Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-12 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayettevile Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 12, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, J.B. Springborn, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff, J. David Ozment, Ernie Jacks and Fred Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES Jack Cleghorn and Julie Nash John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 1989 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION 8R89-18 DR. MITCHELL SINGLETON - S SIDE OF ZION RD The second item on the agenda was the public hearing for the rezoning petition #R89-18 submitted by Dr. Mitchell Singleton for property located on the south side of Zion Road west of Old Missouri Road containing.48,24_acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. John Merrell, City Planning Director, gave the following report: There have been four other rezonings in this vicinity since 1972. One in 1972 was from A-1 to R-1 in 1972 which was for a strip of land fronting on Zion Road to the west of the property. Also, in 1978 there was an A-1 to R-1 rezoning fronting on the south side of Zion east of the intersection with Old Missouri Road. In 1977 there was an R-1 to R-2 rezonings for a very small piece of land fronting on Old Missouri Road a little to the south of the subject property. Most recently there was a rezoning from A-1 to R-0 of a piece of property fronting on the north side of Zion to the east of this property. He added that his understanding is that residential uses are proposed for this property and that Jerry Sweetser has entered into a contract to purchase this property contingent upon the approval of the rezoning. He stated that he talked to Mr. Sweetser today and was told that the engineer, Dave Jorgensen, was going to submit a conceptual plan of what they are planning to do with the property. Apparently, about 70% of the property will be developed as single-family and 30% of the property would be developed as two and three family dwellings. He advised that the land use designation for this property is medium density residential. He noted that he would like to reserve staff's recommendation until they have had an opportunity to see the concept plan and hear Mr. Jorgensen's presentation. There are individuals in the community who feel that the City is getting saturated as far as apartment construction is concerned. This is one thing they have asked Mr. Raby to look at in the new General Plan and also the unified development ordinance. Chairman Jacks stated that no matter what Mr. Jorgensen might show, the Planning Commission is called upon to evaluate this as R-2 property with the possibility • • • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 2 of the maximum density of R-2. He added that there seems to be a hodgepodge growing up on Zion Road of R-1, R-2 and R-0 which they need to make some sense out of. He asked Mr. Merrell if it is possible to make a quick study so that they could get some sort of an idea what is planned for Zion Road from Highway 71 to Highway 265. Mr. Merrell stated that Chairman Jacks has a good point and they could do a quick study He noted that if after the public hearing, it is the consensus of the Commission to direct the staff to do a study, they would certainly do that. Mr. Merrell noted that the Master Street Plan of the City does show a street which is proposed to connect Joyce and Zion. The thinking right now is that this street would come in west of the Park Lake Apartments and would not affect this property. However, staff is not 100% solid in that conclusion. Chairman Jacks stated that there has been discussion in the past about a street connecting Joyce and Zion but there has been a problem with where it might be located. Mr. Merrell stated that he has asked Don Bunn and his staff to do a study and have a look at a more exact potential route for that street. Commissioner Seiff stated that there is a similar situation on Joyce Street with the hodgepodge of different zoning. Chairman Jacks advised that there has been a study of Joyce Street. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he wondered if Old Missouri Road would be straightened at the intersection with Zion Road. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved that a study of the land use for this area be undertaken by John Merrell, City Planning Director, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 6-1-0 with Hanna voting "no". The Public Hearing was opened. Dr. Mitchell Singleton stated that he is the president of Carlton Land Company which had several parcels of land. Park Lake Apartments is built on land that we sold them to the west of this property as well as Brookhollow Addition Subdivision to the south fronting on Old Missouri Road. Also, they have what was originally two parcels of land left and that is why the zoning is different; they were bought at different times. Dr. Singleton stated that he feels that Fayetteville is way overbuilt on apartments. In the new master land use plan that was in the Sunday paper shows that the whole area south of Zion was designated for one and two-family dwellings. This petition is consistent with that. All of the land adjacent to this except for the east side is already R-2 and the adjoining property owners do not object to this. Dave Jorgensen submitted a copy of a concept plat to each of the Commissioners. • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 3 He noted that the basic idea is to tie the property to the South and to the East with the property being discussed now. The plan is to go through Meadowridge Phase II which is on the agenda tonight and eventually tie Old Missouri Road to Zion. This may accomplish a tie to Joyce from Zion Road. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hanna, Mr. Jorgensen stated that R- 1.5 zoning would accomplish what they are wanting to do here. The preliminary layout of the lots was not necessarily governed by R-2 sized lots, it was more the configuration of the property. Dr. Singleton stated that he wasn't aware that there was an R-1.5 zoning until last week. Chairman Jacks stated that R-2 permits 24 units/acre and R-1.5 permits 12 units/acre. Commissioner Klingaman asked how the duplexes will be interspersed with single- family residences. Mr. Jorgensen stated that they haven't determined how it might be developed. Commissioner Springborn asked if they would be willing to accept an R-1.5 zoning. Mr. Jorgensen stated that they would prefer an R-2 zoning if the Commission will allow R-2. • Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak to this. • Jamie Jones who owns property immediately north and little bit west of this on Zion Road stated that he is very much in favor of a study being done on this area. He noted that there have been repeated requests for rezonings both to the East and the West of his property so it is time that they have a plan. He added that he would not object nearly so much if this was going to be less than R-2 zoning. Until or unless there is more provisions for access out of that property on to Zion Road the traffic problem is compounding more and more. The Public Hearing was closed. John Merrell noted that it would appear that the R-1.5 zoning would serve the needs of the applicant and would probably be in the best interest of the City so the staff supports the rezoning to R-1.5. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve a rezoning from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 7-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R89-17 BRAUN'S ICE CREAM CO - 1894 WEST 6TH STREET The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition IIR89- 17 submitted by Braum's Ice Cream Company and represented by Joel Hersh. • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 4 Property is located at 1894 West 6th Street. The request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell gave the following report: This petition has been submitted in order to accommodate the new Braum's Ice Cream. They need the rezoning of a very small area in order to accommodate their desire for parking and ingress/egress they need the rezoning of a very narrow strip at the rear of their property which is only about 20' to 25' wide and is presently zoned R-2. Initially, the staff thought perhaps this could be approved administratively, but it was decided that it should be submitted to the Planning Commission. The staff recommends approval of this petition. The public hearing was opened. Joel Hersh stated that this piece of property is almost across the street from the new McDonald's on 6th Street and they feel that having this strip in the back rezoned will enable them to meet all the landscaping and setback requirements in able to have a very spacious, attractive location. This strip will provide for a nice wide driveway behind the store. Chairman Jacks stated that he doesn't see how this strip will help the parking very much. Mr. Hersh stated that it is mainly for the driveway behind. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak to this. Bill Shackleford who owns the property immediately to the West of this property stated that he is in favor of this petition, but he would like to see the property next door to him cleaned up. The house is dilapidated and the lawn hasn't been mowed this year. Transients are in and out; there are rats. The public hearing was closed. NOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the rezoning as requested, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 7-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION 11R89-19 NELL LANCE - NE CORNER OF RUPPLE ROAD & HWY 16 W The fourth item was a public hearing for a rezoning petition 1IR89-19 submitted by Nell Lance for property located at the northeast corner of Rupple Road and Highway 16 West containing 1.28. The request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell gave the following report: The northwest corner of Rupple Road and Highway 16 West was rezoned a few years ago to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and a new Spe-dee Mart is under construction there. Although it is not reflected on the zoning map in the agenda packet, there was a rezoning petitioned by Roy Cate for the property a little to the West of this on Wedington Drive to be Cod • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 5 allowed to use the old freezer storage building for his yogurt business. The Board of Directors granted a C-2 rezoning at the location of the freezer locker building but only granted a C-1 zoning for the frontage along Wedington Drive. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff's understanding is that the applicant's desire is to possibly put in mini -warehouses in this proposed location. He noted that this type of use usually generates a very small amount of traffic generally less traffic than a lot of retail and office uses that are even allowed in the C-1 zone. He advised that the staff is willing to recommend approval of the rezoning and the conditional use for the mini -warehousing which is attached to this application with the proviso that at Bill of Assurance be offered and signed by the applicant stipulating that under the C-2 zoning this would only be used for mini -warehousing. Otherwise, the staff recommends that the property be rezoned to C-1. He added that there is a commercial building and 3 or 4 rental houses on the property now and a rezoning could lead to the cleaning up of this corner. Chairman Jacks stated that it is on record rather strongly that this should be a neighborhood commercial node. He stated that the question in his mind is rather or not mini -warehousing is properly placed in Use Unit 21 which is described as an area that serves the central business district. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff had discussed that and perhaps they bent the interpretation a bit to make this recommendation. However, they felt that with a Bill of Assurance, they would have the assurance that this corner would not be used for a heavier C-2 commercial use in the future. He added that they agree that Wedington Drive needs to be protected and not striped with commercial all the way out to the City Limits with this being a commercial node which should be oriented toward C-1 development and not an unconditional C-2 rezoning. Commissioner Klingaman asked if mini -storage could be accommodated in a C-1 zone. Mr. Merrell stated that they considered that and felt that they couldn't under the present ordinance. This is something that should be addressed in the new ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened. Nell Lance of 1616 Cedar, Fayetteville, AR 72703 stated that she would offer a Bill of Assurance that they would build only mini -warehousing if it was zoned to C-2. Chairman Jacks advised that she would have to come back and ask for a C-1 zone if she decided not to do mini -warehouses. Ms. Lance asked if there would be a year waiting period before she could come back. Mr. Merrell, no, that is only in the case of a denial. Commissioner Hanna asked if they could phrase it so that it reads that the only C-2 use permitted would be mini -warehouses but everything that is permissible in C-1 that was also permissible in C-2 would be allowed. Commissioner Klingaman asked what they intend to do with the existing buildings on this property. Ms. Lance stated that she hopes to have someone move them but they haven't gotten that far in their planning. • • • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 6 Ms. Lance asked if there is a chance that she could have a C-1 zoning until they get everything more finalized about the C-2. Chairman Jacks answered, yes, the Planning Commission has the authority to approve a lesser zoning at this meeting. Then if she decided to go ahead with the mini -warehousing, she would need to come back and ask for the C-2 zoning with a Bill of Assurance. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of a rezoning from A-1 to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, seconded by Seiff and followed by a question from Commissioner Klingaman who asked if the existing buildings on the property could be converted into businesses with this rezoning. Chairman Jacks answered that they would be allowed to do anything there that is permitted in the C-1 zone. The motion passed 7-0-0. Chairman Jacks advised that he doesn't think anyone objects to mini -warehouses in a C-1 zone, it is sort of a glitch in the ordinance. Mr. Merrell advised that there is a chance that in the text of the new zoning ordinance that mini - warehouses may be a permitted use in the C-1 zone. CONDITIONAL USE FOR MINI -STORAGE IN A C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL NELL LANCE - NE CORNER OF WEDINGTON DRIVE & RUPPLE ROAD Chairman Jacks advised that the approval of C-1 zoning on item number five makes this item a moot point. CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME OCCUPATION IN AN R-1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MARILYN PATERSON - 134 EAST NORTH STREET The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a Home Occupation in an R-1, Low Density Residential, zoning submitted by Marilyn Paterson for property located at 134 East North Street. John Merrell stated that this is a Conditional Use filed by Marilyn Paterson to be allowed to operate a dog washing and clipping business out of her home. This property is adjacent to Consumer's Drug Store which is on the corner of North Street and N. College Ave. and across the street from one of the parking lots that is utilized by the hospital. He advised that the staff has made a recommendation in their report that the Planning Commission approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1.) the provisions of the zoning ordinance that govern home occupations in the R-1 are met, 2.) no dogs associated with the Home Occupation will be kept outside at any time for any reason and 2.) that no exterior sign shall be placed on the premises. He (DD • • • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 7 added that since he wrote the report, the staff has received several inquiries and complaints alleging that the business is being run in spite of the violation notice that was sent earlier. Staff hasn't had an opportunity to investigate this. However, if the Commission denies this application, staff will follow-up on this and if they approve the application, the staff will try to ensure that the spirit of the Commission's actions are adhered to by the applicant. Chairman Jacks stated that this is a nice residential area that has gotten trapped in a pocket there and they are vulnerable. Also, there is such a terrible traffic problem in this area. Commissioner Seiff asked Mr. Merrell to give them some idea of the key: points of the ordinance governing Home Occupations. Mr. Merrell stated that the zoning ordinance contains some very specific regulations for Home Occupations particularly in the R-1 zone. For example, a) No Home Occupation shall be open to the public earlier than 7:30 a.m. or later than 5:30 p.m. He noted that the Planning Commission does have the authority to vary those hours based on their perception of what it might do to the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. b) No occupation shall be allowed in the R-1 zone if the Planning Commission determines that it would generate such excessive traffic as would adversely affect the safety, peace, tranquility or welfare of the neighborhood. c) Approval of a Home Occupation is valid for only one year or less and at the end of the year it is the Planning Administrator's authority to review the situation and renew the permit. There are some general stipulations-fbr Home Occupations in all zones which include: a) No mechanical equipment may be used which creates a disturbance such as noise, dust, odor or electrical. b) No person may be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing on the premises. c) There is a sign allowed which may not exceed 3 square feet. d) No exterior alterations of the structure which are of a non-residential nature may be done. Mr. Merrell advised that these are some of the highlights of the Home Occupation ordinance. Chairman Jacks asked if the applicant is present. She was not present. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of this. There being no response, he asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition. Fred Nettles who lives across the street from this location stated that he has a petition that he would like to submit with signatures of the twenty-three closest neighbors who are all opposed to this. He added that they don't like the idea of dogs yapping, etc., in their community. He noted that they don't like the idea of a business being opened in their community. Chairman Jacks read from the petition which stated "We, the undersigned, object to the "conditional use request business" requested by the resident at 134 East North Street." Commissioner Klingaman stated that he feels that the traffic situation alone at 8:00 o'clock in the morning would be enough to advise against that location for a home business. • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 8 Mr. Merrell stated that he thought he had seen Ms. Paterson sitting in the audience earlier. Apparently, she has left and if she is not going to be here to defend her application, then he is withdrawing the staff recommendation and recommending denial. MOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to deny the conditional use request, seconded by Ozment. The motion to deny passed 7-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF MELANDA WEST SUBDIVISION NORMAN GABBARD - ON VELDA COURT, E OF ONE MILE ROAD The seventh item on the agenda was a final plat of Melanda West Subdivision submitted by Norman & Barbara Gabbard and represented by Jim Cramer of C & F Surveyors for property located on Velda Court, east of One Mile Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Property contains 1,85 acres with 8 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that all improvements are in place with the exception of a new fire hydrant to be constructed at the corner of Velda Court and One Mile Road. Mr. Gabbard has asked to be allowed..90.days in which to place the fire hydrant and the staff would accept a contract to that effect. He added that the staff recommends that this plat be approved contingent on a contract being signed ensuring this. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to comment on this. There being no response, it was turned over to the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Ozment moved to approve this final plat with the stipulation of the fire hydrant being installed, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 7-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 103ADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION, PH III & REPLAT OF PART OF PH II J.B. HAYES - N OF FRAZIER TERRACE AND W OF OLD MISSOURI ROAD The eighth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Meadowridge Subdivision, Phase III & Replat of part of Phase II submitted by J.B. Hayes and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates for property located north of Frazier Terrace and west of Old Missouri Road containing 6.93 acres with 22 proposed lots and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Don Bunn stated that this subdivision will tie into Old Missouri Road and also into a subdivision to the South. The staff recommends that this preliminary plat be approved contingent on the payment of the required parks fees, filing of subdivision covenants prior to approval of the final plat and final approval of the water, sewer, street and drainage plans and off-site improvement to Old Missouri Road. He added that the Planning Commission has accepted Bills of • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 9 Assurance for improvements to half of Old Missouri Road along the subdivision. Commissioner Springborn asked if the subdivision is sold off prior to undertaking work on Old Missouri Road, would the Bill of Assurance pass with the land to the individual lot owners. Mr. Bunn stated that he thought in the past, the requirement to pay his share of the off-site improvements. With this type of Bill of Assurance the responsibility by necessity almost has to stay with the developer. He added that there has been some question has to whether a Bill of Assurance is the best way to handle this. There are two other ways that it could be handled which include a) ask the developer to go ahead and construct half of the street which is done sometimes and b) require the developer to put up an estimated dollar amount which would be put into escrow until such time that it is needed. Chairman Jacks asked if there is any way they can get an opinion about that before the City Attorney leaves. Mr. Bunn stated that maybe the new subdivision ordinances will address that issue. Commissioner Springborn asked what the difference is between a contract being executed with the City to ensure completion of public improvements both on-site & off-site and the accepting of a Bill of Assurance. Mr. Bunn explained that the contract that is executed with a developer places a lien on certain lots on this property and if he doesn't complete the improvements within the development, then the City may sell the lots on which the lien is 'placed to complete the improvements. The Bill of Assurance is for off-site rather than on-site improvements so maybe the off-site improvements shouldn't be included when referring to a contract. Chairman Jacks stated that maybe including off-site as well as on-site improvements in a contract is a better way to deal with it. Dave Jorgensen, representative, stated that they are in agreement with all of the conditions of the approval of the preliminary plat and even the off-site improvements. The question they have is whether the off-site improvements be done now or at a time when it might be more realistic to do them. He noted that the developer would prefer to do the off-site improvements by way of a Bill of Assurance. He stated that the grade there isn't real good so if it were to be done right it should be possibly straightened out in a few areas and adjusted in vertical profile here and there to make it a better street. One suggestion as to how to handle a Bill of Assurance of this type situation would possibly be putting a five-year maximum limit on it. Commissioner Klingaman asked if these lots would be sold off as individual residence lots. Mr. Jorgensen answered, yes, it is zoned R-2 for single-family or multi -family and the trend seems to be duplexes and triplexes in that area so he doubts that they would be single -ownership lots. Commissioner Springborn stated that in view of the discussion that they have just had, the Subdivision Committee would have no problem with this submittal. • • • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 10 MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve this preliminary plat subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 7-0- 0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HEATHER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION SAM MATHIAS & DENNIS SMITH - NW CORNER OF HWY 45E & W.C. 345 The ninth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Heather Heights Subdivision submitted by Sam Mathias and Dennis Smith and represented by Mel Milholland of Milholland Engineers for property located outside the City Limits on the northwest corner of Highway 45 East and Washington County Road 345 containing 20.56 acres with 6 tracts Don Bunn stated that there are no significant problems noted by the Plat Review Committee. All the lots either front on Gulley Road (W.C. 345) or Highway 45 East and water is available to all lots. He added that there was some concern about the note on the plat that percolation data is not required. That only means that the Health Department on a subdivision with lots this large does not require the percolation data to be on the plat. When they apply for a septic tank permit, they will have to have perc tests and have it approved by the Health Department. The staff recommends that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the payment of parks fees, submission of subdivision covenants if any and the approval of Washington County and it is his understanding that the County did approve this plat at their meeting last week. He added that there are no off- site improvements associated with this plat. Mel Milholland, representative, stated that they will have two statements on the final plat: 1) one pertaining to the septic systems which will state "each individual lot developer shall be required to obtain a permit from the Department of Health for construction of a septic system and 2) one stating that "each individual lot developer shall be responsible for paying parks fee when obtaining a building permit." Commissioner Springborn reported that the Subdivision Committee had no problems with this plat. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to accept the preliminary plat with the Bill of Assurance and staff comments, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 7-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF NORTH HTidS MEDICAL PARK (P.U.D.) NORTH BILLS MEDICAL PARK, INC - S OF 471S & N OF APPLEBY RD The tenth item on the agenda was a final plat of North Hills Medical Park (P.U.D.) submitted by North Hills Medical Park, Inc. and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers for property located south of 471 South (Bypass) and Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 11 north of Appleby Road and zoned R-0, Residential -Office, containing 26.62 acres. Don Bunn advised that this is a P.U.D. with 17 proposed lots in this phase. He noted that there were no significant comments as far as the utility companies are concerned. This is a complex development and the utility companies will be working very closely with the owners in providing service to the various builders. The easements that were shown on the plat were sufficient. He advised that the Planning Commission at a previous meeting had accepted a Bill of Assurance for a sidewalk and waived the minimum distance between buildings with the stipulation that building and fire codes would be met and waived the setback requirements from all side lot lines. He noted that the Subdivision Committee had discussed whether a separate easement plat could be submitted at a later date and the owners are requesting approval of this final plat subject to submission of an easement plat where the utilities would sign off. It is the staff's recommendation to approve the final plat subject to the submission of that easement plat with the stipulation that a contract be executed with the City to ensure completion of the on-site improvements. There are some off-site improvements that they are planning to do right now which should be included in this contract. They are going to tie into Appleby Road and take Futrall Drive on to the East to the edge of their property which should be included in that. This approval needs to be subject to the Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk being executed and subject to Plat Review comments. Chairman Jacks clarified that the off-site improvements have to do both with Appleby Drive and Futrall Drive to the property line. Mr. Bunn answered, yes. Chairman Jacks stated that he regrets missing the meeting when the waivers on this were discussed because as far as he recalls in framing that Planned Unit Development ordinance, the only reason there was a minimum distance between buildings did have to do with fire safety. He asked if the Fire Department had any problem with this. Mr. Bunn answered, no. Chairman Jacks stated that as far as the building setback, there is no setback required on private streets but it is required on public streets. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee discussed at some length the easements which should be shown on the plat and the separate easement plat was proposed to be filed as part of the official final plat. He noted that they considered the possibility of tabling this application until the easement plat had been prepared and he would like to hear from the developer on that at this point. Otherwise, the Subdivision Committee had no problems with it. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers stated that they are hoping to start construction on this project in July. The attorney for the group of owners has informed them that they need to have this plat filed in order for them to obtain their financing although under the P.U.D. ordinance they could get building permits without this plat being filed. He added that they are proposing a separate easement plat to be submitted as soon as they get the easement information from the utility companies. 1 • • • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 12 NOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the final plat with the conditions set forth by the City Engineer and with the provision that a separate easement plat be prepared, submitted and approved, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLITS 1,2 & 3) FRANCIS HAFER - LOT 1 OF PARK PLACE ADDITION, PHASE 1 The eleventh item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (Lots 1, 2 & 3) submitted by Francis Hafer and represented by Dave Jorgensen, Jorgensen & Associates for .50 acres and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Don Bunn advised that he had noted that this is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, but it is actually zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. He noted that water and sewer are available to each of these lots although sewer would have to be extended in order to serve all the lots. Mr. Bunn added that the staff's approval recommends that this be approved. However, since the report was written, they have had some contacts about access and problems with it off of Cambridge Road. When this was approved as part of Park Place, access to Highway 45 East was prohibited from Lots 1 and 2. Also, there was a note in the original approval that access to Cambridge Road was restricted to the R-1 lots in that subdivision. He noted that probably the original intent of this lot was to put apartments on it and maybe have several apartments access Cambridge Road by one or two entrances rather than four. There is a division going out onto Cambridge Road which makes it a one-way to the South. Therefore, they would have to travel south some distance in order to find a place to turn around and go back if they want to access onto Highway 45. There are some breaks in the median but they really don't fit the way the lots are lined up. Recognizing that there is some problems with the access, the staff leaves it open to the Planning Commission for discussion. Chairman Jacks asked what the staff's provisions were in case it was approved. Mr. Bunn noted that there were some provisions: a) the owner must contact all the utility companies and cable company to determine if additional easements are required in order to service each of these lots, b) the property must be surveyed by a registered surveyor and a copy of the survey be submitted to the Planning Office, c) the sewer must be extended so that all four lots are served directly from a public line and payments of the required parks fees. Dave Jorgensen, representative, stated that they are looking for a solution to the access problem onto Cambridge Road. The plan was to divide it into four big single-family residential lots. He added that since discovering this problem, Francis Hafer had met with the Property Owners Committee and they are interested in suggestions on possible solutions to this problem. One of the suggestions was a tandem driveway situation where they would only have two accesses onto Cambridge Road. He submitted copies of a possible access layout which would (D8 • • • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 13 provide a two driveways with each one serving two lots. Mr. Jorgensen stated that they had checked with Elaine in the Planning Office to see what the Minutes of the meetings said about access when this subdivision first came through. It was indeed stipulated that there would be no access on to Highway 45 and no access onto Cambridge Road for R-1 lots. He added that they didn't know all this when they drew up the proposed splits but they would like to split the lots similar to what they have shown except they will have to solve the access onto Cambridge Road. Commissioner Seiff asked if there is any reason why the median there could not be broken and if so who makes that decision. Chairman Jacks stated that it would be up to the Property Owners Association. Mr. Jorgensen stated that one of the prerequisite noted in the Property Owners Association covenants is that they agree to any subdivision of lots. Mary Haguewood, 2262 West Lensfield Place, who is president of the Board of Directors for the Property Owners Association in this subdivision stated that they did meet with Francis Hafer and discuss this. She noted that they are delighted that they choose to have this as single-family residences as opposed to apartments or duplexes. They discussed alternatives with the proposed driveways and the Property Owners Association is opposed to four driveways entering off of Cambridge because of the safety factor mainly. The medians are owned by the Property Owners Association and there would be problems if those were broken with the underground irrigation system there. She added that they don't want any precedent to be set with the driveways coming in off of Cambridge because at this point in time, there are no other driveways that enter off of Cambridge. They have discussed a possible access of one entrance serving two lots which would be a total of two accesses coming into these four lots and that would be agreeable to them. The Property Owners Association is definitely opposed to four driveways coming out onto Cambridge. Commissioner Seiff asked if the proponent of this lot split would guarantee that the irrigation system was made whole, would they be agreeable to them making a break in the median. Ms. Haguewood stated that they might not be opposed to that, but it would depend on how it would affect the ratio of the medians and the break. Commissioner Seiff stated that it is his opinion that it would be more dangerous with one break than two in the median. Ms. Haguewood stated that the second on further down to the South is in close proximity to a break in the median so they could actually pull out of the driveway and come around there with full view. She explained that they are more than willing to work with Ms. Hafer on the accesses here. Mike Bradley, 1828 Cambridge, who is Chairman of the Environmental Control Committee for Park Place reiterated that safety is one of the factors that they are looking at and they are definitely opposed to four separate entrances. He added that they are for the residential building of the four lots and they would like to see two entrances off of Cambridge. There are two alternatives: a) two • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 14 fan drives to access the four lots and b) an entrance as a pull-through drive with an entrance further to the North and an entrance about even with the last lot to the South. There is a median break almost directly across from the last lot on the south end. Therefore, if they could bring that pull-through drive off the last lot so that it would meet up with both the median breaks there, each individual home -owner would be able to have their separate drive plus only have the two breaks in the residential lots there on Cambridge. Mr. Bradley advised that any breaks in that loop would have to be approved by the Environmental Control Committee of Park Place Association. Chairman Jacks clarified that Mr. Bradley is talking about a very short loop that would basically run between the two breaks that exist there and would feed all four lots. Commissioner Klingaman asked if there would be a setback requirement for the loop. Chairman Jacks stated that the loop would be a private affair and doesn't suppose there would be setbacks required. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the lot split as submitted with the provision that there will only be two breaks onto Cambridge for entrance or exit, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-1 with Ozment.W'abstaining". Chairman Jacks advised that the developer will have to work this out with the Property Owners Association. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT 01) LESLIE GOODMAN - 1835 MISSION BLVD, NEAR VIEW POINT DR The twelfth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (Lot Split 111) submitted by Leslie Goodman for property located at 1835 Mission Boulevard and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and containing 1.5 acres Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is the first split of the original property and water & sewer is available to both the tracts. Tract A has an existing house on it. Tract B is sort of a tandem lot situation but it has 80' frontage so it meets the requirements. It is the staff's recommendation that the lot split be approved subject to the following stipulations: a) that the other public utilities and the cable company be contacted so that they can request any easements that they may require in serving the property, b) that the sidewalk either be constructed at this time or they can request a Bill of Assurance, c) that the property be surveyed by a registered surveyor and a copy be furnished to the Planning Office, d) the owner needs to grant a 15' utility easement over the existing 1" waterline that crosses the property and e) the payment of the required parks fees. Mr. Bunn stated that they had discussed the sidewalk situation and the location of a proposed sidewalk. He noted that he is a little unclear if the sidewalk is required across both tracts at this time or just across the tract being split. wq • • • Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 15 Leslie Goodman of 2999 Hughmount Road stated that this piece of property has been landlocked by the development of View Point Road and there is anything that can be done with it unless some sort of access is exposed to Highway 45 (Mission). He added that he had discussed with the City Engineer the possibility of going with a tandem lot and an easement but it made more sense to do it this way. He stated that they would be happy to follow all of the recommendations that have been provided by the City. Commissioner Klingaman asked what is going on behind this where it looks like a "fill" or a "dump". Mr. Goodman stated that it is actually some dead lot space which is wooded and essentially unusable because of the terrain. He added that someone has put some stuff back there but that is not on the property in question. Their proposed building site is just about dead center of tract B so they will be quite a distance from that area and he doesn't know who owns that or what their plans are. Commissioner Hanna stated that given the amount of pedestrian traffic in this area with the school nearby, they should take him up on his offer to give a Bill of Assurance on the sidewalks for both pieces of property. Mr. Goodman stated that he will do whatever is required, but he would prefer just to put the sidewalk across the piece of property being split off. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the lot split as requested with the stipulations as set forth by the City staff and a Bill of Assurance that a sidewalk be completed across both lots at the call of the City, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (LOT SPLIT i11) JAKE DRAKE - 2015 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD The thirteenth item on the agenda was (Lot Split ill) submitted by Jake Drake located at 2015 East Huntsville Road containing 1.0 acres. a waiver of the subdivision regulations and represented by Don Ward for property and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, Don Bunn stated that they propose to divide this one acre tract into a .4 acre lot and a .6 acre lot. Water and sewer are available to both lots and both lots would meet all the City's zoning requirements and the staff recommends approval with the following stipulations : a) the owner should get in contact with all the utilities and Warner Cable to determine if additional easements are required and grant those easements if requested, b) the Master Sidewalk Plan shows a sidewalk on both sides of Highway 16 so the sidewalk should either be constructed or a Bill of Assurance requested, c) a survey of the property should be made by a registered surveyor and a copy of the survey be furnished to the Planning Office and d) parks fees are required. Don Ward, P.O. Box 1687, stated that he is the proposed purchaser of this 10 Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 16 property and the contract is subject to a lot split. NOTION Commissioner Seiff moved to grant the of the staff, seconded by Hanna. The WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS J.F. GABBARD - 83 W COLT SQUARE lot split subject to the recommendations motion passed 7-0-0. (LOT SPLIT 81) The fourteenth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (Lot Split 111) was submitted by J.F. Gabbard for property located at 83 West Colt Square and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Co'u'nercial containing .75 acres. Don Bunn stated that there have been an awful lot of lot splits around Colt Square. This is C-2 property and theoretically since there is no frontage required for C-2 there could be a multiplicity of lot splits along there. The split does conform to the City's regulations so there are no illegal tracts being created. This is a .75 acre lot that will be split into one .5 acre lot (tract A) and one .25 acre lot (tract B) which has the existing Gabbard Paint Company on it. The staff recommends that the split be approved with the following stipulations: a) the public utilities and Warner Cable be contacted and easements be granted to them if requested in order for them to serve the lots. b) the property needs to be surveyed by a registered surveyor, c) a copy of the survey be furnished to the Planning Office and d) all required parking for the existing Gabbard Paint Co. shall be contained on tract B He advised that the reason the staff asks they lot split applicants contact the other utilities is because many times the other utilities have requested that this be required. In some cases it is not as easy for them to serve the lots as it might seem. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the parcel behind the paint store would be accessible except through the other lot. Mr. Gabbard answered, yes, that would go with the other lot. NOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the lot split subject to compliance with the staff's recommendations, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 7-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Marilyn Paterson arrived at the meeting after her Conditional Use request had been reviewed (Item 116) and she asked the Planning Commission to explain what had taken place. Chairman Jacks stated that they had voted to deny her request because of certain objections from the neighbors and the traffic situation at that location. Ms. Paterson stated that there have been no neighbors objecting to this. The 71 Planning Commission June 12, 1989 Page 17 only objection has been her former employer who had called the Planning Office and identified himself as a neighbor. Chairman Jacks advised that there was a petition submitted with 23 signatures from neighbors opposing this. Ms. Paterson stated that she has been ,on H.U.D. for four years and she has a handicap and there would be absolutely no traffic problem because she only does one or two dogs per day and she has more company than that coming to visit her. She added that it is necessary for her to feed her son. She stated that she hates to do it illegally but she has to eat. She asked how she could protest the Planning Commission's decision. She stated that she is going to do this in her home so she would like to do it legally. This is all residential and her landlord was going to also have an antique shop there and they were told at that time that they could do that and she happens to know that this comes from her former employer even if there are signatures, he has gone all over that area himself and had people do this only because he doesn't want competition. Chairman Jacks stated that an antique shop is permitted in any zone, but it is still a conditional use. In answer to a question from Chairman Jacks, Mr. Merrell stated that this is not appealable to the Board of Directors and he believes that her appealisto. the Court although he hasn't researched it. If she operates -illegally; they have no alternative but to turn her over to the Prosecutor. Ms. Paterson stated that she would just as soon explain it to the judge because she has to eat. She added that she has a handicap and a little boy with emotional problems and they have been on H.U.D. for four years. As far as traffic goes, there are no more than maybe two to three people that come to her home maybe two or three days a week, people that she knows personally that have been doing her dogs for a long time. There is no traffic hazard with that. She stated that she feels like she is being discriminated against and she would like to understand why. She said "I'll be honest with you, I am going to operate because I have to live. I can't starve to death." She stated that she rented this home being told when she rented it that she could do this there by the landlord. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought she had gotten some bad information and from what Mr. Merrell was saying this would be a court action so she would probably need to see an attorney. He added that there might be a rehearing request possible under the Planning Commission bylaws. Ms. Paterson asked for a copy of the petition and the Planning Secretary stated that she would copy it and give her a copy after the meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.