height and width which I can certainly understand. The ordinance needs to be addressed. Prussel: I'm Ann Prussel. Our family lives at the corner of Rockwood Trail and Ruth Street. I have put a memo in the file, which perhaps you all have read, expressing Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 32 Odom: some of my concerns. Some of the questions have been answered already but I do have concerns about aesthetic both at the ground level, which probably this is not the moment to go into that but I hope that you will consider it at some point down the line when you deem it appropriate. I am concerned also because of the change in the appearance but it sounds like the new replacement tower might have -a couple of different things that you are going to hang on it or that would be possibly hang on it. You won't but they will. The microwave idea to me makes a different looking tower In the material that we received from you as adjacent property owners, there was no mention of microwave dishes but there was a memo in the file August 28, 2000. You have to realize, even on the tower they have right now, they could strip all of the antennas off of the monopole structure itself and put those type antennas up there by right. There would be nothing to prevent them from doing that. Conklin: We've never regulated the aesthetics of the actual antenna that go on the tower just the actual type of tower. Prussel: That cannot be an issue is what you are telling me? Conklin: Right. Prussel: I just think of Southwestern Bell thing a few blocks away that is more of an eyesore and I guess that was the kind of thing I was hoping not to see. Odom: I think that's more of a monopole. Is that a monopole out there for Southwestern Bell? Conklin: I think it's a self supporting, real wide tower that you are talking about Prussel: Yes. I understand that that's not their physical tower that they are talking about but the thing that hangs on it is kind of awful too. That's what I'm talking about. Also, I have spoken with Mr. John Kent of the gas company and he mentioned to me, something that I have not heard discussed here yet, that there would be a plateau at the top of the tower that would enable them at some future date to add more antenna from the plateau upwards and my question was, with what you are discussing here, would they have to come back to you? Odom: Yes. This amendment would allow them to build no more than a 190 foot structure at the very tip of the tallest antenna. They could not build anything taller than that. Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 33 Prussel: Have you heard of this plateau word before? Odom: Yes. On other antennas and stuff and there is always a plateau on the top. Conklin: They typically try to design, especially the monopoles, with the ability to bolt on an extension so you don't have to go up there and reconstruct it. I'm not sure whether or not they build that in. Typically they do on the very top of the antenna. Prussel: Is it appropriate to discuss the aesthetics of the area? Odom: Not really because all we are talking about right now is the amendment to the ordinance. Prussel: Might there be a time? Odom. If in fact this ordinance is passed... Even as it is today... Tim, let's just say that they are not asking to replace that they are just wanting to add that additional twenty feet, there is no additional requirement for additional screening or anything at that time as it is currently, is that correct? Conklin: That is somewhat correct. I apologize. Odom. Are you a lawyer Tim? Conklin: Nice answer huh? For all the cell companies and PCS companies, I have to answer it that way because if you look at Mount Sequoyah and our water tank, I required them to put a six foot high wood board fence on most of the sites in town. When I've approved co -location, I have requested and gotten them to do improvements for the aesthetics. Prussel: Both Mr. Kent of the gas company and also Tom Sager with the gas company have indicated to us that they are willing to consider that but I was hoping to get a firmer commitment. Odom: We would appreciate your efforts to continue in your past conduct on that. Prussel: Okay. Thank you very much. Malane: My name is Michael Malane. I live at 1510 Anson which is below the tower on the back side of Sequoyah. As I understand the issue before you today is whether Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 34 Allen: or not what they are asking to do falls within the ordinance and if it does fall within the ordinance then they need not come to you for permission to do anything nor therefore do any of the neighbors have any input. With that view in mind I would like to suggest from what they have said the purpose here is to give them a bigger more capable tower that will allow them to do more things primarily, I assume, for their own economic benefit. He did say that Arkansas Western Gas wants to add capability to this tower. The rest that they provide to others I suspect they would not be incurring the cost of doing this tower solely to reach out to Madison County for an ambulance ten minutes earlier than they can currently. They are not replacing an existing capability. They want a bigger tower to do more and they are trying to use this ordinance to avoid the necessary or what would otherwise be, I assume, appearances before this Board and subject themselves to public comments about the other issues that surround the use. I would suggest to you that going from 15 to 42 inches is not the same type of tower. That's approaching a 300% increase in the width of the tower. Giving yourself that much bigger a tower, I assume, gives you that much stronger a tower which would allow you to hang that much more from the top which they can now hang from the top whatever the structure will bear. If they get a bigger group up there, they can hang a lot more from that tower which will again have a significant impact on the neighbors. They say "type to us is type of structure" and if I were an engineer that was charged with designing and erecting these things, I might feel the same way but I'm not, I'm a citizen who looks at it often and frequently. To us type is the aesthetic impact that it has upon the neighborhood as well as the type of structure. I would suggest that the sense of the ordinance must take the citizens views into account every bit as much as the engineers views and that this clearly is not to replace an existing structure, it is to put up a bigger and better structure for more and more use and therefore it clearly does not fall within the existing ordinance. I would caution this Commission against suggesting that the ordinance be improved to allow that type of increase in use and increase in aesthetic impact as an automatic right for people who own such towers. Thank you. I wondered whether or not the neighbors, when you said the towers significant impact upon the neighborhood are you talking about solely aesthetic or does it have some other negative impact? Malane: As long as it stays vertical the impact is aesthetic. Hoffman: I have a question too. • Odom: Michael, apparently we want to grill you pretty hard so hang on a second. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 35 Hoffman: I just also wanted to know on the same vein we have had request for newer towers to be painted different colors, is that something that you would like? You have not mentioned that. • Malane: As I understand all of those aesthetic issues were ruled basically out Of order in today's hearing. I came prepared to talk about a number of issues. Odom: If somebody asks you about it, you can talk about it, in my opinion. Malane: There are a number of issues that include the type of security fencing that they use, the landscaping, the location of the fencing and I assume the paint but I quite frankly have not talked to any of my neighbors about the color. Hoffman: Color choices? The reason I asked that is because I have been making up a laundry list of items that might possibly be included in a replacement ordinance in order to enable our local businesses to keep up with technology and yet keep the views of the neighborhood in tact. Malane: Commissioner Hoffman, from our standpoint - at least from my standpoint if this Commission takes the position that type means aesthetic impact as well as structural type then we will talk about the details later. Hoffman: Thank you sir. Sypert. My name is Curt Sypert, I represent Central EMS 1 have worked at Central EMS for 15 years and we have talked off of Mount Sequoyah tower to the hospital and there are dead zones in the county and areas around Fayetteville. The City of Fayetteville is pretty well covered like it is now. Any consideration that could be given to the elevation of the tower for communications with the hospital, I feel that would enhance communications particularly our in reaches of the county. Run volume has increased as the population has increased. There is no hospital right now in Madison County. My colleagues over there are having to transport long distances and they have to contact physicians at Washington Regional as their receiving hospital. That would enhance their communications capabilities as well. Any consideration to the elevation to the antennas that we could have there and I understand that that would involve potentially in increase in the base of the tower to support that elevation. Wilson: My name is Brian Wilson. I work at Washington Regional Emergency Room as an Assistant Director. One of the things that this gentleman spoke about was reaching an ambulance ten minutes sooner in Madison County. That is a very Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 36 important issue. There is no hospital in Madison County now. We are now their medical control at Washington Regional. We are in a pilot program with Madison County EMS, Central EMS to deliver the drugs that you hear so much about out actually in the field and if we can get those drugs in those people that much sooner, which is how we would help. There is certainly a benefit there. Luther: My name is John Luther. I am the Washington County 911 Coordinator. I want to go on the record and thank the gas company for allowing the rural fire departments to use this facility for communications I have been in the business 15 years, over half my life and I have used it for every call that I have gotten. When I started in the business as a volunteer fireman, that's where my signal came from. If they called us out on a fire, medical run or problem with car wreck, someone having a medical condition, that information came from Sequoyah. Her question about the relocation and possibility of moving this to another tower, one concern that comes in there is cost. Is someone going to charge us for this? The gas company has given us this free space all this time and all the community has benefitted. If I have to encourage anything, I would definitely encourage you guys to allow them to increase the height. We don't ever back up when we do something. We widen our streets, we add sidewalks, we don't keep things at the status quo. Last night we were talking, this gentleman mentioned his neighbors, I. had a neighbor out in the community and he walked in on his neighbor and the gentleman was on the floor, he dialed 911 and in a matter of minutes they called me on this pager that I have carried for so long, we rushed to his house and he's on the fourth floor of the hospital now. He had a heart attack. We went in because of the proximity and we helped the man live. If that tower wasn't there, that would not be possible. He would not be here today. If I have to recommend anything, I have to say that we need to look at the needs of the community and we need to see what will benefit the people the most. I know eyesore condition is a big fact. They have to be considered but we need to take the welfare of the people sometimes over what is appealing to us. That's all I've got. Odom: Anyone else like to address us on this issue before we close the floor to public discussion? Dangeau: My name is Jeff Dangeau and I'm general counsel for Arkansas Western Gas and I would like to express my opinion. I believe you can do what we are asking you to do without amending the ordinance. Your talking about the issue seems to be moving from point A to point B which is 20 feet and then a different width of tower. The ordinance says you can replace existing tower with the same type of tower, it doesn't mention width or change in location. What we have here is a big site that is approximately two acres so it's not like you are really encroaching on Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 37 someone else's space we are just moving over 20 feet. There is a time element involved in that we believe that due to the aging of the tower has become important to replace this tower soon, preferably before winter and before the ice storms hit. Otherwise, we may have to consider removing some of the antennas that are currently there. There is a time issue with waiting for the ordinance to be amended. If you think what we are doing is permissible under the ordinance but it still needs clarification, you could allow us to go ahead with this move and still send it up to City Council for amendment. Odom: Jeff, at this point in time, I don't think that we have the authority to do that. We have an administrator who has made a judgment call on his interpretation of an ordinance and feels as though what you are wanting to do did not meet that ordinance. It's my understanding that we are not here tonight hearing an appeal of his decision that it did not meet the ordinance. It's my understanding that we are here tonight only to discuss a proposal to amend an ordinance to allow you to do what you are wanting to do. I don't believe that we have the authority. I think you may, correct me if I'm wrong Tim, did they have the right to appeal your interpretation of the ordinance? • Conklin: Yes they do and that goes to the Board of Adjustment. Anyone can appeal my decision and in the zoning regulations. It goes to the Board of Adjustment. Ira Canoy with Arkansas Western Gas did approach me on this. Once again, I understand Arkansas Western Gas, their concerns with what they are trying to do and I think the ordinance needs to be clanfied. I already made my decision. In other words, I don't think it's the same type and height tower. Height is very clear in that replacement section of existing tower, that part of the ordinance. You are asking for something different. That's why I agreed. I don't remember ever doing this on a ordinance like this but I agreed to ask staff to bring this forward to the Planning Commission and get your input and then take it to ordinance review and City Council for clarification. I think it's difficult to replace a tower in the exact same location unless you do require them to demolish it and disrupt the service. I think there should be some, as I stated earlier with my recommendation, there should be some reasonable distance from the existing tower that you allow and there should be some reasonable increase in width to encourage co -location. However, the Planning Commission can't change my interpretation. I would be more than welcome to meet with you and get you the application to appeal my decision and I believe the meeting in October you have probably passed the public notification deadline on that but I would be more than happy to setup a special meeting and get them convened and see if they disagree with my interpretation. • Dangeau: So the bottom line is, Mr. Conklin, if it looks like we need a speedier resolution Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 38 than the amendment we could go with you to the Board of Adjustment. Conklin: You can have seven members appointed by the City Council overturn my interpretation of the ordinance. Dangeau: Thank you. Odom: That's even better, it goes in front of somebody else and not us. We do have tonight before us the proposal to forward to the City Council or the appropriate committee this administrative item, the amendment to the ordinance. Does anyone else wish to address us on this issue? I'm going to close the floor to public discussion. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments of the staff. Hoffman: I have two, I have one question and a possible motion. Tim, based on your statements, I take it it's not possible to take this one tower and deal with it as a Conditional Use in some way away from the ordinance? Conklin: No. I believe it's under our exemption, what they are proposing as a new tower. It does not meet our ordinance requirements. Hoffman: In trying to balance the public emergency needs with the neighborhoods aesthetic concerns I'm going to propose a amended ordinance be forwarded to City Council or Board of Adjustment to whomever this is appealed. Conklin: It's not an appeal. The Planning Commission needs to decide how to clarify the ordinance. I've already made my decision on what I think it states and how I should apply it here at the City. If you think it needs to be clarified, I can bring those amendments to City Council. If Arkansas Western Gas, which they stated this evening they believe the ordinance allows the tower to go from 15 inches to 42 and be located 20 feet from the existing tower, that's allowed under this ordinance, they can appeal my interpretation to the Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Hoffman: I think that in approving that you do not have the power to approve something like • that. That is not a replacement, it's a completely different tower. With that in • Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 39 • mind, I'm going to make the motion that your guidelines, your clarification letter dated September 25, 2000, is acceptable with the following additions: demolition permit for the existing tower be issued prior to a building permit for a new tower with a 90 day expiration attached to the demolition permit so that two towers cannot remain on the same site for any length of time. Again, let me reiterate, this applies to a guy tower only. That the new tower be placed as close to the existing tower as is technically feasible. Any site alterations comply with the tree preservation and screening requirements of the city ordinances. That the 20 foot height addition stands. Again, let me reiterate the 36 foot maximum width condition applies which was also stated in your memo. That is my motion. Bunch: 36 foot? Hoffman: 36 inch, sorry. Odom: In other words, it can't increase more than 36 additional inches? Hoffman: Yes. Do you want me to go over it again? Okay. Demolition permit be issued prior to issuance of a building permit for the new tower. Demolition permit will carry a 90 day expiration period so that the existing tower must be demolished within 90 days of the issuance of the demolition permit. That this applies to guy towers only. That the new tower be constructed as close as technically feasible to the existing tower. That the newly constructed tower comply with the tree preservation and screening requirements already contained in our ordinances. That the 20 foot additional height applies and that the 36 inch maximum width dimension applies. Odom: Staff, did you have any comments on those changes? Conklin: No. That's fine. I think I got them all. It will be on record in the minutes. Hoffman: Is it possible for you to easily enforce this by staff should it be put into ordinance form? Conklin: Yes. It's going to provide clarification of how large a replacement tower can be and how far from the existing tower it can be located and how long the two towers can stand before the old one has to be demolished. That's why I brought this forward is as staff I need clarification on these issues and I think you clarified the ordinance with that amendment. • Hoffman: That is my motion. Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 40 • • Bunch: Conklin: Bunch: Odom. Hoffman: Odom. Bunch: Odom. Before we proceed with this motion, the question I have, what is the driving force to address that at this time since a path has been chosen or lined out for the applicant to pursue for their specific tower? What we are doing here is proposing an recommendation for something that is going to be_a fairly long term process. My question is, dowe need to act swiftly at this time and not deliberate a little bit before we make a motion? Maybe we need to consider broaden the scope and consider some other things like Fayetteville Police Department currently having shadows in their coverage and they are wanting to relocate from Robinson Mountain to Mount Sequoyah. Staff might tell me where they are planning on relocating. Sure. We actually have met with the Police Department and I shared with them the information from Arkansas Western Gas and their consultant did take a look at this site. This site is still number two. Our water tank on Mount Sequoyah is the preferred site and that's where they plan to relocate. I agree with Commissioner Hoffman that we need to make strides in resolving this but my question is do we need to move that expeditiously. Could we send this back to Subdivision Committee or table it until later. I don't think Subdivision Committee is the proper place for ordinance review. These are just my ideas to send on to whomever else wants to hear them. You have to remember this is going to be going forward to a committee. Right. It will go to an ordinance review committee. Before it even goes to the City Council. There will certainly be opportunity for a lot more review before then. Shackelford: Mr. Chairman? Odom. Just a second. Commissioner Bunch are you done? Bunch: Shackelford: For now. I've got two things, first of all the way that I'm viewing this is basically we have been asked by Tim to address this and try to close up some ambiguities that are in this. There is some areas that weren't defined very well in the original ordinance and I think that we are not moving too quickly on this. I think we are just Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 41 • • Conklin: Hoffman: Odom: Hoffman: Shackelford: recommending some guidelines on how we are going to look at this going forward because I think it will probably come up again. Even though we do have this specific problem to possibly address with the Board of Adjustment issues, I still think that we are adding some definition in some areas on an ordinance that needs some issues. I've also got a question for Tim. We talked about addressing the 20 foot extension, in my eyes and I apologize if I'm beating a dead horse here but there are three ways to measure height. You have the tower height, you have the tower plus antenna height and you've got elevation height. Do we need to define, in the ordinance, how it's going to be measured so that we can compare apples to apples as far as the 20 foot extension? With regard to height, it's defined as "the vertical distance measured from the mean elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the tower or other structure, even if said highest point is an antenna array." Once again, I'm charged to make interpretations, I would make an interpretation that it's from the ground elevation at the base of the tower to the very top of the tower including antenna height, even at the new location which is 38 inches higher. That is how I would measure height of the tower. Because this is an ordinance amendment and not being specific to the people on the tower, I didn't want to propose any change to the height other than what's already permitted as the 20 feet. If they choose to go to the Board of Adjustment and make the case for the necessity for the additional coverage area, I think that that's a more proper forum than trying to cover that in this ordinance. I would rather not make sweeping changes for this one group but yet leave the door open to clarify the ordinance and then you have the Board of Adjustment to present the case in more detail. Before we have any further discussion on the underlying motion, I would like to know if we have a second from anybody? I'll second the motion. Thank you. Just to clarify my point, I'm not trying to make any changes to the ordinance for this specific tower. I guess I'm looking at it, assume that you have a 180 foot tower on a piece of property that you have another 40 foot of elevation that you can move the tower, is your definition Tim, that you can make a 200 foot tower and move it 20, 30 or 40 feet elevation on up the property within the ordinance and change the overall height of the tower by more than the 20 feet that's defined in the ordinance? Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 42 • Conklin: I'm going to measure the height of the tower from the ground elevations to the top of the antenna height. Odom. But as it stands now, he's not going to allow that at all because under his interpretation it's not moving from the spot that it's on. I think that that Commissioner Hoffman's motion sort of addresses that by requiring them to be as close as technically feasible. They may get a few extra inches but they are not going to be able to go to the very tip top of their property. Shackelford: Okay. Thank you. Odom: Do we have any further discussion? Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: One of the questions I have, I know we have tried to limit this to narrow the guy lattice type towers but if we are opening a can of worms or looking at amending an ordinance rather than treating a specific deal here, towers can be shored up and can be enlarged and I just wondered if we could ask for the expertise from the tower people here and also Tim as staff what if the request were to put a strengthened based on this tower up so many feet? Maybe come up so many feet at 36 inches, 42 or whatever, taper in and then have the existing tower and then put a 20 foot section on top of it that that would be a retro fitting of an existing tower. If we are looking at re -writing an ordinance and suggestions on re -writing the ordinance then we need to broaden our scope and consider these types of things. One of the questions I have is, how would you view that if the applicant came with a suggestion to maybe increase the number of guy wires and to strengthen or shore up the mast, how would you interpret that under the existing? Conklin: I get 100 questions a day. There is so many different scenarios. If it's for a safety. reason, we need to put another guy wire on it, I probably would let them put another guy wire on it because it's an existing tower and they need to do it for safety reasons. If they are building another structure that is 20 feet wide, 40 feet high, no, I don't think that's the same type of tower. I think that's different. I would say no to that. With these ordinances, you are exactly right, I try to think of as many different scenarios as possible. With regard to Arkansas Western Gas, on that tower, the result of this ordinance was not designed because of the towers like Arkansas Western Gas, it was the number of cellular, PCS towers that were occumng in Fayetteville. We do now have an ordinance that regulates all types of towers and we did make a decision that we all want monopole type towers. No more guy towers, no more self support towers. Now we have a situation where they are trying to replace it and I'm not sure if I could have ever envisioned that it was going to be 15 inches to 42 and how we could have clarified the ordinance a • Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 43 • Marr: Odom: year ago on that. It's come up now and I think that's why we make amendments to our ordinances. When we find issues, we need to clarify these issues and take care of it. I guess my comments on this are that, first of all there was a committee that was put together to write this ordinance. It took a lot of input to begin with of which no Planning Commissioner was a part of that committee. Rather than me sitting here trying to determine definition to what they meant when they talked about existing towers, type and height it would be my recommendation that we send this thing either back to the committee who wrote it and ask for clarification and to say that we suggest you look further not only existing tower or replacement tower but also on emergency tower requirements if there is going to be anything different than those because obviously you addressed it for 35 foot or lower towers. As opposed to giving any specific recommendations, particularly since no one on this Commission was a member of the committee. I personally would like to see that and that's why I won't support the motion because I'm not sure we are the place that should be addressing this specifically. Typically, Commissioner, when the staff wants to amend an ordinance they sort of start out here or where they think is the best place to start so they can get as much comment as they can. Even though you may not support the motion, your comment is in the record and that helps. Marr: I appreciate that. I'm dust saying I'm not sure that we are the best place. Bunch: Admittedly when this ordinance that we have before us came into existence, it was done quickly because of the proliferation of cell towers and the considerable back lash because of that. However, at that time this Commission was solicited by the Planning office. We were given copies of proposed ordinances and I can remember sitting in Tim's office going over some of the proposals with him at his request. We may not have served on the committee but our input had been requested because we were given copies of existing and proposed ordinances and our opinions were solicited I will be the first to admit I did not foresee this situation and it's impossible to write an ordinance without very lengthy research to cover all contingencies and again 111 admit I looked at the ordinance and various proposals and I did not foresee this contingency. We are still faced with the problem and we have a possible path for Arkansas Western Gas and their other users to put a tower up that will better serve our community and we also have a responsibility to see what we can do to help improve the situation and I'm at a loss as to exactly how to solicit our input. I question if a motion at this time would be appropriate if maybe we can get some information from Planning and Planning Commission September 25, 2000 Page 44 then we could put our input and return that information to Planning and then maybe bring it back to this Commission for a unified proposal. I think right now to try to come up with a proposal that we'll get mired down in technicalities and that sort of thing but I think if we have a little bit of time to reflect on it and with a little bit of back-up information and to submit that to the Planning office so that they can coordinate our thoughts and then bring it back to us then we can as a Commission can make a more sensible and unified recommendation to the ordinance review committee and the City Council. Odom: Is that a motion for table. Bunch: I can make it that. We have a motion on the floor that has been seconded. Odom: A motion for table takes precedence over any underlying motion. MOTION: Bunch: I will move to table the motion on the floor. Odom. Do we have a second? Marr: I'll second that: Odom: We have a motion and second to table this item. Is there any discussion on the motion to table? Marr: Just to make it clear, I am certainly not interested in giving the opinion that I don't care or that I don't want to resolve the issue. My point is to try to get clarification from those individuals who wrote this ordinance to begin with. If I am to interpret this and ask for clarification, I think it is my point to talk about exactly what's in here which is, existing towers may be replaced with the same type and height. Am I to know that they considered width, am I to know that they considered replacement or am I to clarify type and height and what those requirements would be. That was the reason for my comments. I certainly think that we should address it and I just wanted that in record. I don't think that we have enough information to do that today which is why I support tabling it. Odom: Any further discussion on the motion to table? Hoffman: I'm so fond of my own motion I want to explain why I won't be in favor of tabling it. It seems to me that staff has asked us to send this in a particular Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 45 direction. Cell towers, communications towers, technology is moving at a rapid rate whether or not this tower is the topic of discussion today, it's going to be another one tomorrow. I think that we will be sending, I'm willing to hear if anybody has any additional items they would like to add to the laundry list, I think we will just be sending a clarification to the City Council to say "Okay, here is our replacement and here is our first replacement tower and here is the direction that seems to be reasonable." The citizens will again have a chance to provide input at that level. There will be public hearings. The City Council has three readings of this so I'm not inclined to table just because I think we can study, study, study to death. That's my reason for wanting to go forward. Conklin: Mr. Chairman? I just want some clarification if you do table, what are you expecting from staff to provide to the Commission? Odom: I'll let Don work that out with you later. Tim, do you feel as though you would be able to provide us with any additional information which would allow us to come to any different conclusion than we have before us on the underlying motion? Just say "No" Tim. Just say "No." Conklin: I really don't think so. The only thing I can think of I can give you a list of the existing guy towers in Fayetteville. Like on Dinsmore Trail and there is some at the radio station over on Holly Street, there is some a.m. radio stations off of Highway 112. I'm not sure. Once again, with regard to the committee, I participated as staff when this ordinance was drafted and we talked about existing towers. I don't believe there was any discussion with these issues that I have brought before this Commission tonight. Can they replace that 20 feet away from it or can it go from 15 inches to 42 inches? I'm not sure if members of that committee will be able to give me any insight of' what they thought the intent of that section was. Once again, I'm just looking for clarification. If the Commission needs more time and you need more information, let me know and I will be happy to provide it. Odom: Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion to table? Seeing none will you call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call the motion to table AD 00-32.00 fails on a vote of 2-6-0 with Commissioner Bunch and Commissioner Marr voting "yes". Odom: The motion to table fails. Any further discussion on the underlying motion? Will Planning Commission • September 25, 2000 Page 46 • • you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call AD -00-32.00 passes on a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioner Bunch and Commissioner Marr voting "no". Odom: Staff do we have further items before us tonight? Conklin: There are no additional items. I would like to remind you of a Planning Commission training workshop coming up November 17, 2000. That will be here in Fayetteville. The City will pick up the cost of that training. I encourage those who did not attend last year's training to attend this year's training. You can get that information to Sheri and she will do the travel request and take care of that. Also, there is a upcoming conference sponsored by the Historic Preservation Alliance of Arkansas, October 11 through 14, 2000. I handed that out for your information and if you need any more information just let me know. Odom: Thank you Tim. We are adjourned.