HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on May 14, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in
Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
Reconsideration of CU 01-3.00:
Conditional Use (Cricket Communications, Inc., pp 528) Approved
Page 3
CU 01-12.00: Conditional Use (Tyson, pp 6391 Approved
Page
FP 01-1.00: Final Plat (CMN Business Park II, Phase I, pp 173 & 174) Approved
Page
LSD 01-8:00: Large Scale Development (Target, pp 212) Approved
Page
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Nancy Allen
Don Bunch
Lorel Hoffman
Sharon Hoover
Lee Ward
Bob Estes
Alice Bishop
Loren Shackelford
Don Marr
STAFF PRESENT STAF]F ABSENT
Tim Conklin
Dawn Warrick
Ron Petrie
Kit Williams
Sheri Metheney
Kim Hesse
Hugh Earnest
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 2
Old Business:
Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of April 9, 2001, and April 26,
2001.
Estes: Welcome to the Monday, May 14, 2001, meeting of the Planning Commission.
Conklin: I would like introduce Hugh Earnest, our new Urban Development Director. I think it
will be a benefit to the City of Fayetteville to have all our divisions coordinated together
and I look forward to working with Hugh.
Hugh:
Estes:
I just have to say that I've come off of five plus years as a volunteer on the Little Rock
Planning Commission, it feels real funny sitting out here and I sympathize with you. It's
certainly a great job you do. It's the first time I've set out here in 5'/2 years.
Thank you for joining us this evening. Commissioners, as an administrative item before
we get started, there were some additional materials that were in front of you. We have
an additional staff report for LSD 01-8.00 Target, if you will pick that up and put it in
your packet and then in the group of loose leaf papers that you were provided there are
two pages that have footers on them, page 4.1a through 4.4a, if you will just discard
those. The first item of business is approval of the minutes of the April 9, 2001,
meeting. Are there any additions, changes, amendments, clarifications or comments
regarding those minutes? Seeing none, they will be approved. The second item of
business are the minutes from the April 23, 2001, meeting. Are there any changes,
amendments, comments, additions to those minutes? Seeing none, they will be
approved.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 3
Reconsideration of CU 01-3.00: Conditional Use (Cricket Communications Inc., pp 528) was
submitted by Craig Hull on behalf of Cricket Communications Inc., for property owned by Preston &
Eunice Ferguson located behind 2908 E Huntsville Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial and contains approximately 0.11 acres. The request is for a 150' monopole to support
wireless communications facilities (use unit 3) in a C-2 district.
Estes:
The first item of business on our agenda this evening is a reconsideration of Conditional
Use 01-3.00 submitted by Craig Hull on behalf of Cricket Communications Inc., for
property owned by Preston & Eunice Ferguson located behind 2908 E Huntsville .
Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 0.11 acres. The request is for a 150' monopole to support wireless
communications facilities (use unit 3) in a C-2 district. The Planning Commission voted
on the regularly called meeting on April 23, 2001, to rehear this request. Staff
recommends approval of the conditional use subject to certain conditions of approval
Staff, do we have signed conditions of approval?
Conklin: We do not have signed conditions of approval on this item.
Estes: The conditions of approval are: Number one, applicant shall comply with all applicable
federal regulations. Number two, equipment used in connection with the tower shall not
generate noise which can be heard beyond the site per §163.29 (A)(1). Number three,
lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security lighting or
motion -activated lighting may be used around the base of the tower provided that the
lighting is shielded in such a way that no light is directed towards adjacent properties or
rights-of-way. Number four, the tower shall be a monopole, no taller than 150'
(including all antennas, arrays or other appurtenances). Number five, the monopole
shall be painted a suede blue color. Number six, the utility equipment at the base of the
tower shall be surrounded by an 8'6" tall wooden security fence. The tower shall also
be equipped with an appropriate anti -climbing device. The facility shall place signs
indicating "No Trespassing", "High Voltage" or other pertinent information on the
outside of the fence. Number seven, landscaping shall be added to the site (and shown
on plans) which provides a "buffer of dense tree growth and understory vegetation in all
directions to create an effective year-round visual buffer" as required by §163.29
(A)(11). Number eight, any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site
shall be located underground. Number nine, only ownership and cautionary signage
located on the screening fence shall be permitted as provided by §163.29(A)(3).
Number ten, the applicant shall provide a certification letter that states the tower meets
or exceeds design criteria and all local, state, and federal requirements regarding the
construction, maintenance, and operation of the tower as provided by
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 4
Hull:
Estes:
Hull:
Smith:
§163.29(B)(9)(c). Is the applicant present? If so, do you have a presentation that you
would like to make?
Yes sir.
If you would tells us your name please?
My name is Craig Hull, I'm representing the proposed tower owner Calahan Tower
Joint Venture. They would be, in affect, the tenant to the Ferguson's and would build
the structure. The first tenant on this proposed monopole would then be Cricket
Communications. I hope you understand the chain of ownership in this role. I
appreciate you rehearing this case. We generally accept all the conditions. We've
been through, as you recall, previous deliberations on this, the blue versus the steel look
and the applicant has agreed to paint the tower blue if it were to be approved, which
would effectively mean we could sign the conditions as I understand them, Mr. Conklin.
The reconsideration was requested by Ms. Hoffman in her motion, I believe or at least
in her discussion about it, that we address some of the issues regarding the site
acquisition. I would first offer that looking back at the site and looking at your
ordinance and overall opportunities in that area, within the search projections of our
tenant/client, that the particular site lends itself very well to a cell tower. We found a
spot that sits back into the woods but it was already cleared. It's shielded on three
sides by natural dense vegetation, it's surrounded by about 22 acres that are owned by
the owners of this property, even though it's a 11 acre site for the actual facility, it's
surrounded by all ownership that's willing to do this project. Discussions that's been
offered before about the possibility of moving the site slightly across the road, this site is
better shielded from general observation than any site would be on the other side of
Highway 16, in the general vicinity there, and the only difference would be a slight angle
as to a vision of the top of the tower with the over story of the vegetation. As far as the
site objectives that were set out and what our mission was to satisfy the Cricket
Communications tenants, I've got Mr. Doug Smith he's the Site Acquisition and
Development Manager for Cricket Communications out of Tulsa, I would like for him
to speak for just a moment about the issues that his firm has dealt with on this site.
Thank you. My name is Doug Smith and I'm the Site Development Manager for
Cricket out of Tulsa responsible for this project in Fayetteville which actually stretches
from Bella Vista down to Fayetteville. I just want to make a few brief comments and
then introduce an individual who's been very instrumental in developing the RF plan for
this area for us, Ms. Hadeel Fayad, who's going to come up and talk specifically about
why this location. We started developing this plan about a year ago and, as with any
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 5
development structure is dictated by the fact that we had costs involved and
topography and geography of this area are which is somewhat unique. I'm sure all of
you are well aware of that. We have developed 21 sites and I think five or six of them
are here in the Fayetteville area. Our first desire in coming into a market like this is to
really collocate and try to put our antennas on existing structures. There are several
reasons for that as you might know, one is simply the speed to market, it's easier to find
an existing tower and attach to that. Another is the cost associated with it, that's less
expense to us Third, which may be the most important issue, we recognize the
sensitivity that people such as yourselves and the community have to putting additional
towers in the area With that in mind we were fortunate to find a number of existing
structures and also favorable rooftops and we've incorporated those into our overall
design. However, for this particular area on the east side of town we could not locate a
structure that would be adequate for what our coverage requires. We felt in trying to
select this site we are very cognizant of the concern that citizens have about any new
structure going up and we try to select a site that's either in a commercial or industrial
zone recognizing we had to gain a conditional use permit here and try to comply with
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as best we can. That was one of the reasons that
Craig alluded we selected this site. We recognize that it is a commercial district, there
is an adequate buffer zone on the north that shields it from the homes or the residents up
there and other developments that may occur. We've also worked very closely with
Planning to make sure we screen the ground area adequately by putting a wooden
fence around the area which will shield it from visibility to the road. The site itself lends
itself very well for what we would like to develop there It has existing telephone lines,
it has existing utility lines which are easy to gain access to. It's at grade off the road so
that we drive right into the site and we felt, as best as possible recognizing what it is, it
meets the objectives that you put in your ordinance. I won't try to sit here and tell you
that this structure is going to be something that it isn't It is a telecommunications tower
and has to be viewed as infrastructure for the wireless communication industry. It's
really no different from what the land -line people have to put in with telephone poles
and the energy companies have to put in with utility poles. It serves our needs to
transmit voice and data in the area. When we set our plan, as I said, we're a little bit
different than the other wireless carriers in that our competition are really not going to
be Nextel or Sprint, we are going to try to compete with the local telephone company.
Therefore, we have a little bit denser coverage pattern because we need more for the
volume of traffic which we anticipate. With that in mind, as I said, we would certainly
appreciate your reconsideration of our request to approve the zoning of this site. I
would like to now have Ms. Fayad come up and explain specifically why we selected
this location within the community and not another one.
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 6
Fayad: My name is Hadeel Fayad and I work for the RF Engineering Department representing
Cricket Communications tonight. I'll talk to you a little bit about our objective for using
site 15, which is the site in question today. Our objective was to cover Route 16 and
Route 265 in the Fayetteville area. I brought with me two plots to show you the service
with and without that site in question tonight. This is site 1.5, the site that we are talking
about and anything in green here is the service area or where you will be able to use
your phone for the area surrounding site 15, using all the sites that we have approved in
our network currently. Over here you will see this is site 15 included in the coverage
objective of our network. You'll see this is Route 16 and that's Route 265. Without
using site 15, we'll lose coverage on Route 16 and on Route 265. Would you like me
to bring it closer?
Estes: Yes.
Fayad:
I have another plot with me that shows the Cricket coverage area and that will show
you the desired coverage footprint for Cricket. Everything in the blue is what Cricket
desires to cover.
Hull: If I may, I would like to introduce Mr. Wayne Krug, counsel for the applicants.
Krug:
My name is Wayne Krug and I'm with the firm of Harrington, Miller, Neihouse and
Krug in Springdale. I'll make my remarks very brief. As everybody on the
Commission knows, the cellular industry is very highly regulated and it's very highly
regulated from a number of different levels. We have a several federal
telecommunications acts we have to work with, including the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, which starts out with a premise that cellular telecommunications is extremely
important to the American public, economy and business and it sets out a number of
restrictions that other government bodies have to follow when they look at cellular
communications towers. Effectively, in kind of a large nutshell, as the Commission is
well aware, you can't prohibit them specifically. You can regulate them. The City of
Fayetteville has passed an ordinance, a very detailed ordinance that serves the purpose
of regulating the industry and regulating where you can put the towers. Everything that
is required of the Fayetteville ordinance has been done in this particular project. The
only thing that's left to be done is approval by the Commission. I submit to the
Commission that some deference to the ordinance of the City of Fayetteville needs to
be made. When the City of Fayetteville, for example, passed an ordinance dealing with
subdivisions and when the courts have reviewed that ordinance, the courts said
essentially that if you come in and you do everything you are supposed to do with
regard to that subdivision ordinance then the City has to allow the subdivision. It's
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 7
Estes:
Hull:
because of the expense and the infrastructure that goes into a subdivision This is
analogous to that kind of situation. What we have is a great expense of determining the
site and in engineering these sites. This expense has already been put forth to a
significant degree. The expenses incurred relying on that ordinance, on the cellular
tower ordinance. We would ask that the Commission give a great deal of deference to
that cellular tower ordinance realizing that these people have invested a great deal of
time and a great deal of money trying to do everything the City of Fayetteville wants
and they've done that in good faith. Thank you.
Mr. Hull does that conclude your presentation on behalf of the applicant?
Only one other remark. We have had inquiries from other carriers since our last
meeting. This particular site, it was one of the objections or concerns of some of the
Commissioners that it wouldn't appeal to other carriers and we already have
information from a couple of different carriers that are looking at this and taking that
information and trying to weave it into their build -outs and infill projects. It has good
potential, not just for the current clients. Thank you very much for hearing this.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Estes:
Isaacs:
Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this conditional use
request. If so, please come forward to the podium, give us your name and address and
provide us with the benefit of your remarks.
I'm Elsa Isaacs, 265 Travis. None of my remarks address any idea that cell telephones
are useless. We know they are useful. That is not one of our objections. Some
residents, although only two of us showed up tonight, still object to the tower. The
reasons for the initial denial, I just think it is still a dense residential neighborhood.
There is still an alternative site which Mr. Hull said they would probably use if you
turned them down. At our neighborhood association you said that, it's in the minutes.
There is an alternative site across 16 East. I don't know if we brought up at previous
meetings, but there is already a tower, a 45 foot tower in our neighborhood, did we
inform you of that? At the end of our street, Travis, right smack dab in the middle of
this neighborhood, there is a 45 foot private ham radio tower, it's not microwave I
think this one that we are talking about is not the same kindof tower. We've got one
already. The next tower will be 3.3 times as tall as this tower and that really starts
constituting a trend. I wish that you folks would come to see, as Ms. Hoffman did at
one time, the neighborhood which is being impacted and I do appreciate the good faith
that these folks exercised in attempting to conceal it and so forth. From what I
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 8
understand, it is not as it's been described to you. These folks have invested X number
of dollars but we in that neighborhood have invested at least a like amount in our equity,
in non-financial terms in that neighborhood. I think I addressed in a previous meeting
that there are a number of unpleasant developments taking place in that C-2 area. I
listened carefully to the young attorney who's quoted the 1996 Telecommunications
Act and when I read it, this is what I copied from it. "The act specifically leaves in
place the authority that local zoning authorities have a....", this is stuff you already know,
I'm sure, "of personal wireless facilities". It does prohibit denial of facility siting based
on radio frequency emissions if the licensee has complied with FCC. It requires that
denial be based on a reason approach and prohibits discrimination and outright bans on
construction, placement and modification. We are not objecting on the basis of
emissions. We are siting specific reasons. The availability of a nearby alternative site,
our dense residential area are empirical objections. We are not Luddites. We don't
object to everything teclmological, everything modem. We don't churn our own butter.
I appreciate Mr. Hull and the company which he works for agreeing to paint it if it were
to come to pass. That, as it may occur to you, is the only element on which the people
backing this monopole have given one inch, everything to which we objected has been
spurned. If you folks could look at our neighborhood, look at the location and look to
see what 150 feet looks like, at least your consideration of that factor would be warmly
appreciated. You'll be pleased to know I'm not going to go on.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Estes:
Hull:
Thank you Ms Isaacs. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to
provide comment on this requested conditional use? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to
public comment and bring the matter back to the full Commission for motions,
comments, discussions and questions of the applicant. Before I do so, does the
applicant want to respond or rebut any portion of the public comment.
I would like to say to Ms. Elsa that I enjoyed very much meeting with the neighborhood
association and we had a very candid and long discussion about this issue. It was
divided with her being on the side of where she was to begin with on the tower but with
several people in the neighborhood showing minimal or no objections to our proposal in
realizing that they use phones and they need service, this is infrastructure. It was a very
good neighborhood meeting and I would be proud to live in that neighborhood. It's a
good place. As far as this particular site, we have used the due diligence available to
us, your ordinance, my best planning skills over a 25 year career and we did our best to
do right. Believe me, we didn't select this thing arbitrarily. The applicant, a local
business person is the one that's asking for permission to build this tower. If you so
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 9
choose to deny and another applicant comes along, it will most likely be an out of state
firm, you will be doing an uneconomic thing for our region. Eventually somebody is
going to fill the gap for this service. I would Just implore you to consider this as a very
good site with minimal opposition, one lady. You've been to other hearings, some of
you, when there has been a whole lot more people in opposition. We did our work
with the neighborhood, we've done our work with you, your ordinance and your staff
and your staff recommended it. Please consider a positive response. Thank you.
Williams. First, I would like to thank the Commission for reconsidering this and I wanted to read
a couple of items out of the Telecommunications Act law, why I did request that you all
reconsider this. Before I say that though, when you make your decision tonight it
should be based not only on what you hear tonight but what you've heard totally
throughout this total time it's been before you. Any comments that you've heard
previous to this, you can take all of that into consideration in making your decision
tonight. The Telecommunications Act states, "Any decision by a state or local
govemment, or instrumentality thereof, can deny a request to place, construct or modify
a personal wireless service facility (cell tower), shall be in writing and supported by
substantial evidence contained in a written record." If you do choose to deny this
application tonight, I will prepare something that can be signed by the Chairman
denying it and I do want you to be very clear on the substantial evidence that would be
necessary to support that. In that regard, I did want to say this is what the case has
seemed to say, cited this year, by a Federal Circuit Court case that we conclude that
the Telecommunications Act requires local boards to issue a written denial separate
from the written record and that the written denial must contain a sufficient explanation
of the reasons of the permit denial to allow review in court to evaluate the evidence in
the record supporting these reasons. I will point out that you all can consider aesthetic
reasons in denying an application. In fact, the Congress said "The Congress recognized
that there are legitimate state and local concerns involving the regulating the citing of
such facilities, such as aesthetic values and the costs associated with the use and
maintenance of public right-of-ways." Those are certainly things that you can consider.
However, I should also point out that you do need substantial evidence for that.
Substantial evidence does not even mean a preponderance of evidence but it must be
evidence sufficient to Justify a decision, a careful and reasoned decision. I'm sure that's
what you are going to do. In considering aesthetic reasons, they must be fairly specific
as much as possible and not Just a generalized this is an eyesore sort of reasoning.
That, several courts have found, have not been enough for denial.
Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams.
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 10
MOTION:
Ward: Since I made the motion last time, I'll start off again. Like I said before, I think we do
have a federal mandate to facilitate placing cell towers throughout our community. We
work very hard on passing the cell tower ordinance and I feel like this antenna meets or
exceeds our ordinances on placing antennas. One of the findings of fact that we had as
staff that is still upon us is color of towers which has to do with to the "extent that any
antenna extend above the height of the vegetation immediately surrounding it, shall be a
neutral color", I still think steel gray is a better color than suede blue. I don't care
about that part. But I still think that steel gray with no maintenance is better than having
a tower that's been painted, it's going to peel and cause maintenance problems,in the
future. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion because I do think there is finding of
fact, I don't think it's a nuisance for the neighborhood, I don't think it's dangerous for
the neighborhood. I'm going to make a motion that we approve CU 01-3.00 for
Cricket Communications.
Bishop: I'll second.
Hoffman: I have some questions for the applicant. I've done a great deal of consideration
between our meetings, with the good advice from our City Attorney to really hone in on
our topic. In our packets, paragraph E on page 128 of our ordinance, charges us to
describe why the proposed location is superior, from a community perspective, to other
potential locations. Factors to consider at the community perspective should include
visual aspects, setbacks and proximity to single family residences. In our last meeting
and I think at our agenda session, my focus was, this is the only finding I'm having
trouble with, everything else I think you've completely and fully complied with the
ordinances. My question was, I've heard why this site is so good and perfect for the
tower but I have not heard anything about alternate site selection I'm wondering why
the site selection was limited to a quarter mile radius and located adjacent to this
neighborhood when I think that there are other sites available across Highway 16 in a
more commercially located area Could you address that?
Hull:
On the zoning part, commercial is commercial, this particular one has just as much
commercial zoning as the one across the street. Ms. Fayad has more information about
the site selection and I would refer to her discussion on that.
Hoffman: I would like to hear about any other sites because I understand the need for the lower
and broadband communications, your charts I understand that the coverage area will be
expanded but it seems to me by looking at the charts that the need could be met in an
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 11
area that's got more commercial buildings, that's not located next to a single family
residential subdivision.
Fayad• I'm aware of two towers that exist in the area, I think about two miles away. Both
towers are about 200 feet in ground elevation higher than the location that we picked
and with the technology that we are using, digital technology, we have a trade-off to
achieve between heights to achieve coverage and too muchheight that would cause
interference. If we go 200 feet above what we have right now and have to go another,
even 50 feet above that, we are talking about 250 feet versus 150 feet where we are at
right now. That increase in height will cause additional interference for the rest of the
network. It will give us a lot more coverage than what we really need.
Hoffman: I guess I wasn't referring to on top of the mountain but I was referring to just across the
highway which to me is a lower elevation.
Fayad: Is it an existing location?
Hoffman: I don't know. I'm just talking in general, if there are other sites that are similar in
topography. I haven't heard if they were looked at.
Fayad: I'm not quite sure how far out we have to go get away from the area of concern. I was
more concentrating on going on an existing tower, so we cpm avoid building a new
tower. That is definitely something looked at when we are doing the design. The only
existing towers that I know of are unfortunately too high for our objective. As for going
outside by just a bit, how much further do we have to go out, that I don't know, I can't
answer that question. To go out of the suburban area of concern, we have a certain
radius that we look within and in this particular case I believe it was a quarter mile.
Smith: You might be referring if we looked at existing locations, not towers. We did and really
it's a factor of a lot of things. One of them is economics obviously and what
economically makes sense. Some of the other sites that we looked at had some
developmental issues with compaction of soil. There would have been fill and some of
them would require a lot more effort and time in terms of development cost and may
not have been structurally as safe to support what we want to do. We did try to look
at other areas and this has seemed to fit our matrix a little bit better than some of the
others did.
Hoffman: The reason I asked is because on our map, here's our site and here's our neighborhood
right here, on the other side of the highway there is no neighborhood.
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 12
Smith: We were cognizant of that and we did try to leave that buffer zone of vegetation
recognizing that we are in an area where there are residences.
Hull:
I would mention that I don't know how many times you've actually done a drive and
approach to a cell tower but it's actually easier to see it from farther away than it is
from close-up because the vegetation nearby shielding the view. In this particular case,
the neighborhood in question, which I was at their neighborhood meeting and am
familiar with their site and when we did the balloon test, I was in the woods back
behind the Ferguson's house while we were doing the balloon test, taking pictures and
you could hardly see the balloons. If you stick it out in the field over by the golf course,
you'll see if from all four directions no matter how much shrubbery we put around the
base. From a physical, using the vegetation in place, we really have the best buffer and
the view will be minimal compared to moving it a couple hundred feet in any direction
out into the middle of things.
Hoffman: That's why I'm so concerned about it because you can see it no matter what. I think it
was compared to a telephone pole, this is not a telephone pole.
• Hull: It's 150 feet, it's tall.
•
Hoffman: I guess that there are other cell towers that have been located in the County that are
visually very offensive because they are right by a highway and they are big utilitarian
looking things. Then too, in the City, I really do feel it's important to protect the
integrity of the neighborhood and not locate major utility sites, if at all possible, within
those areas because we get complaints about them. There are different aesthetic
concerns. I'm trying to be very specific in asking you questions about these other sites
to find out why this one is the best.
Hull:
1 think we've addressed most of it. The other factor is that the local entrepreneurs
secured the site, got the lease, did the leg work and got the site to ground so that we
could work on it as a developmental process. We cleared it through the planning staff's
process and with their own tower ordinance to make sure it hit all the marks. To
second judge that now, to say "Well, you should have been across the street", is
beyond our reckoning. It's all a sequence of site selection and economics and
expediency at some point because they have to get this job done, go to launch and sell
their phones. That's what is the nature of every one of these companies when they
come in here and that's why your ordinance was developed, to give some criteria to us
as we struggle through this process to comply Please be aware, you have a tough
ordinance and we are really trying our best to do the right thing by it. If it can be
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 13
•
•
improved, the industry will work with you on it and I will In this particular site, I think
it hits the mark. It really is a good site and it fits the ordinance, your staff recommends
it and so do I.
Conklin: I would like to respond to what Mr. Krug stated regarding the companson of
subdivision regulation and a conditional use, they are not similar. The subdivision
regulation is basically a checklist, they meet their ordinance requirements, you should
approve their subdivision. This is a conditional use request and you do have the ability
and the authority to review that. If you look at page 1.3 under B(2), it states "Decide
such questions as are involved in determining whether a conditional use should be
granted." The word "should" is used in this authority. Under B(4), "Deny a conditional
use when not in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." Page 1.4, "That
the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest." You do
need to make that finding. Page 1.5, "General compatibility with adjacent properties
and other property in the district." I bring this up because there is a distinction that
should be made betweensubdivision regulations and conditional use. This is not a use
by right. The ordinance does require you to make those findings I just mentioned and
you do need to consider all those factors in making your decision.
Allen: I wondered, Mr. Hull, specifically how many other sites did you look at?
Hull: In Fayetteville or in this region?
Allen: In that region.
Hull: That search ring?
Allen: Right.
Hull: There have been two candidate packages prepared. We are talking in that same
search area to try to comply with the clients objective. We have not processed
anything on the other, like I said that is another carrier and not within my jurisdiction
any longer.
Hoover: I have a question for the applicant. It could be anywhere within this quarter mile ring?
Hull: We have to have a combination, there is a river in there and we try to stay out of
wetlands, there is environmental issues involved with that. The other site has a situation
of being built on fill which is a big deal when you start digging great big holes in the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 14
ground for these kinds of footings. Then, there is residential to the north and there is
highway right-of-way considerations. There is willing market conditions. You have to
have somebody that doesn't say "Get out of here", when you knock on their door.
Hoover: I think the issue I have with this siting is that I see a lot of 1-2 zoning in this ring. 1 was
wondering if those were explored or not?
Hull: No ma'am. We don't have a site there. When you have a big industrial building, it's
hard to build a tower.
Hoover: There is a lot of I-2 zoning.
Conklin: The map that you are referring to is a map that's prepared by staff to show surrounding
properties within a one mile radius of the site. That's not the actual search ring.
Hoover: Do we have the search ring in the packet?
Hoffman: It's on page 15.
Estes: Commissioner Hoover the quarter mile search ring is on page 1.15. Any other
questions Commissioners? I will vote against the conditional use request and the
reasons are, I voted against it the first time we heard it and I'm going to vote against it
this evening, the reasons are that there is nothing in the Telecommunications Act of
1996 that prohibits the City of Fayetteville from applying general and non-
discriminatory standards to revive from our Unified Development Ordinance or from
our Zoning Code for the placement of a personal wireless service facility. The
judgement I have made is a judgment that is grounded on the specifics of this particular
case. I have looked at specific findings of fact that we are required to make to approve
this conditional use and, like Commissioner Hoffman, I am troubled by the specific
findings of fact described why the proposed location is superior from a community
prospective than other potential locations. Factors to consider should include visual
aspects, setbacks and proximity to single family residences. The finding staff made for
us was "see narrative submitted by applicant". I find no specific findings of fact that can
support that requirement. The second specific finding of fact that we must make and
that I'm troubled by is "General compatibility with adjacent properties and other
property in the district." Staff makes the finding that the location of a new monopole in
this location with screening and vegetation as required by ordinance is generally
compatible with adjacent commercial properties. There is no finding that it is generally
compatible with residential properties. I also find it difficult to understand and believe
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 15
that the proposed screening and vegetation can screen a 150 foot monopole. Based
upon these findings, I find that there is substantial evidence to deny this conditional use
and I will vote against the motion.
Hoffman: Can we ask the City Attorney to be a little more specific about the case law that you
sited that included aesthetics as a reason for denial?
Williams: The courts are split. We are in the 8`^ Circuit Court of Appeals and yet there didn't
seem to be an opinion from them. There is a lot of opinions from the 2nd Circuit, 4th
Circuit and some of them take a hard line. For example, this is the 3`d Circuit, they are
quoting a case AT&T Wireless and let me just read you one short excerpt from that
case It says "In AT&T Wireless numerous area residents spoke against the permit
application and the Council received petitions also in opposition bearing almost 800
signatures. The protestants argued primarily that the two 135 foot towers would be
eyesores if erected in a heavily wooded residential neighborhood with no significant
commercial development, no commercial antenna towers and no above -ground power
lines." The District Court found that any claims asserted by the protestants were at best
very general and speculative and they said "We agree." 11 neighbors asserted that the
monopole would be visible over the tree line, would damage their property values, but
they didn't address that a lot. They site the Court of Appeals 2"d Circuit which held "A
few generalized expressions of concern with aesthetics cannot serve as substantial
evidence for purposes of this particular telecommunication act and similarly a few
generalized concerns about the potential decreases in property values, especially in light
of the plaintiff's contradictory expert testimony does not seem adequate to support a
conclusion that permits should be denied " In that particular case that I'm quoting from
the Circuit Court held that the summary judgement in favor of the telecommunications
company should be affirmed and the towers were built despite the fact that the City
Council had ruled against it and said that they should not be built. The substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. It is basically what you all, as reasonable persons, think as long
as we can point to specific facts and opinions that have been presented to you from the
public or from your own observations, if you went out and looked. I think that's also
facts, but you should mention that in any decision that you make. Even though our
conditional use ordinance that we have, which is what the Chairman quoted from, does
control from uses in the most part. Here it is also partly controlled by the federal law.
We must work in conjunction with the federal law in making the findings one way or the
other in this. I don't know what else to tell you about that. I'll be happy to answer any
other questions you might have.
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 16
Hoffman: I think that's helpful because to me, Mr. Chair, it points out a deficiency in our
ordinance that I don't think we thought about or had looked at when the ordinance was
written. That is, how do you define compatibility within our municipality with adjoining
properties? I think it would be based on, this is the 2nd Circuit, our 8th Circuit has not
heard a similar case?
Williams: I have not seen something from the 8`h Circuit that is clear on this.
Hoffman: It seems to me that that's an identical situation and that with the likelihood that it could
be overturned, I would be, at this point, even though I still have reservations about
having the cell tower adjacent to the neighborhood, if that is the state law then I'm
probably going to change my mind. Simply because, although I'm not personally
satisfied with the evidence or the presentation of the sites across the street that are not
right next to the neighborhood, I don't think that we need to be putting the City into a
position to get sued again either. I'll vote for the tower reluctantly.
Allen:. I would like to ask Mr. Williams if a factor in finding can be, seems to me like lack of
effort to try to find an additional site?
Williams. I would think that would be one thing that the Planning Commission could consider
conceivably because the Telecommunications Act says that you cannot have a policy
that would effectively deny cell towers in the town. Which means that if there are good
places that they could locate, that would not be objectionable, and that would be
satisfactory and effective for them, I think that you can hang your hat on that and say
"We are not rejecting them all over town, we're just saying this is not the right site and
there should be other good sites available." That gives us something to argue You still
need to have substantial evidence about this site and about this request that's coming
before you. I don't think that you could totally base it on the fact that there might be
some other site out there. There has been a case where they supported a town turning
down a cell tower site but this site was located on an open hill, closest houses right
around it, they said 25% of the town would see it every day where everybody was
driving past it, schools were close to it. The court said "Yes, from an aesthetics point
of view, that's not a good site" and they upheld the town rejecting that. There have
been a lot of other cases where the court has not allowed the towns to reject cell sites.
Basically cell towers are probably not very desired neighbors no matter what
neighborhood you might be in.
Hoover: I just want to make a comment now that I'm on the right page and have got my miles
1111 correct. The I-2 zoning is within three quarter's of a mile, I guess I'm confused, there is
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 17
Hull:
Smith:
Fayad:
only this quarter mile radius, you can't look any further, if this quarter mile shifts over a
quarter mile, does that make a huge difference in your coverage?
In all due deference to the Commission, the process started a year ago. The client's
objectives were to give us that quarter mile search ring and find something in it. Our
local client's found a site that was zoned commercial next to a somewhat objectionable
land use, that has a history. We found the site that met the criteria of the client's in the
search ring and nowhere in our ordinance did we find anything that said we were
supposed to move search rings in at the behest of the Planning Commission. We were
trying to satisfy the market needs out there. I didn't know, we did go down there
because we were trying to meet the objectives that were given out to us from engineers
who know what they are doing. That was our job and this is a good site. There is
nobody but one lady that stood up in opposition through this whole thing. I would
understand if you had a whole hoard of folks upset with you but we are talking about
virtually unanimous acceptance everywhere. You are always going to have a few
objectors to anything. This is not one of those cases. I fail to get what it is that we did
wrong.
I'll try to address your question more specifically. I'm not an engineer, Hadeel can
probably really address it, these are sort of like pieces of a puzzle on a paper and when
you start to move one, other things then have to shift in compliance to make that work.
It's not just a simple issue of moving one site another three quarters of a mile because
then that may impact the coverage somewhere else and then you would have to move
another site and you start this process all over again which is relatively complicated in
trying to balance the signal wherever it is. That's the reason that we have that search
ring in that configuration it's in.
Basically in our design, we have to make sure that we cover a certain area but we also
have to make sure that we are able to hand-off to the next neighbonng site so that when
you are driving down Route 16 going westward or eastward that your call is carried
through and does not drop in the middle. If we were to move further out from the area
that's specified in that map, that would affect that hand-off capability as well as one of
the maps that I provided earlier shows the coverage area that was intended by Cricket
and you may be able to see that around that area is a pretty thin coverage objective.
They want to stay where most of the population resides because they are trying to
basically replace the land line. Our objective is to stay as much as possible closest to
where most of the population lives so that we can provide them with the best coverage.
• Hoffman: I have a question for staff. We did agree not to cut, there was some question about
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 18
cutting some undergrowth out, if this is approved there was some question about
leaving some existing vegetation and that is to remain?
Conklin: Where their site is located it's currently clear of trees. It's heavily wooded directly to
the north
Hoffman: Wasn't there something about cutting down, I can't remember exactly. The Landscape
Administrator said not to cut some vegetation, undergrowth. As long as you remember
that.
Hull: The drainage ditch is to the west.
Estes: Craig, I have a question. Do I understand correctly that there is an alternative site
available and that the alternative site is to the south, across the highway?
Hull: That's what I understand.
Bunch: On the question of shielding, a comment has been made that there are 22 acres
surrounding this and that is going to be shielding the neighborhood, what are the
guarantees to the neighborhood that that 22 acres will remain as shielding?
Hull:
There is no guarantee that I can give you other than the area that we lease and have
control over and we'll maintain the vegetation in our area and we'll keep our privacy
fence in place. Nobody knows what the future holds on any site and we certainly
won't be able to take fee simple title over the whole 22 acres. I wish we could but I
don't think they want to sell.
Bunch: A comment was made by the engineer concerning the possibility of a higher elevation
that would provide more coverage than was necessary at this time. It seems like that
might be a good thing, if you have more coverage that will allow for growth Could you
please straighten me out on that since I don't seem to be understanding how that's
detrimental.
Fayad: That's the trade off I was talking about. Too much coverage is actually not good for us
because it will interfere with other cell sites in our coverage area. We need just enough
height so we can cover the area in question but we don't want the cell site to cover
further out than it's coverage objective area because it will interfere with the signal.
• Bunch: This specific site then, most of the other sites as described on the map that has been
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 19
•
•
provided for us, utilize locations that are at prominent elevations, this one is a less than
prominent elevation. I'm assuming it has to do with the type of communication and
being shielded from all the excess interference from the other locations. How does this
particular tower tie in with the rest of the system? Is it through RF or is through land
lines?
Fayad: It's through RF. It basically hands off to the next site which is here. There is a higher
elevation right here. It blocks the signal from going any further to the east. This site
covers up to that. It provides coverage up to 265 as you are going south, it hands off
to the next site over here.
Bunch: Does it hand off to that site you just described through the first one you described or
directly?
Fayad: If you are going this direction east/west, you are handing off at this site, if you are going
north/south you are handing off at this site.
Bunch: I think that's it.
Allen: I'm trying to understand why, if this is a federal law, that they can put this wherever
they want to then why are we voting on it?
Estes:
It's my understanding, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains no provision that
prohibits this Commission or City Council from applying general and non-discriminatory
standards that are derived from our Unified Development Ordinance and from our
Zoning Code for the placement of personal wireless service facilities. There can be no
defacto prohibition against personal wireless service. Your judgement must be
grounded in the specifics of each individual case. You certainly are mandated as a
member of this Commission to make the findings for your vote to be supported by
substantial evidence.
Williams: I would agree with that. The telecommunication companies usually hang their hat on
limitation, on our powers as a City which states "They shall not prohibit or have the
affect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services". Certainly they do say
we are allowed to continue our zoning decisions and that's why we are here. We are
not totally powerless but there must be substantial evidence to support a denial and it
must be specific and factual. That's why you are having the hearing right here. The
Planning Commission, in appropriate circumstances, can certainly turn down the cell
tower if it's being presented in an improper location.
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 20
•
•
Hoffman: To follow up on that, the reason that I'm voting the way I am is that I don't feel that our
ordinance goes far enough in describing what is too close, too far to a residential
subdivision and I don't feel that I can say, based on the case law, that he's quoted they
have not met the intent of our ordinance. I know we are in the middle of rewriting
every ordinance on the book just about but this is another one to consider to add a
clause or further define and that would be compatibility for adjacent residential areas
and require applicants to show some proof or something more than just "Some landfill
site is going to cost more." Some further attempt to stay away from neighborhoods I
don't think we have the teeth in the ordinance that we need to so I'll just go with what
we've got for now.
Bunch: Previously I was not necessarily voting for denial of this project, I just was not
significantly convinced that it was appropriate. I'm still not that significantly convinced
that it's appropriate nor am I significantly convinced that it's inappropriate. I feel as
some of the other Commissioner's have suggested, if there are some failings in our
ordinance and I think that this discussion has been valuable since this is the first tower
that we've had under our new ordinance and we have brought up some issues that need
to be addressed. I will reluctantly vote for the approval of this site admitting that there
are some limitations in the presentation and in the site selection process but other than
that the applicant has gone over and beyond the requirements of the ordinance to meet
our ordinance and to satisfy what the City has required. I will reluctantly vote to
approve.
Estes: Any other discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please?
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call CU 01-3.00 is approved by a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Estes and Hoover
voting "No".
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 21
•
•
New Business:
CU 01-12.00: Conditional Use (Tyson, pp 639) was submitted by Jerry Lindley on behalf of Tyson
Foods, Inc. for property located at 2615 S. School. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and
contains approximately 68.06 acres. The request is to locate a 12' x 60' temporary project trailer (use
unit 2) on the site. The trailer will be used by employees of Uncle Ben's, Inc. in order to design and
plan for manufacturing improvements to their current process operating at this address.
Estes:
The next item of business is item number two under new business, a Conditional Use
request by Tyson submitted by Jerry Lindley on behalf of Tyson Foods, Inc. for
property located at 2615 S. School. The property is zoned 1-2, General Industrial and
contains approximately 68.06 acres. The request is to locate a 12' x 60' temporary
project trailer (use unit 2) on the site. The trailer will be used by employees of Uncle
Ben's, Inc. in order to design and plan for manufacturing irnprovements to their current
process operating at this address. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions9
Conklin: No, we do not.
Estes: There are six conditions of approval. They are, number one, outdoor lighting shall be
limited to one light, shielded and directed downward, mounted at the doorway to
ensure safe access to the building. Number two, all required permits shall be obtained
through the Inspection Division for this project. Number three, the trailer shall comply
with all setback requirements for the I-2 zoning district. Number four, refuse shall be
included in the regular pick up for the Tyson plant. Number five, no new signageshall
be added to the site along the S. School Ave. right-of-way. Only directional signs
within the property and a sign to identify the facility on the door of the trailer shall be
permitted. Number six, this temporary facility shall be removed within 18 months of the
date of Planning Commission approval Is the applicant present and would you like to
make a presentation?
Sharp: I'm Craig Sharp for the applicant. We don't have a presentation. We agree to all the
conditions.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to provide comment on this
requested conditional use?
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 22
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions, questions of
the applicant?
MOTION:
Hoffman: I'll move for approval of CU 01-12.00 subject to all staff conditions.
Allen: I'll second.
Estes: There is a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and second by Commissioner Allen, is
there any discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please?
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call CU 01-12.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 23
FP 01-1.00: Final Plat (CMN Business Park II, Phase I, pp 173,174) was submitted by Mel
Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Nanchar, Inc. and Marjorie S. Brooks for property
located south and west of the NWA Mall, north of Fulbright Expressway, north & south of W. Joyce
Blvd. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and
R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 161 acres with 11 lots proposed.
Estes:
Conklin:
Estes:
Milholland:
Estes:
Milholland:
The next item of business is item number three Final Plat 01-1.00 CMN Business Park
II, Phase I, submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Nanchar,
Inc. and Marjorie S. Brooks for property located south and west of the NWA Mall,
north of Fulbright Expressway, north & south of W. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O,
Residential Office and contains approximately 161 acres with 11 lots proposed. Staff
recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have
signed conditions of approval?
Yes, we do have signed conditions of approval.
Is the applicant present?
Yes.
Would you tell us who you are and if you have a presentation that you would like to
make?
Mel Milholland, Milholland Engineering representing the owners. As Tim has said, we
have signed off on the conditions. Three checks have been presented on items 2, 3 and
14. Item number 12, that has been completed. The rest of the items we concur with.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Estes:
Moorman:
Is there any member of the audience which would like to provide comment on this
request?
Barbara Moorman. I think that with this particular project there have been a lot of
departures from normal procedure that wouldn't normally be made. For example, in
the grading and drainage, it was allowed to go forward on individual lots before the final
plat was approved. Lot splits were allowed, phasing was allowed and I was told every
time I was asked about this that the reason these exceptions were being made and the
rules were being loosened was that it was such a big project. In looking at the policies
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 24
Estes:
Conklin:
Estes:
Hesse:
Moorman:
Hesse:
Moorman:
Estes:
Conklin:
of other municipalities the reverse is usually true. That is, if it's a really big project, they
tighten up the regulations and look much more carefully at a project. I think that what's
been happening here is that the interest of the developer is taking precedence over the
public interest. The 1998 Tree Preservation Plan has a notation, "Per Landscape
Administrator the new tree plantings to be deferred to the large scale development
plans for the individual lots." This is a just a question that I have, how did that get
translated to what you've got in your present conditions Where it says waiver granted
with approval of preliminary plat "Tree replacement is the responsibility of the individual
tract developers." To me, new tree planting is not quite the same as tree replacement.
Tree replacement implies removal and then replacement. I don't think those things are
equal to each other. Is there any explanation as to the history of that change?
Tim, could you respond to that question and if not, Ms. Hesse, our Landscape
Administrator is present, perhaps she could respond?
It would be more appropriate for Kim Hesse to respond to that question.
Ms. Hesse, do you have a comment or something that would edify us in that regard?
Did you understand the question?
Yes, I understand the question. That was when Beth Sandeen was the Landscape
Administrator. What I have are notes from the previous Landscape Administrator,
Beth Sandeen, and her comments through our particular staff review process. She did
make a statement that tree replacement could be deferred. In our files we have that
shown as a note on the original. As far as notes on the original plan, I don't recall
anything else about tree replacements.
I have it right back there, at least on the 1998 Tree Preservation Plan it says new tree
plantings.
In the preliminary plat there is note on the tree protection plan.
Another question then, in the guidelines for the final plat, the items that have to be
included for final plat approval, one of those is for a tree preservation plan. Where is
CMN's tree preservation plan for this final plat?
Tim, can you answer that question?
What Ms. Moorman is referring to is the application checklist, within the application
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 25
Moorman:
Conklin:
Moorman:
Conklin:
Moorman:
• Conklin:
Moorman:
Conklin:
Moorman:
Estes:
Moorman:
Conklin:
Moorman:
checklist it states the tree preservation plan. However, our Landscape Administrator
has looked at the ordinances and it does not require a tree preservation plan for a final
plat. What might have happened was when that checklist was being developed, that
might have been left on the checklist as part of the final plat. That's the best I can
explain.
It's the one that's currently being disseminated.
That's correct. That'ssomething that staff has put together to help people applying for
different applications.
Why would it be on the final plat list and not on the preliminary plat list?
It should be on the preliminary plat checklist, not the final plat checklist.
So it's a mistake?
I just said it should be on the preliminary plat checklist, not the final plat checklist.
That's something that we'll have to work with the Landscape Administrator to make
sure she gets the proper information she needs.
I assume that the tree preservation plan would be on file and it would be submitted with
the preliminary plat application or shortly thereafter and then would be kept on file, is
that not the case
We do keep plans on file.
Is that plan here in this room? Does someone here have access to that plan right now?
I believe Ms. Hesse is indicating that she does.
Do you, you who are approving this final plat, do you have access to that?
They do not have the preliminary subdivision plat, the tree preservation plan.
I guess what I'm asking is, there is a tree preservation plan that is associated with this
development and this development's final plat is about to be approved by you tonight.
If you look at the tree preservation plan, that is still on file and that was submitted for
this development and if you take that out to the development right now, you will see that
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 26
plan has been violated. Are you aware of that? Would anyone deny that the trees that
are on that preservation plan of 1998, some of those trees have been cut?
Estes: Mr. Conklin, do you have an answer to that?
Conklin: I'm not trying to put the Landscape Administrator on the spot, she's responsible for the
interpretation and enforcement. As you are aware, there have been a lot of issues
regarding the preliminary plat and tree preservation plan for Steele Crossing, there was
a lawsuit filed and the City did settle. We are going to spend $450,000 in the next two
years buying fee simple conservation easements, tree areas, environmentally sensitive
lands and trails. I think, once again, our Landscape Administrator can best answer
those questions with regard to that. Keep in mind there has been a debate in this
community with regard to the tree ordinance and how it's enforced and what provisions
are within that ordinance. Thank you.
Williams: I think it is the City of Fayetteville's position, even though I was not the City Attorney at
the time the litigation began, the City's position at that point in time was certainly that
that tree preservation plan had not been violated. That tree preservation plan was
required by the original developer's who are here before us tonight to preserve those
trees while they built their infrastructure, the roads and other things. They, in fact, did
that. Then the new developer of Steele Crossing, when they came in to develop Steele
Crossing, did get with the City Council and Planning Commission's approval, the right
to remove some of the trees that were in the original tree preservation plan. As you are
aware, of course, this was part of the litigation and it was eventually settled as our City
Planner has said. I think, and of course I will allow our Tree and Landscape
Administrator to certainly speak on this, the City's position throughout this litigation,
even when the litigation was settled, that Fayetteville had not violated the ordinances
and that the ordinances did not prohibit the subsequent developer Steele Crossing from
submitting it's own tree preservation plan and not being bound by the original tree
preservation plan for the entire development. That interpretation, was in the past, used
by the City for several years. I understand that interpretation has now changed so that
any future developments, the overall tree preservation plan will have to be honored by
subsequent developers.
Moorman: That's not really my concern. I feel personally that in the settlement, what was
concluded was that there was no interpretation set forth in the City and the Plaintiff's
just decided to settle. That's not really my concern here. My concern here is you are
supposed to see a tree preservation plan with this final plat and if there has been a
change, I think that tree preservation plan should reflect that change. In other words,
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 27
Estes:
Buyer:
they submitted a plan, that's the only plan that's on record. That plan is no longer valid.
Some of those trees are gone. Why hasn't another plan been submitted as is required,
at least appears to be required according to the demands for the final plat? I fail to
understand why that wasn't followed through. I do understand what you are saying but
I think there should be a correct tree preservation plan that reflects reality. I would like
to read from a document from the developers themselves where they say "In the
purposes of their restrictive covenants, that they want a development that's consistent
with the objectives and goals of the City of Fayetteville." What has happened is not
consistent with our 2020 Plan and our objectives and goals. They also say they want to
"ensure an environmentally sound community." I don't think that that's what's
happening and, if you don't require a accurate tree preservation plan, I don't think you
are supporting that goal either. Thank you.
Is there any other member of the audience which would like to comment on this request
to approve this final plat? Yes ma'am, would you please come forward and tell us who
you are and where you live?
I'm Deborah Buyer and I live on Watson Street. I have been asked by attorney
Colene Gaston to submit a letter to you that could be included in the record. I'm going
to submit it to Sheri and she can distribute it to you.
Estes: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to comment on
this request to approve this request?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring the matter back to the applicant. Mel, is there anything that you
would like to say?
Milholland: I forgot to make one comment on item number two, just for clarification and correction,
payment in the amount of $77,000 for off-site improvements and improvements
assessed. That should be from the second page for phase I, not II. On line 3 on page
2, the City collected $35,000 for phase I, that should be phase II.
Petrie. I would request one phrase be added to condition number eight.
Estes: What is that?
Petrie: I'll read what's there first. "Maintenance of all common open spaces to include
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 28
landscaped medians of boulevards, rights of way, wetlands, avoidance areas, and
buffers shall be maintained by the property owners association in accordance with filed
restrictive covenants". I would like to add "including all operation and maintenance
costs associated with the Steele Boulevard irrigation system."
Estes: Because we have signed conditions of approval, is that addition acceptable to the
applicant?
Harrington: Micki Harrington, attorney for CMN. I'm not sure if I know what all you include with
that. I think there has been some question mechanically with water and setting meters
and etcetera. It seems to me that since there has been a lot of discussion. For a long
time it's been thought that this median maintenance would be City maintained because
the City was the one that wanted the boulevard, although we were asked when we
wrote the covenants to put it in that the POA would maintain it. It's still believed that it
might be more appropriate for the City to maintain it. It makes sense to me that if the
POA is going to accept the maintenance of this, even though the City is was the one
that asked for the boulevard, that it would also be sort of like the electricity for the
power poles, the City would take care of the water, the POA can take care of
everything else because they are installing the irrigation and the trees and we'll be taking
care of that which needs to be done to keep that looking good until such time as the
City might want to take control of that since it will be actually City right-of-way. I
would like to just ask, since it's being brought up now, we haven't had any notice of
that particular aspect of this, that the water could be something that could be City
handled rather than the POA having to pick up water costs when it's actually owned by
the City. I think that's a good compromise and a way to handle it in a way that I think
is fair. I would like to submit that as a proposal.
Petrie:
This issue just came up today, to be honest with you. We got a call from our business
office saying "They want irrigation meters, who do we bill it to?" I can go back and
look at their covenants and they say they are going to maintain the islands. That's the
only conclusion that I can come to. If they are going to maintain them, it seems like they
would be responsible for the irrigation system and the water to to actually do the
maintenance.
Hoffman: What do we do when we have residential subdivisions that have elaborate landscaping
and islands? Do they maintain those or does the City?
Hesse: The only islands the City maintains at this point, none are residential. We do maintain
• an island along Joyce and the boulevard on 20th street.
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 29
Harrington:
Conklin:
I think in my experience with the City, it seems to be when the boulevard is requested
by the City are maintained by the City and the boulevards that are requested by the
applicant are maintained by the applicant. This one is requested by the City which is
why I'm hoping we can work out some situation where the water is taken care of by
the City, even if the POA is willing to maintain it. Of course, the reason it's in the
covenants is because even though people up here at this table have changed in the last
few years, earlier people asked us to make sure that was provided for in the covenants.
They weren't sure at that time how it was going to come out when we got to this point
several years later.
Just so you are aware, Mall Avenue going up to the Northwest Arkansas Mall is
maintained by the Mall and North Hills Boulevard is maintained by North Hills Medical
Park.
Milholland: I would like to ask Tim a question. Was the Medical Park ]3oulevard a requirement on
the Master Street Plan for a boulevard?
I don't know the answer to that question.
Was Mall Avenue required to have a boulevard going up to the mall?
I don't know the answer to that question.
Conklin:
Milholland:
Conklin:
Milholland:
Bishop:
MOTION:
Hoffman:
I think if you check your records at that time it was a choice the developers to do that.
Just like the entrance to residential subdivisions, I designed a lot of them; they are not
standard street requirements by the City but the developers are required to maintain
those islands. The boulevard was chosen by the City. If you read the minutes, if the
City had not participated, the client would not have to build a boulevard. Therefore, I
kind of concur with Micki Harrington that maintaining the vegetation is one thing which I
think it should be the City's responsibility because they requested that island but the
irrigation should be the City's. It was the City's request to have that boulevard.
Mr. Chair, I need to recuse myself from this issue based on the malls' relationship with
CMN.
I'll try to address some of the questions about the tree preservation plan and the
• maintenance costs associated with the boulevard. I've been involved with the project
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 30
since after it was rezoned. This is a unique project because before my time and tenure
on the Planning Commission, 300 acres were rezoned to commercial property. That
saddled the Planning Commission with a great responsibility to try to coordinate the
existing ordinances along with the wishes of the developers and the community. With
that being said, I was there for many discussions regarding the Master Street Plan
which has changed several times. CMN hired a transportation firm from Little Rock,
who I believe concurred with the various agreements that were made during the
discussions about the layout of those streets. So, for that reason, I think it's not
unreasonable to expect the development that's benefitting from these more attractive
boulevards participate in the maintenance of the. I would like to add a condition item
number 15 that simply states, I think Ms. Moorman had a good point that the
developer provide an accurate tree preservation plan which is to be approved by the
Landscape Administrator or confirmed with what is in place at this time. We should
take a snap shot prior to the recording of the plat. You can add that as a sheet to the
plat I believe. This has been quite a process. I think it has been a project that has
pointed out again the weaknesses in our ordinances but we are fortunately been able to
go on and improved our ordinances and improve our communications between the two
parties and the public and private interests. Therefore, I'll. go ahead and move for
approval FP 01-1.00 final plat for CMN Business Park II, Phase I.
Ward: I'll second.
Hoover: Does that include our City Engineer's addition to that note?
Hoffman: Yes. I put that on number eight which would include all maintenance and operation
costs associated with Steele Boulevard landscaping and water.
Estes: For purpose of clarification Commissioner Hoffman, what is the additional condition of
approval number 15 regarding the tree preservation plan?
Hoffman: Item 15 would be "for the developer to provide an accurate tree preservation plan
which is to be approved or confirmed by the Landscape Administrator prior to
recording of the plat". Before you sign off on it they will need to have a tree
preservation plan.
Bunch: Question for both Engineering staff and City Attorney, since this is such a large project
and there have been some major concerns all around, has the work in order to approve
a final plat been completed and according to the City Attomey what is not allowed to
bond out? Are we through? How much is left to be done and if anything is left to be
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 31
•
Petrie:
done, are they items that legally can be left to be done with final plat approval?
They are substantially complete which is, my understanding, the requirement to have
approval from this Board. They will certainly have to have all the punch list items
before Engineering will sign the final plat.
Williams: I concur with Mr. Petrie about the substantial completion. Of course there have been
checks provided to Mr. Conklin for the parts that can be bonded. I think that it is
properly before this body tonight.
Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and second by Commissioner Ward to
approve final plat 01-1.00, is there any further discussion, questions, comments?
Williams: My only question would be, since there is now a new condition, if you wanted to
inquire to the petitioner about whether or not they agree with that new proposed
condition?
Estes:
I had asked to the first but not to the second condition. Mel, Mr. Williams has
suggested that I inquire as to whether the applicant agrees to the two additional
conditions of approval because we do have signed conditions of approval?
Milholland: The islands, I guess we'll concur to that reluctantly. The tree preservation plan, I was
just trying to figure out what are we looking at? At the time we had this approved we
submitted the plan and we also went back and talked to the Landscape Administrator.
During the review process we requested at that time to put on the plan that individual lot
developers take care of the tree preservation. The note was put on there and it was
approved that way. I understand it was even interpreted that way through the process.
I can modify the plans straight up to Van Asche. That's about all I know to do.
Hoffman: I think you have the information available to do it. I can't imagine it would be like
reinventing the wheel.
Milholland: If that's all you are asking to straighten the plans to match the subdivision, that's okay.
Estes: Commissioners, any other questions, comments? Sheri, would you call the roll please?
ROLL CALL:
• Upon roll call FP 01-1.00 is approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Bishop abstaining.
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 32
LSD 01-8.00: Large Scale Development (Target, pp 212) was submitted by Chnstopher Rogers
of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Target for property located on the northeast corner of
Steele Blvd. & Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 12.89 acres. The request is to build a 124,767 square foot retail store and two retail
shop buildings with 7,700 square feet.
Estes:
The next item of business is item number four on the agenda. It is LSD 01-8.00 for
Target submitted by Christopher Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf
of Target for property located on the northeast corner of Steele Blvd. & Shiloh Drive.
The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately
12.89 acres. The request is to build a 124,767 square foot retail store and two retail
shop buildings with 7,700 square feet. Commissioners this is the matter that you have
before you this evening, a staff report that is different from the one that wasprovided at
agenda. Included in this staff report that you have before you there is a condition of
approval number 5 which is a change from what we saw at agenda session. Tim,
would you like to comment on the reason for this change?
• Conklin: Condition number 5 originally read "All areas designated as areas to be preserved shall
be dedicated as tree easements by means of an easement plat with specific language
preventing development of these areas." Since writing that condition we have met as
staff to discuss whether or not the intent of that condition was to prevent all
development within the tree preservation area because you can have certain types of
development that occur within a preservation area Staff has redrafted that condition
and this is how the condition reads this evening "All areas designated as areas to be
preserved shall be dedicated as tree easements by means of an easement plat with
specific language preserving the rare and landmark trees as shown on the April 24,
2000 tree preservation plan. All development within the preserved areas must be
approved by the Planning Commission. The tree canopy shown to be preserved shall
not be reduced by any development." That condition basically clarifies that what we
are showing on that tree preservation plan shall be preserved and that any development
that would occur within that area has to be approved by the Commission and that if you
do approve development within that area, that it will not reduce the amount of canopy
that was preserved with regard to that tree preservation plan.
•
Estes: Staff recommends approval of this large scale development subject to certain conditions
of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval?
Conklin: We do have signed conditions of approval.
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 33
•
•
Estes:
The conditions of approval are: number one, there are several minor variations from the
approved plan for LSD 00-5.00 Steele Crossing. Staff is in agreement with all of these
changes and feel that this slightly modified development will better meet several
ordinances and help to potentially save three additional rare trees. Provided below is a
list of these changes.
a. The entrance of the store has been moved from the west side to the east side of the
building.
b. The building has been moved approximately 26 feet west in order to work around
three existing trees that were previously approved for removal.
c. A new curb cut and service drive was added to service the shops designated as
"Shop A".
d. The width of the rear service drive was decreased from 30 feet to 24 feet as
required by code.
e. A new shop building was added between Target and Shop B resulting in an
additional 2,100 square feet.
f. The parking lot setback along Shiloh Drive has been increased to 25 feet in order to
meet the Design Overlay District requirements.
g. The spaces along Shiloh Drive were changed to compact spaces.
h. A screen wall for the truck docks and screening for dumpsters and transformers
were added.
i. Bike racks were added.
j. Two additional parking spaces were added in order to provide ADA spaces in the
rear of the shop buildings.
Condition number two, Planning Commission determination of compliance with Design
Overlay District regulations and Commercial Design Standards. The applicant is
proposing to use the same materials approved for use at Steele Crossing. The materials
are outlined on the elevations provided. The applicant is requesting a waiver of
161.21(D)(5)(b), "One wall sign may be installed per business", in order to provide
two signs on the south wall of the Target Store. One sign will portray the Target logo
and the other will read pharmacy. Staff is in support of this variance. See DOD and
CDS regulations attached. Condition number three, the future outlots as shown on
this plan will be required to meet the tree preservation and greenspace requirements
independently of this large scale development. Condition number four, Planning
Commission determination of a variance request from Section 169.06(C)(4)(e) of the
Grading Ordinance which states, "cuts adjacent to public rights-of-way shall be setback
a minimum of 25 feet, excluding driveways or access roads." The applicant is proposing
a 3 foot cut adjacent to Shiloh Drive to be located approximately 15 feet north of the
right-of-way with 3:1 cut slopes. (See Grading Plan). Condition number five, all areas
designated as areas to be preserved shall be dedicated as tree easements by means of
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 34
an easement plat with specific language preserving the rare and landmark trees as
shown on the April 24, 2000 tree preservation plan All development within the
preserved areas must be approved by the Planning Commission. The tree canopy
shown to be preserved shall not be reduced by any development. Condition number
six, all future lots subdivided from this property shall be subject to Large Scale
Development approval. Condition number seven, Plat Review and Subdivision
comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his
representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas,
SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). Condition number eight, staff
approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for
grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review
process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to
additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current
requirements. Condition number nine, Sidewalk construction in accordance with
current standards to include a six foot sidewalk and a ten foot greenspace on Shiloh,
Van Asche, and Steele. Boulevard. Condition number ten, Large Scale Development
approval to be valid for one calendar year. Condition number eleven, prior to the
issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits;
b. Separate easement plat for this project;
c. Project Disk with all final revisions; and
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City
(letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by §158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed
Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements
necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just
guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Are there any
additional conditions of approval?
Conklin: There are no additional conditions of approval.
Estes: Is the applicant present? If so, would you like to come forward and tell us who you are
and what presentation you have for us?
Rogers: My name is Chris Rogers with CEI Engineering Associates. I'm here on behalf of
Target Corporation. I brought with me a copy of the overall site plan which also shows
the Kohl's to give you a reference of the development. Other than the items that you
just listed, that we agree to, I would like start off by thanking the City. Mayor Coody
and Tim Conklin and his planning staff helped us immensely with coming up with a plan
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 35
Estes:
to help attempt to save the three trees on the east side of the building which basically
brought about all the changes you just listed. Ron Petrie and his staff helped us out in
obtaining some changes to utilities to help that out also. Other than that, I'm here to
take questions.
Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant at this time?
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Estes:
Moorman.
Conklin:
Moorman:
Conklin:
Seeing none, I'll ask if there is members of the audience who would like to comment on
this requested large scale development? If you would please come forward, tell us your
name, where you live and provide us with the benefit of your comments please?
Barbara Moorman, I live in the growth area on Finger Road. I know this is going to
sound like a silly question, what is Steele Crossing?
Steele Crossing is a large scale development.
Consisting of?
Originally it consisted of Kohl's and the Planning Commission also considered a tree
preservation plan and open space plan combining lot seven and lot 15 together as a
unified development which was approved on April 24, 2000.
Moorman: How many lots are involved in Steele Crossing? There's Kohl's and Target but aren't
there several out lots?
There are two lots.
There were three at one time and there are only two now?
There are only two lots currently.
What is an outlot?
That's something that the applicant is showing as a potentialto split the property. At
this time the property has not been split.
Conklin:
Moorman:
Conklin:
Moorman:
Conklin:
• Moorman: What's the difference between Steele Crossing with two lots and three outlots and a
•
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 36
subdivision?
Conklin: A lot split is a waiver of our subdivision regulations. You are allowed to have up to
three lot splits. Once you exceed three, you do have to go through the preliminary plat
and final plat process.
Moorman: I guess I'm asking because projected on a map that I've got that was put together in
the year 2000, five lots are outlined. There is Kohl's, there's lot 7 and 15 and within
those there are three more lots. These were projected. I know they didn't all happen
at once but it does seem to me, just for the record, that I think this was a subdivision, it
was not two large scale developments.
Conklin: I was just going to respond to your projected future lots I think we'll see many lot
splits and subdivisions occur within CMN.
Moorman: I don't doubt that but I mean, I'm talking about what was drawn on a map, on a plat
called Steele Crossing that consisted of lot 7 and 15 and three other lots that were
drawn in on that map at that time.
Conklin: Those do not exist currently.
Moorman: You mean they haven't been parceled out with parcel numbers?
Conklin: That's correct.
Moorman: Who will own outlot three at this point? Will it be Fayetteville Exchange or Target? In
other words, is the owner, Fayetteville Exchange going to lease to Target or is Target
buying, who will own outlot 3?
Estes:
Mr. Conklin if you have that information you may share it. Let me say this, the purpose
of public comment is for you to share your comments and views. Perhaps if we could
have your presentation and then if you have specific questions you would like to ask, I
can direct your questions to the appropriate staff member who can answer those
questions.
Moorman: I was confused by something that was read a little while ago pertaining to, I believe to
outlot 3, a statement that Tim Conklin read which was an amended condition of
approval about a tree easement and any outlots implied Any part of the Target lot 7
that would be sold off would have to go through an LSD process and it's trees would
•
•
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 37
Estes:
Moorman:
Estes:
Conklin:
Moorman:
Conklin:
be preserved. Am I understanding correctly?
The condition of approval number five as we have it, which I know you do not have in
front of you and that's why I read those so they will be made available to you as we go
through the deliberation process. It reads, "All areas designated as areas to be
preserved shall be dedicated as tree easements by means of an easement plat with
specific language preserving the rare and landmark trees as shown on the April 24,
2000 tree preservation plan. All development within the preserved areas must be
approved by the Planning Commission. The tree canopy shown to be preserved shall
not be reduced by any development." Then the condition of approval which you may
be referencing regarding future lots is condition number six and it reads "All future lots
subdivided from this property shall be subject to Large Scale Development approval "
I'm still confused about outlot 3 which sits right on top of some of this preserved tree
canopy. My specific question, I really can't comment because I don't know the
answer to my question. Does this condition of approval mean that when outlot 3 is split
off and sold or leased to somebody else for their own large scale development, are all
those trees that were slated to be preserved according to the 2000 plan, are they
absolutely irrevocably to be preserved with no qualification? They will not be subjected
to yet another large scale development plan in which you'll take 15% of 15% of 15%,
is that correct, is that what this means?
Let me direct to Mr. Conklin and if he cannot answer it, perhaps Ms. Hesse can
answer it. Mr. Conklin, do you have a response to that particular question?
That is the intent of that condition. Back on April 24, 2000, the condition as that those
trees shown in the tree preservation plan be preserved in perpetuity, forever. One of
the ways to preserve trees, as long as they live, is to go through a conservation
easement or tree easement. Working with our City Attorney, we have recommended
that as a condition of approval to put future lot owners, if they split out or subdivide this
property in the future, on notice that those trees, that tree canopy area will be preserved
in perpetuity. That is the purpose of those conditions. In order to make sure
everybody is put on notice, there is no surprises next year or ten years from now that
those trees are to be preserved.
This is, in essence, a little bit like a successor in interest?
I'm trying to make sure there is something recorded over al: the Washington County
• Circuit Clerk's office putting everybody on notice that those trees will be preserved.
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 38
•
Moorman: The only comment I have to make is that I find it ironical that right in the middle of
"Bike to Work Week" we are approving more roads that will contribute millions more
car trips to the City and a development that contributes the absence of a grove of trees.
Thank you.
Estes: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide
public comment on this request to approve this project?
Buyer:
Deborah Buyer, I live on Watson Street here in Fayetteville. May I ask a question? I
only have one question and it's because of some confusion regarding our Landscape
Administrator's comments in the newspaper recently about the three trees that Target is
attempting to save by shifting the building. I heard her say that in her opinion the trees
will probably not survive and therefore they will not be counted in Target's tree
preservation plan. I would just like to ask her if that's true?
Estes: Ms. Hesse can you comment on that question please?
Hesse:
I was asked why I didn't include it in the tree preservation plan and I don't believe I
stated that they would probably die. What I said was that there is no assurance that
they would survive based on the location of the building and construction thereof.
Estes: Does that answer your question?
Buyer. Yes.
Estes: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to provide public comment?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Estes: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant. Do you have any remarks you would
like to make in response to public comment?
Rogers: Yes, I would like to respond to the issue of the three trees. We did not include those in
our canopy coverage calculations because of our discussions with Ms. Hesse.
Survivability and also we are impacting those trees by building the building where it is
so we did not include that area since it was not a part of the original tree preservation
plan which we are adhering to. That's the only comment I have.
• Estes: Thank you. I'll bring the matter back to the full Commission for discussion, questions
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 39
•
and motions.
Hoover: I have a question for staff, I notice that shop building A falls fully within the Overlay
District and I can't tell from the plans but is that parking lot on the back of shop A
screened when abutting a required greenspace area?
Conklin: There will be a continuous row of shrubs planted between the trees along Steele
Boulevard.
Estes: Does that answer your question?
Hoover: Heading south, the back side of that parking lot also?
Conklin: Yes, if you look at page 8 of 9.
Estes: Any other questions?
Hoffman: On the elevations, I have a question for staff. The two shop buildings are not a part of
this Target contract and they are subject to Commercial Design Standards and Overlay
District Standards, will those be handled administratively to take care, because they are
coming in on this large scale but we don't have an elevation of them, to make sure they
will be designed in accordance with our Commercial Design Standards or do they have
to come back to Planning Commission?
Conklin: I thought you had the elevations.
Hoffman: They are whited out. I'm sorry to bring this up at the last second but this elevation
would be, to me, a long unarticulated wall surface and I would like to see some
additional interest in the side elevation. I assume it's visible from Steele Boulevard.
Conklin: Yes and no. I agree to that, stand along it is. When it's part of the overall side
elevation of Target, I probably disagree with that. If you want to look at it individually.
Hoffman: Can we ask the applicant or is it even possible to ask the applicant if we can continue
the banding that's shown on the Target to have the adjacent retail building match your
building?
Rogers: I don't see a problem with that.
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 40
•
Hoover: This is a building, again, that has the Overlay District splits the building and I seem to
have this question often and I guess I would like for us to look at that ordinance some
time, if we are going to keep splitting the building.
Estes:
Ward:
Any other questions?
I'll ask Ron again about this grading ordinance, they are asking a variance for. Would
you go over that again about the three foot cut?
Petrie: That's located along Shiloh Drive. That ordinance is really written for two reasons, one
is for public safety, we don't want a drop-off real close to the road. The second is to
protect our utilities which are usually located in that area. This particular site, it's
actually set back 31 feet from back of curb, it's only 3 feetof cut, 3 to.1 slope. We
don't see a problem with it for public safety, vehicular safety. There are no utilities
located there. We don't oppose that request
Estes:
Tim, I have a question. We have a piece of paper that has been provided to us that
says "summary of tree canopy for unified development", what is the requirement for this
LSD? This is zoned C-2 and it's phase II, what percentage of preserved canopy is
required?
Conklin: Going back to what was approved on April 24, 2000, with regard to a unified plan for
tree preservation, you are considering both lot 15 and 7 together. That was approved
by the Planning Commission in that fashion. Once again, there was disagreement, the
City of Fayetteville was sued and we settled that lawsuit. Our recommendation is to
continue using that tree preservation plan that was submitted last year and that this
project meets that tree preservation plan and even goes a little further by trying to save
additional three trees by moving the building 26 feet to the west.
Estes:
I notice that in our conditions of approval there is no requirement of a certain
percentage of tree canopy but in condition five there is the reference to the April 24th
tree preservation plan, is that April 24, 2000, tree preservation plan what controls this
LSD?
Conklin: That is correct.
Estes: Are there any other questions, comments?
Planning Commission
May 14, 2001
Page 41
MOTION:
Ward:
I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve LSD 01-8.00 for the large scale
development for Target. It looks to me like Target has gone the extra mile to change
their whole building around, even change the location from the west side to the east side
and it looks like it is going to be a very good improvement out there. I think they meet
all the Commercial Design Standards as far as the type of materials and so on they are
using and I'll concur with Ms. Hoffman about the added accent of the building. I guess
the other variance that we talked about and I agree with is that the south side of the
building you are wanting to put Target's logo and the Pharmacy logo, which I don't see
any problem and staff is in support of that. We allowed Walgreen's and some other
stores to do that.
Estes: Commissioner Ward, does your motion also include the variance request for the 3 foot
cut?
Ward:
Estes:
Yes.
We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 01-8.00, do we have a
second?
Shackelford: I'll second the motion. I would just like to expand on what Commissioner Ward said
also. I would like to commend all sides of this process for their compromises they've
done. I think this is going to be a tremendous project. It's going to benefit the entire
City. I also think this sets a great precedence for developers in the City working
together to keep progress going forward. I would like to commend everybody
involved in the process.
Estes:
We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and second by Commissioner Shackelford
to approve LSD 01-8.00, is there any discussion? Any questions9 Sheri, would you
call the roll please?
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call LSD 01-8.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0.
Estes: Is there any other business to come before the Planning Commission?
Conklin: There is no other business.
Planning Commission
• May 14, 2001
Page 42
Estes: Seeing none, the meeting is adjourned until the next regularly called meeting.
•
•
•
•
•
PC Mtg.
5-14-01
LSD 01-8 00
Target, pp 212
FP 01-1.00
CMN Business
Park II, Phase I,
pp 173 & 174
MOTION
Hoffman
Ward
SECOND
Ward
Shackelford
D. Bunch
Y
Y
B. Estes
Y
Y
L. Hoffman
Y
Y
S. Hoover
Y
Y
N. Allen
Y
Y
D. Marr
Absent
Absent
A. Bishop
Abstain
Y
Shackelford
Y
Y
L. Ward
Y
Y
ACTION
Approved
Approved
VOTE
7-0-1
8-0-0
•
•
•
PC Mtg.
5-14-01
Approval of
minutes of 4/9/01
and 4/23/01
meetings
Reconsideration of
CU 01-3 00
Cricket
Communications,
Inc., pp 528
CU 01-12.00
Tyson, pp 639
MOTION
Ward
Hoffman
SECOND
Bishop
Allen
D. Bunch
Y
Y
B. Estes
N
Y
L. Hoffman
Y
Y
S. Hoover
N
Y
N. Allen
Y
y
D. Marr
Absent
Absent
Absent
A. Bishop
Y
Y
Shackelford
Y
Y
L. Ward
Y
y
ACTION
Approved
Approved
Approved
VOTE
6-2-0
8-0-0