Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-12 MinutesPlanning Commission January 12, 2009 Page I of 18 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on January 12, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: December 8, 2008 Approved Page 3 LSD 08-3133: (TWIN CREEKS VILLAGE/VAN ASCHE, 172) Approved Page 3 LSD 08-3167: (CULLS II, 717) Approved Page 3 ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS FPL MODIFICATION) Tabled Page 4 CUP 08-3158: (WILKINS / S. ARCHIBALD YELL, 523) Approved Page 5 RZN 08-3180: (MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. 1/5 LOTS, 478) Tabled Page 10 VAC 08-3181: (KIRK ELSASS / ROCKCLIFF RD., 449) Tabled Page 11 CUP 08-3173: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, 719-758) Approved Page 12 LSP 08-3172: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, 719-758) Approved Page 12 CUP 08-3145: (FAYETTEVILLE DEPOT, LLC, 484) Tabled Page 14 CUP 08-3176: (T -MOBILE / WILLIAMS DR., 486) Approved Page 15 R-PZD 08-3170: (THE COVES AT WALNUT CROSSING, 555) Forwarded Page 17 A DVD copy of each Planning Commission meeting is available for viewing in the Fayetteville Planning Division. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 2 of 18 MEMBERS PRESENT Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Matthew Cabe James Graves Jeremy Kennedy Andy Lack Christine Myres Porter Winston STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders CITY ATTORNEY: Kit Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Sean Trumbo STAFF ABSENT Planning Commission Vice Chair Andy Lack called the meeting to order. Commissioner Lack requested for all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that listening devices were available. Upon roll call, all members were present with the exception of Commissioner Trumbo. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 3 of 18 Consent.- Approval onsent. Approval of the minutes from the December 8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. LSD 08-3133: (TWIN CREEKS VILLAGE/VAN ASCHE, 172): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS for property located at LOT 20, CMN BUSINESS PARK II PH. III, NE OF GREGG AND VAN ASCHE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 5.85 acres. The request is for four 7,500 s.f. office buildings with associated infrastructure. Planner: Jesse Fulcher LSD 08-3167: (CULLS II, 717): Submitted by CLAY GROTE HGM CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 585 W. WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 2.69 acres. The request is for 24,250 s.f. of office and warehouse space. Planner: Jesse Fulcher Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 4 of 18 Old Business: ADM 08-3185: (BUNGALOWS AT CATO SPRINGS): Submitted by BURKE LARKIN for the Bungalows at Cato Springs Subdivision on the NORTH SIDE OF CATO SPRINGS ROAD, WEST OF CLINE AVENUE. The property is zoned R-PZD 05-1979, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is to modify condition of approval No. 19 from the final plat approval regarding a vegetated buffer on the east property line. Planner: Andrew Garner Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant had requested this item be tabled to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to table the request to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 5 of 18 CUP 08-3158: (WILKINS / S. ARCHIBALD YELL, 523): Submitted by COLLIN WILKINS for property located at 275-2 SOUTH ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a Tattoo Shop in the DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL zoning district. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report, discussing findings of economic impact and compatibility that have been expanded since the previous planning commission meeting. Based on the application and review of the request, staff recommends approval of the project request, with conditions as listed in the staff report. Collin Wilkins, applicant, discussed traffic issues brought up at the previous meeting. At the last meeting it was said that this intersection is a deathtrap. I strongly disagree. The approach is 50' wide between the curb cuts, there is plenty of room to pull in and out. Visibility is not an issue. I only have on average 3-5 customers per day, so I don't understand the traffic issue. Regarding property values, as discussed in the staff report property values surrounding Knight Times tattoo have gone up since that business has been there. That tattoo shop did not drive down the surrounding property value, so that's not an issue. Regarding the contamination issue, the only way you are going to get contaminated is if I use dirty needles. He discussed State health regulations, inspections, licensing equipment. He discussed disposal of needles; used needles go in a sharps container and are disposed of at a medical store. The contamination factor is not a factor. He discussed the name, and originally wanted Southside Tattoo, but it was used elsewhere. He has spent $900 on the name of business and sign, and can't afford to change it. He is not happy with the look of the temporary signage on the side of the building and will be removing that regardless of tonight's decision. Regarding character, he is not sure if they're talking about the name of the business or the clientele. Going rate for a tattoo is $100/hour, so trouble -makers aren't going to be flocking to my shop because it's a tattoo shop. I feel this is a form of discrimination on my business, and the comments don't hold water. In the staff report there is evidence to contradict every complaint made. He discussed signatures on a petition in the neighborhood that approve of his being there. The facts disprove these complaints. Public comment: Alan Ostner, President of Jennings Plus Neighborhood Association, the neighborhood area is across the street from Lowlife Tattoo. I was here last time. I won't reiterate everything I said. I had a petition last time of property owners who don't think this establishment is compatible. I don't know Mr. Wilkins. I don't have a problem with the establishment, I have a problem with the location. The Fayetteville Unified Development Code allows Use Unit # 17 as a Conditional Use; so it's not a form of discrimination. Conditional Use Permits get denied all the time. The staff report says there are all sorts of businesses around it, including restaurants, and auto parts stores, but they're all a quarter -mile away. I can't see any of that from here. He discussed Bungalow Babies (daycare) one house up the street. I have concern with Lowlife Tattoo being next door. I have conflicting opinions about part of the staff report. I appreciate the research on other cities allowing this use as a use by right, but we don't. Why didn't the City Council and the people of Fayetteville say this use should be allowed by right in this zoning district? I don't feel it is compatible next to upscale retail establishment that will be coming in with Mr. Ball. I don't feel this tattoo parlor is a touchstone for future development in this site. I think this is an incompatible use and I wish for you to turn it down Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 6 of 18 it tonight. Rebecca Latourette, citizen, owns property at 205 W. South St., half -block from this business. This business has demonstrated a lack of regard for compliance by starting this business and continuing to operate without a permit. A person is entitled to call their business whatever they want, but the fact of the matter is this business is not permitted by zoning. I don't know if this person is the owner of the building or renting, but it might have made a difference. I understand this business is open until 11:00 PM, which may impact people that live nearby. Whether the signatures on the applicant's petition are owners or renters makes a difference. I cannot compare this business to Knight Times, because that's surrounded by businesses. It is not the same with this piece of property, which is surrounded by residential housing. I am asking you to turn down this request for Conditional Use Permit. J.R. Ball, citizen, stated he owns building to the southwest at 118 W. South St. I bought the building in 2008. I have mixed emotions about this. I am opposed to it because of what I'm trying to do with this building. On the surface the business seems clean, and I've seen no problems while we've been under construction. However, the perception of the public moves me to be opposed to this. We have 5,000 square feet we are turning into retail/fashion design and art studio, art shows, etc. The renovations are costing a lot of money. I have to be in opposition. Dede Peters, citizen, owns an art gallery on Mountain Street. She quoted a study from 2006 showing that 36% of Americans aged 18-25 have a tattoo, and 40% of Americans between 26 and 40 have a tattoo. So tattoos are mainstream and no longer underground. If the City required a business license, this could have been avoided. I believe tattoo shops, currently considered as Use Unit 17, should be Use Unit 15, like the barber shop. There are some salons in town that offer cosmetic tattoos and are allowed under their use unit. Tattooing requires skill, it is entrepreneurial, provides income tax, is a local business contributing to the local economy. The tattoo industry falls in the creative sector, the 3rd largest economy in the State. As a person doing business downtown, I feel it's vital to have retail on the street level, and continue to be hospitable to the entrepreneurial spirit. With the amount of people that have tattoos today, I feel some of the opinions expressed are prejudiced, uneducated, and elitist. Richard Russell, citizen, stated he lives at 401 S. College and has seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood since 2001. I was encouraged when planning got involved in the area. I was a beneficiary of the rezoning, and the fresh look at the area. During these years, I've seen quite a few cases of people leaving and coming in, improving the area. I believe we should take some time and let the planning take shape into reality. I haven't had long enough to see the good that can come from that careful and extended effort. For some reason, this use is not allowed, so let's be considerate of that and work with some things that are allowed. Christy Zweig, neighbor, stated she lives directly behind the building Mr. Ball bought. I have two tattoos, but still don't think it's appropriate. I have invested a lot of money in my nearby property. The owner of this business has said he doesn't have enough money to even change the name, so obviously it's not a thriving business. Regardless of what it is, we don't need a business that's not thriving. It won't be compatible with Mr. Ball's development, with the retail going in there. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 7 of 18 Susan Pocrivnak, citizen, lives on West Fourth Street, discussed pierced ears coming into style in the 1960's. It was an anomaly then, but now quite common. Things change. She discussed tattoos and the neighborhood area. The tattoo shop looks the nicest in the area. I think "Lowlife" is tongue- in-cheek and supposed to be funny. It's an art form. She stated that she is in support of the request. Bob Stack, citizen, stated he was a retired real estate agent. I would like to see this approved. Mr. Ball is doing a great job with what used to be next door. Tattoo is an art and conforms to the neighborhood. As for the previous comment about having invested lots of money in nearby property; when that money was invested, there was an adult novelty shop next door. This didn't just happen. I think it's compatible. I don't see a big difference between this shop and a barber shop across the lot. Laverne Cooper, citizen, stated she uses the corridor a lot. I noticed this portion of town was looking better. A few days later, we see "Lowlife" on the building. We thought it was graffiti. I don't think it's compatible with the neighborhood. No more public comment was received. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the needles don't mix with the regular trash. Wilkins described the needle disposal process. Needles go into the sharps container and never touch the trash; never go near it. Commissioner Cabe asked if we can hold the fact that he opened a business without a permit against him. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated it is not one of the specific conditions. The major consideration is compatibility. Once we began the Conditional Use Permit process, enforcement of the violations were suspended. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed business licenses, Certificates of Zoning Compliance. If businesses apply for a sign permit, building permit, etc., staff requires a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. It's the best mechanism we've found for catching businesses that are operating without a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Commissioner Cabe asked for clarification about Conditional Use Permits and whether the use is technically "allowed." Williams stated that it is not a use by right, where you would automatically have a right to put in the use. It's certainly not illegal as long as the Planning Commission would grant the use. It's a use that's questionable, where City Council feels it should sometimes be allowed and sometimes not be allowed. That's why they make it a Conditional Use, to let the Planning Commission review the situations. The real issue is general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties within the district. It's not defined very precisely because I don't think it can be. It's something where you have to listen to the neighbors and use your own judgment on. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 8 of 18 Commissioner Winston asked if this is in the Fayetteville Arts District boundary. Pate stated that for the most part it follows the downtown district boundary. Commissioner Anthes described boundaries of the Fayetteville Arts District as being the downtown district, plus a finger that includes the Mill District and down 6th Street to incorporate some studios there. The district also extends south to the former Jefferson School. Commissioner Winston asked if the boundary runs down Archibald Yell Blvd. Commissioner Anthes said she does not recall, specifically. Commissioner Winston asked about the boundary of the Walker Park neighborhood. Pate stated that the northern boundary of that neighborhood was along Archibald Yell. Commissioner Anthes asked about space currently used on the site as storage. Is storage a use allowed in downtown zoning right now? Pate stated that it was, as long as it was ancillary to another use. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff has looked into storage at that location. Is it ancillary? Sanders stated that they have, and it is an ancillary use. Commissioner Anthes stated that although Mr. Wilkins may not have done himself any favors with his neighbors by selecting the business name he did, the name of the business is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Another thing that has been distressing me from the general discussion tonight is the implication that a tattoo artist is an undesirable that will make neighborhoods lose their value and corrupt their children. Tattoo artists are licensed professionals; they do apprenticeships, take written exams, pay license fees, and are subject to regular inspections by the State Health Department. I feel we need to take them on that professional level and not ascribe a negative perception to them that may be prejudicial or incorrect. There have also been comments made tonight about how the investment of dollars in this small business is somehow unequal to or of less worth than other investments made in the area. I don't think that is correct, either. We see many Conditional Use Permits come through after the fact, but I find it's most often because of not knowing the City procedures, rather than a blatant disrespect for the law. I'd like staff to tell us what is included in Use Unit 17 besides tattoo shops, because individual uses aren't called out for as permissible or impermissible, they are together in a group, and the flavor of that group is what makes it a use by right or a conditional use. Pate read the uses included in Use Unit 17 from the Unified Development Code. You will often see some of the included uses in other Use Units, which often poses a challenge in similar situations. Commissioner Anthes stated that it solidifies her point. I was one of the Commissioners who evaluated the Downtown Master Plan zoning districts, and we went through it use unit by use unit Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 9 of 18 and made recommendations to City Council about what we thought should be allowed by right and what should not be allowed. I believe my vote would have been that this was a use unit that provided an intensity of use that shouldn't be automatically approved in the Downtown General zoning district, and that intensity of use is tied to things like the car lots and uses like the cabinet shop and car repair and businesses that would make a lot of noise and may be a nuisance to the neighborhood. I don't think this particular shop with two employees and 3-5 customers per day meets the kind of intensity that would be too much to handle in Downtown General, which is a very eclectic and mixed-use area. To not approve this just because you don't like this type of business well, some people don't like lawyers either, but it's not a reason you don't allow them in your neighborhood. Regarding the findings on compatibility, while the Planning Commission does evaluate use, a lot of times that use is tied to building form, and issues of traffic and access and development. In this particular case, it's a business occupying an existing building that's not being renovated over 50% of its value, and therefore a lot of the things that we have leeway with don't kick in for this particular project. Can staff reiterate what the specific findings under compatibility are? Pate discussed the findings listed in the staff report. Commissioner Anthes stated she agreed with staffs findings, and finds for general compatibility, since the building is not being altered but is being cleaned up. For me it comes down to whether a licensed business, subject to regular inspections by the State Health Department, can be a good neighbor in this location, and for myself, I find that is yes, and I will be voting to support this application. Commissioner Lack stated he finds in favor of compatibility with this establishment. The discussion about the Cultural Arts District enforces that. This use is an enhancement of that district. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Anthes seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0, with Commissioner Graves voting no. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 10 of 18 RZN 08-3180: (MOUNTAIN RANCH PH. 1/5 LOTS, 478): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located at LOTS 118,94,95,96,97 IN THE MOUNTAIN RANCH S/D PHASE L The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RT -12, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 12 UNITS/ACRE. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, stated that the applicant has requested this item be tabled to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to table the request to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 11 of 18 VAC 08-3181: (KIRK ELSASS/ROCKCLIFF RD.): Submitted by KIRK ELSASS for property located at 619 N. ROCKCLIFF RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The request is to vacate a portion of a drainage easement on the subject property. Commissioner Lack stated that the applicant has requested we table this item, which is the intent of the Commission this evening, but I understand there is a member of the public who will not be able to be at the next meeting, so we will hear a brief staff report and open it for public comment. I would ask if you are also here for this item, but you will be able to be here or intend to speak at the next meeting, to please hold your comments until then. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, gave a brief staff report, describing the existing drainage easement and drainage pipes across the street. Drainage does flow through the lot. It is the applicant's intent to fill much of the lot and develop a single-family home, however, the existing drainage easement does encumber the property and his ability to develop it. Staff has raised some concerns with the method of fill, and placing a new pipe within that area and altering the natural drainage channel. The applicant has asked the item be tabled to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Staff will be meeting with the applicant to discuss issues in the meantime. Mary Cobrick, citizen, stated that adjacent property owners had no comments and she was surprised by that. This is a spring -fed creek. I looked at Fayetteville's ordinances regarding intermittent/perennial streams, found that it needs a 25 -foot perimeter strip; it also says that construction equipment may not ford streams. How are they going to put pipes in without fording the stream? Also, under the land alteration requirements 169.06(B), it says that in no case shall the City Engineer waive or modify any of the minimum erosion control requirements given in 169.04. I think you need to see the lot to understand the issues. It's very steep and would require a tremendous amount of fill and would possible pollute the stream. It's true the stream is short, but not too far away it joins a muddy run-off area. This is a precious little bit of nature used by wildlife. I can't see the City going against its own erosion control and land alteration requirements. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to table the request to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Winston seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1, with Commissioner Kennedy recusing. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 12 of 18 CUP 08-3173: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 719-758): Submitted by I. SCHWARTZMAN, S. ANDERSON SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT LLC for property located BETWEEN 200 & 400 WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.37 acres. The request is for 2 tandem lots. LSP 08-3172: (SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 719-758): Submitted by I. SCHWARTZMAN, S. ANDERSON SOUTH MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT LLC for property located BETWEEN 200 & 400 WILLOUGHBY ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 21.37 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 4 tracts of 3.86, 5.53, 8.04, and 3.94 acres. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report for both the Conditional Use Permit and Lot Split. She described the request to create tandem lots and the surrounding area, discussing that the proposed lot width is compatible. She discussed the sewer variance. Because the sewer is a half - mile away and for four houses, the sewer extension not recommended. She recommended approval with five conditions listed in the staff report for the Conditional Use Permit, and nine conditions with the Lot Split. Ira Schwartzman, applicant, stated that four lots proposed would create four wonderful home building sites. The front lot that faces Willoughby Rd. features a ravine that runs through a good portion of it. It would reduce the value for property if it is cut through. In terms of the sewer, we feel if we had to incur the burden of running the sewer line half a mile for four pieces of property, it would not be feasible. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated that on the Lot Split conditions regarding impact fees, will this be subject to sewer impact fee? Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, stated it would not. Commissioner Lack asked, regarding condition of approval #9, the lot split approval would be valid for one calendar year— is that a term to construction? Pate stated that lot splits are good for one year from the date of approval. If it's not stamped by our office and filed with the County within one year, it has expired and needs to come back through. Motion: Commissioner Anthes made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Commissioner Winston made a motion to approve the Lot Split request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 13 of 18 a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 14 of 18 CUP 08-3145: (FAYETTEVILLE DEPOT, LLC, 484): Submitted by KRISTIN KNIGHT for property located at 550 W. DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. The request is to renew the 3 -year Conditional Use Permit for a temporary parking lot on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. He discussed the history of site and the previous Conditional Use Permit for the temporary parking lot permit and the current landscaping variance requests. Staff finds in favor of continued use of parking with site, however, the parking lot should be brought into compliance with City Code, in terms of landscaping. He described conditions of approval. Rob Sharp, applicant, stated he represented Mansfield Properties. His client's original intent was to park on the property as an intermittent way to fund the renovations on the historic train station and to prepare the property for a mixed-use development including a structured parking deck. Because of the real estate and lending environment, the decision was made to wait until things look better to do the project. He described other things happening in the area including the Walton Arts Center, the City lot, parking enforcement, etc. He discussed that adding the islands, etc. would decrease parking by 21 stalls which would have a negative impact on the area. We would like to find a way to make this work, perhaps two weeks to work with staff. I don't believe it's good policy to take away parking in that area. No public comment was received. Commissioner Myres asked staff if there was any problem with tabling this for two weeks. Garner stated he had no problem with it, he hasn't been able to talk to the applicant in detail about the request. Commissioner Anthes remembers the discussion of this item three and a half years ago. I rather reluctantly voted for the un -landscaped lot at that time, acknowledging that downtown needed parking, development of the site was coming, and the lot was a temporary solution. While parking policy isn't a Planning Commission decision, the built environment is something that we're charged with. I know that these are hard economic times, and yet the appearance of one of the most important intersections of downtown also contributes to economics -- in that it goes to the perception of the area and the care being taken with Dickson Street. This site is highly visible, and it may be a very long time until the built project is viable. This lot in either configuration, with the spaces it has now or the spaces allowed by right, is not going to solve the parking problem downtown. So I'm concerned about staffs recommendation for making the greater number of spaces than allowed by ordinance permanent, instead of being permitted by conditional use. I believe that excess parking should be provided in places other than in one of the most visible intersections in the Entertainment District. I am also concerned about the 25' build -to zone being observed. Everything is so close to those sidewalks now, and the sidewalks are also very narrow. Pedestrians walk in the street, and there is no overflow since the fence is so close. I appreciate that the applicant is willing to work with staff further. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 15 of 18 Motion• Commissioner Cabe made a motion to table the request to the January 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 16 of 18 CUP 08-3176: (T-MOBILE/WILLIAMS DRIVE, 486): Submitted by KAYLA KRAMER CLS GROUP for property located at 325 WILLIAMS DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.45 acres. The request is for a co -location by T -Mobile on the existing Cox Communications tower on the subject property. Andrew Garner, Current Planner, gave the staff report. The request is to install cellular antenna on the existing telecommunications tower. Because the Planning Commission has not approved the cellular use on this tower previously, it does require Planning Commission consideration. Based on findings, staff is recommend approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Garth Hancock, applicant, discussed T -Mobile's entry into area. They are pleased to have found an existing tower to utilize. No public comment was received. Commissioner Myres stated she had no problem with the request. Cellular antenna on the existing tower is a reasonable request. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to approve the request with conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes stated she just confirmed with Attorney Williams that the tower was not previously approved by the Planning Commission because it was in place before approval was necessary. A follow-up question to staff is, how does putting an exterior antenna array at this site differ from where you have requested that new towers be erected with stealth technology, such as the flagpole design? Pate stated that there is a specific section in City Code that discusses existing towers. As of two years ago we modified that section of the code. Before we modified it, any existing tower could be utilized for co -location with administrative approval. An application was brought forward for a site off of College Avenue for Smith 2 -Way Radio that was utilizing an existing radio tower, or replacing an existing radio tower with a cellular antenna. There was a concern brought up at that time and we did amend our ordinances to require cellular antenna if it's a new use, a new type of antenna on an existing tower, it would require a Conditional Use Permit. We do allow it on existing structures even though there are not buildings, things of that nature, we permit those by co -location administratively all the time. But with newer existing towers, there is a very specific section that talks about that. Commissioner Anthes asked that because of the utility nature of this site, which already exists, staff feels this is an appropriate addition? Pate stated he thinks so. The alternative in this area is a new tower at probably a different location or expanding the size of this location. We felt utilizing an existing facility and infrastructure there Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 17 of 18 would not create additional visual impact in that area. That's not to say we won't have another tower in that area in the future, since I can almost guarantee we'll see another tower request on Mt. Sequoyah in the future, but at this point in time I think it was a good move. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Planning Commission January 12, 2009 Page 18 of 18 R-PZD 08-3170: (THE COVES AT WALNUT CROSSING PH. 111, 555): Submitted by MIKE ANDERSON for property located at THE WESTERN EDGE OF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS AND NORTH OF HWY. 62. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 10.51 acres. The request is for review of a Zoning, Land Use and Development plan with 38 single-family lots. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report, describing previous development approvals, and current request. Based on the findings, staff recommends approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. Kim Hesse, applicant, described the project. No public comment was received. Commissioner Lack stated that in looking at the Tree Preservation plan, it seems there are fence row trees and alley construction seems to decrease viability of alley and tree preservation. Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning, discussed right-of-way going to the property line and staff s recommendation. Hesse stated the existing overhead electric line goes over trees, so those aren't counted as preserved. She also discussed the alley. Motion: Commissioner Graves made a motion to forward the request to City Council with a recommendation of approval with conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 7.28 PM.