Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 11, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN ADM 05-1570: (36 CLUB PARKING WAIVER, Approved 484) Page ADM 05-1613: (BILL EDDY MOTORSPORTS) Approved Page ADM 05-1614: (SHAKE'S) Approved Page LSD 05-1574: (COMMERCE PARK II, 176) Approved Page R-PZD 05-1555: (OAKBROOK PHASE II, 361) Approved Page PPI 05-1433: (LIERLY LANE S/D, 244) Approved Page ANX 05-1580: (SLOAN PROPERTIES, INC., Approved 609) Page RZN 05-1581: (SLOAN PROPERTIES, INC., Approved 609) Page CUP 05-1577: (DEPOT PARKING, 484) Approved Page CUP 05-1579: (CALLAHAN CELL TOWER, Tabled 138) Page Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Candy Clark Jill Anthes Christian Vaught Sean Trumbo Nancy Allen Audie Lack Christine Myres James Graves Alan Ostner STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Andrew Garner Renee Thomas Jeremy Pate Brent O'Neal Kit Williams Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 3 Announcement Anthes: Welcome. Mr. Earnest has an announcement. Earnest: Madam Chair, Member of the commission, I think you have before you a memo from Dr. Martin Reed, University of Arkansas. I am privileged and honored this second semester to be one of the two people acting as an adjunct professor to offer the first class in urban planning and community development at the university. We have an excellent class of PhD candidates and masters in both administration candidates in class. Wednesday night Margaret Reed is coming in to speak about and explain the process that drove the downtown master plan. From my perspective it was the most successful and most intense planning process I have ever used. You have before an invitation to attend. We have invited all of the public officials in the corridor from Bentonville, to Fayetteville and Fort Smith to attend this presentation. So I offer that to you. I hope that you can assist us Wednesday night in what we think will be an excellent opportunity to reflect on the process and talk about the strengths and weaknesses of it. Approval of Minutes Anthes: You'll note tonight we have 6 commissioners, and we have several items on the agenda that require five positive votes to get through. Those are items number five RPZD 05-1555, items seven through ten 05-1580, RZN 05-1581, Conditional use 05-1577 and CUP 05-1579. Let me make a correction. We now have an additional commissioner here. Those items will, as I said need five affirmative votes in order to get through and you have seven members out of nine here this evening. If any of those applicants would like to pull any of those items and wait until they have a more full board, we will be happy to hold those items for you. Ok I don't see anybody wanting to hold them, so we'll just proceed. The first Item we'll consider is the approval of minutes from the June 13, 2005 meeting. I have a few minor changes to enter in the record. Do we have a motion? Allen: Move for approval of minutes. Trumbo: Second. Anthes: We have a motion by commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Renee will you call the role. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2005 meeting passed by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 4 Thomas: The motion carries. ADM 05-1570: Administrative Item (36 CLUB PARKING WAIVER, 484) Submitted by JON HURLEY for property located at 300-306 W. DICKSON ST. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is to approve a parking waiver and shared parking agreement to allow for the replacement of the on -street parking spaces with five spaced shared at an offsite location. Anthes: The next item is the approval of the consent agenda. This is Administrative Item 05-1570 for the 36 Club parking waver. Would any member of the public or the commission like to remove this item from the consent agenda? Hearing none, we'll entertain motions for approval. Allen: Madam Chair, move for approval of the consent agenda. Trumbo: Second Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda passed by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. ADM 05-1613: Administrative Item (BILL EDDY MOTORSPORTS): The property is located at and is zone C-2. Thoroughfare Commercial. The property is within the Design Overlay District. The request is to allow content other than the name of the business on the proposed wall signs. Anthes: Thank you. The first item of new business tonight is administrative item 05-1613 for Bill Eddy's Motorsports. Staff: Bill Eddy's Motorsports. The property is located at 1205 North Futrall Drive is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare commercial. The property is within the Design Overlay District and contains approximately 1.30 acres. The request is to allow content other than the name of the business for two proposed wall signs. The applicant proposes two wall signs with the business name and type of products available, those products being Kawasaki, Suzuki, KTM, and Yamaha. In March 2005, the applicant submitted a signed permit application for two wall signs. These signs did meet the requirements of the Design Overlay District in that the signs only stated the name of business. Bill Eddy's Motorsports. During the review of the sign permit a situation came about which required the owner of this property to file for a rezoning. This rezoning was approved by the city Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 5 council in May 3, 2005. While the rezoning application was under review, the applicant submitted new wall sign drawings. These drawings consist of the name of the business as originally shown but they also included the name of the products the business offered for sale. At that time staff informed the applicant of the ordinance requirements on sign content in the Design overlay District. The Unified Development code states, "Content of monument and wall signs shall be limited to the name of the business. Advertising shall not be permitted on the structural wall sign or monument sign. The applicant has stated that there are numerous other businesses that have advertising included in their signage. Specifically the applicant mentioned Total Document Solutions, Williams Tractor and Landers Autopark. The staff did a little bit of research into these three so that we could have some answers for you hear tonight. The wall sign for Total Document solutions was permitted on March 29, 2005. The applicant submitted for the wall sign did contain advertising. However, staff did permit the sign... However, staff did not permit the sign and asked the applicant to submit a sign package which would meet the requirements of the Design Overlay District. The applicant resubmitted a sign package that did not contain advertising and according staff permitted that sign. If advertising material has been erected at this location it was done without a permit and without staff knowledge. For Williams tractor, staff is unaware of any approved signs for Williams Tractor which contain advertising. This property was developed prior to the Design Overlay District requirements. For Landers Auto Park, there are multiple monuments and wall signs. The content of these signs may seem similar to those being requested by the applicant. The applicant would like to erect signs which state the products offered for sale. The signs at Landers also state the products offered for sale. The difference is the names of the individual dealerships are also the names of their products. Like, the Honda dealership sells Honda vehicles. They would not be allowed in the Design Overlay District to erect signs which advertise their products, i.e., Ford, Civic, Element and so on, but they are allowed to erect a sign which state the name of business — Honda. Pursuant to the Design Overlay District ordinance, one sign per business may be installed. Additionally, in 1994 the planning commission granted a waver stating that each dealership on the overall property would be allowed a small monument sign, a typical wall sign was allowed within the Design Overlay District due to the nature of that business. The applicant wishes to install signs that read KTM, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Yamaha. These are products offered for sale at the business, Bill Eddy's Motorsports. The applicant's business used to be called Kawasaki of Fayetteville, which, if the applicant chose to do, to go back to his old business name and erect a sign that reads Kawasaki of Fayetteville. Again, having the business name contain products that are also offered for sale does not constitute advertising any more than Pizza Hut's name containing the word pizza does. The applicant also states that the same advertising signs that he is Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 6 requesting to erect at the new business location of 1205 North Futrall were recently permitted at the old business location 2028 North Shiloh Drive. The staff did not, staff did locate a permit from 2003 for Kawasaki of Fayetteville in which the exact signs that are being requested for the new location were permitted at the old location. The reasons the signs were permitted at the old location is because the location is in the Point West Subdivision. All lots and properties in the Point West Subdivision one two and three with the exceptions of lots one three and four phase two are exempt from the Design Overlay District requirements as stated in ordinance number 3821. Therefore the lots listed above may have signs which include more than the name of the business. Therefore staff is recommending denial of this request. I could go over a few of the findings we've gone over previously. There are no conditions which exist here which are peculiar to the land, structure or buildings which exist here which are not applicable to other properties in the same district. All properties in the Design Overlay District must adhere to the same rules and regulations as stated in Chapter 161.24. If you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Fulcher. Will the applicant come forward please? Good evening. Would you introduce yourself and your project? Cobb: Yes, My name is Don Cobb. I'm with D -Sign Company of Lowell, Arkansas. Mr. Eddy is unable to be here tonight because he wasn't notified and didn't know about the meeting tonight and they have an event for setting a sales record in April, May and June consecutively at their new location. So they have an event scheduled for tonight and couldn't be here and asked me to be here. So basically what Jesse has said here is information that we have talked about and that I'm familiar with and I'll be happy to answer any other questions that I might be able to. Anthes: Thank you very much. Would any member of the public like to address this administrative item, 05-1613? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and commissioners. Vaught: Madam Chair Anthes: Mr. Vaught Vaught: I have a question for the applicant. Other than this one face of this structure are there any wall signs proposed for the site? Any other signs? Cobb: Besides the one we're talking about on the west side, we would have the signs clustered around the Bill Eddy sign, there's one on the south side. A smaller sign, just right at the entrance of the building. That's the only two. The south side. It's the same place if you are familiar with, what is it, Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 7 Hank's Furniture store? The same locations. One of the west side, one on the south side. These signs would face I-540 not Wedington. The ones we were talking about in this, yes, they would face 540. Name? Besides the advertising, these signs, I think are 372 square feet. That's with our diagram. That's a lot larger than what the Design Overlay District Permits which is typically 75 square feet, 20 percent of the wall coverage or 75 square feet. Cobb: At least 200 square feet. Name? Is it 200 square feet? Cobb: For a wall sign. Name? Is that what they're, are they also asking for a larger wall sign? Cobb: I'm sorry. Name? Are they also asking, is this the design of the sign that you're asking for. Name? It would be like you have in the paper there. The area as big as my drawing, the rectangle around all the signs is the question. So the face in there. But you know, obviously you can't contour around the signs, you've got a rectangle around it right there. Name? Jeremy is that how we normally calculate? Do we take out the blank areas? Pate: We do not. We count them all inclusive. If you reference page 2.8 the request here is both for an increase in size, 372 square feet, which is what they're proposing. Of course, that's not really the request we're reviewing tonight. We're reviewing if content can be applied on these signs. They would still need to meet the either 20 percent or 15 percent of wall surface or 200 square feet. Name? Ok. Just wanted to make sure. Does that go before the board adjustment size? Name? Within the Overlay District Requirements, it's the planning commission's decision to make. Name? The decisions not being made tonight on the size? Name? The request is for content. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 8 Name? Not size? Name? Correct. Anthes: Mr. Pate, how would that work then on the size? Pate: We would permit it according to what our ordinances would allow which is 15 percent of the wall surface. Not knowing the overall square feet of the wall surface at this point, I'm not sure. 372 square feet may fall within that but we have to make that calculation at the time of permit. Anthes: Thank you. Name? The greater of 20 percent or 200? Pate: I'll have to reference our ordinance. Name? Under section B it says not to exceed 20 percent of the wall or 200 square feet, whichever is less. Pate: Ok. So 200 square feet is the largest you can do .. Name? In the Overlay District. Name? In the Overlay District, ok. Pate: That's correct. Anthes: Are there other comments? Vaught: Madam Chair, I think, does the city attorney have some comments about this ordinance and what's in the works. Pate: Well I do in relation to the content only. I do think that the supreme court's recent rulings have cast doubt on the city's ability to continue to restrict the content of commercial signs to name only. The first amendment is involving interpretation by the supreme court and the federal courts have gotten more and more strict on what kind of things the cities or states can do in relation to that. And therefore in relation to his request for a variance when it comes to being able to place the names of the things that he's selling, whether it be Honda or Toyota or whatever it happens to be there, I think that you should probably look very favorably on that variance. The supreme court has not change the law on the city's ability to regulate the size and location of signs. Those regulations that we have are not constitutionally suspect and therefore they would be nothing, it would totally be within your power to look a the various variance Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 9 requests if they came back for a size variance request. Only the content is what the supreme court is very interested in when it comes to the first amendment. Name? Mr. Pate, the question in that regard. We have obviously been, have an ordinance and staff has made recommendation for denial of the sign based on our ordinances. We have looked at other items, most recently one last week for our last meeting for a carwash that had this very item, or this very issue in front of us and we have had other things in the past and we have been very consistent on how we ruled on those issues. With the ordinance that we have in front of us, I believe it's been clear how we have to rule. How does that vary with what you've just said? Pate: Well, unfortunately, of course I was in California two weeks ago when the other item came up. But from the courses, the continuing legal education courses and seminars that I've gone to in studying the first amendment issue and the sign, I do think that I would urge that in this particular case, the you do not feel that this ordinance is tying your hands. I'm going to propose to the city council to remove that sort of content language from this ordinance. As you know, a couple of years ago I redrafted the entire chapter 174 on signs. I've been meaning to look under this different chapter to see that there was in fact sign regulation here too. We should eliminate that sort of content regulation, I believe, in order to be in best compliance with the Supreme Court. So I would recommend, despite the way our ordinance reads right now, I would still recommend that this particular variance be granted and I will, as I said, present a recommended amendment to this particular Overlay District ordinance which, when I was on the Council, I voted for. You know I supported this and maybe from the policy point of view, we would all like that. I'm just telling you from a legal point of view, I think it is somewhat doubtful that we still have that power. Name? Should the planning commission follow staff's recommendation, what recourse does the applicant have? Pate: You've got two staff recommendations I guess, you have the recommendation of planning staff and the recommendation from the city attorney. So you can follow either recommendation you choose. Name? And what would be the recourse of the applicant if the request was denied? Pate: In virtually everything you do, not everything but in this particular case, I think there probably appeal right to the City Council. Is that right Jeremy? Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 10 Vaught: On that, we have granted variances before to allow some advertising in a sign in the Design Overlay District. I can think of two or three, well further south on Sixth Street where 540 meets it. Typically the advertising is a lot smaller than the main name of the business and that's where this is a little bit different. Can we as a city restrict the size of the advertising on a sign or is it pretty much... Fulcher: The size of the total sign can certainly be restricted and it can't be more than 200 square feet and if he's got one that's almost twice that size then I don't, certainly that can be restricted so it would not be that size. Vaught: Can we limit, just in the future, can we limit types of content within a sign? Williams- I don't know how you would be doing that without the Federal Courts be saying you're actually limiting content because if you can actually limit the size, you could limit the size so small someone couldn't see it so they would be saying you'd be prohibiting that. So I think that it would be best just to limit the things we know we can, the numbers, the place, the location, the size. We can do that without any question. Vaught: Madam Chair, with that said, I have no problem granting the variance to allow the names of the products sold. I would want to stick to the 200 square foot size limitation. I think that's one of the important parts of the Design Overlay District. And I'm not sure of any cases where we've ever granted a waver on wall signs within the Des... size within the Design Overlay District. Anthes: Mr. Pate, do you recall on the project that commissioner Vaught's referring to as Sixth Street and 540, I believe there was some language when we allowed a subtext that it had to be secondary to the name of the business. Pate: That's correct. On the subtext or the text that was not part of the name of the business was supposed to be ancillary centrally to the name of the business so therefore it was smaller in font size to the actual name of the business. Name? It still had to meet the parameters of 200 square feet or 20 percent of the wall area, whichever was less. Name? Mr. Williams do you think that's an acceptable course of action? Williams: I think it probably would be I think it would be acceptable also to the petitioner although he's not here so, can you speak for him on that? Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 11 Name? Williams: Name? Pate: Anthes: Name? Name? Name? Graves: Pate: Well, certainly that would be much better than total denial because what he's trying to do is reuse the signs that he has. Obviously if it's restricted, then he would have to come up with another avenue of rearranging these so, trying to speak on his behalf, I would believe that that would probably be acceptable to him to do that. And if not he would always have the right to appeal to the city council. Yes, I understand, thank you. Madam Chair, just to clarify too so that this is approved tonight, staff knows what to permit tomorrow. The request is, I just read verbatim, the request is to allow the sign showed on page 2.9 on the west elevation, it does specifically call it the west elevation, that is shown to be 373 square feet, which, again I don't know the size of the actual building, but in the Overlay District, 200 square feet or 20 percent of wall surface, whichever is less is the maximum. So if you could in anyone's motion, if you recommend approval, make findings on that. And again, this is specifically the west elevation facing on 540. There is not a specific request unless this representative has something about the south elevation that we have, we have reviewed that the letter from Mr. Eddy does state the sign would be centered on the west elevation and be visible on I-540. Thank you Mr. Pate. Madam Chair. I have a question for staff. If we put the language ancillary to the name of the business, does that give you guys enough definition for... Simply smaller in size. Because there's four product names and obviously those all four of those would be smaller but the aggregate could be larger. That's what I didn't know. I just want to make sure you guys have enough definition. I have a follow up question for the city attorney on the first amendment issue. If there are zoning districts available in the city that allow the type of signage that's being requested and it's only restricted in one specific district as opposed to citywide, does that make kind of a difference. I wouldn't think so although I know that sometimes, for some first amendment arguments you look at that, for sexually oriented businesses you don't have to allow them everywhere as long as you have certain districts for them. I think that probably in the signage area that might not carry the day because this is a content regulation. I think for other regulations that we can make a more restrictive sign ordinance so you can Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 12 make monument signs. I think that is appropriate here, even though you could have pole signs in other areas of the city. It's just when you get into the content area that I think the Supreme court looks at if very strictly and we might still have the power, I would doubt that we would have the power and I don't think it's worth that kind of risk. I think we need to stay well within our constitutional powers. Graves: My other question would be about any risk or exposure there might be to people that have already gone before that have been restricted and now they're going to see somebody else coming into this district that's not similarly restricted. Pate: I would certainly think that if in fact they had been restricted and wished to change their sign that they would have the right to come forward, especially once the ordinance has been changed. And so there might be more action for our planning staff if this is done. Anthes: Anything else? Graves: No. Myres: Thank you. I apologize for being late. I feel like we're caught between a rock and a hard place sort of because I don't want to be hard on the applicant. But I also am uncomfortable acting on something that hasn't actually become fact. That we do have an ordinance that restricts the type of signage that can be placed in this Design Overlay District and I'm inclined to support staff's recommendation to deny, simply because what's on the books now is what's on the books now and that's the, with all do respect to Mr. Williams, that's the ordinance that we're dealing with. And I'm also very torn about exactly what to do. As I guess maybe all of us are to a certain extent, but my gut feeling is to deal with the issue as its, you know deal with the ordinance as it's stated now and deal with the issue in relation to that ordinance. So, can you clarify? Vaught: I'm not uncomfortable, seeing that fact that we have allowed other verbiage in signs if it's ancillary and I'm inclined to pass something to that affect tonight, to allow it, That have it ancillary to the name of the business, similar to what we've done. This applicant also, I believe, do they have three frontages, currently? Pate: I believe so. That's correct. Vaught: And they only have, this is their second wall sign. So almost as a trade off for that third wall sign their permitted as another reason I look at this as permitting this extra verbiage on the sign as a concession. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 13 Pate: Vaught: Anthes: Pate: Name? Vaught: Pate: MOTION: Vaught: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Graves: Anthes: Myres: I don't believe they're giving up the right to that third sign in this application, however. Not currently, unless there were conditions placed upon them. Can I, could we put a condition in that? I think if the applicant is agreeable to give up those additional signs they are allowed by the ordinance in exchange for a variance, I think that's something that could be looked at. I think on this variance we have, we would certainly be willing to do that. That third fa9ade is not real visible. They have a right to a third wall sign, though. Does that have to be located on the side of the third street or can it be another location? It would be the third, it would be the wall facing the third street. It would, ok, it would be restricted to that wall. I'll make a motion, I'll go ahead and get the ball rolling. I don't believe I want to make a variance in the size of the sign, but I will make a motion to pass administrative item 05-1613 with the conditions that it is restricted to the Design Overlay District size and the advertising is ancillary to the name of business. Similar to what we've done in the past. Then are you also adding the note about the third wall sign that this is an exchange. Yes, in accepting the...In accepting this, that is in exchange for the third wall sign. We have a motion by Commissioner Vaught. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second by Commissioner Graves. Is there any discussion? Madam Chair, I have a question on the motion real quick to City Attorney. Just because we're talking about appealing everything to the city council if we pass it as is and they would like to go for the city council to seek something different or the applicant allowed to appeal or approval. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 14 Anthes: Yes he could do that, because there are restrictions to it. Although he has offered that one restriction on the third wall sign that you have accepted in order to pass this variance. But I think that, so you won't be totally in a box because you're not actually the applicant, I think that they would have the right to appeal, even though this really is a favorable decision and in most ways I guess they could still say they're an aggrieved party if they later decide they didn't like it. Vaught: The advertising be ancillary and it's restricted to the 200 Design Overlay District Standards and it's in exchange for the third wall sign. Pate: Is it restricted, apparently they were requesting for the west side, would it be restricted to the west side only? Vaught: West side. Yes. Anthes: So we have a motion and a second with four conditions of approval. Is there any other discussion? Graves: Just in addressing Commissioner Myers' comments, and the City Attorney can probably talk about this better than I can, but despite what the ordinance says and despite whether I like it or whether anybody else likes it, the federal law and what the U.S. Supreme Court says, it overrides anything that would be on the books at the city level right now. What he's talking about as far as amending, would be to amend the ordinance to comply with Federal Law, but as long as it's not in compliance in the opinion of the city attorney, the Federal Law would reign and the City Attorney has given us our opinion of what that Federal Law is. Anthes: Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 5-2-0 with Myres and Allen voting No. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 15 ADM 05-1614: Administrative Item (SHAKE'S) Submitted by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE for property located at NW CORNER OF SANG AVENUE AND 6TH STREET. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.39 acres. The requirement is for a 15' green space buffer along the parking lot frontage. The request is for a variance of the required 15' of green space buffer to allow for 10' of green space. Anthes: The third item tonight is administrative item 05-1614 for Shakes. May we have the staff report please. Pate: An additional color coded handout for you tonight. This property is apparently owned by the City of Fayetteville. It is located at the northwest corner of Sang Avenue and Sixth Street. The property is zoned C-2 thoroughfare commercial. It's the former location of the Shakes Frozen Custard store. The City of Fayetteville purchased that a couple of years ago, that property a couple of years ago for a realignment of this intersection at Sang and Hollywood. A traffic signal was installed as well as turn lanes and a realignment of the street in that area. This particular administrative request is to reduce the required green space by three feet along Sang Avenue from the required 15 feet of green space exclusive of the right of way to a total of 10 feet of green space exclusive of the right of way before the four parking spaces there shown could begin. This is proposed, nothing here has been constructed, if you look on the graphic that's been passed out, that's the current concrete that is on the property. Formerly when this was utilized as Shakes there was a drive thru on the east side as well and patrons would oftentimes drive through that east side and then exit directly onto Sixth street in that location. As part of the requirement for the purchase of this property and part of the contract, planning did require the purchaser who has not yet closed on the property to remove a portion of concrete, you can see that, it's been cut out basically along the south side along Sixth Street from that area to provide needed green space. Additionally the remainder of the concrete there is shown exclusive of the area proposed for parking would also be removed and I would recommend that to be added as a condition of approval that entire area be located green space which would well over our city ordinances currently. The staff is recommending approval of this particular request. You can show, you can see on the graphic that I handed out, the first pages shows the fifteen foot green space if it were designed with the fifteen feet, that would indicate that any cars backing up would either back into the actual building in this location or back into the stacked cars that would be located on the west side of this reutilized, this plan to be utilized as a drive through. The second page shows what the five feet does gain which allows cars parked in those four spaces to be able to operate and leave the parking area in a forward motion. Additionally, another consideration for this particular project is that Sang Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 16 Avenue, when the planning, I'm sorry, when the city realigned this, took more right away that we typically do. Usually a local street like this has fifty feet of right away, I believe that's what Hollywood has across the street. Fifty feet would result in twenty-five feet from center line as you can see from this plat it's 36 feet from center line. There's an additional eleven feet taken off of this property just for right away and construction of the turn lane here. Therefore that's put another undue justice on this property in order for it's further use and development. The city did approve a contract for sale of this property a number of months ago, I believe Mr. Lenz. And I believe it's just not closed at this time. So with those findings staff finds in favor of this particular request with one condition currently that two inch caliper street trees be planted with a maximum spacing of thirty feet along with shrubs to be planted to screen the parking within the green space area along all right of way frontage space with the renovation or the redevelopment of the property in question and further, landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval with the building permit. If it pleases the commission and a recommendation for approval is forthcoming, I would also like to recommend another condition, that the concrete you see there as shown and not required for this parking be removed in it's entirety and that be replaced with sodded or seeded green space in order for that to function as a landscape corner. Obviously on the northeast side of Sang, the city maintains quite a large landscape burm in that area that was again, developed with the realignment of this intersection. With that I'll take any questions. Anthes: Mr. Pate. That condition, is that the one that you also referred to earlier or are there two recommended Pate: Yes. Anthes: Ok. Same one. And as the applicant is the City of Fayetteville, who is representing the city? Name? I'll be happy to answer any questions. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address 05-1614 for Shakes? Seeing none, we'll close the floor to public comment. Commissioners. Name? Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Name? The city is asking for a variance. Jeremy, what's, have we had other variance requests such as this that we've allowed less greenspace than what's required? Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 17 Pate: Name? Pate: Name? Allen: Anthes: Allen: Name? Allen: Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Anthes: We have. Not, I don't necessarily think from the city, but we have allowed reductions in green space, a couple of PZD's, Beacon Flats, redeveloped properties, especially developed, not in accordance with current requirements oftentimes have a hard time meeting those. And Beacon Flats was one example of a large scale development planned zoning district that was developed with less than required green space simply because they were actually adding more back in. It just didn't happen to be in configuration that would have met our current codes. Follow up. The concrete being removed is how much more green space will be added back in with that, do you have any idea? It's approximately roughly, 1500 to 2000 square feet of green space in that area that's currently shown outside the building and outside of the parking area in front of, I guess it would be east of the Shakes building. Ok. Thank you. Madam Chair Commissioner Allen. On that same line, I think that it's the responsibility of the city to set the example for green space, particularly in this part of the city, and I'm not certain where you're speaking of the removal of the concrete as being, I wonder if you could explain it again or, maybe show me on this map. Certainly. Thank you. Can you point it toward the television camera, maybe. Everything, exclusive of the parking in this area. All that shaded area. And in front of the building as well. This area as well. Thank you. Mr. Pate. Another question just for clarification. These maps show Sang Avenue as in the proposed shared parking area. That is the old location of Sang Avenue. Is that correct? Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 18 Pate: Anthes: Pate: Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? That's correct. That's exactly right. And so this curb cut that we see to the south here that has the parking along it, has actually been removed? Yes. Madam Chair. I have a question about that extension. There is some discussion about the property line and where it lay. If Sang Avenue, the right of way was going to be split 50/50 between the property owners. But is it still the case that the pawn shop had enough property on the other side of the easement that they got all of it? Or does some of that right of way go to this property? There is a 50 foot right of way associated with Sang Avenue in this location. Twenty-five feet from centerline is where the property line for Shakes currently is. That's essentially right in the middle of page one of this handout, right in the middle of that island. That's about where the property line currently lies. So if this were vacated, for instance if the property owner currently got together and decided to vacate, half would go to this property owner to the east and half would go to the property owner to the west. Ok. That has not been vacated by the city though? Not to my knowledge. That's correct. I guess the question for the city attorney. Is that something that's going to happen? Can you speak to that? I actually don't know what the, although I would think that everything has been done that was going to be done in relation to this property because we have entered an agreement to sell this piece of property so I doubt if anything is really in the works right now. I guess my next question would be, if we've got a proposed shared parking agreement to help facilitate this site in the that right of way, is that something that can even be done? The next page I guess shows a proposed parking area there. If it leaves enough room I guess for that still to be used as for ingress and egress it might still be able to be done although that is a different configuration. I'm seeing this for the first time tonight myself. Madam Chair. On the whole layout of this site in general. I'm not opposed to the reduction. I think that there is significant green space on Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 19 this site with these plans as drawn with that condition that we talked about. I guess I have one question for Jeremy after this is over, how can we hold the developer to only develop the spaces where they are. Is that, you know, this is the layout we're looking at and this is what I'm using to base my decision on when we see and LSD come back there if we do will it look like this, or could it be something different. Name? In the future it could be anything different if they acquired a new property or looked at something else the planning commission could potentially see that. Right now, even this parking layout could change. I don't anticipate it would simply because there's really no way to utilize the property to the south there to get in and to get back out without curb cuts and those would not be allowed per our codes at this intersection. Really, ultimately it's the request of Anthes: Please turn all cell phones off. Thank you. Name? Ultimately it's the request to allow along parallel to the right of way, ten feet as opposed to fifteen where parking would begin to start. Name? I say that because part of the reason I would approve this is the increased green space in other areas of the site I think can help offset that. And it is something that we've done. I know we've allowed reduced setbacks, I believe over along Rupple Road where Salem Village backs up to it as well. I can think of one because we had some talks about putting a street through there now where the sidewalk went. But this is a developed area that we're talking about, existing structures we grant variances or vacations all the time for existing structures in similar situations not owned by the city. I understand the argument that the city needs to be the first to follow its own ordinances but this is a unique situation with the developed piece of property. If this was a new development, I could definitely see a situation where we'd want to look at that closer, but this is just the city who had to buy this to redevelop this intersection which was greatly needed, now trying to market this property as something that could be used and recoup some of our costs as the city. So I definitely think that with the added green space in other areas, I do think this would be a good variance to grant. Name? Mr. Pate. I guess I have another question. When I'm holding this up, it looks to me that what you say is the property line encompasses the parking spaces, the east row of parking spaces to the west of the building and the drive, the shared drive on the west of that on the, is that in the easement or is that in the other property owner's property? Pate: That would be on the other property owner's property. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 20 Name? The maps aren't the same scale. Pate: They are not. Name? Oh, they aren't? So I guess I am still a little confused about the, about what development is actually within the easement? If the city still holds that easement for Sang Avenue? Pate: Currently, I mean the plan that you see here might very well be the development that you see. There may not be any shared parking. It really depends on the business, the number of patrons, the nature of this business does not require the customers really to be inside the business at all. And so it's primary function is a drive thru much like the Flying Burrito on the Fly or the Shakes that was here. There are no customers inside. It's essentially employee parking only. So the shared parking may be something that never comes about. That's not part of this proposal at all. That's one concept sketch of may. Essentially the issues comes down, again, in order to provide onsite parking those four spaces plus one handicapped space and be able to back out, in the configuration that's shown, an additional five feet, at least five feet would be needed. Name? Thank you. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: Looking at the frontage along Sixth Street, at the edge of the fifty five foot right of way, looking at the front of the building, I see what appears to be a sidewalk. Can you tell me more about that because that is certainly closer than the fifteen feet and I don't know but is that, does that constitute an encroachment on the fifteen foot green space as well? Name? It does and this property has had to have vacations and variances of all sort. Again it was built without, was not built in compliance with our current zoning ordinances. The dedication of fifty five feet of right of way, that use to be only forty feet of right of way until the city actually did this project and dedicated future further right of way along the state highway so that really changed all configuration in this area. Name? OK. So that would be grand fathered in or Pate: It's actually already been granted a variance by the board of adjustment for the building. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 21 Name? Anthes: Lack: OK. I think I would concur that the added green space at the corner of the lot would be adequate to be a trade off for the loss of green space to the back side of the lot. I think some verbiage or if there is some way to control that that setback of green space is limited to that south edge of the four space parking that is there now would be prudent in that that is a trade off that would make this viable. Is that a motion? That can be a motion. Allen: Second. And Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Allen. Name? Wishing that there was a way that a failed business could take their asphalt with them each time, I would consider that an adequate trade off too. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Lack and a second by Commissioner Allen. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. ADM 05-1574: Large Scale Development (COMMERCE PARK II, 176): Submitted by STEVE CLARK for property located at the SW CORNER OF JOYCE BLVD AND OLD MISSOURI RD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 4.78 acres. The request is to approve a 63,183 s.f office building with 193 parking spaces proposed. Anthes: Gardner: The fourth Item of bus Mr. Gardner. ness s LSD 05-1574 for Commerce Park Two. This project is located on Joyce Boulevard approximately 459 west of Old Missouri Road adjacent to the existing Commerce Park One. The site as street frontage and ingress egress onto Joyce Boulevard. The site is predominately undeveloped and it has some existing disturbed areas and an old driveway on there. The surrounding land uses consist of office uses to the north and east and residential uses to the south and west. The applicant proposes to build a four story office building adjacent to the existing Commerce Park One which was approved on November 13, 2000. The building would be approximately 63,000 square feet and would have 193 parking spaces and would also include about a six foot sidewalk along Joyce Boulevard and would dedicate fifteen feet of right of way along Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 22 Joyce Boulevard. The site contains 3 percent tree canopy and would preserve 1.3 percent and mitigation is required for this project. Staff recommends approval of this project with conditions I would like to address. I wanted to point out a couple of these to you tonight. Condition number One: Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. Staff finds that the elevations presented meet the required commercial design standards. Staff originally had concerns that the elevations were not compatible with the color of the adjacent Commerce Park One and surrounding office developments that contain red brick. However, after a review of the material samples that were presented to the subdivision committee provided by the applicants, staff finds that the proposed granite is compatible with the adjacent red brick color and the off white limestone is also compatible with the surrounding development. Condition number three: A six foot screen fence or an appropriate mixture of evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees shall be installed along the west property line screened adjacent residential use. Conditions four through eight are related to tree preservation and they include condition number seven which required the minimum of five mitigation trees to be planted onsite to meet the tree preservation ordinance. I wanted to call your attention as well to condition number nine which requires all free standing wall signs to comply with commercial design standard and other ordinance specifications. And the rest are the standard conditions of approval. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Gardner. Will the applicant come forward. Good evening. Clark: Good evening. I'm Steve Clark, Clark Consulting, representing Dixie Development with the project. This is a brief development proposal and existing approved large scale development. This project came before the planning commission in 2002, 2003 originally. It had a different style building, had a restaurant out front, had some different arrangements on the parking lots a the time. They started construction actually built some of the utilities the lines and then market demands so Dixie went other places and built buildings there and as a result the project got put on hold. Subsequently the large scale expired, Dixie decided to do a different style building, go to four stories I think instead of a two and three story building, remove the restaurant and several other changes. At this time this is the project that we have before you and we're prepared to answer any question. Name? So you have the materials board that they had at subdivision. Clark: We have an architect, we don't have the materials board, (inaudible) just before the meeting. (Inaudible. Walked away from the mike) We also have, of course it's a predominately glass building, it would be a low heat type glass that will look ... (walked away from the mike)) Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 23 Anthes: Clark: Name? Anthes: Name? Anthes: Name? Clark: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Thank you Mr. Clark. We'll get that from you. O.K. I was going to say one other question, one of the other conditions I think was addressing the utility easements and tree canopy and we'll have to work that one out with staff because the utility easements will be required by engineering and the trees are close, we diverted the need for utility lines so that they would not hit the trees and we could go around the trees. However the easements are encompassing within the tree canopy. So we'll go over that directly with staff. Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this large scale development for Commerce Park. Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment. I have a couple of questions on the site plan. I know that I found one location where there are bike racks shown but they're on the rear of the building. Can you tell me why that was chosen rather than on the front? We have parking on the front and the rear of the building. If it's an employee type situation we presume they would come in from the back side, park in the back where most of the employee parking would be. We're not locked in on any of the bike racks if you've got a preferred location, we'll certainly look at those. Since this is fairly close to a trail system in Fayetteville, it just seems to me that that's a good signal to show out front that that bike parking is available to the people coming to this building. If someone were utilizing the trail system, and come up Old Missouri Road, they could actually come through Commerce Park One, through that parking lot, there's an access off the back comer of that, an access that would from that side of the building which would be oriented towards the trail system. And we would be happy to put them wherever you guys put the suggestion that we put them. And I was not able to find the dumpster enclosure on your site. Can you show us where it is? It is on the rear and on the side. Oh, it's up there. Ok. Did everyone see that? Thank you Mr. Clark. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 24 Clark: Yes, Ma'am. Anthes Any other comments or questions? Name? Madam Chair, about signage. I guess there's a picture of a monument sign. Are there going to be business names located on that or on the building at all? Name? In the existing complex we have monument signs at the road with reference to the development and then there are small building signs that are located actually on the buildings. Name? Ok. Name? Otherwise it just didn't work. There's multiple buildings in the other complex. There's a single building in this one. Name? Jeremy that's all that will be allowed. Smaller signs on the building itself, for the tenants, or... Pate: Right there are multiple tenants and one of the business, otherwise it's four wall signs per city ordinance and we could go look at those through our sign permit process. Anthes: Mr. Pate, did staff have any comments about the bike racks? You were happy with location? Pate: As long as they are 50 feet from an entrance. Anthes: We do have findings on condition one. Does any commissioner have comments on commercial design standards. Name? Madam Chair, I just wanted a little bit more about that reflective glass. It looks so much bluer in your drawings and then this building that we've got than in the piece of glass that came around. I wonder if you think that's truer than... Clark It's hard to get a color that will properly reflect what the glass is going to look like. This is the glass that's being specified so that is what it will look like as opposed to a picture of what the glass would look like. As a matter of fact our picks originally had a bluish color in the glass. I said what we were using had a greenish tint to it and they said yes, we'd change that. But this is the glass that's going to be specified and that's the glass we'll be looking at. Name? Thank you. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 25 Anthes: Are there other comments or motions. Commissioner Lack. Lack: Madam Chair I think when this came through subdivision committee we looked at the this and the original perception that, at least I had with the colors, I had some concerns in that I wasn't seeing something that I thought would be compatible. But with the samples of the colors, I feel that they are working with a color palette to be compatible in a more luxurious or more expensive up class material, and so I think that helped me and the rest of the members of the subdivision committee with that at the time. I think that the glass that we're seeing the sample of, seems to be of somewhat a grayish tint or to possibly have a gray tent which would be more compatible to the existing buildings that what we're seeing in the rendering as well and so I think that with that, we had had little problems with the commercial design standards and think it was an acceptable building. I did have a question at subdivision committee about the radius of the trees that we're saving with the planter walls and I wondered if you had had a chance to verify, are we somewhere in the realm of the drip line with the walls. Name? The tree canopies were quite a bit larger than were reflected on that original drawing and what happened on that is that the original large scale become approved and had an existing survey with it that was provided by the previous engineers. I did not take their numbers. I assumed they were correct and just made the trees on my drawings and used that same canopy size. We physically went out and measured them. They were significantly larger than what was originally represented. We've expanded the tree walls in order to match up with the drip line. There are some areas where the parking will be approaching a few feet into the tree canopy. We'll deal with that, we'll take care of trimming the roots and doing the things necessary to manage those trees as best we can. Lack: Ok. And I appreciate you checked. I just didn't want to get down to construction with making changes on it. Allen: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Allen. Allen: I will move for approval of large scale development 05-1574 with subject to the sixteen conditions of approval. Vaught: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Vaught. Is there further discussion? Renee will you call the roll. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 26 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carried. ADM 05-1555: Residential Planned Zoning District (OAKBROOK PHASE II, 361): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located W OF RUPPLE RD & E OF BRIDGEPORT PH. II. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY — 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 11.506 acres. The request is to approve a residential subdivision with 22 single family and 19 townhouse lots proposed. Anthes: The fifth item tonight is Residential Planned Zoning District 05-1555 for Oakbrook Phase II. I will remind everyone that we are short two commissioners this evening and this R-PZD will require five positive votes to pass. Suzanne. Morgan: Property consists of a total 11.506 acres. It is located west of Rupple Road and south Mount Comfort Road. It is just west, excuse me, east of phase one which was considered by this body or board just two weeks ago at the last regular meeting. The property is currently zoned RSF one, single family, one unit per acre and the applicant at this time request a unique zoning and zoning district along with preliminary plat to develop 41 lots with 22 single family and 19 town home lots proposed. In relation to phase one, there have been conditions approved with regard to approvals that phase one construction plans will need to be approved and the project will need to be approved prior to approval of phase two. Another way that these two projects relate is that they do share access, many of the streets proposed in phase one are going to be utilized for access in phase two. With regard to each of the different types of lots, those lots to the north of the project which will be properties are to be utilized for either single family or two family town homes. The majority of properties adjacent to property to the east which is undeveloped at this time will be allowed for single family detached development. There is an existing home on the property and the applicant has requested that this home be utilized for the property owners association use to be somewhat of a clubhouse to these properties. He has also requested that this not only this lot but the adjacent two lots be allowed to have use units 15 and 13 on the property. In the staff report there is a list of different use units allowed. I've already previewed some them with regard to this residential uses. But again lots 24 through 26 are proposed to have allowable eating places and neighborhood shopping areas for uses. With regard to density, the total density is 3.56. The properties currently zoned RSF1 however this proposed density is similar to those properties developed in Bridgeport and the proposed development to the south, Bellwood Estates. In addition setbacks are unique in this proposed planned zoning district with front setbacks of 14 feet with build to lines to allow the homes to be built as close to those, that building setback where possible. In addition, Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 27 the heights, with regard to height, the maximum height is 56.5 feet proposed at the peak with unique building areas. Currently the RSF4 zoning district would be a common one to compare it to, allows for a 40% buildable area on the lots. The applicant is proposing that all lots not exceed 60% on lots 1 through 33 and 95% on those smaller lots which will be accessed by the alleyway on lots 34 through 41. Additionally, another unique feature of this project are the driveways, common driveways are encouraged to be 5 feet from the property line though and to utilize a three foot green strip centered within the driveway. We've addressed those different items in conditions 8 through 10 on your conditions of approval. And to review the conditions of approval, condition three requires planning commission determination of an offsite bridge assessment. This property is located within the area for a bridge assessment over Clabber Creek and staff recommends the developer be proportionally assessed for the future construction of this bridge in the amount of $2788.17. Additional fees and assessments include the construction of Rupple Road in the, along it's the property frontage in the amount of $15,900. Also payment of park fees in the amount $22,755 as addressed in condition 17. There are several different conditions with regard to the unique uses of neighborhood shopping and eating places. Condition 15 addresses that lot 26 to be reserved for the POA's potential clubhouse shall be the responsibility of the POA or other designated person and condition redevelopment on this lot or any other lot utilized for nonresidential use which would include the two lots adjacent to this property on the east shall conform with the uses listed and require large scale development approval. Additionally condition 16 addresses that future nonresidential development will need to comply with minimum development standards as identified in the unified development code and that we will review the architectural features and the design of those structures proposed to ensure that they are compatible with the overall subdivision. There are total 31 conditions of approval that are proposed and we have received signed conditions from the applicant. We have received public comment not only for this phase but also for phase one from the adjacent residential single family owners from the adjacent POAs and also from property owners to the north who have expressed concern with regard to connectivity to that property and I believe you have some information regarding that. Do you have any questions on these, I'll be glad to answer. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Would the applicant come forward please. Good evening. Jefcoat: Tom Jefcoat, good evening. Tom Jefcoat, Milholland Company. As Suzanne said, you have signed conditions of approval so we are aware and accept the conditions of approval. This is a unique project. Several weeks ago you approved phase one of this development. This is an extension of the phase one development for the completing of this fairly complex, Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 28 unique development. One of the concerns at the approval of phase one was the appearance of the attached single family residence with the alleyway behind and this is an architectural concept with how the units would look with the rest of the development and if you remember the phase one, this presentation of the single family homes are unattached. If there are any questions we'll be glad to answer those. Otherwise, we appreciate your consideration. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Jeffcoat. Would any member of the public want to address this R-PZD 05-1555? Please come forward, state your name and if there's a sign in sheet, would you please sign it please. Stuart: I'm Karen Stuart. I'm representing my mother who is a property owner to the north. Suzanne has said that the density in the surrounding area this is going to be comparable to. I don't believe that's correct. The most that the density is 2.88 and that's Bellwood to the south. Bridgeport is nowhere near that and I know we aren't. So don't think this is compatible with the area. Also there is mention of connectivity. There are no longer streets that would be connected. So thank you, that's all. Anthes: Thank you Ms. Stuart. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Would any member of subdivision committee, I know Commissioner Clark isn't here, but would you be willing to tell us what happened? Lack: Sure I'd be happy to. We saw this project and had several considerations had a presentation from Ms. Stuart and appreciated her input. Several things that came out of that, I'm remiss that I don't have a list of the items that we spoke about, but one item that we were to hear a follow up from the city engineer on was a potential for a spring in the pond that exists on the site at lots 23 and 24. I think other issues were the entry widths at Rupple Road which have been modified on the update plat. I think that we were excited about the larger lots, 26, 25 and 24 which have the potential to add some variety and some commercial use amenity to this subdivision within the subdivision for the neighborhood aspect. There was a great deal of talk about realignment of roads and connectivity which Ms. Stuart had directed but I'm hearing now that that is not the case. Anthes: Thank you Commissioner Lack. One other question is, was the percentage of lot coverage discussed at all? Is staff comfortable with those percentages and would you give us something to compare those to. Name? Our standard RSF4, Single family residential zoning district, I believe is at maximum of 40%. However, this is obviously a very unique development. These are 8000 square foot lots with 70 feet of frontage so it's a little bit difficult to have an actual comparison. The only thing I Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 29 could probably compare it to would be the Aspen Ridge planned zoning district. The townhouse style development is relatively new as far as the new developments go. We have older developments in town, not a lot of them. We, I guess part of the downtown master plan it's something that was brought out, we don't have a lot of attached single family dwellings in this city and we're seeing a lot more of those as they become more popular for smaller lots and less space is maintained. I believe that 60 percent is perfectly fine and I think that with the smaller lot those are perfectly adequate. The 95 percent at first glance is a little bit daunting simply because 95 percent of the lot could be built out, however they are accessed by alleyways and would be the only lots that are potentially utilized for attached dwellings so they would cross those property lines as well. So honestly at this time I don't really see a big concern on that, especially since there's at least 14 feet of green space in front. There are building setbacks at the rear so it's like they can exceed the 95 percent, just with that alone. Name? I'm sure you've taken into account the green reserve that's in phase one. Name? Exactly. Name? Ok. Are there any comments, commissioners? I just had one question, and follow up on the comments that were made. The density issue as related to the surrounding developments. Can you go over those again please? Pate: Compared to the zoning just south and west of this, it's zoned actually for 12 units per acre, was not developed as that but is zoned RT12. Additionally to the west as Ms. Stuart mentioned is zoned RSF4 which allows for a maximum of four units per acre. Similarly there's a lot of property that's been developed in this area that is zoned at a higher density than this current proposal but that does not mean that they have to build out to that ultimate density but it does allow for that. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. I noticed there are quite a few conditions of approval that have to do with plat revisions. Are you comfortable with those? Pate: There were some changes made from the subdivision committee just to try to include as much on the plats. We're really trying to push toward the format in the planned zoning district ordinance to have the zoning criteria on the plat so that you have a place to look for it and I think that's part of why we see some of this information. We have been working the applicant to try to get everything on the site that we do need to see and as condition number seven in capitals says, we need to make sure everything is done in order to get this on the city clerk's agenda and we'll make sure that that occurs. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 30 Anthes: Name? Anthes: Name? Anthes: Name? Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Trumbo: Anthes: Question of the applicant on, in your protective covenants, item three, I believe there are some blanks here for which lot numbers are going to have certain minimum square footages. Have you addressed those? I believe we have. There was several lot numbering confusions that developed during the break up and dividing between phases and how we're going to be, until we got the final approved numbering systems, yes we understand how that will be filled in. And to address your previous question, I think Jeremy had indicated that a lot of the lengthy conditions of approval were previously not put on plats and now we're moving toward, from covenants to getting a lot of that on the plat that were not before, so yes. So can you give us those numbers? These covenants have to go forward as part of the package don't they? These are just their preliminary draft. So this is relatively common at this stage. At the time upon plat, you'll actually see these come through as part of the final plat to be referred with those. So you're ok with having these blanks in there. Yes. Ok. Commissioners? Madam Chair. Mr. Vaught. I have no problems with this subdivision, in fact I appreciate what they're going for here and having a mix uses and developments and also in an area is something that we've talked about with the downtown master plan is having a house, a mix of types and sizes in a certain area and with that said, I'll move for approval, or forwarding, I guess of R-PZD 05-1555 with the conditions as stated. Do I hear a second? I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner Vaught and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Renee will you call the roll? Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 31 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carried. PPI 05-1433: Preliminary Plat (LIERLY LANE S/D, 244): Submitted by MIKE MCDONALD for property located at 4267 LIERLY LANE. The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 22.92 acres. The request it to approve a residential subdivision with 51 single family lots proposed. Anthes: The sixth item tonight is preliminary plat 05-1433 for Lierly Lane. I believe this one is Mr. Pate's. Pate: This property is located in the planning area of the city of Fayetteville, North of the city limits adjacent to Clabber Creek Subdivision Phases 3-5. It contains almost 23 acres and the request if to approve a residential subdivision within the planning area. Access and existing frontage for this particular property is on Lierly Lane which is a collector street on our master street plan. It is currently unimproved and this development will be improving that street 14 feet from center line as well as ensuring that there is 20 feet of cleared driving paved surface on the street. All the surrounding properties are within the planning area and consist of large single family properties with exception to the south which has been approved for a single family subdivision within the city. Water is to extend to this proposed development. Additionally a decentralized waste water treatment system, subsurface stripped waste water dispersal system has been approved, preliminarily approved by the entities that have reviewed these. Additionally the Washington County Planning will have to review this application and final approval will need to occur prior to issuance of construction plans. At the meeting of the subdivision committee the city engineer originally placed a condition of approval on the project, on that the subdivision within the planning area have reasonable access to public sanitary sewer system by way of future extension between Clabber Creek Subdivision and would thus need to connect with city council approval. This item was taken before the Water and Sewer Committee for discussion the Tuesday night following and based on the comments and recommendations at that meeting this condition of approval has been removed from the project. In the future, should this property be annexed, almost all of our development regulations would be enforced. The minimum square feet of lot, the minimum frontage, the street standards, the sidewalk, street light all per our city ordinances as well as our policies on these centralized plant systems. Of course they would have to connect to the sewer at that time once annexed in the City of Fayetteville, but again, this request does not include that scenario. Planning staff have received numerous public comments by way of responses to public notification on this project. Some of those were favorable and those that were not were included in your packet. With that, Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 32 that is recommending approval of Lierly Lane Subdivision preliminary plat 05-1433 with 19 conditions of approval, a couple of which have to do with access, number one and two. Staff is recommending that lots one and two share an access from Lierly Lane, a collector street. These two lots do not have access to an interior street and as Lierly Lane is a collector we do recommend those have a shared access and if approved curb cut shared driveway shall be constructed with the subdivision including noted in the plat but no additional driveway cuts are being permitted. That is in keeping with other subdivisions we have seen in the recent pass that access on a collector and/or arterials. Lots number three and four directly adjacent shall access the interior street as opposed to Lierly Lane. The developer is to be charged an assessment of $18,716.22 for a percentage of the future bridge construction over Clabber Creek. It is within the Clabber Creek bridge assessment area. I believe the rest of the conditions are relatively straightforward or we discussed them at the subdivision committee level. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. Would the applicant come forward. Please introduce yourselves and your project. Scott: My name is Art Scott, I'm with Project Design Consultants, the engineer for this project. This is Mike McDonald of Blind Squirrel LLC, the developer for the project and we're in agreement with the all the conditions of approval here. We are seeking your approval for preliminary plat tonight. And we can answer any questions you have. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this preliminary plat for Lierly Lane? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Commissioners? Name? I have a few questions. Mr. Pate. On condition of approval number two you state lots three and four shall access the interior street. Do we need to specify a minimum distance from the inner section? Pate: They would have to meet our minimum codes which, I believe, is forty feet, I believe that's the code for access. Name? Ok. Anthes: And I have an article I printed from the paper this week about a subdivision in Farmington that is on hold based on the county's ruling on the decentralized sewer system. Can you talk a little bit more about that? I believe it's on page 6.2 in your first and second paragraphs, what happened because in the subdivision committee comments, they are much different than what this is proposing now. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 33 Pate: Any sewer connection outside the city limits is required to have city council approval. It's not happened very often if ever, in my recollection. The other option in force is to annex into the City of Fayetteville and then provide those sewer connections. At the time of review of this at the subdivision committee level, the city attorney did look at the availability of sewer. It's not immediately adjacent to this site that would be forthcoming in the relatively near future with Clabber Creek subdivision phases 3-5. A couple of factors enter into that. This is, compared to Clabber Creek with a couple hundred lots, this is a relatively small subdivision. The timing of Clabber Creak, how they are developed is relatively unknown as well. So we could be a couple, two, three years before that sewer connection would be even available to this property. Additionally, the Water and Sewer Committee did discuss this item as an item on their agenda and a couple of others I believe, with sewer connections outside the city limits and based on the comments received at the meeting, they were not willing to forward this for a full recommendation for approval to the city council for a sewer connection outside the city and based on that information the city engineer did withdraw that requirement of a condition for approval. I did read the same article and actually have let the applicant know that that is something that the Washington County Planning Board just recently either tabled or denied in that particular case. I don't think that's indicative of all decentralized systems, but again, that's their decision to make and this very project has to go before the same board as well. Anthes: So do we have documents from Washington County approving the step system in this project? Pate: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Vaught: Not fully approved. All we require at this time is a preliminary approval and yes, we do, those are included in your staff report. There are three different letters that we require. One from the Arkansas Department of Health in Little Rock, it's Roy Davis or James Shumate. A letter from the soil scientist that actually does the test pits, the soil tests on the site. And a letter from the, preliminary approval from the Washington County Health Services, or Environmental Services Department and we have received all those letters. Thank you Mr. Pate. Any other comments? Madam Chair. Mr. Vaught. I have a question for staff about the intersection of Lierly Lane and Hughmount. I know this was discussed at subdivision. Why aren't we flattening, if Lierly Lane is a collector, why aren't we flattening that out. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 34 Why are we leaving that little curve in there? Is there a right of way issue or? Name? The intersection of Hughmount and Lierly? Vaught: Yea. It seems like a T would be a better configuration of Lierly Lane as a through, as a collector street. Is that off the edge of our property? Name? Yes it is. We've seen offsite improvements in the past and I'm not sure what existing right of ways is currently there. I know there is some constraints to do with the overhead electric lines that cross in this area. I'm not sure if there's an actual power pole there or not. Anthes: Mr. Scott do you have comments? Scott: Very similar to a project we're working on Howard Nichol Road at 112. That area has experienced some problems with people shooting straight across. So what we did there and are going to do there is the same thing we're showing here. It causes cars that are going eastbound to actually have to tum, you understand what I mean? Rather than just go shooting straight across. It's this is a better situation than that one because those cars exiting are not crossing the traffic in the eastbound. Name? It's just a question if that's an appropriate design for collector street I guess. Is that... Name? I think what we see at Hughmount and Lierly extend, these are some of the first units that connect to Lierly. There is another subdivision in the planning area that we recently saw half of a street being built. As we see some of these improvements and this becomes more of a connector we'll probably see realignment potential in these areas. I tend to agree though, if this were going designed straight through, Hughmount would need to become not the through street. It would need to become a stop and then that would significantly alter traffic flow in this area. Name? Ok. So that's something that even if the city will address in the future if we need to realign. Name? I, we anticipate quite a few improvements in this area as we see more and more development. Name? My one other question, I guess, is for the lots that are split, half in the city, half in the county, how are those going to be addressed for city services like trash and those items? Name? City attorney... Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 35 Name? Ok. I was just curious how we're going to service those, how police and fire would respond. Police and fire can share service agreements I know, but especially trash and other services, how they would respond to those areas. Name? I honestly am not sure of those answers. Anthes: To follow up on Commissioner Vaught's question, Mr. O'Neal have you looked at that intersection at Lierly and Hughmount? O'Neal: Yes Ma'am. One of the major concerns is that if there's westbound traffic on Lierly, if this was, if Lierly was the through street and Hughmount stayed, remained the same alignment, then the westbound traffic would be cutting across the lane and this is a much safer alignment and when this area does redevelop and Lierly Lane is developed per the master street plan, then that would be realigned. Anthes: Thank you. Any other comments? Motion? Vaught: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve preliminary plat 05-1433 subject to the conditions indicated. Graves: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Vaught, second by Commissioner, Graves. I have one question for Mr. Williams. Williams: Yes Ma'am. Anthes: Given the issue of the decentralized system and what the other committees are doing, are we comfortable here with approving this and sending this forward knowing that Washington County has that approval? What do we do? Williams: Well, you might have a level of comfort that at least Washington County is looking at this closely now, although obviously they're concerned about it and hoping the state will provide some additional regulations. Just use your own best judgment on this. Follow basically what staff recommended. Unless you had some good reason that you did not want to do that and maybe you should address planning staff with that question. Anthes: Mr. Pate, do you have a comment? Pate: We're making this recommendation based on what ordinances we have in place. I know there's been a lot of discussion lately, state and county, Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 36 local levels about moratoriums on these types of developments and stopping them altogether or allowing them to continue. At this time we don't have anything in place like that. And I don't think we've even discussed having anything in place like that. I know Washington County Planning in the leaders even been a task force that's been created to address potential long term maintenance and what we would see in maintenance of these types of systems because I think ultimately that's the bigger problem. It's who ten or fifteen years down the road are actually maintaining the systems. Is it just the POA's or someone designated as representative to do that so I think that's some of the things issues that at the county level, that our Washington County is trying to deal with at this time. But right now we're making recommendations on what ordinances we have in place and we feel comfortable making them. Anthes: So basically what you are saying is that's really Washington County's purview and not ours. Pate: That is correct. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Allen: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Allen. Allen: Do we feel that we've adequately addressed these concerns from adjoining neighbors, the sewage treatment, the over crowding, the traffic? Another person mentions sprawl. Anthes: Do you have specific questions about this? Allen: I was just reading their comments and wondered if you all felt comfortable with their concerns. Name? Madam Chair. Based on, we're in the county, and based on what we can control and this is an issue we come up to all the time with subdivisions in the county, we're very limited on what we can review and in some respects, density is one of them. You know 10,000 square foot ;pt minimums. 75 feet wide. There are some specific things, and as long as it meets those on that side of it, there's not a whole lot we can do. We are hopefully helping traffic with the street alignment and with the improvements and connectivity through Clabber Creek. Hopefully that will take some of this traffic south, I would think through Clabber Creek instead of off Lierly Lane and Hughmount until they're further developed. But, you know we're growing fast on these edges and that's why you know, we've talked about many times having an annexation policy or Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 37 possibly looking at annexing larger portions an important deal, an important point for us in planning. So, but as for this, what we can look at, I think have met the requirements. Anthes: Thank you. Do you have other feelings? Allen: I think they are out of our control. Anthes: I guess my concern is with the step system and as I understand, the centralized system is being designed so that it will meet the criteria and the flows so that you can connect to the city when that becomes available. Right? Name? Yes. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Renee will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carried. Scott: Thank you all. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Scott. ANX 05-1580: Annexation (SLOAN PROPERTIES, INC., 609): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at HUNT LANE, S OF HWY 16E. The property is in the PLANNING AREA and contains approximately 31.59 acres. The request it to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. ANX 05-1581: Rezoning (SLOAN PROPERTIES, INC., 609): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at HUNT LANE, S OF HWY 16E. The property is ZONED R -A. RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 31.59 acres. The request it to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Anthes: Our eighth item tonight is rezoning request 05-1581 for Sloan Properties and we have the staff report. Pate: This item and following item are relevant to the same subject property, 31.59 acres requesting annexation to RSF4 residential single family four units per acre. The property owners actually are comprised of at least seven different property, seven or eight different property owners. The applicant originally approached staff with the particular part that he wished to develop. I would not have created the boundary but staff do recommend it. We therefore went out and essentially handed this area to Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 38 create a more accessible boundary and the staffs finding that we had done that very thing does reflect. This property contains thirty one and a half acres consisting of all or portions of six legal tracts of properties, some of which are bisected and half in the city and have outside just like we saw. This would correct some of these conditions. The reason for that was back in the 1970's I believe it's either 70's (end of tape) .. off of that 600 feet, one of which is developed to the east as a subdivision. This property currently has access to Hunt Lane and Tallgrass Drive via an existing stub - out which is a residential street. Road improvements will be required at the time of development and in accordance with our development criteria and the master street plan criteria as well. Huntsville Road is a principle arterial street and that would likely be the primary means of access to this particular piece of property. Sanitary sewer is near the site and any extensions to this property would require downstream analysis as well as those extensions would be at the cost of the developer based on the our rational nexus calculations. The same thing is with public water adjacent to the site. They have an eight inch water line along Hunt Lane and additionally one along Tallgrass Avenue. This property is mostly hilltop land. There are some areas which contain 15 percent or greater slopes. There appears to be a creek running through the site that does contain floodplain and floodway likely a tributary to a river in this area the West Fork of the White River. The property is located approximately three and a half miles from fire station number five. It is likely within that overall expansion area. Additionally the timing that was submitted does not take into account the decreased response time for a potential future fire station at the Tyson complex on Huntsville Road. That is about for minutes from this subject property so we do like to include that any properties within this area, that is something that I believe the city is working towards. The General Plan 2020 does identify this property within the Planning Area as Residential. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation providing that it does create an acceptable boundary. It is currently developed for single family residences and with the zoning district proposed would continue that. I would expand upon that use, proposed boundaries again, are acceptable, response times are acceptable especially given the consideration and discussion at the last Planning Commission that response time is just one simple criteria of many, many of which the Fire Department would use when they're looking at expansion in a service area. The Police Department additionally finds that it will not, although it will create, it will increase population density if you look at it as an RA zoning in the county. There's zoning criteria so this could be one of many things that do find in favor of that. Staff is recommending the annexation be forwarded to the City Council with recommendation for approval. Additionally staff is also recommending that the rezoning to RSF4 which surrounds to the north and west as well also be approved or forwarded to the City Council the recommendation for approval. We do find that it is compatible with adjacent and nearby family residential land use. That is Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 39 justified in order to promote orderly and consistent development patterns making use of the existing infrastructure including stub -puts to this property. The additional density would increase the amount of traffic currently utilized on Huntsville Road, Hunt Lane and Tallgrass Drive. Any future development in this area, whether it's in the city or county will increase traffic on Huntsville Drive so that's something that we're definitely taking into consideration as street improvements are proposed on Huntsville in the future by the state that's something that we'll keep this planning commission apprised of. With that I am open to taking any questions. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Pate. Will the applicant come forward please? Good evening. Smith: Good evening. My name is Raymond Smith and I submitted this application for annexation and the rezoning on behalf of the property owners and Mr. Charles Sloan. I'm here to answer any questions that anyone may have concerning this application. Anthes: Thank you. Smith: I have Mr. Sloan here too. Anthes: Thank you we'll get back with you. For the public, both this annexation and rezoning will require five positive votes. We will discuss the annexation and the rezoning request together and vote on them separately. Would any member of the public like to speak to annexation request 05- 1580 or rezoning 05-1581? Please come forward and sign in please. We don't seem to have pen or paper today. Alright then if you would state your name clearly. Vargus: My name is Richard Vargus. I live at 2748 Hunt Lane and have for the last eleven years. I don't know if any of you all have been out that way but coming off Huntsville Road onto Hunt Lane, Huntsville Road takes a dip and a curve right there and it's a very dangerous intersection to Hunt Lane. The density has increased quite a lot out there and I'm sure it will continue to do so. My wife was driving to make that turn onto Hunt Lane and got rear ended at fifty miles an hour and spent the next six months in rehabilitation. I would like to see maybe a lesser density out there. That would be, I always have know that has traditionally, that's been zoned out in that direction, but on Hunt Lane there's a new development that just went in and minimum lot size is over one acre, they're one to five acre lots, 2500 square feet plus houses. I was thinking maybe RSF2 or something like that would be more fitting with that area. I have 10 acres and I'm the small kid on the block. Most of my neighbors have 100 plus acres on Hunt Lane and, it just seems like the potential there for extremely Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 40 Anthes: McLain: high density on a street that feeds into a dangerous intersection is of concern. Thank you Mr. Vargus. Would any other member of the public like to speak? Good evening. My name is Fred McClain and I live on Tallgrass Avenue. And I guess I came here to just see if I could find out a little bit more information. One of the concerns I have, I have to share with is the amount of traffic that's on Huntsville Road now and funneling additional traffic from this proposed course into the Tallgrass community it would be, supporting that is the suburb is of concern of all the residents there. The other concern that I had is the trees that are on the east side parcel, will they be remaining or is that something that would be eliminated in developing this large section of trees that run along the east side of the property. That would be a concern of not only myself but a lot of the residents there. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to either this annexation or rezoning? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment and bring it to the commission. Is there any discussion? Myres: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: Thank you. I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of development that is going on out in that area simply because of the continuing problem with Huntsville Road and the amount of traffic that it currently handles. I realize that's not, that there's not a whole lot we can do about it because it is a state highway and I don't really think that I'm going to object to this development or the annexation, I'm just wanted to again state my concerns with the amount of traffic on that road which it is not currently engineered to really handle. And it bothers me that we don't seem to have a mechanism to make it a safer road while still encouraging development and annexation in the area. Just seems to be a no win situation in a lot of respects. But having said that as I said, I don't really object to the annexation or the development. Anthes: To follow up on Commissioner Myres comments, I have a question of staff. You know one way to handle traffic is to disperse it on multiple roads and what I've always had a problem with in this area in the master street plan is we don't have a lot of east west connectivity that can take the pressure off of Huntsville Road and that's probably because of the creeks and the cost of building bridges there. Can you speak to alternate routes that would be available as projects develop in this area? Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 41 Pate: I think you're, one of the things you stated is exactly right, the amount of floodplain and floodway and bridges that would have to be constructed is an impediment to a lot of those east west connections. Additionally though, I think a lot of the reason we haven't seen many connections east west is because this is simply because this is all relatively new development. There's not a whole of tracts that have developed in this nature in the recent past. Stone Bridge Meadows area is probably the fastest growing in this particular region and the stub -outs that are being created are going to help over time but it does take time. The Subdivision Committee on Thursday will review a project, if you look on 7.25, it's several parcels to the west of this that will be stubbing out to the east and so there will be a potential for within some point in the future an east west connection that would take one from Tallgrass Drive all the way out to Golf Farm Road. That's one potential to have an east west connection provided that there is a way to cross that floodplain/floodway that is an impediment to those connections. Anthes: In any planning that's coming up, such as the 2025 plan, are we revisiting the Master Street Plan where we could start to ask to study this area? Pate: We likely will and we'll look at all those areas that are, especially those that are growing rapidly at this time and try to project out from what we see is a particularly a problem area. Typically we are looking at arterials collector street types of Master Street Plan criteria, local streets that connect to the residential streets. Those are relatively minor without designing, fully designing most of these, that would be more difficult. But yes. Yes in answer to your question, yes we'll be looking at that again to determine if there is another east west north south connection. I know Rupple Road is being discussed as a major north south connection on the west side of town. Crossover of course is the east side's sort of bypass if you will for Fayetteville which functions much better than your typical bypass around the city area. Anthes: I would just like to say that I'd appreciate it if we could find those routes. Because of the amount of floodplain and floodway, probably individual developments are not going to be able to bear the cost of those bridges on local streets and, therefore, if we want to provide those secondary routes to Huntsville Road, the city needs to be involved in that process. The other comment I have about this site is that we do have 15 percent or greater slopes, floodplain and floodway and that it drains to the West Fork of the White River. Our annexation policies do say to annex environmentally sensitive areas, this one seems to meet that criteria for me and therefore I'll be supporting the annexation. Are there other comments? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 42 Anthes: Commissioner. Trumbo: Mr. Lane's question about speaking to the traffic, obviously the state improves highways, it's on my understanding based on traffic count so it's not a good position to be in but we have to add traffic to get the traffic counts to get the state money or funding for improvements in a nutshell's how I understand it so, we hear you, obviously about the roads. The trees, I believe those will be dealt with when they come make the with the development itself and I would recommend that Mr. Sloan or let the developer look at that and keep those in mind. And having said that, I think this annexation is appropriate where it is and I will move for approval of annexation 05-1580 and, we'll vote separate is that correct? So I'll move that. Myres: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Trumbo and a second by Commissioner Myres. Is there further discussion? Mr. Vaught I believe you've got something to say. Vaught: I was going to make comment about the trees and the fact that in the county we have no control over what happens to those and in the city we have a long list of regulations as the developer knows and that's where his piece of property is that he has to comply with and trying to preserve those trees, or if not replace them. But our ordinance is structured to preserve first, it's a higher cost to replace, basically. So being annexed in the city helps save those trees and the slope. We can control the development on the 15% greater slope or more. And so all of those things, to me encourages the annex of this piece property. Anthes: Any further discussion on the annexation? Renee will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carried. Anthes: Is there any further discussion on rezoning request 05-1581? We are looking at 31.59 acres to RSF4. Allen: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Allen. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 43 Allen: Myres: Allen: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Vaught: Anthes: Sloan: I'm not as uncomfortable with this density as I might be, simply because there is a lot of slope and a lot of, what is the word, Christian help me out here, Floodway. Floodway, thank you on this property which means that it will not likely build out to four units per acre. And it seems to me that that generally is a good bit less than that by the time you dedicate right of way and build streets and do setbacks and that sort of thing. So I'm in favor of this rezoning. I guess I take the opposite path to that for the same reasons. With the amount of 15 percent or greater slopes, and the amount of floodway and floodplain, I hesitate to allow a use by right of RSF-4 in that particular area. Is there anyone else who has any comments. Madam Chair. Commissioner Vaught. The big difference on those two items is lot size and I understand even though on the overall tract, the developer won't, or the individuals, not just the developer but basically the size is what you're allowing and if you are able to cluster your density in certain areas which is preferable on hillsides and other things that leave more open. I am in favor of the RSF4 for that reason. You know you go to RSF2 and you've got these larger lots you know you're really diluting that zoning to you know, probably less than you know if it's hilly you know less than one unit an acre because of your minimum lot sizes. So to me I like RSF4 simply for those reasons, knowing that it's going to be very difficult to reach that, especially after we hopefully soon have the hillside ordinance in place and several other things that are coming through and the floodway but it allows the developer the flexibility of trying to cluster those in smaller lots but you know they're going to have to leave more open space around that. It's just how you develop this site basically, then that leaves more flexibility. So I'm in favor of rezoning. I think it's a fit for the area knowing that we usually get about two and a half and RSF4, it makes me wonder why it's an RSF4, but even on this site, I think it will be lower. Or you'll be pushing if you get two halves. Are there additional comments or motions? Mr. Sloan. I am the developer on this project. We have 31 acres, I believe we're a little bit over that that we're annexing in but to be developed there's only going to be about 25 acres of it actually developed that we're buying. The Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 44 rest of it is back yards and everybody else's existing home. Also right now we're probably looking at 2.5 is what our ratio's going to be. We had laid out 70 lots as of today. We were trying to get done in time to get to the neighbors and show it but it didn't work out. I just met with the gentleman that's building, that's going to build the houses in this project, all the homes in there. He's asked me to make the lots even bigger. So we're going to be less, we'll be running the 2.5 instead of the 2.6. The homes that will be built over there will be similar to the ones south of this project that one of the gentlemen spoke about because that builder is the that's building all those homes. So he wants to be able to build nicer, larger homes in this project. Everything that we're building on will be just the flat areas, that's all we're using. We hope to do our entry through which will be part of the slope and everything. We'll have one area that's sloped that will have hopefully half of our detention will be in one area. Half will be on the slope in the back in the other area. So like I said, that mainly that main drive coming in off Hunts Lane will just be a long drive coming through there, through the 15 percent slope. I think they had one home is all they had because of the utility easements through there, we only had one lot that was on a slope of any sort and it was as you come in and it was just nice area that you could easily put a nice home in. As far as trees are concerned, I'm the guy that wrote the tree ordinance for the City of Fayetteville, you know, I spent the money with my attorney and we're the ones that come through and presented this to allow us to, you know to require a tree planting. Instead of just paying money so that these subdivisions would be encouraged to put more trees in if you have to take out. So all those things we've been involved in all along so. If that answers any of your questions. We're not looking at RSF-4. I wish we had a RSF-2.5, 2.8, you know something like that. We're realistic because it's almost impossible to get four houses per acre in almost any project around. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Is there further discussion? Myres: Madam Chair, I will move for approval of rezoning 05-1581 with the conditions of approval. Trumbo: I'll second Anthes: We have a motion by Commissioner Myres and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion. Renee will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Anthes abstaining. Thomas: The motion carried. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 45 Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 46 CUP 05-1577: Conditional Use Permit (DEPOT PARKING, 484): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at NW CORNER DICKSON AND WEST STREETS. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL. The request is to approve a temporary parking lot on the subject property with 153 spaces proposed. Anthes: Our ninth item this evening is conditional use permit 05-1577 for depot parking. May we have the staff report. Pate: Property is located in the northwest corner of Dickson and West street. It is zoned C-3, central commercial. And as most persons in Fayetteville know, it is either the Train Depot or the old Frisco Depot, contains approximately 1.6 acres and currently utilizes a nonconforming, essentially a little gravel parking lot for businesses and patrons in the downtown area. There are several structures that do exist on the property, most notably the Depot Building, which contains approximately 4,600 square feet. There is also an approximately 2,300 square foot Freight Building. Both of these structures have been vacant for a number of years and are proposed for a future use, are proposed for use in the very near future. The applicant is proposing development on this site in several phases as indicated in the letter submitted to you. The improvement plans fall into near term and long term categories. Near term development involves renovation of the Depot Building to restore the building back to its original period look. Uses in this building include a coffee cafe, an ice cream shop, a potential bar, lounge with an outdoor patio area. Potential uses for the Freight Building once remodeled include Jazz clubs, restaurants, antique sales or retail uses or some combination thereof that are allowed in the C-3 zoning district. Long term plans are much less developed although there is an idea for what the applicant would like to do on this property. But listed on this property as well as listed in this letter. The intended result is a high quality mixed use development including office and retail, commercial leased space, multilevel parking garage and condominium living units with the possibility of a hotel space as well. These improvements will be a major redevelopment of over all site and a major improvement on this very high, highly visible and high profile corner in the years to come. The subject request is essentially for more parking than is allowed by ordinance currently. The last uses that were established in the Frisco Depot were approximately forty years ago. The proposed uses would be under the restaurant, cafe category that allows one space per 100 square feet and with the use of that, the reuse of that property the parking lot would be permitted. There is a chart on page 9.4 showing those uses including the Freight Building and the depot building, approximately 7000 square feet of usable space. Assuming a one to 100 square foot ratio that would be 70 spaces required, 91 permitted with our ordinances. The proposal is to pave and stripe 153 parking spaces which is 62 spaces over what we currently allow. This request is for a couple of different reasons. One, obviously to accommodate the parking that would be needed with the reuse of these properties which have been vacant for several decades. Additionally it's to Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 47 accommodate the patrons and business owners and employees that already use this lot illegally Many of us have used that gravel area for parking to visit the downtown area, either not realizing or not caring that it is private property and utilizing it because there are approximately 100 and probably 50 cars parked on that parking area. So essentially this request is to be able to bring that parking lot into compliance by paving, having the grading drainage plan, accommodating the drainage as necessary as well as making the necessary connections to another parking area which is behind the ice plant to the north. There are, that's essentially the bulk of the request for an overage in parking. There are a couple of requests, however that do require waivers from the Planning Commission parking lot standards which is chapter 172 parking and loading. Those include the bike racks the landscaping that is typically required with a parking lot, and additional street lights at this time. Staff is recommending approval of the request of a temporary parking facility. It would be temporary in that a reuse of this property is intended within the next couple of years and we have placed a condition on that property that this conditional use permit is valid for maximum three years and should development have not occurred on that property this would become before a year, to look at a number of options to place conditions on the project saying this is not developed over the past three years, install the landscaping, install the sidewalks, install everything that's required by code or to continue that conditional use request. As I mentioned, staff is recommending approval of the request for temporary parking facility with 10 conditions of approval and just received signed conditions. Number one, parking stalls should not be located within the city right of way, number two, all grading and paving shall maintain minimum separation from adjacent property lines and rights of ways required by code. Number three, the conditional use permit shall be issued for a period of three years and as I mentioned upon expiration that would be returned to the Planning Commission for approval or denial or changes in the conditions. Item number four, any refuse areas proposed with the reuse of the existing structure shall be screened from view with appropriate materials that are compatible with and complementary to the architecture of the existing structures, this reuse of course refers to the Freight Building and Depot Building reuse. Number five this is the waiver, one of the waiver requests. All landscaping typically required with a parking lot permit shall be waived at this time with future development site landscaping along street frontages which essentially include West Avenue, the landscaping along Dickson street was done, was installed by the city, at least for the street trees. And then of course those with interior parking lot shall provided in accordance with the code. This is an attempt to not waste those trees and shrubs with future development which occurred, could occur in a year, it could occur in three years or longer. We felt, staff felt that it was a waste to try to attempt to plant these trees and then likely to have to take them out, remove them with not a very good likelihood of survival. Item number six, additional street lights shall not be required at this time. This again is in anticipation of Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 48 Anthes: Jefcoat: future developments. It could be a street lighting like Dickson Street currently has or it could be very different. We anticipate a planned zoning district or something of that nature on this property and it could have buildings close to the street so there are a number of different ways in which this could develop. Item number seven, is a request to waive the required bicycle racks at this time and number eight references the sidewalk on West Street to be waived at this time. All gradings, range or parking lot permits shall be obtained prior to construction and those would need to be submitted to the Planning and Engineering divisions for review and Item number ten, all roof mounted and ground mounted utilities shall be screened for review of the street or adjacent properties utilizing compatible materials that be proposed temporary proposed structures. With that, that has put together quite a bit of information as well as the applicant in preparing this material, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you Mr. Pate. Will the applicant come forward. Yes, Tom Jefcoat, Milholland Company representing Steve Mansfield and Greg House who are proposing the temporary improvements to the existing parking in preparation for their long range development plans. We would like to apologize first for running in and out tonight. The parks board has a meeting going on the same time we have items there and it's been shuffling up and down the stairs all night. The conditions of approval, we signed conditions of approval, we accept those. Item number ten is all roof mounted and ground mounted utilities. Ground mounting we understand screening as probably landscape screening. Roof mounts would probably need some screening of materials related to construction. I'm assuming that we'll address those in large scale development or something as to how that may occur. Other than that we accept the conditions of approval and we look forward to your favorable acceptance. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Jefcoat. Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use for the Depot parking? Mr. House, are you not the applicant. House: Yea. But can I say a couple things? Anthes: Not during the public portion. House: Oh. Ok. Anthes: Thank you. We'll get back with you. Seeing none I'll close the floor to public comment. Bring it back for Commissioners comments and questions. Allen: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Allen. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 49 Allen: I think this long range project appears really pleasing and exciting, however I have a few questions and concerns about condition number five, about the landscaping. Even though this is to develop, it seems to me, since the City of Fayetteville has spent so much money in order to make Dickson Street esthetically pleasing, that even if threes and landscaping might only be present for a couple of years that it would be worth some effort on the applicants part to try to do something with this area with the parking lot. And I wondered if they might be willing to think of, give a response, how do you feel about that item number five? Condition number five? Jefcoat: Yes, just so there's no confusion. There is landscaping proposed. We have landscaping in front of the buildings along the streets there. There would be some additional landscaping just not every 12 parking spaces as required by ordinance. So we're planning some landscaping in spaces, but what we're asking for is a waiver of every 12 parking spaces. At the end of 18 parking spaces there may be, or there are opportunities for landscaping and we will provide landscaping there. So see it's not that we're not landscaping, it's that we're not landscaping every 12 parking spaces, we're landscaping at the end of the parking islands to accommodate the existing arrangement, the existing conditions of the parking lot. Right now. Allen. Jefcoat: I'd like for you to be a little bit more specific about where the landscaping will be in the interim. The landscaping will be in five partial areas. If you'll look at the layout there are areas for opportunities for landscaping and the owner will be landscaping those areas. We can provide landscape plans or spec approvals. Does that answer your question? I mean there will be landscaping there just won't be every 12 parking spaces. Name? Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Name? My only question is, Dickson Street, I know Dickson Street is already improved. To me the landscaping on West Avenue is going to be something to be done anyway, it's a sidewalk. Is that not something where at least we can get on the edge of the property and have some landscaping along that edge to improve at least from the outside looking in it might look a little better. I see the spots, little islands I see you have designated every 18 feet but it seems like along West, no matter what you do, you're going to have to improve anyway so it might be an opportunity to at least get along the main streets to improve that view. I know that the Bank of Fayetteville does block some of that and they've got some nice landscaping around the edges, so Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 50 that's the only area that I was kind of curious about, the sidewalks and landscaping. Jefcoat: Right. In front of the area designated for parking there are some green space there and those areas would be landscaped. Name? Yes. With sidewalks? Or without sidewalks? Jefcoat: No sidewalk at this time. No sidewalk improvements. There are some walkways there but that's within city right of way and that would be addressed with the future development. Vaught? Ok. I think Mr. House had some comments he wanted to make? Anthes: Yes, but. Vaught? I was going to see if he was Anthes: Sure. Come on up. Name? It might address some of our questions. House: I'm Greg House with Mansfield House, one of the developers of the property. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. Jeremy have said it, I couldn't understand all that he was saying, but this property hasn't been occupied since 1965. It's been laying fallow for forty years. And we did bring some pictures to share in case, I'm sure you are all familiar with the site, but we could pass them around about how dilapidated and horrible the circumstances are and have an interest in.... (walked away from the mike). The real reason for our request, I just wanted to make sure this is clear. Is that we want to improve the existing Depot Building for use that will continue, hopefully for decades. But we, in trying to decide what to do with the rest of the lot, while we go through our larger development process which is going to take us a couple of years, all we have to do to develop this larger mixed use project we want to do, we just, we're faced with what do we do with the rest of the ground. We talked about just asking for gravel parking in the interim that would be taking the mud area that is currently the Bank of Fayetteville's property on rest and gravelling it and just leaving. And we thought that maybe if we pave it we can get a better return and, well clean up the site. But there's an economic consideration. If we, we'd have to do all the standards of the normal parking lot, it's just not economically feasible to just do that for a couple of years. We'll spend as much as we get in return for that couple of year period. And that's the reason that we're asking for some of these waivers that are a little unusual. So that we don't have to come up with things that we don't think are absolutely necessary for the safety of the people that use the lot and the convenience of the people Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 51 that use the lot. That's, I just wanted to make sure that you understood how we got here and why. Anthes: Thank you. Vaught: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Mr. Vaught. Vaught: On one more question on the lighting. My only concern with that is security, especially for these parts that are stuck way back behind the ice plant building and not having been down there at night, or knowing what existing lighting is there, I guess I would like to see some sort of lighting for security. At least do that, do some of these sections of the parking lot. Name? And we intend to do that because we're trying to turn this into a revenue producing lot and we want people to feel secure to park there so we want, for purely economic reasons we'd like to use the spaces as many as there are but also for safety and for liability. So we intend to Tight it just may again not be lit completely according to the code. So that we don't just have to tear all that stuff out in what might be just two years. Anthes: Thank you. I had some comments and questions. Mr. Pate, I'm referring to page 9.13 and 9.17 in our staff report and this regards the lease agreement between the City of Fayetteville and House Mansfield Properties. Looks to me like that with approval of this lot and with pending approval of this lease agreement between City Council and these property owners, not only this property will be affected but indeed, I believe it's four additional city lots will be tumed into paved parking. Is that true and can you give us the background on that? Pate: Well, see, the decision here has no bearing on that. This planning commission can't require lots to be permitted. The Council may choose to make that decision and I reference the page 9.17 that this property owner has been in discussion with our parking revenue management staff and administration in bringing something forward to see if it's even something that the City Council wants to consider. I think that they've been working quite a bit of time into looking at something that would benefit both the applicant and the city as a whole in terms of utilizing this space and increasing, actually just gaining any revenue off the parking in this area. If I know what you're referring to, the potential, I think there's a clause that's in the current draft of the lease agreement that additional lots could be turned into paved lots in the downtown area, but again, that's not something that's part of this consideration. That's something the Council will hear at some part probably in the near future. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 52 Anthes: Right, but I'm trying to understand the request. The, and it's in the report, it specifically says in addition they will agree to convert the other city lots including the lots that are not owned by this developer into pay lots. And that's part of our staff report on page 9.13. The applicant has stated their intent to make this lot revenue producing. And you know the gravel lots that are there now, they are not improved and are provided free of charge, even though I know they could be blocked off. I understand, however, the applicant is asking for a significant number of waivers in order to make this more profitable for them and therefore I feel like we need to look at it closely as a city. As Jeremy stated in the very beginning of this presentation, this is a quote "Highly visible and high profile corner of our city and this is something that could be here for at least three years and possibly be extended pending the progress of the rest of the redevelopment on that site. I'm concerned with blanketing this very prominently visible site with asphalt and a nonconforming lot that may stay for a number of years. I have some questions then about some additional statements with regards to that. Again on 9.13 they said that the cost to improve this lot includes perimeter fencing. What kind of fencing can we expect to see on West and Dickson Streets with this proposal? Pate: Something the applicant probably better address. Anthes: Mr. Mansfield? Mansfield: I'm Steve Mansfield with Mansfield House. Thanks for your question. Our intention is to use a very attractive decorative black iron fence. The intention is to, with regard to the revenue producing portion of the lot to make it easier for the patrons of the lot to have a walking corridor that will take them past whatever parking equipment we end up setting up. And that way they would be forced to go by those areas rather than cutting across through the Icehouse. Also, we intend to put fencing on the backside running along the train tracks for the safety of the pedestrians and the people that are using the lot and the Depot area to keep them from walking along the tracks. Anthes. Well, from what you are stating, that sounds like a higher cost fencing of this lot that has been described as temporary. What part of this fencing do you feel will remain? Mansfield: Well, the entire length of the railroad track portion will remain and as far as the West Street or Dickson Street, probably not a whole lot, there's actually the actual lineage on Dickson and West is very minimal. The bulk of it is going to be on the ... Anthes: So you are willing to incur the expense of the higher dollar fence that may be removed. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 53 Mansfield: For that portion, yes. Anthes: Ok. Another question. The waiver request for landscaping I guess I'd like clarification about what you are planning to provide and how we could restructure that condition of approval to assure this body that you would be providing some landscaping to that would offset the requirements normally required at every 12 cars. Is it possible Jeremy to, for use to restructure a condition of approval that says basically that the same amount of landscaping would be put in but it would be in a different configuration other than the every 12 car configuration that would allow it to be preserved in the future. Pate: Probably not that would allow it to preserved in the future, again not knowing long term plans. You could have a situation where sidewalks are much like Dickson Street along the frontage of West Avenue with street tree plantings in structural soil that would help facilitate growth of those trees, but I think again, what the applicants intent is to plant some of these areas without going through actually calling out which areas, that might be difficult. There may be some interior areas that could be planted. Mansfield: If I could, our intention is certainly on the perimeter. On Dickson Street in front of the Depot there is an area that we intend to landscape fairly heavily. It's attractive it's on the street front, its something that makes a statement an impact to the city and to the patrons in the area. Will we have frontage on West Street, the entrance that is behind the bank's facility? There's lots of opportunities to do landscaping there. What I would ask is that the waiver request to not include landscaping on the interior, specifically was intended because that area will in all likelihood be torn up, will not be able to be reused and the larger scale project that we currently have in mind would really make that kind of planting obsolete in a very short period of time and other than for the temporary use, would be an expensive, would be a waste. So we would be happy to do the perimeter and bring up some landscaping that would be very attractive and we can talk through that, but on the interior it's kind of difficult. Anthes: To follow that up as waiver request number 6, I concur with Commissioner Vaught's concern about safety and security in the interior parts of the lot, I believe that the staffing report indicates that lighting would be from building facades. Are you talking about wall packs on buildings? Mansfield: I'm sorry, wall packs on both. What we're talking about the current electrical grid in that area is such that it is all back by the buildings, both the Freight Building and the Depot Building currently have power. What we are trying to do is not incur the expense of running power throughout the parking lot, because again, that whole area will be torn up in a relatively short period of time and use the power where it currently exists from the Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 54 existing buildings to make sure there is adequate lighting in the parking. The specific type of lighting we have not designed nor have we gone through with staff on what will be required. Anthes: I guess a question for Mr. Pate or Mr. O'Neal on the engineering of the lighting, we do now have a lighting ordinance in place are you convinced that we can meet that ordinance with this type of lighting they're describing? Pate: I'm not sure that there is any specific lighting being described. There are a number of options with the future development, but yes, anything in the future would have to meet those lighting limits requirements. This is again, for this temporary use only and a future change would need to reflect all of our ordinances at that time. Anthes: So if we allowed waiver request number six, basically temporary lighting such as a bright wall pack glaring from the side of a building etc., would be allowed until such time as they come through large scale with a lighting plan that has to meet our ordinance? Pate: No the last sentence is that all proposed lighting at this time shall meet all city lighting ordinance requirements. This is essentially a waiver from installing additional street lights along the frontage of West and of course Dickson does not need them, they have been installed so really that's the point of that condition. Anthes: On number seven. I really do not see any reason to waive a request for bicycle racks at this point. I have had a number of calls recently from bicycle coalition members requesting additional bike racks on Dickson Street. I know that bike racks are surface mounted. You can bolt them down, you can pick them up and move them at any other time. Mansfield: We'd be happy to provide bike racks. Anthes: And about the sidewalk requirements, you stated that there is an existing sidewalk along the west side of the street and you propose to leave that in place, is that true? Mansfield: That is true. Anthes: I know that the east side of West Street is really hard to get around, one person can barely pass the Hog House building and it's pretty troublesome. Mansfield: As a comment with regard to that. As you are aware, the city's trail system is not connecting in this part of downtown at the moment. And one of the reasons why we are asking for a waiver and to leave the existing sidewalks in place has to do with that we're in discussions on how the trail system may Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 55 come through the site or adjacent to the site or around the site. We have significant design differences depending upon what the city wants to do and we really can't decide today what that will be. Anthes: I can appreciate that. I guess my last comment or question is about the quantity of overage on this parking lot. I'm looking for the chart. This is a 60 some odd plus, 68% overage of what is permitted on this lot, and again, my concern is that if something happens and your development doesn't go through in three years, we have an extremely visible part of our downtown that is covered with asphalt. This plan is just solid asphalt and I question, you know I can see if you were paving over what is gravel right now and where the parking is limited to right now. Mansfield: That is exactly what we're doing. There is gravel, actually this entire, this very small section, maybe just a few spaces that end is currently used to capacity and in excess many times, especially on weekends throughout the year. And over 90% of this space currently is gravel and is used as parking. In our view, this is a major improvement to what is a drainage problem, a mud problem and a difficult parking situation for the people using it downtown anyway. Anthes: I can appreciate that, and yet I am concerned about just the amount of hard surface that is proposed in this location. I'll stop hogging the microphone if anyone else has any comments. Allen: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Allen. Allen: I'd like to be able to vote for this conditional use but I'm still having difficulty with conditions number five and six. And I wondered if there was a way, to me it's debatable as to whether or not three years is exactly temporary and I'm not sure that it's a waste to try to figure out a way to make this very visible area more esthetically pleasing during the course of development. Mansfield: I understand. And that's a very valid concern. I appreciate you bringing it up. We both, Mr. House and myself are spending an enormous amount of time and resources to try to put a plan in place and unfortunately that does take quite a bit of time, but I do also understand your concern. If it would be benefit to you or you feel like you could better support the project to shorten that period to say, two years with an option to come back for another year, provided we've made progress, that's something that we'd be willing to do if that would help you. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 56 Allen: Can't get you to commit to putting something there instead of the, instead of not... Mansfield: The only issue about putting something there instead of not putting, and it's not really not putting, it's just not in accordance with the ordinance requested. The issue is that every dollar that spend in that area gets torn out and it seems to be kind of a useless waste of expense although I know that there's a benefit during the time period that it's there, but eventually you start looking at the positives and negatives, the return on investment versus leaving it as a gravel lot the way that it is and we start having to take a look at what is it that we're trying to accomplish in the short run versus putting the effort into the bigger project that we think will really be a benefit to all of downtown. I would rather ask you that you would allow us to come back to you in a shorter period if you are unhappy with what we do, but if that's not acceptable, I understand. Allen: I think an argument could be made that it would be a wise investment for you in future too as people see an attractive area unfolding with landscaping there in the next two years or three years or whatever amount of time we, I think the argument ... Mansfield: We do intend to landscape. It will be attractive. It's just, it's not. Anthes: Would everyone please check their cell phones and make sure they're turned off. Thank you. Mansfield: We're just asking for a waiver.. Allen: I have no doubt that it will be attractive in the long run and I'm excited about this project and think this development will be an asset to our community. I just have concerns about it's visibility and to me it would be advantageous to you to show off what you're doing in the short..; Mansfield: And I think we can do that. It's within the parking area itself that I think is something we have an issue with. But we can make landscaping exceedingly attractive so that as people walk down the sidewalk or on the street that is shows to be a beautiful site. Allen: And the lighting is also a concern too. I mean... Mansfield: It's a concern to use to. We just haven't engineered the specific lighting requirements at this time. And we will work with city staff to make sure we meet compliance with their ordinances. And of course it's to our benefit to make sure it is well lit and is safe feeling and attractive lot that is going to get used. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 57 Vaught: Anthes: Vaught: Mansfield: Vaught: Mansfield: Vaught: Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Name? Anthes: Trumbo: Madam Chair. Commissioner Vaught. I just want to clarify for my understanding, Mr. Milholland had mentioned that there will be landscaping approximately every 18 spaces is that correct? I see there is a number of little islands, some of them are rather thin so those are intended to be planted. No I was just using that for an example. So on this plan that we have in front of us, these little islands that stick out in different places, will those be landscaped or will they be con... There are some islands that could be landscaped where they are shown. Ok. And not necessarily with trees but you could use other shrubs or other plants that are less expensive. The fence, will it go around the entire property or is it just a portion of the property. Because I thought I heard part will be pay and part won't be. Let me address that. It will not go around the entire property. It will for safety purposes extend from near Dickson Street up to the street but stopping in the front portion of the Depot Building itself, up the railroad tracks towards and to the bridge, Lafayette Street. It will be a small portion I guess towards the end at Icehouse, building ends coming towards West Street and then again on the southern portion of the spaces off of West Street there'll be a small portion coming back, following the Bank of Fayetteville side. So basically along the Bank of Fayetteville side, along the Ice House side and the train track area, right. Not the frontages on Dickson and West. No. There's only a few feet on West to make sure people don't jump the curb. That's possible but very very tittle. There's none, there wasn't a plan to gate it off if that's what you're asking. Ok. That's what I was picturing. No not at all. Ok. Are there additional comments? Madam Chair. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 58 Anthes: Trumbo: Anthes: Trumbo: Name? Trumbo: Anthes: Trumbo: Anthes: Graves: Anthes: Name? Anthes: Name? Anthes: Yes, Commissioner Trumbo. Currently we have a gravel lot that's being used for parking. I understand why they're coming through with this. They want a temporary, to put in temporary parking which would be better for everyone I think we are clear that we would like landscaping and are expecting it. Lighting also is a big issue and we're expecting proper lighting and strongly encouraging you to do that so I agree also with Ms. Anthes on number seven that the bike racks should be installed. They are temporary and can be removed. So I agree that we need to strike condition number seven. Everything else I am in agreement with so I am going to make a motion that we approve conditional use 05-1577. We have a motion, do we hear a second? Striking condition seven. A question for you Shawn, does that condition number three that's for a period of three years and they were agreeable for a period of two years if I am not mistaken. Is that correct? We can make it two or we can make and option (inaudible). If that's what it takes to get to a vote. I have a motion on the floor. Do you want to amend your motion or do you want to hold it and wait for a second? I'm going to hold it. Do I hear a second? I'll second it. I have a motion by Commissioner Trumbo and a second by Commissioner Graves. Is there further discussion? I have another question. I assume that part of this lot will be used for construction staging when you begin your additional projects. Yes. You mean when the larger project happens? Uh huh. You can be sure. That's why so much of it is going to get torn up. And the time frame on that, when do you plan to start this project. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 59 Name? We asked for three years because we think it's going to be about three years before we get through the whole process of engineering, large scale design, it's a complicated project. We're not ready to reveal what it is yet but it's going to be a large mixed use project. It's like some we've already done downtown only larger. Anthes: Thank you. Another question for Mr. Pate. What is the percentage of parking overage that we normally allow? It's 30 percent? Pate: For restaurant uses that's probably 35 percent is probably what would be typical. Anthes: And staff is supporting the 68 percent because? Pate: We've not seen a situation like this at all in a condition like this that the developments that we've seen are typically brand new lot developments and they've all been, any of the ones, actually all of the ones that the commission approved have been for restaurant use alone. This has potential mixed uses, actually depending upon what the uses are, if they become bars or, I think that's just bars that's actually one for fifty so they'd be much closer to their actual allowance for parking. At this point in time C3's C4 districts when you change a use, you don't have to provide any parking. They are entirely exempt as well as outdoor areas so much like the buildings that just went in they have no parking on site. These uses could go into this property without providing additional parking at this time. Anthes: Ok. I'd like to move to amend the motion and that is looking at condition number five to state that all landscaping typically required of this parking lot shall be provided but shall be located on additional parts of the site where it can be, all landscaping typically required of this parking lot should will be required but can be placed rather than within the parking lot, at landscaped areas that can remain after this conditional use period. Revising condition number six to state that while additional street lights shall not be required, adequate site lighting shall be provided to ensure safety and security and that this proposed lighting shall meet the city lighting ordinance requirements. Allen: I second that amended motion. Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: We have an amendment by Commissioner Anthes and a second by commissioner Allen. Is there a discussion on the amendment? Trumbo: Madam Chair. Anthes: Yes. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 60 Trumbo: How do we do five. You're saying every, you take the parking that's there and all of the normally what we'd require for this amount of space and put it into. Anthes: Put it in the areas that could remain. Trumbo: What if there's not enough room for all... Anthes: I imagine with that amount of railroad right of way there would be plenty of room. Name? The railroad right of way would not be... Anthes: Well along that right of way that your buildings would not approach. Sure. Name? That particular area is right where we've been talking with Mr. Hatfield about the trail. And our concern as Mr. Trumbo stated is that we won't have enough room to put all that stuff because there's quite a bit required and truly in a construction site, it's a mess, so most of the except for the surrounding Depot, anything else we plant will be destroyed. Having been through this, I just know. And it just would be economically prohibitive for use to not, to work around it in the future. So that's the reason we've asked for this. I just to begin with wish you could consider what it looks like know and what we're talking about, it's going to be a hundred fold improvement from what it is now and what it's been for the last forty years. You know, we may not be perfect, it's not completely to all of our standards. But if we have a couple of years, that way we can generate some income both for us and for the city, then, because we're talking about our deal with the city, the city is going to generate income from this as well. Then it's going to win win and we have partners and it's a win for everybody. Otherwise we'll be forced to just, I don't know what you're going to make us do if we want to charge for parking as it is or if we have to rope it off and all of sudden we've lost the UBC lot and now we lose another large lot for people to park downtown that would be catastrophic for the merchants down there. So again, I just, if we plant the amount you are requiring, that's probably another fifty or seventy- five thousand dollars by the time, we have to water it or it will all die and it just becomes a point where it's just not economically feasible. This isn't a huge sum of money we're talking about generating over this couple of year period. We'll be lucky if we get our money back. Anthes: I don't think anybody is questioning the fact that you're going to bring something good to this comer. My question is, is what happens if something happens to you guys, and it doesn't materialize and what is the city left with and what does the city have for this three years. I have a question for Mr. Williams: if they are unable to put that amount of landscaping in areas that Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 61 are deemed to be unharmed in the future, is there any way, I know in other sites that we have some sort of measure that says you know in three years that money is there to plant those trees to bring the parking lot up to code if this project doesn't happen. Williams- Well I think we have a requirement that stuff is planted, trees especially must grow for at least three years and must be watered and if they die then you have to plant them again but I don't know if there's anything exactly... Anthes: Like an escrow fund, that sort of thing. Williams- It might be that there could be a more of a happy medium between what your position is and what Commissioner Trumbo's position was initially. Not either a, none or all. And of course they are asking for none, all to be waived and you're asking for it all to be saved and the developers have orally indicated that they were going to do some plantings but if you approve that as Mr. Trumbo has stated it all is waived and then we just have to see what they're going to do. So, it might be that you all could work a happy medium somewhere, refer to their comments to where the landscaping is going to be tonight and incorporate that into the condition. It wouldn't be as much as what you're asking for but it might be all that this site could really hold at this point in time. So you might be able to work something like that out and still keep it feasible and yet not have everything waived which is what they're asking for. Name? That would be amenable to me but we weren't getting anywhere with that. I didn't feel that we'd made too much headway with that they were willing to do so. Anthes: I'll take a run at number five again if I could. All landscaping typically required of a parking lot permit shall be waived at this time. However, the landscaped areas indicated in this conversation which I believe are: In front of the Depot along Dickson Street, along the eastern boundary of the future restaurant and nightclub, is that correct? Is that right? Name? Here's the Depot, here's Dickson. We're talking about here's the share along the eastern side of the Depot. Anthes: Ok, the eastern side of the Depot. So we're talking about the southern side of the Depot, the eastern side of the Depot, and there was a third area. Name? It was on West Street. Anthes: Along West Avenue. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 62 Name? Along West Avenue, this area to be south of the parking spaces, from this area to the north of the parking spaces. Anthes: On the north and, I'm sorry, on the east and south of the parking spaces on West area. Name? Inaudible. Anthes: That those four areas shall be fully landscaped at the time of this installation of this parking lot. And then it would be six as I stated originally. Is that ok with the second? Allen: It certainly is. Name? Madam Chair, what do you mean by fully landscaped? Anthes: I mean it needs to have grass, trees and shrubs and be Name? To city code. Anthes: To city code with the appearance of being finished. Name? Just clarifying that. Anthes- We have a mo - Name? Might ask them and see if that's what they happy with too. Anthes: Will that work for you guys? Name? Yes we're happy with that. I don't think any of that would be lawn areas though. Be planting beds. Anthes: Ok. Planting beds are just fine. We have a motion and a second for an amendment. Is there discussion on the amendment? Renee will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the amendment to the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carried. Clark: We have an amended motion on the floor. Is there further discussion? Renee will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 63 Thomas: The motion carried. Anthes: Thank you for your patience. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 64 CUP 05-1579: Conditional Use Permit (CALLAHAN CELL TOWER, 138): Submitted by TROY WILLIAMS & JASON STEEL, CALLAHAN TOWER JOINT VENTURE for property located at 2805 E ZION RD. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. The request is to approve a the construction of a wireless communication tower on the subject property. Anthes: Our last item of the evening is conditional use permit 05-1579 for the Callahan Cell tower. Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher: The applicant is proposing to erect a hundred and fifty foot tall mono pole cell tower with an area at the base. Anthes: Jesse. Fulcher: Yes. Anthes: Jesse, could you speak louder. We have someone that's having a hard time hearing. Fulcher: Is this good? Name? Yeah, I think it's the microphone. If you'd turn it on ... Fulcher: Absolutely sir. The applicant is proposing to erect a hundred and fifty foot tall mono pole cell tower with an area at the base for the wireless equipment. The proposed lease site is located on property southwest of the intersection of Zion Road and Crossover Road. The exact location of tower is on the west side of the western most commercial building and just east of an apartment complex. The building currently houses On Deck and access to the tower site is from the existing curb cut to the parking lot. Following ordinance requirements, notification by certified mail was provided to all property owners within a five hundred foot radius of the center of the proposed tower. The type and the height of the proposed tower is in accordance with Chapter 163.14 (B) (1&2). The tower is located within 150 feet of a residential structure, however the resident's landowner did consent in writing to the construction of the tower. The applicant provided all of the documentation required by 163.14. Staff understands that this area of town has less than desirable cellular phone coverage based on information provided by the applicant. Letters from business owners in the areas substantiate the lack of wireless coverage with complaints of dropped calls and weak signals. It is apparent that an additional cell site is needed to cope with the increasing number of travelers and workers in this area. However, providing the additional cellular coverage and capacity to serve this area does not necessarily require the construction of the 150 monopole tower as proposed. Other options are available to cellular providers who wish to Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 65 provide quality services to their customers utilizing technologies that conceal or co -locate these facilities. Currently there are a multitude of consumer options. Cell tower companies have been utilizing stealth technologies across the United State for many years. Some of the options available are flag poles, bell towers, steeples, trees and light poles. Companies can design and construct these every day items with antennae and coaxial cables hidden within. In fact the company that will provide the monopole tower for this project has various concealment options available including flagpoles. Staff has discussed the wide array of concealment options with several providers as well as searched the Internet generically for different options available. A multitude of options are available to meet the goals of adequate coverage and the city's desires. It's the staff's opinion that wireless coverage is needed at this location and that this coverage can be provided in a way which will not create a negative visual impact at a major entryway into the city. One of the reasons the stealth concealment option should be pursued and utilized at this location is due to Fayetteville's picturesque surroundings. Staff has discussed the different options of co -locating or providing another location for this tower with the applicant on several occasions and made several site visits to review the proposal. An existing, quite tall flag pole is located directly adjacent to this proposed location. Staff recommends that applicant pursue the use of the flag pole concealment option replacing the existing flagpole. As evidenced by the attached photographs this option has been utilized with much success. Utilizing the flag pole concealment option that replaces the existing flag pole would not detract at all from the existing skyline, view at this major intersection and entrance into the City of Fayetteville. The flag would continue flying normally only cellular reception would be improved with the integrated carriers' antennae. For this reason, staff is recommending denial of the construction and erection of the 150 foot tall monopole tower at this location. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Fulcher. Will the applicant come forward. Would you please state your name and give us your presentation. Williams: Yes. My name is Troy Williams. I live at 3205 Scotts Bluff. Anthes: Are you the applicant? Williams: Yes I am. I'm representing Callahan Tower Joint Venture. Anthes: Thank you. Williams: First of all I would like to correct the property owner's name. It's Charles and Pam Callaway. They're also present. They are the owners of the On Deck facility that we are locating next to. Also we have Jason Steele, Michael Smith, Dave Reynolds of Callahan Tower Joint Venture. Tom Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 66 Kieklak of Harrington, Miller, Neihouse and Kieklak. Tom Jones of Alltel. George Crane of Southwest PCS Alamosa. Lee Ann Fager of Cingular and Trisha Long of Cingular. In response to the Planning Commission's findings. I have a binder here I 'd like to submit. Anthes: Staff have you seen this? Fulcher: I don't believe so. Anthes: Did they have a copy for them? Williams- Yes there are some right there. We've also enclosed a larger site plan and a kind of aerial photo showing the area where it is and the specific zoning of the area, it's a little larger and you can see it better that in the other picture. Anthes: Mr. Williams did you get one of these? Williams- Yes we will. In regards to the response, we've enclosed the response letter to the staff comments but I only mainly addressed any of the comments that staff had a finding that we weren't in total compliance with the ordinance. Also enclosed is a another set of letters from the adjacent business owners, land owners, employees, customers of the commercial facilities as well. There's also a letter in the file that staff is mainly recommending us to do a flag pole at this location or replace the existing flag pole. I will get into the details of what that will not work which we've discussed with staff multiple times. But we also have a letter from the stealth concept company that I believe staff has been working with as well stating that it won't work. We've also along with staff given us additional options for a stealth concept in different church steeples, bell towers, etc. The company sent us another option which I've enclosed in this book and we'll show you that in just a minute too as well as it's on the PowerPoint presentation. There's also, the reason we wanted to submit the letters again specifically the letter from Youth Bridge that brings out the safety issue that they're concerned with when they can't use their phones. Mainly to get into it, the type and the height of the tower is in accordance with the City of Fayetteville's ordinance. It's acknowledged that the area has poor coverage and a lot of carriers have a capacity issue as well. That's when you get some of these dropped calls, hang up calls, can't even use your phone. The technologies that staff have recommended that we use, concealment, mainly a flag pole will not work for three carriers. They're great for single carrier use. But the design for the three carriers included in this flag pole, eighteen antennae, thirty six runs of coax. You can't put that inside a flag pole. This is one run of inch and five eighths coax. I made a type on your letter. I can see that I have inch and a quarter, but it's inch and five eighths. Anything over a hundred feet has to be inch and five eighths. And you can't get 12 of these even at the top of a Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 67 flag pole because it's only 18 inches. Much Tess antennae or anything else. Do you want me to pass this around? Anthes: It's ok. I think we can see. Williams- Also, it you also have to have a field radius of getting it in the flag pole and then to your antenna tube. You'll notice you can't bend it. It takes about a five foot sway. The flagpole limits the future expansion of the existing carriers, much less will not allow any additional carriers because it won't even hold the three that we're trying to put on right now. Staff does not want the tower to be lit. But if it was a flagpole you would have to light it because you have to light the flag which we are in agreement with. Again the monopole is an approved tower type for this ordinance and the height for this zoning district. Bell towers and steeples would not be a good fit because they would be more intrusive. Staff indicated that this is a major entryway to the City of Fayetteville and it would have a negative impact on the visual impact and they want us to replace the existing flagpole. Well the existing flagpole is a positive visual impact. We want to leave it right there where it is. That's what they'd be looking at. This area is in a valley, so its picturesque is very limited because it's concealed in a valley. That's why there's such a problem, it's in a big hole for communications. And it is a high traffic area which is, this facility is, all the communication facilities are unmanned so it doesn't create any additional traffic flow after, of course after construction. Regarding the placement of the existing flagpole, besides mention the reasons I've mentioned. The shopping center which, that flagpole is 100 feet tall by the way. There's no space available for the equipment. It's don't have any space available to put three carriers' equipment inside the retail center anyway. The ground space where the existing flagpole is, is only eight feet wide in that little grassy center median where the flagpole is. The foundation itself will not fit there. The foundation for this type of a tower is 23 feet six inches by 23 feet six inches. It's a separate foundation below the surface. It's mainly, your structure, you base is your main structural part of the tower to make sure, it's engineered not to come down basically. It also is, has a seven foot round pier that comes up from that that attaches to the tower. It's also a run within the ground. It also would allow for future growth, much less doesn't have space for the carriers. Under the part about authority conditions and procedures. With respect to the C3E and not adversely affect the public interest, staff dictates that it will affect the public interest. I guess we need a definition there because we have 17 letters in the filer recommending that we put this tower in and get the facilities in as well as the public safety risks that are attributed to this valley area with lack of coverage. The proposed 150 foot monopole will all three carriers will meet the 911 federal mandate to, let me explain that. If someone makes a 911 call, and cannot speak, they will have the ability to locate them within nine meters, within three meters, nine feet. So it's going to help the safety issue as well as help the Youth Bridge who Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 68 has already addressed that in their letter. Everything else was in compliance. We're going to go down through subsection two, General Compatibility with the adjacent properties. We say it is compatible because we have the letters from the adjacent property owners stating that they want it. I've explained the replacing the existing flagpole. Do you have a picture of the visual drive in on the, showing entry way to the city. Also a lot of people now, there's a big multifamily development directly to the west. A lot of people nowadays use wireless phones as their phone, telephone service as well as wireless internes. So there's other capabilities for this use. Use conditions, we are in compliance. Staff did mention they didn't want lighting. We have FAA approval not to light the 150 food monopole, however if it was a flagpole that would not work. You have to light it. B, 1, 2 and 3 under conditions, we were in compliance with staff recommended camouflaging technology. Again they wanted us to replace the flag pole that's in a different shopping center than where we're actually leasing. Name?: The flagpole shot from the intersection there. Williams: That's from the intersection. Do you have the one that shows the crane right behind it? I was going to show you the difference of the esthetic. I'll show you in just a second on another picture. Staff had contacted the same company we contacted regarding alternative models because we've been working with staff for eight months on this project to try find something that worked for the carriers and worked for the city. We've been all around. So we contacted stealth technology companies to see if it would work anyway. They had, they were told that they could get seven carriers on a flagpole which we have a letter from the same company saying they can't get three so. Not only would our tower be handling the three carriers that are here tonight, it will also handle two additional carriers which is also part of the ordinance for collocation. We have, you showed the flag, ok. That's. Name?: From west. Williams: Ok, that's. Name? That's from the west side, you want the north. Williams: That's ok. That's ok. That shows the proposed photo simulation of the monopole next to the crane just to verify that it was the exact type. Also now lets show the picture in the binder of the options for, it's the second to last page in your binder. It's a clock tower. And the clock tower was recommended by stealth technologies group but as you'll see, it has basically three monopoles with a 14 foot face all around each side. So esthetically it sticks out even more. And how you can compare that is... What he's going to pull up is in your binder, these last page shows the photo simulation of the clock tower next to the monopole and the crane to verify that it was done at Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 69 100 feet. You can see the monopole itself, the skyline and the surroundings more than anything else. Staff also had mentioned that the they wanted stealth technology because of the undeveloped land and the growth plan for 2020. Well that's even just more, you'd need more communication here now and your going to need expansion in the future, for the future growth. So your going to need to add additional carriers or equipment on this tower. They also agree that this is a superior location. So do we. But they were still concerned about the entrance to the city. I believe the city limit lines about a mile from this intersection technically. When you come down the street you're, you can't see the flag basically until you're about four tenths from the flag you can see the, when you come over the hills and down the hill you can actually see the flag. I do have a picture of the flag or coming down that hill with the crane and you can't seen the crane but you can see the flag. Of course that's what you look at when you're driving down the road anyway is that pretty color. It is in your, very large package that I submitted earlier. I don't know if your pictures were in color. Were they all in color? Ok. Name? They're black and white. Williams: They're black and white? Oh those pictures are black and white. I have I can, I have color, I have submitted it in color. Again, one of the recommendations that, even if stealth technology is used, a flagpole, you have to make it ok with future carriers which we've shown it won't handle the three that we already have now plus any additional, much less future expansion. All the other issues were we were in compliance with the ordinance. Basically the pole's a 150 foot monopole structure. It complies with the City of Fayetteville's ordinance for this district C1. We've complied with all staff's recommendations. We've met with them on multiple occasions, worked with them to try to find other solutions as well and we've basically come back to the monopole at this location which is bounded by On Deck building on one side, multi -family on the other side with a large row of trees and the school behind it. And across the street you have the health facility which in the winter time has the big tents over the tennis courts anyway. You can barely see the face of the skyline. We justified why we need the monopole versus a flagpole. I'd be happy to answer any questions or I have experts here that can answer technical questions as well. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this conditional use permit for the Callahan Cell Tower? Please come forward. Gain: My name is William Gain. My wife is Anne Marie Gain. You know it's pretty sad that in the sunset of my life, I'm having an invasion of my property with your proposal and the city. The lights from the athletic club light up my whole five acres which Mr. Williams referred to as an open field. My house is approximately 1500 foot from the proposed site of this Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 70 tower. It's also approximately 50 foot in elevation above the base of that tower. Which means my upstairs bedroom is approximately 75 foot above the base of that tower. When they have the lights on in that tenths court read the newspaper in my bedroom and two dining rooms and on my back porch. Now they propose the tower ... that light on it will get the light on that red tent. I have planted in the 35 years I have lived there approximately 500 trees. And I hear you people talk about the concern about threes. There are approximately 53 varieties. I just recently spent $3000 having some of them relocated to back woods. I've asked everybody from the mayor and even to stop by in the evening to see my problem and not no one has ever been out to my place. I'm a 100% disabled veteran so I don't pay no real estate tax. I guess maybe that's the reason. If I'd spend more on .... Anthes: Mr. Gain, I need you to direct your comments to this particular project if you would. Gain: Ok. This particular project is going to give the light a red tint. That's my concern. One other comment I have to make. I had hoped that the good old boy system in Fayetteville is alive and well. I have a video of the lights you passed a lighting ordinance exempting them. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Gain. Would any other members of the public like to speak. Please come forward. Cray: My name is George Cray. I represent Alamosa PCS in this matter. Alamosa PCS provides coverage in this area for Sprint PCS customers. (end of tape) Williams: This isn't a section of the code I've spent many hours working at yet. What are pole location requirements requiring them to have five spots, or something to that affect is what I gathered. What are the co -location requirements? He said he had three spots for his providers now and allowed two extras because of co -locations requirements. Graves: Seems like any new power reference should have the capability to, for instance if another carrier moves to that area or needs additional coverage in that area to co -locate on that tower. A lot of the comments that Mr. Williams brought up aren't necessarily staff findings, they're ordinances in place just to even submit an application. So those findings are simply responses that they've submitted in an effort to prove that they had met the applications? Name? So when he says it's our code's requirement, how many extra spots does he have to have? Is three not enough for a tower? Pate: I don't believe there is a specific number. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 71 Graves: There is not. If there weren't five spots, could the tower be shorter? And still be as effective? Because they've got some as low as 120, less than 120 feet on those charts. Is there a way to only have three on the tower and cut it shorter. Dave??? I don't know. I'm not that familiar with that technology. Anthes: l guess that would be a question for the applicant? Dave??: We just have a maximum of 150 feet in height. That's the maximum. Anthes: Why don't we have a response from the applicant and sir if you'd like to make your statement? Cray: I appreciate this. Again my name is George Cray and I represent Southwest PCS properties. They are Alamosa PCS and they provide coverage for Sprint PCS customers. I concur with everything Mr. Williams said. I'd wanted to add a couple of things. One item being, my company bid a tower with Texas A&M campus probably four years ago. Whenever we put the tower on the Texas A&M campus they insisted on putting the flagpole up. For the Texas state flag rather than the American flag. But that flagpole is shown frequently in the literature for stealth applications. When we put that flagpole up we were told by the power manufacturer that it would hold at least four carrier's poles. After Sprint PCS went up the flagpole, TMobile, another carrier in College Station Texas area came in to co -locate on there and the flagpole would barely hold T -Mobile much less any additional carriers. So information staff may have gathered from some other cell tower stealth manufacturers may have been a little off based on what the experience that we've been able to, we've had so far. Also, anytime there's a non -normal cell tower, normally on a cell tower you have the top half that has space diversity and horizontal diversity. Anytime you have something that's not a normal tower application like that you have a loss in coverage, you have a loss in the range that that tower is able to provide. Typically that loss ranges anywhere from 25 to 10 percent but what that usually necessitates is a tower that has to go up in the future somewhere else, in the vicinity particularly based on what's happening in a city and maybe it's growth patterns and traffic corridors. So a normal monopole application in this will help us to avoid having to come back in the future for any other cell towers in the area. Anthes: Thank you Mr. Cray. Cray: Any other questions I would be happy to answer as well. Anthes: Commissioner Vaught was that the question? Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 72 Vaught: Yes would someone want to address my question about tower height be accomplished with a shorter tower with less carriers? Name? I was giving staff another copy of what I gave you. First of all regarding Mr. Casey, may I address his concern about the light? Name? There won't be a light. There will be a light at the flag but there's not a light monopole. We have FAA, FCC approval for that regarding your tower height. The problem is this is in a valley and I can have the technical people from Sprint and also there is a handout in your packages you were given propagation studies that show the different heights and different coverages. They actually wanted it to be higher but they only allow us to go to 150 feet. So you only had one carrier at 150 feet because you have to have separation. So there's one at 150 feet, there's one at 140 feet and Cingular was going to be at 100 feet but now they want to be at the 130 foot level because they can get higher. The map shows existing coverage which is very poor and spotty based on the maps that you have and we have it also, before picture and an after picture. Name? Yes, we have black and white copies of that. Name? I apologize, I presented color photos and I thought they were going to be getting those That will show the height because of the valley and you have to connect to the other sites. These sites are not just stand alone sites. They all communicate with these other sites so you don't have dropped calls and everything like that. Name? I guess that leaves my next question of why are we locating a tower like this in a valley? Why not look for another area where we can get more height. Name? The other map that you have in there, it's in black and white, you probably can't read, but it lists all the towers that are around this site, actually they are all outside of a mile radius. They're all up on top of a hill. The problem is there's nothing in the bottom of this valley that covers it. This will plug the hole in this area for the town. There's quite a few maps. There's 81 pages in the proposal I tumed in. Anthes: We know. Name? I do too. I just wanted to meet, make sure I met staffs requests, like I said we met, over and over and over, we got through these things to make sure they are right. And plus the concentration of traffic in this area requires the tower to be in this area due to the capacity. I met with some employees of the city that actually go home that direction and their phones, when you Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 73 come down the hill, you lose your call, you go all the way down through the valley so you come backup and go heading out of town. Name? I guess why and I'm trying to look at this in black and white but I assume this is the hole you're referencing. Name? Yes, would you like me to get you a colored one. There you go. Is that the photo? Anthes: Would somebody bring the color copies up to Commissioner Vaught? Vaught: I'm just trying to say it's not that big of a hole if that can be accomplished with a shorter tower, I definitely think that's what we should do. Lee Ann I'm Lee Ann ?? with Cingular. And it's kind of hard to see when you've got two separate pages that are propagation studies. We need to address first of all Commissioner Vaught's question regarding height and placement. Sometimes the highest hill is not the best placement for a tower. Sometimes the bottom of the bowl is what you are trying to cover. Because when you place towers on corresponding hills, you are shooting essentially over what's down in the valley. So sometimes you have to actually place the tower down in the valley to cover the bottom of that hole. And that's what we're trying to do at this site. The second thing is, the placement is not completely surgical but it is somewhat critical. Primarily for reasons of 911. The way that we triangulate, Mr. Williams referred to being able to detect where a 911 caller is originating from and the way that we do that is we place nine little GPS antenna's on our proposed site and three of the bounce off satellites and communicate with each other and we're able to triangulate a location. That's another reason why the placement is somewhat critical. Now in anticipation of the commission's probable direction to lower the height of the tower. We ran propagation studies at both 65 feet and at 150 feet and I can show you via transparencies probably a little bit easier to see what the difference is. The 65 foot coverage will probably require another site for us over to the east. Anthes: Did you run anything between 65 and 150? That's a pretty big gap. Lee Ann: That's exactly the point. If you have a tower is at say 100 feet, one carrier is at the top. Then you have to have 10 feet of vertical separation between the bottom of their antenna and the top of ours. And that's to avoid harmonics and interference. So the next carrier is down at say, 85 feet and the next one would be down at 65 feet and it depends on the height, the length of the antenna. So when we had been told at one time that 100 feel was all that we could get here. So that left us with Callahan building a 100 foot tower, that left us at the 65 foot level. And that's why we ran it differently. And this is what it shows. You may be able to see it from there. This is the coverage Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 74 that Cingular would experience red being hot. That's very good. That's in buildings you can use your phone in your car, you can use it inside the building. If you overlay, and then it gravitates out to orange, yellow and then to green. The white space is very bad. That means there's no coverage. If you overlay onto that, That's what happens at 65 feet. The black is the hot coverage and you can see how much better the red and yellow show through if we have the better higher height. If we were to get just a 65 foot height we would require another site to the east. So, that's primarily the reason for the maximum. I'd be happy to answer any other questions. Anthes: Thank you. Vaught: What is the distance between height, I think 10 feet is what was listed on those potential towers, 10 feet between carriers? Williams: That is correct. Vaught: So at 100 feet. Anthes: Are there any other comments, questions? Trumbo: Question for Mr. Pate. We seem to have a difference of opinions on the flag pole stealth and the tower they are asking for. Can you speak to that at all? Pate: Not really. I'm not really qualified about wireless communications. Pate: There were a number of sources. The applicant was exactly right Stealth Site was one of the stealth technology resources we did utilize. And we called a representative and he did say that they have accommodate successfully seven carriers at some point in the future. Now how large those were and how large the pole was he said that the pole base actually gets quite large when you're utilizing something of that nature but that's again research that we did. We also called, we called another carrier, another technology, Stealth, is actually trademarked as that technology. We did call someone else that they referred us to and got less information but they did reference other technologies. Other cities in the City of Hot Springs has utilized Stealth Technology. I believe they've utilized a fir tree type looking pole, monopole in that area. There are other places within the State of Arkansas the have also utilized these types of facilities within the city limits. But to speak to the actual qualifications of those comments. I simply can't. Trumbo: So you're not an expert. Ok. Thank you. Myres: I have a question for staff, Jeremy. I know you are recommending denial but we've also talked about finding another way to disguise the tower itself. Is Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 75 Pate: the esthetics the only objection that we have to this that we would rather see it look like something else rather than a cell tower? I believe that's the commissions call to make. If they feel that it's something objectionable we do have criteria for an applicant to submit. Aesthetics has been upheld in several states courts as a condition for denial. We have specific criteria here in our ordinance that talk about aesthetics. Color of towers if they extend above the height of vegetation immediately surrounding it, that's again utilizing the monopole type. It shall be a neutral color, painted or unpainted. Planning commission may deny permit to an applicant that has not demonstrated a good faith effort to provide for full location. We feel they have provided that good faith effort. That's not part of the reason we are recommending denial of this application. And again, Dave mentioned, the applicant mentioned specifically several of these criteria that they did go through to meet with that. It did come down for us, this location, it is a primary entrance, to the city the City of Springdale is directly to the north of this and it's our first intersection in the City of Fayetteville along Hwy.265 I believe save for highway permits in the very near future. Anthes: Thank you I think that we have to point out that we have a lot of material in this packet one of which is a convincing case for the fact that there are esthetically pleasing ways to construct these towers, roof tops, chimneys, and towers. What it comes down to at this point is that we have the applicant that says there is a set of criteria and things can and can't happen and then staff's research is directly contradictory to that and says, well we've talked to the same people and we have a different set of things that can happen or allow and provide service and that, you know, vertical concealment can work as opposed to horizontal and those sorts of things and I have you know some case study here that makes it very clear that at least in New York state and other states asthetics has been used as a means for denial and has been upheld by the courts. Attorney Williams, I don't know that any of us have been on the commission when we've looked at other cell towers except perhaps Commissioner Allen. I know that there were some lengthy discussions prior to the tenure of the rest of us on this board. Did aesthetics play into that and what were the main concerns of the commissioners at that time? Williams: Certainly esthetics is something that courts recognize that the cities can look at and judge the cell tower thing. You can't say put esthetics to such an extent that it denies all locations and say that well, we just don't' want a cell tower in town no matter what it looks like. However you can require and I think the ordinance specifically talks about camouflaging or stealth technology for new towers so I think that you can require stealth technology that will work as part of the conditional use. That's why this is a conditional use and cell towers are extremely tall as you're all aware and quite Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 76 prominent so sometimes it might, it could make a good deal of affect in not just the immediate people there but especially when you have high traffic areas like Zion and 265, everybody driving past, will see this one way or the other and so I think it only makes sense to consider esthetics. Because that's one of the primary things that we have in Fayetteville. You know our whole sign ordinance, one of the primary supports for our sign regulation is esthetics. And that has been sustained by the Arkansas supreme court as well as recognized by the United States Supreme court in other cases. So I think that esthetics is certainly something that the Planning Commission can and should consider. Anthes: In keeping with that I would just say that the images provided by staff are much more pleasing to me in the long run than the altemate provided by the applicant which basically allows for the horizontal antennas and then wrap them which causes this thing to be really fat. Whereas, I believe in these photographs they use a vertical antenna which allows the concealment device to be much more slender. I see we have someone at the podium. Kieklak: I'm Tom Kieklak and when we started talking law it made my ears prick up just a little bit to, yea, esthetics in planning and zoning no doubt, the two belong together. It's one of the dual roles. What is missing here, I think is, anybody's description of an impact on esthetics. You like those pictures that you're seeing but my clients have been able to demonstrate to you that they are not possible. They're not feasible. There is no bell tower cupola, there is no chimney, there's no factory to put a chimney on. You have, the sports complex and what there is next to it is, I think a three story or two story apartment complex. But you work with things as much as you can like your color and height but you've got a limited height here of 150 feet. And then you look to your neighbors and their the ones that are going to be affected by the esthetics. Anthes: The entire population of the City of Fayetteville is who we are charged to represent. Kieklak: And none of them have told you that they are bothered by the esthetic of this but many have told you that they need a signal. That they need to use their phones. Not just for the convenience that we've all become use to but also because of the safety reasons, not just for the facility right behind the tower but also to triangulate someone who may be in trouble having dialed 911. Anthes: I don't believe that anybody is trying to keep you from providing a signal. We're trying to come to some kind of conclusion and compromise about how that is going to be accomplished, what location it's going to happen on and what it's going to look like. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 77 Kieklak: And the what it's going to look like part, I think is what your staff has recommended to you the flagpole, correct? Anthes: That is one of the alternatives that is possible, yes. Kieklak: Well are there others? You know I have watched you all tonight work up solutions to the problems. Are there others that they can present to you that they can get with the people here tonight and decide which ones can work or not? Because the engineers are here and the providers are here to be able to tell you what kind of loads are where, like the ones you are talking what has to be horizontal and such and if staff is prepared to do that, that would be great. Anthes: We have a problem here in that there is a difference of opinion about what is possible between the applicant and what staff's research is. This board is trying to figure out what is true in those two positions. And I don't know that I feel like I have enough information to make that decision and, speaking personally, I know what I'd like to see and yet I don't know how to weigh that against what the possibilities, or the actual possibilities if this thing will function correctly. I'm inclined to want to table this item until I know more. But I know that you guys want to move forward. So we need to work this out as a body and I probably need for you to sit down while we try to do that. Kieklak: There are other folks who could tell you more about the engineering and the specifics if you want to talk about the TCA, I can do that. But if you have any questions about that of course. Anthes: Ok. Thank you. Williams: Could I ask the applicant, I notice that one of their photos have 150 foot high clock tower and I don't know if that was their suggestion if that would be a structure that would be, would work if it would accomplish the same thing as their monopole. Anthes: My comment on that item, Mr. Williams, is that the reason that it is so chunky and large is because it is accommodating the horizontal antennas which staff's research says that there are other ways to do an antenna that's vertical that doesn't require something with that big of an impact. Williams: I was just going to ask them if that was something was functional for them rather than whether it's esthetically pleasing. I just wanted to, I don't know why they included it in here. Steele: If I could address that. May name is Jason Steele. I'm one of the owners of Callahan Tower Joint Venture. When your staff contacted Stealth Tower in Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 78 California and requested the information, they did not have the actual number of antennae, the number of coax, that was needed for this tower and their response, the answer that they received from Stealth Tower was sure yes, that tower, flagpole, whatever can accommodate so many carriers. A few days ago we spoke with Stealth Tower, I think one of the same salesmen, that they spoke with and addressed how many antennae we would need, how many runs of coax and they submitted a letter that stated that it cannot be done on the flagpole. And they said, what we do have, that it would work on would be a 150 food grain silo. And we said there's no way the City of Fayetteville is going to go with a 150 foot grain silo. And their other option was this clock tower. Name? Your answer is then this clock tower as the way you have it here would actually do the same effect as your monopole. Steele: It would. Name? That was my only question. I didn't know why that had put that in there. Vaught: Can I ask a question real quick for the city attorney. In our ordinance, it allows for a maximum, but is that, can we limit that as a conditional use? Can we say at this site it might not be appropriate for 150, it might be appropriate for less. Is that within our power? Can we approve the conditional use for a cell tower it can be? Williams: Well, it, the statute says new towers, new wireless communication towers shall meet the following requirements and then it says, tower or alternative lower structure, tower structures, excuse me, towers or alternative tower structures are permitted to a maximum height of 150 feet. I don't know without, this is a conditional use, so many of those things are certainly subject to limitation. It seems to say that we're going to allow 150 feet but I don't know. I can't, maybe I should ask Jeremy if he has another interpretation on that or whether we can actually require a lower tower than what the ordinance says is the maximum amount allowed. Pate: The only place I can find currently under authorities conditions and procedures, section 163 and .02 discusses, the Planning Commission shall determine such questions as are involved in determining whether a conditional use should be granted. Grant conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are appropriate under this chapter. And then staff makes findings of facts under the certification the Planning Commission shall certify as well as the specific conditions under Chapter 163. So we are making findings based on the following general requirements and specific requirements if new wireless communication towers are considered. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 79 Williams: Pate: I would have to think that you could limit the height of the tower because they talk about fall zone in the next one and so if you had a house 140 feet away, certainly you would be able to limit the tower to 140 feet so that it would not strike that, the house would not be in the fall zone. So I think that you would have some leeway as long as still you're providing the added tower for the cell phone providers. I apologize to everyone because we're trying to get our hand around this and this is new to a lot of us so we're asking probably uninformed questions but that's what we are is uninformed. So I'm just trying to understand what this conditional passing entails or what we can control or limit and that's what I'm asking Jeremy. Previous applications we have I don't know if we actually limited height, I'm not aware of that. I know we have chosen specific colors. The color has come from this specific body or the City Council even to the type of blue that was utilized in the color of the specific tower. There are co -location requirements or criteria that don't require this body to even review it. I would say administrative approval by myself and those do allow for towers that are less than 150 feet those are adding antenna on existing structures such as buildings, signs, light poles, electric transmission towers public utilities facilities, water towers, other freestanding nonresidential structures provided that they don't extend 25 feet above what that is. So I know that we have done that in the past. Staff has issues permits for that without a conditional use there are no essentially conditions on that as long you meet these criteria for application in other applications though and I again, Ms. Allen may want to speak to her recollection of other applications for cellular towers in the city but I know specific conditions have been placed upon them, screening, vegetative screening, planting of trees, specific types of trees to be planted to help shield some of those areas so 150 feet in height. Has the applicant considered other applications? Vaught: I guess what I'm thinking is that I know that the shorter tower you have the potential of more but if you have a shorter stealth tower you have two of those instead of one tall pole tower. That's just what I'm trying to figure out when I look at this. I know the economics have to be there for anyone to want to do it. But then I don't know the business of cell towers. So I don't know what that takes. But definitely the stealth technologies are definitely perceived to be more appealing. A 150 foot clock tower in that part of town would look funny too though, probably more odd than the cell tower. But 100 foot or 115 foot clock tower might not look that bad. But I don't know. That's just what I'm trying to figure out as I look at this. So I didn't know what the height restrictions and requirements. I wanted to fully understand what we're passing if we're passing conditional use. Anthes: I think we know pretty much about the color. It's been dictated before. I guess, you know, here we are with probably one of the longest packets we've ever had on an individual issue, plus we've been presented with Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 80 another booklet and drawing tonight that frankly I haven't had time to review and I don't know how many of you could speed read it. But in absence of knowing those things and of being able to review this thoroughly and doing more research, I either have to either say I need to leam more or I need to follow staff's recommendation and expertise in this matter. I don't know how the rest of you feel about it. Are there any other comments? Vaught: Madam Chair, I would ask the applicant, I know they've got a lot of people here and made a good effort to be here. They have a right to due process for us to do whatever we do. And then take it to the city council after that. So I'd like to hear their input on whether they'd have us just take a vote or have the potential to have it table. I personally would rather take a vote and move it on. Anthes: I do believe that's up to us. Vaught: I'd like to hear their input. Williams: I think an appeal for conditional use is a very difficult appeal of the City Council. Because it requires both of the alderman from that ward plus third alderman in order to do the appeal so it is not appeal like you'd get most of yours. Another thing you might want to consider is that cell towers have a lot of impact although sometimes the public is not really too much aware of the situation until it hits a commission like this and you actually have a public hearing on it and more people actually hear about it who aren't in the neighborhood but who might drive by there every day. So there is some benefit to tabling this just so that the people that drive by every day might have more input on the second meeting and I don't think that alt the rest of the representatives would have to come back and give another full presentation because you're going to all remember what went on. The other thing is that conditional uses require five affirmative votes to pass. You have seven here. So you could win four to three and lose. So that's something you might want to consider. Callaway: My name's Chuck Callaway, I own On Deck. I live in the Ridgemont View on 45. I'm probably one block outside the city limits. I have a cellular tower across the road that's not controlled by this board and if any of you drive up 45 you know what I'm talking about, it's a monster. It's not stealth. You drive and go up two blocks and there in the county, I can look across the street and see those big towers that we get over there, those big white things that are ugly. These guys are trying to give us something that looks decent. I'd give anything to have that across the street from my house instead of what I've got because what I've got is in the county and you don't have control of it. I'm afraid that's what your going to find. I want this tower for a lot of reasons. I too can't get any phone reception in there. You can't stand outside of my office and make a phone call. But I think these guys really Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 81 have made an effort to me compared with what's on 45. Some of the biggest houses in Fayetteville and none of them complained. It just surprises me I guess. That's all I want to say. I'll go along with whatever you guys want to do. Anthes: Thank you. Lack: Madam Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I have a couple of concerns I guess and mostly in the form of questions. The flag itself requires a great deal of maintenance to be flown properly. To not be left out in the rain. To be taken down at appropriate times and I would like to know who, if we go with that sort of stealth technology who would be responsible to maintain that and the other question then, I'll pose both of them and maybe the same person can answer, is it possible that if we did not have the flag mechanisms with the pole that a pole could be constructed with the vertical antenna that would not have the horizontal external antennas from the pole which are a good part of what I would think would be objectionable about the appearance of the pole. Name? My name is Dave ?? and I'm representing Callahan Joint Ventures. To both of the questions there, the maintenance and proper display and care of the flag, in a situation like that of course there are rules goveming the care of the flag and the common courtesy to the flag. We would follow those in a situation like that, speaking from memory of several years in the military, with a large flag like that as long as it's lit it can be flown at night. As long at it's lit it can be flown in the rain. And as long as it doesn't suffer any physical damage, rips, tears, wear, discoloration, then it's ok to leave it there by those criteria. You know when it becomes wom or torn of course Callahan Joint Venture will take it down and replace that flag. That's what we would do out of respect for the flag if nothing else. With your second question about the vertical and horizontal antennas, we could build a pole and not put a flag on it. These antennas that we use and that everyone's talking about, they all for lack of a better demonstration. They stand like this. You can't one that goes like this, it doesn't work, and use it on a cell tower. When you stack on here and stack another one right next to it whereas in a flag pole type situation with it's vertical structure you're talking about if you stack one here and stack one here. All that does is limit the number of people you can put on your time. And I've talked with Jeremy and Jesse about this extensively. What one of the main misconceptions is with this flag pole and they call a seven carrier pole, what they mean is it has seven positions, seven vertical positions for antennas these sub carriers come in and told them what they need to cover the carrier, they need two antennas per sector or six antennas all the way around in two Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 82 of these sectors. So whether we stack them up this way or stack them up this way, the antennas don't change. What does change is the amount of space on that pole that can be used for other carriers. With a lot, we contacted these stealth people after the recommendations came out, the flag pole they make currently is a six carrier pole. What they call a six carrier pole. But it's not carriers per se, as in Sprint, it's six positions Each one of these carriers take two or three positions depending on antenna size because they, well they stack them up. When you get down to 100 feet, well there's no room left for anybody else and those three carriers have taken up all the room and they don't leave any other room. So if we have a Nextel or a Cricket or T -mobile, someone else that wants to come in and as you see by the surveys, they all have the same trouble in the same area because it's a geographic or topographical problem in that area. So the next guy that comes in will also have this same problem. If we built the structure like this, like a flagpole, we won't have any way to accommodate them. So that you have 150 foot flag pole and someone else is in front of you asking for another 150 foot flagpole. Name? (Beginning was inaudible) This tower is going to be, if we get a permit, constructed 133 feet from an apartment complex. We have the necessary letter from Jim Lindsey so we can construct the tower at the spot. Well, I don' t know if you all have been out to the other Targe flagpole that's out there on a windy day and stood at the flagpole and listened to that flag whip and make all that noise. Well if you all make us build a flagpole which we can't technically do and accommodate the carriers, but if somehow we were able to, that flag, the tip of that flag is probably 35 to 40 feet away from someone's bedroom window. On a windy night it's going to be flopping in the breeze. That is another reason why we can't do the flagpole. Thank you. Anthes: Mr. Lack are you finished. Other commissioners, comments, motion? Graves: I just, we talked about whether or not we have enough information tonight and I'm, staff did some investigation on this and talked with the Stealth folks and found out some information about different options. I'm not sure that we've been told that any of those other options other than the flagpole are out there. I mean there are some nice pictures of chimneys and other things, steeples and things like that in the packet but I don't know that we've been told or presented with any information that that type of thing exists out there in this area. And so we've got a letter from stealth in this packet where the specifics of this project and what they were trying to do as far as power and coverage, and the number of carriers they would like to accommodate including future carriers who may come in to avoid building additional towers as additional companies come in. They give the specifics to stealth and stealth says, well in that case you can't really do it on a flagpole. And all we've been given is that there's a flag pole available but not these other options and so with the information that's in front of use, about what they're Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 83 attempting to do, what the current problems is that they're trying to solve and what they're trying to accommodate as far as future expansion. It would seem to me is that the tower is the option and then what we would try to do in order to make it work for the city is to put some conditions on the color, put some conditions on the height, and go that route without building a large garish clock tower or something that's not already out there and there's not an available option out there already, if your going to have a cell tower to accommodate the folks out there, your going to have to build something. So then the question is what do you build and it sounds like a tower. So we can allow the tower and just try to put some conditions on it as far as color and height to try to make it as esthetically pleasing as a cell phone tower can be. Because it is true that they can go not very far up the road and build a really big one in the county. That would be my comment. So I am in support of the cell phone tower as proposed with maybe some different numbers on how tall it is and some limitations on the color. Anthes: Are there further comments? Vaught: I would tend to agree. We're torn in the fact that we all want our cell phone coverage but we don't want a cell phone tower and so we're trying to rectify that. This is an odd area because we don't have a structure that come anywhere close to 150 feet out there. And so erecting anything to that height would look odd, either a church steeple or clock tower or a chimney Some would look more odd than others so it's trying to find the middle ground. There's a definite need in that area as you think through what's out there, the aren't many other options to get that coverage. So I can agree with Commissioner Graves on the tower's probably the best option, the least objectionable as it can be with restrictions on as a lot of my questions on height. I think even taking a little bit of height off could make a difference in just if it truly way above everything else that's out there. Because I think it is right now way above anything even that flagpole if you see the pictures. There's a big difference between 100 and 150 feet from the pictures I've seen. So I think I would go along with that route. Allen: I'm sure this wouldn't be particularly popular with the experts who have been with us all evening but I wonder if the commission would see any benefit to tabling this and having an opportunity to do a little bit more reading and research and hear more from staff. It's just such a complicated issue that none of us have any particular expertise and I just wondered the thoughts of other commissioners about that. Other commissioners first please. Anthes: You've already heard my comments on that. Commissioner. Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 84 Name? I guess I don't have a problem with that but I think that we need to give some direction to staff about what it is that we want them to investigate for us. Allen: Well once again, looking at the possibility of any other places to co -locate, any other options, working with the applicant about the height of the tower. Early in my tenure as a planning commissioner we did have a cell tower come through and the big controversy with that tower was the color. And after enormous debate I remember still it was determined to be slate blue because that was the color of the sky on more days than gray. But I'm going to go ahead and move to table conditional use 05-1579. Anthes: I will second the motion. Is there further discussion? Yea. Vaught: I'd like to hear from the applicant on that topic just because I think they have the right to have some input on that. Anthes: Sure. Myres: I'm just chiming in because the message I've been getting is they have been working with staff for several months Name? Eight months. Vaught: Eight months. Is there a way to come together in a work session, Madam Chair where you can ask these questions directly of the engineers and the providers. I know that's unusual but I have a very strong suspicion that more towers may be coming your way. Anthes: We may be able to set up a workshop in general about towers. I don't know that we can do that on a specific project. However, I would say that you and staff have been working together for eight months and staff has recommended a denial of your project. So obviously in eight months you have not come to any kind of agreement. Name? My response would be, and I think there is a strong feeling in the room maybe even amongst yourselves that staff may not have even prepared you as much as you would have liked and maybe they're not as prepared with all due respect and I think that they have a wish to make an esthetic statement and that their feeling is that that may not be possible. And that, maybe the few weeks that we give enough time for staff to get together with the clients. They just wanted to make sure that if you had direct questions for them, that I think it's been demonstrated today this isn't a very good way to do that. Anthes: And that's what Commissioner Allen is saying when she's making the motion to table is that she wants the extra time to pose those questions and Planning Commission July 11, 2005 Page 85 get some responses back from the staff and from the applicant. We can as a commission send an email to staff within the next week and list our specific concerns and our specific questions then when you're back before us we will have all the answers we think we need. Anthes: I don't know how the agenda is set but I believe you are 'old business' which would put you in the beginning. Are there any other comments? We have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Anthes. Renee will you call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table CUP 05-1579 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thomas: The motion carried. Anthes: Thank you. I appreciate your patience. Are there any announcements? Pate. On Thursday we have Anthes: Excuse me, we have an announcement, could everyone be quiet so everyone could hear it? Thank you. Pate: This Thursday our consultants of Zone Workshop are in town for two meetings at two o'clock and six p.m. The six p.m. meeting is in this room I believe, I'll confirm that. You should have all gotten notices or emails sent to you and the two o'clock meeting is for the task force only, the six o'clock meeting is for the developers workshop, or developers, public, and anyone else that would like to attend so I would highly recommend if you can make that I think it should be informative. We'11 have a draft of what they have. It was sent to use this week and so we're looking over that and we'll have that available on Thursday. Anthes- Thank you Jeremy. Anything else? If not, we're adjourned. Thank you.