Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-25 Minutes• NINUTSS OF A MEETING OF THE FAYEITEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on 4124, June 25, 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.E. Springborn, Jett Cato, Gerald Elingaman, Jack Cleghorn, and Charles Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES J. David Ozment and Joe Tarvin John Merrell, Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others The minutes of the regular meeting of June 11, 1990 were approved as distributed. • PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION R90-10 DON RUBLE - NW CORNER OF SHADY AVE & PEAR ST • The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition R90-10 submitted by David Horne, Attorney, on behalf of Don Ruble for property located on the northwest corner of Shady Avenue and Pear Street. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 9 and part of lot 8, Block 1 of the revised plat of Block 5 of Parkers Plat of Valley View Addition.) The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the rezoning request is essentially to allow Mr. Ruble's moving business, Don's Moving, to continue operating at its present location. This business provides a needed service in Fayetteville. This area is an isolated area of remaining residential land uses in between two industrial areas, the I-1 zoning of the land to the north and the area zoned predominately I-1 along West Poplar Street. The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this rezoning subject to several conditions as listed in the staff report. However, the first one listed in the staff report, the staff is going to withdraw. It was a recommendation that the rezoning only apply to lots 1, 2, 9 and possibly a strip of land along the eastern side of lots 8 & 3. The staff is recommending that the area that is rezoned will only be used for Mr. Ruble's Moving & Storage business and not for any other type of business that is allowed in a C-2 zoning district. The main reason for that is that this property does abut several properties that are zoned for residential use which could be negatively impacted by some other type business. If Mr. Ruble decides to sell this property at some point in the future, he can request a removal of this provision. The third item is that they are recommending that a Bill of Assurance be signed stating that any • Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 2 proposed new building must conform to the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the building code including the provision of the durable and dustless surface for off-street parking, loading, etc. Finally, the staff is recommending that there be no free-standing ground signs, no wall signs or projecting signs situated on the property that will exceed 10 feet in height. The Bill of Assurance that Mr. Horne has submitted appears to satisfy these concerns. David Horne, representing Don Ruble, stated that Mr. Ruble's moving business is primarily local, but approval of this would allow him to expand. He added that there is an existing residence at the site with a portable office. The rezoning encompasses some land owned in the Lazenby Estate, which Mr. Ruble has an option to purchase contingent upon this request being approved. He noted that they don't have any quarrel with any of the restrictions required by the Bill of Assurance. He added that they are working on a different site plan. They are proposing to turn the building in an east/west manner to conform with the 50 setback on Shady Avenue and to put the building farther away from the residence. It would remain the same size and dimensions. Another part of the Bill of Assurance would be to attempt to grass those areas that are not part of the parking requirements and leave the hedges intact. Mr. Ruble has stated that he would accommodate the City in any reasonable fashion. • In answer to a question from Commissioner Nickle, Mr. Horne stated that the building would cover part of lots 2, 3, 8 and 9. • Chairman Hanna asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor or in opposition to this petition. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Springborn asked whether the scope of this development is such that if they approve the rezoning, it would come back through the Subdivision Committee for approval. Mr. Merrell stated that it wouldn't have to come through the large scale development process. If the rezoning is approved, Mr. Ruble could get a building permit whenever he is ready. Chairman Hanna asked what the reasoning was in requesting C-2 rather than I-1. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff's interpretation was that this type of operation seemed to fit in either of those zones. But a moving business seems to fit a little better in C-2. Chairman Hanna stated that this particular piece of property is in a block of residential property that is surrounded by I-1 on the west side of the railroad tracks. The last moving business near there was in an I-1 zone. He noted that it seems that in the best interest of the City to rezone it I-1 rather than C- 2 in the event that his business didn't continue as a moving business. Mr. Merrell advised that the staff is comfortable with C-2 provided that there would be a Bill of Assurance filed. However, if it is the consensus of the Planning Commission that they favor I-1 over a C-2, the staff will take another look at it. He stated that they can't recommend an I-1 rezoning at this meeting by virtue of the fact that it has been advertised as a C-2 rezoning petition. • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Merrell stated that, if the consensus of the Planning Commission is to recommend this rezoning, the staff will take a hard look at it when they do the new zoning mapping. At that time, they might be agreeable to recommending a change to I-1. Mr. Horne stated that they would have no objection to that. NOTION Commissioner Cato moved to recommend approval of the rezoning subject to the staff's recommendations, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 7-0-0 with Ozment and Tarvin absent. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R90-15 MARK MARTIN - 2143 GREEN ACRES RD The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R90-15 submitted by Mark Martin and represented by Jim McCord, Attorney, for property located at 2143 Green Acres Road (Lot 1 of Green Acres Subdivision) containing 1.68 acres. The request is to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R- 0, Residential -Office. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that they are requesting this change in order to be allowed to construct a new law office. The area along Green Acres Road from North College Avenue to Colt Square has been developed in mostly offices and professional land uses. The staff feels that this area has been a good transition zone between the strip commercial along North College and the residential areas to the west of Green Acres Road. The staff hasn't received any complaints from the residential areas regarding any problems with the offices that have been developed there. The staff is recommending approval of this rezoning petition subject to a Bill of Assurance that provides a tree preservation plan and certifies the owner's guarantee that a minimum of 60% of the existing on-site trees with a diameter or caliber of 8" or more be retained and that they be protected during the construction and paving process. The staff further recommends that they have the latitude to negotiate with Mr. Martin and his contractors and agents in case a situation comes up where the 60% would negatively impact the construction process. Curtis Hogue, attorney, stated that Mr. McCord could not be present and asked him to represent Mr. Martin. He added that a Bill of Assurance in accordance with the staff recommendation has been prepared and executed. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this request Rosemary Austin of 2141 Green Acres Road stated that she is against this rezoning for several reasons like why they want to rezone that particular lot, when there are other areas nearby already zoned for office and commercial. She added that she has known some people who wanted to buy this property and continue using it • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 4 as residential property. She asked the Planning Commission to consider denying the rezoning. Chairman Hanna advised Mrs. Austin that, according to the ordinance, the developers will have to screen between their property and her R-1 property. Mr. Merrell agreed. Chairman Hanna commented that all the land along Green Acres Road was recommended to eventually be rezoned to R-0 20 years ago in the General Plan, and he expects that even Mrs. Austin's property will be rezoned R-0 someday. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to recommend approval of the rezoning petition from R-1 to R-0 subject to the staff's comments and the Bill of Assurance, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 7-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF JASON P. KENNEDY ESTATES BILL KENNEDY - N OF TOWNSHIP, E OF OLD WIRE RD The fourth item on the agenda was the preliminary plat of Jason P. Kennedy Estates submitted by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers on behalf of Bill Kennedy for property located on the north side of Township Road, east of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 1.9 acres with 7 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there doesn't appear to be any problems as far as utility access to this location. He noted that there was a question about access to Township from these lots. The staff found notes in the Planning Office which indicate that access to Township Road in some locations is prohibited. However, there were no general guidelines found. With further research, it appeared that the restrictions to the access of Township were in relation to specific subdivisions. Usually in a large subdivision access to lots, which have frontage on two streets, is restricted to the minor street involved. Because of the configuration of the property, there isn't another street that can be accessed in this particular development. When Township was built several years ago, the subject property belonged to the church. At that time, the Planning Commission granted three lots splits to the church along with three accesses to Township. Those lot splits were never taken by the church. Since that time, this is the second tract they have sold off to be developed as a subdivision. He noted that he believes the intent of the Planning Commission was to allow access for whatever splits that the church would take. At any rate, the staff's recommendation is that the subdivision be approved with the approval of access to Township. He advised that there are two lots in the subdivision (lots 4 & 5) which will be deeded to the Parks Department to be a part of Gulley Park in lieu of parks fees. As far as the access to Township, each driveway will be configured to avoid cars backing out onto Township Road. The staff's recommendation is to approve the preliminary plat subject to the Plat Review comments, the driveway restrictions, the dedication of the land for the park, 77 • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 5 and approval of the plans and specifications for water and sewer extensions. He noted that there is already a sidewalk existing along Township at this site. Chairman Hanna advised that the Subdivision Committee did not meet on this development. Harry Gray, representative for the owner, stated that, if Gulley Park is developed as accepted by the City, he doesn't see an alternative other than what is proposed for development of this strip of land on Township. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Gray stated that lot 5 is one of the lots that will be dedicated as part of the park in lieu of greenspace fees. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to approve this preliminary plat subject to the staff's recommendations, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR AIR STRIP DR. FLOYD HARRIS - S OF MT COMFORT RD, E OF RUPPLE RD The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use for an air strip submitted by Dr. Floyd Harris for property located south of Mt. Comfort Road and east of Rupple Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that Dr. Harris' former proposal for Mt. Comfort Air Park was before the Planning Commission on March 12th, April 9th, and April 23rd. After the April 23rd meeting, the Planning Commission voted to deny the conditional use for that property. The staff's decision to require a conditional use permit was then appealed to the Board of Adjustment. The Board denied that appeal. At this point, Dr. Harris is requesting a conditional use for his personal use of the air strip. Included in the agenda packet is a letter from Dr. Harris dated June 8, 1990, stating that the air strip is restricted only to pilots that have the owner's permission to land. He advised that the property was annexed in the late 60's. As the staff understands it, Dr. Harris' first logged landing on this air strip was in the late 70's with activity at various times in the 1980's and this year. The staff has determined that Dr. Harris' landing strip was not installed or used in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Dr. Harris and his attorney, Mr. Adams, met to discuss this with the staff on June 11th. Mr. Merrell noted that the City has no records of any complaints being received regarding the air strip before the air park proposal was submitted. The staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be approved based on some restrictions in an attempt to ensure that Dr. Harris can continue his operations with a minimal amount of distraction to the neighbors. Due to the controversy in the area, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission attach a time limitation to the approval of the conditional use permit. The staff recommends • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 6 that approval be based on no physical improvements (such as insulation of the hangar or the installation of lighting) or expansions being made to the airstrip. The staff also recommends that the issue of commercial flight operations be considered. It is the staff's understanding that Dr. Harris does occasionally fly his airplane with banners behind it. It is questionable as to whether or not that could really be called a commercial operation. The final comment is that the staff wants to make it quite clear that their recommendation should not be viewed as an avenue leading back to the air park proposal. The approval should be based on no access, either improved or unimproved, being provided for any aircraft to taxi to the air strip from any other location on the Harris property or any adjacent land. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Merrell stated that most of the property is within the City Limits. Only the extreme western edge of it is outside the City. The portion that is outside the City would not be affected by whatever action is taken today. Chairman Hanna requested that all comments made by members of the audience be addressed to the Planning Commission and not to each other. He noted that those people wanting to speak to this item have signed the list and he will call each name. He added that they will first hear from the attorney or the representative for each side. He asked that all others wanting to speak limit their comments to new and pertinent information with a time limit of three minutes. He advised that the Planning Commission is here to decide on a conditional use request to allow Dr. Harris to continue using this air strip as his private landing strip. He commented that the Planning Commission is not here to address the issues that were brought before when the last conditional use request was brought before the Planning Commission. This time they are not considering any expanded or enlarged use of the air strip. E.J. Ball, Attorney at Law, stated that Dr. Harris' practice is not limited to the Fayetteville area; he also serves northwest Oklahoma and northwest Arkansas. He uses his airplane to commute daily as one would use their automobile from their home to their place of work. In order for him to fly his plane, he has to comply with federal regulations because the FAA controls and regulates the air space. Each plane has a log which is maintained and kept according to those rules. This log goes with the plane when it is sold or disposed of. According to his log book, the first landing on this air strip was in 1977. This airport landing strip is a private strip with limited control by the Federal Government. Mr. Ball presented three documents to the Planning Commission for examination. The first document was an aerial photo of the area with the landing strip. Mr. Ball advised that this photo was taken several years ago because the landing strip is bare. Since that time, it has been sown in bermuda grass which prevents erosion and damage to aircraft. He noted that Dr. Harris wasn't aware that the property was within the City Limits when he constructed his buildings. He advised that he would like to have the opportunity for a rebuttal after other individuals have spoken. Another document presented was a smaller map showing the air strip in relationship to the vicinity. The last document presented was a larger map Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 7 pertaining to controlled approaches, landings and takeoffs for Drake Field. He noted that most of the time they are landing from the north going south. Mr. Ball advised that the staff report listed several conditions that the staff wanted the Commission to consider, if this were approved. One concern is the nature of Dr. Harris' flight operation. This area is sparely populated and the landing pattern from either direction for this landing strip doesn't cover any subdivisions. Therefore, Dr. Harris doesn't fly over any dwellings of any kind when landing or taking off. As far as the orientation of the airstrip and its relationship to Drake Field, Dr. Harris has to check in with Drake Field each time he takes or lands at his air strip. After landing, he contacts the airport again. This is not because these are any regulations in the City of Fayetteville or from the State of Arkansas, but because of the regulations of the Federal Aviation Authority. Regarding the issue of possible commercial flight operations, Dr. Harris intends to use the air strip for his personal use to travel to and from his work. His plane isn't large enough to engage in a lot of commercial activity. He doesn't sell any gas or operate any mechanical maintenance. Dr. Harris doesn't contemplate doing any improvements immediately. If he puts up lights, it would only be for safety purposes. He stated that they would be opposed to a trial period because the records show he has been landing there since 1977. There is also the issue of whether friends and acquaintances of Dr. Harris' should be allowed to land and take off at this air strip on some limited basis. The City doesn't regulate who could visit him in an automobile, so why should they limit the people who could come to see him in an airplane. The nature of the air strip (the length) itself limits the horsepower of the plane engines flying in. As far as the noise issue, Dr. Harris' plane has doesn't create enough noise to bother the neighbors. He stated that he feels a conditional use should be granted to Dr. Harris for his use of this air strip. Mr. Ball reserved the right to rebut any comments made by the opposition. Erwin Davis, attorney representing the Mt. Comfort neighborhood, advised that the statement was made that Dr. Harris has been landing his plane there since 1977. He stated that there are about 60 witnesses in this room who would testify that they never saw a plane land or take off at this location until a year and one half ago. He noted that Mr. Ball presented an aerial photo to the Commission earlier which was supposed to be what the air strip looked like several years ago, but it was not taken several years ago. It was made within the last one and one half years. As the best proof of that, they have the original of a photograph that is on record with the United States Government at the Soil Conservancy in the Federal Court House. This photograph shows that on December 12, 1986, there was not one semblance of any air strip of any kind at this location. The truth is that it was within the last year and one half that the neighborhood noticed any aircraft activity. All the bulldozing, cutting trees and earmarking of an airstrip occurred in the year 1989 or later. When the neighbors did notice aircraft activity, they immediately thought that Dr. Harris had federal approval to be landing there. Therefore, the first complaints were being registered within several months after the neighbors first noticed activity. Dr. Harris took a chance in spending money on his air strip in an R-1 zoning district without requesting approval from the City first. He started using that strip for his own private purposes in total violation of City Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 8 ordinances. He stated that this property owner needs to realize that, in any Fayetteville neighborhood, the neighbors would largely object to an air strip which would cobble up future growth, cause skyrocketing insurance rates, make noise, and create safety problems. These neighbors don't want the air strip in their neighborhood nor do they feel that Dr. Harris should be rewarded for his bare aggressiveness. They are concerned that, if temporary approval is given, it will ripen into permanency. Mr. Davis advised that he has the Minutes of the August 26, 1985 Board of Directors meeting pertaining to a rezoning request by Dr. Harris and J.B. Hayes. The plat submitted with that petition doesn't designate an air strip of any kind on the property. The Younkin air strip was grandfathered in, but Dr. Harris's air strip was not grandfathered in, since it was not in use in 1970 and before. He advised that Dr. Harris did not own this property until 1974. He requested that the Commission deny this conditional use once and for all. E.J. Ball advised that he doesn't want the people in attendance who are supporting Dr. Harris to speak. Debbie Steinburg of 3281 Mt. Comfort Road stated that it was surprising to the neighborhood to find that, when the establishment and the activity over this land was deemed illegal, it was not enforced. They are apprehensive about the potential of Dr. Harris obtaining a conditional use and being allowed to supervise who comes in and out on this land. She noted that they are also concerned that Dr. Harris might give an instructor permission to teach flying to students over their homes. They believe that any approval of this should be strenuously limited. A denial of this conditional use would not ground Dr. Harris, because there is an airport five miles away. Wilson Kimbrough of 3110 Mt. Comfort Road stated that planes from this air strip do fly over houses. The neighborhood's objections are essentially the same as they were before. They are concerned that this request is a preparation for an expansion of the conditional use, until it achieves what was originally requested by Dr. Harris. Having lived in this area since 1956, he noted that he was unaware of any planes in or out of this pasture earlier than 1989. He then begin to call FAA offices and discuss the matter with their neighbors. He advised that he has spoken with a number of citizens over the City of Fayetteville and got a sense of widespread sympathy and support for those who are opposed to this airport. Aileen Kimbrough advised that she has not noticed the landing or taking off of planes before the past two years. She noted her concern that, if Dr. Harris is granted this approval for his use and a few friends, there will be several more planes in their neighborhood. She noted that this is not compatible with their community. Frank Beatty of 3350 Mt. Comfort Road stated that they have lived directly across the east end of Dr. Harris' property for thirty years and didn't notice any planes flying in there before 1988. He added that this air strip is dangerous because it lies at right angles to the prevailing winds. • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 9 Bennie Harris of 3173 Mt. Comfort Road stated that he was aware of the landing strip when he built his home there, but he assumed that it was proper and legal. Now that he has a voice, he is strictly against the landing strip. He stated that not many of the people supporting the air strip seem to live in the area or seem to be affected by this. He noted that there have been planes taking off and landing from this air strip with banners that advertise businesses or products and he considers that to be commercial flight. He added that he is strictly against the landing strip. Tom Lavender, who lives on North Sang Avenue, stated that his wife's uncle owns the 40 acres of land just south of Dr. Harris' farm. There was a roadway opened from Mt. Comfort Road for ingress/egress to this property and other farms. Dr. Harris has fenced in a part of this roadway and claims it although he doesn't own it. He added that he was here when Drake Field was built. It was supposedly unuseable for anything other than Piper Cubs but look what it has grown into. If this air strip is allowed to continue, it will grow also. He was opposed to it. John Dockery of 3225 Mt. Comfort Road stated that his property joins Dr. Harris' property. The air strip extends right up to his property, and the planes barely get off the ground before they cross his property. This will, therefore, prevent any development on his property and will affect him financially. He added that they are very much opposed to it. Karen Springston of 3008 Mt. Comfort Road stated that she is concerned about the safety aspect and how this will affect the people in the neighborhood financially, specifically their insurance rates. E. J. Ball presented two other exhibits for the Commission's review. The first was a list of the property owners adjacent to the subject property. He noted that most of the speakers in opposition do not appear on this list. He presented a survey of the plat in rebuttal to the comments made by Mr. Lavender regarding a litigation involving Dr. Harris concerning the ownership of some property. He stated that, with respect to this, Dr. Harris did in fact put up a fence between him and Mr. Steinburg's property and did cut the trees in the area in 1985. He advised that Dr. Harris has flown in and out of his air strip six times in the last week to serve his patients. Dr. Harris certainly has a right to make reasonable use of this property in connection with his neighbors. He noted that it is clear that the reasonable use of the property would be for him to use his private airplane in order to carry on his practice. He requested that the Commission give this considerable thought before making their decision. Erwin Davis stated that, regarding the list of owners Mr. Ball presented for their review, everyone who spoke gave their names and addresses and are who they profess to be. He indicated that Mrs. Goforth isn't present to oppose this because of her age. As far as planes flying over houses, each time a plane took off to the west at the noise demonstration, it was no more than 200' over Mrs. Goforth's house. He commented that this suit over property brought up by Mr. 1 • • • Planning Commission June'25, 1990 Page 10 Ball has nothing to do with this hearing. This neighborhood is legitimately concerned about these low flying airplanes. The most reasonable use for that land is for a subdivision or one property. The Public Hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Commission. Chairman Hanna stated that he did make it a point to ask Mrs. Goforth, who is an old friend of his family, about this issue. She stated that she was not going to sign anything opposing this airstrip, because Dr. Harris had been a very good neighbor. John Merrell stated that he wanted to make the Commission aware that a new preliminary subdivision plat has received in the last few days for the property (the same property which was once proposed for the twenty-seven lot air park with taxi -way access to the air strip). This plat went to the Plat Review Committee last week and will be going to the Planning Commission in July. It shows a proposed street coming off of Mt. Comfort Road and looping around with four cul- de-sac streets going back up toward Mt. Comfort Road. This preliminary plat proposes 89 new single-family residential lots. Mr. Merrell reiterated that the staff's recommendation is that a conditional use permit be approved for this with about ten conditions that should be considered. He noted that the Commission should be careful in granting any sort of approval for a conditional use permit for this property. The staff is concerned that the approval for a conditional use permit for Dr. Harris to continue his own use of the air strip could be construed as a passive approval of another subdivision plat with taxi -way access to the runway. It would be the staff's recommendation that, if the Commission approves this conditional use, they include some sort of language making it clear that it is the understanding of the Commission that it would only be for the use of Dr. Harris. If the Commission approves a conditional use for Dr. Harris and "a few friends" to continue to use this air strip, there is no way that the staff can enforce any of the conditions. He added that he doesn't have a definite recommendation on the issue of commercial use. He advised that the Younkin Air Strip was grandfathered in, and it doesn't seem to have hindered development of subdivisions adjacent to that property. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that the staff would feel more comfortable if there was a proviso attached to approval prohibited enlargement or expansion of the air strip without getting approval from the Planning Commission. The final issue would be whether or not the Commission felt it desirable to grant the permit for a limited amount of time so that it could be reviewed later on. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Merrell stated that he was unaware of the proposed 89 lot preliminary plat, when he prepared the staff report. However, that would not have altered his recommendation on approval of the air strip. Mr. Davis objected to the City not informing them of the filing of this • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 11 subdivision plat so that it could have been incorporated into their hearing. Chairman Hanna stated that the proposed preliminary plat indicates that Dr. Harris is giving up on the air park idea and plans to sell the property for development that doesn't relate to the air strip. If the conditional use is approved, it will be approved only for Dr. Harris' use with the proviso that it can't be expanded or extended. Mr. Davis stated that only the most naive would believe that those two are not connected. The proposed plat should be made known to those people so that they can look at the two together. Chairman Hanna advised that the proposed subdivision plat will have to be approved by the Planning Commission, so they will have a chance to review it at that time. Commissioner Springborn stated that he is impressed with the fact that Dr. Harris has maintained compliance with all of the federal regulations but didn't take the trouble to come to the City to find out where the City Limits were when he built the structures there. He is further impressed that, in 1985, he had plans to do something other than what is now being considered and must have included an alternate site for his private use of aircraft. Nevertheless, he is operating an airstrip for business purposes of a medical nature. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the conditional use subject to a statement or Bill of Assurance from Dr. Harris that the air strip will be used as is and that his use of the air strip will be strictly personal. (He explained that "strictly personal", in his view, incorporates occasional use by friends, but does not include the use of the strip for anything that might be construed to be of a commercial nature.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Allred. Commissioner Klingaman advised that he was prepared to vote for the motion to allow a conditional use for this air strip prior to hearing about the proposed 89 -lot preliminary plat. He noted that the possible addition of a major subdivision on the property next to the air strip casts a different light on this. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mr. Merrell stated that there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that states that most conditional uses automatically come back before this Commission for some sort of review with the exception of Home Occupations in the R-1 zone. Other than that, unless the Commission puts a time limit on a conditional use, it does not automatically come back to the Commission. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Commissioner Springborn amended his motion to state that this conditional use would be approved for a period of one year at which time it would be reviewed again by the Planning Commission, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 6-1- 0 with Cleghorn, Allred, Springborn, Hanna, Cato and Nickle voting "yes", Klingaman voting "no" and Ozment & Tarvin absent. • • • Planning Commission June 25, 1990 Page 12 OTHER BUSINESS ABSENTEEISM Chairman Hanna advised that the bylaws for the Planning Commission state that a member that is absent from three consecutive meetings, unless it is an emergency situation, can be automatically dropped from the Planning Commission. He noted that David Ozment had written a letter explaining his recent absences. The staff is a little concerned about the absenteeism from the meetings recently, and he urged everyone to attend the meetings if at all possible. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairman Hanna advised that there hasn't been enough of the Subdivision Committee members available to hold meetings several times recently. He noted that they need another member for that Committee. Commissioner Charles Nickle volunteered to serve on that Committee. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.