Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-25 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on July 25, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN ADM 05-1653: Laureatte Fields Approved CONSENT ADM 05-1654: Salem Heights Approved CONSENT ADM 05-1655: Theos Approved CONSENT CUP 05-1579: Callahan Cell Tower. Approved Page 4 CUP 05-1602: Smith Two Way Radio Denied Page 12 FPL 05-1575: Bridgedale Approved Page 23 LSD 05-1588 Piedmont Place Apartments Approved Page 25 LSD 05-1595, Lofts at Skull Creek Approved Page 28 LSD 05-1593 Nelson's Crossing Approved Page 34 CUP 05-1601 American Legion Approved Page 50 ANX 05-1603 & RZN 05-1604 Forwarded to City Council Page 54 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Jill Anthes James Graves Audi Lack Alan Ostner Nancy Allen Sean Trumbo Christian Vaught Candy Clark Christine Myres Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 2 STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Suzanne Morgan Brent O'Neal Jesse Fulcher Andrew Garner STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 3 Ostner: Roll Call: Ostner: Clark: Allen: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Ostner: Allen: Clark: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: Welcome to the July 25th Planning Commission meeting. If we could have the roll call please. Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Anthes being absent. The first item is the approval of the June 27th minutes that were just handed to us. I will move that we table the approval of the minutes. Second. Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table the approval of the minutes was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Our consent agenda has three items, I will read those. The first is ADM 05-1653 for Laureatte Fields submitted by Mel Milholland for property located at the southwest corner of Deane Solomon and Salem Road. The second item is ADM 05-1654 for Salem Heights submitted by Landtech Engineering for property located on Salem Road south of Salem Village. The third item is ADM 05-1655 for Theos submitted by Cooper Architects for property located at 318 Campbell Avenue. If anyone in the audience would like to have any items on the consent agenda pulled or discussed or if any Planning Commissioners would, please speak now. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. I will move for approval of the consent agenda. I will second. Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the consent agenda was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 4 Ostner: Item number four is CUP 05-1579 for Callahan Cell Tower. Fulcher: The applicant is proposing to erect a 150' tall monopole tower for wireless equipment. The proposed lease site is located on property southwest of the intersection of Zion Road and Crossover Road. The exact location of the tower is on the west side of the westernmost commercial building and just east of an apartment complex and next to the building that currently houses On Deck. It is 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. Utilizing a concealment option would not detract from the existing skyline view at this major intersection and entrance into the city. §163.14 Wireless Communication Facilities does state that if the applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure that towers shall be designed to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible including, but not limited to, use of compatible building materials, colors, screening, landscaping and placement within trees. The applicant since the last time that we met, has provided three stealth concealment options which meet the carrier's needs concerning height and physical space for equipment. The options have several pros and cons but the applicant has stated they have given a working height of 150' and each option will work. Staff still is recommending denial of a Conditional Use to construct the proposed monopole with no stealth concealment options. However, by utilizing stealth concealment technologies either by utilizing colors as determined by the Planning Commission, a monopine which is a cell tower to look like a pine tree, or the clock tower, staff would recommend approval with ten conditions. I would mention condition number seven concerning landscaping. Landscaping shall be added to the site and shown on plans which provide a buffer of dense tree growth and under story vegetation in all directions to create an affective year around visual buffer as required by §163.14. Species and locations of required plantings shall be subject to the approval of the Landscape Administrator. If you have any questions, please ask. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation please. Reynolds: My name is Dave Reynolds. I'm representing Callahan Joint Tower Venture. We have been working with staff for several months on this project. We were here a few weeks ago and had some good discussion. I have worked with staff in the last couple of weeks to come up with some options and work together to present something that will work. To recap, the first option we came up with was a flagpole option and there were some limitations to a flagpole with collocation and things like that and finally, we got through that and the space won't match what we need to do. Now we have the three other options that you see there and there are Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 5 pros and cons to each. The best way to say this, we live in the city too, we want to make it nice. We don't want to build something that everybody says, there's that thing again. We have given some options, we have talked with staff about option three, the monopole with the slim line T mounts painted blue to match the site. We have also presented the monopine and the clock tower. Those things do disguise the antennas, it looks like a clock, you couldn't tell it is a cell system inside of that. Unfortunately, it looks just like a giant clock tower. We had some questions that came from the staff at the last meeting about reducing the size of the tower from 150' down to something other than that. As mentioned in your packet, every time we lower a tower it takes away more and more coverage and it lessens our capability to locate more carriers. At this time we have three carriers that want on this today. In three months we may have two more that come to us if other carriers want to move into Fayetteville or expand their coverage in the Fayetteville area we have a place for them to go. If we don't have that, they will come to you and we will have this meeting again. That, and the fact also, that allows us as a business in Fayetteville, if we have more spots to sale, that is two more spots we can sell before we have to build another tower. We have worked with staff, there are certainly pros and cons to all. Option number three would be our preference. That meets every requirement. We get down to basically aesthetic looks at that point. That's really our presentation, if you will. I'm sure there are a lot of questions. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to the public and then get back with you with any questions. Would anyone from the public like to comment on CUP 05-1579? Seeing none, I am going to close it to public comment and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Vaught: Mr. Williams, on reading the old minutes of some of the prior meetings where this stuff was discussed, there was considerable discussion about the Federal Telecommunications act and the responsibility of this board in relation to that. I would just like a quick run through of that if I could. Williams: The Federal Government has required that cities cannot just ban cell towers from all city property. That is why this ordinance was created, to try to locate them first on water tanks and other places that were probably already somewhat visually impaired. Also, we have other provisions in the ordinance that you are going to apply tonight. It doesn't mean that cell towers can go anywhere they want to go and look like anything that they want to look like. Cities still have rights to make some decisions based on aesthetics as long as that does not in effect ban cell towers from our location. Pate: There were two or three handouts in your packets this evening. Those were some responses to some questions from the Planning Commission Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 6 and city staff, they also give color photographs of the actual options that are proposed, three different options that the applicant has proposed as well as this document here that was put before you. Again, some of this was the color materials that staff had at the last meeting and you did not have those in front of you at the last meeting. As well as a packet of letters from Youth Bridge in support of this application. They are a property owner near the application that we are reviewing at this time. Trumbo: I have heard from many neighbors in that area saying that they need a cell tower. I am in support of a cell tower here, I don't know anywhere else that it could really go. If I had an option to choose from, I think the 150' tree looks a little silly. The clock doesn't do much for me either. I would probably be more in favor of option three, it is a slim line pole with special sky blue paint. Ostner: Just for the record, it is entitled monopole with slim "T" arms. Clark: I missed the meeting two weeks ago and so I have been catching up on my cell tower etiquette. On the option of the clock tower one of the cons is listed high level of wind noise. Can somebody explain to me exactly what we are talking about, how discernable it is? Reynolds: With any structure like that the more horizontal straight line surface you have there, the way wind whistles through a wood fence. The more structure there is there the more noise generates as it goes by. Clark: So it is going to take a pretty good wind to do that? Reynolds: Sure, that was one of the points that we discussed the last time in the meeting, which is when we were still considering the flagpole option, the noise that a flag makes when it is waving. This will be 130' from a residential structure. That was one of our concerns with it. Clark: Allen: I know we need a cell tower, I am not going to belabor that point. I think Commissioner Trumbo is right, the tree option looks a little odd but then again, when AEP cuts trees they look a little odd too so it might just fit right in. The clock tower would be eye pleasing to me but I guess it is just going to come down to which one we like best. The other looks like a pole that is a cell tower painted blue. That is clever, but the clock seems more aesthetically pleasing. To me the giant tree looks like an amusement park. This is a visible artery into Fayetteville so if there is a need for a cell tower, which apparently there is, I think just a cell tower would be preferable to me. I did have a question, I wondered since we know that there will eventually be technology that will allow there not to be a need for that high of a tower Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 7 for cell phone use, I wondered if we could add a condition that when that is available the tower will be removed and that technology would be used? Williams: You know a lot more than I do, I wasn't aware that there was that new technology coming forward. I think you could place such a condition on it. This is a Conditional Use and I think that if in the future you would not need the kind of height that they are asking for that in the future if that height was not needed technologically and it was feasible to have a shorter tower that the tower must be reduced to the shorter height at that time. That means it would not necessarily be a new tower, they would just cut off the top and put the arms out at a different level. Allen: That would make me feel more comfortable. I will move that we approve CUP 05-1579 with the ten conditions plus another condition stating that "If technology becomes available that the tower could be a lesser level, that the applicant would be responsible for building such tower." And that it be the tower itself painted sky blue. Ostner: You said the tower could be a lesser level, do you mean height? You mean that it could be a lesser level of height. Allen: I wouldn't want it to be taller. Ostner: Well, a lesser level of electricity or something. Williams: The Conditional Use would actually expire when the technology became effective that a shorter tower would be able to do basically the same job. Allen: That is a much better way to put it. Williams: I would be interested to hear from some of the technicians here because I am not aware of what kind of progress we have going toward that. Allen: I don't know that there is even that progress. I just think that it would seem reasonable that would happen at some point in the future. Just like television dishes that took up your whole backyard and now are several inches wide. I would just assume that at some point in the future that would occur and when it does it would be nice not to have an eye sorer to one of the main entries of our town. Williams: I think that since you are allowed to take aesthetics into consideration you could put that kind of condition into effect, whether or not it would ever come to light or not, that depends on technology. Trumbo: I will second the motion. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 8 Vaught: Pate: Allen: Trumbo: Ostner: Williams: Pate: Ostner: Reynolds: Pate: Vaught: Pate: I do have a question of staff and the motioners, we had included in our packet a schematic of the color painting and it fades from top to bottom, is that what staff would recommend that the pole look like? This is an option that staff found that would transition as opposed to being one color. That is something that we just put in your packet to show another similar tower to change colors. That would be up to the Commission to decide what you feel is appropriate. I would like to suggest that it be gray. We had a discussion with the Cricket tower four or five years ago and debated for hours and hours the color of that tower and finally decided upon it being suede blue and to me, the maintenance of the tower as it chips and weathers, it seems to me like the gray would be easier to keep up. I would suggest that it be the natural gray color. I will second that. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? I want to make sure what we are voting on. We are voting on just the plain style which would be the monopole blue with "T" arms. Except not blue. To clarify, we are looking at the galvanized steel? I believe some of the details are monopole, blue, slim "T" arms, meets minimum carrier requirements, platforms, special light blue paint, slim line "T" arms and we will restrict each carrier to a two antennae per sector configuration. That was just describing this picture, the color is gray with the motion. I understand what you are saying there. Just for the record, staff has recommended denying that particular option. I just want that to be clear. Staff, would you guys prefer the clock option? We are looking at our ordinance which says utilize the best concealment option that is available. They presented three different concealment options. One was to paint the slim line a light blue to match the sky, the other was the clock tower and then the monopine. When you get down to color it is all about our opinion. We had this discussion in 2001 about the color and it is just a matter of opinion of what is appealing as a tower, Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 9 whether it is a light gray or a galvanized steel which is shown on the photographs there. Graves: That leads to a comment that I want to make in particular with this item on the agenda as opposed to the next item on the agenda, which is also a cell tower. We received a lot of information about the topography of where this particular tower is going and why it needs to be a particular height. I think that is part of why some of the concealment options may not work here. That doesn't necessarily mean they may not be available on the next agenda item. I agree with the motioner and the seconder that on this particular item with it being 150' that is apparently what we need in this bowl area that we are facing in this particular spot that some of the concealment options look silly. A 150' tree with some leaves about 100' up or a giant clock that you can tell time on from Hwy. 412 in Springdale doesn't seem like the right option here. I think the next item on the agenda may be a little bit different of a discussion. I think that what we have heard for the second week in a row is that the topography here is a challenge also. In addition to the number of carriers that are needed on this tower we have got a bowl shape and we need to get out of that bowl. That is why I'm supporting the motion on this particular item. That doesn't mean that I would be in support of just a regular galvanized steel tower on the next item. Allen: Nor would I. As the motioner, I can say I am not thrilled over my motion and wish that I could vote against it but there are no complaints from the neighbors, apparently it is a need and if I could have my disclaimer at the end with the tower going away if something better can be there at some point then it is a way to work with it better than the giant tree or the silly clock. Clark: Jeremy, is staff's problem with the monopole, the ugly thing that they are proposing, with the color of it or the ugly pole in general? Pate: Staff recommended the applicant to investigate the option of a flagpole or exchanging the flagpole out there at Hwy. 265 and Mission in the parking lot just to the east of this. Information provided at the last Planning Commission meeting indicated that while they could provide some carriers in a flagpole, all of the carriers looking to locate currently as well as to collocate future carriers could not be accommodated in a flagpole of that type. Clark: The pole that Commissioner Allen recommended, that she wants gray, if their stealth to paint it blue, would that meet your standards? Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 10 Pate: Allen: Clark: Pate: Clark: Williams: Allen: Vaught: Clark: Pate: Allen: Ostner: Pate: Ostner: We feel that would be more appropriate. Staff has looked through the minutes of the past Planning Commission decisions and there has been a considerable discussion about what color the sky in Fayetteville is. I am amenable to it being blue. If it was blue it would be an ok thing? I believe it would be more in line with what our ordinances require. It is a Conditional Use so it does have a level of subjectivity to it. That is the challenge on this particular request because everyone likes something different. Is there any way that we could shift the burden of picking the color back to Planning Staff by putting in the motion that it is to be a stealth color? I don't think you can do that. I will certainly alter my motion for it to be a sky blue. I kind of like fading, they taper from blue to green to blend in with the trees at the bottom so you don't have a blue pole at the bottom. I like that idea. The maintenance on the city's point isn't there. It is for the applicants to keep the maintenance up. If we are not making them do the big tree or the clock I think painting would be the least expensive of those options. What would please Planning Staff? Honestly, I think the photograph that was provided which does transition. There are trees around the site. There is vegetation. There is also a vegetation screening required for this proposal, there will be trees and shrubs planted around this tower in the landscape area that will blend in as well. I would like to amend my motion to make the pole light sky blue and have it transition as it goes to the earth, as included in our packet. That would be the page in our packets, there is a light sky blue at the top, there is a 15' transition area starting at 42' and ending at 57', I'm guessing those are elevation heights, and the bottom color to match needles of Eastern White Pine. Is that specific enough for staff? Yes. Is the seconder amenable to the current motion? Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 11 Trumbo: Yes. Ostner: Ok, is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1579 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 12 Ostner: The next item on our agenda is CUP 05-1602, the cell tower for Smith Two Way Radio. Fulcher: This is a similar request. The applicant is proposing to erect a 150' monopole tower for wireless equipment. The proposed site is located on property southwest of the intersection of Moore Lane and Shiloh Drive. The exact location of the tower is on the west side of the Total Document Solutions building. It is staff's opinion that the wireless coverage can be provided in a way which will not detract from the scenic quality of the Hwy. 540 corridor. Granting the requested Conditional Use for a 150' galvanized steel monopole tower will adversely affect the public interest. This action will allow for the construction of a monopole cell tower within the Design Overlay District. The Design Overlay District was adopted by the city to protect the scenic importance of that I-540 corridor. By using stealth concealment technologies a balanced can be reached which will maintain the scenic quality of the city as well as allow cellular companies to provide an important service to the community. Staff, again, is recommending denial of a Conditional Use to construct the proposed monopole tower with no stealth concealment. However, by utilizing stealth technology either by utilizing colors, a mono -pine or the clock tower, staff would recommend approval with ten conditions. Condition number states that the species and location of the required plantings shall be subject to the approval of the Landscape Administrator. If you have any questions on this proposal please ask. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Will you introduce yourself and give us your presentation? Reynolds: My name is Dave Reynolds, I'm an employee of Smith Two Way Radio, which is also a member of Callahan Tower Joint Ventures, LLC. Smith Radio has been in business here in Fayetteville since 1929. We maintain several government agencies, local, state and federal here along with several hundred businesses. We also have a long standing relationship with these carriers and they have come to us with a similar situation on the other side of town. They have a problem there on the I-540 area behind the Total Document Solutions area. In this packet you have the required paperwork and maps submitted by the city and basically, what it comes to is that there are not any towers located in that area for these people to cover. The cell companies are on towers located in the city of Johnson approximately a mile and a half away from the proposed location. The next closest location is off of Hwy. 62 on top of Dinsmore Trail. That is the next physically closest tower and they are also on that location. What is happening is because the distance between those two towers as you drive through the highway there on 1-540 you lose signal, or if you have to hand out between those two towers, if you are in the overlap area there the signal is degraded because of distance and it drops your call. That is an Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 13 extremely fast growing section of town. There are a lot of plans for development there. There is a 300 acre development going on there that has just got underway. With this we are asking for the 150' tower. We have worked with staff on this one extensively, speaking with Jeremy weekly and maybe even daily on a lot of this stuff. With this option we understand the reluctance to build monopoles but we think that we have worked out a pretty good compromise. If you look in your packets there is a section that talks about reducing the visual effects, the visual impact of the tower. That gives a picture of these small "T" arms. Those are the kind of arms that we intend to use. There is an example there of what is typical on a monopole that is unregulated and uncontrolled by ordinance. We can use smaller brackets, there has been discussion about paint, we can do a lot of things to make this look at lot better than some of the monopoles that people are seeing. That is what we propose to do with this. You can see some of the photo simulations from some of the different locations around the area, what it would look like. We have had people approach us and we would like to build this tower. That part of the city does demonstrate a need there. That is all that I have for this. I am sure that there will be a lot of questions. Thank you. Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment Would anyone like to speak to CUP 05-1602? Please come forward and introduce yourself and give us your comments. Hargus: I'm Patrick Hargus and I have Manuel Barnes who will want to speak as well, he is an Environmental Scientist from EGIS Environmental. It is my understanding that the proposed cell tower is a Conditional Use within the zoning district that this tower is proposed, which means that it may be allowed if it is compatible with activities within adjoining properties. On behalf of the owners of springwoods Land Holdings we would like to express concerns that the tower is not compatible with activities within the adjoining zoning district of the springwoods PZD. In particular, it is not compatible with the activities that would be hosted by lot 8, which is an environmentally sensitive area. Lot 8 within the springwoods PZD is within 1,000 feet of the proposed tower. Barnes: I'm Manuel Barnes. It is always a pleasure to be here in Fayetteville and I appreciate the hard work that this Commission and this Council has done in regards to ecologically sensitive Lot 8 of the springwoods development. There are basically two major issues from an incompatibility standpoint. One has to do with bird strike. I have some literature that I will give to the Commission from the Audubon Society. Of course, they are planning on having an Audubon Center next door to this addition of the tower. The literature that I am going to give to you is from four authors. One is an entire paper, others are just abstracts. They basically point to studies done on towers throughout the United States. The bottom line is based on Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 14 variability, weather, low ceilings, fronts moving weather through an area and secondarily from what scientists refer to as positive photo tactic response, i.e., flying to light. There are numerous birds that fly into the structure, into the guide wires. I don't know if this tower is going to have guide wires. That is one of the major things that contributes to the bird strike, are the guide wires, also lights, is there going to be any lighting on the poles? Those are the two major contributors to the pole itself. The situations are when you have a low ceiling, if you have weather that has moved into the area, just like we had the other day when that storm blew through, high wind velocities, you can have substantial bird strike. The literature indicates that they have studied in Ohio and New York and Arizona and conducted these studies and they have indicated that millions of birds have died around these poles. That is a compatibility issue associated with the proposed Audubon site next door. The second is one of the seven items that the National Environmental Police Act 69 states, seven effects. One of those effects is aesthetics. All of the effects in the National Environmental Police Act are ecology, historic, cultural, economics, social and health. We have basically a hit on two to two and a half of these issues from a compatibility standpoint, from an aesthetic standpoint. On my drive here tonight from Bentonville I counted over 20 cell towers. Since I moved here 16 years ago we have added 20 cell towers into the aesthetic views of the Ozarks. The last agenda item tonight is another tower. One of the things that we have to face from a social standpoint is the cumulative impact on our aesthetics. What do the Ozarks look like and the prominent feature on the landscape for these poles, these towers. I will leave you this literature tonight. The springwoods land holdings group is very concerned about the incompatibility issue of these towers and especially, this tower as a cumulative aspect and the Arkansas Audubon is concerned as well. They provided that literature that I just handed you. Ostner: Thank you. Is there anymore comment from the public on this Conditional Use? I am going to close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Trumbo: t would like to ask the applicant what he knows about bird strike with the towers. Reynolds: To be real honest I'm not an expert on that field. We have hired Paragrain Environmental out of Norman, Oklahoma, who has completed the environmental impact study to build this tower by federal regulation to have it registered with the FCC and FAA. That study came back stamped by the EPA as clear with no detrimental effect to the environment. We have letters in there from the Arkansas Game and Fish who are checked with during this EPA Study. They declared that there are no endangered species, no species with a possibility of being put on the endangered list Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 15 that occupy the area of our tower. There are delineated wetlands in the other development across the street but our study stamped by the EPA says that this has no effect. As far as bird strike, I do know that towers with lighting, towers with guide wires, large broadcast type towers, television towers, large radio towers, that is much more common. This is a small slim line monopole with slim mounts, as small as we could possibly make them. Short of that, I don't know what else to do. Ostner: I sure wish I had that report. Vaught: Not knowing much about cell towers, one of the reason for the 150' height on the last site was because it was down in a bowl. This site is effectively on top of a mountain, a hill, one of the highest points in the area, why do we still need 150'? It says in the packet that you requested it but I'm struggling to figure out why we still need 150'. I think the stealth technology works a lot better when we drop it down in height some more, that was just a thought so I would like to hear some more about that either from the applicant or staff. Reynolds: This site in it's use is slightly different than the one on Hwy. 265 and Zion. That was in a bowl. Basically, the antennas are at the top of a bowl and they cover down into the bowl. This one, their coverage problems is because of the separation of towers. There is one in this part and one in this part. They are trying to cover as much area as they can to ease the handoff between these two. With this situation, the higher the tower is the better the situation becomes to us. We have asked for the maximum height under this ordinance. We are not asking for any kinds of waivers or variances or anything like that, we are only asking to build the tower as per the ordinance. Also, another point on why we want the 150' and are asking for it is that we have carriers that stack into sections. If we only start stacking them at 130' that limits our ability to develop that property and limits the ability for other carriers to come in and locate. Those are the reasons that we are doing that. Vaught: The technical reasons as to coverage, the same thing could be achieved with a shorter tower hypothetically, now collocating you would have more difficulty. Reynolds: It could achieve that for limited carriers, the shorter we make it the more limited it becomes. That is one of the technical reasons we would like to do that. Vaught: From my perspective, this site is different in the fact that if the other one had visibility, this one is extremely high visibility. It is in a very important part of town with some very prominent development going on around it so to me the discussion becomes even more important. Not to Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 16 Lack: say that the discussions weren't important in the other item, but this is truly a gateway to Fayetteville. Honestly, the tower is very close to 540. If the tower was set back from I-540 a little more I would think that the discussion would be a little more different but it is right on top of the highway from my perspective. The use of stealth technology in this location I think is very important. I guess I maybe take a little bit different view on the locational issues with this tower. Maybe it is more a common issue but the scale and the zoning that we have along the 540 corridor seems to almost be more conducive than the smaller, more neighborhood scale that we had at the Joyce location. With that, I think I would have less concern with the monopole. I think with the tower that has less of a visual impact I think if we even applied the same principals that we did to the other tower that it would just be the nicest of the many cell towers that you see along the 540 corridor. I think with the information that we have on the bird strike, I do have some questions about that. I would like to understand more about that but it does specifically address in the report here the television tower and I have to make some assumption that that is a different profile tower and that there are some differences there. I think that is all that I have. I think that this zone tends to lend itself to a greater scale. Ostner: I tend to agree. I could see the clock tower here. Clark: I have skimmed this handout and it does talk about guide wires and light attracting the birds and it talks about television towers and mentions cell towers in passing but there is no specific information and certainly no quantifiable information specific to the Fayetteville area and the birds indigoes to our area. I agree with Commissioner Vaught that this is a much higher profile area. I certainly would think that the monopole would be blatantly obvious and very distractive in that area. Vaught: The thing that looks so funny about the pine is the height of where the foliage starts above the tree canopy. Not knowing anything about the design of those structures, to me it looks if you cut 20' off the top of the height you get the foliage coverage down to about the existing canopy which significantly decreases the oddness of the pine option. To me that is what I am struggling with. Even if you had 150' pine and dropped it down lower, it would look odd but not as odd. In this location I'm struggling with whether we want a taller tower or a shorter tower with fewer carriers that is more concealed. 10' off the top to extend the foliage down more would be helpful in camouflaging this site. I know Jeremy is holding up a picture of the tower that is 30' taller than the existing canopy around it. You could barely tell it was a cell tower. This would be a little taller than that but it would dramatically help. It goes back to what you said about more towers you can't see or fewer towers that you can see. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 17 Osmer: You preferred to an EPA Study or permit that you have. What sort of radius or impact zone does that agency take into effect? Reynolds: I'm not sure of the actual radius of the zone. I can provide a copy to staff but it is at least a thousand feet I'm sure. Ostner: I'm worried about the Lot 8, Audubon lot. I don't think I know enough about it at all. I know many regulatory agencies sign off on things like cell towers and highways and what not and they have their own rules and there are other facts as these gentlemen representing springwoods mentioned and I have more questions than answers right now. Reynolds: I understand that fully. Keep in mind also that on previous discussions that we have had that the clock tower and things like that, those are much larger towers once again, that also get back to the bird strike that was mentioned. Graves: I would echo Commissioner Vaught's comments and my statements regarding the last item on the agenda. That is that I just don't see the justification for the 150' tower here that we may have seen with the topography on the other item and so I would like to see a shorter tower go in at this location. I'm not opposed to a cell phone tower here but I think that it needs to be shorter. I agree with Commissioner Vaught's comments that then makes the tree option less odd looking when you shorten the tower down some and it also probably blends a lot better with the springwoods Lot 8. I would support something along the line with a 120' tower with the tree option. Williams: It is the burden of the applicant to establish why they need not only a cell tower there, but also, to try to prove to you what the height is. Just because the ordinance says the maximum is 150', that certainly does not mean that the Planning Commission is bound to accept that and it is up to the applicant to provide whatever evidence they can to show why they need a particular height of a cell tower. Graves: My take on the comments of justification when Commissioner Vaught asked about that, the way I took the comments was if the ordinance says you could build a 200' tower that is what they would be asking for too. That is not a jab at the applicant, I just think that they would like to be as tall as they can get it to get as many carriers on there as they can and I just don't think that the maximum height at this location is justified or needed. Clark: If we reduce it to 120' or 130' would you be bumping? Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 18 Reynolds: Yes we would at that point. At this point we have one signed contract with one carrier to go on that tower. We are in current negotiations, depending on the results of tonight, to put on at least two more. Clark: Reynolds: How many can you hold at 150' and how many can you hold at 120'? At 120' we can hold two so at that point I would bump someone off and we would be back in a couple of weeks. Clark: At 150' how many can you hold? Reynolds: Five, so that leaves us two additional. Clark: How tall do you have to be to get three? Reynolds: This depends also on the coverage, but to get three basically at about 130' we can get two, maybe three. Trumbo: I think I'm hearing that it sounds like if he doesn't get the 150' we are going to have more towers. I don't necessarily think that this is an appropriate place for a 150' tower but the carriers are going to have to get on these towers at some place so if we approve a 120' that means that somewhere else along the area there is going to have to be another tower to accommodate other carriers. For me the issue is do I want a 150' pole there. Ostner: I believe there was a photo on the last packet two weeks ago of stealth options that were actual stealth options, that were part of buildings, steeples were a big part of that. There were also flagpoles. It seems like it is the middle ground of 130' pole and you have to do lots of poles. If you do a 150' pole you do a few poles, which still seems like lots of poles. Or, no poles, true stealth technology and put it on the buildings. It seems to be the middle ground that is the problem. I would rather have hundreds of truly invisible cell towers that were truly hiding in the buildings, everywhere, put it on every single building. How possible is that type of technology in this area? Reynolds: All of the buildings within a mile there are one story buildings, except for the private homes. Ostner: That technology needs to be on two or three story buildings to get the same height? Reynolds: Yes, I don't want to build a church for a steeple on top of it. There is nothing more to put it on. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 19 Williams: Lack: There was a proposal to build a fairly large church on Mt. Comfort Road that came through the Planning Commission not too long ago if I'm not mistaken. It might be that even if a shorter one was allowed now, if they needed room for expansion in the future they could be looking at projects coming forward and speaking to developers at that time and hiding the projects right at the same time that the building is being built. What kind of lateral distance would we have to look at? I know we talked about the vertical distance required between carriers? Is there a predominant lateral distance or lateral distance between poles? Reynolds: From a technical aspect, that would be better answered by one of my experts, but I have seen then as close as 500' apart. That is probably not an ideal type situation but it would work. Lack: What would be a baseline height? Is there potentially a way to establish baseline height for a carrier? What I'm hearing is that a 100' baseline height is because you will bump people off. Reynolds: That is the general height and kind of a rule of thumb for the industry. Below that, the carriers spend $400,000 to put their equipment on our pole once it is built. If they can only cover a '/2 mile circle because they are 100' down it doesn't become economically viable for them and they just won't do it so we won't be able to provide that service and therefore, they won't be able to rent a space from us. Yes, we could technically put one at 10' and it would cover a 30' circle. Lack: I think that comes back to what we are looking at with the collocation ideas and I certainly think that is ideal as well and had even more concern for that in a small scale, more neighborhood area and looking at some of the collocation options that were illustrated in the packet being the street signal and the flagpole and those things. Certainly, the 100' baseline could start to be an obstacle with that. I'm not sure that I understand that technology well enough to establish the baseline there. Ostner: How tall is the Landers flagpole? Reynolds: The Landers flagpole, the ground elevation is 62' lower. The flagpole itself is much larger than 150', but there is an 82' difference in elevation there. Vaught: I am just trying to understand the height. I guess I understand the need for 150' on the other site because we were in a bowl, a low point, building up. Here we are on a lot higher point. If you look at the maps and the topography around it, why is there still a 100' base elevation. It seems to me if you build on a higher point that you don't have to put the antennas Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 20 up as far to get a decent amount of coverage. It was the opposite in the last case because we were in a bowl. That is why I'm having trouble saying anything below 100' in this location is useless because we are on top of a hill. Reynolds: I understand your point. In the bowl these antennas are beaming directly out. In this area it is on a high point and we are trying to cover a large area that basically slopes away. We have a large development there, all of the golf course and the housing that is behind it. We are also trying to come back into town up the 540 corridor past the hospital and things like that to cover that area. With that, the higher they can get the easier and the better the coverage is, the further they can get up those valleys in the areas where they are dropping calls and the areas where development is happening. Ostner: On your packet here you have a list of certified mail recipients, I'm not seeing a representative of springwoods. Reynolds: They are represented by Legacy Project, LLC. That is the listed property owner. Ostner: Have you all had conversations before tonight? Reynolds: We have tried to contact them on numerous occasions. Our attorney has been to their attorney's office to find out what their objections were going to be before tonight. On the back page of the packet, we received this letter back from them with the box I object to the wireless communication proposal and they cited safety and environmental concerns. That is the only contact that we have had after repeated tries. Ostner: I am going to be voting against this tonight simply because I believe that the Audubon lot is a unique and key feature in this town and I'm interested in it's development and I'm not convinced that this project is detrimental to it. I would be interested in seeing the EPA report that has given you the clear path to go ahead and develop. Reynolds: The 1996 telecommunications act also addresses issues of environmental safety, and these are things that are directly addressed in this under the federal level. Ostner: The way I understand it, the law that you are referring to talks about banning cell towers or a body like this saying you cannot build a cell tower. I'm not saying that. I'm saying in this very specific spot that I don't think it is appropriate tonight. I may be convinced of that with more information, it might be 100' to the south, it might be a little bit further from this very delicate spot. This project in this place I don't think is Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 21 appropriate with the information that I have. I am not opposed to a cell tower in this location and that is where that telecommunication's act is satisfied and I don't believe that I am going against that law by voting against it. Allen: I would just like to say that I agree and for the same reasons won't be able to support this in this location. Williams: Are both of you citing the compatibility with the adjoining neighboring property and the aesthetic considerations? Ostner: Yes. Williams: I don't think they meant that they were concerned that the cell tower might radiate dangerous waves or something and that is what the federal law says, that no, that cannot be taken into consideration. They made a finding that cell towers are not dangerous in that way and of course, that is not what you were referring to at all. Ostner: There is a degree of appropriateness in every Conditional Use that is unique to this spot and that is the point that I am going to vote against on the locational appropriateness. Clark: I have two questions to the representatives of springwoods. You say it is within 1000 feet of the Audubon location and you are assuming the monopole that we just approved in the other location. Are you assuming the tree option? Barnes: The monopole. Clark: Would you have objections if they used the stealth and made it look like a tree? Barnes: Yes. Ostner: We are not going to get into discussion with members of the public. MOTION: Clark: I will make a motion that we approve CUP 05-1602 with the following revisions to the conditions. 2) The tower shall be mono -pine in design and no taller than 130' high. With all the rest of the provisions as approved by staff. Vaught: I will second. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 22 Ostner: Is there further discussion? Trumbo: I have a question. The motioner is saying just a monopole? Clark: It has to be the tree, mono -pine. Trumbo: Ok, a 130' pine tree. Clark: Mono -pine, 130'. Ostner: We have a motion and a second. Does everyone understand the motion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1602 failed by a vote of 4-4 with Commissioners Ostner, Myres, Allen and Trumbo voting no. Thomas: The motion fails. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 23 Ostner: The next item on our agenda is FPL 05-1575 for Bridgedale. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: The subject property contains two tracts totaling 7.6 acres. It is located south of Huntsville Road and adjacent to, as well as connecting to Stonebridge Meadows Phase I. It adjoins Roberts Road and it is located west of Roberts Road. This Preliminary Plat was approved for the creation of 25 lots on November 8, 2004. At this time the applicant is requesting Final Plat approval of this subdivision. One condition of approval of the Preliminary Plat was for offsite improvements. This property owner has improved Roberts Road adjoining the frontage as well as improving the existing street to 20' in width to Huntsville Road. They have made significant improvements with the development of this subdivision and are requesting Final Plat approval at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this Final Plat with 17 conditions. We have received signed conditions. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation please. Milholland: I'm Melvin Milholland with Milholland Engineering representing the developer. We concur with the conditions of approval. The owners have signed the conditions of approval and we respectfully request you to approve this. Ostner: At this point I will open it up for public comment Would anyone like to speak to this issue of FPL 05-1575? Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. I have a request for the Subdivision report. Graves: I think I will hand off to staff on it because we had a large agenda last time and I don't remember the specifics of this one. I do think when we talked about it there was only one thing that changed from the Preliminary Plat and that is why we forwarded it and we thought it was such a minor thing at the time that it might end up on the consent agenda so there weren't any significant changes from the Preliminary Plat. Pate: MOTION: The only thing that really changed was at the time of Preliminary Plat the applicant requested to pay money in lieu instead of planting on site for mitigation trees option and actually, they have requested that option and planted the trees for this particular property. That's the only significant change. Allen: I will move for approval of PPL 05-1575. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 24 Clark: Second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve FPL 05-1575 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 25 Ostner: The next item on our agenda is LSD 05-1588 Piedmont Place apartments. If we could have the staff report Ms. Morgan? Morgan: This property contains 1.43 acres located west of Leverett Avenue. This property was rezoned to RMF -24 in May of 2005 from RSF-4. With that rezoning the City Council accepted a Bill of Assurance with regard to the number of units developed on the property, the height of the structures and also accepted drawings for proposed elevation of these structures. The applicant is requesting construction of four two story apartment buildings with 30 two bedroom apartments with eight in each structure along the south and the northeast structure containing a total of six units. There will be 51 parking spaces on the property. Access is available from Leverett, however, staff has discussed with the applicant and discussed at Subdivision Committee proposing an access from the hammerhead at the northwest corner to the north to Mariah H apartment's parking lot. This is a condition of approval that staff recommends the northern end hammer head to extend into the Mariah H apartments. The applicant has stated that the adjoining property owner is in disagreement or does not approve of that however, we have not received any written information with regard to that. Additional items to address for this property regarding elevations, they have been modified. Staff finds that they are adequate and meet what the Bill of Assurance that was submitted and reviewed by the City Council indicated. I would request that we add two additional conditions. First is regarding compliance with the memo submitted by the Engineering Division. There were some additional comments that needed to be addressed. None of them are very major. With the revised plat we feel that we can satisfy those items. Further, there is an additional condition stating that the applicant shall provide the appropriate number of landscaping islands constructed in accordance with our parking lot landscaping ordinance. I have discussed with the architect that the landscaping islands as shown with the stairways in those islands will not sufficiently comply with those ordinances and they have stated that they will be willing to work with us to comply with those requirements. With that, we do recommend approval of this Large Scale Development with the 22 conditions and the additional 2 that I have mentioned. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and tell us about your project. Kesner: My name is George Kesner, I represent Arthur Scott, I'm with Project Design Consultants and I am here to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: At this point I am going to take public comment on LSD 05-1588. Would anyone like to speak to this issue? I am going to close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 26 Pate: Just from Subdivision Committee, the primary thing that came out of that meeting was condition number one as a recommendation. We did verify with the Fire Department that the requirement for multi -family is a little different than for single family. Two means of ingress and egress are required by state law if there are 100 multi -family units. They are proposing 30 in this case. Planning staff still feels that it is important to have another connection because all vehicle trips are currently proposed onto Leverett Avenue with one way in and one way out. I think it is important to understand from the applicant if the property owner to the north is agreeable to that. It has been indicated that they are not. We have not however, received confirmation of that. That is something that we are recommending as another connection because all of the traffic generated from the 60 bedrooms would have two exits either left or right on Leverett Avenue. Ostner: Is there anything more from Subdivision Committee? Graves: I think Mr. Pate has adequately summarized it. We did not really come to a consensus on our recommendation on that. We asked them to get some more information in time for this meeting relating to what the Fire Department required which they have done and there wasn't really consensus on what was needed there. We wanted that information and decided that we would forward it here to make that determination on what we wanted to do. I think the applicant based on the Subdivision Committee meeting may have some comments about the cooperation of or the lack thereof, of the adjoining property owner as far as trying to make the connection. Cooper: I'm Tim Cooper with Cooper Architects. The owner did make contact finally with the adjacent owner and they have said that they have a willingness to work with us and so I think that we can work something out. We thought from talking to people in his organization that it was a negative response but the second opportunity looks like there is an open door there to raise his property value as well. Vaught: I guess the question for staff or the city attorney on bow to word that first condition, should we put something in to say that it will be connected unless proof can be shown that the adjoining property owner is not willing to work with them or how would we do that? Williams: I think you need to have something in there because they can't really control the adjoining property owner. They can't obtain land or anything like that but I do think it is a good idea to have that and I'm glad to see that the property owner adjoining seems to be willing to work with them. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 27 Vaught: Trumbo: Williams: Clark: Trumbo: Ostner: Roll Call: Thomas: So word it something along the lines saying that the connection shall be made to the property to the north unless written proof is submitted that the adjoining property owner is unwilling to work with this applicant. If the applicant to the north is unwilling to provide the proof that they are not going to allow this how are we going to handle that? Let's just say proof, we can have Jeremy bang on the door or something. Maybe you could word it the end of the hammerhead along the western line of the northern property shall be extended to connect to existing parking within Maria H apartments unless the owner of Maria H apartments will not allow such connection. I will make a motion with that wording that we approve LSD 05-1588 with the amendment to the first condition as stated by our City Attorney with the addition of the two conditions supplied by Ms. Morgan (24 stated conditions. Second. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1588 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. The motion carries. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 28 Ostner: The next item is LSD 05-1595, Lofts at Skull Creek submitted by Art Scott. Gardner: This property is located in central Fayetteville on Ash Street less than '/4 mile east of Leverett Avenue. It is zoned RMF -24 and I-1 and contains approximately 1.7 acres. Skull Creek and the associated 100 -year floodplain bisect the southeastern corner of the property. There is a riparian order on the western border of the site. There are a number of city defined high priority trees. The site is currently undeveloped with some disturbed area associated with past grading activities. The site is surrounded by single family residential development to the west and north and multi -family development to the south with undeveloped land to the east. The zoning is RMF -24 on all sides and I-1 to the east. Adjacent Master Street Plan streets include Ash Street to the south and Chestnut Street to the east. The proposal is to construct 15 for sale condominiums with a total of 37 bedrooms and 27 parking spaces. The lot does not meet the required lot width street frontage of 90' required for multi -family development in the RMF -24 zoning district. A waiver request from the applicant to allow for approximately 40' of lot width has been included in the report. The request will also require Board of Adjustment approval for a non -conforming lot of record. Right of way required for this project include 50' of right of way for Ash Street and Chestnut Street and the project would dedicate an additional 5' of right of way along east street frontage. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted to accept money in lieu of land to satisfy the parkland dedication ordinance. Additionally, the applicant would dedicate a 30' trail corridor on the west side of Skull Creek to be donated. Tree mitigation is required on the site. There has been comment from the property owner to the north. We have had several phone calls and a written letter. The comments include many issues including a concern with past grading that occurred in the floodway last year, access into and out of the site and also comments requesting a buffer between this project and her property to the north. Staff is recommending approval of this project with several conditions. I will highlight a few of them. 1) Planning Commission determination of off site improvements. Staff recommends construction of a 6' sidewalk at the right of way of Ash Street and through the proposed drive. 2) Planning Commission determination of a waiver of the required lot width street frontage to allow for a 40' frontage along Ash Street instead of 90'. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver due to Ash Street currently being a dead-end street near the site with no planned projects in the immediate future that is anticipated to extend this roadway. A portion of the right of way is located within the Skull Creek floodway. We are also requiring approval by the Board of Adjustment for that waiver. Conditions six and seven regard construction in the floodway of Skull Creek. Condition six requires an elevation certificate prior to issuance of a building permit for each structure and condition number seven requires Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 29 that no livable area be allowed below the minimum finished floor elevation of the structures. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Ostner: Is the applicant present? Queznier: My name is Jorge Queznier, I work with PDC and am here to answer any questions that you may have. This project is in the floodway/floodplain. It is a three story for sale units. Ostner: Would anyone from the public like to speak to LSD 05-1595? Hart: I'm Peggy Hart, I live at 715 W. Poplar. We are northeast of the property. They have two lots and we are on the northeast side of them. I know that developing in the floodplain is difficult. We have been learning how difficult it is over the past few years while we have been in the planning stages of our home. Unless a quality development is built which can be sold at a premium developing can be cost prohibitive due to restrictions. I will say that in many ways this looks like a quality development. They are showing some community spirit by donating the 30' corridor for trails. Of course they can't develop that area but it was a nice gesture. I did have an opportunity to meet with the developers, engineers and architects last week but I do still have some problems with the project. Drainage onto our property is still our main concern. While speaking with the group and asking for more information about what they plan to do I got the comment that water is going to be diverted before it reaches my property, it is going to the front. I found that answer very strange. While we were standing on their property I motioned and said it is going to the front of this property meaning their property and got a nod yes. I found that pretty amazing considering that the water currently flows from the southwest to the northeast and looking at the grading and erosion plan I see that the arrows are still pointing to the north and the east and that it is still coming our way. Our main question is can they please explain where the water will go. I've been told repeatedly that they want to be good neighbors. The next item I asked about what including some kind of buffer to better separate the properties. This development is going to be mostly on the west side of the property and it is going to be greenspace to the east and we are directly in front of that so it is one greenspace that blends together so I ask that you have a buffer to separate the properties, a fence, trees, hedges or something to let it be known that it is separate to keep trespassing from occurring. Instead of being no that they didn't want to do it I was told that they can't do anything in the floodplain so they didn't see how they could put anything between the properties. Yet, according to Sara Patterson, the city's new Urban Forester, Jeremy Pate, the Landscape Administrator, specifically requested that the mitigated trees be placed in the floodway. I noticed on their tree plan that they were planting Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 30 additional trees along the east side of the building and they are also in the floodway. While we were standing on the north side of the proposed development I pointed out a shallow ditch which they were unaware. We keep it mowed to help with the water flow and I asked whether they were planning to fill it in or let it stay for drainage, they indicated that they would leave it. The ditch is about 10' inside the north end of their property. On the architect's drawing the parking lot is planned to come to within 5' of the edge of the property thus covering up the ditch in the area. The ditch may not be deep but every bit helps when you are trying to keep the water flowing to the creek and not directly onto our property. I hope that the parking lot will be adjusted to leave the ditch now. Lastly, regarding the waiver request for the lot width of the street frontage requirement of 90' to be lowered to less than half of that to 40'. Several years ago I remember when the Commissioners began having developers make street improvements and add sidewalks to their developments. I heard many hours of developers arguing the point that the sidewalks would connect to nothing but the Commissioners kept insisting and those sidewalks were required. (tape ends) Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak to this issue? I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Jorge: I didn't realize that when we were talking about the drainage with Ms. Hart last week that the parking lot hammerhead was actually going over the ditch but even if it is, it is still improving it because there is curb and gutter on both sides of this hammerhead that is forcing the water even further to the east. She is correct, this water is forcing it to the north and east but since we can't make any modifications in the floodway without a major study and going through a FEMA project I don't really see any other choice but to release the water into the floodway. Our hammerhead actually edges on the floodway. We are trying not to mess with the floodway. As for the screening, the trees that are there are spursed out and we don't believe that they will impede any of the flow from the southwest to the northeast on Skull Creek. When we are talking about screening mechanisms, I sent an email to Matt Casey, the floodplain administrator, and have not heard back, we are trying to find out if it would be allowed. In our opinion we believe that a screening mechanism of plants or a fence or whatever would actually impede the flow given that it would actually cross the whole property line. Yes, we would like to do screening and small plants or bushes if allowed by the floodplain administrator, but as of yet, we have not found out if they would allow that. I think that's all that I have. Ostner: Mr. O'Neal, this is one of the three projects that you wrote a memo that you basically have 10 items that you are asking for more information. Do Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 31 O'Neal: you have a perspective on this situation that has been discussed here about the drainage? The drainage report that we did have, which I do have a copy of here, there are some items of question still due to the drainage to the west of the property which may enter this site. With an additional curb and gutter along their west property line and the buildings the only place for that water to go is to the north and down their north property line. We just need better information on that. Also, they are proposing no detention in this development which can be approved with special conditions from the City Engineer and we are requiring additional study of Skull Creek to ensure the peak release from the development does not coincide from the peak of the creek itself. Items three, four, nine and ten are related to the drainage. Number two is just standard for a grading plan. Allen: It seems to me that there are enough items in this development that need clarification so I am going to move to table LSD 05-1595. Myres: Second. Cooper: We heard that there were some issues and set up a meeting to go through the project and show the neighbor what we had planned. Whenever we got into it I thought that flooding was getting up close to the house or close to the foundation or even impeding some driveway or something like that. In fact, whenever we discussed it, the flooding happens along this property line, we don't even own this property, it is city property. Flooding is actually in this area, it is kind of a ponding with a low spot. I don't doubt that some of it is coming from here. I asked how long it lasts and it is really a day and then it evaporates and is gone. I think of flooding as being a little more extreme. This is actually a pretty green project. (parts inaudible due to no microphone) Myres: I am still inclined to support the motion to table because it seems like Engineering still has some issues that they would like to straighten out with the applicant. Is that correct Brent? O'Neal: They could be clarified either prior to a submittal of construction drawings or prior to you reviewing this again. Ostner: We have a motion to table and a second. Vaught: Staff, most of the time I would think we make these conditions. The hard part for me is that we have a site plan with no detention. I guess one of the things Engineering had a question about was showing that detention wasn't needed. Am I understanding that correctly? Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 32 O'Neal: Vaught: Pate: Vaught: Pate: Vaught: Pate: Vaught: Cooper: Graves: That is correct. They have provided a statement that in their opinion detention would not be warranted on this site. We just need a little more information on the creek itself. My fear is what would happen if we approved it with a condition subject to that report coming back and they do need detention, they would have to submit a new plan with detention on it I would assume. The City Engineer has the ability to approve or deny that detention. If a study came back for instance, that did show that peak flows were coinciding at the same time that would not meet the criteria that the City Engineering office has prepared for situations just like this. Therefore, they would have to provide detention on the property. Any modifications to the site plan would be approved by staff? Depending on how major they are. If they had to move buildings and put a pond in would that be major enough to come back? Yes, it would likely have to go through the Subdivision Committee for a major modification. Underground detention for instance, would not at all alter the site plan so there are a couple of different options that we work through with construction plan review. It would be a two week delay for the applicant to table it to try to get these resolved or we could possibly have a situation with you coming back through with major modification. Some detention in a small project like this could be handled with curbs, especially with that hammerhead. If it is that close it is probably something that could be handled surface wise and not have a modification. At Subdivision we had these same discussions and the Engineering Department obviously hadn't delineated all of these things yet at that point but did pass some similar discussion and comments at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The Subdivision Committee believed that these were items that could be handled by staff unless it did become some sort of major issue. There could be nothing to it. It could be something where it is just a matter of diverting it a different way and curbing and things like that. That is why the Subdivision Committee forwarded it. We did hear Ms. Hart's comments at the Subdivision Committee level. A lot of her comments there related to a previous land owner that had left some piles of grading material out there that was causing water to be diverted onto her property. The discussions there were that this would actually improve Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 33 that particular situation as far as making this project go through and that is why we forwarded it instead of tabling it. We were not adverse to tabling things at that meeting, but this was something that we felt could be handled and could go forward. Ostner: There is a motion to table and a second. Is there further discussion? Vaught: I will be voting against tabling. I think that if these are minor modifications staff could definitely handle them. The applicant understands that he will have to come back through with anything staff deems is major. In the sake of keeping this going we could relate to the applicant that anything major different will have to come back to us and these are just questions that staff wants resolved. I think this is something that we could vote on tonight. Ostner: Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table LSD 05-1595 failed by a vote of 4-4. MOTION: Vaught: I will make a motion to approve LSD 05-1595 subject to the stated seventeen conditions of approval and referring to staff's memo being addressed to their satisfaction. Also, on offsite improvements, condition number one, find in favor of construction of a 6' sidewalk and also find in favor of the 40' frontage due to the fact that the road is not constructed in this location and does go over a floodway. Graves: I will second Commissioner Vaught's motion. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1595 was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Commissioner Allen voting no. Break Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 34 Ostner: The next item is Nelson's Crossing, LSD 05-1593. Gardner: This project is bordered on Joyce Blvd. and Shiloh Drive. There are building elevations and a material sample board there showing what that proposed development would look like. This project is adjacent to the Spring Park commercial subdivision. A portion of this site is within the Design Overlay District. As mentioned, the property has street frontage and ingress/egress on Joyce Blvd. and Shiloh Drive. This is the site of the old Ramada Inn that is in the process of being demolished and there is also an existing golf retail store adjacent to the northeast corner of the site. The site is entirely surrounded by mixed use commercial and it is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The applicant proposes to construct a retail and office shopping center consisting of approximately 63,000 sq.ft of retail and approximately a 5,500 sq.ft. retail building with 233 total parking spaces. Right of way being dedicated, the Master Street Plan requires dedication of right of way along Shiloh Drive for a total of 35' from the centerline right of way. The applicant is proposing 25' from the centerline and is not in compliance with the Master Street Plan. The applicant has requested a right of way reduction of Shiloh Drive from a collector street with 35' from centerline to a local street with 25' from centerline, which requires City Council approval. As mentioned, a portion of this site falls into the Design Overlay District and I will highlight some of the findings regarding consistency with the Design Overlay District. Greenspace, the applicant has not complied with the 25' greenspace requirement along all rights of way. The applicant proposes 15' of greenspace along Joyce Blvd. in a certain section and along Shiloh Drive with the required additional dedication of 10' of right of way the project would have 15' of greenspace. Planning Commission determination of appropriate greenspace is included as a condition of approval. I also wanted to highlight curb cuts. The applicant has not complied with the curb cut requirements for a minimum of 250' from an intersection or 200' between curb cuts. The proposal utilizes two curb cuts on Joyce Blvd., one on Shiloh Drive and one on a shared access easement on the western border of the site. The easternmost curb cut on Joyce Blvd. and the curb cut on Shiloh Drive do not meet the minimum distance from an intersection, 250' as required by ordinance. Additionally, the curb cut on Shiloh Drive does not meet the minimum distance between curb cuts of 200'. I also wanted to note that the Design Overlay District requires pedestrian access from the street to the entrance of the structure and the project has not designated this on the plat and this is also included as a condition of approval. Staff is recommending approval of this project with many conditions to address. I will highlight some of those. Planning Commission determination of commercial design standards. Staff finds that the elevations meet the required commercial design standards. The proposed Tuscan inspired shopping center is well articulated. Due to the scale and location of the project outside the Spring Park Commercial Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 35 Subdivision staff found that it is establishing a separate design theme for the immediate vicinity. We originally had some concern with it tying into the red brick color with some of the surrounding development but due to the scale of it we felt like it would be in it's own theme for the scale of this project. Condition number two, City Council determination of a reduction of Shiloh Drive right of way from a collector street to a local street. Staff finds that it is appropriate to reduce the classification of Shiloh Drive from a collector to a local street as requested by the applicant. This determination was made based on the fact that existing and proposed development and future development patterns appear to yield less than the 4000 vehicle trips per day on this section of Shiloh Drive. That vehicle trip per day is a threshold for a local street. It does not appear that future development will make it necessary to connect Shiloh Drive south across Mud Creek. Lack of this future connection would limit the number of vehicle trips per day to those that currently exist in addition to those with the proposed project. Planning Commission determination of appropriate greenspace. As mentioned, along Shiloh Drive, if additional dedication of right of way is required there would only be 15' of greenspace and in such a circumstance if that additional right of way is dedicated staff does not find that special conditions exist warranting a variance of the greenspace requirement in this location. Greenspace issues along Joyce Blvd. The project proposes approximately 80' of frontage along Joyce Blvd. that is in the Design Overlay District and has 15' of greenspace when 25' is required. Staff recommends that the eastern curb cut on Joyce Blvd. be moved to the west to line up with the drive aisle and the parking lot immediately west of the proposed curb cut. This would eliminate the violation regarding required space from intersections. It should be noted that at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the Subdivision Committee recommended that all proposed curb cuts be left as proposed. Condition number four, Planning Commission determination of appropriate curb cuts in the Design Overlay District. Joyce Blvd., the eastern curb cut on Joyce Blvd., is located approximately 225' from the intersection of Joyce and Shiloh when 250' is required. Staff recommends that this curb cut be moved to the west as mentioned, to line up with the drive aisle immediately west of the proposed curb cut. As noted, again, the Subdivision Committee recommended that proposed curb cuts on Joyce Blvd. be left as proposed. Shiloh Drive, really any curb cuts in this area would be a violation of the Design Overlay District curb cut standards. Staff does recommend a curb cut along the Shiloh Drive frontage to provide connectivity and we have listed some options in your staff report. One is to leave the curb as proposed. Another one would be to move the curb from the proposed location as far to the south as possible. Condition number five says to refer to the tree preservation report for additional conditions. Mr. Pate can explain this in more detail but the applicant is actually required to pay penalties. During their demolition of the Ramada Inn they took out some trees without permission and so that is what that Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 36 condition refers to. The other conditions are relatively straight forward requirements for development in the Design Overlay District. In addition, you also have a memo from Engineering staff requesting clarification on some engineering items that staff feels they can work out with the applicant. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Clark: Good evening. I'm Steve Clark with Clark Consulting representing Dixie Development in this project. There were several issues that were mentioned by staff. Right of way issue on Shiloh, I think staff concurs with us. Back when the Master Street Plan was originally prepared, it was the intent to carry that frontage road across Mud Creek and along the frontage of what is now CMN Business Park. When CMN came through I think it was determined that a bridge was not required to be constructed across Mud Creek at that time. As a result, we feel like it would be appropriate to downgrade Shiloh from a collector street to a local street and we are prepared to take this through the Council process. If it is approved then the greenspace issue along Shiloh goes away because we have a 25' greenspace from what would be the 25' right of way so that goes away if that is approved. The curb cut along Joyce Blvd., that access and curb cut has moved several times as we have gone through different iterations with the project. We ended up with it where it is now, which is only about 15' or 20' east of where the existing driveway cut is. We left it there so that it would line up as closely as possible with our service drive that comes around the back of the building. Our ideas and thought behind that is there would be truck traffic that comes in to provide service to this building. When it comes around and exits it will be exiting along this access drive. If we try to move it over one parking bay it forces the trucks into making a couple of extra 90° turns, which is difficult for parking lots. By lining it up where we have it, it provides more of a straight shot out to the roadways. We feel like for traffic control and traffic access, this works much better than trying to shift that drive another 62' in order to line up with the adjoining bay. The issue of greenspace along Joyce, you can see from the drawing that there is a little, the Design Overlay radius point falls through the middle of our parking lot. We can eliminate about 10 or 12 parking spaces and meet the 25' greenspace but parking is such a premium on our particular site that we felt like we would prefer to provide additional greenspace or do something different in order to provide those parking spaces if we get the 25' that means we have to shift and have a jog through our parking lot, which doesn't work very well. On the east side of that driveway we do have in excess of 25'. Curb cut on Shiloh, again, it is located where it is in order to maintain truck traffic through our site. There is an existing drive that is to the south of this proposed drive by 50' or 60'. That is the one that currently goes into the Ramada Inn site off of Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 37 Shiloh. We have shifted that up to the north to provide the maximum separation that we can from the restaurant there to the south of us, Red Lobster, and it has moved it a little closer to the Joyce Blvd. intersection but it is not as close as the existing driveways that are falling within that Golf USA site. The developers have purchased that site subsequent to starting this project. It is their intent that as we get our first building built we will be relocating those tenants and be redeveloping that corner. The current plan for that corner is to have it access internally to this development so that would eliminate the driveway that comes in off of Shiloh. It goes to anywhere that we move that drive it is going to be a violation somewhere and we felt like this was the most appropriate location. Which I guess brings us to the issue of the tree that we took out. We didn't take it down. There was a demolition company out of Tulsa who apparently don't understand the value of trees. I suspect, I don't know all of the facts or what happened other than I wasn't involved! I think what happened was there was an equipment operator who was demolishing the building and the tree was in his way and the tree was gone. I was sick. We moved our site and tried to maintain an island around it and I drove by one day and knew I was in trouble. We understand there is a penalty associated with that. We didn't realize the penalty was quite as high as it is. Apparently, in the ordinance, the way it is written is that if you take out trees that are not designated to be removed you have to provide 10% of your site back in canopy. The net effect of that is we took out one tree we shouldn't have and according to the ordinance we have to plant 96 trees to replace it. I think where the original ordinance was intended was in case someone had a heavily canopied site if they came in and removed the trees in violation of the ordinance, as long as they didn't go below the 20% I don't think they would be penalized but if they removed it they had to bring it back up to the 20% and then they had to do an additional 10% over that. I don't think that what we have done is what the intent of the ordinance was when that occurred or whenever that was written. I think that our only choice is to appeal this or to act for a variance from that ordinance and take that also to City Council. As a result, we would ask for a variance to that segment of that ordinance that would allow us to pay some more reasonable penalty for having removed the tree in violation. I am available for questions. Ostner: I am going to open this issue up to public comment if anyone would like to speak to Large Scale Development, LSD 05-1593 please step forward. Seeing none, we will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Israel: I'm Dr. Ben Israel with Dixie Development . It was certainly never our intention that the tree be removed. It is clearly shown on our plans that the tree be preserved. Evidently, the contractor was able to obtain a demolition permit and without seeing a plan or anything else, remove the Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 38 tree. It is not something that we desired or wanted to happen and don't feel that we should be punished for it. If you knew what we had involved in this project already as far as cost and time and energy to tear down a 34 year old building removing quite an eye sorer that was not an economic producer for the City of Fayetteville and to try to build back something extraordinary, it will be the best thing that we have ever done. We are asking for some variances, we want you to help work with us. We love the project. Our team has been working on some major retailers. I think it will be a great project for Fayetteville and I hope that you will help us approve it. Graves: I can give a brief Subdivision report on this project as well, although it has been fairly summarized what the findings were. The reasons were outlined by Mr. Clark fairly well. With the way that this particular parcel is long along Joyce and relatively narrow along Shiloh and also along Shiloh there is a number of drive curb cuts that are fairly close together. In attempting to fashion the layout of the curb cuts where it made sense as far as drive aisles through the project and choosing the lesser of evils on the distance of curb cuts from those intersections, it was the Subdivision Committee's recommendation after a lot of discussion on this particular item that the curb cuts that were proposed were appropriate because they allow the drive aisles to be straight and longer so that service vehicles don't have to weave around through the project to get to where they are trying to go on the project. It allows the alignment of the buildings to remain as they are, which makes sense for the way that this particular parcel is laid out and it maintain relatively adequate distances when you take into account trying to lay out these drive aisles can be maintained so that traffic wise and flow wise through the parcel while also maintaining as safe of a distance as possible from the intersections. Vaught: On the tree issue, is there a recommendation to make to the City Council or is that an appeal that they take straight there? How does that apply to us? Pate: There is a section in our ordinance that is not worded like the undue hardship for offsite improvements, it doesn't fall into that category. There is a section under Chapter 156 that does allow for a variance from the tree preservation ordinance. It does require Planning Commission recommendation on if you feel that this particular case would specifically be applied to that. "A developer may petition the Planning Commission for a variance from compliance with Chapter 167 in those cases where the strict application would work an injustice as applied to the proposed development due to a situation unique to the subject real property provided that such variance shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the chapter. The Planning Commission's approval of said variance must be affirmed by the City Council." It would be a Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 39 recommendation from the Planning Commission in that case. As part of your motion whether to approve or deny this project, I think that is something that should be taken into consideration and added to your conditions of approval as Planning Commission determination of the Variance request. As far as staff's recommendation, I think that 109 trees on this site for the removal of one is not the intent, I don't believe, of this chapter. I personally have never applied this particular section. I think there is a dis-incentive to remove trees prior to development in this town and we take that very seriously. I think, however, in this case, if you had 100 acres and you removed one tree you would have to plant 10 acres of trees on that property. I think it is a matter of looking at this ordinance and applying it in a reasonable and logical way. I think Planning staff does support the 10% penalty and would have to work out the numbers but the way the ordinance currently states I don't think that 10% in this case is applicable for this property as it stands for 109 trees. Vaught: Does staff have a number in mind? Pate: I have not gone that far. We have been looking through other cases and trying to determine if we have applied this before. I think there are a number of ways that it could be applied but there is only one way that you can read it and we have to follow what the letter of the law states and so that is why the conditions of approval state 109 trees. I believe they could be planted, it would be an extremely full site and it would have to be planted in the right of way and along all property lines to fully plant those. I personally think from my perspective overcrowding the site with canopy is not meeting the intent and purpose of this ordinance because most of those would not live to their full maturity so it is something that we will have to take a look at. Vaught: Does this site plan, landscape plan, have the 109 trees already? Pate: It does not have the 109 trees which are exclusive and separate of the landscaped trees required. Vaught: So that would be above and beyond? Pate: Correct. Vaught: Do you know how many trees you are putting on with the landscape plan? Pate: Almost 100. Clark: We would have to double that. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 40 Vaught: Lack: Clark: I tend to agree on the curb cuts. The applicant said in their presentation that the redevelopment of the corner would be internally accessed. That is important when we are looking at these curb cuts and an important factor. I don't know if we need to make that as a condition or recommendation to the applicant that it is very important that as this corner develops to do the internal access from this part of the project and close off some of those curb cuts or closer to the intersection. With that, I support the Variances on the curb cuts and I do like the easternmost Joyce connections they have drawn just for the sake of trucks and semis to have ease in the parking lot. On the tree removal specifically, I was on the committee that rewrote that ordinance and I feel sure that it was not my intent to punish somebody for this severity for taking out a tree such as we have here. I think the intent of the ordinance, as was stated, when we looked at the deforestation of a large tract or a fully wooded site the 10% seemed to be a very reasonable penalty. When we look at the removal of a couple of Bradford pears the penalty seems severe. I would support that variance from that regulation. I think the greenspace on Shiloh really hinges upon the dedication requirement there and I think that as this body we maintain a right of what we currently have in the Master Street Plan. I think it is reasonable that Shiloh Drive could be reduced in width. I don't know that I can go so far as to not accept the provision for right of way at this time while that street is still in it's status. I think that greenspace should maintain the 25' width as it is in the regulation of the Design Overlay District. I think the curb cut on Shiloh Drive, I agree with the applicant completely that no matter where you put this it is out of compliance and I think it is necessary to have so I am in favor of that location. With the drive on Joyce and statements of alignment with the existing drives around the building and maintaining the 90° alignment, I find those to be design elements within the site that are driving a non-compliance condition so I think I would have some issue finding favorably on that. Mr. Clark is skillful and can design the site to maintain aisle alignment within the ordinance regulations. I think that alignment of that drive aisle with the aisle across Joyce would certainly benefit the overall traffic flow in the area and create a safer traffic condition and also maintain the 25' greenspace that we are regulated by. Staff, the eastern access onto Joyce, the first access, concerns me more than any of the others simply because I'm wondering how much stacking space you have to turn into that parking lot off of Hwy. 71. That whole intersection is the most dangerous in Fayetteville. Even when the Ramada was there trying to get into that property where that curb cut was turning left off of Hwy. 71 was very dangerous. Is this closer to College? Pate: It is slightly closer than the existing, almost negligible. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 41 Clark: Do you have any idea what the stacking capabilities would be? Pate: Clark, S.: Clark: Not a lot. This is the largest intersection that we have in the City of Fayetteville. It is the corner of two principal arterials. The information you see to the north of the site where the curb cuts are shown on the plat are something that are new to us at this meeting and something that the Subdivision Committee requested. I think that to me it backs up staff's recommendation, the entrance to Walgreen's was constructed across this property and aligning those would push the curb cut further away from this major intersection. As you are probably all aware, there is a lot of stacking that goes on here, especially traffic heading to the east at Joyce and College. Mr. Clark may be able to expand if there is a turning lane here. I don't believe it does. If you look at our drawing we have shown the island location where the median is for the dual left turn lane and I think that what is happening is you are still in the vicinity of the dual lane and in the taper where there is not a left turn lane. If we shift the drive further to the west you are probably going to create more people trying to turn left. I think that the way it is right now is that most people will be past that drive before they ever try to turn left in the complex. If you are going for that then my knee jerk reaction would be just don't have an access there at all, make people go further to the west. Of everything in this development, which is a superior development and much needed, it will be a revelation to that whole corner, but that entrance off of that congested corner concerns me a lot. Vaught: There might be a compromise on that, have you guys looked at the possibility of making that entrance a right only in and a right only out not allowing that left hand turn into that forcing them to go further left but then you are still allowing your service traffic to come out there and go to the right? Clark, S.: I don't like right in and right out because what ends up happening is some fraction of the people end up over the curb and try to make this thing work as a left turn and creates a more hazardous situation sometimes than what it really benefits. I have thought about offering that as a suggestion, just right ins and right outs sometimes work but rarely do they work as intended. They create more issues than they really help. Vaught: To me, as I look at this, this is the perfect occasion for one. I know what you are saying but I do feel that another access point or exit point in this location is important. There is the big danger of that left hand turn in because if there is no turn lane in that location, I don't think shifting it further to the west is going to make a difference on stacking that turn in. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 42 Pate: Clark: It is more of control of the traffic that comes out of there and pouring it in other directions. We can't extend that curb up so people couldn't even try to turn in. To me, a right in or a right out, I don't know if staff or Engineering has discussed that or looked at that and what the options are as it comes to traffic flow on this site. We have worked with other divisions of the city and our traffic engineer to recommend another area. I do agree they have to be substantially obvious that it is a right in or right out with plantings and/or a larger curb that no one could drive over. One of the other issues that will effect that if that is what we choose to do, is as a truck exit it means that you are going to have to go to something with much larger and longer radiuses in order to make that function. When you try to put a semi -trailer rig through a tight radius like that the turning radiuses just don't work. I think it would create more problems than it is going to help because people are going to try to utilize it in violation of what the intent was. Vaught: Not being a design professional, Mr. Lack, do you have anything to add to that? Ostner: I've seen it done poorly just about every time. I would tend to agree with Mr. Clark that it is a poor system of design that invites the few people to abuse it and to make it more dangerous. I believe this southwestern curb cut, if you will, is where I'm going to come in and out of this place every single time. I'm going to weave over to controlled lights. I believe that is the key. There are four ingress/egress to this project. I don't think that eastern curb cut on Joyce is really that vital. I understand there are tractor trailer issues with length of vehicle but when the car comes in from Hwy. 71 and he wants to turn left into this heading west he is going to do it and people are going to back up behind him and the eastbound is going to stack up. Someone is going to waive him through. It is a problem and I don't think it is necessary, there is a much safer curb cut to the west. I don't want to vote against it just because of one curb cut but this is something that really concerns me more than most developments. This is a key intersection, one of the top three in our town with usage as well as prominence. I think this is a great development for our town and this location but that curb cut concerns me greatly. Clark: I would think that your larger vehicles would use the southwest entrance off the Home Depot parking lot, the access drive to it is pretty wide because that gets you behind all of the buildings. I really do share Commissioner Ostner's concern because that easternmost entrance/exit off of Joyce is just going to be horrific because people do try to turn left and you see lots of accidents with people motioning people through and Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 43 Clark, S.: getting nailed by the second lane. I am really concerned about it but I don't want to disagree with this whole development just because of that. Although, it is a safety issue for me. One of the things about it that I think is important is the exit. The exit from the site is critical at that location than coming into the site at the location. Clark: You don't have a lot of stacking internally either though. Myres: What about exit only? I know that there are problems with that but at least if there was a large sign that says no entry you would hope that most people would pay attention to that and that way you could get your delivery trucks and your semis in and out of there and hopefully discourage people from turning left immediately when they come around that corner on Joyce. Clark: I think the exit is what is critical to the site. I think the entry to it is important but I don't know it is as critical. We really need to be able to exit our vehicles from that location. If that is what you all say we do, then that is what we do. Myres: I would be much happier. I don't know that there is a perfect solution to this anyway but I would be much happier thinking that people weren't trying to turn in there. If that would go some way to mitigating the problem, I agree, I don't want to turn this down just because of a traffic situation but I also agree with my fellow Commissioners that it is a critical intersection and a heavily traveled road. Clark, S.: Would you be comfortable if we said we would either do one of two things? One is either shift it 50' or 60' to the west so that it did line up in accordance with staff's recommendations or make it an exit only right out only? I don't know which of those is going to work best for our site and our traffic flows. If you are comfortable with that, give us an option between those two and let us work it out at staff level. Myres: Staff would approve whichever one of those? Pate: If that is the Planning Commission's discussion. Clark: I would be comfortable with that because staff would take safety in concern. Ostner: I would like to point out that staff is stuck with both of those and the approval has been granted whereas, we are not stuck with both of those. We haven't granted the approval yet. That is the major difference. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 44 Clark, S: If you aren't comfortable with that then approve what you are comfortable with. Clark: I think those are two very good options. I don't know one over the other because we don't have that information is the only reason that I was in favor of letting staff work with the applicant to make a determination on those two options. Ostner: I'm not convinced that either of those two would help. They are towards the middle ground and I appreciate that. I would like to see this without a curb cut there all the way to the next curb cut on Joyce. I think there is terrific access to this site on both sides without that eastern curb cut. That is just my opinion. Graves: My only concern with eliminating that curb cut is with regard to the trucks that are trying to get in and out of there. If you only leave the one curb cut on Joyce and the one curb cut on Shiloh you are talking about a big truck doing a lot of winding around to get to a place where they could get out. I think that the idea behind having that curb cut, I don't believe they ever had anything in mind other than that being primarily used as an exit. It may be more of a middle ground, but my view of the way that it is, and Mr. Lack may be correct in the design, but with the types of buildings that they are trying to put in and the way the lot is configured being relatively narrow on the frontage along Shiloh, I'm not sure how else they would lay it out without doing some very significant changes to what they have done, in trying to get those trucks out that long drive and that particular curb cut is the way that those trucks would be getting out. I'm not sure why that would need to be used as an entrance anyway. Most of the day there is traffic stacked up from College back to that drive and I know that is the only way into that site right now when it was the Ramada Inn but I'm not sure if the type of traffic that we are talking about going in and out of there is a lot different with the Ramada Inn compared to this project. I can't imagine that the number of people that would be entering this project would be willing to sit there and wait for traffic to clear if it was going to be backed up from College past that drive aisle when they've got another option right down the road. I don't know why anybody would do that, it just doesn't make any sense. It seems that most people would drive down to turn off at the light further down or turn into that second drive aisle so if it was marked appropriately and the distance in stacking I'm not sure why people would just sit there and wait to turn left into that drive aisle when there is another option. Right now there is not another option but when there is another option I don't think anybody would do that. I don't think that shifting it 25' alleviates any of the concerns. If people are going to use that as a turn in moving it 25' up the road is not going to help and it is going to make it harder for the trucks to get out because they are going to Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 45 Clark, S.: have to wind over through the parking lot. It seems to me like the idea that makes sense would be to make that an exit only with some kind of signage and markings or whatever you have to do so that people don't try to turn left in there and think that the traffic is going to be a disincentive to do that. I don't see people waiting for two lanes of traffic on Joyce towards College to clear to make their turn when there is a drive aisle up the road. I tend to agree. I think that in reality it becomes self limiting because there are four lanes in that location, two left turns and two thru lanes so it is pretty self limiting in how people would access this location. Trumbo: In Subdivision the only concern I had was this intersection here and I appreciate you all putting in the island and showing us where it is. I don't think it is necessary to remove that completely, I think it is ok to have it for cars that can exit and/or trucks so I would be in favor of a motion that would use it as an exit only. Ostner: Before we make a motion there are several determinations, is everyone satisfied with the Commercial Design Standards? These colors are a big shift of everything that we have approved around here. Staff explained that this is a different area, a stand alone area. Reduction of Shiloh Drive, we have talked about that a little bit. Determination of appropriate greenspace in the Overlay District, are there any comments on that? Mr. Clark has mentioned his opinion. Vaught: The one that I think we need to make sure that we clarify, with the greenspace on Shiloh how we word that part of this approval can we make it so, does part A of condition three, if the City Council does not grant change of status to Shiloh can we write the ordinance in a way to redesign the site to meet the 25' setback? Williams: If you don't grant the reduction from 25' to 15' then they would have to do some design changes. To do that we would really be putting the burden on the City Council to look at that very closely. Which is probably appropriate in this case because Shiloh is not fulfilling the original intent because it basically dead ends. Vaught: Can we just make that condition say 25' of right of way for Shiloh Drive, is that adequate? The site plan we have now is not in compliance but if the City Council approves then it is in compliance and if they don't, it would be a minor redesign and would staff be able to approve that redesign? Pate: Yes. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 46 Lack: I was thinking that that would run with whatever the street width is and it does seem reasonable that the street width would be reduced on the Master Street Plan. Ostner: The last determination is the issue of the curb cuts which we have talked about thoroughly. There is the issue of the tree and the penalty. If someone were to make a motion he or she should add a condition asserting a different penalty for lack of better term. Vaught: Do we need to set a number? Williams: I don't think we actually have to do that because the City Council is going to hear this anyway. I think you could make a recommendation if you want to do that to the City Council. You should make a recommendation about whether or not there should be a variance because of the facts in this particular case. Vaught: I would be interested to hear a number because I think that might be a recommendation we make as well. One tree and then putting back 100 trees on their site plan. Clark, S.: Yes, that was based on my interpretation of the way the ordinance was intended, which I took the mitigation trees that we would be required for taking a few trees out, we had to mitigate those trees with a certain number and that is 10 or 12 and then the 10% penalty would be 10% of that mitigation amount and that was my interpretation of what that ordinance was. Jeremy determined it to be different than that. Trumbo: What kind of tree was it? Clark, S: It was a sweet gum. There were several older Bradford Pears in the parking lot that were planted in islands with the Ramada Inn. Those we proposed to take out primarily because they were past their life expectancy and you can look on Joyce to see what happens with heavy wind and Bradford Pears. There was a nice specimen tree, a sweet gum that we had intended to preserve. Trumbo: I would leave it to the City Council to rule on that but I would think the minimal penalty be inflicted considering the circumstances. Osmer: On that same issue, I do empathize with the situation. My company employs subcontractors all the time to do things and they sometimes are destructive but at the end of the day you did hire them. They made the mistake however, you are responsible. If I had to make a recommendation to the City Council I would recommend that the penalty of 100 be cut in half and if there is not room on this site possibly planting them somewhere Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 47 else either nearby or in a park. I would hope you the best. I know it is unfortunate, that is my opinion. Williams: On finding for any variance of this, you are making a conclusion that strict application would work an injustice as to the situation. Once you've made that conclusion then you can make a recommendation on the number. Vaught: I think this situation is the reason you have a variance. Typically you cut one tree down on a site that is wooded it is not a big deal, but in this situation it is 100% of their saved canopy. To me it would be adequate to charge them three to four times trees to mitigate an 18" caliper. I imagine it would be four or five trees. I do like the option to plant in other locations. I think we need something to keep the integrity of the ordinance in tact. Twenty or thirty trees to me seems like multiple times the canopy to replace this one tree. That seems to be some of the intent of the original law on a wooded site when they reduce the canopy too low you put a larger amount back. Here we are putting a lot more trees on the site already than what were there and better trees. Clark: Allen: I will take a stab at an additional condition of approval. Planning Commission supports a variance regarding the tree penalty stipulating on this site plan. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommends a penalty of 5 additional on site trees with an additional 20 trees to be planted elsewhere in the City of Fayetteville with the coordination of the Landscape Administrator. I think five on site is five fold what you cut down. I think this is an important part of the ordinance to preserve trees and if we just say you knocked one big one down you have to plant five little ones that is not sending a good message. Giving us the opportunity to ask you to plant other trees where they are needed in Fayetteville I think is a good community relations step for this development as well. I will agree and will second. I think that it is important that a message is sent that this is an ordinance and it is a law, and we have consequences. This way it would be a good will thing for you and something that could benefit the community as well. Ostner: We have added conditions to our conditions but no one is yet to make a motion. Clark, S: The thing that has not been addressed to my knowledge is the 25' greenspace along Joyce. We have a little segment of parking there that is just to the west of that easternmost drive. We have that area at 15' and we are proposing to maintain 15' instead of the 25', which is, again, on the outskirts of the DOD. Ostner: Is there any comment on that point? Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 48 Graves: My understanding is that is tied into where that curb cut is that we've been talking about for a long time, that if it was shifted over then there would be the greenspace that is required. I am assuming that the motion would be to allow the curb cut where it is but make it an exit only then that is where the problem is presented unless he takes out some parking spaces or something of that nature. Clark, S.: We would have to reduce the number of parking spaces to maintain the 25'. Graves: He is under the allowed amount 30%, he is under the number of required spaces of parking for this development. Clark, S.: Also, it is right on the edge of the DOD and we did do the 25' where you have visibility from College. This is along Joyce which certainly isn't visible from anywhere from the bypass, it just falls within the 660' right of way. Williams: Even though this is not expressly exempt from the DOD it is close to it because under Section 3 of that it says completed development on property subject to such exemption not in compliance with the standards set forth in the Overlay District ordinance shall be considered pre-existing conforming structures. Although they knocked down the hotel they didn't do anything about the curb cut or the greenspace that was there at the time and they are right on the far fringes of the DOD. Clark, S.: We are giving up an additional 15' of right of way there, I know that is a requirement and we are not quiveling over it but if you look at the available greenspace between our curb and the Joyce curb there is a pretty substantial amount of greenspace there even with our 15'. Clark: I would like to amend condition 4A and have it read "The eastern curb cut on Joyce Blvd. will be identified as exit only and indicated as such." Clark, S.: Is that right turn exit only? Clark: Right and indicated as such and designed as such with big signs. I would make the motion that we approve LSD 05-1593 with the following 16 conditions of approval. Planning Commission finding that it does meet commercial design standards. Supporting the City Council determining that Shiloh goes from a collector to a local street. We support that. Finding in three that Shiloh we provide 25' of greenspace on that one and 15' on Joyce depending on the Council's determination of Shiloh. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 49 Williams: I thought you wanted to have it 25' and then if the Council doesn't approve Shiloh they would have to do a minor redesign. Vaught: Yes, just leave the setback at 25'. Clark: Yes, as Mr. Williams stated. Finding on four A as indicated. B leaving the curb cut as indicated by the applicant. Five is superceded by the added 15. Vaught: On four A you said as stated. Clark: I want a period after my amendment, exit only, right turn period. Osmer: We are talking about a designed right exit only? Clark: Properly engineered. Trumbo: I will second the motion. Ostner: Is there discussion? Please call the roll Renee. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve LSD 05-1593 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 50 Ostner: The next item is CUP 05-1601 for American Legion. If we can have the staff report please. Garner: This Conditional Use Permit is for a temporary campground at the American Legion Post baseball park located on Curtis Avenue immediately west of Sandy Drive, approximately two miles from Dickson Street. The proposal, as mentioned, is to approve a temporary campground for use during the annual bikes, blues and bbq festival September 27, 2005 through October 2, 2005 within the RSF-4 zoning district. This requires a Conditional Use Permit in any zoning district. The proposal would allow motorcycle, RV or car camping to be allowed on the American Legion Baseball park. The applicant has submitted a lease agreement that is attached to your packet with a code of conduct for campers, specifying items such as no animals, no open pit fires, no loud music, compliance with the noise ordinance and other specifications to make sure that this campground wouldn't be a nuisance or hazard to the neighbors. The applicant has agreed to supply a notice to all of the owners describing the project and would provide a 24 hour a day to neighbors to report complaints to someone at the American Legion. The site would accommodate 20 large campers such as RVs along with 70 motorcycle campers on the 10 acre site. The site is surrounded by residences to the north, south and east and undeveloped land to the west. In making the findings for this Conditional Use staff finds that granting the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest with the proper controls in place to limit potential detrimental impact associated with the temporary campground during the Bikes, Blues and BBQ Festival. Many citizens have contacted the Planning Division in years past before this festival to request campgrounds and there is a real need for these types of facilities during the festival. It is a nationwide festival. Making that finding, staff finds that it would be required to comply with the noise ordinance and campers are required to sign lists of rules for use of the campground. In conclusion, staff finds that the temporary campground is compatible with adjacent properties by incorporating a required lease agreement for all campers. Staff does recommend approval of this proposed Conditional Use, Use Unit 2 in the RSF-4 zoning district subject to the following conditions. 1) A permit available from the Planning Division shall be conspicuously posted at the entry of the campground specifying all rules and regulations. 2) The proposed temporary campground shall be in compliance with the noise ordinance. 3) The Conditional Use Permit shall be issued for a period of six days, September 27th through October 2114 2005 during the Bikes, Blues and BBQ Festival. Upon expiration of the Conditional Use Permit the Zoning and Development Administrator shall have the authority to renew the Conditional Use Permit for the festival for the following year. 4) The applicant shall add language to the lease ensuring that individual campers would not direct lighting off of the property or have excess lighting that would be a nuisance to adjoining Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 51 neighbors. 7) Access shall meet approval of the Fire Department to ensure safety. 8) Add a note to the lighting nuisance in the lease required to be signed by campers and also, specify that a flyer would be given to adjacent residences around the site. 11) Require that tents and RVs be setback 5' from the property line. Allen: Is the applicant present? Jones: I'm Raymond Jones, I represent the American Legion Shelton Tucker Craft Post 27 Department of Arkansas. We would like to entertain campers on this site for that period of time. We intend, I'm making sure that there are not rowdy types or anything like that. People have already began to inquire about it. One of the things that I sent them back is about this meeting, we won't know if we get to do it until after this so that has kind of held it up. I also say this area is in the middle of a neighborhood so the conduct of our campers is expected to be a little higher than those campers who find themselves in the middle of a cow field somewhere in the country. This may be something that you would want to consider. They know and we send them our rules. Further down it talks about the noise ordinance, pit fires, animals and racking pipes and that kind of stuff and we tell them they have to turn their generators off at 9:00. We are trying to be good neighbors. I have talked to the neighbors to the north and south, the apartment buildings and the trailer court and they were both encouraging. They had a ball last year, they set up chairs along the fence and watched us, and looked at motorcycles. We are also containing them in there as far as they are our guests so the Legion Post is open and we will be serving breakfast and lunch. We don't want them to drink beer and then get back to the secure site. Most of these people are families. They don't want to be in a rowdy or loud place. To give you some history, we did this last year without knowing that we were supposed to get a Conditional Use Permit. It ended up successful. The police liked it and we were getting people off the highway that the police were sending to our location. We serve a purpose for the community and this is a vital fund raiser for the post that I hope we can continue and it will help all of our projects for the community. This will benefit the Legion and hope to enhance our leverage on these community projects. I'm here and eager to answer any questions if you should have any. Ostner: At this point I will call for public comment on this Conditional Use if anyone would like to speak please step forward. Seeing none, I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Trumbo: Staff, do we have any comments from the Police Department? Pate: No we do not. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 52 MOTION: Clark: You test drove this last year, it worked and you came back. I'm assuming if it wouldn't have worked we would've heard from the Police Department. Bikes, Blues and BBQ is a wonderful event for this community and if we can do something to facilitate the families that come to enjoy their selves I'm all for it. At that point, I will recommend approval of CUP 05-1601 with the recommendations from staff as noted. Allen: I will second. Ostner: On page 10.13 and 10.14 this is a lease agreement between the American Legion and the campers? Jones: That is the lease they sign when they show up. Pate: If the Planning Commission is supportive of this, in condition number three it gives me the authority to renew the Conditional Use for the following year, if we might change that to plural and if there are any problems then the following condition would reserve the right to come back to the Planning Commission. This would be a permit that I would have to issue every year and ensure that we have no complaints. I would just mention that we do have five to ten people come every year as this has gotten larger and larger requesting campgrounds and we have to turn them away simply because they are there three days before the event and it takes about 40 days to get to the Planning Commission. This is one applicant that did do their homework and got to you. I think this is an appropriate use and something that is needed for this amount of time. Clark: I will take that as an amendment and change three to read for the subsequent years. Allen: I agree. Ostner: Mr. Williams, should we not put a limit on years? Williams: I think you can count on the City Planner that if he hears of problems they will come back to the Commission. It is at his discretion, I don't see a problem with that. You can limit if you want to. Clark: If there are complaints the administrator has the right to bring it back. Graves: I have a question if we can place a condition in there that there be a representative of the land owner that is there supervising the activities on the property during the length of that permit. They may plan on doing that anyway but I would like to make that a condition. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 53 Williams: Do you normally have someone there on site when this is going on? Jones: We have a gate person that stays there to make sure people who are staying there are entering and exiting. We kept people there 24 hours a day last year who camped out in case there was any trouble. Williams: So you wouldn't have any problem with that condition? Jones: No, that is our intent. Graves: I would like that to be stated as a condition. It would be good to have someone out there. Clark: I accept that as a condition. Osmer: We just added condition twelve that states that a representative of the land owner or the operator of the campground be present at all times during the time that the permit is affective. Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 05-1601 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 54 ANX 05-1603 & RZN 05-1604 Submitted by Milholland Company Morgan: The property is on Hunt Lane north of Huntsville Road and Deerfield subdivision in southeast Fayetteville. You can see this property on page 11.16 of your packet. The property is adjacent to the City of Fayetteville to the west and to the south and it is adjacent to property that has recently been annexed into the city that is approximately 53 acres. At the time of that annexation there were several comments with regard to Fire and Police response. With regard to this annexation request the Fire Department has stated that response time is approximately 8 ''A minutes to this property. From the future fire station on Huntsville it will result in a 6.25 minute response time. The Police have stated that this annexation will not substantially alter the population density and thereby increase the load on public services. A majority of the property is an excavated pit that is not planned for development in the future. It currently holds water and it is the intent of the applicant to utilize this property for detention of the recently annexed property that you see on page 11.16. There is some canopy around the existing pit and it is further the applicant's request to rezone the portion of the property to the west and south of that large detention area to RSF-4 while keeping the remaining 3 plus acres of the property R -A. With regard to the annexation of this property, staff is recommending approval. We find that it will create an appropriate city boundary as it does not extend further north than the city property boundary and much further east than the boundary. We are also in support of the Rezoning. The rezoning is for 1.63 acres of the 5.28 and we believe rezoning this property is compatible and the increase in population will not be significant in comparison with the 53 acres which was recently annexed and rezoned. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could please introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. This is an annexation and rezoning in addition to a proposed development that will be coming forward in the near future, an extension of land that has recently been annexed and rezoned in this same area. The majority is utilization of an excavated quarry that will be used for detention. What this does is benefits a zero discharge in our stormwater discharge by utilization of this excavated pit. The RSF-4 1.6 acres is for configuration of the development so that we have access to get drainage to the detention facility. That is basically what the concept is and that is the reason that we are asking for the annexation and rezoning. I think Suzanne pointed out all of the comments that we are supportive of. Ostner: Would anyone from the public like to speak to this annexation and rezoning request? Seeing none, I will close the public comment session Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 55 Allen: Vaught: O'Neal: Vaught: O'Neal: Vaught: Jefcoat: Vaught: Ostner: O'Neal: MOTION: Trumbo: Clark: and bring it back to the Commission. We can discuss these together but will vote on them independently. It concerns me that even when the fire station is built that in 6.25 minutes they are only talking about controlling fire to surrounding houses. The annexation is also troubling even though this is a tiny bit but a whole lot of tiny bits make a lot. I'm just pointing out my concerns about this whole piece meal annexation. I have a question about the quarry and using it as detention. How big is this quarry? I picture this huge hole. It is fairly large. It is an inactive quarry I assume? 1 believe it is inactive. Bringing that into the city, are there rules and regulations that govern availability to that site? In the county there is probably nothing but it worries me that we are bringing a big hole in the ground into the city. This is an abandoned pit that has been abandoned for almost four decades. It was used for the construction of Hwy. 16. The water depth in it supports aquatic life, the water depth from the surface is probably a 20' drop, we do intend on fencing in the quarry. It is a little over three acres, the extent of our rezoning request to remain R -A. Currently there is no fluctuation in the water level of the pit so our proposed stormwater discharge into the pit would equalize itself with ground water so we don't anticipate the pit to ever fill, just take our runoff. It just set off environmental concern bells. Are there opportunities in the future for other developments utilizing this? Is it oversized? It would be oversized but given the topography it may be difficult for other developments to discharge water to that quarry. I agree with staff findings and I would like to make a motion that we approve ANX 05-1603. Second. Planning Commission July 25, 2005 Page 56 Ostner: There is a motion to forward and a second, is there further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 05-1603 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: The tandem item is the rezoning request for the same piece of property. MOTION: Clark: This seems completely in line with the surrounding developments and I will be fascinated to see when the plat comes forward how we are going to use the big hole in the ground for detention but I will still recommend that we forward RZN 05-1604. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: Could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 05-1604 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Discussion items