Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on aux1e 11, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, Fred Hanna, J.S. Springborn, Jett Cato, Gerald Klingaman, Jack Cleghorn, Joe Tarvin and Charles Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: J. David Ozment OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of May 29, 1990 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R89-35 CAROLINE PARSONS - SW CORNER OF WEDINGTON & GARLAND The second item on the agenda was a public hearing - rezoning petition R89-35 submitted by Caroline Parsons and represented by Danny Wright, Attorney at Law, for property located on the southwest corner of Wedington Drive & Garland Avenue containing 5.32 acres. The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Chairman Hanna advised that they have changed the format of the meeting in the interest of fairness to everyone. He advised that they will first hear from the Planning Management Director with the staff report, then from the petitioner. After than, they will hear from the representatives of at least two groups: a) one requesting that the property be used for a park and b) one presenting the school system's views. Then, they will hear from the people in the audience who signed the list at the door to speak in favor or in opposition to this rezoning. He requested that anyone wanting to speak to this issue, please make sure they have signed the list at the door. He asked that each person, in the interest of not having a public debate, limit their comments to three minutes. Once everyone has been heard, the meeting will be turned over to the Planning Commission for a decision on the request. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the property in question consists of five contiguous lots. This request first came before the Planning Commission in November of 1989. At which time, the Planning Commission voted to deny the rezoning. Then on April 9, 1990, the petitioners requested that the Planning Commission rehear this rezoning based on new information. The Planning Commission did vote to rehear the matter. The petitioners are offering • • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 2 two changes to distinguish this rezoning from their original request. They are offering to donate a 20' greenspace along the western edge of the tract adjacent to a platted, but nonexistent alley. This alley could be improved to provide access to Leverett School. They are also offering to donate a 40' right-of-way along the southern edge of the tract all the way from Garland to Hall Street for the purpose of alleviating school traffic. Interested parties who would like to see the development of a natural park in this area went before the Board of Directors at their agenda session on May 15th. The position of the Board of Directors, at that time, was essentially to wait and see what action the Planning Commission was going to take on the proposed rezoning. This matter has gone to the Parks and Recreation Board. He noted that it is also his understanding that the School Board has had this rezoning under study. Mr. Merrell stated that this is an intersection of two arterial streets, Garland & Wedington, with commercial development on three corners. On the northwest corner, there is a bank. On the northeast corner is where the Oak Plaza Shopping Center is located with a service station and several commercial businesses, and on the southeast corner there is a commercial building that houses Domino's Pizza, a tanning studio, and one other business. There is a well-established R-1 residential neighborhood to the west, and to the south is the Leverett Elementary School. To the east is an area that contains a mixture of single-family residential uses, duplexes and apartments. One argument that the proponents of this rezoning have made is that thisisa major intersection with three corners already commercial, so why not rezone this corner to commercial. Although that may be a valid argument, the Planning staff feels that this corner does have some characteristics that distinguish it from the other three corners. The property is adjacent to a stable R-1 area on the west, the land on this corner is elevated over the other corners which makes it somewhat isolated from the heavy street traffic, and the elevation gives it a physical prominence over the other corners. Also, the property does abut Leverett School to the south and North Garland is a primary access route for the University of Arkansas. Furthermore, this property does contain a particularly fine stand of mature oak trees. Mr. Merrell advised that the staff is recommending that this property not be rezoned to commercial or to R-0, Residential -Office. The staff's feeling is that the issue of a park does have some validity and they would be more comfortable in recommending a P-1, Institutional, zoning which would provide a means for this to be created as a greenspace park. This would still allow some limited development of the site for institutional uses. The staff is recommending that, as an alternative, the Planning Commission consider an R-0 zoning, as opposed to a C-1 zoning, which would allow certain types of office uses, but would not allow retail commercial uses, fast food establishments, gas stations, etc. The staff is recommending that, if the Planning Commission decides to rezone this property to R-0, that it be subject to a Bill of Assurance that would have to be offered voluntarily by the petitioners and their attorney. The staff's feeling is that, if such a Bill of Assurance is offered, it should contain the following provisos: a) there would be no business located on any part of this property which would be permitted to sell or distribute alcoholic beverages, b) the owners follow through with their offer to donate the 20' Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 3 greenspace strip along the western edge of the property and the 40' right-of- way strip along the southern edge of the property, c) the developers offer a tree preservation plan, which would consist of several components including a retention of 70% of all existing trees over 8" in caliber in the required setback areas of any building to be constructed and an additional 20' greenspace buffer along the southern edge of the property adjacent to and on the north side of the 40' right-of-way proposed by the petitioners. Also, that 25% of all existing trees with an 8" to 12" caliper are retained, 40% of all trees with a 12" to 15" caliper are retained, and 60% of all existing trees with a caliper in excess of 15" are retained. He advised that this was a very tough rezoning petition for the staff to evaluate and they gave it a tremendous amount of thought. Mr. Merrell advised that the overall issue of a park is the type of thing the Planning Commission could consider, but the ultimate decision will rest with the Board of Directors. He noted that there is a possibility of funding for a park from the Community Development Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.). The Community Development Department has looked into using funds from that H.U.D. grant for this purpose and they determined that this area would qualify. However, that is also an issue that will ultimately have to be decided by the Board of Directors. Commissioner Klingaman asked if the 20' easement on the west side that they are proposing to donate is in addition to the alley. Mr.. Merrell stated that he believes that it is in addition to the alley, because the City owns the platted alley. Commissioner Springborn asked for clarification. He asked, if this property is rezoned to P-1 and then taken to the Board for a decision about a park, how would the outcome of their decision affect the land. In other words, if they decided in favor of a park, the park will go in, but if they decide against the park, what happens. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff feels P-1 may be a compromise that doesn't completely satisfy either side. But, the P-1 zoning district allows Use Unit 4 (which is a tailor made zoning district for a park) and allows uses such as a school, other community facilities and semi-public facilities such as a church. He agreed that it does allow some kinds of developments, but would also allow development of a park or the preservation of a piece of land for a park. If the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the Board of Directors that it the property be rezoned to P-1 and the Board approves it, there would be a chance that the property could be developed under P-1 although it is realistically pretty slim. Danny Wright, attorney at law representing Mr. & Mrs. Parsons, stated that Mrs. Parsons is the trustee of the Hathcock Trust, which is the legal title owner of the property in question. He stated that the petitioners appreciate the tabling of the petition in May. During that interim period the owners of the property and the school district were able to work out an agreement in terms. They have a principal agreement that would provide for the property going to the school. He noted that the rehearing petition asked for C-1 for the entire piece of property. However, they ask that consideration be given that the two corner lots(4 & 5) be rezoned C-1 and the balance of the property be rezoned R-0. He • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 4 advised that there were some things that were not addressed in the December meeting. The owners of the property would like to make sure that the school's concerns are addressed as well as the neighborhood's concerns as far as they are able. The owners' agreement with the school provides for a donation of a 40' strip of land to the school across the south end of this property. One of the reasons for that is to address the water problem in the area. There will have to be construction of a water drainage tile or culvert from a location on the property to Garland which will tie in with a collector system that has been tentatively approved by the Highway Department. The Highway Department has stated that they have plans to eventually widen Garland (Hwy 112) to four lanes. In addition to that 40' strip, the proponents want to set aside(by Bill of Assurance) a 20' green space that would run along the west side of the subject property. He noted that they would like the 20' greenspace along the east side of the alley, which will run all the way to the south end of the property, to start approximately 40' south of Wedington since they anticipate an access from Wedington to whatever development takes place on the property. He noted that C-1 on the corner lots and R-0 for the additional lots really provides an additional factor in response to concerns about traffic and safety. This would provide an additional buffer between the development on the corner and the school. Additionally, the green space on the west side of this tract would shadow the property that faces Hall Street (the R-1 district to the west) from whatever development takes place. Mr. Wright advised that all the other corners of this intersection are zoned commercial, and this property is well-suited for a commercial development. He stated that he wanted to make it clear to the Commission and to the audience that the property is for sale to any interested party. He noted that it is apparent that no one is going to build a private residence on this property. He advised that they are concerned about the trees, but they also are concerned about putting the property to use. He stated that, regarding the P-1 zoning proposed by the staff, detention centers and zoos, are uses by right in this zoning district. (which no one would want developed there) He stated that the P-1 zoning would almost seem to be a limitation on the land that no one really intends. He urged the Commission to look at the property and consider the uses of the property around it. Chuck Baxter, spokesman for the group wanting a park at this location, stated that he teaches at Leverett School, lives in the neighborhood, his children go to Leverett School, and he also walks children down the street to a crossing. Therefore, the safety issue is an area of concern to him. He stated that this safety issue, as far as the children walking to and from school, hasn't been addressed by anything that the developers have proposed. It was said that this land is not suitable for R-1 development, and he doesn't understand why, when the only commercial development south of Wedington Drive is the Domino's Pizza Plaza. He advised that this group feels that the community is in support of a park in this area and the best use for this land is as a park. Given some time, funds could be generated to purchase the land. When this first came up last December and was denied, they felt that they had some breathing room to get some funds together for a park. Subsequently, this rehearing came up. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the needs of the community as a whole when • • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 5 they make their decision. Winston Simpson, Superintendent of Schools, stated that the School Board has asked him to communicate to the Planning Commission that they think the best use of that property for the benefit of a school would be as a park. However, the School Board doesn't have any money to participate in the purchase of property for development of a park. He advised that he isn't here to oppose the rezoning request. As Mr. Wright has indicated, they have arrived at an agreement in principal that would result in some of their property being donated to the school. The intent would be to build a driveway from Garland to Hall to contribute to the safety of the drop-off and pickup of students. The alley that would eventually be developed would be an additional safety factor with children walking to and from school. He pointed out that this agreement is conditioned on lots 4 & 5 being rezoned C-1. The benefit to the school of this potential driveway is dependent on that form of rezoning or some conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on the property owners. Pat Green of 962 Hall stated that she and her husband are opposed to having the subject property commercial. They have invested in a nice home in a low density residential area and expected that the city government would protect their neighborhood. They are concerned about the traffic problems. There are between 500 and 600 students enrolled in Leverett School, so there is a great deal of traffic to and from that school. • Kirk Elsass of Lindsey & Associates stated that he has represented the Parsons in this as a real estate agent. The zoning of that property on the corner to C-1 could mean as much as $25 or $35,000 in value to the property. He stated that his concerns are that the Parsons are very interested in working with the public in placing the right thing there. At the same time, they have to consider the value of the property. Fran Alexander, who lives on Fox Hunter Road, stated that she is opposed to the C-1 rezoning. She advised that she was trained in Houston, Texas as a naturalist to take groups through the nature parks in Houston. She was also in charge of docent training for the Audubon Sanctuary there in Houston for four years. She advised that what little nature area is left in Houston is now a museum of climax hardwood forests. She urged the Commission to understand what they have at this location with a nature area next to a school, they don't have anywhere else in town. Dan Goody, resident of Fayetteville, stated that this property has very rare mature hardwoods on it. This could be used as an environmental classroom for all the elementary schools in the area. It is a gateway to the university and could be used for a multitude of things if it isn't zoned commercial and developed into something such as a parking lot. He advised that they don't want to shortchange Mrs. Parsons. They have talked to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Foundation who would like to help them to purchase the property. Also, the Trust for Public Land is an organization that would negotiate a fair price with the Parsons agents. With this help, the Parsons could make the money and the city could own this property without any cost to the City by donations from • • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 6 H.U.D., Trust for Public Land, Arkansas Natural Heritage and others. Money wouldn't have to be spent developing and maintaining the property. It isn't developed or maintained now and could stay this way for the next five years. They need to work toward acquiring the property and making it accessible to all the community. Jerome Rappaport, a retired professor, stated that he came here with his family from Tulsa because Tulsa became one large parking lot and a speedway. He stated that he is opposing this rezoning on the basis of cosmetics. He would like to see a nice green little town and not another mall. Julie Nash, who lives on Sunset, stated that one of the reasons they are opposing this rezoning is because Leverett School is there. The City's General Plan, which was adopted in 1970, states that elementary schools should be located in residential or wooded areas. The other seven elementary schools are. The traffic consideration is obvious. A curb cut for development of this lot would be in the children's path as they walked to and from school. She stated that none of the rezoning criteria seems to match this rezoning. There isn't a public need for additional rezoning. C-1 property is located directly across Wedington Drive from this. The public need in this case seems to be for a park or recreation area. One of the criteria for granting a rezoning asks if this change is really needed by the public or is it merely a convenience to the owner. By denying this rezoning, the Planning Commission would basically be protecting this land to allow time to raise funds to purchase the land for a park. Kim Smith, a zoology professor, stated that he lives on Hall Avenue and his daughter attends Leverett School. He stated that the property has potential for a teaching and research mission for the university. If the subject property was a nature park, they could incorporate the area into some of their Biology and Zoology courses. Also, that property has been used for bird research already. Mike Faupel stated that the Planning Commission has a wonderful opportunity to be heros of the town with this situation. They are presented with an overwhelming public interest to have a new park for the town in an area that could use it. The land is for sale and the money is available and he hopes the Planning Commission will take advantage of this opportunity. Harley Brigham of Fox Hunter Road stated that he likes the idea of a nature park. He advised that he is concerned about the deforesting of Fayetteville and he opposes this rezoning. Joe Alexander, a resident of Fayetteville, stated that he is concerned about the mature stand of fine oak trees on the property. He stated that he is an artist who loves to draw and paint trees. He commented that, if an artist painted a picture of a commercial building, it would be seen as a parity or a satire on art rather than a real work of art. Trees and forests are disappearing from this world at a horrendous rate, and one of the reasons we should be concerned about this is the greenhouse affect. Trees absorb carbon dioxide. With the greenhouse affect there is more energy in the atmosphere unevenly distributed • • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 7 which makes the weather more extreme, violent and turbulent. This has been noticeable with the drought, extreme cold, and flooding in recent times. He stated that the Planning Commission should concern themselves first and foremost with sitting precedence for saving trees. He is in favor of the proposed nature park. Al Vick, resident of Fayetteville, stated that he strongly believes these trees are the most valuable resource that we have right now. People are moving to this area because they appreciate the trees and nature being nearby. He stated that he would like to see the owners of this property be able to get the full price they want, but the voters of the city voted to appropriate monies for parks just last week. The Planning Commission has an excellent opportunity to turn this into a nature park. There is an old native American saying, "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; We borrow it from our children." Something has to be preserved for our children. Frank Sharp of 2062 Smokehouse Road stated that the fact this property could be bulldozed and flattened is appalling. He noted that he hopes the new ordinances will provide for tree preservation. He stated that he agrees that this property should be zoned P-1. He noted that the City owns some beautiful, wooded property on Razorback Road and Indian Trail. He feels that it is very critical that both of these be preserved. As he sees it, the City doesn't have much use for the Razorback Road property right now, and it is possible that the property might be transferred to the Parks & Recreation Department who could preserve part of it for a park. As soon as Razorback Road is built through to the Bypass and that property depreciates, then it could possibly be sold and developed creatively. Some creative things could be done and they could possibly end up with two parks. Paula Fulcher, a resident of Fayetteville, stated that she is concerned about the environment. She stated that she would like to express concern for the safety of the children attending Leverett School. She commented that she wouldn't like to see some fatality happen to one of the children, before they act. She further stated that it was her understanding that there was a provision in the Hathcock will that the property in question remain in greenspace. Kirby Estes, who lives on Wyman Road, stated that he is opposed to the C-1 rezoning of that property because of the magnificence of the trees which would be destroyed by a commercial development and his concern for the safety of the children. Lu Weiss stated that she would like to see that property be used as a park for all the reasons that have already been brought up. Mrs. Cecil England of 904 North Garland stated that it would seem that the issue of this property is a pivotal one. She stated that the residents of the residential area around the subject property have been granted some assurance in the past that the sanctuary of their neighborhood would be upheld. She was concerned about commercial property crossing Wedington Drive to the south • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 8 creating insidious growth onto the foot of Leverett School playgrounds and to the doorstep of the University of Arkansas. Plenty of commercial property is available elsewhere in the city. Bruce Cully, a resident of Fayetteville, stated that he would like to see the subject property remain greenspace. Above and beyond that, he would like to see a fair deal for all participants involved including city residents, owners of property, and petitioners. He advised that it seems to him the issue isn't so much that a business wants to locate in that area but that the owners of this property deserve to get a fair price for it. By rezoning it to C-1 or R-0, they can get a higher price than for the property. The Planning Commission has to decide the highest and best use, but also they have to represent the citizens of Fayetteville fairly. To represent everyone fairly, they could put aside this rezoning instead of denying it to allow time for negotiation between the owners and the citizens of Fayetteville. If the money can't be raised, then the rezoning could be granted at that time. The Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Hanna stated that the request as presented to the Planning Commission is to rezone the property from R-1 to C-1. However, the petitioner has stated that it might be better to ask for a C-1 rezoning for the two lots on the corner and an R-0 for the other three lots. He advised that the Planning staff has recommended that they vote to zone the property P-1 to hold it for the parks proposal. Commissioner Klingaman stated that one issue that hasn't been addressed yet is to simply leave it as it is. If it were priced as residential property, there might be someone that would like the convenience of being in this location. The pricing is what probably has more affect on it not being suitable for commercial property than the location. Commissioner Allred stated that there is a lot feels that the should negotiate with the owners ask for a rezoning to P-1. He noted that he is was zoned P-1 and the park didn't materialize, property useless to the owners. of support for a park, and he to secure the property and then concerned that, if the property they have rendered a piece of Danny Wright stated that several people have contacted his client, and they have referred the interested parties to the realtors. This property seems most appropriate for commercial development given the surrounding property. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that there has been a lot of talk about getting outside funding. He asked if anyone knows of any firm plans or time frame. Mr. Goody advised his position is that a commercial outfit would certainly have access to funds a lot sooner than there group would going through the channels of working with Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land. He advised that he had spoken to Mrs. Parsons about a 120 day time limit being put on trying to arrange all the funds. He advised that there is a $100,000 a year marked out of H.U.D. Also, the Trust for Public Land could negotiate with the Parsons and r • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 9 other groups to buy the property at the best price agreed on and then they would hold the property until the City or other institutes could repurchase it. That basically protects the property from a developer bulldozing it until the monies could be raised. Chairman Hanna stated it seems like a viable compromise to vote on a rezoning to take place within 120 days, if a deal hasn't been struck between the owners and the citizens wanting a park. He advised that, in this case, it would be 120 days before the petition went to the City Board. Commissioner Springborn stated that he is concerned about the time limit. His initial reaction was that, the Board, if they approved the P-1 zoning, could then take a year to approve a park on their own initiative or to give the citizens group the opportunity to fund a park. If nothing took place after one year, there would be nothing to prevent the applicant from coming back at that time and again requesting a rezoning. From that standpoint, the request for 120 days or even 180 days is more than reasonable. Commissioner Allred stated that they could table this for a certain period of time and let this group negotiate with the sellers contingent upon getting the funding. He commented that it seems like the general public is involving the Planning Commission in real estate negotiations which isn't their position. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to table this petition until the next meeting to allow time for negotiation between the owners and the citizens group. Mr. Goody stated that two weeks wouldn't give them enough time to do anything. The motion died for the lack of a second. Commissioner Klingaman stated that another alternative would be to simply deny the rezoning. Leaving it as R-1 property would put the property on hold for one year. That would be in accordance with the earlier decision of the Planning Commission in December, would give ample negotiation time, and wouldn't be unfair to the owner. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to deny the rezoning request, seconded by Cleghorn and followed by discussion. Commissioner Tarvin stated that his problem with the motion is that, if the rezoning is denied, it does somewhat reduce the incentive to put together a package to purchase the property. He stated that he would like to see the property become a park, but the owners have a right to their fair market value of the property. The best thing the Planning Commission could do is take some action to ensure that. He advised that he would like to see either no action giving the petitioner a right to come back within a certain time period or a • • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 10 rezoning to something that is in the best interest of the owner with a provision that the rezoning not take place if the interested parties raised the funds to purchase the property. He further stated that, if the rezoning was outright denied, then the owners have to wait a period of time before they can reapply, and they have the precedent set that the Planning Commission denied the rezoning. Commissioner Allred stated that, if they deny this rezoning, the property could be bought as R-1 and developed which would negate all of the positive stuff. He stated that he isn't sure that waiting a year is in the general public's best interest. Commissioner Klingaman stated that, certainly, it would come back before the Commission if it were being platted off into parcels and sold. The fair market value of a property is a nebulous term, because they could be talking about fair market value as R-1 property or perceived value as C-1 property. There is plenty of room for negotiation and to simply deny it is a way of getting both parties to the negotiation table with good faith and good realization that a year is really not a very long period of time. Commissioner Tarvin stated that, if he lived in the residential section next to the subject property, he would like to see this thing settled and wouldn't want it to come back for another rezoning request. Some 'sort of action that would give both sides some incentive to come to an agreement would be better. The other option would to recommend rezoning it and leave it up to the City Board to decide whether it is important enough to purchase for a park. Commissioner Klingaman stated the City Board will ultimately decide this anyway. The applicant still has the opportunity to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to deny to the Board of Directors. Commissioner Nickle stated that he would like to see some more time elapse so that the two parties might be able to get together. At this point, he favors a denial of the rezoning. Commissioner Allred advised that he is in favor of a park, but his concern about denying it is that something could happen that would make this property not available for a park next year. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that he thought the Planning Commission could choose to make the motion to stipulate that the petitioners would have the option to come back and reapply in November of 1990, instead of next June, since that is when the Planning Commission initially denied this petition. Mr. Merrell stated that Article 12, Paragraph G states that "no application for zoning amendment will be considered by the Planning Commission within twelve months from the date of final disapproval of a proposed amendment unless there is evidence submitted to the Planning Commission which justifies reconsideration." Theoretically, if a rezoning were outright denied, it couldn't come back up until June of next year. However, it seems to him, particularly based on this public hearing, that the Planning Commission would • • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 11 have enough discretion to state a lesser period of time. Commissioner Springborn clarified that the Planning Commission could vote to deny the application, but recognize that, if the park proponents are successful within a six-month period, that would constitute grounds for a rehearing at that time. Mr. Merrell stated that is basically the point he was trying to make. AMENDMENT TO THE NOTION Commissioner Klingaman amended his motion to deny the rezoning request for a period until January 1, 1991, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 8-0-0. Chairman Hanna stated that the rezoning has been denied for approximately six months. He advised that, if they should choose to appeal this to the City Board, they still have that avenue. Commissioner Cato left the meeting at this point. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R90-13 GARY MCLEARAN - 305 E HUNTSVILLE ROAD The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for.. rezoning petition #R90-13 submitted by Gary McLearan for property located at 305 East Huntsville Road. Request was to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the applicant is a Volvo mechanic with an excellent business reputation. He has been operating his business at this location for some time. The City discovered this zoning violation when Richard Wilson, City Inspector, was investigating several properties in this area Automobile repair on a commercial basis is not permitted either by right or by conditional use in the R-2 zone. The properties on both sides of this location are used for residential. The property across the street on the northeast corner of Willow and Huntsville Road is being used as a residence with a machine shop and automobile repair business in the rear. The property on the southwest corner has a commercial building which now houses a church. The property on the northwest corner is vacant, City owned property. He advised that the staff came close to recommending a denial of this rezoning because most of the surrounding property is residential and because that street has lost a lot of its viability for commercial businesses over the years. Farther east on Huntsville Road, there are several commercial buildings which have been vacant for quite some time. Furthermore, the narrowness of Huntsville Road is a safety consideration. This particular site has relatively poor access with an unpaved driveway. Also, theoretically, this would be a spot zoning. However, the reason the staff is recommending a rezoning to C-2 is that this business is doing a very low intensity use. This is not a major repair center. He is using his garage to do repairs and doesn't have a sign. Also, in his favor, is the fact that he is running a clean operation without a lot of car parts and car bodies lying around. The staff • • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 12 isn't aware of any complaints from the neighborhood. The staff would recommend that, if this goes to the Board of Directors, it be accompanied by a Bill of Assurance which would limit the days and hours of operation as well as the signage. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that this rezoning is being brought before them because the city inspector found this zoning violation. He added that the staff would like to find a way to handle this violation whereby the applicant could operate as a home occupation without a rezoning to C-2. He commented that, if it is the consensus of the Commission that the staff try to find a way to handle this violation without rezoning to C-2, they will take a closer look at it. They would allow Mr. McLearan to continue operating in the meantime. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Becky Bryant, the Associate Planner, advised that this operation would not qualify as a home occupation because there is mechanical equipment being used and there is a need for additional parking. Commissioner Allred clarified that the ordinance states "no mechanical equipment may be used which creates a disturbance such as noise, dust, odor or electrical disturbance." He stated that it could be interpreted to allow mechanical equipment as long it doesn't create a nuisance. Mr. Merrell stated that it could possibly be interpreted that way. He suggested that the staff meet with Mr. McLearan on site and look at what., type of equipment is being used. In answer to a question from Mr. Merrell, Mr. McLearan stated that he doesn't do any type of body work at this location. Wanda Tackett, who owns the property next to the subject property, stated that she has no complaints and has heard no complaints from her tenants. She further stated that she would be very concerned about it being rezoned to commercial because of the potential for other commercial businesses there. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to table this rezoning request until the first meeting in July, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 7-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF SEXTON POINT SUBDIVISION JIM LINDSEY - W OF CROSSOVER RD S OF JOYCE ST The fourth item on the agenda was a final plat of Sexton Point Subdivision submitted by Doug Hemingway, of Professional Surveyors, on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located west of Crossover Road, south of Joyce Street and zoned R- 0, Residential -Office. The property contains 1.55 acres with 2 proposed lots. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the preliminary plat was approved previously. The staff recommends approval of the final plat subject • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 13 to a) Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, b) payment of parks fees, c) construction of sidewalks and d) the submission of subdivision covenants, if any. Commissioner Tarvin stated that the Subdivision Committee agreed with the staff's recommendation. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the final plat subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 7-0-0. FINAL PLAT OF MT COMFORT MEADOWS SUBDIVISION HOWARD SANDERS - S OF MT COMFORT RD, W OF HWY 71 BYPASS The fifth item on the agenda was a final plat of Mt. Comfort Meadows Subdivision submitted by Howard Sanders for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road, west of the Highway 71 Bypass. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 5.73 acres with 17 proposed lots. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the preliminary plat was previously approved. The staff is recommending approval of the final plat subject to a) Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, b) A bond for the improvement of Mt. Comfort Road to city standards, c) the execution of a contract with the City for the remaining on-site improvements, d) the restriction of access to lots 1 & 17 to Alpine Avenue only, e) payment of the required parks fees in accordance with city ordinance, and f) submission of a copy of the subdivision covenants, if any. Commissioner Tarvin stated that the Subdivision Coittee agreed with the staff's recommendation. MOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the final plat subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 7-0-0. PRELIMNARY PLAT OF PRATT WOODS ADDITION (REVISED) JULIAN ARCHER - S OF MARKHAM, W OF RAZORBACK RD The sixth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Pratt Woods Addition (Revised) submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Julian Archer. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 9.9 acres with 4 proposed lots. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this property is located in the Markham hill area which has been recognized for many years as being an environmentally sensitive area. He noted that there were a few points raised during the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee meetings including the extension of public sewer versus septic tanks. The staff feels that the public sewer is • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 14 a preferable alternative to septic tanks. Another question that came up involved drainage. He commented that there will obviously be some increase of storm water runoff due to the construction. However, with such a low density development, there shouldn't be much of a problem The staff feels that the normal development of drainage plans for this property will take into account whatever problem there may be. He further stated that there was some concern raised about the subsequent subdivision of the lots. The tandem lots (tracts B & C) could not be further divided because it would create a double tandem lot situation which is not allowed. Theoretically, the property could be replatted at some point, but it would involve another preliminary plat being approved with public notification. The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat subject to a) Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments, b) the approval of the plans and specs for water, sewer and drainage, c) payment of the parks fees, d) the construction of a sidewalk along Hotz Drive, and e) the extension of the city sewer to serve all the lots in the subdivision. Commissioner Tarvin stated that the Subdivision Committee agreed with the staff's recommendations. MOTION • Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Nickle and followed by discussion. Harry Gray, representative for Julian Archer, asked the Planning Commission to reconsider the question of the public sewer. Two of the lots (tracts A & D) would have public sewer available However, extensive sewer extension would be required to serve tracts B & C. With the size of the lots, tracts B & C could have a private septic system. He further stated that the Planning Office had changed the policy recently to require notifying the adjoining property owners of the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Commission. Therefore, the adjoining property owners came to the Subdivision Committee meeting and not to this one. He advised that John Williams, adjoining property owner, had spoken in favor of septic systems at the Subdivision Committee with the point that the septic systems work and provide some relief for the public sewer system. He noted that private septic system approval would be contingent upon septic percolation tests being approved by the State Health Department. In addition to that, the sewer easement would be provided for a future public sewer extension with a note on the final plat that, in the event the septic systems did not work, the public sewer would be extended. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that if the Commission is agreeable to the request for private sewer systems, the motion should be contingent upon the successful completion of the percolation test Commissioner Allred noted that private sewer systems would negate any further development without extending the sewer. Commissioner Tarvin stated that there are people who are certified to do percolation tests and show that the soil probably will perc. However, with the • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 15 contours of this land, there is probably a good chance that it would surface and run across the neighboring properties sooner or later. Mr. Gray stated that according to the ordinance, if a public sewer is not within 300', they can't be required to tie on to it. On tract C, a house could be built more than 300' from the city sewer line and extending the sewer would be more expensive. He advised that the City has been interpreting the ordinance to state that, if the house is more than 300' from public sewer, they aren't required to tie on. Commissioner Klingaman stated that, for the difference in cost of extending the public sewer or using private sewer systems, putting in private sewer systems seems like a gamble. He noted that a lot of the trees would have to be removed. Mr. Gray stated that John Williams' argument was that he had been on a septic system for twenty years and never had a problem. He noted that there would have to be trees removed for a sewer line as well as for a private sewer system. Commissioner Nickle stated that he didn't think they should consider a private septic system in any location that is close to a potential tie -on to the city • sewer because of problems in the past. Mr. Gray commented that part of the motion stated that'storm drainage plans would have to be approved by the City and he hadn't anticipated any storm drainage plans for this development. He noted that this will be a private drive. Chairman Hanna stated that he is sure whatever approval is needed by the City will be given. • The motion to approve the preliminary plat passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR SCHOOL IN R-1 - ST JOSEPH CATHOLIC SCHOOL ANN WILSON - 313 E. LAFAYETTE The seventh item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a school in an R-1 zoning district submitted by Delvin Nation on behalf of Ann Wilson for property located at 313 E. Lafayette (Lots 1,5, 6 and part of lots 2 C3 of block 9 of Masonic Addition). John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this is a conditional use request to allow St. Joseph's Catholic School to construct a proposed addition to their school. The addition will be about 9,500 square feet. The staff's understanding is that it will be used as additional classrooms. This school has been a very good neighbor in that neighborhood for many years. The staff didn't find any record of any complaints in the past. The staff recommends approval of the conditional use for the building expansion subject to the site plan which has been provided for this application. Mr. Merrell clarified that the school is a non -conforming use in an R-1 zone. • • • Planning Commission June 11, 1990 Page 16 MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the conditional use as submitted subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Klingaman. The motion passed 7-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.