Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 22, 1990 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Hanna, J.S. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Jett Cato, Gerald Klingaman, Joe Tarvin, and Charles Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES: The Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 1990 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION #R90-29 TOMMY GLEN - 1733 CROSSOVER ROAD The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R90-29 submitted by Tommy Glen and represented by Jim Lindsey for property located at 1733 Crossover Road containing 1.5 acres more or less. The request was to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this property presently consists of a single-family house on an individual lot fronting on the western side of Crossover Road. As the staff understands, the property has been for sale for quite some time and has not sold as R-1. He referred to a map in the agenda packet which shows a study of the zoning in that area done several years ago by the former staff and Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. Looking at this map, this property seems to fit partially in the area designated for possible future commercial with most of it in the possible future multi- family residential area. The main point that the staff wants to make is that the property adjoins some commercial zoning to the north with commercial businesses to the north. The staff views this as the last lot on this side of Crossover Road from the intersection in which they would recommend a C-1 rezoning. Jim Lindsey, representing the owner, stated that this property is immediately north of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and next door to the commercial property that runs to the north. There is also commercial property across the street immediately to the east. This property is in effect isolated in a commercial zone now and being hampered by the R-1 zoning. Mr. Merrell advised that there was a rezoning petition last year for a piece of property close to this property. But, that particular piece of property was well beyond the area that was designated for commercial and multi -family residential, and the Planning Commission unanimously denied it. Mr. Lindsey stated that Mr. Clearly owns the property to the north and across the street from this property. He has contacted them and stated that he has no objections to this rezoning request. / 02 Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 2 In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Glen stated that the house on this property has 2,700 square feet and could be remodeled for offices. He added that if the Planning Commission approves an R-0 zoning instead of a C-1, he would go along with it because he can't sell the property as R-1. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to approve the rezoning petition as requested subject to the staff's comments, seconded by Tarvin. The motion passed 7-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTH POINT SUBDIVISION MCILROY BANK - N OF HALL AVE, E OF HWY 71 BYPASS The third item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of North Point Subdivision submitted by Mcllroy Bank and represented by Doug Hemingway of Professional Surveyors for property located north of Hall Avenue and east of Highway 71 Bypass. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, containing 5.82 acres with 8 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is a commercial subdivision. There weren't any significant comments at the Plat Review meeting. There were some discussions about easements which were taken care of. Water and sewer is available to the site. There was some discussion about where the water meters were to be placed and a possible installation of an additional water line which will be taken care of as the plans are approved. The staff recommends that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee meeting comments; approval of water, sewer, streets and drainage plans; and construction of the sidewalks. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of this. He noted that they will need to request a waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac. Doug Hemingway, representing the owner, stated that they are requesting a waiver for the extension of the maximum length of a cul-de-sac. Joe Crouch, an adjoining property owner, stated that he has no objections to this property being split into one-half acre lots, but he is concerned about what kind of tenants these small commercial lots will attract. This is the northern entrance into the City and he is concerned about the looks of the City for the future. The Air building near here is an eyesore(a very rough metal building with a cyclone security fence around it). He is also concerned about the future use of their property. Jim Lindsey stated that his construction company built the Airborne building. He noted that the convenience store in this location is a metal building and the liquor store is certainly not in keeping with a prime commercial area. He noted that it has been his experience that, when an arterial goes over an interstate like at this intersection of the Bypass and Highway 112, the limitation of vision from all directions eliminates it as a major prime commercial intersection. He noted that he believes this plan will work and be productive. It is his opinion that no other development of any significance is going to locate at this intersection, when there is only visibility from one direction. He sees this property as being used for secondary auxiliary uses. Commissioner Klingaman advised that this area was addressed in the Al Raby(Planning Consultant) report as being an important intersection to consider as far as the aesthetics aspect. This needs to be addressed. Perhaps some City ordinances will have an impact on some of the types of construction and types of facilities that can be developed here. ia7 • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 3 MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to approve the preliminary plat as presented subject to staff recommendations and comments, seconded by Tarvin. The motion passed 7- 0-0. Mr. Lindsey stated that they do plan to dress the buildings up with brick to help the attractiveness of the development. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AARON SUBDIVISION DUB DUNAWAY - NW CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE RD & CHERRY LN The fourth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Aaron Subdivision submitted by Dub Dunaway and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing 1.34 acres with five proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that none of the utility companies had any problems with serving the location. Water and sewer is available to the site. There is an existing house on lot 4 of the subdivision. One lot has direct access to highway 16 and the other lots(1, 2 & 3) have access to Cherry Street. He added that the staff did receive a letter from a neighbor regarding a traffic problem at that intersection. To the east there is a dip which causes somewhat of a sight distance problem when trying to get out on to Highway 16 from Cherry Street. Naturally, there will be a bit of a problem getting onto Highway 16 at high traffic times. The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; approval of street, drainage, water, and sewer plans; construction of sidewalks; the payment of parks fees; and improvements to Cherry Street. Commissioner Springborn stated that there were some questions raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He stated that one of the problems is the surety bond for improvements on Cherry Street. In answer to a question from Mr. Dunaway, Mr. Bunn stated that the bond would last at least five years. Then even if the money isn't used for street construction, it would have to be used for improvements of the subdivision at some point. It is an expenditure that the developer would be liable for regardless of whether it was actually spent on street construction. Mr. Dunaway stated that he would like to ask that the subdivision be approved without the requirement of improvements on Cherry Street. He noted that he can't see how two houses will make that much of an impact on Cherry Street. He advised that they will probably request lot splits that will front on Highway 16 instead of a subdivision is that requirement is necessary. As far as a bond of some kind, it wouldn't be economically feasible for them to develop this land with that extra expense. Commissioner Springborn stated that the Subdivision Committee had requested that some consideration be given to pro rating the improvements. Mr. Dunaway stated that they will have some costs incurred in developing this, but having to do the improvements on Cherry Street wouldn't be feasible. Commissioner Allred stated that he would like some clarification on what is being requested on the street. Mr. Bunn stated that they are requiring improvements on half Cherry Street to city street standards on the portion of the subdivision that fronts on that street. Commissioner Springborn stated that one of the lots could logically face the other street instead of Cherry which would leave two lots liable for the iag • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 4 crj 5.11 improvements rather than three.'.iCadvised that the staff would accept the two 70' frontages as being appropriate for off-site improvements. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Dunaway stated that they hadn't looked into the cost of a bond. Dave Jorgensen, engineer for the project, noted that it would cost at least $7,500 for the improvements which would be split between the lots on Cherry Street. Commissioner Nickle stated that one of the things that came up in the Subdivision Committee meeting was the possible up-sizing of the 1" water line that runs north on Cherry Street on the west side. He noted that the preliminary plat calls for a 2" line, but he is questioning whether it should be up-sized to a minimum of 6" for the possibility of extending in the future for fire protection, etc. Mr. Bunn noted that the City would probably want to help fund an up-sizing to a 6" or 8" line. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to approve this preliminary plat with the two 70' lots with access to Cherry Street as the basis for the off-site improvements subject to the staff's comments and Plat Review comments, seconded by Nickle. The motion passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR CHURCH (WESTERN HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH) FRANK TERRY - W OF SHILOH, N OF DOWELL The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for a church (Western Hills Baptist Church) submitted by Frank Terry for property located west of Shiloh Drive and north of Dowell. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and A-1, Agricultural, containing 3 acres. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that Western Hills Baptist Church is proposing to build a new church building just off of the Bypass which is fairly close to where the new interstate highway will be coming through. The part of the property that fronts on Shiloh Drive is A-1 and the rear is zoned R- 2. The staff is recommending approval of this conditional use. Frank Terry was present but had no comments. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant the conditional use, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 7-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TANDEM LOT - CU90-25 & LOT SPLIT REQUEST MARY FRANCES GLADNEY - 834 E ASH The sixth and seventh items on the agenda were a conditional use request for a tandem lot and a lot split application submitted by Mary Frances Gladney and represented by Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers for property located at 834 East Ash. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there are two items, a tandem lot and a lot split, requested by Mrs. Gladney. He advised that the two lots which would be created by the split would both be legal lots in an R-1 zone. The tandem lot would be approximately 106' wide and 423' deep containing just over an acre of property. It would be accessed by a 25' strip of land from Ash Street back to this property. There are utilities available to the lot from Ash Street. He /�7 • • • r Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 5 5.12 noted that it was brought to his attention earlier today that there is a provision in the covenants of this subdivision prohibiting further subdivision of the lots. The City does not enforce subdivision covenants so they can't consider this in their recommendation. The staff's recommendation would be to approve the conditional use for a tandem lot and the lot split. The lots that would be created by the split are legal according to City Code. Commissioner Allred advised that he will be abstaining from the vote on this item because he lives near here. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representing Mrs. Gladney, stated that Mrs. Gladney owns lot 1 and the east half of lots 3 thru 6 of Sunset Heights Addition. The total tract is approximately two acres with 130.68 feet of frontage on Ash Street. She is requesting a lot split which would entail creating a tandem lot. Her house now fronting on Ash Street would remain on a lot which will be 105.68' x 250' for a total of about .6 acres. Both lots would still be considerably larger than most of the R-1 lots. As far as the covenants stating that the lots can't be split, they have already been split because she owns the east half of four of those lots. Based on what the City has enforced in the past and the subdivision regulations, the lot split and the conditional use request are well in line and in keeping with the past. All utilities are available. Mrs. Gladney's house would stay and there would be one house built on the tandem lot. David Malone stated that he would like to speak in opposition of the proposal. He advised that all of the lots around this property have homes on them and there are a number of people in the neighborhood present. He advised that he lives on lot 5, but isn't representing the group. He has been a resident for over twenty years at this location. This proposed tandem lot is woodland. He noted that he checked all the legal provisions very carefully when he purchased the house and the woodlands were one of the attractive things about the property. He noted that he was careful about reading the covenants. Covenant #2 states that these are residential lots and there shall be not more than one detached single-family dwelling on each lot except for a garage. It also states in #3 that all residential buildings on lots 3, 4, 5 & 6 shall face Austin Drive. It states that no residential lots shall be subdivided. He requested that they dispose of this request in the same way that they disposed of another recent request for a lot split which was submitted by Rebecca Mathias for property on Sycamore Street. It was a situation where the covenants prohibited further subdividing of the lots and the Planning Commission denied it. He noted that he understands that the City doesn't enforce covenants, so they would have to go to court to oppose it. However, he doesn't think the City should be in the position of taking positive action in the face of covenants. He noted that, if the Planning Commission doesn't agree with him on this, he would like to the merits of this based on other issues including drainage, screening, access, etc. The tandem lot ordinance states that a tandem lot should not significantly reduce the property values in the neighborhood. The people who bought property in that neighborhood did so on the basis that there would only be one single-family residence per lot. Chairman Hanna stated that it looks like lots 2 thru 6 have already been split. Mr. Malone noted that this subdivision is a very old subdivision which was subdivided before the subdivision regulations were developed. What they did was permissible under the subdivision regulations then. The subdivider sold off the west half of lots 3, 4, 5 & 6 and homes were developed on them. The property that was behind those homes remained in the hands of the subdividers and eventually came to Mrs. Gladney. His point is that the subdividers laid out the subdivision and brought it to the City for approval and recordation. Then the subdividers sold off the west half of lots 3, 4, 5, & 6 from the subdivision plat which was legal at that time. • • • 5.13 Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 6 Commissioner Springborn asked if the covenants being referred to apply to the west half of the lots. Mr. Malone stated that they apply to all of the subdivision. Mary Frances Gladney stated that she bought this property about 12 years ago and didn't know anything about subdivisions. The four lots were already divided behind her house. Not long after she bought it, she decided to try to sell the back property off to her neighbors. Only one person was interested. This time she didn't call on the neighbors but did it a different way. There was no mention of covenants from the City Engineer or Harry Gray, her engineer, when she submitted the application. He noted that there seems to be no fairness and justice if the City does not enforce covenants but the courts do. This leads her to believe that the only time they are enforced is when someone goes to court to see that they are enforced. She noted that, in her best interest, she is requesting approval of this. However, if this is approved tonight, and the neighbors want to buy her land, she would just as soon Bell to them as anyone else. She added that up to now, the neighbors have enjoyed all of this greenery, birds, trees at no expense to them. Chairman Hanna stated that he understands what Mr. Malone is saying because he has owned some older lots in Fayetteville. There is a lot of property in Fayetteville with legal descriptions as part of certain lots. He noted that Mrs. Gladney's lots are landlocked. His feeling on this is that the Planning Commission consider tabling these two items until the next meeting, so that the neighbors will have a chance to possibly work out a sale with Mrs. Gladney before she goes to all this trouble and expense. Commissioner Springborn stated that the situation relative to the covenants is something that the Planning Commission should not have to address. It seems to him that they aren't dealing with anything except a large piece of property that seems logically to fall in the category of a reasonable lot split. If there is a possibility that the owners out there can resolve it some other way, he has no objections to tabling it. Commissioner Nickle stated that he has a problem with the amount of opposition among the neighbors in approving this as a reasonable tandem lot split. Tabling it might give them some time to work it out. Mrs. Gladney stated that Mr. Malone and another neighbor came to see her yesterday and stated that they would like to buy the land in back of their properties. She asked if any of the other neighbors would like to buy the land in back of them. Several persons in the audience indicated that they would be interested in discussing that possibility. MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to table agenda items 6 & 7 until the next meeting, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 6-0-1 with Springborn, Hanna, Tarvin, Klingaman, Cato, & Nickle voting "yes" and Allred "abstaining". Chairman Hanna stated that he would hope that the neighbors opposed to this lot split would contact Mrs. Gladney and discuss a possible purchase of the property. WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS 1 & 2 ASKEW ENTERPRISES - 1399 NORTH COLLEGE AVE(EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CTR The eighth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot splits 1 & 2 submitted by Askew Enterprises and represented by Jim Cramer of C & F Surveyors for property located at 1399 North College Avenue(Evelyn Hills Shopping Center). The property ie zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-1, /3,Q • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 7 Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that they are proposing to split this into three lots with the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center on one lot, one lot with frontage on both Abshire and Hillcrest, and the other lot with frontage on Hillcrest. He noted that the staff recommends approval of the two splits subject to the construction of a sidewalk along the length of the two smaller lots along Hillcrest. Commissioner Nickle that they had discussed earlier a water line for the City that is planned along the east side of the lot behind tract A to provide for fire protection in the shopping center. Mr. Bunn noted that it doesn't present a problem for them. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Jim Cramer of C & F Surveyors stated that Woodcrest Avenue is included within tract A. Mr. Bunn stated that he isn't sure whether it is a street or a private drive, but he doesn't think the City maintains it. Chairman Hanna noted that it looks like it is part of the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. Commissioner Klingaman stated that, when this is subdivided, it will be part of tract A and not part of the shopping center, which means their back entrance would be owned by someone else. It could either be dedicated to the City or included with the shopping center legal description. Chairman Hanna stated that they would certainly want whoever owns Evelyn Hills to have the responsibility of maintaining it because whoever buys tract A to the north would certainly not want to maintain the road in Evelyn Hills. In answer to a question from Commissioner Nickle, the representative of Askew Enterprises stated that they would have no problem taking the access drive out of that tract. He noted that the only reason he is hesitating is that he has the shopping center under contract and will have to change the legal description in the contract. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to grant the legal description on Woodcrest seconded by Klingaman. The motion these lot splits subject to the revision of Drive as discussed and the staff's comments, passed 7-0-0. WAIVER OF SCREENING REQUIREMENTS SEQUOYAH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH - 1910 OLD WIRE ROAD The ninth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the screening requirements submitted by Sequoyah United Methodist Church for property located at 1910 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the history of this goes back to the summer of 1986 when the church first went through the Plat Review process. He added that the staff report gives all the background. This has been a very confusing and convoluted history of the City's attempt to enforce the screening regulations and the surfacing of the parking lot with the church. The situation now is that the City, the church, and Curt Nebben, their attorney, have pretty much ironed out all of these problems. What they are now requesting is a waiver of the screening requirements. The screening is required under the ordinance on both the north side and the south sides of the church. The north side of the church adjoins the property owned by Joe Kelly. Mr. Kelly has stated to the staff that he became frustrated in the fact that no screening had been provided since 1986, so he put up the fence between him and the church in 1989. He has stated that he asked the church to help pay for that, but the church declined. Mr. Merrell advised that the church did eventually plant some /3/ Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 8 small shrubs along that property line, but they are a far cry from the language of view -obscuring which is required by the ordinance. On the south side, the church adjoins the single-family residence of Mrs. Blackledge(the oldest member of the church). She is an elderly lady who has asked the church not to put up screening along her property. Her explanation was that she had fallen in her yard and someone from the church was able to observe her and give her some immediate assistance. Mr. Nebben has indicated that the church will install some shrubbery that meets the terms of the ordinance this fall. He has also given assurance on behalf of the church that the parking lot will be paved at the end of the construction activity on the addition being constructed behind the church. Therefore, the only thing left is the issue of the screening along the south property line for which the church is seeking a waiver. The staff has offered a compromise position which is to stay the screening requirements and any enforcement action of any type as long as Mrs. Blackledge is alive. At that time, the church would be required to install the screening under the ordinance. Mr. Merrell stated that, if the Planning Commission grant the waiver instead, the ordinance still requires that landscaping be planted along 10% of that area. And, the staff feels that could be done without representing any problems with Mrs. Blackledge as far as visibility. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he doesn't recall seeing any screening at several churches around town. He asked what makes this church situation unique. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff is aware that a couple of other churches have slipped through the cracks and are researching them. He added that this church situation came up, because it is in a high visibility area and an adjacent property owner has complained to the staff. Curtis Nebben, representative and member of the church, stated that he has a letter from Mrs. Blackledge and her daughter, Louise Brooks. Mrs. Blackledge does not want screening between her and the church. Upon Mrs. Blackledge's death, the property passes to her daughter, Louise Brooks. The plan in the family is that Mrs. Brooks daughter, Paula Lee, and her husband will occupy the house on the passing of Mrs. Blackledge. Mrs. Brooke stated that she would not mind fencing or shrubbery screening from her carport(the carport is approximately 10' to 15' past the rear of the house) to the back of her lot. He noted that it is a valid point that although Mrs. Blackledge and Mrs. Brooks may not necessarily want screening, a subsequent property owner might. He advised that there is minimal use of the church throughout the week. The church would prefer a waiver rather than the compromise presented by the staff. However, they would prefer installing shrubbery if the screening isn't waived for the following reasons: 1) The property will pass to the family after Mrs. Blackledge passes on which will give the shrubbery time to fill out and grow with the subsequent owner. 2) Fencing is very expensive. Commissioner Tarvin asked what the church's objection has been to doing what the City requested. Mr. Nebben stated that he didn't know all of the history, but cost has been one objective. There has been a dispute with Mr. Kelly on the north side screening which dates back to when Mr. Kelly wanted them to purchase his land and they refused. He advised that they have a contract with McClinton - Anchor to pave the north church parking lot when the new addition is finished. In answer to a question from Mr. Merrell, Mr. Nebben stated that they plan to use the same paving as was used on the south parking lot (hot mix). Mr. Merrell noted that their projected completion date is in early December, which is right on the border line of the paving season weatherwise. He asked them to keep this in mind. Chairman Hanna advised that he went out to the site and was shown a five -acre park that the church maintains behind the church. He added that it is his understanding it is open to the public for soccer games, etc. Mr. Nebben stated • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 9 that it is open to the public, although there isn't any organized league. Chairman Hanna stated that he also observed a white fence from Mrs. Blackledge's carport to the street which may be one of the reasons she doesn't want screening. Mr. Allred stated that apparently this property borders on the cemetery on the rear and to undeveloped land on the north and south. He noted that, if there are no developments back there, what is the need for screening at this point. He noted that it seems redundant from an overview to require screening when there isn't anything to be screened. Mr. Merrell advised that is one of the type of things the Commission has to keep in mind when they consider a waiver request. He noted that this is not a densely developed area and some of that property may never be developed, but what the staff is trying to convey is the zoning ordinance has to be enforced. Commissioner Springborn stated that the ordinances are generally designed to protect someone or to assure them protection if they want it. It seems to him that screening as a requirement without any need doesn't seem to require any action by the Planning Commission. If the adjacent property owners want the screening, it would seem that they ought to have it. However, if neither of them wants it, it seems sort of moot. In answer to a question from Commissioner Nickle, Mr. Merrell stated that screening is not required between a subdivision development of single-family homes and adjacent residential. Commissioner Nickle noted that, if they approve a waiver of this, they will be putting themselves into a position of being asked to grant other waivers later on. Commissioner Allred asked if they could grant this waiver contingent on it being re-evaluated should a development take place abutting any of this property. Mr. Merrell noted that the Commission would have the authority to do that. However, the staff would be hesitate to recommend it, because it would prevent them from closing out the file, which is an administrative headache. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Merrell stated that the staff would intervene whether or not there was a complaint from a citizen, if they felt there was a violation. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that the property owner on the north side is the only one that has complained. He added that the ordinance requires "A view -obscuring fence or view -obscuring vegetation, or a combination of the two, shall be required between R-1 zones and all nonresidential uses (including access drives and parking lots with six(6) or more cars accessory to any use) and between any commercial or industrial use and adjacent R-2, R-3, or R -O zones." Commissioner Klingaman observed that he doesn't remember a church in town that is screened, and he doesn't see anything wrong with the openness of a church. Mr. Merrell advised that the vast majority of the churches in Fayetteville were built before this ordinance was passed. However, the staff is still under the gun as far as what the ordinance requires. An argument could be made that this ordinance primarily addresses commercial and industrial uses, but it doesn't exclude churches or other community-based activity. Therefore, the staff has interpreted it to mean churches in addition to businesses. • • • Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 10 MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to require a screening(fence or vegetation) from the carport storeroom on to the back of the property and to grant a waiver of the screening to the front of the lot, seconded by Klingaman. The motion failed 2-5- 0 with Klingaman & Nickle voting "yes' and Allred, Springborn, Hanna, Tarvin, & Cato voting "no" MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to take no action on this application and leave it open for any adjacent property owner to come to the Planning Commission and require enforcement of the screening ordinance. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff has to either enforce or not enforce the ordinance. Although the desires of a neighboring property are certainly important, they don't want to get into a position where they can't enforce ordinances without approval of the neighbors. He reiterated that the staff's position is either to grant the waiver or enforce the ordinance. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Merrell stated that they wouldn't be inspecting all of the churches in the City to see if they are in compliance, because most of the churches were built before this ordinance was passed. However, the staff is aware of at least two other churches that they are checking into right now. Commissioner Springborn withdrew his motion. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to grant the waiver of the screening requirement until such time as the property changes hands (excluding the inheritance) at which time the waiver reverts back to the City for reconsideration, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 7-0-0. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he doesn't think that as a community a lot of people would be in favor of wholesale screening of churches. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff will look closely at this in the future in terms of an amendment to the zoning ordinance and possibly find a way to treat churches a little bit differently. DISCUSSION OF THE GREENSPACE ORDINANCE John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that there are some members of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board present. Rodney Ryan(Chairman) and staff persona, Connie Edmonston and Dale Clark. He advised that the greenspace ordinance for the City was passed in the early 80's. It was a means for property to be developed in the City without creating an undue demand on the parks system. When property is subdivided, land is dedicated for the purposes of a park or a fee is paid in lieu of the land dedication. There has been approximately $120,000 collected over the past nine years. A little over $40,000 is still payable, but not yet received. The money has been used for a variety of purposes and has averaged out to about $17,000 per year. The problem is that this program will expire on December 31st of this year unless this ordinance to extend the program is adopted by the Board. Since the Planning Commission is involved in development of land in the City, the staff felt that they should have a chance to give input. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Merrell stated that the greenspace requirement was originally set up to expire in ten years. He added that his understanding is that the ordinance was challenged in court several years ago and amended to provide a deadline to prevent a situation where the City would sit on the money forever. i32 s. s Planning Commission October 22, 1990 Page 11 Rodney Ryan stated that the ordinance was not intended for money to be collected from now on and never spent. Therefore, the ten year period was put in so that the money collected would be spent within that ten year time frame. He advised that they have been able to do a number of things with the greenspace money that they could not have done otherwise. There are a number of projects underway currently. He noted that they would like the ordinance to be extended for a three year period of time. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Connie Edmonston stated that it is set up so that the time period will relapse every three years and keep rolling over to be automatically extended. Mr. Merrell advised that they would like the Planning Commission to look at the ordinance(attached to the agenda) and consider what recommendations they would like to make to the Board of Directors. He noted that this is a very innovative and successful program on the part of the City. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has done a great job in overseeing this program. The funds that are generated through this program help to contribute to the recreational needs of the citizens without them coming directly out of the pockets of the average tax payer in the City. Mr. Ryan noted that the money collected is spent in the quadrant of the City where the development is taking place. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Ms. Edmonston stated that the money collected from 1980 until January 1, 1990 must be expended by the end of this year. MOTION Commissioner Allred moved to recommend approval of this ordinance to the City Board of Directors, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 7-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.