Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-12 - Minutes - FinalCITY OF Fa y Vle ARKANSAS Planning Commission September 12, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 MINUTES Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook In Attendance: Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. Absent: Ryan Noble Staff: Andrew Garner, Jonathan Curth, Quin Thompson, Harry Davis, Corey Granderson City Attorney: Kit Williams Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the August 22, 2016 meeting. 2. ADM 16-5580: Administrative Item (542 W. DICKSON ST./YANCEY HOG DOGS -1 YR. MOBILE VENDOR, 484): Submitted by CODY YANCEY for property located at 542 W. DICKSON ST. The property is zoned MSC -MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.57 acres. The request is for a one year mobile food vendor permit. 3. ADM 16-5564: Administrative Item (1530 GOLF CLUB DR./THE LINKS PZD AMENDMENT, 400): Submitted by HUGH JARRETT for property located at 1530 GOLF CLUB DR. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is to amend R-PZD 07-2452 to add a clubhouse and swimming pool. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gav Fayetteville, AR 72701 Old Business: 4. LSD 16-5488: Large Scale Development (2900 BLOCK MT. COMFORT RD./MACEY DR. APTS., 363): Submitted by SWOPE CONSULTING, INC. for property located at the 2900 BLOCK OF MT. COMFORT RD. The property is zoned RMF 24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 6.76 acres. The request is for a 58 unit apartment complex with associated parking. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. Tim Brisiel, Applicant: In agreement with planning staff on their recommendation. Public Comment: No public comment at this time. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Asks to see the elevations on the screen. Questions if the developer needs to have a turnaround or if the street must continue to the property line. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Answers no. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Believes there is a problem with the amount of accidents in the neighborhood. There were 14 accidents in the Pine Valley subdivision, which is a higher number in comparison to the intersections analyzed by staff. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: In agreement with Commissioner Brown. Hoffman believes that staff has missed some key information in how wide the streets are in Pine Valley and how that would affect driving speeds and road safety. Therefore, Hoffman cannot support the development. No further issues with development. Ron Autry, Commissioner: In agreement with Commissioners Brown and Hoffman. The existing amount of cars produces 14 accidents, which would be further increased by having 100 or so more vehicles going through the neighborhood. Janet Selby, Commissioner: Does not believe they can support this development and is in agreement with previous comments. Williams, City Attorney: Cautions the Planning Commission to be careful in voting on this development. Commissioner Brown's information should be evaluated by the Planning Commission and Staff. The existing subdivision was approved and the development in question has the right to be where it is located. Williams believes that the information sent by Hoffman is not applicable to the discussion about this development. Planning staff should come back with a more detailed report on the accidents in this existing subdivision in relation to similar subdivisions elsewhere in Fayetteville. A decision to deny the proposed development would need to be defensible in court, and therefore must have a serious traffic hazard to deny. Garner: Explains the staff's process in reviewing the data in relation to other places around Fayetteville. Staff ultimately does not believe this proposed project would cause a problem and states that a professional traffic engineer is the next step in providing more information to the Planning Commission, if they desire more data. He also clarifies that the information provided to Commissioner Brown is the information provided by staff. Williams: Understands and defers to staff. 2 Brown: Believes that traffic counts must be included in this analysis. Roads with higher traffic counts have accidents numbering in the single digits, while the accident data within the subdivision amounts to 14 accidents. Williams: Cautions the Planning Commission against making judgments without expertise in traffic engineering. Suggests the applicant should conduct a full traffic study. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Questions if Shiloh would be extended across the creek to the south in order to provide another outlet. Garner: States the Master Street Plan shows that it will be extended at some point to Wedington. Williams: States the bridge to cross the creek there is an expensive and far -future project. Belden: Asks if there is considerable, developable land along Mt. Comfort that would continue to funnel into the intersection of Mt. Comfort and Shiloh. Garner: Answers yes. Autry: Asks when Pine Valley was constructed. Garner: Answers around the 2000s, as the homes there are about 10-15 years old. Autry: Explains that much in this area was not constructed just a short time ago. He agrees with Williams that there should be another traffic study to exhaust all options. Brown: States that the developer should look into a box culvert in crossing the stream to the north and connecting with Mt. Comfort. The project should be tabled to find out more information. Hoskins: Asks about the nature of the accidents in the report. Garner: States that the reports do not specify. Hoskins and Garner engage in further rapid question and answer about nature of streets and intersections in the report. Hoskins: States that much time and money has been spent in improving the intersection at Mt. Comfort and Shiloh. This small of a project will not cause a problem there and crossing the river to the north would not be feasible, based on just the cost of the street length alone, for a development of this size. He surmises that the information has been analyzed well and that the applicant has made the necessary changes to be approved. The developer and owner has a right to develop this project. Public Comment: Sharon Davidson, Nearby Neighbor: Believes this development will help calm traffic for the neighborhood. She is in support of this development. No more public comment. Motion #1: Commissioner Brown made a motion to table LSD 16-5488. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Brisiel: States that some investigation in the accident reports is needed and would be happy to collaborate with staff. A full traffic study is not desired, as it would be a considerable cost and staff has not asked for one throughout this process. Kyle Cook, Commission Chair: Asks Williams if the project is not approved, then the applicant would be able to appeal to City Council. Williams: Answers yes. Hoffman: States they do not share the same opinion stated by Hoskins. A final decision is more appropriate for this developer instead of tabling and pushing their development back even further. Hoskins: Asks the Planning Commission if a traffic study would help them come to a better decision. Autry: Answers that the nature of the accident reports would determine the decision. Brown: Offers that the Planning Commission should offer some suggestions on comparable subdivisions that would be good comparisons. Williams: States that the staff have provided good comparisons for intersections and the traffic study would not provide the information desired by the Planning Commission, where the accident reports would provide the best information. Cook: Asks the applicant what their preference would be for a decision between approval or denial and tabled. Brisiel: Prefers to be tabled. Hoskins: Clarifies that the Planning Commission is not asking for a traffic study, but more information on the accidents. Upon roll call the motion to table failed with a vote of 3-5-0, Motion to table for more study fails 3-5-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Selby, Autry, Belden voted `no'. Motion #2: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve LSD 16-5488. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Brown: Admits that his analysis is not a professional one, but does make use of the available and given data. Cook: States that he will support the development, although admits that the development is not good planning. The issue of traffic has been addressed and there are no other issues. Upon roll call the motion to approve LSD 16-5488 failed with a vote of 3-5-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Selby, Autry, and Brown voted `no'. 0 New Business: 5. ADM 16-5581: Administrative Item (617 N. COLLEGE AVE./BIG SEXY FOOD -1 YR. MOBILE VENDOR, 445): Submitted by BRENT HALE for property located at 617 N. COLLEGE AVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The request is for a one year mobile food vendor permit. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report Brent Hale, Applicant: Is content with staff's report and adds nothing. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Explains his reasoning for pulling the item of the consent agenda. Supports this application, but wants to make sure that any improvements to the west side of College have modifications to improve the pedestrian environment on this property, move the mobile vendors closer to the street and possibly adjust site access to Trenton Boulevard, rather than the existing 50 -foot curb cut on College Avenue and the driveway within the curve radius of Trenton and College. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Also does not have issue with the applicant, but does have an issue with this type of use on College. Notes that College is a Principal Arterial, and that this allows for a large amount of traffic and limits curb cuts. Notes that there is no turn lane, and that accessing the site creates a negative traffic condition. Is not certain whether adding more mobile vendors to this location with current conditions is safe, or not. Feels that this would be better located in a commercial are that is served by a traffic light. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Understands Commissioner Brown's concerns, but notes that all businesses between North and Lafayette require ingress and egress of this nature. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Clarifies whether this is a new vendor adding more traffic, or a replacement for another one. Would like to see more curb cuts removed from College Avenue, but does not feel that there is a reason to punish this applicant. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Questions whether there is a cap on the number of vendors on site. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Responds that there is no cap. Hoskins: Wants to understand why this is even up for debate. Garner: Clarifies that the ordinance is written in such a way that the Planning Commission is tasked with approving one-year permits. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Those policy makers that drafted this ordinance were aware of this location and sought to address it with the ordinance. Notes also that curb cuts along College have been reduced over time. Motion: Commissioner Autry made a motion to approve ADM 16-5581 with conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 6. VAR 16-5577: Variance (137 E. SPRING ST./137 SPRING DRIVEWAY, 485): Submitted by MASWORKS CONSULTING, INC. for property located at 137 E. SPRING ST. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.14 acres. The request is a variance for driveway length. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Matt Snyder, Applicant's Representative: Said that staff had represented the request adequately. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said that he was happy to see a variance request of this type on a lot where it is appropriate, rather than placing a new garage on iconic downtown streets. The side loaded garage on a low traffic volume street is the correct location. Alison Quinlan, Commissioner: Said she could not see sidewalk being required and that it would be appropriate to approve the request in this case. Motion: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to approve VAR 16-5577. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 7. VAR 16-5567: Variance (2241 N. WOODLARK LN./MENDENHALL, 324): Submitted by DEBBIE MENDENHALL for property located at 2241 N. WOODLARK LN. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.36 acres. The request is a variance for driveway length. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report Debbie Mendenhall, Applicant: Expands on staff's report stating that the carport she would like to be located on the property consists of four metal poles and a metal roof. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Agrees with staff analysis, and plans to support the variance. Motion: Commissioner Selby made a motion to approve VAR 16-5567 with conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Hoffman voted `no'. 8. VAR 16-5578: Variance (1820 N. MERIDIAN DR./MISSION HEIGHTS -LOT 35, 371): Submitted by OSAGE CREEK DEVELOPMENT, LLC. for property located at 1820 N. MERIDIAN DR. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0. 12 acres. The request is a variance for driveway length. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. Josh Porter, Applicant: States there is nothing to add. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Comments that this appears to be a straightforward request. Belden and Garner engage in discussion about parking on Clifton versus Meridian in regards to street sections. Motion: Commissioner Brown made a motion to approve VAR 16-5578 with conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-1. Commissioner Hoffman `abstained'. 9. PPL 16-5447: Preliminary Plat (NW OF WEDINGTON DR. & HERITAGE AVE./WOODRIDGE HOLLOW SD, 397): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for properties located NW OF WEDINGTON DR. & HERITAGE AVE. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 60.24 acres. The request is for 163 single-family lots. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report Jason Appel, Engineering Services, Inc., Applicant's Representative: With regards to Parks Dedication, feels that the four acres offered adjacent to Bundrick Park would be a nice addition. Notes that the southern of the two dead-end cul-de-sacs, which has a submitted variance request that staff does not support, was the result of a Fire Department request to eliminate a proposed stub out to adjacent developed property. Public Comment: Josh Bull, Adjacent property owner: Notes that there will be six feet of fall from the proposed subdivision to his property to the west. The retention pond and street negatively affect his desire to build a home in that area. Suspects also that the retention pond in the northwest portion of the proposed subdivision will be inundated by runoff which will overwhelm the culverts under Cindy Hollow Lane. Expresses further concern that there are also large drainage pipes emptying to the north that existing drainage cannot handle. Bill Nottenkamp, Adjacent property owner: Is concerned that the culverts under their private driveways are going to be overwhelmed by runoff. Also, trash from the adjacent subdivision is ending up in Hamestring Creek and the increased stormwater flows are damaging the banks. Dave Zodrow, adjacent property owner: Notes two primary concerns. First is the amount of water going into Hamestring and the massive erosion it is causing. His second concern is that the proposed parkland is not parkland, but an unusable holler. States that this steep holler is going to be gutted like the creek and any ditches associated with subdivisions upstream. He did not note any detention of the properties immediately adjacent to the west of the holler and that even a normal rain creates significant flooding. Expresses that he is not against development, but there needs to be an emphasis on protecting other people's land from development elsewhere. No more public comment was presented. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Notes that the City's Drainage Manual has improved over the years, catching more stormwater than ever. Zodrow: Again emphasizes that there is an astounding amount of trash from subdivisions upstream, and questions whether it can be filtered or detained. The sixty acre field where the proposed subdivision is to be located currently handles all that is there. Cook: Requests Subdivision Committee comments. Tom Brown, Commissioner: The primary issues were a determination of the southern dead- end and whether the parkland dedication would be accepted. Also feels that with the public comment, it may be valuable to get input from City Engineering staff. Is concerned about the Parks Department having to maintain the proposed land. Would like to possibly discuss the use of a weir or similar tool to limit trash. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Expresses thanks to those who gave public comment, and also wants to hear from Engineering. With regards to the parkland, is concerned that this is a situation where the developer is unloading undevelopable land on the City. Was glad to find that the parkland would be adjacent to existing park, but is not sure the land could be used in a meaningful way. If the parkland was accepted, he would like to see better access from the proposed subdivision to the parkland and some useable property from the west side of the ravine being included. To even give access to residents of the proposed subdivision would require large amounts of money from the City. Regarding the variances, he does not like the development pattern, but understands that there is little legal standing to fight against the requests. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Is skeptical of the ability to define the proposed parkland as parkland. Feels that the Planning Commission may need more time to look at this. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Requests that a topography map be pulled up for viewing. Contends that there is a lot to say for passive parks. In addition to whether a park is usable land, is the question of what is useable land. Not every park is going to have sport fields. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Requests comment from Parks and Recreation staff. Ken Eastin, Parks Planner: Notes that this is not a park site with a ravine, but rather the entirety of the park is ravine. Does appreciate that it abuts Bundrick Park and that there is a need for more greenspace. A passive park is typically somewhat usable, and this land would only be accessible with large amounts of money. Undergrowth and its clearance is also a concern. There are a tremendous amount of invasive species that would require a lot to control and eradicate. Hoskins: Speaks from personal experience that thorough clearance can lead to a good park. Additionally, by accepting the parkland, significant numbers of trees can be preserved. Williams: Shares history that undevelopable land can still be good parkland. Conversely, an example of parkland not accepted was a stretch under some overhead power lines. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Appreciates the idea of an undeveloped park and the ravine being left in-state. Did not appreciate how most of the conversation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was about getting the money in -lieu, and not so much about the proposed parkland dedication itself. Corey Granderson, City Engineer: Offers a more in depth explanation of the proposed drainage, explaining that criteria and requirements keep improving. With regards to trash, notes that during small storm events, the proposed detention ponds will hold water in addition to refuse. In addition to the trash concerns, discusses the damage to Hamestring Creek's banks. Although often talking about 100 -yr and 50 -yr storms, it is the one-year storms that define a waterway's channel. Minimum Standard Number Two of the City's Drainage Manual is specifically to address these one-year stormwater events. Whatever else is said, this is a creek in an urban watershed and will likely continue to suffer from previous requirements and standards that were not as rigorous. Williams: Notes that previous systems were to get the water to a riparian corridor as fast as possible. Allison Thurmond -Quinlan, Commissioner: Notes that without an accurate fill plan for the subdivision it is impossible to ascertain where the flows are actually going. That said, she is ready to vote in support of parkland dedication, particularly from an environmental standpoint. Does think that access is critical however, and more usable land needs to be offered, whether this means land clearance or land added to it. A harder look needs to be taken at the stormwater management. Williams: Seeks clarification on what motion is being considered. Quinlan: Tabling for two weeks. Williams: Thinks this is a good idea. Quinlan: Also wants the cul-de-sacs to be reconsidered. (Motion to table) Cook: Solicits applicant's input. Appel: Feels that the necessary due diligence was done for this project with all stormwater going to some sort of detention. Contends that all drainage concerns have been addressed. Is willing to be tabled to reconsider the proposed Parkland dedication. Hoffman: To clarify his comments on the park, he wants to see more access and more usable flatland. With regards to the northern of the two proposed dead-end cul-de-sacs, he is concerned that there will be a large park that is fronted by nothing but privacy fence. Williams: Notes that a park this size will not require street frontage, but ought to have sidewalks. Hoffman: Nonetheless wants to encourage street frontage on the park in an otherwise vehicular -oriented area. Hoskins: Requests information on how the amount of dedication was defined. Eastin: Provides the information. Appel: Clarifies that the parkland will be about 4 acres. Hoskins: Questions whether the land that was to be set aside for Property Owners Association activities could be included in the dedication. Appel: States that it is plausible to increase the parkland dedication area. Hoskins: Feels that many Commissioners may find the proposal more palatable with more usable parkland. Brown: Wants there to be a discussion about access to parkland, with the example of a maintenance vehicle. Questions if there is only one access point right now. Appel: Confirms. Brown: Wants the applicant to confirm with Parks' staff that the parkland can be accessed. Motion: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to table PPL 16-5447 for two weeks for revisions to the proposed parkland area. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 10. LSD 16-5547: Large Scale Development (SE OF FUTRALL DR. & MCMILLAN DR./CROSS CHURCH, 441): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. for properties located SW OF FUTRALL DR. & MCMILLAN DR. The properties are zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contain approximately 12.13 acres. The request is for a 71,968 square foot church with associated parking. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report Jason Appel, Engineering Services, Applicant's Representative: Is available for questions Public Comment: No public comment was presented 10 Tom Brown, Commissioner: Sat on the subdivision committee and the development as proposed complies with all standards. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve LSD 16-5547 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-0-0. Commissioner Quinlan was absent from the vote. 11. CUP 16-5553: Conditional Use (3695 E. HUNTSVILLE RD./SIEBERT, 529): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3695 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a tandem lot. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Presented the report Mike Sebo, Blew & Associates, Applicant's Representative: Is available for questions. Public Comment: No public comment was presented Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Questions whether the tandem lot will be required to meet the build -to -zone requirements. Curth: No, but the one on Huntsville Road will. Hoffman: Questions if the one on Huntsville Road will be required to build between the water line and the build -to -zone. Curth: Clarifies that the plat submitted displays a water line from an outdated infrastructure plan, and it will be removed from the approved plat. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Notes that although this is an undesirable development pattern, it is likely the only viable option given the reasons that staff outlined. Plans on supporting the item. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 16-5553 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 12. CUP 16-5558: Conditional Use (3250 N. FUTRALL DR./FUTRALL DR. CELL TOWER, 211): Submitted by SMITH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for property located at 3250 N. FUTRALL DR. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 5.56 acres. The request is for a wireless communication facility. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. 11 David Reynolds, Applicant: States that no one likes a cell tower and that an adjoining land owner is in support of this project. P-1 is the preferred zoning for cell towers in Fayetteville and the industry. Mr. Reynolds begins going through his presentation about the cell tower and how much people rely on cell phones. He explains that this location is not easy, but believes that this tower is compatible and needed for the area. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Asks how many carriers can co -locate on the tower. Reynolds: Answers that there are six canisters and a carrier rents one or two, so there is a possibility of three or four carriers. He continues that he has received correspondence from the hospital that the need is life-threatening and that Verizon has asked Smith Two-way two years ago to begin looking for a cell tower site in this area. An in-depth explanation of the difference between coverage and capacity with current cell phone coverage. Williams: Asks if the location currently has cell phone coverage. Reynolds: Answers yes outside, but says that the coverage within building is inadequate. Another project and system will be implemented to further improve cell coverage within the hospital. This cell tower is for areas outside and to improve the connection within people's residence and the surrounding area. He further expounds upon how the area does not have a significant gap in coverage, but is still protected under telecommunications laws and acts by the Federal government. Mr. Reynolds refutes staff's opinion that the cell coverage could be co - located onto a building by stating that the operating area would be smaller. A series of pictures are shown of how this proposed tower would not pose a problem to this location. Mr. Reynolds then describes the issue of co -locating in the area and with Washington Regional Medical Center. In attempting to speed up the presentation, he describes the gap in coverage and other areas that were considered for the cell tower. There are representations of the difference between coverage and capacity in relation to power usage, aided by more coverage maps. He ended by showing emails of conversations with the WRMC. Public Comment: No public comment. Ron Autry, Commissioner: States that you can see cell towers everywhere and they would be better seen without all of the summer foliage. The stated goal for this cell tower is not just WRMC, but it definitely appears that this is the client and it could be better served in co -locating on their buildings. The goal has already been served in this area by existing towers. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: States that upon looking at the coverage circles, the new cell tower has significant overlap with existing towers and does not necessitate the need for a new tower at this location. Along with visual impacts, there are possible issues with development in nearby areas as a result. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Wonders what the new coverage area would be if the tower equipment was located on the WRMC buildings. Reynolds: Clarifies that the map with blue and red circles is not indicative of coverage. The location and people within the area determine coverage for said area. In terms of the coverage area when mounted upon one of the WRMC buildings, the coverage shrinks by 50%. This tower 12 does not adequately address coverage in WRMC buildings, but a separate program with the hospital will. Kyle Cook, Commission Chair: Asks the applicant why a shorter tower is not possible. Reynolds: Explains that it is a balance between coverage and allowing other carriers to co - locate. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: States how difficult it is to hold a phone call when in traffic on the Fulbright Expressway. He is in support of the cell tower as there is a need in this area. Williams: Asks why the equipment could not be included in new buildings on WRMC's campus. The Appleby building is close to your intended target. Reynolds: Explains the proposed location is a better place due to distance to users and how co -locating on the building would channel the coverage to one particular section of a field. Williams: Surmises that this location is for users on the highway and the users in the hospital will be covered by equipment in a different phase, therefore the cell tower is not a matter of safety or a life-threatening situation. Reynolds: Answers yes, although different parts like the upper floors and the outside offices will be covered by the tower. Williams: Notes that RFQ communication waves cannot be debated by the Planning Commission. Hoskins and Reynolds have questions and answers to clarify radio waves and radiation. Reynolds: States finally that their efforts to co -locate on buildings would have ended this project two years ago. Cook: Brings up a story about the cell tower on Leverett, which clarifies asking for a smaller tower. Brown: Asks if the project can be tabled. Williams: Answers no, that due diligence has been made and an answer must be made within 60 days or it is automatically approved. Browns: Defers to the recommendation by staff. Williams: States that the City Attorney memo has been made not in support or opposition to the proposed cell tower. Hoskins: Asks Mr. Reynolds if 120 feet would work for a height. Reynolds: Answers that he is not sure. He guesses that 130 feet might work for this location, but the issue also includes co -location, which is required. Hoskins: Summarizes that with the bad coverage in the area and nearby possible development, this cell tower is needed. Motion #1: 13 Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558 a 130' tall tower. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 4- 4-0 (Commissioners Cook, Hoffman, Autry, Brown voted `no') Williams: Suggests tabling the proposal and allowing the applicant to come back with more information. Garner: Questions about tabling out of order and how the project must be brought up for reconsideration by one of those who opposed it. Hoskins: Asks for the feelings of other commissioners. Hoffman: Expresses concern over due diligence with height of the tower, where some example of smaller towers could have been analyzed and provided. Autry: Understands the issue of co -location with height, but echoes concerns about height and coverage. Williams: Answers that a motion to reconsider the proposal should be made by someone that opposed it. Motion #2: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to reconsider CUP 16-5558. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Brown: Concerned and questions about how breaking up the equipment around the hospital. Motion #3: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to table CUP 16-5558 for two weeks. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 13. RZN 16-5548: Rezone (1211 W. JAMES ST./HAVEN CAMPUS APTS., 404): Submitted by BLEW & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property at 1211 W. JAMES ST. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.66 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, subject to a Bill of Assurance. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. Jorge DuQuesne, Applicant: States the goal is to develop this property and this would allow such development. Public Comment: No public comment. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: States they are in full support of this rezone. Motion: 14 Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5548. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: Asks where the second entrance to this property is located. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Explains that development details are not discussed during a rezone. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 14. RZN 16-5550: Rezone (2155 N. RUPPLE RD./HAZEN, 361/362): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties SE & SW OF RUPPLE RD. & MT. COMFORT RD. The properties are zoned RSF-1, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 1 UNIT PER ACRE, RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, AND R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 73.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES and R -A, Residential Agricultural. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Gave the staff report. Tom Terminella, applicant's representative. Present for questions. Public Comment: Marilyn Braswell, property owner in the vicinity: Discussed concerns with the proposed rezoning request because of traffic and noise. Elizabeth Mongeau, property owner in the vicinity: Discussed concerns with the proposed zoning request and that it would be similar to development patterns along Wedington Drive. She asked about the proposed CS zoning district. Garner discussed the concept behind the CS zoning district. Alan Morningscott, lives in Wildflower Estates. Discussed traffic concerns along Mount Comfort Road. There is no left turn lane along Mount Comfort Road. Lisa Aisles. Live further east than Salem Road. She discussed concerns with more traffic on Mount Comfort Road. No more public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed contributing factors to the traffic congestion. The leading cause of congestion is the complete lack of services in this area. We have schools and houses out here. Everybody that lives out here has to make multiple vehicle trips per day. I am very glad the applicant has brought forward CS. It provides a variety of options. I am excited to support this. Tom Brown, Commissioner. Agreed that this is a sensitive proposal. The preservation aspects of R -A in Natural Areas is good and I will be in support. Motion: 15 Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5550 with recommended approval. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Selby voted `no'. 15. RZN 16-5560: Rezone (103 N. PLAINVIEW AVE./MCMAHON, 213): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property at 103 N. PLAINVIEW AVE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 3.34 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RT -12, RESIDENTIAL TWO & THREE FAMILY. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Justin Reid, Applicant's Representative: Said he would answer any questions Public Comment: No Public Comment was given. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Asked what the applicant intended to build on the site. Tim McMahon, Applicant: Said his intention was to build three duplexes. Alison Quinlan, Commissioner: Asked if the duplexes would be required to meet Urban Residential Design Standards. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Said that they would. Motion: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to forward RZN 16-5560 with recommended approval. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 16. RZN 16-5543: Rezone (3434 N. CROSSOVER RD./VILLAGES ASSISTED LIVING, 216): Submitted by ELIZABETH A. LINK for properties at 3434 N. CROSSOVER RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY/4 UNITS PER ACRE and R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 21.40 acres. The request is to rezone the property to RT -12, RESIDENTIAL TWO & THREE FAMILY, P-1, INSTITUTIONAL, AND CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Elizabeth Link, Applicant's Representative: Said she appreciates the efforts of the Commission. She said that senior care center and neighborhood, where people will move from a neighborhood to the nursing care portions. She said that she has worked with staff and the UA Community Design Center to create a great neighborhood for the community. Public Comment: No Public Comment was given. 16 Tom Brown, Commissioner: Said he supported P-1 and RT -12 zoning. He said he could not support CS, because there are defined commercial zones to the north and south. He said that curb cuts will reduce traffic efficiency. He said that pedestrians may try to walk across the street to reach commercial developments. He said that the CS should become NS and be brought into the center of the development in order to create the neighborhood. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Motion Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Second Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: I completely disagree with Mr. Brown. The 2030 plan encourages just this kind of development pattern. For all the reasons we have discussed tonight, the CS zone in particular is very appropriate. Quinlan: Said that she respectfully disagreed with Mr. Brown. She added that she believed that if enough pedestrians were to cross the road in such numbers that a problem is created, it would speak to the success of the development. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5543. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted `no'. 1. Reports: None 2. Announcements: None 3. Adjournment Time: 10:00 PM 4. Submitted by: City Planning Division 17