Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-25 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on June 25, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Minutes of the June 11, 2001 meeting Page 2 LSP 01-20.00: Page CUP 01-16.00: Page Lot Split (Hannan, pp 529) Conditional Use (Roll Off Service, pp 599) MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Sharon Hoover Bob Estes Alice Bishop • Don Marr Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Loren Shackelford STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick 1Cit Williams Sheri Metheney Hugh Earnest ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Don Marr STAFF ABSENT • • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 2 ROLL CALL and Approval of the minutes from the June 11, 2001 meeting. Estes: Welcome to the June 25, 2001, City of Fayetteville Planning Commission meeting. The first order of business will be to call the roll. Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call there were 8 Commissioners present with Commissioner Don Marr absent. Estes: The first item of business to come before your Commission is approval of the minutes from the June 11, 2001, meeting. Are there any additions, amendments, modifications or changes to the minutes resulting from the June 11, 2001,. meeting minutes? Seeing none, they will be approved. Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 3 LSP 01-20.00: Lot Split (Hannan, pp 529) was submitted by Patrick Harman for property located at 382 Jamagan Street. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 11 '/2 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 9 '/2 acres and 2 acres with a waiver of the Master Street right of way dedication requirements. Estes: The first item of business under new business is lot split submitted by Patrick Hannan for property located at 382 Jamagan Street. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 11 1/2 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 9 1/2 acres and 2 acres with a waiver of the Master Street right of way dedication requirements. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions of approval: Number one, Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver to relieve applicant of the dedication of right-of-way required as part of the Master Street Plan. The requirement is for 45 feet from centerline. Approximately 60,000 square feet is the area of required dedication. Number two, survey shall show the limits of the 100 year floodplain. Number three, survey shall describe the 15 feet on either side of Jamagan Lane as right-of-way dedicated to Washington County. Number four, applicant shall obtain approval from Washington County Planning prior to filing this lot split. An elevation certificate shall be required prior to building. Flood insurance may be required on all new structures. Number five, 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 Communical:ions). Is the applicant present? Do you have a presentation you would like to make to the Planning Commission? If so, would you please come forward, state your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Vamer: My name is Dale Varner and I represent the Hannan's and the Jarnagan's. This is a situation where a father who owns 11 acres roughly wants to split off 2 and give it to his daughter so she can build a house on the property that he's had for 45 to 50 years. They have no objection to the issuance to the easement across the front of the two acres. However, they request a waiver of the request by the Planning staff for the 45 foot cutting across the back of the 2 acre lot. It seems to me, at this point in time, there is no street that's really dedicated or close to the property and it's a proposal that may or may not happen. I think that in a sense that if they were forced to give this up in the hopes that some day to have a street that goes through there, it would really be taking his property without the benefit of getting money that you would be entitled to if it was condemned for a road purpose. It seems to me that, under the circumstances, this is not a big development that's going through there and they are going to build their own home on the property. There is some problem with the floodplain that the front part of • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 4 the property is lower than the back and they will be building on the back portion of the property, it's about five feet higher than the front. I don't think there is a flood problem, although it is in the floodplain area. I think that under the circumstances that this is a father who wants his family to live close to him and be a part of the property that he has owned for a long period of time. You are really straining to hold them to some rigid requirements especially since they are in the growth zone and not in the City of Fayetteville. Recognizing that there must be some orderly positions held for future developments but under these circumstances it doesn't look like Mr. Jarnagan is going to do anything on the basis of developing the property other than his own family and I don't think that's going to be a burden on the City. He has his own water supply, he has his own lane that goes up through there. They are requesting that this go up into this property and if it does a part of the right-of-way will go right through his barn and some of the other areas that he already has. I don't think, since he is donating the property to his daughter that he shouldn't sacrifice what will happen to his barn because of some requirement. This is really his driveway in a sense and it has been a dedicated lane, it's not a highway. It is not a dedicated road in any sense. They have no objection to the utility easement and whatnot, they have no objection to widening the lane in front of their property by 15 feet but not to the expense of the father. If you will look on the map the lane on one side has property owned by other people, not the father There are other houses that are not listed there on the map that they are right close to the comer where Jarnagan Lane and that two acres are It isn't one of those situations where the road is going to be widened. It will be alright up against their property but they have no control over what happens to the property across those two acres. The lane itself has been dedicated already and they have no control over that and connecting to 16. PUBLIC COMMENT: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested lot split? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions and consideration. Bunch: Just a matter of housekeeping and clarification, it is unclear on the drawing just where Jarnagan Lane starts and the applicants driveway starts. In our conditions of approval it does mention in number three that 15 feet on either side of Jarnagan Lane as right-of- • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 5 way. The point was raised that one side of the street is someone else's property. I think it would help to clarify, for the record, just where Jarnagan Lane ends and the driveway begins. Tim, could you shed some light on that? Conklin: On their survey, tract A, Jamagan Lane is located within the property so they own both sides. Approximately 209 feet south of tract A includes tract B, that is the location where we only have 15 feet on the east side. Bunch: Is it only on the front of tract B? Conklin: It's in front of both tracts. Bunch: We are saying that the road actually extends into tract A rather than that being his driveway? Conklin: Yes. By our ordinance requirements they are required to have 75 feet of road frontage for tract A. Therefore, it does extend into tract A, it does not end at tract B. Hoffman: To get 75 feet we are extending the road up through their property? Conklin: Yes. They are required to have 75 feet of road frontage. Hoffman: In essence tract A would wrap around it. I thought the issue was more of a right-of- way dedication for Starr Drive on the east but that doesn't seem to be an issue anymore? Conklin: That still is an issue. They are requesting the Planning Commission wave that dedication of requirement, in condition number one. We did place in your packet on 1.7 that ordinance requirement under 156.03(d)(1)(a)(3). It states "..the Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties. Such lessor dedication shall be subject to approval by the City Council." They are asking at this time not to dedicate that right-of-way. Hoffman: I would like to hear a little bit more from that applicant. I would view the hardship as being extension of Jarnagan Lane into the property between the house and the barn and if tract A, at some time, were to develop more densely then that would be looked at as a function of the size of the property for either a rezoning or large scale development or something. There doesn't seem to me to be as compelling a hardship on the east side because there are no structures currently located there. If some were posed at a later • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 6 date and it didn't look like that road was going to develop, a future Commission could address it then. I would be willing to consider a lesser nght-of-way up through the middle of his property on tract A but keep the required dedication for Starr Drive. Would it be okay for the applicant to respond to that? Varner: My client has no objection to dedication of the street that runs by the small two acre portion to put it there but not clear up into his where Jarnagan Lane ends and runs into his property. It's more or less a driveway in a sense, it's not part of the lane. They have no objection to widening or giving the easement across the two acre portion that's being cut off. Hoffman: The reason I'm saying that I would view it as being okay to stop it at the property or thereabouts would be because it's not shown to be a through street on our Master Street Plan but I'm also addressing Starr Lane on the east side of the property, that is shown to be a through street. As these larger tracts develop in the future, I think that it's important that the Planning Commission consider it. We are pretty big on connectivity and it would be important for us to retain that flexibility. I think we all drive on roads now that were at some time dedicated as right-of-way prior to development. Varner: The problem that I see in terms of that on the east end, that the 90 feet that is required, if and when this is annexed into the City then the street would go through, that could be taken into consideration at that time. I don't think that, under the circumstances, if we are talking 10 or 20 years before they develop that road, we would be taking that property without compensation by forcing them to give a right-of-way through there right now just for the sake of giving their daughter a place to build a house. Somehow I don't find that quite ethical. Hoffman: We certainly don't want to appear to be punitive and that's not my intention at all. It's a question of trying to apply the subdivision regulations evenly across the board. As lots are subdivided and re -subdivided, the Planning Commission typically does require the right-of-way to be left aside. There have been times where other people have shown, over long periods of time, if the development is not warranted then we can take a look at the Master Street Plan and the Master Street Plan goes through public hearings and so on and so forth. We've revised it several times within the last year. Varner: I certainly would agree that if this was a development which would be putting 20 or 50 houses in there, there would be a problem later on with deciding where the road is going to go and we would have to take houses out to accomplish it. I could certainly understand that. They have no intention of building close enough to that proposed Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 7 right-of-way that it might happen to create this. This is not a big development, he's giving his daughter two acres to build a house on. It isn't going to create a problem I can see for any future development the City might have by putting that Starr Lane through there. Estes: The reason that we must consider the dedication of right-of-way is because of our Unified Development Ordinance in Section 156, is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. Any time you consider a lot split, the applicant is required to dedicate the right-of-way based on the Master Street Plan. Estes: That is City ordinance? Conklin: That is correct. Ward: Tim, if we approve this, they can appeal to City Council if they want to get this street dedication changed? Conklin: If you approve a condition that they dedicate it, yes they could appeal that decision. If you make a recommendation not to require them to dedicate it, it still needs to go to City Council and they have to approve that lesser dedication. Varner: I might indicate that in the event that this is turned down, that they are required to do this, you are not going to have a lot split. There is not going to be a portion to have. Hoffman: Are you referring to the dedication on the east for Starr or are you referring to both? Varner: Just to Starr. Ward: With what we have to work with, the only thing we can do is approve a lesser dedication, in the event that you can prove an undue hardship. We've done this in past where somebody had a home right where a major arterial was going through. We've taken deed restrictions where they couldn't put any other structures on this land. It looks like we are talking about an acre and a half here of dedication you are being asked to provide. At this level, unless you can show us an undue hardship, I don't think we have any choice. Vamer: It certainly is an undue hardship on the people who are planning to build a home near their father so they can look after their father. It's not like they are going to build 20 Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 8 Ward: houses in there. It certainly is an undue hardship on them in terms of having to look someplace else to build a home and they wanted on the family land. It's not like the father just went in and bought the acreage. If next week we wanted to extend that road through their property, we would have to come out and buy it and condemn it, take the property one way or the other and pay them for that right which we are not having to do at this point since they are asking us a favor. Varner: They would consider that they would give a covenant that they would not build on that proposed right-of-way and when it comes time to build it or do whatever you are going to do with it, as far as the road is concerned, they could decide what they have to do. The City is going to have to buy it or whatever. Estes: My views are in conformity to Commissioner Ward's. We have this UDO section that when there is a subdivision creating only one new lot or lot split, which is what is before us, that we must consider a dedication of right-of-way. There is nothing subjective on our part, it's mandated by ordinance and we must follow the ordinance. It provides that Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties. Even if we approve a lesser dedication, it's subject to approval by the City Council. We've got to make a finding of fact that there is an undue hardship or practical difficulty. When we discussed this at agenda and also at Subdivision, there was some reference to, in the past, if we have ever done such a thing. The answer was "Yes". For example where the dedication of right-of-way went through somebody's home. In this case, I concur with Commissioner Ward. Let me ask staff some questions, Starr Road is on the Master Street Plan? Conklin: Yes. It is designated as a collector and minor arterial street. Estes: It extends north from Huntsville and connects with Wyman Road to the north? Conklin: It goes north of Wyman Road and when you get to the top of the hill, before it turns back to the west, it continues on north as a minor arterial, Starr Road south of Highway 45 back to the east, it is designated as a collector street. The portion of right-of-way that we are looking at today is located between Wyman Road and Huntsville Road, it's at the east end of this lot so it would be one piece of undeveloped right-of-way that would be dedicated to the City at this time. Estes: To grant the requested waiver, we cannot amend the Master Street Plan? Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 9 Varner: Conklin: Estes: Varner: Estes: MOTION: Hoffman: Ward: Estes: Ward: Does the Master Street Plan include the growth area? Yes it does. The way I view it is, we cannot, in this proceeding this evening, amend the Master Street Plan and to grant the requested waiver. We are going to have to ignore, pay no attention to or amend, see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil. We are going to have to create a fiction that the Master Street Plan doesn't exist. We can't do that. The second thing we would have to do, according to the ordinance, is make a finding of undue hardship or practical difficulties. I guess the Planning Commission has to do what they have to do but it's going to eliminate the need for a lot split. I would almost guarantee it. On condition number three, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Hoffman, I don't see any reason to run that 15 foot on either side of Jarnagan Lane as a right-of-way, past the point where the west 230 foot line meets the north 209 foot line. I would not be in favor or requiring that at all I would not grant the requested waiver of the dedication of right-of-way because I just don't see that we can do it. I was going to enter a motion because I do agree with the others about Starr Drive right-of-way. I think that if he wants to take the case to City Council to request that they waive or change the Master Street Plan, that's certainly your right to do so. I agree with you, there is no point at all in having the extension of Jarnagan Lane up into the property. I think that's your hardship. Therefore, my motion would be to recommend LS 01-20.00 with the amendment to condition number three, that the 15 feet on either side of Jarnagan Lane dedicated as right-of-way not extend past the northwestern point of tract B, that it extend only to that intersection at the northwestern corner of tract B, where it adjoins tract A Leave in place the right-of-way dedication for Starr Drive. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and motion by Commissioner Ward, is there any discussion? Would the applicant like to pull or table this or do you want us to go ahead and go Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 10 through with the voting of it. Varner: I assume you have a vote on it because the other alternative they may have is to ask the Council to change it and if they are denied there, they can also withdraw their motion. I guess we need to take the next step to where we are needing to go to get some relief. Estes: Any other discussion? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call LS 01-20.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 11 CUP 01-16 Conditional Use (Roll Off Service, pp 599) was submitted by Tom Smith on behalf of Roll Off Service for property located at 1348 Cato Springs Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 2.91 acres. The request is for a center for collecting recyclable materials (use unit 28) in the I-1 district. Estes: The next item on the agenda is conditional use 01-16.00 submitted by Tom Smith on behalf of Roll Off Service for property located at 1348 Cato Springs Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 2.91 acres. The request is for a center for collecting recyclable materials (use unit 28) in the 1-1 district. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions: Number one, all areas of the site on which are used for vehicular movements, including parking or storage of vehicles or containers of any type, shall be paved with concrete or hot mix asphalt. The applicant has proposed to pave the entrance drive in cooperation with Mid -Continent Concrete (see site plan provided by applicant) and to use already paved areas of the site for vehicles. The north end of the site, which is currently gravel, is proposed to be used for container storage. Number two, conditional use approval shall be for Roll Off Service only and shall not transfer to a new business. Number three, conditional use approval shall apply only to the proposed level of activity. Any increase in the volume of materials transported to and from this facility, as related to the baling operation for recyclable materials, shall require Planning Commission consideration and a new conditional use approval Number four, the applicant shall secure all required permits for construction, repairs, signage etc. prior to initiation of those activities. Number five, all sorting and baling of materials shall be conducted indoors. Storage shall be located indoors or in tarred containers on-site. No materials shall be stored in stockpiles open containers. Number six, the Baer shall be located in the easternmost building on the site, as far as possible from residential areas west and south of the property. Number seven, any outdoor lighting (security or otherwise) shall be shielded and directed downward and away from any adjacent residential properties. Number eight, all milling equipment left on site from the previous occupant which will not be utilized by Roll Off Service, Inc. shall be removed in a timely manner. Materials and equipment which have already been dismantled or are on the ground shall be removed within 30 days. Equipment which must be dismantled and broken down shall be removed within 12 months. Number nine, any expansion of this center for collecting recyclable materials shall require a new conditional use approval. Number ten, the baling operation, and the loading of rail cars and truck traffic to and from this site relating to the baling activities shall occur only during regular business hours as proposed by the applicant (7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday). The applicant proposes to limit only operations and truck traffic related to the recycling (baling of packaging • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 12 materials) operation. Additional traffic may be generated in conjunction with other uses conducted on this site. Number eleven, this facility shall not generate generally offensive or noxious odors or create an unreasonable hazard to the public. Number twelve, no more than 14 gondolas (rail cars) per month carrying cast iron borings generated by Webb Wheel, Inc. of Siloam Springs, AR shall be shipped from this site. Mr. Williams, with reference to condition of approval number ten, is it permissible to place hours of operation upon a conditional use? Williams: Mr. Chairman, similar to other kinds of conditions that you can place as long as this is reasonable, I think that you can limit the hours of operation. I think it makes a lot of sense. The reason that a bailing operation is conditional is because of it's potential noise and impact on the neighborhood. Therefore, it is only reasonable to restrict the hours of operation of this to the hours of their normal operation, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. I think this condition is a reasonable condition that you can place upon them. Estes: Is the applicant present and wish to make a presentation. If so, would you please come forward and say your name and give us the benefit of your presentation? Zotti: I'm Cheryl Zotti and also with me is the company owner and President, Tom Smith, of Roll Off Service, Inc. We were at your agenda session and did go over some of our plans. Considering we have a larger audience we might hit the highlights of what we are currently doing at the facility and what we propose to do in light of a conditional use. We have been operating the facility for several months. I'll start with a brief summary of what we've been doing there. Primarily two functions, we have been sorting return merchandise from a major retail outlet and then we have been using the rail spur to service some of our customers like a metal company, transporting the metal via the railcars. We have been doing that. We are coming before you tonight because the need has arisen through our services to bail cardboard. The interpretation made by Planning staff is that that process requires a conditional use. Your language in the actual ordinance states "a recycling center" and we'll tell you right up front, we don't plan to develop a recycling center as we might view it where the public would come to and from dropping off material. We are actually going to be baling material, as needed, from our operations That's why we are here tonight, strictly about this bailing operation. To hit on some of the highlights of what we will be doing to improve the site and some of the conditions which you've outlined, I think our improvements are probably the biggest thing that will be a plus with this conditional use. It just so happens that going along with this you are going to get some benefits of the site. We all know that this Cato Springs site has been earmarked as an eyesore from previous occupants. We plan to go in and do some modifications which will include removing the milling • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 13 equipment. As you know from being on the site, some of you did visit the site or have visited the site, there is approximately three stories of milling equipment storage, silos, all of which the neighbors, and we as well, consider pretty much unsightly. We are not going to use that in our operation so we do plan to dismantle and remove that from the site. Our hope, of course, is to find someone that can reuse this material, we think we are going to be successful in that venture. Either way, we are going to bring it down. We did propose this when we originally met with your staff Another major improvement will be paving and that is condition number one. The concerns that we had and also one of the biggest concerns from residents in the area is the significant amount of dust which is generated from the traffic coming in and out of this facility. We are sharing a drive with Mid -Continent, who is our neighbor and certainly they have a much higher traffic volume than we do. There is a significant amount of dust so we have approached Mid -Continent, we met with their general manager, Larry Williams, and -I would say that it was a very pleasant experience. When I mentioned that there was a dust problem and it was not only from our perspective but yours, their immediate response was "Let's fix it." They didn't want to think about it and consider what it might cost them. We will be partnering with them to do some significant concrete work. We gave a site plan which indicates what we are proposing. For those of you that have visited the site, for the most part the entire site has concrete work, hard surface. The only area, once we finish our paving, will be the most norther part or back of the property which is a hard surface but it's gravel. We are asking one of the conditions is that you go with our site plan, it's significant paving that we'll be undertaking. There are some areas that are 30 or 40 feet wide that we'll cover with paving I truly believe that is going to improve the dust problem. 80% to 90% of what's generated is from the ingress and egress, right at the entrance. This will solve most of the dust problem, if not all of it Another major improvement will be the general grounds. The previous occupant left a lot of large debris, metal items, storage. Some of you saw that, the residents that we met with saw that. That's what they see the most of because it's on the western portion of this property for the most part. We plan to remove all that debris and clean up the site in general. The whole site is littered with large processing equipment, conveyors, all of that will be removed, some of which we've undertaken, the most part we will with approval of this conditional use. In the general aesthetics of the.property, just to give you an idea of what it will look like, it will look like two warehouses, that's our goal with it. Once we get the milling equipment down, we are going to go in and repair the building surfaces, it's a metal building with a lot of holes in the metal. In general, what we are doing, we don't want rainwater in and we also want it to look better. There will be replacement of the metal, especially on the processing facilities. We will also be painting the facilities. On the intenor, it's very dusty, there is still an odor that's left behind. We'll be cleaning that and make sure it's • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 14 Estes: Allen: a completely safe facility and then repainting it and making it a working space. I think the general aesthetics of this property is going to be a major improvement. I think it's going to be good for the City, good for the residents and good for us. We want these improvements as much as the residents want them because it's the way we do business. That's pretty much an idea of what we are going to be doing. I would like to run down the conditions. We agree to the conditions with a few exceptions of which Mr. Estes did relay to you. The first is number one, we would like to propose the paving that we provide be that as indicated on the site plan and we did provide copies to your staff to give to you. That will be the entire entrance that will be shared by Mid -Continent and this company as well as up to the first building and with that again, most of the property will be paved. The other item, and I did call your staff today and it was too late to try to add our request, number five on "All sorting and baling of materials shall be conducted indoors. Storage shall be located indoors or in taped containers on-site. No materials shall be stored in stockpiles open containers." We would like to add "in relation to the baling operation", because there are some functions, as I explained, that we do now where we stockpile material or have been, or we might store them in containers to prevent to actually stockpile them on the ground. Again, we would like to make sure it's in relation to our request for the conditional use. We discussed it with your staff today. Number ten, just to go over with you one more time, we would like this, this is just our effort to make sure that we are tying it to the baling operation. We do service a few customers and use the rail spur, so we would hope if we are driving from Siloam Springs at 5:30 a.m. we wouldn't be breaking our conditional use if we were actually transporting metal debris from Webb Wheel. That's what we are trying to do here, tie it directly to the baling operation and that is why we are here before you tonight. Other than that, we do agree with the conditions which your staff has gone over and they have been very good to work with us. I think overall, we are going to do major improvements to this site. It's going to be a very non -intrusive operation. I think of all the things that could have gone in to an I-2, this will probably be one of the least intrusive on your neighbors in that area. We have met with them, we've listened to their concerns and some of these conditions actually came from their concerns. I think they are going to be happy, I think it will take time for them to believe we are going to make these things happen. With that, Mr. Smith and I will certainly entertain questions or go into more detail. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant at this time? I wondered if you could elaborate on condition number 12 about the iron casting boring? I don't understand that very well, would you explain that to me? Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 15 Smith: Currently Webb Wheel of Siloam Springs is one of our customers that we pick up their cast iron borings from. Cast iron borings is a material that's milled off of brake drums that are manufactured for semi trucks. We transport that material over to our rail spur and stockpile it until we get to about 180,000 pounds. At that point we load it into a gondola which is the open top railcar and slup it to different mills across the country, Mexico and Canada. That was one of the concems that the area neighbors had about the facility, how long we are going to provide that service at that facility and that's why it was addressed here. That's another reason that they put a limit on our proposal to do that material there, to where we wouldn't do 50 railcars out of there a month, we agreed to do no more than 14 per month. • Allen: Are these little fragments of metal? Smith: They are actually heavier than sand, it's a very dense material. You are not going to see piles of it. You may see a pile that stands three feet tall that would weigh 60,000 pounds. It's a very heavy dense material. It should be dust free. We have covered some of the dust issues down there and this material should not create any dust whatsoever because it's not a dust related material. They are dry, they are not oil soaked or ever come in contact with any oil based material. Allen: Are they things that can be inhaled? Smith: No. Estes: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant at this time? Hoffman: I have one question for the applicant while you are up here. I was thinking about adding a 13th condition of approval and it's one that we have done on conditional uses before. Staff, just to be consistent, since it is a conditional use, typically in the past there have been concerns about non-compliance with the conditions. We have said that failure to comply with these conditions of approval shall result in the disconnection of water service to the site. Would that be agreeable to you that we add that as a final condition? Zotti: We assume that, I'm not familiar with your notification process, if there was something you felt we were not in compliance would we get notification and the ability to address your staff? Obviously we would want the opportunity to come and talk with staff if there is a problem and be given the time to fix the problem before the water is shut off I'm certain with the staff we have there is a process for that. • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 16 Hoffinan: What have we done on those? I remember having those conditions but I'm sure that there is a notification period. Conklin: I haven't had to tum anybody's water off. Typically, we notify them of the conditions that are not being met and give them a reasonable time to meet them. If not, then we bring them back to the Commission. Hoffman: We've only had that occur a couple of times in the last? Conklin: Twice. Hoffman: I find this kind of condition can give the neighbors more of a feeling of confidence about the operation. So, if you don't object to it, I'm sure the staff would treat you with an equal amount of time that they did the other. Smith: No objection here. • Zotti: No. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Estes: Eastin: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant at this time? Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this conditional use request? If so, please come forward, tell us your name. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Mr. Estes, my name is Terri Eastin. I live at 2033 South Ashwood. These are some of my neighbors who have been through hell, living in hell, and feel like having to come before you tonight on this issue is like being put back in hell.. I know that Ms. Zotti has painted a lovely picture of their new potential operation but we do have some concerns. Many things were uncovered in the June 15t meeting, between 1 and 3 p.m. that the residents held with Mr. Smith and Ms. Zotti that had not previously been brought to light or that we had not previously had an opportunity to discuss. Of primary importance to this issue is the fact that the truck usage on that site is not going to be limited to just Roll -Off Service. Mr. Smith has a handshake agreement with Hanna's Potpourri for the loading and off-loading of railroad wax on this site. That will increase the truck traffic, particularly the truck traffic to the back side where Mr. Smith is not planning to pave. That is an issue. I was led to believe personally by Ms. Zotti, when I • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 17 questioned her three times regarding what was going to be happening at the site, that the only thing occurring on the site would be the bailing operation. That is not the case. I was assured on the site, in front of witnesses, by Mr Smith that they are getting ready to change their process regarding the offloading of railroad shavings. When I suggested to Mr. Smith we could put a condition on this usage that would require them not to offload the shavings, he then strenuously objected and yet he said that they were going to stop that portion of the business. I also object to and disagree with Mr. Smith's concern or issue regarding those metal shavings that are offloaded, they do become airborne and they do fall on the homes and automobiles of surrounding residents. Therefore, I would ask this Commission to delay voting on this issue until there is more time to research and consider these issues. We have been in court regarding that site once before, or as close as you can get to being in court. If we are going to be put through the hell that we have lived through already, then that's where we will be again, only the City will be involved in a different form this time. Thank you. Harp: James Harp, 1826 South Ashwood. The stockpile of shavings that they are having is piled outside and, if you want to go look, there is a rust pile that runs off of this onto the concrete when it rains on it, it does leave rust out there. Estes: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to comment? Eastin: We also have a lot of concerns that the neighbors on either side of this new proposed business have been not very neighborhood friendly. When I say that, I'm speaking with regard to the railroad who has been dropping rusted metal cans on this site, junk materials. That portion of the site does not belong to this applicant, however, it's becoming an increasing eyesore. We haven't seen any attempt to have that resolved by the Planning staff. I also have a concern about Mrs. Warrick's statement in the paper that she felt the residents were generally not opposed to this new business. I think that was way out of line by Mrs. Warrick. Estes: Is there any other member of the audience that would like to provide comment on this conditional use request? McKinney: I'm Rick McKinney, I live on Olive Street but I have an office on School Street and 24th. The past occupant was a factor at my location on certain days. Being in my location you have the air of tortillas and Swanson Foods in the morning and then as it as a Bakery Feeds, swill and sewer in the aftemoon. You can understand my concem as well. I also am a frequent user of Cato Springs Road so I've seen this site. I guess my concern is enforcement. If the City didn't notice a 100 foot smoke stack going up and • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 18 go down to enforce the illegality of the erection of that smokestack, how frequently is the City going to notice changes at this site with this operation? I feel like a conditional use is very valid. I think that any questions that I first had since the discussion started have been answered through discussion about those uses, with the exception of enforcement. I know that the City is limited on it's inspectors and they have a full chart to run every day but what insurances do you have to the taxpayers and these neighbors that this operation is going to maintain exactly what they've asked for and not deviate or expand from it? Estes: Tim, would you comment on Mr. McKinney's question? How is enforcement of a conditional use handled by your staff? Conklin: Depending on which conditions you are looking at. If it's paving of all the surfaces they drive on, that's fairly easy to make sure it's completed. With other issues that come up that are more difficult, staff does go on site tours weekly and we do drive around and see things on occasion that we do try to make sure they are in compliance with the conditions. We also rely on neighbors in the neighborhoods to let us know, which they do a very good job of letting us know if there is something that they said they were going to do that they are not doing. We try to make sure we have conditions that we can clearly monitor, that we can enforce. Just for the Commission's understanding, condition number one, we are asking that all surfaces be paved that they drive on and keep their containers on. I think that will help tremendously with the dust. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Estes: Smith: Is there any other member, besides Ms. Fastin, who would like to provide public comment on this issue? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant for comments and rebuttal, if you would like to respond to any item whichwas discussed during the public comment portion. First I would like to thank the neighborhood in showing interest in our business. I've asked them to let our actions speak louder than our words and I've invited them back during the course of our business, at any time, to visit the facility and give us comments and feedback on how we are doing, whether it be positive or negative. Most of the time when things like this happen you only hear about the negative things. We think we are going to help the City of Fayetteville, we are going to help the area. Just take a drive by from a half a mile away and you can see what is there and take a look at it in six months and see what we've done. Responding to the dust particles with the case iron borings that's on site. Jay Ellis from the EPA did have a complaint on the dust • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 19 particles by an unknown party, he investigated the site, looked at the material that we are loading into the gondolas and said there were no violations on the premises. He's going to back that up with a written letter, which I'm not sure how long that will take him to get out but that happened this week. I would just encourage the members here to focus on what it is that we asked for and to definitely encourage the community and the people to take a look at what we are doing. We hope that they wouldn't come during business hours because it's not a for public site but they could call Cheryl or myself any time and make an appointment to see what we are doing, take a look. We want the City of Fayetteville to come down and we want the positive press that we are going to get from the situation. Estes: I11 bring the conditional use request back to the Commission for comments, discussion, motions. Hoffman: It looks to me like the two major concerns expressed by the neighbors was first the additional traffic that was going to be taking place and that would be covered by one of our conditions. Although, you haven't agreed to it, I'm inclined to go ahead and require, as the condition states, the extra paving for that traffic in the rear and the container storage. I would like your comment on that. My second question does regard the shavings. It looks to me like our condition number five, which you had also questioned, would take care of the question of airborne materials in that you would need to cover all those materials whether it be the recycled material that is going into the bailer, the corrugated cardboard and the shavings. Do you have any objection to those two items being left as is? Smith: I would have an objection to covering the trimmings. They are on the ground for a very short period of time. We offload them onto a concrete slab and reload them right into a gondola. We are at the railroads service as to whether or not that gondola is picked up that day or not. It would not be cost effective nor feasible for us to cover a gondola of cast iron borings prior to shipment. These things are shipping all the way to south Texas and the railroad or the National Railroad Association, they don't require this to be covered in transit so I don't see it feasible for us to cover them while they are not in transit. Hoffman: What about the runoff issue? What I'm concerned with is the housekeeping on the site because I did go by the site and see the leftover shavings that are outside of the front door and I can see how the rainwater would wash those down into the creek system. I would like you to address that. • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 20 Smith: We have a waste stormwater monitoring in process now. We have a system in place now that we monitor all of our stormwater needs. At this point, that hasn't become an issue. Every two to three loads, guys go down there and sweep those up. Most of that is stained rust, no different than if you left a fork and a spoon out on the patio, it's going to rust and leave a stain. Hoffman: I guess I was referring to the amount of material because there was a big pile of it in front of the overhead door. It would seem to me that in your daily operations it would be important daily to clean it up. Zotti: We will most likely be moving the operation to the back of the facility, especially once we start removing some of the milling equipment because we will probably use those overhead doors. It will be on the back side of the property. Estes: I also have some questions about the cast iron borings, how are those transported to the facility? How do those come from Webb Wheel to the site? • Smith: We use our Roll -Off trucks and containers to transport them over there. Estes: Do they go directly from the Roll -Off container into the gondola? • Smith: In a perfect world, yes, but because the fact that we get irregular shipments of them we have to stockpile enough to put into a gondola. They are dumped, maybe three loads and the fourth load will go directly into the gondola. Estes: When we toured the site Thursday, we saw one or more piles of these cast iron borings on the ground. I went by the site again Sunday afternoon and it was still there. Do I understand correctly it comes in the Roll -Off container from Siloam Springs and you take it out of the Roll -Off container and put it on the ground, let it sit on the ground and then you load it into the gondola? Smith: That's correct. Hoffman: My question is to staff about the nature of this conditional use. Is it my understanding that the business is operating legally now and that the only thing that they are here for is the conditional use for the bailer? On our agenda session tour, we did go to the City's waste facility and observe the operation of their bailer. It didn't seem to me that particular aspect was going to be problematic. It was not a loud machine. Is that the only thing the conditional use is about or is it about the whole operation? • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 21 Conklin: That is how staff looked at it. Keep in mind it is zoned I-1 and just pnor to this meeting I did look at the zoning map of 1970 and it was I-1 back then. It's been zoned I-1 for a long time. I-1, I'll read you the purpose of that zoning district. "The Heavy Commercial District is designed primarily to accommodate certain commercial and light industrial uses which are compatible with one another but are inappropriate in other commercial or industrial districts. The light industrial district is designed to group together a wide range of industrial uses, which do not produce objectionable environmental influences in their operation and appearance. The regulations of this district are intended to provide a compatibility between uses permitted in this district and those in nearby residential districts." It lists the uses permitted by right which includes, offices, studios, eating places, trades and services, gas stations, drive-in restaurants, warehousing wholesale, manufacturing, wholesale bulk petroleum facilities and underground storage tanks. By conditional use it allows commercial recreation on large sites and center for collecting recyclable materials. I'm going through this to show you our thought process as staff and how we came up with this use unit. Warehousing and Wholesale is use unit 21, that's allowed by right. I'm reading off of page 3.9. That allows warehouses, wholesale establishments, trucking establishments, building material establishments, including lumber, paint, plumbing, electrical supply, glass, fuel and ice establishments, bottled gas, oil, fuel oil, ice house, mini storage units, vending machines, service establishments, contract construction service including air conditioning, carpentry, cesspool cleaning, concrete, electrical, construction, painting, roofing, sheet metal, water well drilling, tile setting and those type of uses, those are allowed by right within the zoning district. Unit 21, the purpose of it is, warehousing, wholesaling and trucking of the type which is usually located to serve the central business district and is easily served by rail and highway transportation. The zoning district is designed to be close to highways and close to rail, which this site is next to a rail line. Under unit 22, Manufacturing: fabricated metal products, cutlery engraving, fire control equipment, guns and related equipment, machinery, tanks, transportation equipment including body shops. Fabricated Structural Products: air conditioning and cooling, fabricated wire products, hardware, heating apparatus, metal cans. Miscellaneous manufacturing: athletic goods, plated ware, silverware, sporting goods, toys, textile products and housing for caretakers. We come to unit 28, on page 3 10, Center for Collecting Recyclable Materials. When Ms. Zotti contacted the Planning office and described the use and talked about collecting this material and having to bale the cardboard, it was my interpretation that now became a center for collecting recyclable material because they are actually going to collect it, bale it and ship it out. Keep in mind, under I-1 zoning if you have a facility that wanted to do warehousing or wholesale and brought trucks in with goods and merchandise and stored them there and shipped them out later, that would be a use by right. In our interpretation, to make a short answer very • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 22 long, the cardboard part is what takes the conditional use the warehousing and storage of material is a use by right in I-1 zoning. Estes: Tim, what we have before us this evening is a request for a center for collecting recyclable materials, a use unit 28 in an I-1 distnct? Conklin: That is correct. Keep in mind under 1-1 they can also use the facility for storage and warehousing by right. Staff has placed conditions on this facility that address other activities that are occurring on the site including condition number 12, limiting them to 14 gondolas per month at this facility for the metal shavings. Bunch: Would the collection of these cast iron borings be considered collection of material for recycling? Conklin: That is not something that we considered because they are storing them there and shipping them out. It's somewhat difficult. When we looked at it, we were looking at if they add anything to the process. With the cardboard, definitely they do, they are baling it. With the metal shavings they are just storing them there and loading them onto the railcars. Shackelford: Mr. Williams, now that we've stated our position that the current operation is a use by nght under the current zoning, I would like your interpretation of conditional use number 12 and the fact that we are putting limitations on the existing business as it is in operation now as part of this conditional use. Williams: Shackelford: Are you talking about the hours of operation? I'm talking about limiting the number of gondolas for the iron borings that are generated. If we are saying that's a use by right as it operates now, is there any concern with putting a conditional use on something that's use by right? Williams: There is some concern with that but normally when you put conditions on someone that comes before you asking for a conditional use, you are restncting what they could normally do. You are by definition restricting what they are doing right now in order to make the impact of what they are requesting less harmful to the neighborhood I think that is can be done even though, if they didn't want to do the baling, they could evidently load as many gondolas full of these iron filings as they would like to. This is true with any time you look at conditional uses. The uses that they are proposing are usually things people can do. You are saying in order for us to grant this conditional use • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 23 to mitigate it's harm to the neighbors, you are going to need to give up this right. I think that it is legal for you to do that. Conklin: I do believe the applicant is in agreement with condition number 12. There is no issue with the applicant with the condition of limiting the number of gondolas to 14. Hoffman: Would there be a problem with doing this conditional use similar to one that we did require on Hanna Candle Factory and that was to require proof of compliance with the state EPA regulations, air and water quality. I don't remember how we worded that. It seems like you've already started that process and if you are already planning on putting in water quality measurements. If the environmental aspects are as large of a concern as they are and we have state laws to cover those, is that something that we would be wise to consider and if you would even consider it? Conklin: They will be required to comply with those standards. It doesn't hurt anything, in my opinion, to put a statement in there as a condition that you will comply with all federal, state and local laws, statutes and ordinances. Hoffman: What's the acronym for that state department? Conklin: ADEQ. Hoffman: Would you be willing to accept that as a further condition? Smith: It's our company policy to stay in compliance with ADEQ and other government agencies. However, I believe that we need to stay focused on why we are here tonight and that is the baling operation, not the cast iron borings. Ward: Since the cast iron borings are such a big issue, they are big mounds of cast iron borings you are taking out of your Roll -Off trucks, is there any reason you couldn't just cover those with large tarps when they are on the premises? Smith: No, there's no problem. Ward: That will stop the moisture. I think you would want to do that anyway. Bunch: I'm still having a problem with the operation of a transfer facility for the cast iron borings. Mr. Williams, can you give us some enlightenment on this? It seems like they are storing recyclable material, stockpiling them and then transfemng them to another • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 24 transportation mode. That would seem real close to a transfer facility. Williams: I think that according to our ordinances we must defer to the City Planner who interprets the Unified Development Ordinance. He is given that right under the ordinance to be the one that interprets that and even though you can certainly question him about that, I will defer to his interpretation. Conklin: Mr. Williams is correct. I have to make that decision. Once again, that's why I went through the use units. It's difficult in my mind when you are allowed to have warehousing and storage facilities by right and they are bringing something there to store, that becomes a center for collecting. With the cardboard it was easier for me to make that decision because they are actually baling it and adding some value to it and transporting it off the site. In my mind, that's how I came up with that interpretation. They are in agreement with condition number 12, limiting the amount. Whatever conditions and safeguards you feel need to be placed on this facility, you have that authority to place those conditions and safeguards on this conditional use. Bunch: My question is probably not necessarily not so much intended at this particular location but that we not paint ourselves into a corner in the future when we made the determination what is a transfer facility and what is a warehousing and stockpiling facility. My concern is if we set a precedent here for definition of what these facilities are. Conklin: This is really, to my knowledge, the first one we have looked at under use unit 28, other than Bakery Feeds that came through. The only thing that 1 have to go on is the center that collects recyclable facilities and I also have use unit 21 which allows warehousing and storage and is designed to be near highway and rail for transportation. Estes: Condition number three "Conditional use approval shall apply only to the proposed level of activity. Any increase in the volume of materials transported to and from this facility, as related to the baling operation for recyclable materials, shall require Planning Commission consideration and a new conditional use approval." We've concentrated somewhat on cardboard, things are shipped in cardboard, where there be other recyclable materials that you will be handling at this facility other than cardboard? Smith: There are materials that we handle at this facility that we consider a sorting process that we now perform there and we didn't want to limit ourselves to any expansion or limit or functions at this facility. We are a growing company and we are going to hopefully use this facility as a stepping stone. In the best case scenario we'll come in there and take • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 25 Estes: Smith: down the old mill portion of the building, turn it into a warehouse and be able to locate in a much larger facility very similar to the City of Fayetteville's transfer station where we can have a multi-purpose facility tied in with a transfer station. We are 12 months away from that. That's exactly what I was thinking about. This is a conditional use request for a center for collecting recyclable materials, use unit 28 in an I-1 district. Condition number three is "Conditional Use approval shall apply only to the proposed level of activity". Are we going to see an increase in the level of activity? What are we going to see out there six months or a year from now? Are we going to see a regularly expanded transfer station recycling center, what's going to be out there? In a perfect case scenario you'll see a nice couple of warehouses out there that we are using for maybe a warehouse facility. Our intention is not to use this for a very long term period, simply because we are very limited to our expansion because of the neighbors, because of the rail spur that is in place. We have 2.7 acres out there and it's a stepping stone for our company. In six months you will see our operation going as it is, hopefully in 3 months or even in 30 days because of the fact the size of the facility will not allow us to do more volume there. We've agreed to the language that we would have to come before you folks again and ask for an expansion in the event that we wanted to expand, because we don't have an intention to expand it. You are not going to see us out there every week saying "Well we have a new customer, we need to expand our hours to 11:00 p.m. Hope the neighbors don't mind." We voiced that to our neighbors. We've also voiced to the neighbors that we plan on being good neighbors and they will like what they see and they will like what they don't hear. Estes: We've heard that you will be providing services to WalMart and to Webb Wheel, do you have any plans to provide services to any other client in this facility? Smith: We have intentions to provide services to any commercial or industrial account in northwest Arkansas. The type of services that we provide will probably be effective at this facility because it's a cardboard operation. We have a cardboard recycling truck, very similar to the City of Fayetteville, that we go business to business to the small commercial accounts and we pick up a four yard container cif cardboard. That one truck will then come in and offload the load and we'll bale and process the cardboard from that point on. We've indicated Cheryl Zotti's done a forecast of the amount of customers that we now have and that we expect to pick up in the next few months and that's where our forecast of vehicular movement inside and outside the dnves came from. We thought ahead a little bit and we think we know what we want. We know • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 26 Bunch: Smith: MOTION: Shackelford: • Ward: Estes: the volume that we are going to have and we've shared that in our application. On the offloading of various other materials from the railroad, are those accesses to be paved or are they currently paved? The portion that we offload and reload the railcars are concrete at this time. We are not able to use anything but a concrete or hot mix. If we are loading or unloading gondolas or boxcars, it will be on a paved portion of the property. If it's not currently paved, then it would be paved. I can't see very much more room that we would need for that. I'll need some help on the addition of number 13 that you are wanting to add. As I see it, this is zoned I-1, it has been for a long time. It's located with rail access for a reason. It's going to always deem itself to some type of industrial use. I think the proposed use is a definite improvement of the property over the past. I see it as an agreement with staff, this is just a conditional use for the recycling facility. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve this based on the 13 conditions of approval, with the final 13th being "Failure to comply with these conditions of approval shall result in the disconnection of the water service to the site". I'll second. I would like to amend that motion that they also meet all the ADEQ and EPA standards as a 14th condition and any material like the shavings be covered with tarps. This property is zoned I-1, it's really become an eyesore down there and it has been for quite a while now. I don't believe that anything you can do will hurt that. Anything you can do will improve it. It's on public notice now what you are talking about what you are going to be doing. We hope it turns out that way and this becomes a show place instead of an eyesore. Does the movement accept the amendment? Shackelford: Yes. Hoffman: I'll be voting for the conditional use and I would like to tell the neighbors that any time we have mixed zoning like this, it puts the Planning Commission and the City, everybody, when we are presented with a proposal such as this one with the assurances the site is going to be cleaned and with the state laws that we have in affect, I feel that there is a method of appeal on your behalf and that with cooperation from the • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 27 state and state monitoring, the environmental concems sound like they are going to be addressed. These decisions are not ever easy when we have a neighborhood right next door to an industrial site. I think that with the many conditions of approval that we have that these folks have to meet, hopefully we are all going to be pleasantly surpnsed. Conklin: I would Just like clarification on condition number one "Staff is requesting that all surfaces that have vehicles on it be paved", I just want to clarify that is what you are intending to approve? Shackelford: My intention is as you have written it, yes sir. Conklin: And condition number ten which states "The baling operation and the loading of railcars and truck traffic to and from the site relating to the baling activities shall only occur during regular business hours as proposed by the applicant, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday"? Shackelford: Yes sir. Bunch: On the clarification, you say for vehicular movements, does that include lift trucks and loading equipment? Conklin: Any place where vehicles travel needs to be paved. Zotti: Estes: If we may address you on the conditions just for clarification for us as well? On number five, we did talk about the stockpile or open containers that that language be added to be in relation to the baling operation and then in concession be added a line... I need some clarification on number five also. "All sorting and baling materials shall be conducted indoors. Storage shall be located indoors or in tarped containers on site." Is that your motion Commissioner Shackelford? Shackelford: Yes Estes: Is that your second Commissioner Ward? Ward: My understanding is the shavings will be covered with tarps, I don't know about tarped containers. I don't know what a tarped container is. • Estes: To me that means a container with a tarp on top of it. • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 28 Conklin: That was our intention on that. To clanfy, when talking about the shavings, I'll need to add that in there, the shavings will be tarped. Estes: The shavings that are on the ground will be tarped on the ground, is that your motion Commissioner Shackelford? Shackelford: Yes. Estes: Is that your second Commissioner Ward? Ward: Yes. Estes: "No materials shall be stored in stockpiles, open containers", what does that mean Tim? Conklin: It should be "or". "No materials shall be stored in stockpiles or open containers". • Shackelford: I think we'll have to strike that. I think that will have to read "All sorting and baling materials should be conducted indoors. Storage shall be located indoors or in tarped containers on site. Shavings on the ground will be covered with tarps as well." If we want to further define what type of shavings we can do that there. You can't really say no materials shall be stored in stockpiles or in open containers. If we are going to say shavings can be used on the ground as long as they are covered with a tarp That was my understanding of the amendment as Commissioner Ward presented it. Williams: You can just put an "except" in there, "except that shavings may be stored on the ground if covered by a tarp". Hoffman: I have a problem with that. How do we separate out the motions? Estes: I don't think we've decided what the motion is so far. Hoffinan: I think that the shavings and pig iron need to be in containers so they don't adversely affect and runoff the site. I thought that when we questioned the applicants about the conditions as written that they were in agreement with them. Maybe I misheard or misunderstood. Zotti: I think what Mr. Ward referred to in that conversation is that our operations require for • us to stockpile the cast iron borings and that we agree to tarp that material that's on the • • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 29 ground. In the language that you have there, we couldn't stockpile period. That's why we would ask the last sentence be stricken and language added that the material from Webb Wheel that we stockpile on the ground will be tarped. Ho an: Is there a reason that you can't store the material in a container and then put it on the train? Smith: Yes, we use a front loader to load the railcar and the bucketis wider than the container so, we have to drop it on concrete. If you have been down there, you saw the barricades of concrete around there that we push up against while we load the bucket of the tractor and then dump it into the train car. Hoffman: That would address my concem. If you have a diked area that would contain the runoff. It guess it doesn't have to be a container. Smith: We would be happy to put a perimeter of concrete around the cast iron borings to prevent any runoff. As a matter of fact, stage two would be to move the borings to the north side of the building and there is an already built cinder block square back there that we'll be dumping inside of it. It will probably contain it probably in a better manner than what's being done now because we are going to be needing the doors. Estes: Shackelford: Hoffman: Ward: Shackelford: Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and second by Commissioner Ward with an amendment. Let me see if I can correctly state that amendment. That amendment is to condition of approval number five "All sorting and baling of material shall be conducted indoors. Storage shall be located indoors or in tarped containers on site. No materials shall be stored in stockpiles or open containers with the exception of the cast iron borings generated by Webb Wheel, Inc. of Siloam Springs." Is that a correct statement of the amendment? "If they are covered by a tarp." Can we include "And in the diked area to prevent runoff'? That would be fine with my motion. I'll second. That's fine with the motion. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford with a second by Commissioner Ward with the amendment to condition number five that "All sorting and bailing • • Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 30 materials shall be conducted indoors. Storage shall be located indoors or in tarped containers on site. No materials shall be stored in stockpiles or open containers with the exception of cast iron borings generated by Webb Wheel which must be stored in a diked area to prevent runoff and covered by tarps " Is that your amendment Commissioner Ward? Ward: Yes it is. Estes: Does the movement accept that amendment? Shackelford: Yes sir, I do. Estes: Is there any other discussion regarding the motion? Bunch: Conditional use number two. I don't know if I understand exactly what that says. I see what it's supposed to say. If the business reconfigures, merges, sells... I'm wondering what latitude is allowed in unit 2 as far as changing configuration of the business and still maintaining the conditional use? Estes: It would be my understanding if this conditional use, if approved, would be for this applicant only and that there would be an alienation on the right of this applicant to transfer this conditional use. Conklin: That's our intention Mr. Chairman. Bunch: Should this business sell and have the same name, what would that do? It would still be the same business but different owner but with the same name and doing the same function. I'm Just looking for an interpretation to see what I'm voting on. Estes: I would think that if the business sold in it's entirety, it's a corporation, if all the issued and outstanding stock were sold, it would continue as Roll -Off Service, the applicant. Bunch: Roll -Off Service is a corporation? Smith: Yes. Bunch: A small corporation? • Smith: Very small. Getting bigger though. Planning Commission June 25, 2001 Page 31 Estes: Any other discussion or questions? Sheri, would you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call CUP 01-16.00 is approved by a unanimous vote of 8-0-0. • • • Planning Conunission June 25, 2001 Page 32 Estes: Is there any further business to come before the Planning Commission? Conklin: There is no further business. Earnest: Hugh Earnest, Development Director. The Mayor has sent out, as you know, a memo to each of you inviting you to an informational meeting on July 16t and I just wanted to remind you that. It is still scheduled for 6:00 p.m. It will be an executive summary of the parks master plan well in advance of that meeting. I just wanted to remind you that. Estes: Thank you. Any other business? We'll stand adjourned until our next regularly called meeting. • • • PC 6-25-01 ROLL CALL Minutes of the 6-11-01 PC meeting LSP 01-20.00 Hannan, pp 529 MOTION Hoffman SECOND Ward D. Bunch present Y B. Estes present Y L. Hoffman present Y S. Hoover present Y N. Allen present Y D. Marr absent absent A. Bishop present Y Shackelford present Y L. Ward present Y ACTION Approved Approved VOTE 8-0-0 • • PC 6-25-01 CUP 01-16.00 Roll Off Services, pp 599 MOTION Shackelford SECOND Ward D. Bunch Y B. Estes Y L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover Y N. Allen Y D. Marr absent A. Bishop Y Shackelford Y L. Ward Y ACTION Approved VOTE 8-0-0