Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on November 27, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN ADM 06-2381: (PARK WEST) Approved Page 4 ADM 06-2382: (HOUSE) Approved Page 4 CUP 06-2295: (DIDICOM, 396) Approved Page 5 CUP 06-2369: (GRISSO, 484) Approved Page 25 LSP 06-2343: (GRISSO, 484) Approved Page 25 LSD 06-2278:: (THE SHOPPES AT SHILOH, 211) Approved Page 29 RZN 06-2344: (DUNNERSTOCK - Tabled WINDSOR S/D, 513) Page 44 RZN 06-2336: (SLOAN/BROYLES & Forward PERSIMMON, 479/515) Page 49 RZN 06-2345: (SLOAN/DOT TIPTON, 474) Tabled Page 54 Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Andy Lack Christine Myres Sean Trumbo STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Matt Casey/Engineering Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Alan Ostner STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 3 Anthes: Good evening and welcome to the Monday, November 27th, 2006 meeting of the City of Fayetteville Planning Commission. I would like to remind audience members and commissioners to turn off cell phones and pagers. Listening devices are available for those who need assistance in hearing in chambers and you can contact a staff member for a headset. Jeremy, will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, Bryant, Myres, Graves, Lack, Harris, Clark, Trumbo, and Anthes are present. Ostner is absent. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 4 ADM 06-2381: (PARK WEST): Submitted by Milholland Co. for property located on Hwy 112 east of Deane Solomon Rd. The applicant requests an extension of an approved lot split, LSP 05-1755. ADM 06-2382: (HOUSE): The request is for an extension of the approval for a vacation of a utility easement as approved and amended by the City Council with Ordinance No. 4807, regarding the timing for the relocation of a storm sewer on the subject property. Anthes: We have two items on consent this evening: Administrative Item 06-2381 for Park West, which is a request for an extension of an approved lot split, and Administrative Item 06-2382 for House, which is a request for an extension of the approval of a vacation of a utility easement. Would any member of the Commission or any audience member like to remove one of the items from consent? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion: Clark: So moved. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Clark. Graves: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Graves. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve the consent agenda carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Ostner was absent. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 5 CUP 06-2295: Conditional Use Permit (DIDICOM, 396): Submitted by DIDICOM, LLC for property located NE OF WEDINGTON AND DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 0.83 acres. The request is to allow a telecommunications tower with cellular antennas on the subject property. Anthes: Item 3 is old business, Conditional Use Permit 06-2295 for Didicom. May we have the staff report? Fulcher: Yes, ma'am. This is a conditional -use request for a 150 -foot monopole cellular tower located northeast of the corner of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. This was heard at the previous Planning Commission meeting on November 13th. It was tabled that evening, mostly to allow staff to formalize some conditions for this request, also to allow time for the applicants of this proposal to meet with the applicants of a tower proposed in the county which is under review at the Washington County Planning Office. That is for a 195 -foot monopole tower approximately 300 to 500 feet north and east of this request. On Page 13 of 42 we did include an e-mail that was forwarded to us from the applicants. It has some correspondence between the two parties of these two towers, and I believe that both parties are available tonight to answer questions as far as their discussions regarding working together on these two tower proposals. Staff is supportive of this request due to a few reasons, mostly that the applicants have demonstrated that there is a coverage deficiency in this area, and also a capacity issue in this area. The nearest cellular towers are three miles away -- approximately three miles away -- and if you've been to the area there are no structures higher than one or two stories to co -locate on currently. We did speak with the Washington County Planning Director this afternoon. One of the issues that was brought up regarding the tower in the county is that the Washington County Planning Director was awaiting the NEPA report, which was the final item that they needed to receive to approve the tower in the county. When we spoke with her this afternoon, she had received that NEPA report; however, based on her schedule for that afternoon, she was not able to review that and give us an approval letter of any sort, although she said she would review that tomorrow and would have a decision on that tower in the county tomorrow morning. However, given that there is not currently a tower or another structure in the area that's approved for this applicant to co -locate on, staff is recommending approval of this request. Had there been an approved cellular tower or some other form of co -location available, staff would not be in support of finding that the applicants should put forth the effort to co -locate if possible to cover their coverage and capacity issues in this area. So staff is recommending approval of this request and we have provided the Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 6 planning commissioners with 10 conditions of approval. If you have any specific questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this item, Conditional Use Permit 06-2295 for Didicom? Please come forward. Are you part of the application or are you the general public? Ludwig: Excuse me? Anthes: Are you with the applicant or are you with the general public? Ludwig: I'm with the general public, actually, representing Smith Communications. Anthes: Okay. Let's wait on the Smith Communications part until we take the applicant, if we might. Ludwig: Okay. Sure. Not a problem. Anthes: In fact, you might not sit down because we might not have any public -- oh, maybe we do. Please come forward. Taylor: I'm Joel Taylor. I represent Didicom, the applicant, and yes, we do agree to the -- Anthes: Oh, you're with the applicant? Taylor: Yes. Anthes: Okay. I'm asking for public comment just right now. Sorry for the confusion. I'm going to ask for public comment one more time on this cell tower request. Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to close the floor to public comment and I'm going to ask for Smith Two -Way to give their comments after the applicant. If the applicant would come forward. Taylor: I was just going to say, we do agree with the 10 stipulations placed by the planner on our tower. Anthes: Can you tell us about your conversations with the Washington County applicant? Didn't you make some gestures -- we had asked you to go back and talk to them and -- Taylor: I personally did not. Our carrier, Alltel, did. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 7 Anthes: Okay. Can anybody here clarify what happened in that conversation, because this body tabled this request and asked you to go back and make contact, so we need to understand what happened. Taylor: Nothing happened more than what was in the letter that you have. Anthes: Okay. Thank you very much. Can we hear from Smith Two -Way? Ludwig: Good evening. Actually, the company that I'm representing is Smith Communications, LLC, just for the record. My name is Gary Ludwig. Just a little background, I've been around since about '86 building towers, doing site acquisition. I've worked for basically the major carriers as a consultant, site acquisition consultant, etcetera. I won't bore you with the details, but I've worked in Florida and Alabama and Minnesota, Arkansas and various other states. After reviewing the November 13th video, we noted several things that seemed to be communications or inaccuracies. I'd like to bring to the Board's attention -- I'll not go into depth into all of these, but will review the ones we feel will give you enough information to deny the current application. One, and I quote the city attorney from the November 13th meeting, "Smith may, might, if, sometime in the future, build a site." The fact is that we applied to the county, we have a permit from the county contingent upon the NEPA, and I have a copy of that and some other documents that I can hand out at this time if you wish to have a copy of these. And really it says, "contingent upon receipt of the NEPA." The NEPA is complete and we did deliver that today, not only NEPA, but we have a complete site survey, and we have all of the other documents that need to go into building a site. Literally, we could go start digging a hole tomorrow and do construction on the site. And I'm sure that the county will have time constraints on their part this afternoon due to meetings, etcetera, that they couldn't look at this form in depth. Do we have those copies? Will you pass those around? Thank you. Two, Smith Communications, again, did not just jump into building this site at the last moment. According to the carrier that we're working with, they shared proprietary information with us regarding future cell sites. A map with those sites was provided to this commission and to the city attorney's office approximately six months ago, so we have known about this site, we have been looking at other sites. Not until early October, I believe, did we become aware that there were other people working in that area. Because of the difficulty that we've had in the past to get a site zoned in the city, I respect your rules and your regulations, some of them need to be looked at a little closer. Your attorney referred to the Federal Communications Act in the last meeting, and there are some areas of your code that probably need to be looked at a little closer to be in line with that code. That proprietary information, we had permission from our carrier to share, and we did do that, so we have been working on this for quite a Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 8 while. Number three, like every tower that I ever worked on, it's real estate. It's location, location, location. Where is that tower going to be? How is it best going to suit the public and the carrier? What kind of communications are they going to be able to provide? The tower that we have proposed is 760 feet from Wedington Road. Didicom's tower is 600 feet from Wedington Road. The tower that we're proposing is 600 feet from Double Tree Road and the Didicom tower is 300 feet from Double Tree Road. Didicom's tower is in the middle of a five -acre field. Smith Communication's tower is bordered by, on two sides, a nice buffer of woodland. In your code, Section F, Page 163(10), you ask the applicant to "describe your efforts" to co -locate their "facilities on existing poles," etcetera. There are three towers, in reviewing the application of the applicant, that are within visual sight of Didicom's proposed site, and I see nothing from their RF stating that these towers would give them or not give them coverage. They are Dinsmore Tower, Hash Communications Tower, and the Deane Solomon Tower. Their carrier, Alltel, is not on any of these towers, so I don't know, you know, from their application whether or not they provided coverage to show if that would happen. When I'm doing site application or site work, I'm usually required by the carrier to not only look at what the site is, but to look at sometimes up to five miles in a radius of a particular site. Even if we're down to three miles, these sites that I just mentioned would have come into play and would have to have been addressed by the RF people. And I'm glad that you asked that question earlier about the good -faith effort to communicate. The last communication that we had with the carrier was on November 10th -- that was a telephone communication -- and there were a couple of e-mails before that, but we have heard nothing from them since that date. Lastly -- and I'm not an attorney. I'll defer to your city attorney -- there was a suggestion by the Board that carriers and the construction companies should get together to discuss so that this would not be a problem, and I'm assuming here a little bit that the problem would be that people wouldn't be building towers close to each other, there wouldn't be a proliferation of towers. We respectfully note that in the business world today that that would be considered collusion, and we can't be talking to the other guys, telling them what we're doing and how we're doing it, and -- I mean, it's just not done. Lastly, you know, we talk about the co - location. This site is going to be a 195 -foot monopole. It will be in the county, but with respect to the surrounding area we have tried to locate it an area that will be buffered a little bit. It is out of sight a little bit, better than the Didicom tower. There are pictures attached here where we superimposed a tower on it at the height that it will exist and it also shows up in the different views of the different roads. With those items I feel that the application for the site that is before you should be denied. Do you have any questions of me? Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 9 Anthes: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to make a response? Taylor: Yes. As far as -- well, you can plainly see through his speech that this is what happens when somebody gets to the game a little bit late and they're trying to save the -- Anthes: Would you please -- We don't need to be -- Taylor: Okay. Anthes: -- calling anybody's character into question. Just talk about the development proposal, if you would. Taylor: Well, our co -location attempts, we are on the three adjacent towers: east, south and west. We're not on the two towers he mentioned. We're on the tower just across the highway intersection of Wedington on that hill, so the other two towers were too close. We did write back a letter saying that the tower on Deane and Moore would not serve our purpose. The towers in town are about a mile or mile and a half apart. We're talking being at three miles, so this cover at five miles and -- for a co -location just won't work when your coverage area is just as small as ours is, about three miles. Both sites are buffered, you might say. They are scrambling to get their documents in. I know my landowner called me last week and said that their geo-tech truck had just showed up on our property and was getting ready to test drill and he referred them to the other site. If I would have known -- if he would have had some public record, some recording, some lease, or anything, we would have known -- Anthes: Can you just talk about your proposal and what your options are as far as co -location on any other tower and your decision to choose this site? Taylor: Well, I'm the contractor and the owner of the tower. Our client, Alltel, has chose to do business with us and has had a commitment with us for this site for over six months and we've been working on it and gone through the process, and because of the Washington County rules their site didn't meet setbacks, but they were able to go to adjacent landowners and get a signature from the closest residential structures to their tower and that overrode their setback requirement and so that's how they were able to get an administrative approval, but it's still contingent upon their deals and -- Anthes: Can you talk about your proposal, your development proposal for your tower for Didicom? I mean, that's the item we're voting on tonight, not the one in Washington County. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 10 Taylor: You're right, and I've said I agree to the contingencies. I am for my tower and we'll do a good job and we'll build a tower that will be camouflaged and tricolor and there's no public resentments and you're not against our site and we ask for approval. Andres: Okay. Thank you very much. I have a question for Mr. Williams before we start our discussion. Can you clarify the city's policy about co - location? Williams: When we talk about co -location in our ordinance, we talk about, for example, under -- in subsection (f) it says, "Describe your efforts to co - locate your facility on one of the poles or towers that currently exist." Well, there is none at this point in time. There is a proposed tower. They talk about -- they also say you "should have a survey of all existing structures that might be feasible sites." Again, we don't really have an existing structure, but there is one proposed. It does say to "contact other wireless communication facilities and share information if feasible about co -location." And it looks like from the packet that the other group -- or the groups are not very receptive to sharing information and to co -locating to a single site. We obviously have no jurisdiction within the county to require anything. The tower in the county is 45 feet taller than we would allow in the city. 150 feet, of course, is our limit in the city, and sometimes we've had a shorter limit than that in certain locations, and they're proposing, from what I've seen in their packet, 195 feet. We can also require certain alleged stealth technology, whether that's effective or not, and I do think there is going to be another cell tower proposal coming forward in the near future near Old Wire Road and 265 with a proposal of a tree stealth technology. It might be the first large tree we have. There's a background of trees there, so it might actually be fairly effective in that location as opposed to just standing out in the middle of a field and looking like an unusual tree. But I think that the problem we have here in trying to force a co -location is that there is simply no existing tower that is there. And I would also invite our planning and zoning administrator to comment about what he might think in relation to this particular chapter, because I think actually he is the official interpreter of the use conditions chapter and so his interpretations would take precedence over mine. Andres: And, Mr. Pate, when you give us your comments would you also state whether staff looked at the Dinsmore, Hash and Deane Solomon towers that are within three miles and whether you evaluated those for co - location. Pate: We did not look at any individual tower -- we rarely do -- and evaluate them for co -location. We depend upon the applicant to provide that information. That's essentially the drawings that -- the survey that's Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page I1 required in Number 1 there, the existing structures, any co -location opportunities. They do provide that in the packet, which is in your staff report. We provided that for you. And they've indicated that those are not -- they would not function for what they're looking for in this particular location, which is essentially coverage. As I stated at the agenda session, I think this is one of the stronger cases for coverage that we've seen in the city, just in other applications. We've discussed the coverage looks fine. It's a capacity issue, and proving capacity issues is oftentimes difficult, but I think in terms of just the maps that are provided, it's easily -- obviously two carriers are attempting to provide in the same area, coverage for this particular area. With regard to the rest of the information, as discussed at the last -- November 13th meeting, we did go through and make findings on all these, as we had previously. We had simply recommended that it be tabled at the last one. While I believe the communication could be better, this is always a sticky situation with every application that comes forward for a cellular tower, and I think it's just the industry standard, unfortunately, that we get into. We've had common meetings between multiple carriers. Mr. Williams and I sat in one of those meetings. We were able to get to some common ground, but obviously a lot of information could not be shared also. So I feel that the applicant has done their due diligence. They've gone through a process of 40 days plus two weeks, actually, now, because it was tabled, in their application process. They've met what we require in terms of a conditional -use permit for a telecommunication tower. Essentially it's not up to the Planning Commission to decide which tower is better in this application, it's whether you feel this is an appropriate use for this site and that this is an appropriate location in this conditional -use permit, and if the conditions that are proposed alleviate any potential detrimental impact that you feel is going to occur because of this. Anthes: One other question, Mr. Pate. At the last meeting there was an indication that there was a three- to six-month process to obtain this NEPA certification in the county level and that it wasn't expected for some time. Have you verified that that has been filed with the county and that they do have the letter now? Pate: They do have. We spoke with the county planner this afternoon, as Jesse mentioned. They do have a NEPA report. They've not reviewed that to see if that's actually an approval from that level, though, so that's something that we cannot confirm yet at this time. Anthes: Thank you. Commissioners? Graves: Madame Chair. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 12 Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: When I read the report from the county planning office it doesn't say that it has to go through any further review. It says it's been approved contingent upon getting a copy of the NEPA report, and we've been told now that the NEPA report has been provided to the county, which would lead me to conclude that it's a formality, that she's got to look at it, obviously, to see that that's what it is, but this letter doesn't say that there's any further approval process involved once that report is received. It says the tower application "has been approved contingent upon your providing this office with a copy of the NEPA report for this tower/site. Please understand you can't construct related to this tower on this site until the county has received a copy of the NEPA report and notified you you may proceed." It doesn't say notify you that we've approved the NEPA report or that we've reviewed the NEPA report. It just says once we get a copy of it, then we're going to tell you that you can proceed with construction. So that's the hang-up I have here, now that we've been told, and we've got no information or evidence to the contrary that what we've been told is true, that the NEPA report was provided to the county. Ludwig: Excuse me. There is a copy of the NEPA report in the package. Graves: I understand that. Anthes: We understand. Graves: Thank you. So we've been told that that copy -- that a copy of that report has been provided to the county planning office. That's been confirmed by our city planning staff. And we've got a letter from the county saying that it was approved contingent on them getting a copy of that report, which they have now gotten, which would lead me to believe it's been approved now, or it's as good as approved, which then gets me back to the staff's recommendation that says if this tower in the county has been approved then we would be recommending denial of the subject request, finding that co -location is available and that the applicant has not demonstrated a good -faith effort to co -locate with another carrier. I, in looking at the ordinances, don't think we're required to cast aside, totally, common sense, you know, all evidence to the contrary sometimes from the courts. I don't think that we have to ignore the fact that there's going to be a tower in the county located less than 500 feet away from where this proposal is located. We now know that that proposal has been approved by the county, or as good as approved, and we've got this applicant still wanting to build a tower less than 500 feet away. Under those circumstances I'm not going to support the conditional -use permit Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 13 application and I just don't -- I don't see any reason to pretend like that other tower is not going to get constructed, because it is. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Clark. Clark: I have a question for staff. Is the issue of two competing towers simply co -location or proximity, cluttering the landscape? What is -- why shouldn't we have two towers? Pate: I think it's a combination of both of those things. One, if you provide one singular tower it would probably lessen the impact of -- the visual impact in that area. Secondly, with a 150 -foot tower, which is the maximum allowed, several carriers can be located on the same tower, so that would hopefully accommodate multiple carriers in this area, aside from just Cingular and Alltel, who are looking for the two towers currently. Clark: So, okay. I'm interested in what the rest of the commissioners are thinking, because looking through the information in the packet it seems very obvious that co -location between these two entities is not going to happen. We've got one company that is building inside the city limits and going 150 feet maximum. We have another that's gone outside in the county, where they can go higher. That might be where they can build, that's fine. I don't -- I'm very uncomfortable playing the city versus the county game. We're the city. Is this what we want here in this place for this applicant? We have agonized over cell tower applications in the past that have been more centralized in the city, with neighbors coming out saying, "We don't want this here. This is not a good place. Take it out." All right. They've taken it out. Now we're saying you have to defer to another tower that's 500 feet away in the county, where we have absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever. I'm also looking through the packet, and if I'm not mistaken, I've found some indication that another company would be willing to co -locate -- and maybe Mr. Taylor can comment on this -- another company is already willing to co -locate on their new tower -- Cingular. So that indicates to me that Alltel is at least looking for people to play nicely with them on their tower and they already have potential partners. I guess I'm coming back to why -- what stops us -- and maybe, Mr. Williams, you can tell me -- what stops us with our ordinances from agreeing to this, since we're not the county? Williams: Well, certainly nothing prevents you from granting this conditional use, and cities are granted some powers by the federal government in the cell tower act to use aesthetics to consider whether or not to grant an application, but there should be some pretty strong evidence on aesthetics before an application is turned down. You know, certainly you can look toward the fact that there probably will be another tower in the area that Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 14 might be willing to accommodate another cell tower -- I mean, a cell company, and therefore, maybe you could say you would be reducing cell tower clutter and that would be a strong enough aesthetic base, but we haven't heard very much from citizens. There was one citizen last week that said, "I don't like that." There was nothing else. And so that's a pretty weak amount of evidence for the commission to have to say, "Well, aesthetically it's unacceptable and we're going to turn it down." So it's not based just on what our code says. Our code, we try to do a conditional use, try to conform with the federal law as best we could, but the cities do have a fairly strong burden to show that there's real reasonable aesthetic considerations that require this to be turned down, and most of the cases I've seen on that is when the -- there's been a lot of neighborhood opposition and a lot of citizen opposition, it's been close to schools or historic structures, other situations like that, and we don't have that in this particular case. We have one family that came out and said -- and I would probably agree with them -- "I don't want to see that when I walk out my front door." Clark: But they didn't know also we could provide landscaping around it and stuff like that. Williams: Well, this does require landscaping. That's one of the conditions of approval that the planning department put in. Graves: Madame Chair. Clark: I have one more question, Mr. Graves. Graves: Okay. I just wanted to respond . You asked for -- I would like to clarify my rationale for you while you're hashing it out. Clark: That's fine. I understand, but I've got one more question. Jeremy, in the past have we not put a condition in the cell tower conditional -use applications that require them to go shorter if technology becomes available? Pate: In some applications we've seen a condition added by the Planning Commission at the meeting not to go shorter but to remove the tower if some technology comes about in the future that simply does away with this type of technology. Clark: Okay. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 15 Pate: That is a condition that sometimes is added. We don't make a finding on that in our conditions of approval, but that has been added -- not to all applications, but to some applications. Clark: But to some? Okay. Well, all right. Now, James -- Mr. Graves. Graves: Madame Chair. Just to clarify, in light of the city attorney's comments, my comments were not based on aesthetics. My comments are based on coverage. If we've got another 195 -foot cell tower that's going to be located in the county and it's been approved, then the coverage issue that we've been told exists in that area will no longer exist, and again, at that point we've also got a need for an explanation besides "We can't get along" and "We haven't talked" or no evidence whatsoever that co - location is not a feasible option there. And we've put the question directly to the applicant on this piece of property about co -location and we got, "Well, my carrier made a call, I didn't make the call, and I don't know what they said," even though we specifically, apparently at the last meeting, asked to get that information. So my rationale is completely based on coverage. If you've got a 195 -foot cell tower that's going to be built less than 500 feet away, the coverage issue that apparently exists in that area goes away and this is not then an appropriate location, in my estimation, for a cell tower. Anthes: To follow up on Commissioner Graves' comments and the city attorney's comments earlier, I believe our ordinance does address when a tower exists, as you pointed out, but not one that doesn't exist yet; however, I'm following Commissioner Graves' line of thinking, and one that has been permitted can be seen in some way to exist, and that's, I think, where we're kind of stuck. Because our ordinance doesn't say that that possibility for co -location has to be entirely within the City of Fayetteville. In fact, there are federal laws that cover cell towers, which cover far beyond our city limits, and so I guess I'm questioning: a permitted tower, - can we figure that as something that exists? Williams: Let me give you one other caveat, and I think I've probably told you this before. Zoning ordinances, which this is one, are called in derogation of the common law; in other words, they did not exist in common law, and therefore, if there is any ambiguity within them, they are construed not in favor of the city, but in favor of the property owner, in this case the applicant, who is seeking a conditional use. So if there is ambiguity about whether a tower currently exists because it has been approved by another entity, then that would be construed against us by the courts, so I just think you should know that if there is some confusion, and I agree with Commissioner Graves, that you can certainly use common sense in most cases, but sometimes the courts will look at something and construe it very Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 16 carefully and the court will look at the phrase "currently exists" and maybe say that doesn't mean proposed and approved. So I think that I do understand the well -reasoned statements of Commissioner Graves, I think he makes a lot of sense, but in interpreting our ordinance and looking at the federal decisions that have taken away some of the cities' powers in relation to cell tower regulation, I would have to say I would be concerned, still, with a rejection of this conditional use. Not to say that you can't do it, and I will do everything possible if there would be a challenge to that, and I don't think it's, you know, a hopeless case at all. I think Commissioner Graves has made very strong, persuasive arguments that I would attempt to use if something happened. Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I think my bit of confusion right now is that I don't feel as though -- and help me if I'm wrong on this -- I don't feel as though we have any more information tonight than we did two weeks ago, because as a commission we asked the applicant to come back with some information, and I would agree with Commissioner Graves on this, I do not feel as though we had those questions answered. So if our reservations two weeks ago were valid, legitimate reservations, I feel as though we still have those, that they haven't been addressed in some way. Anthes: Yes, but the last time we heard this item we were under the impression that it was going to take three to six more months to understand whether or not the county tower would get their letter and be approved, and now, from what we understand, that approval is imminent, so it even takes the pressure further away from this item. Trumbo: Madame Chair. Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Trumbo. Trumbo: A question for the representative for Smith Communications. The letter you provided us said that -- I'm not going to repeat what Commissioner Graves said, but it says you need to wait until you've been notified by the county to proceed. Have you all been notified that you can proceed? Ludwig: I guess I'll refer to the letter from the county stating contingent upon providing the NEPA report. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 17 Trumbo: So you haven't been notified that you can proceed? Ludwig: I have not been notified officially by the county that we can proceed, but again, I'm referring to their letter which states on the contingent of providing that information. We also provided the -- I mean, there's surveys, Phase I, NEPA, all of the things that -- that they didn't ask for. Trumbo: But you haven't been notified -- Ludwig: Excuse me? Trumbo: You haven't been notified that you can proceed? Ludwig: Correct. We expect -- we expect to have that tomorrow morning. Anthes: Mr. Fulcher said that he thought they would have that tomorrow, I believe. Is that true? Fulcher: Based on the e-mail from the Washington County planning director, they received the NEPA report today. Based on her time schedule, she could not review that. Ultimately, she said she would have a letter, I assume, of approval for them tomorrow when she had a chance to review that. Ludwig: One other thing that I heard in as far as towers are concerned, and I just make this point -- Anthes: I'm sorry, if we haven't directed a question to you, that section is closed. Ludwig: All right. Thank you. Trumbo: I guess following up with Commissioner Harris, there's -- the rub to me is I understand Commissioner Graves, where he's coming from, and I've heard Mr. Williams, where he's coming from, and to me, without full approval I don't see a project as having been approved until they've been notified, and they haven't been notified tonight, so we're certainly on a thin line here with what we decide and I'm not satisfied or sure which way I will vote yet, but that's the rub with me and that's the issue. I understand tomorrow we're going to get letters, but being and doing what I do, those letters sometimes don't come. I expect them all the time, and they don't, so, you know, that's the thin line, so I probably, now that I've kind of hashed this out loud, I probably will be in favor -- well, I won't allow this Smith Communications tower to influence my decision on the conditional - use permit in front of us. I'm going to put it aside like it hasn't been fully approved and move on to the use at band, the conditional -use permit at hand. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 18 Anthes: Thank you, Commissioner Trumbo. Commissioner Myres. Motion: Myres: I think I've forgotten what I wanted to say, to let me see if I can -- you can't let me wait too long. I've certainly had problems with other cell tower applications in the past, but I do feel that this one is a different proposition. I agree with both Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Trumbo that the possibility of a cell tower 600 feet away, or whatever it is, in the county really shouldn't influence particularly whether or not I think that a cell tower in this location in the city is appropriate or needed. It's just as likely that no accommodation will be forthcoming from either cell tower provider to any other carrier, so that it's certainly likely that they could co -locate on the county tower, but it's just as likely that they will not make the effort or that they will be denied access to it or, you know, any number of possibilities that that location wouldn't happen, and in the meantime we've got a gap in coverage, a fairly significant one. And as Mr. Pate said, this is one of the first applications that we've had where that coverage issue was very clearly demonstrated, so I have to go with Commissioner Trumbo and act as if the county isn't even there and the possibility of this other cell tower is not even a possibility. Having said that, I would like to go ahead and make a motion to approve Conditional Use 06-2295 for Didicom, and certainly discussion can continue after that motion. Clark: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Myres, with a second by Commissioner Clark. I have a couple of questions of staff. Would you please verify that there no structures within the fall zone of this tower? Fulcher: There are no residential structures within the 150 -foot fall zone. I believe that there is one residential structure just beyond 150 feet, but none within the 150 -foot radius. Anthes: Okay. Condition of Approval Number 5, you talk about the transitional paint scheme. We all know of the tower that sits in the middle of a field with the transitional paint scheme and it looks bizarre because there's nothing around it to transition out of. In this case, because of the landscape buffer that's being proposed in Condition 7, is the height of that transition on the paint scheme queued to the mature height of the proposed buffer so that it actually would work? Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 19 Pate: That is the intent of the height of that transitional paint scheme. The actual height is similar to the height of a mature evergreen species that we previously approved for these sites. Anthes: So there would be the trees and it would be green and then it would transition to the blue above that height? Pate: Additionally, if you look at other towers in the city that have been permitted with the light blue or light blue -gray colors, they actually contrast more with the surrounding vegetation. If there are no trees, then they tend to contrast more below the tree line than above the tree line so that your visual -- the visual impact at a certain level is actually more than the transitional paint scheme. Anthes: And I don't know who can answer this, but it's about the business of cell towers and -- you know, I don't really have a problem with either one of these towers, but I really wish that there could be just one, and I don't care which one it is. It's just that, all of our guidance says, you put up a tower and then everybody looks at their coverage maps and then it appears that if a tower is already there they get together and they figure it out, because you can hang like five different carriers on one pole, from what I understand. So today they don't talk to each other, but once a tower is constructed it seems like there is an imperative to talk. How does that work? Does anybody know? Williams: I think it probably does work when there are existing towers. We have written this ordinance to try to force that to work. But again, that requires an existing structure or an existing tower that is within the area that they need. Of course, a lot of the co -location was to try to encourage them to be on water tower sites and other sites that are maybe already visually impaired so we don't scatter out the visual impairedness to a large area. But anyway, we still hope that -- you know, I agree with you, it would be much nicer if there was going to be a single tower in this location serving all of the companies, if they can. Of course, there are now a large number of companies and it might be that a single tower would not even serve all the different companies that are in existence and coming into this area. Harris: Madame Chair, may I ask a follow-up? Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: Mr. Williams, if the permission had already been -- if the permission to proceed had already been granted, if we were at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning instead of the time we are tonight, would that count -- would that Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 20 constitute an already -existing tower for you in terms of co -location and the imperative to do so? Williams: I think if you're going to interpret "currently existing," then you can see it. Harris: Okay. Williams: It's not that there's been an approval. And as this Board is well aware, you've approved many, many subdivisions and they ain't been built, and sometimes they never get built. Sometimes they come back like a couple tonight where they asked for administrative approval to get extensions because they have not been built or the vacation hasn't been approved or something. So, no, I don't think it's the same. I think approval and being currently existing means the same thing. Harris: Okay. Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: You know, I'm not really trying to parse the language of "currently exists" because I wouldn't try to argue that a tower that's not there yet currently exists, but I do think that the rationale for the federal statutes regarding cell towers is to make sure that there's sufficient coverage by cell companies, by providers of those services, and when there's an approved tower in the county that's going to be there, then the need and the rationale behind those federal statutes protecting cellular communications is no longer there. The reason that they rein in cities from saying you can't build towers because they know the towers aren't pretty to look at and they know cities are going to be inclined to not allow those towers in the city limits, and so the reason for those statutes is to make sure that purely on aesthetic reasons that a city can't turn down repeatedly cell towers and then as a result the citizens don't have coverage available by providers. In this situation we know that there's going to be a tower in the county, we've got the letter saying it's as good as approved and, you know, we could parse the letter, too, I guess, but it's approved and we all know it's approved, so, you know, the rationale for reigning in the cities then evaporates. There is going to be coverage there through that tower and that's the reason why I don't support the conditional -use permit. It's purely on coverage, which is the reason for the federal statutes in the first place. There's going to be coverage there, it's already been approved, and there's not a need for a tower at this location within the city anymore because there's going to be a tower out there in the county. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 21 Ludwig: Madame Chair. Anthes: I'm sorry, you cannot -- Ludwig: We had asked the question about tower*** business. I want -- Graves: I'm in the middle of talking, for one thing, but -- Ludwig: Oh, I'm sorry. Graves: Maybe I'm going on too long and you weren't interested in hearing anything else I had to say, but the other problem I have then is we've been asked for the maximum tower that the city allows, a 150 -foot tower. I guess I have a question for the motioner and those inclined to support the motioner. Am I also not only supposed to pretend like that tower is not going to be there, but now I'm supposed to pretend like it's not going to have any providers on it and, therefore, this provider needs the maximum height? I don't know if I can stretch my imagination that far and I would prefer not to and that's another reason for me not to support it. I would not be in support for certain of a maximum -height cell tower less than 500 feet away from a 195 -foot cell tower in the county. That doesn't make any sense to me, either, and I don't want to stretch my imagination to the point of trying to guess or speculate on what the appropriate height would be when there's going to be a 195 -foot tower there, unless, I suppose, I'm supposed to pretend like it's not going to be there. Anthes: I have a question of staff. Isn't it true that the taller a tower is the more possibilities for co -location exist? Page: That's correct. It most instances it allows for the minimum separation, so therefore, more carriers could operate at a height that's desirable. Anthes: So how many carriers theoretically will fit on a 150 -foot pole; do you recall? Pate: I don't know the answer to that offhand. Anthes: Okay. I guess, I have to go back to what we're going to end up with at the end of all this, and we're either going to end up with two towers right next to each other that have Alltel on one and Cingular, maybe, on the one with Alltel, and then the Smith folks on the other. Myres: Possibly no towers. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 22 Anthes: Or else there's going to be one that has everybody on it, because something will be built, whether it's one or the other or both. For that reason, I'm of the mind to say let's see if that Washington County tower gets built and ask Alltel to go to that tower and locate on it, but I would not want to deny the conditional -use permit because I would want the applicant to have the opportunity to come back to us in a shorter amount of a time than a year if the Washington County deal fell through. So it's a matter of timing, and I feel like if Washington County is ready to approve, they're ready to build, and that tower can start construction, then Alltel can co -locate on that tower. If that tower doesn't happen, if it's not constructed within six months, I would be much more happy with tabling this request so that we could hear it again -- and not have it be denied outright, which means we couldn't hear it again for a year. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Isn't that the case? Pate: That's correct. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: I'm going to play devil's advocate a little bit here because if I'm not mistaken the first time we heard this application two weeks ago Mr. Taylor indicated this was the last -- the last thing, and if they get their conditional use they could break ground tomorrow. So let's reverse everything you've just said. Let's approve the conditional use tonight, let Alltel start construction tomorrow, and maybe the Smith Communication folks will flock to them and co -locate. I suspect that we're building in the county because it's 195 feet. That's just my supposition. We have a moratorium in this -- we have a rule in our city that's 150 feet, but these aren't my businesses. These are their choices. We're here to do what is prescriptive in our code book, which is to deal with city -- with inside the city limits, so I'm still, you know, back at a rational reason that overwhelmingly convinces me to make this business that has done due diligence, done everything they're supposed to do, not build because somebody is doing something in the county. Does that mean we don't build a subdivision across the street from a subdivision in the county, because, gosh, there's already one there and they've got houses available. That rationale doesn't -- it doesn't work for me. So I'm going to, you know, err on the side of possibly safety and say these folks have done what they're supposed to do, they've brought us a complete application, they talked to these other folks about co -locating. That's not going to happen. So I'm still going to support the conditional use and will let businesses do what businesses do. If they want to waste the money to Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 23 build two different towers, well, you know, people have wasted a lot of money before in business and it's not going to be the first nor will it be the last, but possibly rational heads will prevail and whoever breaks ground first -- let's all rush out and start digging -- can convince the other guys to come to it. Because I don't know what's going to happen. My crystal ball broke a long time ago. So all I'm going to do is what we're supposed to do. This is out in the middle of nowhere. This is not downtown Fayetteville. They've done what they wanted to do, what we've asked them to do, and it's a coverage issue, so that's my rationale and let's let the Alltel wars begin. Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Lack. Lack: I saw the same thing in the letter that some of my colleagues have that the "report and notified you that you may proceed," and I think that that sentence or that part of that sentence would not be in the article if there was not some review of the document. I'm not qualified to review that document. I don't know if that's a viable document. It's pretty. That's the extent of my knowledge on that -- for that document. So I can't predict whether or not that is a -- whether or not that will be approved, and I think that the code of ordinances that we are here to uphold, as much as I would like to not have two cell towers so close together, tells us that if there's not a tower in existence that we should, if the applicant has met our requirements, approve their tower. And so I will be voting for this, again, as much as I hate to see two towers, and I would hope that, for the better good and a feeling of camaraderie, that the carriers could get together no matter what the outcome of this vote is, and I would ask the motioner and the seconder if a 11th requirement -- recommendation could be placed that required removal of the tower if technology supercedes the use of this -- Myres: And I'm perfectly fine with that. We can add that. Thank you for reminding me. Anthes: We have a motion and a second to approve this application for a conditional -use permit with 11 conditions of approval, the addition of the one Andy just outlined. Is there further discussion? Pate: Madame Chair, I just want to remind the commission that it does take five affirmative votes to approve a conditional use because you have one member absent tonight. Ludwig: Madame Chairman, can I still answer that question that you asked earlier? Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 24 Anthes: I don't think we need to. Ludwig: Okay. Thank you. Anthes: Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2295 carries with a vote of 6-2-0, with Commissioners Anthes and Graves voting no. Commissioner Ostner is absent. Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 25 CUP 06-2369: (GRISSO, 484): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 215 N. LOCUST AVENUE. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0. 18 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. LSP 06-2343: (GRISSO, 484): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 215 N. LOCUST. The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0. 18 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of .06 and .12 acres. Anthes: Items 4 and 5 tonight under new business are tandem items. One is the Conditional Use Permit 06-2369 for Grisso, and the second is the Lot Split, the accompanying Lot Split, 06-2343. May we have the staff report? Morgan: Certainly. This property is located west of Locust Avenue, south of Dickson Street. It is zoned Downtown General and located in the Downtown Master Plan area. It's currently developed for a duplex and a single-family dwelling, the single-family dwelling being located towards the rear of the lot along the alleyway. The applicant requests conditional - use approval to create a tandem lot on which the existing single-family dwelling will be located. Staff finds that in reviewing the conditions or the findings for a tandem lot that the applicant or their request meets the findings necessary to recommend approval for a creation of a tandem lot. We find that the applicant has sufficient access for both the homes and that access has been provided on public rights-of-way, the alley and the street. We find that the proposal is in harmony with the zoning and the surrounding development and that it will accomplish the goals of the Downtown Master Plan, which one being to provide more home ownership opportunities near retail, entertainment, and shopping areas. The conditional -use permit is recommended for approval with a total of three conditions of approval. Those include the recordation of the lot split, which is the second -- the tandem item to this conditional -use permit, as well as approval of setback reductions from the Board of Adjustment from the required 20 foot, the length that backs along all property lines. With regard to the lot split, we are recommending approval of that lot split, and based on conversation with the assistant city engineer and the applicant, we would request that Condition of Approval Number 4 be removed. In review of the extension -- excuse me, of public facilities to this property, we found that the burden that would be placed on the applicant to extend those lines would be more than we felt necessary; therefore, we are requesting the removal of that condition. That's all I have. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Anthes: Before you sit down, Suzanne, are there any other tandem lots in the area? Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 26 Morgan: I'm sorry? Anthes: Are there other tandem lots in the area? Morgan: Not on this block. I believe on an adjacent block there are two similar - looking tandem lots. There are several properties to the south of this which have small units in the rear, which we may see eventually requests for tandem lots, but no, most of the lots are about 50 -by -100, or so, dimension. Anthes: And the lot sizes that would be created, are those compatible with lot sizes in the vicinity? Morgan: The lot sizes in the vicinity would be larger than the .6 -acre tract proposed, but with the Downtown General Zoning District, there are no minimum lot area requirements. Anthes: And the access to the new lot would be from the alley only, correct? Morgan: That's correct. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address either this conditional -use permit or the lot split for Grisso? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Good evening, Mr. Key. Key: Good evening. Key: My name is James Key with Key Architecture. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Judy and Bill Grisso. I'm also here today with the civil engineer with Bates & Associates, Bryan Bunch, and we did not have a formal proposal other than to say that we would like your consideration of the conditional -use permit and the lot split. We've worked diligently with the property owners and the staff over the last six to eight months prior to the advent of the Downtown Master Plan and I think we've tried to address all of the issues of concern. We met with engineering staff today and it was determined that there is public water available on the front of the -- to the larger lot that is being created, so the thought that that extension would not be necessary, that is -- Ms. Morgan had said -- and the sewer line, due to some physical restraints, felt that the two could accept that being slightly offset from the rear access of our property. The Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 27 two properties do have individual utility service at present. And the deck that was shown as a condition, I believe Number 3 under the lot split, the existing deck and porch structure has been removed. Anthes: So that's already been done? Key: That's already been taken care of, yes, ma'am. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Key. Key: I'd be glad to entertain any questions that you have for me. Anthes: Commissioners? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Motion: Graves: For the reasons stated by staff, I'll move for approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-2369 with the stated conditions of approval. Clark: Second. Anthes: A motion to approve by Commissioner Graves with a second by Commissioner Clark. This is on the conditional -use permit. Graves: Correct. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve CUP 06-2369 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Ostner is absent. Anthes: Are there motions on the lot split? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Clark: I move that we approve Lot Split 06-2343 with an amended four -- five conditions of approval, striking Number 4 as printed. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 28 Anthes: A motion to approve by Commissioner Clark. Do I hear a second? Myres: Second. Anthes: A second by Commissioner Myres. Just a clarification from staff, the utilities are available to both properties and they won't be crossing other properties -- Pate: That's correct. Anthes: Okay. Great. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSP 06-2343 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Ostner is absent. Anthes: Thank you. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 29 LSD 06-2278: Large Scale Development (THE SHOPPES AT SHILOH, 211): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at THE NE CORNER OF GREGG AND SHILOH. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.09 acres. The request is for a single story, 19,250 s.f. retail facility with associated parking. Anthes: Item 6 -- Lack: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Mr. Lack. Lack: I will recuse from the next item. Anthes: Thank you. Item 6 is Large -Scale Development 06-2278 for The Shoppes at Shiloh. May we have the staff report? Fulcher: Yes, ma'am. This is a large-scale development proposal for an approximately 19,000 -square -foot retail facility and 84 parking spaces. The property is located at the northeast corner of Gregg Avenue and Shiloh Drive and is currently zoned C-2 Commercial. This has been heard at three previous Subdivision Committee meetings. I'm not sure if all commissioners were privy to those meetings, but I believe that most of them were and are somewhat familiar with this request. The reason this item was heard so many times previously at Subdivision Committee meeting was mostly due to waivers, discussion on Commercial Design Standards, and then some minor revisions. The applicants have addressed many of those revisions or most of those revisions and have tried, based on their design and their project proposal, to emit as many of the waivers as they began with or less than those waivers as much as possible, which is why staff recommended this item be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and why the Subdivision Committee forwarded this item on, so that these waivers and determinations could be reviewed by the Planning Commissioners. The four main items for the Planning Commission to determine this evening, the first one is Commercial Design Standards. There are some revised elevations which are fairly similar to everything you reviewed in the past. They have provided a little bit more articulation on the east and west facades. Comments have been made by various commissioners regarding those two sides, and I believe that everyone has been in agreement that the southern fagade is well articulated and does meet Commercial Design Standards. Staff is supportive of the elevations as presented with the exception of the western fapade, which does face Gregg Avenue. This property is in the Design Overlay District, and as it states in Chapter 161, the facades that face street rights-of-way should be articulated as a front fagade, and that is done for a portion of Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 30 that building face, and we've just requested that those same materials be carried the full length of that west building face to meet the requirement of the Design Overlay District. The next three determinations by the Planning Commission are waivers from the Design Overlay District standards. The first one is a waiver of greenspace. It does require 25 feet exclusive of the right-of-way. There's a unique circumstance in this location in that there's only 45 feet of right-of-way required by the Master Street Plan for Gregg Avenue, which is along the west property line of this property; however, the state right-of-way is greater than 45 feet. It varies where it's 50 to 55 feet. The applicants have provided 25 feet of greenspace exclusive of the city's Master Street Plan right-of-way; however, because they're not providing 25 feet exclusive of the state right- of-way, they were requesting a waiver and staff is supportive of that, finding the unique hardship on this property by the greater right-of-way that has been dedicated to the state already. The second waiver request is for the curb -cut separation from the intersection of Shiloh and Gregg. It's required to be 250 feet. It is approximately 198 feet. Again, staff is supportive of this waiver request, finding that adequate separation has been provided for safe turning movements into and out of this full access curb -cut. And the final waiver request by the applicants is the curb -cut separation between that curb -cut and the one to the north. It's at the north end of the site, also on Gregg. It's approximately 94 feet, I believe, from that southern curb -cut where 200 feet is required. Staff is not supportive of this waiver because of the amount of turning movements currently existing at that intersection combined with the full access turning movements from the southern curb -cut on Gregg Avenue. Even though the applicants have restricted this to an ingress only, those turning movements, and if you combine that with someone trying to enter into the drive-through on the west side of that building, if you come into the site from Shiloh you would not actually be able to access that drive-through. You would have to go back out to Gregg Avenue through the full access curb -cut and then turn back into the development again. So it's that coupled with the existing turning movements in this area is why staff is not supportive of this second curb -cut on Gregg Avenue. We've requested that the site be somewhat redesigned to allow full access behind the building, which would allow traffic to traverse behind that building and enter the drive-through and still only utilize two curb -cuts. And also the curb -cut on Shiloh, because of its -- it does meet the full separation required in the Design Overlay District, but it's in the area of traffic entering the turning lane to go southbound on Gregg, and so staff has recommended that that be a restricted access left in -- or right in/right out only, and I believe that is indicated by the applicants on the site plan. Overall, staff is supportive of this development and is recommending approval with 24 conditions of approval, one of those being the removal of the northern curb -cut on Gregg Avenue and also for the restricted access Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 31 for the curb -cut on Shiloh. I believe the majority of the other conditions are fairly straightforward, but if you have any questions, please ask. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Would any member of the public like to address this large-scale development for The Shoppes at Shiloh? Good evening. ThomtonC: Hello. My name is Carlene Thornton and we own the property at 3360 North Gregg. We've lived there for 26 years. It's been our home, we've loved it there, but it's a different environment, different community now, a whole lot different, and we would like to encourage you to allow them to have ingress and egress there on the front property because we see safety issues, because we see people driving on our sidewalk when they're making that turn already. It scares me to think about not allowing ingress and egress out of that property for safety reasons because it is very busy there, as you all know, and we like the looks of the property that they plan on building. We've had options throughout the years to do something else and we've chosen this facility because we think it would fit with our community and with the City of Fayetteville, because we love living here and it's our home. Jamie? Anthes: So you own the property that this would be constructed on? ThomtonC: Yes. Anthes: Okay. So you're really actually part of the applicant team? ThomtonC: Yes. Anthes: Okay. Can I get you to sit down and wait until public comment is over? ThomtonC: Oh. This is my son. He'll -- Anthes: Right, but I need to ask for the general public to talk first -- ThomtonC: Oh, I'm sorry. Anthes: -- and then the applicant comes after that. ThomtonC: Okay. I'm sorry. Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this large-scale development for The Shoppes at Shiloh? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 32 ThomtonJ: My name is Jamie Thornton and I've lived in that house my entire life, and I'm 21 years old. I love Fayetteville and I've seen, you know, the kind of development that's been, you know, abundant around the north side of town, and I think that this facility would be a lot better than many of the other proposals that we've had proposed to us. We think it's going to be beautiful. I mean, it's going to have trees, it's going to have landscaping, which, you know, none of the other plans or any other, I guess, buyers were really excited about doing, and I think it will fit well with the northern side of town that we're building right now. Anthes: Thank you very much. Is there any other part of the development team that would like to -- Hi. Good evening. Morgan: Good evening. Mike Morgan with McClelland Consulting Engineers. I'm here tonight with Vennis Pollock with Miller, Boskus, Lack, and Mr. Brian Shaw with Sage Partners, and together we've looked at this piece of land. It's a very difficult three acres of land, approximately 13 feet of grade difference. Half of the property is in a floodway which cannot be disturbed, so we're very limited on what we can do to develop the land. While this possesses some hardships for our development, my client still wants to go in there and do what is necessary to create a highly -styled shopping (inaudible). Most of you all have seen this elevation here at the Subdivision Committee meetings and -- Anthes: Could I get you to take the microphone with you if you want to walk over -- Morgan: Okay, okay. Anthes: Okay. Morgan: Most of you all have seen the elevations and their evolution through a series of Subdivision Committee meetings, and I believe we've addressed the large majority of comments and concerns. But like I say, there's 13 feet of grade difference. There's a lot of fill that needs to be brought in. There's three existing curb -cuts along Gregg Avenue currently. We're proposing to reduce this to two along Gregg Avenue and one along Shiloh. The one on Shiloh would be, as Jesse mentioned, a right in/right out configuration. There would be one full access curb -cut on Gregg Avenue, the one approximately 200 feet from the intersection, and then the upper -- the second curb -cut would be an ingress only, not allowing for traffic to exit back in onto Gregg Avenue, so it would actually take traffic off of Gregg Avenue. But we're here to answer any questions that you all may have. Further, there's a railroad right-of-way on the west side of Gregg Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 33 Street, so there's not any curb -cuts currently or would be proposed on the west side of this property. But again, we're here to answer any questions. Anthes: If you could, would your representative from Miller, Boskus, Lack go over the elevations, particularly the one that has been called into question, which is the west elevation. Pollock: I'm Vennis Pollock with Miller, Boskus, Lack. I guess the elevation in question is the west elevation, and from what I'm hearing, the only articulation of the west elevation that is different from the south would be the -- would be a panelized wall. And what we've done, the iterations of this panelized wall has been -- we originally were celebrating the wall as just a wall. (Laughter) Pollock: By adding articulation -- what we ended up doing is we -- I apologize -- we ended up articulating the panel -- Graves: I picked your party favors and things like that. Pollock: I'm sorry? Graves: I said I picked your party favors and things like that. I'm sorry. That's what we're laughing about -- celebrated. Pollock: -- to make the wall -- getting the feedback that we were getting from the commissioners, to make the wall meet the requirements, we added panels, much like the panelization of the walls here, to get shadow line, to get, you know, depth, to get some solidity to that wall, but where that wall is occurring is in a location that normally in a retail development you have solid walls, you have storage to the back of the building, you have the toilet rooms to the back of the building, and so that's where that wall was occupying but as far as articulation like the south, that west side does in fact articulate just like the south. We have -- There is a projected element off of the -- And this is the old one here? Pate: It is. I don't have another copy with me. I'm sorry. Pollock: Where the south elevation has these higher elements that are changing in plane by about 4 feet at each location, we've done the same thing on the west, and so that articulation is the same, but where the glass storefront occurs, it turns the corner on the west. We have some trellis construction that is visible on the west. So the only -- the only section on the west elevation is this section here that is articulated differently than on the Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 34 south, and that is, again, the back side of the retail development, where normally you have solid construction. Anthes: Is this the correct elevation or the one you've just showed? Pollock: That one is the revised one. Anthes: Okay. So this is the latest, the one in our packet? Pollock: Yes. Anthes: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Well, maybe I'm not celebrating the wall the way I should be celebrating the wall, because to me the southern elevation, I think, is beautiful. I think it's an absolutely gorgeous design. But to say that this and this compare, when I've got -- yeah, that's the part I'm looking at. I mean, it just -- it seems to take away from an awful lot of the southern exposure, actually, and when you turn that corner it's just kind of stark and a little shocking. I mean, the northern elevations, which are the back of the building, I have no concern with because that's not going to show. But the east and the west ends of this building are definitely going to be high visibility because they're both on major thoroughfares. One is on Gregg and one is on Shiloh. So I'm still having a little bit of trouble with it, particularly the western elevation, and I think maybe if the east wasn't in the shadows I'd have problems with the eastern elevations as well because it's pretty much the same thing. And the last thing I would like people to see driving down those streets are just real white -looking walls. But I've been wrong about elevations before, so -- Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: I have to respectfully disagree with Commissioner Clark. Clark: Please do. Myres: The thing that makes this work for me is the fact of the careful repetition of the materials and the fact that all of those materials that are on the board are present in almost every elevation except the back. With the recessed Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 35 panels and the line that repeats the rectangular openings in the rest of the structure, I think it's actually kind of a relief from all of the interest that's going on along the front, which is the south side, and you kind of scale back as you go around the corner and then as you go around the corner further then you get to the back elevation, which is very plain and very utilitarian. So there's a progression, to me, of the money side that slowly changes as it goes around the building to something that's much more functional. So I don't really have any problem with design standards on this. I think the changes that they've made meet the intent of the Design Overlay District requirements and I think it does meet Commercial Design Standards, at least it does for me. Anthes: Does any other commissioner have comments on Condition of Approval Number 1, determination of Commercial Design Standards? Harris: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Harris. Harris: I would add my approval of this, too. I find the -- I celebrate this wall, too. Myres: Where is your hat? Clark: You're the type. Harris: I do. I know. I would be the type. I'm the demographic on this. But I do. I find it a welcome relief from the tchotchkes that are going on in a lot of the buildings. I don't want to put any awnings on it. I don't want to put any doilies on it. I just want it to be what it is with a little articulation. It's good for the soul. It's nice pie *** way quencher. That's how I feel. Myres: Boy, you're making me hungry. Harris: I know. Anthes: Condition of Approval Number 2, Subdivision Committee -- Oh, wait. Pate: It should be Planning Commission. Anthes: Yes. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Are there any comments on that? No? Okay. Condition of Approval Number 3, 3(a). This is the waiver from the 250 -foot separation and staff is supportive of this waiver. Is there any comment on it? Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 36 Clark: That's for the southern entrance, isn't it, Jeremy? Pate: Yes. Clark: The first one. Anthes: This is the one that will be 56 foot closer to the intersection of Shiloh and Gregg than is allowed by ordinance. Myres: But it's okay. Anthes: Is everybody okay there? Myres: Yeah. Anthes: Okay. 3(b). This is the waiver of the 200 -foot separation between the two proposed curb -cuts on Gregg, and staff, I believe, is not supportive of this waiver and, they want to do away with the second curb -cut altogether. Is that correct? Pate: That is our recommendation, yes. Anthes: Is there discussion? Myres: I remember at Subdivision, and I think all of us had a chance to see this at Subdivision at one time or another, we discussed the issue of traffic safety, and I wish there were some other way to provide a second means of access off of Gregg without them being so close together, but I have to agree with staff, that even though it might be a one-way in, give the traffic that's out in that area that's only going to increase over time, I think another way to provide access to a drive-through is going to have to be found rather than a second curb -cut, because I can't support that because of the safety considerations. Anthes: Well, my question is this. If we do find consensus on that item and want to consolidate to one curb -cut on Gregg, would we then find in favor of (a)? Myres: Or (b)? Anthes: Because if you were consolidating it, you know, you might want to move that back and not grant the waiver and meet all the ordinances with one way in on Gregg. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 37 Myres: But then you've got people who might want to be accessing the parking lot having to do through the drive-through basically. Pate: Madame Chair. Anthes: Yes, Mr. Pate. Pate: I believe that option was drawn up and presented to at least one of the Subdivision Committees, I believe, and that would essentially move that driveway to come in at basically the building, which was -- certainly with the drive-through -- would not be advisable there, especially for stacking distance out of a commercial center. So we feel if that is removed that we would still support the waiver request as noted in your -- Anthes: As (a). Okay. Myres: For Driveway A. Anthes: Anybody else have comments on (a) or (b)? Graves: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Graves. Graves: Well, I'm just -- I somehow avoided this on Subdivision. I'm not sure how if it was there three times, but I managed it. I was curious if there had been any discussion about things like speed bumps and so forth on the -- if the northern curb -cut were allowed and it was one way, if we had speed bumps along the side of the building it might discourage even further some use by the folks that aren't intended to be using it, if you're just talking about using it for delivery. I mean, I think that's the reason they want it, isn't it? Pate: Primarily, I think a lot of it has to do with the drive-through access, to get immediate access to the drive-through that's located on the west end of the building. Graves: Well, I was just thinking if there -- if there's something that slows you down from going through there, too, then people would be less likely to use it to actually get over the parking lot. I mean, they might use it at first, and when they figured out that they had to slow down to go over several speed bumps, they might start using the one that's intended to be used. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 38 Pate: Our concern was not necessarily, although it probably is a valid one, of speeding along the back side of this. Ours was more toward one stacking out into Gregg, especially if it's a popular drive-through. Graves: Right. Part of it was, though, the turning movements required. Pate: Right. Graves: And if you're slowing them down, then the turning movements become less of a concern, I would think. I understand it doesn't alleviate the traffic part of it. Pate: Secondarily, another concern that we have was that if you -- in the site circulation that you have right now, if you enter the site at any place other than the actual entrance for the drive-through now, you cannot get to the drive-through. You cannot go against traffic along the one way to the back. So if you're actually going to the drive-through and do not know that that's the curb -cut for that, you have to get back out on a state highway and go through the intersection and get back out on Gregg to go back through that. Graves: Right. Pate: So in terms of internal circulation and our requirements under our parking/loading standards to have a development design there, internal circulation such that access is readily available, we felt it was important to allow that -- all access to be internal to the property without maneuvering outside onto the state highway to do that. Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Are you finished, Commissioner Graves? Graves: Yes. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Jeremy, you, or maybe you, Mr. Morgan, I'm a little confused in terms -- these access, we were the first Subdivision to see it, and these points of access were the problem at our Subdivision as well, and I don't know how to fix it. If you do away with the northern curb -cut and you only allow the south, I'm not sure how delivery traffic and this drive-through are going to coexist. If there's only one way in -- delivery traffic traditionally drops off in the back of the building -- how are they going to get out without Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 39 coming through the drive-through unless you prohibit a drive-through on that end, which is out of our jurisdiction. You've got to do that. Morgan: That would actually continue through the remaining back of the building and exit through the south. They wouldn't actually come through the drive-through. Clark: Well, if you don't have that northern entrance -- Morgan: If we don't have the northern entrance, correct. Clark: Yeah. I mean, assuming we do away with the northern curb -cut completely, even if you move the southern curb -cut further north, it would still seem to be a conflict with the drive-through and delivery traffic. I mean, I'm almost inclined to allow you to have all the curb -cuts simply -- this is -- because of the uniqueness of this site, and that does not make me happy from a safety -- a traffic safety standpoint at all, but if you're going to have stacking for a drive-through, plus delivery traffic trying to circulate through here, I'm not sure how you do it with just one on -- one curb -cut on Gregg. And I also had another question while we're on this on the Shiloh, the right in/right out, which I think is absolutely necessary and absolutely correct, how do you design those so some person doesn't make a left-hand turn in? Morgan: This is a state right-of-way and they only allow for a 4 -inch concrete divider. Ideally -- Your question is bow do you prevent someone from turning left? Clark: Because I can see them doing it. Morgan: And they will do it. The highway design is so -- people will be people and they'll drive at speed across and not damage the vehicle. Of course, that's not what we're looking for here. We'd like to prohibit them from making that left turn. Signage, other such things like that. There's really no mechanical means that effectively prohibits people from doing it other than signage and just posting that they're not allowed to make that turn. Clark: Because we fixed this at Nelson's Crossing, if you all remember, out by the mall, and they did a right in/right out and I can't -- I saw it just the other day and it looked kind of functional, like it was really going to deter somebody trying to turn left, and I was wondering if you were going to try to employ some of that same -- Morgan: I've seen people drive straight over landscaped medians in the middle of roads, and -- Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 40 Clark: Oh, yes. Morgan: if they're going to try to cross it, they'll try to cross it, but hopefully the we're going to use the maximum deterrent allowed by the Highway and Transportation Department. Clark: Okay. I'd like to hear more discussion about the two, how this piece of property is actually going to function with only one curb -cut on the Gregg and one curb -cut on Shiloh. I think this is a great commercial endeavor. It's a great use of that property that just traditionally floods. I love all of the trees that are going to the east of it, and I'm still kind of twitchy about that western elevation, but that's okay. But the curb -cuts concern me and how it's going to function. Anthes: I'd like to follow that up with Mr. Pate if I could. Normally staff doesn't recommend removing something unless they've convinced themselves that they can solve the problem. And I know you're not in the business of designing projects for applicants, but have you convinced yourself that that interior circulation could be manipulated to work? Pate: I believe so, and Jesse mentioned it would require some minor site design. It may require reducing the size of one of the units that are being proposed. The site layout is dictated in large part by the amount of square feet that is proposed on the site and the size of the building that's proposed, so either reducing some of the eastern curb -cut or reducing the size of one of those actual units that are being proposed to allow for two lanes of traffic on the west side, one dedicated for drive-through, one dedicated for actual through traffic, -- Clark: That will work. Pate: -- I think that would potentially solve the problem. Now, Mike, of course, may smile because we have a lot more things that are involved with a redevelopment and redesign of a site than just, you know, talking about it at a Planning Commission meeting, so -- Clark: It sounds easy when they talk about it. Pate: -- I'll certainly have to defer to him in terms of specifics on that. Anthes: I'd like to direct a question to the applicant. Being that you've been to three Subdivision Committee meetings and this has been an issue for some time, have you drawn the site in the way that Mr. Pate suggests? Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 41 Morgan: We have looked at several options for this site and changing the circulation has been one of them. The idea for the drive-through is a convenience. Typically what we're thinking is a possible drive-through cleaners, so you would drive in, drop your goods off, and drive away. To have someone actually circulate the rear of your building to get to a drive- through is in opposition of that. It's kind of like Wal-Mart having their pharmacy -- they put it out in the parking lot because it's easy to get to instead of having people drive around their loading docks and their delivery areas in order to get to the drive-through. If it's not convenient, people won't use it, and it might has well be taken out of the equation altogether. And mixing delivery traffic with your commercial traffic is never a -- or in this case, I don't believe it's the best option available to us for this site. Anthes: But have you looked at the option to perhaps make the building slightly smaller to allow the two-way there? Morgan: We shrunk the building east/west in order to allow for the 25 -foot landscape buffer, and my client believes that he's at that point now that -- and we're losing so much square footage and we're having to put so much into the infill of the project, it makes it more and more difficult to have a project of this caliber on this land. Anthes: Is there further discussion on 3(b)? Clark: Madame Chair, that is my major focal point. I can get away with all the other waivers, but the curb -cuts are really the significant sticking point with me. And I do not want to deny it. I don't want to vote against this. I would much rather table it and let the architects work on the traffic flow and with staff on curb -cuts before -- I mean, I'll vote against it, because, I mean, that -- It's a safety issue. Gregg is terrible. That is a horrific corner. It's getting worse every day and I just -- I don't understand how it's all going to work safely, and I think it could with just a little more -- Myres: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Myres. Myres: If we deny a sub -condition of approval, that doesn't mean we're denying the whole project? Anthes: That's correct. Myres: We're just telling them they can't have that second curb -cut? Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 42 Anthes: Myres: Anthes: Clark: Anthes: Myres: Motion: That's correct. Okay. Which is staff's recommendation. Well, which -- Okay. Let's move on to 3(c). Is there any discussion about the landscape waiver? No. Okay with that. Anthes: Is there any other discussion? I'll move that we approve Large Scale Development 06-2278 subject to the conditions of approval as follows: finding in favor of Commercial Design Standards; finding in favor of the street improvements as recommended by staff, and then on Item 3, finding in favor or 3(a), striking or finding against 3(b), in favor of 3(c), in favor of 4, and all other conditions as stated. Myres: I'll second. Anthes: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Anthes, a second my Commissioner Myres. Morgan: Madame Chair, -- Anthes: I'm sorry, -- Morgan: -- may Mr. Brian Shaw speak for one second before we make a final vote on clarification of what exactly is being motioned? Anthes: The motion on the floor is to accept the recommendation of staff on all of the points as outlined in your staff report. Morgan: And this would prohibit the second curb -cut onto Gregg? Anthes: Yes. Morgan: Is there any place for a discussion with Mr. Brian Shaw? Anthes: Well, normally we don't allow that during voting procedure. I think we're all pretty aware of what the issue is. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 43 Morgan: Thanks. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Graves: Madame Chair, just for purposes of the record, I think it's been stated, but I know that our city attorney talks about our abilities to vote up or down on a large-scale development. Of course, on this one it's just one particular waiver that's being requested, that the motion would contemplate voting down, but just for the purposes of the record I would say it's primarily a traffic issue, it sounds like, from staff, that there's a lot of concern about stacking and traffic movement and so forth., so it is a traffic concern with the commissioners. Anthes: Thank you for that clarification. Is there further discussion? We have a motion to approve. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve LSD 06-2278 carries with a vote of 7-0-1, with Commissioner Lack recusing. Commissioner Ostner is absent. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 44 RZN 06-2344: (DUNNERSTOCK - WINDSOR S/D, 513): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at NE CORNER OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD AND SELLERS RD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 34.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. RZN 06-2345: (SLOAN/DOT TIPTON, 474): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located S & E OF DOT TIPTON ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 19.23 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre. Anthes: Item 7 and 9 this evening have been requested to be tabled. We would be happy to hear public comment if any members of the public are here to speak on either of those items. So would any public that's here to speak on Rezoning Request 06-2344, which is Item 7, or Rezoning Request 06- 2345, please raise your hand. Okay. Are you here for 7 or 9? Audience: 9. Audience: 7. Anthes: 7? Audience: Both. Anthes: Both? Okay. All right. We were just going to table without staff reports, but if you guys are here, we want to hear your comments, so we'll just go right ahead. Item 7 is Rezoning Request 06-2344, Dunnerstock-Windsor. Garner: This property was approved and platted through the City of Farmington in the Farmington Planning Area for a 28 -lot subdivision with individual septic systems for each lot. The infrastructure of this subdivision is in the process of being installed with streets cut and gravel installed and the water line has been installed. The City of Fayetteville approved annexation of this property in election on October 16th and it was officially accepted into the city on November 21 st and the land was automatically rezoned to R -A, Residential -Agricultural. After the property was annexed, the applicant decided to reevaluate the development of the property and submitted a revised subdivision concept plat to the city with smaller lots, increasing the subdivision density from 28 lots to 78 lots. The applicant also proposes to connect to the city sewer system to the north with a small lift station. In order to develop the property for 78 lots, the applicant proposed to rezone the property to RSF- Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 45 4. Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request to RSF-4 based on our findings in the staff report. The development of this property at the zoning proposed will be inconsistent to that of the surrounding land uses that are largely agricultural and large estate rural residential lots that would result in an isolated zone of RSF-4 that we don't find would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff would be in favor of rezoning this property to RSF-2 in order to allow the 28 -lot subdivision previously approved through the City of Farmington to be completed and permit connection to the sewer system, and we do understand as well that with an RSF-2 that would also allow an additional -- several lots would be allowed on the property other than 28 lots. Regarding the findings for public service impacts, the city has found that water and sewer and fire and police services would not be adversely impacted by this subdivision. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Would any member of the public like to address this rezoning request for Dunnerstock-Windsor? Please come forward. Good evening. Young: Hello. My name is Dave Young. I'm a retired Fayetteville firefighter. I retired in 1998. And I would like to give you a brief history of the region. I built the first house out there on the straightaway that had been built in 16 years in 1990, and it's one of the ones on the west side of Double Springs Road. We are all in that area mainly two -acre estates. I currently live on the east side, which is going to be next to the Sloan property that was tabled tonight, and we want -- all the homeowners out there, which a couple of them are here tonight with me, we want to keep everything aesthetically as we have already started planning. When I built that first house in 1990 it was 2,000 square feet sitting on three acres, and this is the baby of the block, of the whole area. I remember I had $87.000.00 in it and he gave me an $89,000.00 appraisal, and I said to the appraiser, I said, "What is that? What's up with this?" He says, "Well," he says, "Farmington is known for rental property and mobile home parks." He says, "I can't give you a better appraisal until more houses are built." Well, I've lived there now in that area for 15 years and me and all my neighbors and I have worked real hard at keeping up an upscale neighborhood there in the area. I don't want to speak totally against development. I am not against development. I've been discussing this with Shirley for some time and I have expressed my interest to sit on your panel because of mistakes that I have seen that have transpired since the planning deal was done in the late `80s and things that have been -- mistakes that have taken place since then. I have always been a big person on the west side. Kit can tell you I was the first person to address the council on the sewer plant in 1994. We want to keep the neighborhood aesthetically as we've started it We would like to keep it with the flow of things and so forth. I understand that we need smaller housing, but it Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 46 needs to be done in phases, done gradually, as you move away from the area that's already established. I would like to say that the council -- and I will be back here next month when the next one comes up for the Sloan property, because I -- Charlie and I have been in business for many years as close associates and so forth. I've helped him with property before -- but I have to live next to my neighbors, and everyone in the neighborhood, even the people on the west side of Double Springs, want to keep all the planning out there in the flow that it's been going and keep it along that line. We don't want to stop it, we want to put a bridle on it, help control it to give it a direction that we think it should go for the neighborhood. So I wanted to -- since the Sloans' had been tabled, I did want to address it on this issue because it's a regional issue right now. Some of the homeowners I've talked to have suggested that the further east it goes it will put a buffer zone, you know, of R-2 or R-4 and then move down to the R-8 as you get further to the east from where the houses are currently established. But I'll be back addressing you again later next month. Thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to address this rezoning request? Please come forward. Good evening. Keith: Good evening. My name is Sandy Keith. I'm asking that you not change the zoning to R-4 or R-8. Those of us that live along Double Springs Road and off of Double Springs Road moved out there because we like the peace and quiet of the country. Our lots are not measured in feet, our lots are measured in acreage. We have three, five, eight acres on our property. We like the peace and quiet, and if you grant this variance all this will be taken away from us. I think we have the best of both worlds. We have country living with the nearby city conveniences. As we are newly annexed into the City of Fayetteville, I hope that you would consider you're working on greenspace and I wish you would consider leaving our greenspace the way it is. We have open lots, no fences between our neighbors, and like I said, there's quiet. If you would zone it to four houses per acre, that could possibly be, instead of just 34 houses out there, we would have 136 houses on this one piece of property. With each household having at least two vehicles, you're putting 272 cars on our Double Springs Road, which cannot handle that traffic. And then on the 39 acres where they want to put eight houses per acre, we're talking 312 houses. With two cars per family, that's 624 more vehicles on our congested roads. We do not want to see like they have at Legacy Point. All you see is rooftops and high wooden fences. That's not why we moved out there. And the building business, the housing business, is slowing down. There's over 3,000 houses in Northwest Arkansas that's still unoccupied. And we enjoy our country living. We like to see the squirrels and the rabbits scamper through our yards. Some of them have Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 47 horses and also we have -- some have -- belong to the FFA. They have a cow or two on there for their FFA projects. So I'm asking to deny this request for the four acres -- for the four houses per acre and the eight houses per acre. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you, Ms. Keith. I believe we have a third person. Good evening. Ranking: My name is Mary Rankin. I live on the west side of Double Springs Road. We bought out there about four or five years ago, and two years ago we built a house on five acres there. We also like the country atmosphere where neighbors are not real close by and we would like to keep our neighborhood the way it is. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Hamblin: Hi. My name is Kelly Hamblin. I live at 102 Double Springs Road. My property abuts the Dunnerstock property on the east and on the south sides, and we bought our house about a year and a half ago. I had seen the final -- or the preliminary plat that was approved by Farmington and by Washington County and I was aware that the subdivision was going in and that it was going to be about eight -tenths -of -an -acre lots and I was fine with that, didn't have any problems, and was a little surprised whenever I was notified that they were going to be rezoning it to four units per acre. One of the appeals of Double Springs Road to me is that -- I mean, I think that it's a very well planned road. I think that you all have done a great job on it. You have the commercial up against the street and then it's followed by some multifamily, and then you get into some higher densities, single-family, and then it goes on into lower densities, and I think that -- I agree with your staff, that if you throw in an RSF-4 or RSF- 8 in the middle of all this that it would just seem completely out of place in the middle of the estate lots that are out there and in the subdivisions surrounding it. The nearest subdivision, Silver Thorn II, the lot sizes are over an acre, and also in -- the nearest lots for Silver Thorn Phase 1, their lot sizes are a little over an half an acre, and so it really doesn't seem to make sense for that kind of density in this area. I guess that's really all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Anthes: Thank you. Would any member of the public like to address this item? This is the Dunnerstock-Windsor rezoning request. Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to speak? They're not here probably. Come on up. Good evening, Mr. Jorgensen. Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen, on behalf of Mark Foster on this project, and I suppose we ought to go ahead and talk about 9. No? Not yet? Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 48 Anthes: Not yet. We'll do it in two. Jorgensen: We were eating turkey Thursday, had the day off Friday visiting with our family, and I got the staff report today and noticed that staff recommended denial of the RSF-4, and so that was the reason we thought we would come and talk to the staff and see what we could work out, so that's the reason for the request to table this, and I apologize for this happening, the people coming to listen to this and express their concerns, and we thought it would be wise to table this request at this particular time. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jorgensen. Commissioners? Commissioner Myres. Motion: Myres: I'd like to make a motion to table Rezoning 06-2344 at the request of the applicant. Jeremy, table until -- Pate: Would you like to table for two weeks? Jorgensen: That would be fine. Myres: Two weeks. Okay. Two weeks. Clark: Second. Anthes: We have a motion to table by Commissioner Myres, with a second by Commissioner Clark. Is there further discussion? Are there any comments to the applicant? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table RZN 06-2344 carries with a vote of 7-1-0, with Commissioner Graves voting no. Commissioner Ostner is absent. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 49 RZN 06-2336: (SLOAN/BROYLES & PERSIMMON, 479/515): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at SW CORNER OF BROYLES AND PERSIMMON. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 33.43 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre. Anthes: Item Number 8, Rezoning Request 06-2336, Sloan/Broyles & Persimmon. May we have the staff report? Garner: Yes. This property contains approximately 36.62 acres. It was part of the original piece of property that was annexed for the city's west side wastewater treatment plant several years ago, and this portion of the property that's proposed to be rezoned is not for the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant is located a quarter of a mile to the south of this site, and the property is located on the south side of Persimmon Street between Broyles Avenue and 54th Avenue. It is zoned R -A, Residential -Agricultural, and the interim future land use plan identifies the property as residential. The property is undeveloped pasture and is surrounded by property that's rural residential or undeveloped in nature and there are two subdivisions that have been recently approved to the west and east of the site. To the east, Cross Keys Phase II has been approved, and to the west Legacy Point Phase IV subdivision have been approved. The applicant proposes rezoning the property to RSF-8 for single-family development with an associated bill of assurance to limit the total number of units to 143 for an approximate density of four units per acre over the property. They proposed the RSF-8 zoning to allow for reduced building setbacks, 15 feet on the front, 5 on the side, and 5 on the rear, rather than those permitted with a standard RSF-4 zoning district. And staff does find in favor of this rezoning request with the associate bill of assurance, finding that residential development on this property at approximately four units per acre is appropriate in this developing area that is surrounded by two subdivisions. Development of this property will provide an improved east -west street linkage with the connection between these two new subdivisions with the realignment of Persimmon through this property. The RSF-8 zoning will allow for a mix of residential housing and houses closer to the street in a more traditional design rather than our standard RSF-4 suburban type of development. Public service providers have reviewed this rezoning request and determined that adverse impacts to water, sewer, police and wire would not occur with the incorporation of standard development requirements when the property is developed. We are recommending approval of this rezoning, and please let me know if you have any questions. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page SO Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Would any member of the public like to address this Rezoning Request for Sloan, Broyles & Persimmon? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment section. Would the applicant like to speak? Jorgensen: Yes. On behalf of the owner, Charlie Sloan and J.B. Hays, and this project, I'm Dave Jorgensen and I'm here to answer questions and, as Andrew mentioned, the real reason for this is to be able to have some reduced setbacks side and front, specifically on this end. That's the real reason for the RSF-8. And as you probably noticed, we did submit the bill of assurance to the max of 143 units, which gives us approximately four units per acre. Anthes: Thank you, Mr. Jorgensen. Jorgensen: Yes, ma'am. Anthes: Commissioners? Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Clark: Mr. Jorgensen, I have a question for you, or maybe Mr. Sloan can answer it. On the bill of assurance it says that it's restricted to single-family residential, the project is limited to 143 lots, so we're talking houses, not duplexes, not tri-plexes, not apartments? Jorgensen: Single-family houses, correct. Clark: Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Jorgensen: Has staff seen -- Planning Commission seen the proposed layout for the project? I have one copy. I wish I would have brought the -- if it makes any difference. Myres: It does. Anthes: It doesn't really for a rezoning. Myres: Oh, yeah. I'm jumping the gun. Anthes: Sometimes it helps you and sometimes it hurts you. Jorgensen: True. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 51 Clark: Madame Chair. Anthes: I have a couple of questions. Clark: Okay. I was just going to go ahead and make a motion, but go ahead. Anthes: I'd like staff to tell us where the nearest commercial node to this area is or is expected to be. Pate: I did not bring our as of yet adopted plan, although it is right there. Probably the closest commercial area, or it's actually primarily residential, but the city neighborhood areas that would allow for corner commercial would be located along 46th Avenue and Wedington, which is on your maps at Page 15 and 16. You can see they're at the corner of about Wedington and 46th Avenue. That's one of the closest locations for those types of services. Other smaller retail services obviously within Westside Village, which is a planned zoning district, might meter to this area as well as at the end of Persimmon, which is the same street that this would connect, there is a larger commercial node that is planned for the intersection of Shiloh and Persimmon, so those are probably the closest areas for commercial services. Anthes: Looking at the sector map, and as stated in our staff report, the sector map does not identify this site as an infill or growth sector. Will you talk about that in your recommendation to approve this density, this lower density? Pate: The density really is limited. We had concerns about RSF-8 and I've spoke about this application and the next application with the applicant in this area. The applicant did offer a bill of assurance to limit that type of density to permanently serve as the transition from those commercial nodes that are further to the east and west. I think this area will continue to see growth and we will eventually see this as an urban environment; however, it's a matter of timing and currency infrastructure, to be honest. We felt it was appropriate to allow for this type of development, seeing the development patters in this area, especially with the advent of so much development falling to the Boys & Girls Club, really, which sort of kicked that off. We've seen, obviously, a school and several other projects that are more, I guess, in terms of the whole environment, it is becoming more of a traditional neighborhood type of development. We're seeing a variety of home sizes, lot sizes, and development patterns in this area., so we did feel that this was an appropriate location. While not necessarily an infield growth area, it is listed as a residential type of growth pattern in this area. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 52 Anthes: Just one other question. Normally we know that when we see a rezoning to single family, we know that generally that density is lower when the project is built. Pate: Correct. Anthes: Do you feel this will actually build out to four unites per acre? Pate: I think so. I think that actually the plats that I have seen actually get up to around four units an acre with the 143 lots. I think that's pretty much spot on what they would like to get for this property, which would actually have a four -unit -per -acre lot yield. If this rezoned RSF-4, that would be much more difficult because of the lot size and configuration that's required. Anthes: And staff is still comfortable with that then? Pate: Yes. Anthes: Is there further discussion? Commissioner Myres. Myres: I just have a quick question. When Andrew was presenting the item, I heard you say 36 acres. I believe it's 33.4. I'm sure that was just a mistake. Anthes: Well, our staff report says 36.62. Myres: And the summary says 33.43. Williams: What the problem is is that originally they were offering to buy 33 -point - something acres. At the last City Council meeting the City Council approved a different sale to them of 36.62 acres, so that's the actual parcel now. Myres: So the one in the summary is wrong and the one in the report is correct? Williams: That's correct. Myres: That's just -- that was my only question, and everybody else has already asked the other questions I had. Anthes: Commissioner Clark. Motion: Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 53 Clark: Madame Chair, I will recommend that we -- are we going to forward?-- Anthes: Yes. Clark: -- forward Rezoning 06-2336 with approval, with a recommendation of approval. Anthes: A motion to forward. Do we hear a second? Trumbo: Second. Anthes: A motion to forward by Commissioner Clark, with a second by Commissioner Trumbo? Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to forward RZN 06-2336 carries with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Ostner is absent. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 54 RZN 06-2345: (SLOAN/DOT TIPTON, 474): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located S & E OF DOT TIPTON ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 19.23 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-8, Residential Single Family, 8 units per acre. Anthes: Item Number 9 is Rezoning Request 06-2345. Again, the applicant has requested this item be tabled, but we do have members of the public here. We can enter into the record the minutes from Item 7 where those were cross-referenced, but if anybody else would like to add anything, please come forward. Good evening. Rankin: Maurice Rankin, 105 North Double Springs. It's on the other side of Double Springs from the property and south of it. Most of the comments that was made previously on the other postponed case also apply to this, and I don't want to duplicate those, but just to point out that if all these requests are approved, plus the 340 lots which Farmington has approved on Double Springs just south, it's bringing a tremendous amount of traffic to a road which is two lanes, steep ditches, no shoulders, no place for a sidewalk, and, you know, I think the same approach that was suggested for transition, perhaps one house per acre around the property, would be appropriate because this is an estate -type area. Our property is five acres with one house on it. And other than that, I think it's been pretty well covered. Thank you. Anthes: Thank you. Would any other member of the public like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public comment. Does the applicant have any words? Clark: Do we need a motion? Anthes: We need a motion. Motion: Clark: Madame Chair, I'll make the motion that we table Rezoning 06-2345 along -- Jorgensen: Indefinitely. Clark: -- indefinitely. I like that word. Table it indefinitely. Myres: I'll second. Planning Commission November 27, 2006 Page 55 Anthes: We have a motion to table indefinitely by Commissioner Clark, with a second by Commissioner Myres. Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to table RZN 06-2345 carries with a vote of 7-1-0, with Commissioner Graves voting no. Commissioner Ostner is absent. Anthes: That was our final agenda item tonight. Are there any announcements? Pate: We do have on December 5th a developer workshop that we do annually -- usually it's in the spring, this year we're doing it -- it's in the winter -- and that is usually when the development community, of course, planning commissioners, council members, are invited to attend to go over certain items, and we'll be getting an agenda out soon. In previous years we've gone over lot splits, what's a lot split, what's a large-scale development. We're going to forego that exciting debate and look instead at what we have accomplished this year as a city and what we're looking forward to in the coming year, especially with the City Plan 2025 and the benchmarks that we've set for ourselves. We'll go over things that have passed through the City Council, such as the Hillside Overlay District. We're not going through the entire ordinance, just basically give everyone an outline of what to expect from that; the Landscape Ordinance, things of that nature that have passed, so it will be an 8:30 to 11:00 or 11:30 meeting, I believe, and we'll provide a light breakfast, coffee, things of that nature. It will be at the Blair Library this year, so I look forward to some announcements on that. Anthes: December 5th. I found a resource online and ordered a copy. This is a "Citizen Planners Resource Kit" that was published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and I just want to announce that I have it available if anybody wants to borrow it. Myres: Pass it around. Anthes: All right. Anything else? We're adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.