Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-27 Minutes34 J • • • A meeting of 27, 1984 at MINUTES OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 5:00 p.m. in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Halley, Jr., Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook, Stanley Green, Fred Hanna, Melanie Stockdell, Sue Madison, and Ernie Jacks. David Williams. Larry Wood, Gary Carnahan, Jim Lindsey, Johnny Quinn, Leon Edens, Joe Segers, Eric Lloyd, Phil Yoakum, Gary Jackson, Katherine Fiser, Harry Gray, Jeff Wild, Wade Bishop, members of the press and others. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Newton Hailey, Jr. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 13, 1984. Barbara Crook stated that she did have corrections to the minutes as follows: Page 10, Paragraph two: Line 4 of the "Memo from City Attorney regarding Greenspace, Parks Plan and Appendix C --Fayetteville Code of Ordinances" should read "...which was described to the City Board...". Line 5 "...and one portion of it has subsequently..." Line 6 should read "... ordinance was described to the Board..." Line 8 should read "...the Planning Commission did not understand this and thus, go ahead with approval." Otherwise, the minutes were approved as mailed. REZONING PETITION R84-1 KENNETH W. LANCE AND LEON G. EDENS 941 MT. COMFORT ROAD The second item on the agenda was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-1, Kenneth W. Lance and Leon G. Edens, to rezone property located at 941 Mt. Comfort Road., from R-2, Medium Density Residential District PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Leon Edens was present to represent this rezoning. Chairman Hailey requested that Larry Wood convey the criteria which if followed in considering a rezoning. Hailey advised that the criteria has been taken from the Planning Commission Bylaws. Wood explained that in the Bylaws, the four criteria to judge the application for rezoning against would be as follows: 1) Would the rezoning be consistent with the planning objectives, principles and policies of the land use plan and the zoning ordinance itself. 2) To determine whether the proposed zoning is justified or needed at the time proposed. 3) Determine whether it would create or appreciably increase the traffic danger or congestion within the area. 4) Would it alter the population density, overloading the public • facilities such as schools, water and sewer. Wood stated that he has not recommended rezoning to C-1, but has recom- mended the R-0 District for the following reasons: 1) R-0 District is more compatible with the residential uses to the north and east; 2) C-1 District could establish a precedent for the expansion of the District north on Oakland Ave. and east on North St. creating land use conflicts with existing residential uses; 3) The set backs in the R-0 Districts are less restrictive; and 4) R-0 District will allow the office use stated in the application. Fred Hanna advised that the General Plan recommends commercial as the future land and wished to know why the R-0 was recommended in lieu of the C-1 zoning. Wood advised he felt that the boundary had been drawn, basically, in the wrong place; that it was drawn on Oakland as opposed to the back lot lines on the west side of Oakland, thus being moved over one lot too far. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Edens stated that this property would be used as an office at this time. Chairman Hailey advised that the only difference in use from R-1 to C-1 would be the parking setbacks. Jones explained that the Code allows the same minimum setbacks 36 _A • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 in the R-0 as it does the C-1 if the parking is not between the building and that particular street and if it is landscaped. In the R-0, the parking has to be held back at least 15' from the street right-of-way and C-1 does not. Chairman Hailey requested to know if Mr. Edens had checked both of these options. Mr. Edens stated they would be using the existing building. Chairman Hailey requested to know if anyone was opposed to this rezoning. The public hearing was closed. Stockdell advised this was a very difficult piece of property because of the fact that it was so isolated by heavily used road. Stockdell stated she would be in favor of following Mr. Wood's recommendation if the needs of the applicant were met. Mr. Hanna reiterated the parking setbacks of the R-0 zoning versus the C-1 zoning for Mr. Edens. Edens stated that the parking would be extremely close to the street. Jones stated there is a larger maximum buildable area in the R-0 zone, but the setbacks will remain comparable. Jones stated that the maximum buildable area in R-0 is 60% and in a C-1 is 40%. MOTION Stockdell moved to recommend denial of the request to rezone this property to C-1. Motion seconded by Barbara Crook. Stanley Green stated he could not see where C-1 would be a bad use for this property as it abutts a commercially zoned area and is a very small triangle. If the R-0 zoning will accomplish what is needed, this would be fine, but if he would have any problems with this, then he would feel the C-1 zoning would be compatible with the area. Hanna agreed with the C-1 zoning. Crook stated that similar arguments could be used for Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, however, the commercial development should not be extended any further into the residential area. Crook stated she did agree, however, that this piece of property was a slightly different. Edens stated that with an R-0, they would have problems trying to use the existing building. Motion died for lack of a majority vote. Vote tied 4-4. MOTION Morton Gitelman moved to recommend approval of the C-1 zone. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Crook stated that in Use Unit 18, Gasoline Service Stations are allowed in C-1. Crook stated this is why she would vote against this motion; that she would not want to see a service station directly across from a residential dwelling. Motion passed 5-3 with Ernie Jacks, Barbara Crook and Melanie Stockdell voting "nay". • J • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 REZONING PETITION R-84-2 MISSION BOULEVARD BAPTIST CHURCH 2006 Mission Boulevard The third item on the agenda was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-2, Mission Boulevard Baptist Church, to rezone property located at 2006 Mission Boulevard, from R-1, Low Density Residential District to P-1, Institutional District. Joe Segers was present to represent this rezoning petition. Chairman requested that Larry Wood present his report. Wood stated he had recommended the P-1 District for the following reasons: 1) The property in question has access to an arterial street; 2) There is already a church use established on the property; and 3) P-1 District is an appropriate District for schools and churches. Wood also wished to note that there would be one drawback to the P-1 District, that being loss of the conditional use review for all the other uses allowed in Use Unit 4. Chairman Hailey requested to know the allowable uses in the P-1 zone. Jones advised the allowable uses are as follows: Use Units 1 and 4 are permitted by right, and Use Units 2, 3 & 10 on appeal to the Planning Commission. Unit 4 is Cultural and Recreational Facilities which includes public and private facilities, art galleries, libraries, museums, child care centers, nursery school, church, college or university, dormitory for a college or university, community center, detention home, golf courses, hospitals, parks, playfield or playground, riding stables, elementary, junior high or senior high school, swimming pool, tennis court, theaters, zoo, private club or lodge. The public hearing was opened. Joe Segers stated that the request for rezoning was consistent with the plan of the City; that the traffic would not be increased; that the parking met the requirements of a P-1; that it is presently being used as P-1. Segers stated that this Rezoning Request would meet the four criteria used in considering a rezoning petition. Chairman Hailey requested to know if anyone was present to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition for rezoning. There being no one present for either, the public hearing was closed. Stockdell stated she did not agree that this rezoning request would meet the four criteria in judging a rezoning, this being in terms of necessity. Stockdell wished to know why this could not continue 37 38 J • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 as a Conditional Use rather than being rezoned. Segers stated that as a Conditional Use, each time something is to be added, deleted, etc., this requires a hearing. This property is presently being used as a church. An ordinance was passed with a definition of P-1. This is owned by a church and conforms to P-1. This does not conform to R-1 and will never be used as R-1. Segers stated is seemed proper to zone the property according to its use, rather than continually going through the process required by Conditional Use. Madison stated that she would like to reiterate Mr. Wood's comment that if this is rezoned to P-1, the Planning Commission relinquishes the right to review any of the uses outlined in P-1. Jacks stated there was definitely a problem with Use Unit 4, and this should be changed. Crook stated that some of the reasons that Mr. Segers is requesting the P-1 zone are some of her reasons for wishing this to remain as R-1 in that, before changes are made to this property, that this will come back to the Planning Commission. Clarification of the surrounding property zoning was accomplished with decision that the surrounding property was in fact zoned R-1, but the filling station which abutts the property existed as a non -conforming use. Crook stated that the R-1 District did deserve the protection of the Planning Commission as additional uses are added or changes are made Jacks stated he found it interesting that no one was present to oppose this matter. Segers stated that if Use Unit 4 is incorrect, then it should be changed. Gitelman stated that the issue to him would be whether or not he would have voted for P-1 when the Conditional Use for the Church was requested. Gitelman stated he felt that the issue was the size of the property and the nature of the neighborhood with this piece of property being six (6) acres in size. This is different than a church being located in a residential neighborhood. Gitelman stated that the reason for churches as a conditional use in R-1 is basically historical with older churches seeking to locate in residential neighborhoods. This created traffic and noise problems, with these factors needing to be controlled. Gitelman stated that if someone comes in with 6-10 acres requesting a church, the property should be zoned in such a manner rather than being treated as a conditional use in a residential area. MOTION Gitelman made a motion to recommend to the City Board, the change of zoning from R-1 to P-1. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 6-2 with Sue Madison and Barbara Crook voting "nay". REZONING PETITION R84-3 352 N. WEST AVENUE ERIC T LLOYD The fourth item on the agenda was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-3, Eric T. Lloyd, to rezone property located at 352 N. West Ave., from R-0, Residential -Office District to C-3, Central Commercial District. • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 Mr. Lloyd was present to represent this rezoning petition. Chairman Hailey requested that Mr. Larry Wood convey his recommendations on this rezoning petition. Wood advised that he did not recommend the C-3 District for the following reasons: 1) C-3 District is contrary to the General Plan recommendations; and 2) Establishment of a C-3 District at this location could set a precedent for the extension of the District north on West Avenue and east on Lafayette Street for C-3 type use. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Lloyd presented maps which would show the area in question. Lloyd stated he would like to put the boundary line on Lafayette between the rental house and the green house which is located next door to it, possibly as a conditional zoning type program. Hanna wished to know what the use would be. Lloyd stated that the C-3 zoning was his need to increase the size of his Bicycle Shop. Jacks requested to know if this was a setback question. Jones advised this was a use and setback question. Jacks questioned whether or not a Bicycle Shop would require a C-3 zone. Jones advised that a C-2, C-3 or I-1 would be required. C-3 would have the best setbacks and is the only zone that would make the residential use conforming. Jones advised that the Board of Adjustment could only review the setback question, but could not review the use issue. Lloyd suggested that safeguards be placed on the rezoning which would not allow another use and the possibility that no business be allowed in the rental house. Chairman Hailey requested to know from Larry Wood and Bobbie Jones, what the Planning Commission could do to accomplish what Mr. Lloyd was asking. Hailey asked if this property could be zoned to C-3 with the condition that it will remain at the current use, or is there any way to accomplish this which does not involve a rezoning? Jones advised that there would be no way to extend the Bicycle Shop without a change of zoning. Gitelman stated he would be opposed to putting a commercial zone on the corner of West and Lafayette. Jacks agreed on this. MOTION Morton Gitelman moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the C-3 zoning. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Stanley Green stated that before the final vote was taken, that he would like to know what could be done to help Mr. Lloyd. Green stated he was not opposed to the zoning because much of the zoning in the area was already C-3. Green requested to know if there was a way 39 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 7 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 to go ahead and give him the zoning and limit the use. Hailey advised that the zoning could be given with a Bill of Assurance that the use of the property would not change. Lloyd stated he would like to request a Bill of Assurance that if he property were sold, it would revert back to the R-0 zoning. Green stated he would be in favor of that. Stockdell advised that if the Bill of Assurance can be accomplished on this rezoning, that she would like to withdraw her second. MOTION Stockdell moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Board, the C-3 zoning with a Bill of Assurance that the property will revert to the R-0 zoning upon sale by the current owner and that the current use be maintained. Motion seconded by Sue Madison. Gitelman stated he would vote against this motion as he did not feel it would be right; that the zoning ordinances should not be tailored in this manner. Jacks agreed. Madison requested to know what the other three corners of Lafayette and West Avenue were zoned. Jones explained that the Southwest corner was zoned I-1, the Northeast corner was zoned R-3 and the Northwest corner was zoned R-3. Motion passed 5-3 with Morton Gitelman, Barbara Crook and Ernie Jacks voting "nay". LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT DILIARD'S EXPANSION 4201 NORTH SHIIAH Chairman Hailey explained that the eleventh item on the agenda would be heard at this time due to the fact that those involved in this item had a plane to catch. Therefore, the eleventh item on the agenda was the approval of the Large Scale Development for Dillard's Department Store, located at 4201 North Shiloh. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mr. Jeff Wild was present to represent this matter. Chairman Hailey requested the report from The Subdivision Committee. The Chairman of The Subdivision Committee, Barbara Crook, explained that a few of the decision had been left for this meeting due to the fact that Mr. Meredith, who was present at the Subdivision Committee Meeting was not able to answer the questions which were posed. One question which was left unanswered was the participation of the owners in the interchange at Zion Road and Highway 71. Mr. Jeff Wild stated that several hundred thousand dollars had already been spent in traffic studies and the engineering of the lights at this intersection. The interchange was so far out of the scale of being feasible, that the current system was placed. Wild stated that this was the best system which could be found for the location. Wild reiterated that there was already a great deal of money invested in this interchange. Crook stated that the other question which was left unanswered was the matter 40 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 8 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 of the sidewalk running along Shiloh. Crook explained that the request was for a Bill of Assurance for installation of the sidewalk along the west side of Shiloh for that portion of property which abutts Shiloh. Wild requested to know what the sidewalk would be used for. Jones stated that the Master Sidewalk Plan calls for the installation of a 5' wide sidewalk along the side of a service road where there is any development. Jones stated that the reason she was suggesting a Bill of Assurance was that the sidewalk location to the south of the mall area, agreed upon between the City and The Arkansas State Highway Department. Wild still did not understand how this would cross their property; that there was no way to even get this sidewalk to Johnson Road; coupled with the fact that a sidewalk would not provide access to any part of their property. Jones explained the sidewalk would go from the north property line, southward. Hailey explained that the City Board has adopted a Master Sidewalk Plan, and on this plan, there is a sidewalk required at this location. Hailey advised that the Planning Commission could not waive this and would have to ask for a Bill of Assurance. This matter could, however, be taken up with the City Board of Directors. Crook also explained that the City Board of Directors would have to be petitioned in order to vacate the easements. MOTION Crook moved approval of the Large Scale Development, contingent upon receipt of a Bill of Assurance for sidewalk installation on the west side of Shiloh. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Motion passed 8-0. REZONING PETITION R84-4 NATCHEZ INVESTMENT COMPANY HIGHWAY 112 (GARLAND AVENUE) AND DRAKE STREET The fifth item on the agenda was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition Rf84-4, Natchez Investment Co., Inc., to rezone property located at NW corner of Highway 112 (Garland Ave.) and Drake Street, from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mr. Phil Yoakum was present to represent this matter. Chairman Halley requested that Mr Larry Wood render his report on this rezoning. Wood explained that he recommended the C-2 District for the following reasons: 1) The property is located at the intersection of two arterial streets, the location suggested by the General Plan for commercial facilities; • 2) C-2 District zoning exists east and west of the property under application; and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 3) All public facilities and services are available to the property. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Yoakum stated that this will be the first major impact area on the bypass coming into Fayetteville. Mr. Yoakum stated that the property was actually 2.86 acres in lieu of 2.2 acres. Jacks asked if there was possibility of access to the bypass. Wood stated there was no access. Chairman Hailey requested to know if there was anyone to speak in opposition to the rezoning. The public hearing was closed. MOTION Ernie Jacks moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning Petition R84-4. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 8-0. Crook requested that Mr. Yoakum place something nice at this location. REZONING PETITION R84-5 CHARLES G. AND ADELAIDA R. BIADW SE CORNER SYCAMORE AND VANDEVENTER The sixth item on the agenda was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-5, Charles G. and Adelaida R. Blauw, to rezone property located at SE corner Sycamore and Vandeventer, from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Gary Jackson was present to represent this matter. Chairman Hailey requested that Mr. Wood present his report. Wood stated that this is an area that the Update Committee has been looking at as what has been labeled "passed over". Wood stated that at this point, he could not recommend change to R-2 because of the impact on the single family residence directly to the west and north. Wood suggested that the applicant may wish to consider postponing the decision on this to give the Planning Commission more time to see what changes might be introduced into the ordinance to allow the development of this property, but perhaps not necessarily single-family developments. Hailey requested to know when the report would be presented by the Update Committee. Jones advised this would be presented at the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1984. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jackson stated that the developer is asking for medium density for the purpose of building condominium - ownership units. The potential density would allow 24 units/acre. However, there would be approximately 74 units in a 5 acre tract. Mr. Jackson stated that the terrain would be left, as much as possible, between the units for sales reasons as well as their trying to work with the contours of the land. Hailey requested to know if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. Mr. Richard 43 J • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 10 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 Mills requested to speak in favor of this rezoning. Mr. Mills stated he lived directly across from the proposed development and would probably have the greatest impact of this development. Mills stated he would be speaking for the Taylors as well; that they were in complete concur- rence with this proposed development. Mills stated he felt that the use being recommended is certainly not as bad as what could be recommended for this property. Mills stated that he felt that the development as proposed (condominiums for sale) would actually help the property; that the access to and from the property would be improved. This would give them street and sewer improvements. Mills stated that they had investigated what would be needed to have the street improved and was advised that the only way this could be done was by the formation of an improvement district. Crook requested to know which lot Mr. Mills occupied. Mills stated he owned the north 1/2 of Lot 6 and the Taylors owned the south 1/2 of Lot 8. Hailey asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in opposition to this rezoning. Mr. Bradford White requested to speak on this matter. Bradford stated he lived at the corner of Sycamore of Gregg, and this was an extremely dangerous intersection. Bradford stated that he preferred this not be rezoned. Ms. Betty Hummel stated she owned two acres on Sycamore, and improvement of the street would improve the dust conditions. However, Hummel stated that the traffic is so bad that you cannot get out of your driveway. John Dole requested to speak on this matter, stating he was a newcomer to the neighborhood and bought his house because of the wooded area of the neighborhood and would be opposed to the rezoning. Mr. David Offenbacker stated he would agree that there is a traffic problem in the area and would not be in favor of the density which could be accomplished by this rezoning, and did not think this development should take place just to have the road improved. Jan Fuller stated she was against the rezoning. John Wilson stated he did not feel he was ready for this area to become a higher density area and would be against the rezoning. Mr. Jackson stated that he understood the objections which have been presented by the property owners; that looking at an open forest, tree -covered hillside is good. However, this is not the best and highest use of the land. In looking at the surrounding land as indicated in Mr. Wood's report, there would be very little disturbance created by this development. Mr. Jackson stated that the property has major services on it which are not being utilized, thus costing the City. The public hearing was closed. Green asked if this zoning were denied and the Update Committee decided this should be R-2, wouldn't it be a year before he could petition for rezoning? Hailey advised this was correct unless the Planning Commission were to vote to allow this matter again. Jackson stated that if he had some type of a time frame in mind, then he could consider tabling this matter. Hailey requested to know if the Update Committee would be requesting the adoption of a policy which would help this rezoning at the meeting of March 26, 1984. Wood advised that this would be a report to the committee with some possible solutions on • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 11 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 passed over parcels. If the Planning Commission concurred with any of the proposals, a public hearing would have to be held to change the ordinance, thus at least 30-60 days. Fred Hanna stated he did not see where the Update Committee's recommendation would actually effect zoning. Wood stated that there could be a potential amendment to the zoning ordinance which might allow some alternate development. MOTION Morton Gitelman moved that the Planning Commission deny the request for rezoning based on the fact that many multi -family requests have been denied in this neighborhood and would result in further chopping up the neighborhood. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Stockdell stated she did go out and look at this property and thought that the drainage ditch did need to be taken care of, as well as the street. Stockdell stated she felt that the property values would be increased by this proposed condominium development and that this piece of property will be developed some day. However, due to the need to be consistent, Stockdell stated she would go ahead and second this motion. Crook stated she would vote against this rezoning due to the fact that the previous application was at the same level going from south t o north. Crook stated that she wished to stop the progression of R-2 to the north. Motion to deny passed 7-1 with Stanley Green voting "nay". LOT SPLIT LOT 13, BLACK 3, BROPHY ADDITION RALPH BROPHY 'The seventh item on the agenda was lot size requirement applicable to B rophy for Lot 13, Block 3, Brophy present to represent this lot split. a request for variance from the a lot split submitted by Ralph Addition. Katherine Fiser was Chairman Hailey requested that Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator present the history on this lot split. Jones advised that the street which appears to loop and tie Karyn Avenue and Jimmie Avenue together is called West View. Jones stated that the lot is 160' x 120' with B rophy wishing to divide the property, with the larger portion of the half being the north part, thus allowing setbacks from the future street. The City Engineer has requested a 10' sewer easement granted off the west side of the southern portion to enable the northern portion o f the lot to get to public sewer, if this lot split is granted. Fiser advised that the easement would be granted. There was some discussion about the Parks Ordinance Fee of $105.00 with Ms. Fiser advising that they would go ahead and pay this fee. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 12 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 Hailey can be place MOTION advised that if a waiver is needed in this matter, that a letter provided to the Planning Administrator, thus allowing her to this item on the agenda for the meeting of March 12, 1984. Ernie Jacks moved to approve this lot split. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Gitelman requested to know if both lots would meet the frontage re- quirements. Jones explained that one would have 85' and the other would have approximately 77' of in excess of 70', and does meet all the applicable requirements. Motion passed 8-0. PRELIMINARY PIAT MEADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION, PHASE III SUNFLOWER CIRCLE AND FRAZIER TERRACE DR. J. B. HAYS --OWNER AND DEVELOPER The eighth item on the agenda was the approval of the Preliminary Plat for meadowridge Subdivision, Phase III, Dr. J. B. Hays --owner and developer, located at Sunflower Circle and Frazier Terrace. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Harry Gray was present to represent this matter. Chairman Hailey requested the report of the Subdivision Committee. Crook advised that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this Subdivision with extension of the 50' right-of-way to the north of the cul-de-sac on Sunflower Circle. Crook advised that there are no covenants. NOTION Crook moved approval of Meadowridge Subdivision subject to Plat Review comments as well as extension of the right-of-way on to the north of the cul-de-sac on Sunflower Circle, to the north property line. The street is to be build as shown with the cul-de-sac, but the right- of-way is to be extended so that land to the north and east is not blocked to development. Motion seconded by Ernie Jacks. Gitelman requested to know if the right-of-way will be shown on the final plat. Gray advised this would be shown. Motion passed 7-0-1 with Newton Hailey abstaining from vote. YS J • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 CHESTNUT AVENUE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT JAMES E. LINDSEY AND BILL ELSASS— OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS The nineth item on the agenda was the approval of Large Scale Development for James E. Lindsey and Bill Elsass--owners and developers, located on Chestnut Ave. Property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. James Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent this matter. Chairman Bailey requested the report of the Subdivision Committee. Crook advised that there were several questions. MOTION Crook moved approval of the Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review Comments, plus an 80' right-of-way dedication along the north boundary, participation in the improvements to Poplar Street at the time of bridge construction on a rational nexus basis (being based on acreage), and the extension of Chestnut to the north boundary or Ernie Jacks Expressway. Crook advised that the developer is willing to participate in the improvements of Chestnut to the extent of the additional 5' right-of-way, sidewalks, placement of curb and gutter and drainage as stated in the Plat Review Comments. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Lindsey requested to take one point at a time, the first being the extension of Chestnut past the perimeters of the property. Lindsey stated he was not sure that they could even get the right-of-way to do this. Lindsey stated he could not remember offering to extend the road across the adjacent owner's property, stating that the people to the west own the property. Lindsey stated they would have to dras- tically change their plan to render the 80' right-of-way. Lindsey stated he thought that right-of-way requests were split between adjacent property owners. Jacks stated that the 80' right-of-way issue is mostly a historical one; that when Leverett Garden II was constructed, the developer agreed to the 80' in order to get the development through. Lindsey requested to know if any of the utilities can be in the right- of-way. Jones advised that the utility companies can use a portion of the right-of-way subject to the present regulations, but many of the utility companies request additional easements because of the restrictions placed on them when they are in a street right-of-way. Lindsey requested to know what area would be dealt with as the basis for the rational nexus. Crook explained that the property owner to the east has provided a Bill of Assurance with regard to their portion of this bridge construction on a rational nexus basis. Jones advised that she did think Mr. Lindsey had already given his portion of the right-of-way on Chestnut. Gitelman requested to know on what basis 4/4 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 the developer was being requested to improve someone else's frontage. Crook explained that the Subdivision felt there needed to be some type of a cul-de-sac, etc. for purposes of turn -around of large City vehicles. Lindsey suggested that they would be willing to put a T in as their portion of the improvement for turn -around. MOTION Morton Gitelman moved that the original motion be amended by removing the requirement of paving Chestnut to the north of the north property line. Jacks stated he felt that a turn -around may not even be necessary in this area. Crook stated she was concerned about fire, sanitation, etc. using the entrance to this development with no turn -around being available. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Motion passed 8-0. Mr. Lindsey stated they would go ahead and give the 80' right-of-way due to the past history involved. Gitelman did suggest that Lindsey try to work with the University on this matter. Lindsey stated that he would like to go on record as requesting that the street in the north edge of the right-of-way be located as close to the University as possible. Gitelman stated there would be no objection to the utilities being placed in the right-of-way as long as all requirements were met. Extensive discussion was carried out regarding The Lindsey Developers participation in the off-site improvements on Poplar at such a time as the improvements are made. Gitelman explained that the Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission determine the need of off-site improvements and then to determine who is to share in the improvements and to what extent. Then, a fund would be set up for a five year period. Gitelman felt that the Planning Commission was required to give the builder some idea of the need. Jacks stated that some manner of determining these matters before presentation to the Planning Commission needs to be undertaken. MOTION Stockdell made a motion to ask for the recommendation of the Street Committee placing this rational nexus issue back into the hands of the Subdivision Committee for determination. Motion died for lack of second. Lindsey explained that on his property to the south of the Leverett Gardens II development, there was a trade-off at the time of his devel- opment. The trade-off was that Lindsey build all of the extension of Chestnut, 100% of it in lieu of not having to do anything on Poplar. Lindsey stated that if a person's property does not front on the road, za PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 15 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 that the off-site improvements are not fair; however, if the property does front the road, then the off-site improvements should be implemented. Lindsey stated that he did not think many developers would agree to an unknown cost. Stockdell requested to know if rational nexus had been applied in the past, and if so, how was it applied. Jones stated that Mr. Bishop had to widen Appleby Road to 71B when he placed his subdivision in that area. Lindsey stated he would be happy to make a "good faith" deposit for that portion directly in front of his property, (approximately $5,000). Gitelman stated that the purpose of the rational nexus ordinance was designed mostly for premature development of property, i.e., someone who is subdividing land at the end of a dirt road and he just wishes to pave his street and leave the remainder of the road dirt. This would create the need to improve that road. Therefore, the City would say that the road needed to be paved because of his activity and would have to pay his fair share. Therefore, the monies would be taken now and placed in a fund. Then, when the other people in the area develop, their portion will be collected as well. Chairman Hailey requested that the motion be restated. MOTION Crook made a motion to approve this Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review Comments, the dedication of an 80' right-of-way along the north boundary of the property. Motion seconded by Melanie Stockdell. Motion passed 8-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT MULEY'S RESTAURANT COLT SQUARE The tenth item on the agenda was the approval of Large Scale Development for Muley's Restaurant, located on Colt Square Drive. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Crook advised that this Large Scale Development had been approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting with one contingency; that being when the two out lots are developed, the developer will provide a way to get surface drainage to the east and west edges of the property and then on to Colt Street where it would then flow to the existing City storm drainage system. WAIVER OF SAFETY ZONE WADE BISHOP The twelfth item on the agenda was a request from Wade Bishop for a waiver of safety zones from side property lines and between driveways. 119 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 16 FEBRUARY 27, 1984 Chairman Hailey requested to know if this was a recurring problem. Jones advised this seem to occur on lots where there is less than the required lot width at the street right-of-way, i.e., there is the full lot width at the setback line, but not at the street right- of-way. Jones advised she could allow a joint driveway centered on the property line. Jacks requested to know if these lots met the ordinances. Jones stated that they did meet the ordinance. MOTION Ernie Jacks made a motion to approve the Waiver of the Driveway Safety Zone. Motion seconded by Morton Gitelman. Madison stated she would vote against this because if the ordinance should not be there, then it should be changed. Motion passed 7-1 with Sue Madison voting "nay" Bishop stated that they went ahead and submitted all the lots so they would not have to come back many times with single lots. Bishop requested that the Planning Commission consider some way that these matters can be handled by the Planning Administrator. Hailey advised that this is one of the items which is being addressed by the Update Committee and there should be a resolution on it within the next couple of months. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Hailey advised that the Zoning Report has been submitted for informational purposes, as well as the informational item on mobile homes/manufactured housing. Chairman Hailey announced that Fred Hanna would be appointed to the Update Committee with Sue Madison requesting to be appointed to this committee as well. Hailey announced that Sue Madison and Stanley Green will be the new members of the Subdivision Committee. Chairman Hailey announced that there would be an informal meeting with Larry Wood reviewing the Master Plan very generally as well as the Street Plan for the benefit of the new members on March 5, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. on the 7th Floor of the 1st Federal Building. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. kq