Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-13 MinutesPlanning Commission August 13, 2007 Page I of 28 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on August 13, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: July 23, 2007 Approved Page 3 ADM 07-2695 (FAYETTEVILLE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC) Approved Page 3 ADM 07-2625 (MASTER STREET PLAN) Forwarded Page 4 LSD 07-2633 (WALGREENS AT 6TH & ONE MILE, 558) Approved Page 8 CUP 07-2666 (VERIZON — SANG AVENUE, 481) Tabled Page 12 CUP 07-2668 (VERIZON — ALLIED STORAGE, 601) Approved Page 19 RZN 07-2667 (HOBSON, INC, 433) Denied Page 20 RZN 07-2669 (PREMIUM BRANDS, 560) Tabled Page 23 R-PZD 07-2634 (COVES AT WALNUT CROSSING, 555) Forwarded Page 25 ADM 07-2709 (FAYETTEVILLE DOWNTOWN CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICT) Forwarded Page 27 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 2 of 28 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Matthew Cabe Audy Lack Christine Myres Lois Bryant Alan Ostner Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Glenn Newman/Engineering CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT James Graves Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission Chair Jill Anthes called the meeting to order. Commissioner Anthes requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. She informed the audience and commissioners that the format of the meetings would be changing, to have the applicant present prior to the public comment. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, called the Planning Commission roll. Commissioner Graves, Trumbo and Myres were not present. Commissioner Myers arrived after the consent agenda. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 3 of 28 Consent: Approval of the minutes from the July 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. ADM 07-2695: (FAYETTEVILLE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC): Submitted by PATRICK HARGUS ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOCIATES for property located at 3344 N. FUTRALL DRIVE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 1. 11 acres. The request is for a one-year extension on the approval of the Fayetteville Diagnostic Clinic, LSD 06-2197. Commissioner Ostner stated he would like separate votes on these two items, as he was not present at the previous meeting in order to vote on the minutes. Motion: Commissioner Lack moved to approve the minutes from the July 23, 2007 meeting. Commissioner Bryant seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-0-1, with Commissioner Ostner recusing. Motion: Commissioner Ostner moved to approve ADM 07-2695 on the consent agenda. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0-0. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 4 of 28 Old Business: ADM 07-2625: (Master Street Plan Update): Submitted by Planning Staff, recommending amendments to and adoption of the Master Street Plan for the City of Fayetteville. Karen Minkel, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. She reviewed the process used by staff to create the proposed Master Street Plan (MSP) and highlighted the major changes. Significant changes included: 1) the addition of more small, connecting streets; 2) greater sensitivity to the Future Land Use Map; 3) classification of streets in newly annexed areas; 4) alignment with the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan; 5) alignment changes to streets based on hillside and floodplain data; 6) Better accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists; 7) reduction of curb and gutter from two feet to one -and -a -half feet; 8) overall reduction of right-of-way requirements; 8) lane width measured from face of curb instead of back of curb to better describe the visual width of the road; and 9) a revision of the Downtown street cross-sections to make sidewalk and landscaping requirements consistent with City ordinances. Staff also reviewed the public input process, mentioning meetings and presentations with the Street Committee, utility companies, local engineers and developers and two Open Houses—one held on a Saturday, June 23 at the Farmer's Market and the other on July 26, 2007 at a Gulley Park summer concert. Overall, public input has been positive, commending the bike lanes, boulevards, and consistency with other City plans and ordinances. Minkel further discussed issues that had been raised at the first hearing of the MSP by the Planning Commission on July 9, 2007. First, staff added desired operating speeds to each street cross-section at the request of the Planning Commission and reviewed the relationship between travel lanes and speed using the proposed Context Sensitive Solutions developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Congress for the New Urbanism. The proposed travel lane widths for Collectors, Minor Arterials and Principal Arterials are consistent with the national recommendations. Staff modified the Low -Impact Development street cross-section, reducing the lanes widths 9 -feet and making them consistent with the other Residential street cross-section, and staff added on -street parking to the Hillside Local street cross-section without changing the total paved width in order to narrow travel lane widths. Staff also addressed the definition of a "green" neighborhood by adding elements identified by the LEED Neighborhood Development projects. Finally, Staff recommended removing the Collector Boulevard street -cross section and accompanying text based on a second review of the MSP by the Fire Department, which found that this street cross-section does not meet the Fayetteville Fire Code as it does not provide at least 20' free and clear on either side of the boulevard. Staff reviewed the public comment received, which included several letters from residents at the Estates at Salem Hills opposed to Howard Nickell's classification. Bob Gaddy and Jeff Gaddy also wrote letters supporting the designation of Oakland Zion Road as a Minor Arterial. John McClarty from the Regional Planning Commission stated support for the designation of Highway 112 north of Howard Nickell as a Principal Arterial Parkway to continue a regional north/south connection. Staff recommended forwarding the proposed MSP with a recommendation for approval to the City Council. Commissioner Anthes expressed appreciation for the additional information that staff had provided. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 5 of 28 Katie Jackson (citizen) stated that she was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road and stated that the Principal Arterial would drastically change what the neighborhood is like and could not imagine cars going by at 50 mph. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the opposition to this designation. Roy Slaughter (citizen) stated that he was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road. He said that the only other road built like the proposed road was Garland Avenue, which was not safe for adults, much less children. The residents who moved to this neighborhood wanted to get away from the hustle and bustle and only found out about this proposed road three weeks before the first Planning Commission meeting. Dwayne Calhoun (citizen) stated that he was also a resident of the Estates at Salem Road and his thoughts had been summarized in a letter that he submitted. He can't let his four-year old play in the front yard now, and a future four -lane boulevard would dramatically change the neighborhood. Commissioner Anthes asked staff for an overview of the timeline on the Howard Nickell designation and clarified for the public that the speeds associated with a Minor Arterial were 35-40 mph and 40-45 for a Principal Arterial. Minkel stated that when the development came through the review process in 2003, Howard Nickell had been classified as a Principal Arterial and Rupple Road as a Minor Arterial and these two roads had a T intersection. The developer proposed to change this intersection to a curve and the curve was designated as a Minor Arterial, which was consistent with Rupple Road, and 90' of Right -of -Way was dedicated as a condition of approval. In 2005, City Council changed Rupple Road's designation to a Principal Arterial. Under the proposed plan, a Principal Arterial Parkway would require 107' of Right -of -Way. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff saw any other way to make the connection. Minkel responded that there are no other minor or principal arterials in the area where comparable right-of-way has been acquired. The north/south connection that Rupple represents is important to the City as well as the region. Staff added that the design of this particular segment will determine how much right-of-way is ultimately needed; the existing 90 -foot right-of-way may dictate the design. Commissioner Lack stated that often we see with existing right-of-way that the ideal cross-section is modified to meet what the City has. He had a great deal of compassion for the property owners in this instance, but didn't feel that this compassion should override a City Council policy decision. In fact, it may be more appropriate for the City Council to review this decision; however, in looking at the map he didn't see the potential to change the current designation without shifting the same concerns to another neighborhood. He also thought that the changes to the cross-section proposed with the boulevard were much more pleasing than a Minor Arterial or Principal Arterial without the boulevard. He appreciated the modifications made by staff to the cross-sections and the addition of ideal design speeds. He felt comfortable forwarding the proposed MSP to the City Council. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 6 of 28 Commissioner Myres stated that she was going to vote against the MSP because she had had problems with the process from the beginning. She was not happy with decisions that have been made, for example, with Howard Nickell and Highway 112. Some of the street sections are too big and over -designed for the neighborhoods they go through. Commissioner Ostner asked about the College Avenue, Rock Street and Archibald Yell intersection. It seemed on the map that College Avenue between Rock and South streets was designated as a Local or Residential street. Was this foreshadowing of prohibiting that connection with a cul-de-sac? He was adamantly opposed to that. Minkel responded that this was not staff's intent. A number of the Downtown Master Plan streets had changed to Local or Residential designations because of the consolidation of street cross- sections in this area, but this segment of road was intended to reflect the street cross-sections in the Downtown Master Plan. Staff would double-check this segment. Commissioner Ostner stated that it was not appropriate to drop the designation to gray. However, the street cross-sections overall seemed appropriate, the design speeds look good and he appreciated the extra work. Commissioner Anthes added that she liked the access management shown for each section. Commissioner Ostner requested more specifics from Commissioner Myers and which streets she was bothered by. Commissioner Myres responded that she had stated her opinions in previous meetings, but that she felt four- and five -lane roads running through neighborhoods was not appropriate. She realized that everyone wants an efficient transportation system but that it needed to be a sensible one. The MSP probably needed to go forward but she was not happy with it. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the Master Street Plan to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with an amendment to the map that showed College Avenue as a Collector street between Rock Street and South Street. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes asked Commissioner Myres whether her problems were with the map or the street cross-sections. Commissioner Myres responded that she thought the street cross-sections had been well-designed but she had a problem with the location of some of them on the map. Upon roll call, the motion to table the request to forward the Master Street Plan to the City Council with a recommendation of approval passed 6-1-0, with Commissioner Myres Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 7 of 28 dissenting. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 8 of 28 New Business: LSD 07-2633: Large Scale Development (WALGREEN'S @ 6TH & ONE MILE RD, 558): Submitted by JEFFERY NICHOLAS SPRINGFIELD HOLDING GROUP,LLC for property located at 2964 W 6TH ST.@ THE INTERSECTION OF ONE MILE ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request is to approve a 13,659 s.f. retail building with associated parking. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing the background of the request, which included previous discussions regarding the proposed curb -cut onto 6`" Street. Staff does not find in favor of the proposed curb -cut, finding that it may create a dangerous traffic condition by introducing turning movements from a retail business in the vicinity of high volume traffic entering larger retail sites; and safe and adequate access can be provided by way of direct access to a local street that is signalized, which moves traffic more safely and efficiently for the public. Jeff Nicholas (applicant), stated that he had been working with staff since February and had met with staff in July to discuss some unresolved issues related to tree preservation, cross -access to the east and the proposed curb -cut onto 6a Street. A traffic study was requested by staff to study the access onto 6`" Street and the study had been provided, which indicated the level of service was acceptable for the proposed curb -cut onto 6'h with restricted turning movements. Bank of the Ozarks had been approved to develop a bank on the subject site with an access to 6`" Street. Why was staff now recommending that the access not be allowed for Walgreens? Ernie Peters, Peters and Associates (traffic engineer) stated that he was asked to study the proposed access to 6`" Street (right-in/right-out) and the driveway onto One Mile Road. The traffic study indicated an acceptable level of service for both drives. The drive onto 6`" permits vehicles access to the site without having to go through the intersection of 6`" and One Mile. A right-in/right-out is a safe design because there are few vehicle conflicts, delays occur on site rather than in the street. The levels of service are "A" or `B", which is better than the goal of an LOS of "D". The access points are not dangerous or unsafe. Jack Butt (attorney for applicant), stated that the City can require certain things, but if the action is taken too far it can be considered a taking. City Attorney Kit Williams has provided information regarding access that if it is limited or denied the applicant must be compensated. Based on this information, the City Council recently allowed the curb -cut for Liberty Bank. The ordinance requires a 60' separation between the proposed curb -cut and the intersection of 6a' and One Mile. The applicant has provided 210'-260'. No traffic study was conducted by the City, which leaves the Planning Commission with nothing more than a "gut" feeling that this is a dangerous situation. This is a fairly "hazy" area that is not supported by fact and could be considered to be arbitrary and capricious. Bank of the Ozarks was approved for the same types of curb -cuts only a few months ago with no change in policy. This looks like the rules are being made up as we go along. Commissioner Anthes asked if we had signed approval from the state for the curb -cut design on 6`" Street? Were the previous curb -cuts on the property allowed? Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 9 of 28 Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the previous use of the property was for a car dealership and that the curb -cuts were permitted prior to current ordinance standards. Commissioner Anthes asked why Bank of the Ozarks was approved with an access to 6`hl Jeremy Pate stated that the curb -cuts were in similar locations, but that the traffic in the area had increased since the approval of the bank. Traffic at this intersection was brought up as a topic when a large warehousing use was proposed at the end of Finger Road. Staff's recommendation is based on protecting the public's health, safety and welfare, finding that additional turning movements created by the proposed curb cut would add confusion and the potential for a more dangerous traffic condition. Glen Newman, Staff Engineer, stated that a right-in/right-out access point with a median on 6`h would help the situation as it would prohibit vehicles from turning left into the development. However, due to the proximity of this curb cut to the intersection, a median would inhibit the turn lane stacking for vehicles turning south. The design for right-in/right-out without a median was used inappropriately by the public and was ineffective, which has been discovered in other instances in the City recently. Commissioner Lack provided a review of the comments from the Subdivision Committee meeting. He was in favor of the curb -cut onto 6`h and discussed the design of Walgreens at Township and College. The driveway onto College helped. He stated he does not think that the access onto 6`h is unsafe. Commissioner Myers stated that she is usually against right-in/right-out drives, but would not vote against the request. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff was talking about a median in the turn -lane? Newman stated yes. Commissioner Lack asked if staff was recommending a barrier and if so he could support it also. Commissioner Ostner asked about the speed limit in the area. Newman stated that it was 45 MPH, but changed to 55 MPH to the west. Commissioner Ostner asked about the stopping distance. Newman stated that he did not have those numbers available, but that the stopping distance for 40 MPH is approximately 300'. Commissioner Ostner and Newman discussed the middle turn lane and potential traffic conflicts for east and west bound traffic in the vicinity of the traffic signal and proposed access to 6th Street. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 10 of 28 Commissioner Anthes asked staff about the City's access management policy. Pate stated that Chapter 166.08 (C)(5,6 and 7) outlines 3 requirements regarding access, access control and through traffic. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the memo that he had prepared for the Liberty Bank appeal. If the City denies access then the owners will need to be compensated by the City/tax payers. Commissioner Anthes asked if other Cities with stricter standards than Fayetteville's are paying? Williams said yes, if the Cities are being sued. Commissioner Anthes asked what leverage there was to require a median in the middle turn lane on a state highway. Newman stated that staff is looking at access management policies and are discussing them with AHTD. It would be difficult given the close location of the intersection. Commissioner Winston asked if there had been any lawsuits in the State of Arkansas regarding access. Williams referred to his memo, which quoted cases from Arkansas. Commissioner Ostner cited the memo and asked if it was the same for Walgreens. Williams stated that we need evidence of the creation or compounding of a dangerous traffic situation, but that the City would still have to compensate the owner. Commissioner Anthes asked the commissioners to discuss the other determinations. Commissioner Ostner asked if the applicants had contacted the adjacent property owners about sharing access to 61 . Jeff Nicholas stated that they had repeatedly tried to contact the owner, but never received a response. Commissioner Ostner stated that sharing an adjacent curb -cut could work. Williams asked if the applicant was in agreement with all other conditions of approval. Nicholas responded in the affirmative. Motion: Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 11 of 28 Commissioner Lack made a motion to approve the large scale development with all conditions of approval, determining in favor of the right-in/right-out curb -cut onto 6th Street. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to approve passed 4-3-0. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 12 of 28 CUP 07-2666: (VERIZON WIRELESS SANG AVENUE, 481): Submitted by WOODEN, FULTON & SCARBOROUGH, P.C. for property located at THE SANG AVENUE WATER TOWER SITE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 13 acres. The request is for a 150' wireless communication facility on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, described the applicant's request to construct a new 150' cellular tower, as included in the staff report. The existing tower near the site is not structurally capable of additional antenna above 100', which is needed to provide adequate service. Additionally, the existing water tower cannot support antenna above 100'. Staff finds in favor of the request, with conditions. The request would not introduce new visual impacts to the area. Staff recommends moving the tower to the southwest portion of the site. Relocation is needed to achieve compatibility and camouflaging to the best extent feasible, as required by City ordinance. Bob Estes (applicant) represents Verizon wireless. Estes submitted photos and described the City's property as the "donut hole", the donut being the Archer's property. Verizon proposes to locate the tower on City property, in the open northeast corner of the site. Relocation as recommended by staff would create a substantial hardship. Significant work at higher levels to permit this tower in the proposed location has already been done, and moving the tower would require them to start all over. Relocation would also likely require tree removal for the footprint of the tower. This tower would not be like the Alltel footprint but would be much smaller. Verizon agrees and accepts all conditions of approval, except No. 2 because it would create a problem with delay of the project, dropped calls, and moving the tower would not provide effective service. Andy Cunnyngham (applicant) stated that if they have to move the tower behind the water tower, it will cast a significant RF shadow over the University of Arkansas and Razorback Road. He stated concern that coverage in that area may not be provided. It is a thoughtful recommendation to try to preserve the neighborhood. Public Comment: Lynn Wade at 100 North Sang Avenue stated that he has a view up the drive to the water tower from his home. Wade discussed the history of the Alltel cell tower adjacent to the subject property. Where the tower is currently proposed it may cause visual impacts to his house, where staff recommends it be relocated there would probably not be visual impacts. The site plan submitted shows screening on the south and west sides, and it should be on the north and east to screen from adjoining properties. Wade requested to know the actual height of the Alltel tower. They also need to study the flight pattern of Drake Field in relation to the proposed tower. He is okay with the tower in the southwestern portion of the site as recommended by staff, but is not okay with the tower as it is proposed in the northeastern portion of the site. James Coger owns two lots to the south and the tower would be extremely visible. Relocating the tower to the southwest portion would bring the tower within 200' of his future home (not yet built). He has concerns with the health effects caused by microwaves from cell towers and cells phones. Studies have shown they are detrimental to human health. Health issues have been overshadowed Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 13 of 28 by aesthetics. He is also concerned with impacts to property values from the cell tower. Property values went down after the Archer's property was zoned C-PZD. The City is charged with the health of its citizens. Coger discussed health issues associated with the tower and microwave transmissions at length. Commissioner Anthes reminded Mr. Coger that his 10 -minute time limit was approaching. Coger concluded his remarks. Kit Williams, City Attorney, reminded the Planning Commission that the federal government took any health hazard related issues off the table for local government to consider when deciding upon a cell tower. The Planning Commission may consider aesthetics and other zoning issues, but not the potential for health issues. Felicia Ferris resides on the south side of the tower and posed questions: Where are other potential sites being considered by Verizon? Have lower populated areas been considered? What has Verizon done to change their operations to need more towers? Why do they need new towers? New and different coverage or service? What else will be placed on the tower? The neighbors want their property values to stay high. There are old homes here, don't want to damage what they have collectively done. The neighborhood has been hit hard with the commercial development/PZD from the Archers. More things continue to affect the hill. How is electrical service to be supplied to the tower and facility? Electrical lines had to be buried with the Alltel tower at approximately S 12,000/house with the bill footed by the individuals. They don't want any additional expense. Fran Alexander stated it is ironic that health issues cannot be considered and it must be thick politics. The safety issues may be changed at the Federal level. There is a safety issue of concentrating radio frequencies that we all need to think about. The City is going to look like a pin cushion. We need a City policy that addresses the issue of if the public wants a cell phone, they pay the price. Who pays for the impacts for private enterprises in residential neighborhoods? This project will result in a private enterprise leasing public ground. Julian Archer lives at 2115 west Markham. He discussed the Pratt Place Inn that is under development adjacent to the proposed cell tower. The inn is intended to be a celebrated regional attraction. The 70 acres were put into a PZD to preserve the property. He discussed the character of the property. He supports staff's recommendation to move to the southwest corner of the property. Main windows of the inn face the south, to where the tower is being built. Millions of dollars have been spent for this project. Verizon stated it doesn't want a delay? Welcome to Fayetteville. His project was delayed by months because of neighborhood concerns. Co -location would be best. Alltel and Nextel are already located on the water tower. Commissioner Anthes stated that water towers are no longer available because of Homeland Security issues Archer continued by suggesting that a new tower may be able to be installed on the Alltel tower site, by taking the old one down. There is no direct evidence that the existing Alltel tower cannot be Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 14 of 28 extended up to 150'. The email from Alltel does not provide evidence against co -location. The existing lease agreement would allow 150' tower. Mr. Archer asked the Planning Commission to impose a hardship and delay the request. Seeing no more public comment the floor was closed to public comment and brought back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Anthes asked about the height of the Alltel tower. Garner responded that the information submitted by the applicant indicated that the tower was approximately 120-130 feet high. Commissioner Anthes asked about the airport flight path. Garner responded that City Planning doesn't look at flight paths, but that applicants are required to comply with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. Williams concurred that cell tower application must comply with FAA requirements. Cunnyngham stated that Verizon has an FAA consultant and that the requirements for towers below 200 feet are much less stringent. Commissioner Anthes asked if this is a new market for Verizon. Cunnyngham responded that they have shared agreements with other towers already. They are not out building new towers everywhere. A vast number of sites are co -locations. Building towers is a last choice. Further, if they have to build a tower, they look to public property first, consistent with Fayetteville ordinance. Verizon is licensed by the FCC. Commissioner Anthes asked about other potential sites. Have you approached Alltel? Cunnyngham responded that there are structural issues with the Alltel tower built in 1988. A 150 foot height is needed because of the thick tree line, and co -locating on the existing tower would not provide adequate coverage needed to I-540, the University of Arkansas, and Razorback Road. This site was chosen because it is the only public property in this vicinity with this height. Commissioner Anthes asked if they could expand the Alltel tower to 150 feet, or reconstruct the Alltel tower to accommodate the existing and new antennas. Cunnyngham responded that he would like to take the Alltel tower site off the table. It is not an option because it would delay their project and cause dangerous gaps in coverage. Commissioner Anthes asked about the applicant speculating whether RF shadow from the water tower would cause issues in relocating the tower to the southwestern portion of the site. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 15 of 28 Cunnyngham stated they haven't done a detailed study. However, he anticipates coverage would be limited because the metal in the tower would block the cell tower signal, or would create an unknown issue. Commissioner Anthes asked how many co -locations have been proposed and, how many towers are proposed in Fayetteville. Cunnyngham stated greater than 10, less than 30 co -locations. Verizon has filed two new towers tonight, have filed two more, may add an additional one or two for a total of six new towers. Commissioner Anthes asked about the electrical service issues mentioned by the public. Pate responded that he is not sure of the details or history of that issue, but he believes Ms. Farris was correct in her comments. Williams stated that he asked Verizon to look at electric service to this location from the very start. Commissioner Anthes asked whether power lines existed in the southern portion of the site. Would these have to be relocated? Pate responded that he was not sure but that this issue would be addressed in detail prior to building permit. Commissioner Anthes asked about screening. Pate responded that screening would be reviewed in detail at the time of building permit, but that the requirement is to screen the cell tower and equipment from adjacent properties. Commissioner Anthes asked if the federal RF study referenced by the applicant is required before the CUP application, or did the applicant conduct the RF study prematurely. Pate responded that the federal RF study is not required prior to CUP application and that the fact that the RF study has been conducted and may have to be conducted again if the tower is moved is not a hardship for staff s determination of the compatibility of the location of the cell tower. City approval is required for a tower to exist at all. Commissioner Anthes asked about the topography of the proposed location and staff recommended location. Pate responded that the southwest corner of the property appears to be higher than the northeast portion of the site. Prior to development a tree preservation plan would be required. The northeast corner is more open and accessible, however from a visual and community perspective the southwest portion of the site is preferred by staff. Commissioner Anthes asked about the applicant's statement that relocating the tower is a hardship. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 16 of 28 Have any proposed locations been pre -approved by the City? Williams stated that the draft lease showed the location of the tower, but that it has not been signed. The Water and Sewer Division preferred the original location to the one recommended by staff because it would require a shorter driveway and less access through the water tower sight. However, they were okay with either location. Cunnyngham stated that relocating the tower would be a hardship for four reasons: (1) They have completed the filings with the federal government for the tower in the location proposed. It is too late in the game to move the tower; (2) The water tank will cause the cell tower signal to reflect; (3) Power lines will have to be moved to locate the tower in the southern portion of the site; (4) Reflectivity concerns. Estes reminded the commission that one member of the public had questions about what will co - locate on the Verizon tower. Cunnyngham stated that he is not sure. But doubtlessly other carriers will co -locate. He stated that if the tower were built at 100 feet, the coverage would be diminimus; it would not be worth building. At 130 feet the tower could marginally work, but co -location would be very limited. Williams stated that he had been in long negotiations with the application regarding the lease agreement with the City and revenue sharing for co -locations. Pate clarified that co -locations on a water tank are not prohibited, as noted by the Chair earlier; they are simply looked at more stringently, for security concerns. He also responded that in regards to the hardship discussed by relocating the tower, other cell tower applications have been approved and denied based on their location and that staff s recommendation to relocate the tower is part of staff's recommendation for this project to comply with City ordinance and to obtain a favorable recommendation by staff. Commissioner Ostner asked about other stand alone locations that were evaluated. Pate responded that staff felt this was the most appropriate location and that City ordinance requires City property to be looked at first. Commissioner Ostner stated that the ordinance requires other stand alone locations to be explored, and that he does not feel other areas have been explored. The existing tower adjacent to this site does not make it certain that it is okay for another cell tower. This is a completely residential area. Commissioner Myres asked about the height of the proposed alternative site recommended by staff. Pate responded that it depends on the location. There is potential for the same height or higher. Commissioner Myres stated that she would like to explore re -locating to minimize visual impact. She would prefer an internal antenna versus an external antenna as proposed on the next item on the Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 17 of 28 agenda for a cell tower at Allied Storage. Cunnyngham responded that the Allied Storage tower is 130 -foot in height and that is pushing the stealth technology for a flagpole. 130 feet with an internal antenna would limit co -location. Commissioner Anthes asked about an exhibit showing comprehensive coverage. Cunnyngham responded that they did not provide such an exhibit as it was proprietary information. Commissioner Cabe asked about the exhibit provided showing coverage for the proposed tower. Cunnyngham responded that the exhibit showed the rough geographic cellular coverage for the proposed tower. Commissioner Cabe asked if the coverage map would change if the tower were relocated as staff recommended. Cunnyngham responded that yes, the coverage would change. Commissioner Cabe asked if coverage to the west would be increased if it is relocated as staff recommended to the southwest portion of the site. Cunnyngham responded that if it were relocated as staff recommended coverage to the University and Razorback Road area would likely be somewhat reduced as the tree line and water tower may block the signal in that direction, but that the coverage of I-540 and the west would likely be increased. Commissioner Ostner asked the City Attorney about what was agreed to in the draft lease for this tower. Williams responded that the rental for the new tower was $2,000.00 per month, and that there is a sublease that the City would receive the proceeds in the amount of 25% for the first tenant/co- location, and 50% for the second and subsequent tenants/co-locations. The proceeds from the tower would go into the City's general fund. Commissioner Ostner stated that he felt it would be appropriate for some of that revenue to go directly to the surrounding neighborhood in some way. He asked the applicant about the lease amount that would be charged for future tenants/co-locations. Cunnyngham responded that he was not involved in that portion of the Verizon business and could not answer the question. Williams discussed the value of co -locators, and that it was the general assumption that future tenants/co-locations would be paying more to Verizon than the initial $2,000 per month. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 18 of 28 Motion: Commissioner Myres stated that she is not satisfied with the amount of information provided with this application. She made a motion to table the conditional use permit in order to have the applicant provide the Planning Commission with a map showing RF coverage of various Verizon sites that are typically provided with cell tower applications, and to show how these towers will enhance coverage, and how coverage would change with the different alternatives recommended by staff to relocate the tower to the south and southwest portions of the site. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner asked about Commissioner Myres' request for maps of other sites. Commissioner Myres responded that she would like a map indicating how the proposed tower would enhance coverage related to those other sites, and what gaps in coverage would be filled in. Cunnyngham asked the request be limited to this general coverage area, as opposed to the entire City. Williams stated that the Planning Commission can ask for submission of a coverage map, but that it should only relate to this area. Cunnyngham stated that he has this coverage map with him and can distribute it now for review. Commissioner Anthes requested information regarding the feasibility and the impacts to coverage on the different options and sites discussed, including the southwest and south portions of the City water tank site as recommended by staff and Mr. Archer, dismantling the existing tower and reconstructing a new 150' tower on the existing Alltel site, and providing evidence that the existing Alltel tower cannot be extended up to 150'. Commissioner Bryant asked whether there was a specific location identified in the applicant's lease with the City. Williams responded that the site identified in the draft lease was the site currently proposed by the applicant, but that the lease has not been signed. Upon roll call the motion to table the item passed 7-0-0. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 19 of 28 CUP 07-2668: (VERIZON ALLIED STORAGE, 601): Submitted by WOODEN, FULTON & SCARBOROUGH, P.C. for property located at 85 W. 15TH STREET. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 14.98 acres. The request is for a 130' wireless communication facility on the subject property. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report and described the project. The request is construct a 130' tall flag pole tower with an area at the base for equipment. The tower is a stealth design as it resembles a flag pole, but staff is not recommending that a flag be attached. There are no existing towers our structures within one mile for collocation. The applicant did review existing light poles at Walker Park, but they were not of sufficient height or structural capability for a cell tower. The subject property is a developed industrial property which will screen all of the ground equipment from the public realm. Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions of approval. No public comment was received. Commissioner Anthes asked staff about the cell tower lease agreement for property located at Walker Park. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the applicants for the tower at Walker Park have withdrawn the request due to the issue of the unknown location of unmarked graves and other historical articles on the property. A letter from the Arkansas Department of Heritage is included in the staff report discussing these findings. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request with all conditions of approval, finding in favor of the tower in an industrial area. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner stated that the tower location in an industrial district was appropriate, but that he was concerned because the tower would be across 15"' Street from Walker Park. The use of stealth technology, however, helped to alleviate these concerns. Commissioner Anthes restated that the request was for a 130' tower. Upon roll call, the motion to approve passed 7-0-0. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 20 of 28 RZN 07-2667: (HOBSON INC., 433): Submitted by DONALD E. WILSON for property located at 7613 WEDINGTON (12611 HWY 16W). The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 2.38 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Garner discussed that the property has been used for non-residential uses since the structures on the property were first constructed. The property had been used for a cabinet shop prior to the current use as Bud's Auto Repair Shop. The cabinet ship was damaged by fire, remodeled and occupied by Bud's Auto Shop in approximately January 2007. Concerned property owners have contacted staff regarding the use of the property for auto salvage uses. Garner discussed with the applicant the option to allow for the business by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as a change in the nonconforming use, instead of rezoning. Staff finds that C-2 zoning would be incompatible and would not be consistent with the City's land use planning objectives and policies. Donald Wilson (representative for the applicant) discussed that the property has been used by Hobson, Inc. since 1976. The property has been commercially used for years, and the owner has been paying commercial taxes. The current use is not auto salvage but auto repair. The owner has not received any complaints from neighbors. This property is part of an already urban area. The business in this location has always been used as a trade -type of business. Trade -type businesses are not allowed in the R -A zoning. The CUP would tie us to the Bud's Auto Repair Shop, which would limit the ability for future tenants. The proposed C-2 zoning fits this site for what has been used since 1976. No public comment was presented. Commissioner Winston asked if certain use units can be removed from the requested zoning. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, responded that only the applicant can offer that use units be removed through a Bill of Assurance. Kit Williams, City Attorney, explained what a Bill of Assurance is, and gave the example of Pop's Barbeque on 15`" Street, discussing that the Planning Commission denied the request for C-2, and that the applicant subsequently appealed the decision to the City Council and offered a Bill of Assurance limiting some of the potentially objectionable uses, and that the City Council approved the request with the Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Anthes asked when the Bud's Auto Repair Shop started operation on the property. Pate stated January 2007. Commissioner Myres asked if a CUP in the R -A zoning district would allow for trades and services. Pate responded that trades and services are not allowed under the R -A zoning regulations. However Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 21 of 28 an existing nonconforming use may be changed to another nonconforming use by CUP permit. He discussed that staff tries to facilitate the use of the property. Pate discussed that a proposed C-1 zoning was debated extensively at the corner of Harmon Road and Hwy 16; this is a request for a much more intense use than that zoning, and is not located a corner. Commissioner Myres stated agreement with staff s findings and that she cannot support the request as the C-2 zoning is too intense for this area, and that she hopes the applicant can bring forward a CUP application. Commissioner Anthes asked if the property is two parcels. Wilson stated that yes, the property is two parcels and that both parcels are needed to allow for the operation of a business. Commissioner Winston asked if a CUP may be approved to allow for general trades and services, and not be specific. Pate responded that in general, a CUP needs to be requested for specific uses to allow for staff to make a recommendation on that specific use. Pate read all of the uses allowed in the UDC under Use Unit 17, Trades and Services. Commissioner Winston asked if the Planning Commission could approve a CUP to allow for Use Unit 17. Pate responded that he had never seen a CUP of that nature, but that he supposed it was possible for the Planning Commission to approve such a request. It would be hard to make individual findings, though. Commissioner Cabe asked if the rezoning request were denied, could the applicant return to the Planning Commission for a CUP request. Pate replied yes. Motion: Commissioner Cabe made a motion to deny the request. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner discussed that if the rezoning request were denied, the applicant may appeal the decision to City Council, and that they may offer a Bill of Assurance at that time if they wish. Pate stated that it must be appealed to the City Council within 10 days from the Planning Commission's decision. Commissioner Anthes stated that the Planning Commission would rather see a CUP than a Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 22 of 28 rezoning to C-2 in this area. Upon roll call, the motion to deny passed 7-0-0. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 23 of 28 RZN 07-2669: (PREMIUM BRANDS/ARKA, Inc., 560): Submitted by PREMIUM BRANDS for property located at 1030 RAZORBACK ROAD, S OF HWY 62. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUST and contains approximately 14.68 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the request based on the Future Land Use Plan and the potential for the development of objectionable uses allowed by right in the C-2 zoning district. The Future Land Use Plan designated the property as an Urban Center Area, which did permit commercial development, however in a traditional urban design. Rezoning to C-2 would not permit development in accordance with the Future Land Use Plan and would allow intense development patterns adjacent to residential zoning to the east and within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Heath Sutherland, applicant, stated that a C-2 zoning district was a reasonable request in this location, although the owners have no plans to redevelop the site at this time. The existing business is growing and will need to be relocated. The existing facility is not visually appealing and the owners have been approached on several occasions by others wanting to use the property under the current I-1 zoning designation. The land is better suited for C-2 development. Commissioner Ostner asked what zoning districts and/or land uses better fit City Plan 2025. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that a portion of the property is located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD) and abuts platted right-of-way to the east. C-2 zoning can lead to strip commercial development, which the City Council has consistently stated as undesirable. A mixture of zoning or a less intense commercial zoning district could allow development that is more in line with these policies and ordinances. Commissioner Ostner stated that he tends to agree with staff. Commissioner Lack stated that the recommendation is based on policy decisions and that there is a lot of latitude in the decision given that the property is currently zoned for and used as industrial property. He stated he concurs with staff's recommendation. Sutherland stated that there are no pending sales or development plans and that the current business can move to another location in town. The current property owners have hotels in other cities and have been in touch with other developers. However, he can not speculate on the type of development that may occur on the property in the future. Commissioner Lack moved to deny the request. Sutherland requested that the item be tabled so that he could confer with the property owners to see if a C-1 or other zoning would be acceptable. Commissioner Anthes stated that the comments made by staff and the commission do not imply that a lesser rezoning request would be approved. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 24 of 28 Commissioner Lack stated that C-1 is a better request, but that a mixture of uses would be best. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to table the request indefinitely. Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed 7-0-0. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 25 of 28 R-PZD 07-2634: Planned Zoning District (THE COVES @ WALNUT CROSSING, 555): Submitted by RAUSCH COLEMAN HOMES for property located at N OF HWY 62W AND W OF WALNUT CROSSING PZD. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 50.40 acres. The request is to for Zoning and Land Use approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 184 single family dwelling units. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. The applicants are requesting land use and zoning approval only at this time. A preliminary and final plat would have to be approved for development rights. The coving concept was briefly described based on the applicant's submitted materials. Access to the property was discussed as was a request for a Master Street Plan amendment for Sellers Road. Staff recommended forwarding the PZD to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with conditions of approval, a determination of connectivity and a determination for waivers of street design. Kim Hesse, (applicant) gave a brief power point presentation, describing the coving concept as used in other areas, and describing the project's goals. Commissioner Anthes asked if this was concept PZD only. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated that the project, if approved by the City Council, would require preliminary and final plat approval. Commissioner Anthes asked about the proposed location of Sellers Road. Pate stated that staff was proposing, on the draft Master Street Plan, that Sellers Rd. be relocated north of the subject property. Commissioner Anthes asked about the applicant's intent to construct sidewalks on only one side of the road. Pate stated that staff had made comments regarding sidewalk construction and that at the time of development review staff will likely expect sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of the street. Commissioner Anthes asked about how the building setbacks would be measured. Pate stated that the measurements are determined now with the zoning and will be enforced at the time of development review. Commissioner Anthes stated that the house type can create a "soldiering" effect (houses lined up one after the other) as much as the layout of the overall subdivision, but took exception to the comments that a traditional urban design approach created that type of effect as a negative. Commissioner Lack stated that Condition of Approval #3-b should be removed and that an additional stub -out should be provided to the east in the vicinity of Lots 15/16. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 26 of 28 Commissioner Ostner agreed with an additional stub -out, but further north on the east property line. Commissioner Lack stated that there is a long distance between Alberta Road and the north end of the subdivision. Commissioner Ostner asked if the applicants owned the undeveloped property to the east. Hesse stated that they do not own the property to the east. If a stub -out is recommended it should located such that lots could be constructed on the south side of the road, north of Walnut Crossing Subdivision. Commissioner Anthes stated that she would support the connection. Pate stated that it is sometimes hard to give a recommendation with a concept plat, but the plat in this case is very detailed and that any comments would be useful. Commissioner Anthes stated that changes should be stated on the front end. Commissioner Ostner asked about the temporary paved road. Hesse stated that the property where the temporary road would be located is within the City of Farmington. The applicants have discussed continuing the Coving concept into Farmington; however, at this time the City of Farmington does not have a process for such a development. The road will be located within an access easement. Motion: Commissioner Ostner made a motion to forward the request finding in favor of Conditions #1, #2 with another stub -out to the east in the vicinity of Lots 14-16, #3 and #4, along with all other conditions of approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Lack asked the motioner to remove condition #3b. Pate stated that it can be done now or later. Fulcher stated that the intent of the condition was to not give a waiver now, but allow staff to review the plat at the time of preliminary plat and determine if waivers were necessary and/or warranted. Commissioner Ostner restated the motion to forward with the removal of Condition #3b. Commissioner Cabe seconded the revised motion. Upon roll call, the motion to forward passed 7-0-0. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 27 of 28 ADM 07-2709 (Fayetteville Downtown Cultural Arts District) Recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council by Fayetteville Downtown Partners and the Cultural Arts District Committee (a subcommittee established by the Chair of the Planning Commission) to establish a Cultural Arts District, identified as roughly Maple Street to Sixth Street and Arkansas Avenue to College Avenue/South School. Commissioner Anthes read a background report verbatim discussing the work that had been done by various groups and organizations beginning in 2004 (report included in file). Leif Olson, Long Range Planner, presented a map with Planning Staffs proposed boundary for the Cultural Arts District. He stated that the boundary is meant to define the area and be a toot for future discussions concerning arts proposals or initiatives. The boundaries primarily follow the Downtown Master Plan Zoning District boundaries and extend further south to incorporate all of the Mill District and the area around Jefferson School. Public Comment Daniel Hintz, Fayetteville Downtown Partners, stated that this has been an on-going intensive project and that this is a great first step towards creating a great place for artists in the City. Motion: Commissioner Myers made a motion to forward the Cultural Arts District boundary to the City Council for their consideration and adoption. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Commissioner Ostner questioned forwarding the map tonight without knowing what it meant in terms of activities that would occur inside this boundary. Olson stated that much of that was yet to be determined. Staff was not involved in the development of this proposal and feels that it will be used as a tool to help to define future discussions and arts initiatives. Commissioner Ostner asked what the current ideas or discussions about what might happen in this defined area are. Hintz explained that the original proposal included three "attitude zones" which were distinctly different from each other in terms of the experience of the location. Some City codes have already been amended to facilitate the Arts such as the artist live work permitted use ordinance that was recently passed by the City Council. Commissioner Anthes said that Fayetteville Downtown Partners had outlined the next steps in an eight phase plan that is provided with the background materials. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 28 of 28 Commissioner Lack stated that he was also concerned about the ramifications of what would go on in this area and that it would take support to follow up and create a feasible Cultural Arts District. Staff should keep this going forward and keep the Planning Commission and the public involved in the process. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Subdivision Committee is scheduled for Thursday morning. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 10.54 PM.