Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 23, 1989 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES J. David Ozment, Jack Cleghorn, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Julie Nash, Gerald Elingaman and J.E. Springborn Jerry Allred and Gerald Seiff John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, Larry Wood, Jerry Rose, members of the press and others The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1989 were approved with one correction made by Commissioner Hanna on page 6 in paragraph 4; instead of "main objective", it should read "main objection". PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION 8R89-31 STEVE CUMMTNGS - 209 CROSSOVER ROAD The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition 11R89- 31 submitted by Steve Cummings of 209 Crossover Road containing 45.3 acres. Request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Larry Wood of NW Arkansas Regional Planning reported on this rezoning petition. He stated that the staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons: 1. The R-2 District is not consistent with the existing General Plan or the draft revised General Plan both of which recommend single- family development for this area; 2. Existing development surrounding this area is single-family with the exception of the church to the south and the elementary school to the west; and 3. The R-2 District at the location requested would tend to commit a much larger area to multi -family development than just this application. • • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 2 Commissioner Nash asked how far as the crow flies is this property from the elementary school to the West Mr. Wood stated that it is about 300' from the school property. The public hearing was opened. Steve Cummings stated that it is his understanding that there is no one at this meeting with adjoining property that is against a change from R-1 to R-2. He stated that he would like to ask that he be given two or three weeks to acquire additional information since the gentlemen doing the report seems to have acquired his. Commissioner Hanna asked if Mr. Cummings was saying he would like to table his petition now. Mr. Cummings answered, yes, he would like to table it for two meetings. Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this petition. There being no response, he asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to this petition. Rick Johnson of 25 South Crossover Road stated that he owns the property just to the north which adjoins Mr. Cummings property. He added that it is his understanding that R-2 zoning would set the outlook for an apartment complex or that type of arrangement. He stated that as far as they are concerned, they would rather see it stay low density residential zoning. Also, with the problems they have with Crossover Road with ingress/egress, a development like this would just be more people trying to get on and off of that particular road. He noted that as an adjoining property owner, he is interested in keeping this as a low density residential zoning. Don Oliver stated that he owns the property east of Mr. Cummings property on the other side of the road. He stated that he would also like to see it kept as a single-family residential area. Dick Seddon stated that he would like to speak as a neutral party. He advised that he owns the property that is immediately north of this property with a utility easement that borders both of them. He added that he owns about 40 acres north of the subject property which he lives on. He stated that he doesn't have a negative or a positive view on this because he hasn't seen a plat that details how the buildings, etc. would be part of this property. He added that he couldn't vote for it because he hasn't seen a land use that details the way in which buildings or the type of buildings that will be there nor can he vote against it because he would like to have an open mind as to the use of that property. Chairman Jacks advised that the Planning Commission at this point is being asked if this property should be used for multi -family development and they don't expect to see a layout to answer that question. They need to determine if it is proper for this property to be used for multi -family assuming the maximum density. • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Seddon stated that Steve Cummings has been a very good neighbor of his for many years and he gave him the courtesy of trying to come down and explain what he wanted to do with this property. He noted that he was not home at that time and he feels that Mr. Cummings deserves the courtesy of him listening to the way in which he is going to use the property. He advised that if he had to be pinned down to an answer on this, they own a horse farm with pure bred Arabian horses and they want as few people around those horses as possible but he is realistic to know that the use of the land that he doesn't have control over around him is going to be used for at least single-family dwellings in the future. He stated that when he bought that property in 1973, he did not foresee that particular event happening. Chairman Jacks advised that no matter what comes up they, at this stage of the game, can't count strictly on what they may see in terms of layouts under a certain usage. He asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of or against this proposal. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Hanna moved to table this petition until the second meeting in November, seconded by Ozment. The motion passed 6-1-0 with Cleghorn, Ozment, Springborn, Nash, Klingaman & Hanna voting "yes" and Jacks voting "no". FINAL PLAT OF GADDY ACRES SUBDIVISION JIM LINDSEY/BOB GADDY - E OF CROSSOVER, N OF LOVERS LN The third item on the agenda was the final plat of Gaddy Acres Subdivision submitted by Jim Lindsey for Bob Gaddy for property located east of Crossover Road and north of Lovers Lane and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The property contains 40.32 acres with 21 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that the preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission at the August 14th meeting. This property lies west of Starr Drive and north of Lovers Lane area. There are two changes in the preliminary plat with one more lot proposed in the final plat than was approved in the preliminary and one lot which was a tandem lot was changed to give it frontage and there has been a tandem lot added in place of that one. Therefore, there is the same number of tandem lots as was there before and there is one additional lot overall. The other change is the presence of a road or drive through the subdivision for the purpose of access for emergency and utility company vehicles. He stated that the staff didn't make a recommendation on that road as to whether it should be left there or not. However, he has noted in the report that the presence of a road like that would be of some benefit to the utilities when it came time to maintain lines that are in there. As far as Plat Review comments, there weren't any different comments than there were on the preliminary plat. The Fire Chief did require one more fire hydrant which was agreed to. It is the recommendation of the staff that the final plat be approved subject to a) the submission and approval of water, sewer, street & drainage plans, b) the payment • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 4 of the required parks fees, c) the improvement of one-half of Starr Drive for the length of the subdivision, d) the execution of a developer's contract with the City for all public improvements, e) filing of subdivision covenants and f) construction of sidewalks as required by the Master Sidewalk Plan, g) the notation of the fact that there are special sewer charges associated with that sewer line located on Starr Drive and h) other Plat Review and Planning Commission comments. Chairman Jacks asked if it is still the staff's position that they would prefer to have the half street built rather than a Bill of Assurance until the whole package can be done together. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, unless it is shown that it just isn't feasible to do that. He added that he doesn't know of any reason right now why they couldn't go ahead and build a half of a street with curbs and storm drains. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the sidewalk would be along the new street addition and if so what will it tie in with. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, and it won't tie into anything because there aren't any sidewalks out there. Mr. Bunn added that probably if a Bill of Assurance was accepted on the street construction, they would also accept one on the sidewalks. Chairman Jacks asked if there is not a danger that a sidewalk that is unused would deteriorate. Mr. Bunn stated that they have to build them some time and he doesn't think concrete sidewalks would deteriorate any faster whether they are used or not although asphalt streets tend to deteriorate faster when they are not being used. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee in reviewing this found that the access road that has been cut through does not change the character of the subdivision as it was presented in the preliminary plat if it is truly maintained only for utility maintenance. He added that the Subdivision Committee found this a well designed and laid out development but in order to assure the street that has been cut through for utility maintenance and service remains as such recommended that a dirt or rock barrier be constructed across it somewhere. This would assure that the public could not use it and in no way present utilities from using it. It could be accessed from both sides. Chairman Jacks asked if he is suggesting an earth berm there rather than a gate at the entrance. Commissioner Springborn answered, yes. Jim Lindsey who is representing Bob Gaddy stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Gaddy and as far as the emergency exit is concerned, he would like to be able to request that as a emergency exit and a utility service road, there was some way that it could be mitigated in some fashion whether by signage or by the possibility of a garage door type opening gate that was limited and restricted to the tenants or owners of the property that live there. They would like some method by which this could be kept as an available exit. Mr. Lindsey stated that is it well to point out that in a sidewalk situation, you are really going to end up rebuilding a bunch of sidewalks because when someone starts building houses, the construction trucks are going to break them up. He noted that he thinks that a Bill of Assurance would be in order here. • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 5 Mr. Bunn stated that it is understood that the City ordinances allow the lot owner to be responsible for the sidewalk construction. Mr. Lindsey stated then that according to the ordinance, whoever owns it at the end of five years would be required to build it. In answer to a question from Chairman Jacks, Mr. Lindsey stated that there isn't any concern about any of the list of conditions that the staff set on this. Chairman Jacks asked if they had any intent to pave the access road. Mr. Lindsey answered, no, it would remain just a gravel drive. Mr. Lindsey stated that the drive itself servicing one of the lots coming from one direction and serves two of the lots coming form the direction. There is one small section along lot 16 that is not in effect for serving the lots. He noted that they don't intent it to be a public drive of any kind but if they had some method that only the people who live there could use it as an emergency exit. Chairman Jacks asked if the access road would still serve the purpose they are describing if it were blocked in the middle to prevent through traffic. Mr. Lindsey stated that if a barrier was placed in the middle the utility companies could still get to there lines. Commissioner Springborn stated that the emergency access came up in the Subdivision Committee meeting and the question was raised and answered by reference to the Plat Review meeting and the fact that the Fire Department approved this subdivision plat without the access road so they didn't require it as something necessary for their service. Commissioner Ozment asked what they are proposing for street construction on the private drives. Mr. Lindsey stated that they will be SB -2. Commissioner Klingaman stated that the 114' wide lots are going to be adjacent to the gravel road. He noted that it looks to him like if that road is not permanently blocked off, there will be a fair amount of cut through. Mr. Lindsey explained that they were wanting to maybe block it in a different way rather than a earthen berm. It would have to be maintained either way. He stated that if the Planning Commission feels like the berm is more appropriate, would they choose the location or would the Planning Commission choose. He noted that they feel like they could control 90% of the through traffic in there and if it wasn't controllable, they would be glad to put a gate in with an automatic opener and a grate to keep people from driving around it to allow control of it. Commissioner Hanna stated that if he understands it correctly, the staff o.k.'d the private drive going through for a fire lane or utility drive. He added that he is concerned because once this is done the City won't have anything to do with it such as policing and maintaining it because it is all private drives and private property. He noted that they have determined before that covenants in a subdivision are unenforceable by the Planning Commission and the Planning Office and would have to be settled in a civil action. He stated that it looks to him like whatever they do will still be left in the hands of the people who own the property and he doesn't think they can do much about it. He stated that • • • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 6 probably the only question the Planning Commission should be concerned with is whether or not they want to allow the private lane to go all the way through from Lovers Lane to Starr Road. Commissioner Springborn stated that he thinks the answer to what Commissioner Hanna is saying is going back to the original submittal of the preliminary plat on this subdivision when the City Engineer reminded that if a private drive such as that is used by the public over a period of time that it could then become in effect a city street and maintenance of that street would be required by the City. Mr. Bunn also stated that the road as it now exists has grades on it that exceed the maximum permitted by a city street so it is very undesirable for it to ever become a public street. Chairman Jacks advised that they have approved private drives in instances where they are a dead-end and there is no chance of them becoming a public street and they have very rarely approved any that are cut through as private drives. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Bunn stated that there are two places sidewalks would be required which are where the subdivision fronts Lovers Lane and then on Starr Drive. He added that the difference between a private drive and the drive that they are talking about here is that most private drives end at a residence with no general access by the public. In a situation like this, if access were not controlled there would be,the possibility of that becoming used by the general public. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments, controlling the access on the fire lane/utility road in some fashion as worked out between the developer and approved by the City Engineer, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 7-0-0. John Merrell stated that the staff on the ane hand would rather not see that road evolve some how or another into a city street and on the other hand, the homes that will be built in there will be occupied by people who will want to and will probably be able to afford to control undesirable access through there. He noted that he has had experience with the gates that go up and down and they require a lot of maintenance. Commissioner Klingaman stated that this would have been an interesting development to have tried some clustered development with nodes of housing. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 01 TOM & CONNIE DORRE - NE CORNER OF S COLLEGE & 29TH CIRCLE The fourth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations (Lot Split 111) submitted by Tom & Connie Dorre for property located on the northeast corner of South College Drive and 29th Circle and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential containing .68 acres. • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 7 Don Bunn, City Engineer, reported that this property is right next to the Country Club Estates subdivision. When this subdivision was put together in about 1970, they platted a much larger area than is actually developed there. He stated that he presumes that the preliminary plat of the whole thing was approved but when the final plat was approved, they just crossed out the part of the property that they did not intend to file as a final plat and left blocks and lots on there. This split is one of the lots that was in that part of the subdivision that was not approved as part of the final plat. The property is really an outlot and it is the first split of the large tract although in the original plat it was lot 19 of Country Club Estates. He noted that the lot has frontage on 29th Circle which is an improved street. Commissioner Hanna asked if there was some reason for the whole thing not being approved as a final plat. Mr. Bunn stated that he is assuming that it was a matter of funds at the time. If they decided to include this part in the Country Club Estates subdivision, the developer would have to file a new plat and go through the preliminary and final process again. Marilyn McCord, representative of the land owner, was present in the audience but didn't have any comments. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to grant the lot split as requested, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 7-0-0. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R89-30 JANES MEINECKE - 2890 CROSSOVER ROAD The fifth item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition 1R89- 30 submitted by James Meinecke for property located on the east side of Crossover Road and south of Old Wire Road. The request if to rezone from A-1, Agricultural to R-0, Residential -Office. Chairman Jacks advised that Mr. Meinecke had gotten a rezoning earlier on the property where his dance studio (Williams Dance Center) is located at 2890 Crossover Road. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the staff considered the earlier rezoning somewhat marginal, but they saw elements in the rezoning that they could support. With this petition, Mr. Meinecke is in the process of acquiring the property immediately to the south which is one acre of undeveloped land. Mr. Meinecke has stated that he has had two different architects look at the building that he is in now and it was determined that adding on to the existing building would be very expensive. Also, he has stated that he has a moral commitment to one of the neighbors to not expand that building in such a manner as might disturb that neighbor. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff can't • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 8 support the rezoning this time around because 1) the rezoning, if approved, would add one more acre to potential non-residential growth in this area and possibly create one more building. There is mostly low-density residential development along Crossover Road. 2) it would increase the amount of acreage and street frontage which would be zoned R-0 and would result in the addition of one more building devoted to non-residential uses in this vicinity, 3) it could establish a precedent for similarly situated properties on Highway 265 and 4) both the present Land Use Plan and the proposed new Land Use Plan indicate low density residential for this property and for the surrounding properties He commented that although the staff sympathizes with the applicant to some degree, they can't support this particular rezoning. Commissioner Nash stated that when she was reading through the proposed ordinances, there was a sentence that she found interesting. It states that if a specific building that was stated as intended is not built within a year, the Planning Commission may consider having the zoning revert back to what it was. There is nothing in the current ordinances that addresses that. She asked Mr. Merrell if the original lot was reverted back to A-1 zoning, would the reasons listed in his report for recommending the earlier rezoning last December hold true for this rezoning petition. Would he feel more comfortable granting this R-0 rezoning and if not what would be the difference in this petition and the last one. Mr. Merrell stated that the problem the staff has is that this current petition would be adding one more property out there that is not residential and possibly one more building. He stated that the answer• to the question is no because they would still end up with two potential non-residential buildings out there. Chairman Jacks stated that what Commissioner Nash is getting at is what was special about the earlier petition on the other lot that made him recommend it. Mr. Merrell stated that the lot already had an existing building on it and it was a growing business. He added that if it had been vacant land, he would not have recommended the earlier rezoning. By virtue of the fact that this was in there in an A-1 and already had a building with an outstanding business, the staff recommended that the earlier petition be approved. Mr. Merrell added that if the first rezoning reverted back to an A-1 zone it would be reverting back to a non -conforming status but it would still be a non- residential use. Mr. Meinecke asked if he could still build on his property as it now exists. If so, there would still be another building going up in that area just a few hundred feet away. Mr. Merrell answered, yes, that he could build another building there. James Meinecke stated that originally the plan was to add on a small addition on the side of the existing building. However, because of the architecture of the building with no straight walls, it would be very hard to attach an addition to it. Utilities would have to be moved and there would have to be a lot of excavation work. This would cost as much as building a whole new gym which is one of their long-term goals. He added that he has one good place to build on • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 9 his existing lot which is in the back of the building and it is in the neighbors back yard. Consequently, if he bought the property just to the south, he could build a new gym on it within about 35 to 40' of where he was going to put the addition. Also, the neighbors would prefer that he build the building out front and not in the back. He advised that he would be willing to give the same Bill of Assurance that he did on the original piece of property which would limit the use of the land. Mr. Meinecke addressed the staff's reasons for recommending denial of the rezoning. He noted that he didn't see how traffic could be an issue, because if he builds the gym in the back of the existing building, he would have the potential for generating the same number of customers. The driveway would be left as it is now with no new avenues to Highway 265. As far as the hodge-podge of zoning with commercial development only at the major intersection, he noted that all four corners of the intersection of Highway 265 and Old Wire Road have creek beds. One corner is Routh Park and another corner has the pump -station on it. Therefore, he doesn't foresee any commercial development ever at that location. Most of both sides of Highway 265 is already developed as residential property and the only other major intersections on that highway are Joyce Street and Zion Road, so he doesn't foresee continuous strips of commercial property ever existing on that part of Highway 265. Mr. Meinecke stated that he feels that some kinds of businesses are more appropriate in a residential area and maybe a children's gym would be good in a residential area. He commented that one out of three houses in the subdivision he lives in has a student that comes to his gym. Also, a few years ago they determined that one out of four children in Fayetteville takes dance or gymnastics at his gym before they graduate from high school. Mr. Meinecke noted that if he purchases this extra property, it would add an additional 111' of highway frontage, but as far as the potential of another non- residential building, he has that possibility as it exists now. Concerning, setting the precedent for other businesses in this area, he noted that his business was there as a non -conforming business before he got the earlier rezoning. He stated that it was his understanding before this previous rezoning and the signing of the Bill of Assurance that since he was a non -conforming business, he could never change that business into something else. That blocks a lot of options. It would be very difficult for him to sell his business to move to somewhere else in Fayetteville because it would have to be sold to their competition since it could only be sold as a gymnasium. He commented that adding the acre would be a property line adjustment and it is his understanding that Mr. Skillern can't sell land unless it is done in this way or is at least a 5 acre lot. His point is that he doesn't see how doing this would give everyone else the green light to come before the Planning Commission and request to open a business on Highway 265. Mr. Meinecke stated that as far as the fourth reason for the staff not supporting the rezoning petition, there is nothing he can do about not fitting into the City's Land Use Plan. He stated that his options are controlled largely by what the Planning Commission decides. He noted that since his property has been • • • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 10 brought into the City, selling is not a good option. He advised that he would be willing to sign the same Bill of Assurance on this rezoning as he did on his earlier one. Commissioner Hanna asked if the Bill of Assurance that he is speaking of would limit the use of the property as a dance studio. Mr. Meinecke answered, yes. In answer to another question from Commissioner Hanna, Mr. Meinecke stated that he plans to leave the existing driveway as it is. Chairman Jacks advised that a Bill of Assurance runs with the property and would prevent him from selling this to be used for anything else. Mr. Meinecke stated that his intention is to stay there as a dance and gymnastics center until he retires. Commissioner Klingaman clarified that both buildings would be used as dance and gymnastics studios. Mr. Meinecke agreed and stated that he might some day try to have some kind of classes where basic school skills are taught along with the gymnastics such as twirling or aerobics. Commissioner Springborn stated that if they rezone this additional acre and Mr. Meinecke puts up another building in front, the door would then be open to wind up with four buildings instead of two. Mr. Meinecke stated that he has no intention of doing that, but he could sign something to guarantee it. He added that his whole reason for attempting this rezoning petition is to avoid building in the back of the existing property. He noted that he couldn't foresee needing that much room. John Merrell noted that the wording on his original Bill of Assurance for the property that the gym is on now is that it is limited to the "teaching of dance, gymnastics and related fine arts" which probably would cover twirling, etc. He added that should the rezoning be approved, staff would recommend the Bill of Assurance that would cover three things 1) limiting the use of the property, 2) the access staying as it is now and 3) a wooded buffer of a certain width being left on the property behind the new building. Mr. Meinecke advised that he would offer a Bill of Assurance to cover these three things. Commissioner Nash stated that they don't normally talk about what is going to be built somewhere when they are reviewing a rezoning, but since the Bill of Assurance has been offered she will get into it a little bit. She advised that as a mother, her children have gone to Mr. Meinecke's gym for years and they don't live anywhere close to it. There isn't anything else available so the services that they offer are needed and the Planning Commission should encourage this as much as they can. Chairman Jacks asked Larry Wood of NW Regional Planning where the next commercial node north of Highway 45 is on Highway 265. Mr. Wood stated that the intersection of Old Wire Road and Highway 265 is the next node. He noted that there is a corner piece of property on the east side of this intersection that is planned for commercial or business. • • • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 11 Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of this position. James Rimbey stated that he is an adjoining property owner of Mr. Meinecke's property. He stated that he is in a difficult position, but Mr. Meinecke is an excellent neighbor. He commented that given the circumstances and the Bill of Assurance that was offered, he would be in favor of any development that would remain at the highway and not infringe on the residential area that exists behind it. Chairman Jacks advised that it is possible to change the use of a non -conforming piece of property to an equal or less intensive use with the Planning Commission's approval. He asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of this position. There being no response, he asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this petition. Gerome Whitt stated that he is speaking for Edward Spears. He added that he is not sure whether he is speaking for or against this. He commented that he feels that he is between a rock and a hard place. His house faces the direction of the existing building so if Mr. Meinecke built something at the back of the present lot it would be in their view from the front of their house. He noted that they did not object to the original rezoning of this property because it was their understanding that an additional building would be built on the side. He asked if the Planning Commission did vote to approve this pChairman petition,is there there any control of the type of building that would be put up th answered, no. Commissioner Ozment stated that if the entrance/exits where shifted farther to the south side, the traffic sight distance would probably be better around the corner. Mr. Meinecke stated that if a new entry would be safer, he would be in favor of it. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Nash moved to recommend approval of the rezoning subject to the acceptance of the Bill of Assurances covering the three points mentioned by the staff, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 7-0-0. Mr. Meinecke asked if in 20 or 30 years when he retires and does try to sell this building, could someone ask to change the use of the building. Chairman Jacks advised that the prospective owner would have to make that proposal to the Planning Commission which is the same procedure as changing anon -conforming use. Commissioner Nash asked if Mr. Meinecke had already bought this property. He answered, no, not yet. Mr. Skillern, the owner, stated that he has signed the application. • • • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 12 OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Jacks noted the presence at the meeting of Fred Vorsanger, a member of the Board of Directors, and Dennis Becker, Board of Adjustment member. Chairman Jacks announced that there is a APA workshop all day on Wednesday the 25th of October at the Fayetteville Hilton and there are four planning commissioners signed up to go. Commissioner Cleghorn asked the City Attorney, Jerry Rose, if there is ever a case where the Planning Commission can make a judgement call just because it is good planning. In other words, it doesn't fit the guidelines because of the nature of it, but it makes sense because it is good planning. He added that his question was based on the flood plain discussion that took place at the last meeting. John Merrell stated that he would like to interject something before Mr. Rose answers. He noted that this was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting and he asked Mr. Rose to anticipate that it might come up again at this meeting and he thinks his response relates in part to Jim McCord's earlier letter of a few years ago spelling out certain criteria for rezonings. Jerry Rose stated that he had received Jim McCord's letter that was written to the Board of Directors in January of 1986 and he wasn't sure exactly what he was supposed to comment on but now he understands where they are coming from. He advised that it is good law then and it is good law now and essentially what Mr. McCord was saying was that even though you may go in some instances contradictory to your plan, that is allowed so long as their decisions are not arbitrary and is rationally related to a legitimate purpose of zoning. So long as that is what their decision is based on, the Planning Commission has the ability to do that. The Planning Commission has a great deal of discretion so long as they act rationally and reasonably in a non -arbitrary manner. He commented that since he has been attending the Planning Commission meetings, he hasn't seen any decisions that he would in any way have any trouble defending in court as being in any way arbitrary. The decisions seem to be well thought out and based on their own discretion. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that if the Planning Commission were locked in to just what the ordinance says, they don't need a Planning Commission Just city staff because all they have to do is rule on what is written. Chairman Jacks stated that he thinks the only place that they are locked in to some fairly detailed rules has to do with subdivision regulations. The idea being if the developer conforms to all the subdivision regulations, the Planning Commission doesn't really have a lot of latitude. With everything else they have a good bit of latitude because they have to judge whether it increases traffic problems in certain instances or whether it is o.k. to do something based on the • • • Planning Commission October 23, 1989 Page 13 compatibility of the neighborhood. These are all judgement calls that the Planning Commission has to make. There isn't anything in the ordinance that gives them too much in the way of guidelines about making zoning decisions. Mr. Rose stated that he doesn't want anyone to mistake what he said about he wide discretion that the Planning Commission has that it in any way negates the need for or the necessity for John Merrell and his staff in the Planning Office. Commissioner Springborn stated that they can't overlook that their primary obligation is to secure the health, safety and welfare of the residents of this city. Commissioner Nash stated regarding the letter Mr. Rose spoke of from Jim McCord to Sandra Carlisle, brings up the same question that they have debated for years. She noted that public feeling used to be that the Planning Commission interpreted the ordinance and applied it to the situation and they were not the political body. If something comes up and they grant it because he complies to the ordinance but his neighbors think it might lower the value of their property so it gets out of the case of complying with ordinance and gets into a political situation. She added that her feeling is that a case like that should be turned over to the political body and not heard by this commission. She asked Mr. Rose for his input on that. Mr. Rose stated that the Planning Commission is charged with the responsibility to some extent and it is difficult to.separate decisions from their political or legislative aspects. The Planning Commission is acting essentially in a legislative capacity and yet a lot of what they do is sort of judicial also and judicial is sort of taking sides and politics. He advised that he isn't sure how to answer her question, but he can't envision any political set of circumstances coming up which would make the Planning Commission have to recuse yourself in some way. Chairman Jacks advised that there have been some cases where the Board of Directors did indeed reverse the Planning Commission's decision and that comment was made about political decisions. Commissioner Nash stated that she would like an opinion from Mr. Rose on this. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.