Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-10 Minutes• PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting ofthe Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 10, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 01-30.00: Lot Split (Wetzel, pp 475) Approved Page 33 LSP 01-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) Approved Page B LSP 01-31.00: Lot Split (Guisinger/Sager, pp 325) Approved Page j LSD 01-34.00: Large Scale (Farm Credit Services, pp 325) Approved Page LSD 01-42.00: Large Scale Development (Karstetter & Glass, pp 402) Tabled Page • LSD 01-25.10: Large Scale Development (Cliffs phase III P.U.D., pp 487) Approved Page • LSD 01-41.00: Large Scale Development (Steele Crossing II, pp 212) Approved Page 33 CUP 01-31.00: Conditional Use (Central Baptist Church, pp 405) Approved Page 4a CUP 01-30.00: Conditional Use (Signal One, LLC, pp 560) Approved Page ci5 • • • MEMBERS PRESENT Alice Church Bob Estes Lee Ward Lorel Hoffman Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Loren Shackelford Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT Kit Williams Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Ron Petrie Hugh Earnest Renee Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT Don Marr STAFF ABSENT • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 3 Roll call and approval of the minutes from November 26, 2001. Estes: Welcome to the Monday evening December 10, 2001 meeting of your Fayetteville Planning Commission. Te first order of business will be to call the roll. ROLL CALL: Upon the calling of roll eight Commissioners were present with Commissioner Marr being absent. Estes: A quorum being present, the second item of business, which is an off ofthe agenda item is that this evening is Commissioner Lee Ward's birthday if you will join me in singing Happy Birthday. The next item of business will be consideration ofthe minutes from the November 26, 2001 meeting. Are there any changes, additions or discussion? Seeing none, the minutes of the November 26, 2001 meeting are approved. LSP 01-30.00: Lot Split (Wetzel, pp 475) was submitted by Libby McDonald on behalf of Brad Wetzel for property located on the north side of Dot Tipton Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.32 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.71 acres and 1.96 acres. Estes: The first item on your agenda this evening is item number one. It is a lot split submitted by Libby McDonald on behalf of Brad Wetzel for property located on the north side of Dot Tipton Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.32 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.71 acres and 1.96 acres. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval on the requested LSP 01-30.00? Conklin: No, we do not. Estes: Condition number one is the lot labeled proposed split, 1.71 acres, does not have access to a public water line. The waterline shall be extended prior to filing the lot split or any deeds. At such time the line is completed, inspected, and accepted the lot split may be filed. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement. Staff is recommending that this waiver only be granted subject to the applicant providing money in escrow as provided in §158 Bonds and Guarantees, in the amount of 150% of the cost of the waterline extension. The cost shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Division. This option would allow for the lot split to be filed when the guarantee is received. All funds received would be returned with interest at such time the waterline is constructed, inspected and approved. The required waterline shall be constructed within three years of approval date. Condition number two, the applicant shall obtain Washington County approval prior to filing lot split. Three, plat review and subdivision comments to include • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 4 written staff comments provided to applicant and his representative and all comments from utility representatives. Condition number four, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations where applicable. Grading, drainage, water, sewer, streets, public and private, sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. Is the applicant present? Wetzel: Yes. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Wetzel: Please. Estes: If you would please come forward and state your name and provide us with the benefit of your information. Wetzel: I'm Brad Wetzel, I'm the land owner. This property is not in the city limits. What you are asking me to do is not feasible. I talked to Mr. Conklin on the phone a couple of weeks ago. I would just like to know why this waterline has to be run before the lot split is permitted. We're talking about two acres These figures are not right. It is 2.01 acres. The whole place is 4.32 and I'm splitting a couple of acres off. I have been there twenty one years. There are lot splits going on all around me. To the east of me there has been four or five trailers put in in the last two years. Mr. Conklin explained to me a little bit why they wanted the water run beforehand. Conklin: Just to give you a little bit more information. This lot split was approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting. After the Subdivision Committee meeting the applicant's representative, Libby McDonald, called my office and asked whether the waterline really had to be put in. I said that was a condition of approval. It was approved and you do have to put the waterline in and there is really no other recourse. Mr. Wetzel called and asked me the same question. Typically, in a development review process there is an appeal process and therefore, I placed the lot split on your agenda this evening because I wanted to make sure that the applicant had an additional hearing on this request and these conditions of approval. That is why we're here tonight is to discuss that condition of approval to require the waterline to be extended. With regard to the actual requirements for the extension, Ron Petrie our staffengineer can go into more detail on that requirement if you would like him to do so. • Estes: Mr. Petrie, can you be responsive to Mr. Wetzel's question of why does he have to install • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 5 Petrie: the waterline? Well, of course, someone who refused, the only way that I can answer that is because that is what the UDO says. You have to do it. It has to be run to that lot to meet state health department requirements and state law. Estes: I noticed that staff's recommendation is that there be a waiver granted subject only to providing money in escrow, is that in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance? Petrie: Wetzel: Estes: Only with Planning Commission approval. That is not feasible for me. I had a buyer, I had this sold. This guy that I've known for thirty years was going to build a house there someday and not immediately. He has got a home in Farmington and his plan was to buy this property, pay it off in five years. He was going to clean it up, he was going to doze it, have it brush hogged once a year. It was going to be sitting there waiting on him when he was ready to build when his kids got out of school. He was going to build him another home out there. I have been after this for about three months now. Mr. Wetzel, let me do this Let me see if there is any public comment regarding your lot split and then 1,11 bring it back to the Commission and perhaps individual Commissioners will have some questions to ask you and we can discuss in more detail why you consider it not to be practical or feasible to post the money in escrow. Wetzel: Mr. Conklin explained to me on the phone that he has people that build homes without water to them. This happens all the time. I just find that really hard to believe that anybody would spend $80,000 to $150,000 on a home and not have their utilities. Joe is going to put water to that property before he builds. Obviously, there is no other way that the City of Fayetteville is going to provide that water, there is no other way. Estes: Let me see if there is any public comment on this and then I'll bring it back to the Commission. Does any member of the audience wish to provide public comment on this requested LSP 01-30? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments or questions of Mr. Wetzel. Hoffman: I have a question for staff. I am familiar with a guy that this happened to. They built a house and I guess he was going to put in a well or something and he ended up without water available and he had to run a line. That is why the city tries to take care of that beforehand. I have a question, I know that you have answered this before. Is there a way • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 6 to tie it to any kind of building permit or to Washington County approval because he won't need the water before he builds the house there but it seems to me that there was some problem in tying the requirement to the lot split because you don't get a building permit outside the city. That normally would be an easy to take care of it. Conklin: That is correct. They don't have building permits in the county. Once this is split and we sign off on the deed and it is recorded, it is done. That buyer can sell it to another buyer and it is out of the system and there will be no water there. I can see both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, I've dealt with people that have built homes with no water and no sewer and show up at the city and they are angry and saying how could that happen and why isn't there water there? Wetzel: I've already signed the affidavit where I know the first month I tried that there wasn't going to be sewer. I understood that and we were willing to do that with the water tap. We know that it is going to be the buyer's responsibility to run the waterline. The City has made that real clear that you're not going to help in anyway, you're not going to extend that. We understood that and at what cost. Running it beforehand is not feasible and the bond, that's $6,000 or $7,000 because the waterline you quoted me was $10 a foot. We're talking over 400 feet. By the time you put in the Engineers fees and having it ran, which that is fine but not up front. That is just not feasible for me. Estes: Petrie: Motion: Mr. Petrie, I have a question. Do I understand correctly that the ordinance mandates that there either be water or there be money in escrow and that we have no choice? If we approve the lot split there either must be water or there must be money in escrow? I don't think that is really the case. I think you have other options such as, we've done it before since I've been here, particularly in instances where we don't think that they are going to need sewer. They put a note on the plat and make it very specific that it is not available to this lot. It is that lot owner's responsibility. We've done that before since I've been here. Hoffman: I agree. I would like to make a motion for approval of LSP 01-30.00 with the amendment of the additional notes to be made on the plat. The first is that water service is not available to the property and must be installed prior to the building of any habitable structure. The second is that sewer is not available to the property and that a state approved septic system must be installed prior to the building of any habitable structure. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 7 Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSP 01-30.00 with the stated conditions, is there a second? Shackelford: Just to clarify. You are saying that condition ofapproval number one you are deleting from your motion and replacing with the two items that are going to be added to the plat, is that correct? Hoffman: Yes. I think that that also needs to be stated specifically that it is in the form ofa waiver from §158. Shackelford: Ok. As I understand the motion I will second it. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffinan and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSP 01-30.00 with the stated conditions. Is there any discussion or comments? Seeing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll CaII: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 01-30.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously Thank you Mr. Wetzel. Wetzel: Thank you. • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 10 Estes: Any other questions for Chris? Any motions? Motion: Ward: I'll make a motion that we approve LSP 01-38.00 with all the conditions of approval Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSP 01-38.00, is there a second? Hoffman: I'll second with the inclusion of the waiver for the 25' road access. We had to put a waiver in there because they don't have 75' I think. Estes: It is 75', did you say 25'? Hoffman: He has only got 25'. We're adding a waiver or we're approving the waiver for the 25' driveway which I think is ok for only two residences. Estes: Commissioner Ward, was that your understanding of the motion? • Ward: Yes. That is the first condition of approval. • Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSP 01-38.00, is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 01-38.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously. Thank you Chris. Planning Commission • December 10, 2001 Page 8 • • LSP 01-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.15 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 5.65 acres and 1.5 acres. Estes: Item number two on your agenda is a lot split submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.15 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 5.65 acres and 1.5 acres Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval on this lot split request? Conklin: Yes we do. Estes: 1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver from §166.08 (F)(a) which request that each lot in the planning area shall have a minimum of 75 feet of street frontage on an improved lot. 2. No further lot splits shall be allowed. The requirement shall be noted on the recorded lot split. 3. No additional residences shall be constructed on these two tracts of property. This requirement shall be noted on the recorded lot split. 4. No additional domestic water meters shall be permitted on these two tracts. 5. All water meters on this property shall be relocated to west end of the property adjacent to the public right-of-way. 6. Plat Review and subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives. 7. 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) tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Brackett. Yes. Estes: If you have a presentation that you would like to make please state your name and give us the benefit of your presentation. Brackett: My name is Chris Brackett. I'm with Jorgensen & Associates. I do not have a presentation but I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Chris at this time? Thank you Chris Planning Commission • December 10, 2001 Page 9 Public Comment: Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested LSP 01-38? Yes, if you would please come forward, state your name and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Clenathan: My name is Jim Clenathan. I live in front of this lot split and there were two water services run to this property when he built his house. There is an extra water service running to this property. I just wanted to make sure that that is one of the ones that is excluded from having the water tap put on it. He had planned to build another house on this property and he went ahead and installed two services when he built his house. I Just want to make sure that that is not going to be used for another house. Estes: Thank you Jim. Is there any other member of the audience that would have comment on this requested LSP 01-38.00? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, motions or comments. Ward: Tim, do you know if these two water meters that are out there and shown on the plat, are • these servicing the two homes or is there an additional one out there? • Petrie: We are asking for one of those to be relocated. It is my understanding that there is only one water meter that exists presently. Brackett: That is my understanding also but I'm not 100% sure of that. The owner has seen the conditions of approval and has agreed to the stipulation that no additional residence will be allowed on the property. Whether there is a meter or not, I believe that they have agreed that there will not be another house. Petrie: There may be some water services that this gentleman has talked about but no actual meters themselves, just that one. Hoffman: Could those services be used for anything else? Do we need to restrict any other things? Just say that no additional taps are allowed or something? Petrie: We did discuss that when we were writing the report and one thing that we thought might could happen one day is an irrigation line. It wouldn't work now because there is only a 2" line on the road but in the future it may. Hoffman: Ok. Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 10 Estes: Motion: Ward: Estes: Hoffman: Any other questions for Chris? Any motions? I'll make a motion that we approve LSP 01-38.00 with all the conditions of approval. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSP 01-38.00, is there a second? I'll second with the inclusion of the waiver for the 25' road access. We had to put a waiver in there because they don't have 75' I think. Estes: It is 75', did you say 25'? Hoffman: He has only got 25'. We're adding a waiver or we're approving the waiver for the 25' driveway which I think is ok for only two residences. Estes: Ward: Estes: Commissioner Ward, was that your understanding of the motion? Yes. That is the first condition of approval We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSP 01-38.00, is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 01-38.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes unanimously. Thank you Chris. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 11 LSP 01-31.00: Lot Split (Guisinger/Sager, pp 325) was submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Paul Guisinger and Louise Sager for property located north of Porter Road, east of Deane Soloman, and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 24.78 acres. The request is to split into 1.02 acres and 23.76 acres. • Estes: The third item on the agenda is a lot split submitted by Chris Brackett ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Paul Guisinger and Louise Sager for property located north of Porter Road, east of Deane Soloman and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 24.78 acres. The request is to split into 1.02 acres and 23.76 acres. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No. Estes: 1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver from the requirement to construct sidewalks on the 23.76 acre tract at this time along Mount Comfort road, Deane Soloman Road and Shiloh Drive. Staff is recommending the sidewalk requirement be deferred to the time of future development. 2. Planning Commission determination ofa waiver from the requirement for sidewalks along Shiloh Drive on the 1.02 acre tract at the time oflot split. The applicant is requesting that sidewalk construction be deferred to accompany the construction of the large scale development that is currently in the development review process. Staff is proposing that a guarantee be provided for the sidewalk extension until it is constructed, approved and accepted. 3. Planning Commission determination ofa waiver from §166.03 (I)(1) requiring construction of an 8" sewer line be extended to the 1.02 acre tract. The applicant is proposing to extend this sewer line at the time of construction for the large scale development. Staff is in support of allowing the applicant to guarantee the sewer line extension in place of immediate construction. 4. The utility easement shown within Tract 2 shall be extended to the north property line facilitating future sewer extension in a northerly direction. 5. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives). 6. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations 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. 7. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 12 Estes: Is the applicant or the applicant's representative and if so, Chris, do you wish to make a presentation? Brackett: Chris Brackett, I would just like to say that we are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Estes: Motion: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested LSP 01-31.00? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments or questions for the applicant's representative or motions. Hoffman: Since we have the accompanying large scale following as the next item I will go ahead and recommend approval of LSP 01-31.00 subject to the two waivers. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSP 01-31.00 granting the two waiver requests, is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any discussion? Bunch: I have a question for Ron Petrie. Did we address the extra little piece of utility easement at this time? Did it get on the drawing between Subdivision Committee and here? That one little corner going to the rest of the Tots, did that get into the system? Petrie: I don't think we got revised drawings between those two meetings. I think if anything, that was the only thing that was actually requested to be revised. We do not have a copy of that. Brackett: We've agreed to that and we have moved that easement and it will be on the final lot split drawing. Bunch: Ok. Thank you. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSP 01-31.00, is there any further discussion? Any other questions? Renee, would you call the roll please9 • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 13 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSP 01-31.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 14 LSD 01-34.00: Large Scale (Farm Credit Services, pp 325) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Farm Credit Services for property located west of Shiloh Drive, east of Deane Soloman and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.02 acres with a 3,208 sq. ft. building proposed. Estes: Item number four on the agenda is LSD 01-34.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Farm Credit Services for property located west of Shiloh Drive, east of Deane Soloman and north of Porter Road The property is zoned C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.02 acres with a 3,208 sq. ft. building proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval Mr. Conklin, d� we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes. Estes: Condition number one is Planning Commission determination ofcompliance with design overlay district regulations and commercial design standards including signage. The applicant will be limited to a monument sign which may not exceed 6' in height or 75 sq. ft. The proposed building materials are brick, split faced block and E.F.I.S. 2. All lighting shall be shielded, directed downward, not trespass onto adjacent residential property and shall meet all requirements of the design overlay district. 3. All mechanical and utility equipment shall be screened. All equipment mounted on the building shall be painted to match the building. 4. Planning Commission approval of the tree preservation plan. Currently, 2.86% of the site exists in tree canopy. The applicant is proposing to preserve 1.96% of the site in tree canopy and has requested mitigation. This mitigation will include the planting of one additional tree beyond the standard landscape requirements and will be a 2" hardwood. The Landscape Administrator is in support of this plan. 5. Screening shall be provided along the southem property line to screen this nonresidential use from adjacent residential property. 6. A minimum of 3' of cover shall be maintained over the existing waterline. 7. A minimum of20' must be provided from the detention pond to the proposed future expansion in accordance with §5.4.2 ofthe city's drainage criteria manual which states "In no case shall the limits of maximum ponding elevation be closer than 20' horizontally from any building." 8. Plat Review and Subdivision comments to include written staffcomments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. 9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the Plat Review process • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 15 was reviewed for general concept only. 10. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along Shiloh Drive. 11. Large Scale Development to be valid for one calendar year. 12. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. 13. Prior to the issuance ofa building permit the following will be required: Grading and drainage permits, separate easement plat for this project, project disk with all final revisions and completion of all required improvements or the placement ofa surety with the city as required by §158.01 Guarantees in lieu of installed improvements. Estes: Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? Brackett: Yes. Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make and if so please state your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Brackett: Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates, the only presentation that I would have is that I believe we've addressed everything that was raised at the Subdivision Committee level, including the revisions to the elevations. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Chris at this time? Thank you Chris. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested large scale development 01-34.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, questions, comments or motions. Commissioners? Hoffman: I have a question for Tim. Why do we need C-1 zoning for this office use? Conklin: Verses? Hoffman: R -O. Conklin: We could've rezoned it to R -O. I'm not sure why we chose C-1. Hoffman: Usually we just go based on the Master Plan and I remember doing that. • Conklin: It is shown as regional commercial on our 2020 future Land Use Plan and I think that is • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 16 probably one of the reasons why we rezoned it to commercial since it was shown as commercial. We also have an office designation on our land use plan where we tend to recommend the R -O zoning. I think that is the difference on this piece of property. That is a good question though. Hoffman: I'm Just thinking about it in terms of if this owner goes out of business and moves out, what else would be going into the building and it would be C-1 uses. Brackett: The property to the north is in the process of being rezoned to C-2 off top of my head. The reason for the C-1 is that for a portion of this building, a small portion is to be used as sales which could be classified as a commercial use. That was the reason for the C-1 zoning. Hoffman: Ok, thanks. Estes: Any other questions? • Allen: I wondered if maybe there might be a possibility ofa better facade or more concerned in the aesthetics to go beyond the one tree. Maybe you could plant a few more? • Brackett: I guess I would have to ask the owner about that. We are planting additional trees for screening along the south which is above the normal requirements for the regular landscaping for the parking lot and the right of way but as far as additional trees I don't know. Kneese: Our goal is to satisfy what is necessary within the overlay district. Allen: Right. I guess you do that. I was just wondering if you would be willing to go a little beyond that. I just thought that might help the looks of the area. Conklin: Just looking at their site plan they are planting 16 trees and preserving a large double 14" diameter elm. Our Landscape Administrator has looked at this and has approved the landscape plan. Allen: The one tree, where would that be planted? Brackett: It is one additional tree. We are going to work that out with the Landscape Administrator. As Tim pointed out, I believe there are 16 trees to be planted. Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 17 Allen: Aren't they all to the back of the building? Brackett: No, they are along the right of way, a majority of them. We have to plant and this is off the top of my head, one tree for every 30' ofthe right of way so they will be placed in front of the building. Conklin: What you're looking at with regard to the one tree is the new tree ordinance. Kim Hesse is here and she probably can explain it better than I can. Because they are doing mitigation, they are planting one additional tree over and beyond what is required with other landscaping ordinances. Allen: I understand that. Conklin: I just want to make sure that the public understands too. This is one additional tree over and beyond what is required from before the new tree ordinance was implemented. Allen: I just thought I was making a fuss for a couple of more. Estes: Any other comments, questions or motions9 Bunch: Did we ever get dimensions for the monument sign? Key: My name is James Key, I'm the architect for the owner. We brought in revised elevations for the east and south elevations as well as the monument sign. We are showing a 11 x4 foot sign so that is 44 sq. ft. of sign surface available. The height is 6' from the ground. We're not trying to maximize the area It will be constructed with the same material for the base and an E.F.I.S. face to match the building itself'. Bunch: Have those dimensions been turned into the Planning Division so that they will be in the record? Key: They were just submitted today at this meeting. They are under 75 sq. ft. Estes: Any other questions or motions? Hoffman: Is the detention pond lined with concrete or is it lined? There is a concrete trickle channel that goes through the pond but are the sides of the triangle concrete or are they grass? Petrie: It will be sod with that small concrete channel at the bottom of it. • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 18 Hoffman: Thanks. That is all I had. Motion: Bunch: I move that we approve LSD 01-34.00 subject to the conditions of approval Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to approve LSD 01-34.00 is there a second? Ward: I'll second. Estes: Any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch to approve LSD 01-34.00 and a second by Commissioner Ward. Is there any discussion, comments or questions? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-34.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. • Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 19 LSD 01-42.00: Large Scale Development (Karstetter & Glass, pp 402) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalfofDoris Ann Glass for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.76 acres with a 1240 sq.ft. shop expansion proposed Estes: Item number five on your agenda is LSD 01-42.00 submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Doris Ann Glass for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.76 acres with a 1,240 sq. ft. shop expansion proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: No we do not. Tonight we will need to discuss the issues with regard to the various waivers requested. Estes: 1.Planning Commission determination of compliance with Commercial Design Standards and Design Overlay District Regulations. The applicant is requesting several waivers from these regulations as listed below. a. Applicant is requesting a waiver of §161.21(D)(6) which requires that curb cuts be a minimum of 200 feet apart. b. Applicant is requesting a waiver of §161.21(D)(2) which requires that 25 feet of landscaped area be provided along all public rights-of-way with one tree planted every thirty feet. c. Applicant is requesting a waiver of §161.21(D)(10) which states that buildings shall be constructed of wood, masonry, or natural looking materials. No structures shall be allowed that have metal side walls UNLESS such metal siding is similar in appearance to wood, masonry or natural looking material. 2. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of §171.13(B)(6) which requires that driveway widths not exceed 39 feet for a one way in, two way out, or 24 feet for a one way in, one way out. The applicant is proposing the allowance of the existing curb cut which is continuous. 3. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of §172.01(C)(5) which requires that parking lot entrances and aisles not exceed 24 feet in width. The applicant is requesting a reduction varying from 21 to 23 feet. • 4. Planning Commission determination of the requested waiver of required right-of-way • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 20 dedication along Wedington and Futrall. The requirement along Wedington is 55 feet from centerline. Currently, a varying amount of right-of-way exists varying from 40.53 to 44.31 feet. The requirement along Futrall is 25 feet from centerline. Currently, 15 feet from centerline exists. Staff is in support of the request for the right-of-way reduction along Wedington Drive only. This request would require City Council Approval. 5. Applicant shall obtain approval from the Board of Adjustment for the non -conforming building with regard to setbacks. 6. The dumpster shall be screened from view of Wedington Drive. 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Westem Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications) 8. Staffapproval 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. 9. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year 10. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. 11. 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 D. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City 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. Estes: Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present? • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 21 Clark: Yes Sir. My name is Steve Clark. I represent Mrs. Glass and the actual business owners in this matter. First I would like to state that I am a little shegrinned to be here before you with this many unresolved issues. We would have preferred to have had most of them resolved at staff level. Unfortunately, we're dealing with an existing building and a business that has been in operation since 1958. At the time that it was initially started, the business was started and the first structure was constructed Hwy 16 was away from where the building is today. Everyone understands and recognizes the improvements and the widening projects that have taken place that resulted from the construction of the bypass. We have an interchange there. The Highway Department widened Hwy 16 back at that time. They have recently gone through again and widened Hwy 16 again. Each time it has taken additional right of way off of the front of this piece of property. The current right of way is about slightly over 30 feet from the building right now and the additional right of way that has been requested would bring the proposed right of way, if it were half of 110' wide or 55' would bring it about 18' from the existing building. The right of way issue along Wedington is a fairly significant issue. Something else that I would like to state, and this is directed at the press as opposed to the Planning Commission, apparently there have been several articles written that have represented that Mrs. Glass is the one that constructed the partially constructed building. She is not. She is the property owner. She sold the business to a third party who actually is the one that began the construction. She was a bit shegrinned. If the press would correct that, she would greatly benefit of it. There was another concern that was expressed during the Subdivision Committee meeting, the plain metal walls that have been put up at this point. We would certainly be more than happy to put up some contrast panels. I have different colors that would be available if the Planning Commission wishes to give me some guidance as to the colors that you prefer. We would propose to put up some 3' panels that would be on 20' centers and that would break up those 60' walls that are in the back. Currently, from Wedington Drive, the building, the addition is visible only from very limited areas. The predominant view of this structure is the same view that has been in place since 1958 with the expansions that have occurred over the years since then. We have proposed and will provide for some vegetation along the chain-link fence to obscure the lower third of the buildings that fall back in the back of the building addition. 1 guess, I'm a little scattered here. The other issue that we were going to request was the right of way, a postponement of the right of way dedication along Futrall. That is at Mrs. Glass' request. She is the current owner of the property. It is currently her residence. She has intentions of selling the property in the not too distant future if she gets an offer that makes it viable for her to find another location. She would prefer that that right of way dedication simply be postponed until the future development of the property. What we're talking about is probably 1/3 or less than the total property that she has that is • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 22 Estes: part of the shop itself. The remainder portion of it is actually her home and where she lives. Her frontage, basically from her house falls out on Futrall. That was the purpose of her request for the postponement of right of way dedication along Futrall Avenue. Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on this requested Large Scale Development? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for discussion, questions of Mr. Clark, comments or motions. Commissioners? Allen: I would like to see what you had in mind about breaking up the metal building. Clark: The building itself is constructed with your plain metal vertical panels. They are currently white along the entire length. We have available any of the colors that are on the color scheme and it would be at your discretion, just tell me which colors you would like to have and we will use those colors, contrast panels if that is satisfactory for the Commission. Hoover: Staff, did we have a site plan at Subdivision? Have I seen a site plan of this? Conklin: Yes. Hoover: Is it in our packet? Conklin: It should've been in your packet. Do other Commissioners have that site plan? It was not revised. Therefore, it was not resubmitted and handed back out for Planning Commission. Estes: 1 am having some trouble with the requested waiver regarding the landscaped area. I am also struggling with the requested waiver, which I suppose simply stated, is a waiver from the commercial design standards in the overlay district. We are mandated to not approve structures with metal sidewalls. What do we have out there on the site now? Clark: The existing building is concrete block painted white. The situation that we find ourselves in on this particular structure is that the business owner that purchased the business from Mrs. Glass recognized that he had a substandard paint facility. It currently does not meet the current standards for paint booths for automobile body shops. He took it upon himself to buy a state of the art paint booth and needed a structure to put it within. He, in violation of your ordinances, started a building without a building permit and without going through the process. He got the walls up, he has • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 23 Estes: got the side panels on this structure. He has the metal frames and vents in place and the metal paneling on the side. At that point, apparently, a Building Inspector drove by to look at an adjoining property and red tagged him. That was several years ago. I was brought into the project well after he had started his building. Well, I'm not in any way being critical of you Mr. Clark. I am critical of what has taken place on the site and I am troubled by the request that we're asked now two years later to bless a waiver of the commercial design standards in the overlay district. This, after the violation has been done. Clark: I understand. Estes: Your invitation for us to micromanage and design this project, I can't accept that either. That is not our purpose. Clark: You're talking about the panels? I was just going to allow you that if you would suggest a color. I did not intend to have you micromanage the project. Estes: Clark: I am not inclined to do that. I am one person of many. I am not inclined to do that. I most certainly am inclined not to grant the waiver request of the landscaping and the waiver from the commercial design standards. The landscaping, again, this was a project that has the whole front of the building paved as a result of several takings of right of way and expansions of Hwy. 16. There literally is no room to place any kind of landscaping between the building and the right of way that would come close to meeting your standards. If there were, we would comply. It is not a matter of us not wanting to. There is a small corner over on the southeast corner where there is some space that some landscaping can be constructed. Literally, with the existing right of way where it is there is no room to put any other landscaping. Estes: There is some dirt out there where you could do some landscaping or attempt at some compliance with the landscaping requirement, is there not? Clark: There is a 20x15 area that we propose to put landscaping within in the southeast corner of this property. Estes: Is that where the existing gravel is? • Clark: Yes Sir. • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 24 Ward: I think that our problem here is trying to micromanage this or something or make decisions for you and we're not going to do that. At Subdivision Committee I told you we couldn't do that either Steve. I feel like, as I told you at Subdivision, the metal building is not allowable in the overlay district. It never has been and never will be. I have no problem with the rest of your waivers but the idea that the metal building is still there is something that we don't allow. I will never be for that. I'm sorry. The building itself is concrete block. If you want to do it concrete block or split block or brick or something else. I don't think just changing the colors on it is going to change that part of it. We've got a huge commercial complex going across the road from it. We're going to make them follow those same type criteria. The ones across to the west, we're making them do that and I will not ever vote for it. That metal part has got to come down and you are going to have to do something else. The rest of the building is ok. I would rather just table it and have you come back with something that is presentable. Clark: Again, based on the Subdivision Committee meeting, I thought that if we provided some accent strips that that would be acceptable. I misunderstood our conversation. If we need to put some rock or some brick columns we could do that. Ward: I think you need to come back with some kind of a planned elevation showing exactly what you're going to do and how it is going to blend in. How the fencing is going to hide, the shrubbery and what all you are going to plant that is going to hide that wall and so on. I think something has got to be done before it is brought up here again for us to pass it. Clark: Ok. I misunderstood our conversation at the Subdivision Committee meeting obviously. Hoffman: I think it is important, before we table it to kind of have everybody give their opinion on it. We do have new developments going and this is kind of a half old and half new development so I am inclined to be, particularly with the right of way on Wedington, I understand that to not have that dedication. I'm concerned about commercial design standards basically where you can see the building from the road. Am I correct, even in the winter time can we see this from the highway? The furniture store is kind of in front if it. I was trying to tend to lean towards mitigating that maybe with landscaping and then fixing the part that is really visible from Wedington. I guess it should all be more cohesive. • Clark: Ms. Hoffman, is your question can you see the new portion of it from the bypass itself? • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 25 Hoffman: I live not four blocks from here and I think, I go by it every single day probably and I know I see this side of the upper right hand corner a lot. The ivory, I think you need to landscape and comply with the parking lot standards and that may reduce the width of your driveway because you're putting in new plantings. I really agree with that. I'm just trying to be reasonable and where the part that is not visible, if there is any part not visible from a public street or residential area, I understand that her house is right there but I don't know if you're complaining about the side of this building or not Ms. Glass. I'm trying to see the part, is the lower left hand side the view from the bypass? Clark: That is actually from the comer of Wedington and Futrall. It is not from the bypass. From the bypass you would not see any of the new building. You may see some microscopic area There is a large building in the back where you can put more plantings up to hide the building from a view from the bypass and then work on fixing in some way the elevation on the east side where you do see it from Wedington. Then if you could fix the front parking lot with some landscaping. Ward: The problem is that on the west side when that house comes down and all of those trees are gone it will be very visible. Hoffman: Oh, that is true. Sorry. I don't want to require more than other people have to do but we really do hold particularly around these overlay districts people with some pretty consistent standards I hate to table stuff too but it seems like if you could come back with another plan that you could take to Subdivision. Ward: To be honest about it, it was kind of our fault for maybe not giving better direction I think Mr. Bunch was under the idea that maybe it would be ok to do some painting and some changing around of landscaping. Bunch: What I had mentioned was some wainscoating and some trim along the top just to throw out some ideas. Instead of micromanaging, dust to give you some of the design elements for you to utilize to make a presentation. I was Just looking at the minutes and that is pretty much what we said. You know, it could be a combination of wainscoating, some sort of theme to carry it around the building as well as possibly extending into the existing painted block building to break up the box like effect. We didn't try to specify exactly what we wanted. We wanted to leave that up to you to design your building. Estes: Any other discussion? Any motions? • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 26 Hoover: One question for staff. Between a C zoning and an R zoning, what kind of screening is required? Conklin: You can have vegetation, fence or a combination of the two. Hoover: It seems in the situation when I saw what was back there that it seems to be some type of privacy fence rather than I read that this was going to be vines. Conklin: Honeysuckle, yes. Hoover: They seem to be storing cars back there and parts. I have a concern about that. The other issue is, and I do apologize at Subdivision I hadn't been out there to see the site and it was kind of hard to tell at Subdivision. I felt overwhelmed by the whole situation and needed to see it in person. I do have issues with the 25' landscape area. I think that we must have that. Also, there is that continuous curb cut onto Wedington which I would think would be a safety factor for one thing. I have an issue with that. The other was the screening with the vines and then as usual, the dumpster being screened from Wedington. I would assume that I would like to know where it is going to be placed on the site. I think when you come back you need a site plan that shows all of that. Estes: Any other discussion? Any motions? Hoffman: The continuous curb cut, there is low traffic going in and out of there. I don't think it is a safety problem. There is going to be some landscaping. It is an existing condition. I am trying to be as reasonable with them as I can be. Clark: Keep in mind also that we have less than 30' from the building to the existing right of way. If we try to put a 25' landscaped area in there there is no front parking area, no area in front. If we could physically do it we would. The other issue is it is referred to as a continuous curb cut. In fact, It is actually very nearly continuous but there are two 30-40' curb cuts that exist with a 7-8' raised curb section between them so it is not quite continuous. Hoffman: So you could put some planting there and some planting up against the building where people don't drive. Clark: There is parking in front of the building right now. There are garage doors that open into the existing building along the front. The little small section that we have that is between the curbcut, again, being 8' long, there is really very little room for any Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 27 landscaping that would live. Conklin: It would be very difficult to put landscaping in the front between the two curbcuts. When I went out there, we're dealing with a nonconforming situation, a nonconforming building. I actually backed the Crown Vic over the sidewalk to get out. Unfortunately, this site has many issues and I've been dealing with this for three to four years now. I'm not sure why there was such a lack of understanding of what our ordinances required. I will take some responsibility for bringing this forward to you in an effort to resolve this issue. I think we have some clear direction of what you're looking for based on the comments from the Commission. I will be more than happy to take Ms. Glass, Mr. Clark and Mr. Atherton out on a tour. I can show them other developments within the overlay district that we've approved and get it to a point where we need to get it to to get this approved. I'm looking forward to getting this project approved at the Commission and getting this beyond the Planning Division's office Thank you. Estes: Any discussion or motions? Allen: I just wanted to say that I think if we grant this number of waivers that we're going to have it come back at us. We will be opening a can of worms as the other areas out there develop. If we can have fewer things the better. Clark: Allen: We will fix the things that we can physically fix. Again, several of the issues are the results of the widening and taking of right of way. In order to fix them you basically have to eliminate the driveways and the openings into the facility. I have a much better understanding now from where the Commission is coming from and will be much better prepared the next time. 1 think we all understand that the building has been there forty some years and that some things can't be changed and the fact that the road has widened is out of your control. However, I think there are some things that we can do and get this done. Clark: Thank you. Motion: Hoffman: I would like to motion to table. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to table is there a second? • • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 28 Allen: I second. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to table and a second by Commissioner Allen is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 01-38.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 29 LSD 01-25.10: Large Scale Development (Cliffs phase III P U D , pp 487) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Cliffs Phase III Ltd. Partnership for property located south of Cliffs Blvd. and east of Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 36.77 acres with 288 units proposed. Estes: Conklin: Estes: Item number six on your agenda is a large scale development, Cliffs Phase III, Planning Unit Development. It is submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & associates, Inc. on behalf of cliffs Phase III Ltd. Partnership for property located south of Cliffs Blvd. and east of Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 36.77 acres with 288 units proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? No we do not. 1. Planning Commission determination of requested density bonus for a Planned Unit Development. Under §166.06 (5)(b)of the UDO the Planning Commission may grant up to 9 units per acre with the provision of 50% open space. The applicant is requesting a density of 8 92 units per acre. 2. Planning Commission approval to relocate the existing tree preservation area to the south of Cliffs Boulevard(0.47 acres) that was approved in Phase II of The Cliffs development to an area located in Phase III at the southeast corner of the Cliffs Boulevard and Happy Hollow intersection(1.0 acre, This area was originally .6 acres). See memo from Kim Hesse. 3. A fifteen foot landscape area shall be provided and maintained between the proposed parking lot and the Cliffs Boulevard right-of-way. This area shall include the placement of 2" caliper trees to be located at 30' intervals and a continuos planting of shrubs. 4. 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) 5. 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 • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 30 Estes: Kelso: Estes: Kelso: 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. 6. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $108,000 (288 units @ $375) 7. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 8. Approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project to include tree preservation areas. c. Project Disk with all final revisions 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. Is the applicant or applicant's representative present? Yes Sir. If you have a presentation that you would like to make please state your name and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Jerry Kelso with Crafton, Tull & Associates representing the owner. I do have a brief presentation if1 may. The original approval of this project, which was about two or three months ago is basically what you see here. This center area as you can see where the buildings are all lined up in a row as shown. That was approved two or three months ago here. With that, there was an existing tree preservation area here on the north side of these buildings. Since then we went back and looked at it and to give an even more pleasing look to the overall project, we have lined this area out We have turned some buildings and you can see how it gives a look of what has been done out there right now. It gives it awhole lot more aesthetically pleasing look. It does take out that small tree preservation area on the Boulevard. We requested that we remove this tree preservation and add to • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 31 this preservation area over here and make it larger. Basically the same amount of area, there is about %: an acre. That is basically the logistics of this request and I'll try to entertain any questions that you may have. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Kelso at this time? Allen: I Just wondered ifhe would prop those two things up in front side by side somehow so we can see them. It is very helpful. Thank you. Shackelford: Just a question. We don't have signed conditions of approval at this time, is there an issue? Kelso: We concur with all the conditions. Shackelford: Thank you Sir. Estes: Ward: Any other questions of Mr. Kelso? Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide comment on this requested large scale development 01-25.10? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Commission for comments, discussion or questions. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Kim Hesse, our Landscape Administrator come up and get her take on why she would approve this or not approve it and see if we're giving anything away. Hesse: 1 don't think we're giving anything away. Basically the quality of the canopy that we're trading for that we're actually going to receive in place of, is a better quality canopy. It is thicker trees, more oaks. I can see, you have screening from the apartments from the street where we have existing. Down here we're losing trees but I think that in this area here we're gaining more than we're losing. Estes: I have a question. What is the landscaping proposed for the Boulevard on the south side? Hesse: Actually, we discussed a couple of different things. My suggestion was that we just keep with the landscaping that they have throughout the entire development. They've got some pin oaks and some red maples, various different types of shrubs. Estes: Commissioners, any other questions of Ms. Hesse while she's at the lectrin? Thank you Kim. Any other comments or discussion? Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 32 Motion: Ward: Estes: Shackelford: Estes: I'll move for approval of LSD 01-25.00 for the Cliffs Phase III, basically it is landscaping. We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve LSD 01-25.10, is there a second? I'll second. We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve LSD 01-25.10, any comments or any questions or discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-25.10 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: Allen: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. Thank you Jerry. I would like to say that those charts are very helpful to me when those sorts of things can be provided. Planning Commission • December 10, 2001 Page 33 LSD 01-41.00: Large Scale Development (Steele Crossing II, pp 212) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalfofJDN Development for property located between Van Asche Drive and Shiloh Drive east of Kohl's. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.33 acres with 37,075 sq.ft. of retail space proposed. Estes: Item number seven on the agenda is LSD 01-41.00, Steele Crossing II, submitted by Mr. Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of JDN Development for property located between Van Asche Drive and Shiloh Drive east of Kohl's. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.33 acres with 37.075 sq.ft. of retail space proposed. Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes, we do have signed conditions of approval. Before you read those conditions, I would like to make a couple of corrections at this time. Condition 1 A where it states the columns and vertical striping, vertical should be changed to horizontal. Estes: Any other changes? • Conklin: On the staffreport, page 5 says City Council action, yes required. That needs to come off. City Council action is not required for large scale development. For discussion, we talked about the canopies on the back of the building. If you do want to add that as a condition it would probably fit under number one add "D" Addition of canopies to match Kohl's above the doorways. • Estes: Any other changes or additions? Conklin: Those are all of the changes. Estes: Condition number one is Planning Commission determination of compliance with design overlay district regulations and commercial design standards including signage. All new construction is located within the Design Overlay District. A. The columns and horizontal striping that was shown on the rear elevations ofthe Kohl's building and subsequently constructed shall be continued on this development. B. The horizontal striping on the front elevation ofthe shop building shall be continued on the rear and side elevations. C. All materials and colors shall be identical to those used on the adjacent Kohl's and Target buildings. • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 34 Condition number two, Plat Review and Subdivision comments to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative and all comments from utility representatives. Condition number three, staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lots and tree preservation. The information submitted for the Plat Review process was reviewed for general concept only. Condition number four, Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. Condition number five, approval of this project does not guarantee that sewer capacity will be available at the time of construction. Condition number six, 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 D. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City as required by §158.01. Estes: Is the applicant or applicant's representative present? If so, please state your name and • provide us with the benefit of your presentation. • Milholland: Melvin Milholland, Milholland Engineering. As we've already stated, the client does concur with all the conditions ofapproval. We worked very closely with staff and with the architect coming up with this plan to by to continue the concept of Kohl's. We respectfully request that you approve it and if you have any questions I would be happy to address those. Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Milholland at this time? Hoover: I guess, would you walk us through, I'm kind of confused from what the drawings are and what we have. Conklin: Why don't 1 go ahead and walk you through that. This elevation that I'm holding up is what you had in your packet Thursday at agenda session. On Friday I called Mr. Milholland. We had a telephone conference call with the architect, Greg Wright of Wright Architects. I expressed some of the concerns that you let staff know about and the applicant with regard to how the buildings look. The things that have changed on these buildings include this horizontal type banding that you saw on building "E". It would be this band right here. I thought that would help if they continued that banding along this side to the east side. The other thing that we talked about was within the arches on building "E" • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 35 you see the support structure within each arch. I suggested that they replicate that with the E.F.I.S. on the building. I did talk to Wright Architects this afternoon to find out exactly what those lines meant with regard to those arches. They indicated that they would be seams within the drivit and they could specify how wide to make those seams. Once again, we were trying to improve on that elevation to make it look more like a front. With regard to the condition that we talked about with Kohl's, we did go out there and take a look at how Kohl's was constructed. On Kohl's, this would be the north side of the building facing Van Asche. They do have this lighter colored band that is along the back of the building and one of our recommendations is that they incorporate that into this back elevation for PetSmart. The other issue that we discussed at agenda session was the addition of these canopies like you see at Kohl's. They did not show those canopies on this building and talking with the architects today, I asked them why they did not include those canopies above these doorways. They indicated with the arches that were added, this back of PetSmart and the arches on this east elevation of building "E". If you look at where this canopy is, the canopy would actually be up above into that E.F.I.S. area. Therefore, they thought it would not look as nice incorporating those blue canopies within this building elevation. Overall, I think they did a good job from where they started out at from Plat Review to Subdivision Committee to agenda session to today We just received these latest elevations this morning. Thank you. Allen: Do any of the changes have to do with a break in the roof line? Conklin: The one change that was made after Subdivision Committee was the addition of the PetSmart paraphet wall that was extended up. That was added. Originally it looked like this. Now it pops up. Hoover: The requirements of exterior appearance in the Overlay District, it says that "All structures shall be architecturally designed to have front facades facing all street and highway right of way." Since this is actually the rear of the building do you have to get a waiver for that? Technically this is the rear This is not a front. Conklin: Does it look like a front to you? That is the question that you have to answer. Hoover: No, there is no entry. Conklin: I think that is what you are going to have to evaluate, that the applicant has made an effort to meet the Overlay District requirements. One of the things that has occurred was that when Steele Crossing Phase I came through these buildings were outside the Overlay District. They have reduced these buildings in size and as a result of that the north end of • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 36 the walls now are completely within the Overlay District. We did have a design that was approved for the Kohl's shopping center which included these buildings. As you are aware, Commissioner Hoover discovered this at Subdivision Committee and from there we have made an attempt to try to get the applicant to improve on these north elevations. Once again, you are going to have to look at them and determine whether this looks like the back of a building or does it look like it has a front facade. I thought it was interesting that during the Kohl's debate, I showed these elevations to a citizen and they thought Kohl's rear elevation was a front. I share that with you because I thought that was interesting when they said "Oh, that's the front of the building." I said "No, that's the back of the building." That is one citizen. I can't tell you what to do. You are going to have to decide on your own. I think they have done a tremendous job to improve on these elevations facing Van Asche. Estes: Any other questions for Mr. Milholland at this time? Hoover: I have another question for Mel. On the shop building, is there anything on the rear elevation? Is there any mechanical equipment or dumpster or any type of service area that is going to be enclosed? Milholland: You're talking about PetSmart? Hoover: Shop building "E". The freestanding pad. Ward: Shop building "E". It is to the right there Mel. Milholland: I'm not sure if they are shown there. Behind shop "D" I believe there is an enclosure there in the comer as those two buildings come together. Hoover: On shop "E"? Milholland: The rear of shop "D". There is "D" and there is a dumpster. Back behind major tenant "A" there are two dumpsters and these are enclosed. Hoover: No, I'm on shop building "E" out in the middle of the parking lot. Conklin: Is the question regarding the dumpsters, where they are located? I apologize. I found the dumpsters on the plan. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 37 Hoover: I didn't know if there was any service area. I see a little square back here but I can't read the identification of it. Milholland: It is not abutted to the building it is actually to the northeast of the building a little bit. It is screened. Hoover: Milholland: Bunch: Hoover: Petrie. Hoover: Conklin: Hoover: Estes: Bunch: Milholland: Bunch: Milholland: There is a square that is attached to the building. I don't know what that is. There is no service up there. I don't believe it is up against it, no. Commissioner Hoover, are you referring to the electrical connection banks that have showed up on the last two revisions? You're looking at the rear elevation of shop building "E" down on the lefthand side between the first and second doors? Yes. Do you see on the site plan there is a square? On my water plans it is a sprinkler room for the fire risers. Oh, I see. It says fire cut, 8" fire line. That is what I couldn't read. If you look at your elevations there is a shadow on that shop building "E" rear elevation that shows that sprinkler room coming in. Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Milholland at this time before we take public comment? Yes. Was there any additional signage anticipated on what is listed as the rear elevation or the east elevation of shop building "E"? Is there any idea of putting some wall signage up there to help make it look more like a front? There were some changes. Do you have the new layout? The new layout doesn't show any additional signage. We're putting these arches in this part here. • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 38 Bunch: Basically, my comment was at this time did you want to request signage on there to help make that look more like a front so we can get everything taken care of at one time. Normally we don't look at adding additional signage but I think a tall signage on that side over each individual shop might help better articulate each shop and also break up that building and make it look more like a front. Conklin: I did suggest that at agenda session. However, after agenda session I looked up the ordinance again. The Overlay District does not allow wall signs not facing the street. That would be a waiver. Even though, I think it would help those vehicles coming into the shopping center. Estes: Are there any other questions of Mr. Milholland before we take public comment? Thank you Mel. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested LSD 01-41.00? Seeing none, I'II bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments or motions. Let me say this. When we first began this process, and by that I mean the CMN Business Park II, Phase I, I had high expectations. I was looking forward to something that would truly be a show place, the retail center of Northwest Arkansas. I was thinking about things like the Village on the Creeks in Benton County. I was considering projects such as Lincoln Square in Arlington Texas Every time we have seen a request, whether it was Kohl's, whether it was Target or whether it is now PetSmart, we are dealing with the commercial design standards. It seems that every time that these matters come before this Commission we are dealing, and have been dealing, with large, blank unarticulated wall surfaces. We've suggested banding, pariphat walls, canopies; it has been a struggle to meet the commercial design standards. I will vote for this but I have a general sense and an overall feeling that we truly have fallen to the lowest common denominator. I am disappointed. This could have literally been a jewel of Northwest Arkansas. Instead, every time we struggle with the commercial design standards in Subdivision, at agenda session, Commissioners make suggestions, the suggestions have always come down to banding, paraphet walls and canopies and this is what we have. I wish it could be better. Hoffman: I agree. I do feel we have not lived up to what could've been a good potential in this development. Maybe there will be more buildings to come that will be something more than what is up here. Just how they appear and that is big box retailers. It is not that we want to discourage the retail development. This 300 acres was rezoned for commercial development a long time ago. We, as a Planning Commission and as a City Council and City, have strived hard to work with the development community. In all aspects of the placement of the retail center for Northwest Arkansas. I would like to Just say that other roof lines and other elevations are indeed possible and very attractive. When you are in • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 39 competition for consumer dollars it might be more advisable than what we've seen tonight. Again, we need to develop this as a retail center for Northwest Arkansas and for this reason, I'll go ahead and reluctantly move for approval of the Design Overlay District regulations and the commercial design standards. Although, I think they have basically met the minimums on those. I think that our landscaping of our parking lots and so forth do go some way to mitigate that and that we, as a city in Fayetteville, have made great strives in our greenspace and so on. The greenspace provides a buffer and provides some amount of calming effect between the streets and the buildings and that is all going in as was originally discussed. With that, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve LSD 01- 41.00 subject to the conditions of approval and including in that item number ID, I missed that I'm sorry, with the addition of the blue canopies along the partial rear elevation. I think that is the only thing we added and the other wording for the horizontal banding in the first 1A. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSD 01-41.00 with the additional condition of approval 1 D, canopies on the rear elevations, is there a second? Shackelford: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any discussion? Hoover: Ijust wanted to point out again about the rear of the building. The reason I feel sure that this was put into the Overlay Design Standards is because when you have a rear or a loading dock facing the street or even a parking lot area you have just a dead space with no one coming, no one is going to be in but loading. I would like to point out when I was talking to Commissioner Church, the mall has no rear of a building or a loading area directly on the parking area. They try to disguise it all the time. They want to keep their parking lot energized and people coming and going everywhere. Dust feel like that was the whole point to the ordinance and I know that they must have thought about this carefully because the only other place that we have this in the city is behind Petco. Ifyou drive down that street and see what it is like to have rear and loading all right next to the street, this is what is going to happen to Van Asche along here. I don't want to step a notch down in what we need to approve. I am not going to be approving it for that reason. Shackelford: I was,'ust wanting some more feedback if what we're worried about is the rear facing the building if we want to entertain waivers at this point to allow additional signage back there. I'm sure, and I'm not going to speak for the developer, but most developers would like to have additional signage on their building but if that is something that would interest the Commission to try to break up the rear of the building and make it look more like a front • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 40 Estes: Bunch: ofa building, I would very much support a waiver to allow additional signage on the back of this property. Is there any other discussion? As a matter of record, could we get a little more specifics on condition 1 D, the addition of canopies. Specifically, which elevation since there has been some comment that the canopies would interfere with the arches on a few of the elevations. Hoffman: I just have it written down that the additional canopies, item number I D, along the partial rear elevation shown on our drawing dated December 7, 2001 will be as shown on the partial rear elevation. You've got them shown there but not under the canopy area and the rear elevation area of shop building "E". The date on this drawing is December 7, 2001. When I made the preface to my motion, I don't want to sound punitive to this particular business. PetSmart, we all have our cats and dogs and birds and want to shop there. We want to go to a nice retail center and in some ways we have achieved what we were planning and we're going to have a trail that goes along Mudd Creek through there. It just seems to me that we do have all these rear loading docks. Sharon, I agree with you very much about what the mall has done when they remodeled several years ago and put in different facades, varied facades, varied roof lines. They managed to do all that with major retailers. We have a mall that is really quite more attractive than a lot of other malls around. I would've liked to have seen something like this, while still keeping a unified theme in terms of the materials, but just using the different heights of the buildings and maybe pathways between the different centers instead ofjust big parking lots that you have to walk across miles of asphalt to get to the front door That is not in our ordinance. I can't say you have to do this or you have to do that. We've met pretty much the minimum. I don't know whether putting in additional signage is going to really help that much. Some people may want it and some people may not. To me, it's just more signs, more light. Conklin: I would just like to make one more point, that is when this project came to our office the Planning Division, this is not the prototype PetSmart. They are using the same materials and colors as Commissioner Hoffivan brought up. They were aware that they had to meet that theme within the development. It may not be the perfect design theme but PetSmart did have to meet those design standards and have to give up their prototype store early on in the discussions with the applicant. I just wanted to make sure that the Commission is aware of that. They did not just come in here and plan this elevation like this, they are trying to stick with the theme within the Steele Crossing subdivision. They've agreed to use the same color brick, the same materials, same colors and make it unified throughout Kohl's, Target, PetSmart and this outbuilding "E". That is why all three elevations are up • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 41 Estes: here this evening, to show how they relate together. In the beginning the idea was to have a unified development on these lots. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Conklin. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman to approve LSD 01-41 and a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any other discussion, any comments or questions? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 01-41.00 was approved by a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Hoover and Allen voting against it. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of six to two. Thank you Mel. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 42 CUP 01-31.00: Conditional Use (Central Baptist Church, pp 405) was submitted by Eric Hammock of Design Services on behalf Central Baptist Church for property located at 1301 N. Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 9.7 acres. The request is for approval ofa church in the R-2 zoning district to include the addition ofa 6,050 sq.ft. fellowship hall. Estes: Item number eight on your agenda is a Conditional Use request submitted by Eric Hammock of Design Services on behalf of Central Baptist Church for property located at 1301 N. Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 9.7 acres. The request is for approval ofa church facility in the R- 2 zoning district to include the addition ofa 6,050 sq.ft. fellowship hall. Staffrecommends approval of this conditional use request subject to the following conditions. Do we have signed conditions of approval Mr. Conklin? Conklin: Not at this time. Estes: Condition number one is the proposed fellowship hall addition shall be compatible with other existing structures on site with regard to materials and color. Number two, further structural additions to this site will require a new conditional use permit. Number three, prior to the issuance ofa building permit for the proposed addition, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the city's development ordinances including, but not limited to, tree preservation, grading and drainage and commercial design standards. Number four, the improvements to the existing nonconforming parking lot shall be installed as a part of this addition and shall be shown on the site plan submitted with a building permit • application for the project. Necessary improvements will bring the parking areas on the site up to current standards with regard to landscaping. These improvements are based on §172.01 (H)(2). You have attached material in your packet. Condition number five, installation of 15' landscaping along the front property line with one tree every thirty linear feet and a continuous row of shrubs between any parking lot and the street right of way in accordance with commercial design standards and parking lot requirements. Condition number six, construction ofthe proposed fellowship hall addition shall commence within one calendar year from the date of conditional use approval. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present and if so, would you please come forward and state your name and if you have any presentation provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Kendrick: Estes: My name is Daryl Kendrick, I am pastor at Central Baptist Church and I defer to the staff. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Pastor Kendrick at this time? • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 43 Shackelford: Just the same question that I had earlier. We don't have signed conditions of approval, is there a certain condition that you take issue with on this proposal? Kendrick: Not really. The only thing I'm uncertain with, I Just received these recommendations. Number five on the landscaping, I think we are going to be able to to do that but without looking at the site plan, I'm not sure how that is going to work out. Estes: Thank you Pastor. Does any member of the audience wish to comment on this CUP 01- 31.00? Seeing none, 1'11 bring it back to the Commission for discussion, comments, questions of the applicant. Church: I Just have one question. At agenda session we wondered if any childcare or daycare was planned in this facility. Kendrick: Estes: Bunch: No, there is not. Any other questions? On our conditions of approval, prior to the revisions, there was an item for sidewalks. Why was that deleted? Warrick. That was deleted after another site visit and discussion with the Sidewalks and Trails Coordinator, Chuck Rutherford. There is an existing sidewalk along Gregg Street in this location. Mr. Rutherford, at the time ofbuilding permit, will be working with the applicant. There are a couple of areas on that sidewalk that are in disrepair that he will request improvement on at the time of building permit but we did remove that condition from this conditional use application because there is an existing sidewalk. Bunch: Estes: Motion: Shackelford: Estes: Thank you. Any other questions, comments or motions? I will make a motion to approve CUP 01-31.00 based on staff comments with the conditions of approval. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford to approve CUP 01-31.00, is there a second? • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 44 Hoffman: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Hoffman, is there any discussion? Bunch: On the improvements to the nonconforming parking lot, will those be handled administratively by the Planning staff and the Landscape Administrator? Warrick: Yes Sir. At the time of building permit application we will handle that and the Landscape Administrator will be required to sign off on the building permit itself. Estes: Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Shackelford and a second by Commissioner Hoffman to approve CUP 01-31.00, is there any other discussion or any other questions9 This is a conditional use request and will require five affirmative votes. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 01-31.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. • Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote. Thank you Pastor Kendrick. • • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 45 CUP 01-30.00: Conditional Use (Signal One, LLC, pp 560) was submitted by Faulk & Foster, Inc. on behalf of Signal One, LLC for property located east of Beechwood Avenue and south of Warehouse Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The request is to build a 150' monopole for wireless communications facilities. Estes: Item number nine on your agenda is a conditional use request submitted by Faulk & Foster, Inc. on behalf of Signal One, LLC for property located east of Beechwood Avenue and south of Warehouse Road. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The request is to build 150' monopole for wireless communications facilities. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request subject to certain conditions of approval Tim, do we have signed conditions? Conklin: Yes. Estes: The conditions of approval are one, applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations. Condition two, equipment used in connection with the tower shall not generate noise which can be heard beyond the site. Condition three, lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security lighting or motion activating 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 right of ways. Condition number four, the tower shall be a monopole no taller than 150' including all antennas, arrays or other attachments. Number five, the utility equipment at the base of the tower shall be surrounded by a wooden security fence of sufficient height to screen all equipment housed at the base of the monopole. The tower shall also be equipped with the appropriate anticlimbing device. The facility shall place signs including "No Trespassing", "High Voltage", or other pertinent information on the outside of the fence. Condition number six, landscaping shall be added to the site and shown on plans which provides a buffer ofdense tree growth and understory vegetation in all directions to create an effective year round buffer. Condition number seven, any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be located underground. Condition number eight, only ownership and questionary signage located on the screening fence shall be permitted. Condition number nine, 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. Condition number ten, the applicant shall conduct inspections of the facility not less frequently than every twelve months to insure maintenance and safety as required. Is the applicant present? Shaw: Yes Sir. • • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 46 Estes: Do you have a presentation that you would like to make? Would you state your name please and provide us with the benefit of your presentation. Shaw: My name is Rick Shaw. I work for Faulk & Foster Real Estate services in Monroe, Louisiana and I'm here on behalf of Signal One, Alltel Communications and Mr. Patrick Pinnell who is the landowner in this case. We are asking permission to construct a 150' monopole cellular communications tower on an 80x80 leased parcel from Mr. Pinnell. I would like to touch on basically two primary points this evening and I will be as brief as I can. The first point is the purpose of the tower. I have a diagram here This chart is also in your application package. This is apropagation map. The map essentially shows what this tower would accomplish, what area it would service. The green area is the city limits of Fayetteville. The orange area is the area that this tower would service if approved. You can see that it is a large coverage area. There are two purposes for the towers. One is coverage the other is capacity. Although this provides a large coverage area, the purpose of this tower really is capacity. It probably is hard to see but the lowest triangle on this chart is the proposed tower. You can see there are two additional towers located not too far from the proposed site. Both of these towers have Alltel antennas on them as do the other triangles that you see on the chart. It appears that they are kind of close together, and they are. The reason for this third tower is to offload the capacity of these two towers which are over capacity. Currently, this tower is over by 45%, this tower over here is over by 35%. Both of those towers need help Essentially, that is the reason for the new tower which is located a little under a mile from the closest tower. There are no other structures to colocate on this area and that is why we need to build a new tower. The closest tower is this other tower that Alltel Communications currently has an antennae array on. Again, because of the new Razorback Stadium and the increased demand in that area an additional new tower is required. That is the reason that we need this tower that Signal One and Alltel are asking for permission to build this tower. Primarily it is for capacity, it will also provide additional coverage to these major thoroughfares and connectors in that area. To let you know how we selected this area, I think I more or less covered that. The market demanded the additional coverage, there were customer complaints to Alltel indicating that there was insufficient coverage. Customers were using their cell phones and not able to get through and that market research is what generated the idea to have this tower. Once that information was gathered, the radio frequency engineer sat down and took a look at the best spot to put a tower in the area basically between the new Razorback Stadium and the new baseball stadium and indoor track facility. That area is represented by the oval on this diagram. This was taken off the intemet, it is not exactly a perfect copy but it is your zoning map from the intemet and this bubble was placed on it by our offices and then the hash marks were added by us to show how we eliminated the areas in the bubble. We did not even target residential areas because your ordinance does Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 47 not want towers in residential areas and there is good reason for that. The purple, the light brown, the kind of rusty brown colors were all eliminated right off the bat as potential sites. The red colored area was eliminated, it is kind of a narrow commercial strip and there really is just no room to put a tower in there. It abuts residential areas in most cases and it is just too thin to put a tower and to have a fall zone to be able to be present there. That red area was eliminated. The green area is the University of Arkansas land, that was eliminated because approximately ayear ago Alltel was talking with the University and trying to put a tower or an antennae on some of their structures and negotiations took quite a long time and ultimately the University declined to have a tower on their property. That area was eliminated right off the bat as well due to past history with the University of Arkansas. That left the blue area which is all I1 and I2 districts. Most of the area was either too fully developed and wouldn't allow for a good fall zone or the landowners just didn't want a tower on their property. We were really left with one small area and that is where the black arrow is down here. I don't know if you can see this very well. That is Mr. Pinnell's lot right there and it is an excellent lot because it is in Industrial area which your ordinance specifically channels the tower companies into those areas. I think your goals and objectives will be met. The full fall zone is provided for, it meets all setbacks, no variances are going to be requested or needed, there are no environmental problems there, it is not an historical district and it is not in a flood zone either. It met all of our objectives and I hope it meets all of yours as well and that is why we picked that particular location. The tower is going to be designed to hold actually four additional carriers and four additional pager and messenging carriers. The application says it will hold an additional five wireless communication carriers. It is actually only four, it is a total of five not a total of six. That is a correction in the application. Alltel currently is the only tenant for that tower. Signal One is actively seeking the additional carriers that are licensed in this market. There is a total of five PCS carriers and two cellular carriers licensed in this market that Alltel is pursuing and would like to have on the tower. Because of its location and its proximity to Razorback Stadium, it should be an excellent candidate for future carriers to use and provide the same coverage objectives that Alltel is seeking. It should be a good tower for additional carriers as well. I know your ordinance also channels carriers to colocations and that is preferred and that makes sense and that is pretty typical from what we've seen. The tower will be designed to national construction standards and a local windloading capacities. FAA approval has been requested. I don't believe we have approval yet but the tower will not be built without FAA approval That is all I have. Are there any questions? Estes: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Shaw at this time? • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 48 Bunch: Yes, just a couple of questions One is, I guess by having this site location on the southern end of your envelope your bubble then that would place it better to service anticipated growth in the Fifteenth Street or Hwy. 16 and 265 area, has that been taken into your calculations and your coverage area, the potential growth to the south? Particularly with residential and a possible increase in customers. Shaw: It has and on the propagation map, the orange area is extending, it is kind of a narrow strip down Razorback Road there and it is going out right and left as well. That was taken into account to accommodate for that. The primary target was Razorback Stadium but there will be additional enhanced coverage in that whole southern area as well from that tower. Bunch: One other question. Since this is on a leased parcel on an existing site, has there been anything done about landscape irrigation and a separate water meter and irrigation meter or anything like that? On the drawings I don't see anything for water service to the landscaping to be able to properly maintain it. Shaw: There should be, if there is not reflected on the diagram there will be a requirement for landscaping. In fact, one of the conditions is additional landscaping that we have agreed to. Certainly, we will insure that if it is not on the diagram right now we will make that happen. Estes: Any other questions for Mr. Shaw at this time? Hoffman: I want to commend you for doing the research on the location on this site because we did struggle with our last antennae being located too close to a residential area. Thank you for that. I have a question for staff about the suede blue. Conklin: What do you want to know about suede blue? Hoffman: Do we hate it now? Conklin: No, that came up during the last tower and the neighborhood wanted it painted and it is painted and this one is in an industrial zone and we will leave this one unpainted unless you want it painted and we can evaluate the different colors we have. I think we have sky blue on Mount Sequoyah, suede blue on Stonebridge Road. Hoffman: The only question I would have for the applicant about the color or lack thereof on the • tower is that is this metal going to be highly reflective? That would be my only question. • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 49 Shaw: No Ma'am it is not. It is galvanized grey. It is a galvanized look to it so it is very dull. Hoffman: As long as it won't reflect the sun. Shaw: It won't. Estes: Is there any member of the audience that would like to comment on this conditional use request 01-30? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, questions or motions. Motion: Allen: I move for approval of CUP 01-30.00 subject to the ten conditions of approval. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen to approve CUP 01-30.00 is there a second? Church: I'll second it. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Church is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Church to approve CUP 01- 30.00, are there any comments or discussion? Bunch: Could we add something to condition six to make sure since the applicant has affirmed that he would like to do it just to have it on the record that we have adequate irrigation available for the landscaping? Is that acceptable to the motioner and the seconder? Estes: Commissioner Allen, is it possible or is it permissible to incorporate Commissioner Bunch's suggestion into your motion? Allen: Sure, if he deems it necessary. Estes: Commissioner Church, is the amendment to the motion agreeable with the second? Church: Yes. Estes: Any further discussion? Bunch: Yes, I would like to thank the applicant at this time. Since we've gone through this • procedure previously it is refreshing to have information presented in a forthcoming manner • • Planning Commission December 10, 2001 Page 50 and to have actually a surplus of information to help us make our decision. Thank you very much for your presentation. Shaw: You're welcome. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Church to approve CUP 01-30.00 is there any other discussion? This is a conditional use request and will require five affirmative votes. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 01-30.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Thank you Rick. Have a safe trip home. Are there any other announcements or any other business? Conklin: Yes. I would like to remind the Commission that on Thursday, December 13, 2001 we do have our Planning Commission Retreat, 2002 work program. This was our last Planning Commission meeting for 2001. We will start next year with our work program that we develop on Thursday. That is at 5:30 in the Donald W. Reynolds Center for Enterprise Development, Seminar Room A, room 103. There is a map attached. If you are not going to be unable to attend this meeting please let me know. I am going to be providing some food and I would like to know who will not be in attendance. I encourage each of you to attend this meeting. If you haven't already sent back a listing of the activities that you would like to see us conduct next year in 2002 please do. We will try to compile that. We will have a lot of discussion. Just based on this evening, commercial design standards is one of the things on our list and I would be more than happy to discuss that Thursday night also. I look forward to seeing you Thursday. Thanks. Estes: Thank you Tim. Are there any other announcements? We will stand adjourned. Meeting adjourned. 7.35 p.m. •