Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-11-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, November 13, 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.E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Jett Cato, Gerald Klingaman, Joe Tarvin, Charles Nickle, Jack Cleghorn and Jana Lynn Britton OTHERS PRESENT: John Merrell, Don Bunn, Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of regular Planning Commission meeting of October 22nd were approved with one correction. Commissioner Springborn advised that at the top of Page 4 in the first paragraph, it should read "Mr. Bunn advised that the staff would accept to 70' frontages as being appropriate for off-site improvements". Chairman Hanna advised that items 7 & 8 which are a conditional use for a tandem lot and lot split for property on Ash Street owned by Mary Frances Gladney were tabled at the last meeting so that the neighbors and Mrs. Gladney could work out a possible purchase for the property. Mrs. Gladney has requested that it be left on the table. Unless, there is someone in the audience that is opposed to that, they are going to leave these items on the table and not discuss them tonight. Also, item 12 is a lot split submitted by Bill Cleveland for property located on Hope Street. Mr. Cleveland is out of town and has requested that his item be tabled. If no one has any objections, it will be tabled as well. There being no opposition, Chairman Hanna advised that items 7,8, & 12 will not be discussed at this meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING PETITION tR90-30 CECIL ALDERSON - 4458 E HUNTSVILLE RD The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for rezoning petition #R90-30 submitted by Cecil Alderson for property located at 4458 East Huntsville Road containing 1 acre more or less. The request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this property was annexed into the City several years ago and came into the City as A-1 property. However, the historical use of this building has always been commercial. Currently, it is a video store and has been since the mid 1980's. The staff is recommending approval of this rezoning. However, the staff feels that the City should be very careful granting rezonings on Huntsville Road to avoid spot and strip rezoning°. He added that there is a requirement in the zoning ordinance for buffering between the store and the residential property on the eastern side. Chairman Hanna clarified that the owner's purpose for this rezoning request is to be allowed to expand his video business. Mr. Merrell concurred and stated that Mr. Alderson had recently submitted a building permit application to expand his business and the staff was unable to approve it because of the present A-1 zoning. /33 • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 2 Cecil Alderson was present and stated that his building is "L" shaped and he wants to add to it to make it square. He noted that the new expansion will be 400 square feet and will not be visible from the street. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to recommend approval of this rezoning request from A-1 to C-1, seconded by Cleghorn. The motion passed 9-0-0. Chairman Hanna advised that this rezoning petition will be going on to the Board of Directors for review. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DOUBLE SPRINGS ESTATES STEVE & DONNA COMBS - W OF DOUBLE SPS, S OF WEDINGTON DR The third item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Double Springs Estates submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Steve & Donna Combs. The property is located on the west side of Double Springs Road, south of Wedington Drive outside of the City Limits. It contains ten acres with four proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no significant problems identified at the Plat Review meeting or at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The utility companies did request that the 25' area designated as a building setback also be designated as a utility easement. This was agreed to and the staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Commissioner Tarvin stated that the Subdivision Committee concurs with the staff report and recommends approval. Mel Milholland, representing the owner, concurred with the staff's recommendations. There was no one else wanting to speak to this. MOTION Commissioner Nickle moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff comments and Plat Review & Subdivision Committee comments, seconded by Tarvin. The motion passed 2-0-0. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LEVERETT TERRACE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ROBERT WHITFIELD - N OF POPLAR DR, E OF LEVERETT AVE The fourth item was a preliminary plat of Leverett Terrace Townhouse Development submitted by Robert Whitfield and represented by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates for property located on the north side of Poplar Street and east of Leverett Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, containing 5.29 acres with 32 proposed lots. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there are actually 64 units proposed which are townhouses. Most of them will be joined, but they are single-family units and will be sold individually. There are two lots which do not have the proper frontage and he had suggested that might be solved by declaring this a Planned Unit Development. However, it doesn't meet the Planned Unit Development regulations in other ways. Therefore, the proposal is to present lots 32A & B as tandem lots with a 50' access to Van Gogh Drive with a single driveway going back to those two units. Also, Poplar Street is scheduled to be improved within the next five years and the staff requested that a cash contribution be made to the City for the off-site improvements. The amount would be equal to the cost of one-half of a residential street. The staff's recommendation is to /3y • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 3 approve the townhouse project subject to the Plat Review and Subdivision Committee comments; subsequent approval of water, sewer, streets, & drainage plans; construction of sidewalks; off-site improvements; payment of the parks fees; and the approval of lots 32A & B as tandem lots. Commissioner Tarvin stated that the Subdivision Committee concurs with the staff on their recommendation. Chairman Hanna pointed out that this is similar to the same type development on the corner of Garland & Sycamore. It falls under the category of the affordable housing that the Chamber of Commerce and others have been looking into for Fayetteville. Dave Jorgensen, representing the developer, stated that this is very similar to the project that Mr. Whitfield did earlier on the corner of Garland and Sycamore Street. It is an attractive, affordable housing project. The developer has no problems with the staff's recommendation. They will provide the 25' access for each tandem lot. The only item they would like to discuss further is the payment for off-site improvements. Commissioner Britton asked how Lots 7A, BA, & 31A will be accessed. Robert Whitfield, owner/developer, stated that they will be accessed via the 50' wide private drive. He stated that the off-site improvements is the only issue they have. In talking with Mr. Bunn about this, they have mutually agreed to ask for a Planning Commission ruling on this issue. He explained that, in the past, they have done four affordable housing townhouse developments in Fayetteville. When the Planning Commission reviewed their last development, it was brought to his attention by one of the Commissioners that the Appleby Apartments on Gregg Avenue had not been required to improve the collector street, Gregg Avenue. This set a precedent that a developer would not be required to improve a street that was generally for the community's best interest. Subsequently, the Planning Commission ruled that Sycamore Street, also a collector street, would not be required to be improved by the developer. In this particular issue, Poplar Street faces the south side of this development. It is a 750' long collector street with two lanes. He requested that the Planning Commission continue this precedent and rule that the developer not be required to pay for the cost of improving the street. In the form of a compromise, they would certainly be agreeable to building a sidewalk and paying for the cost of a curb. But, they just don't want to be required to pay for building a public street. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Bunn stated that he hasn't gone back to look at. the Appleby Apartments project to determine what basis the Commission failed to require off-site improvements. As he recalls on Sycamore, the Planning Commission indicated that the additional easement granted was enough improvement there. He added that he can't verify that there has been a policy of not requiring off-site improvements on collectors. He noted that he wanted to make it clear that the staff is asking for improvements which would amount to half of a standard residential street and not half of a three -lane street. The staff is recommending a cash payment for the off-site improvements. Commissioner Springborn asked if this development has been looked at from the standpoint of traffic. Related to that, what is the potential for the number of cars that are going to access and use this street as a consequence of this development? Mr. Whitfield stated that the property is currently zoned R-2 which would permit development of up to 128 individual apartments. They propose, however, to build only 53 owner -occupied homes which they consider an improvement to the neighborhood. It is also an affordable housing project directed at young people and affordable for all age groups. Chairman Hanna asked what their plans are on the driveways on the lots facing Poplar Street. Mr. Whitfield stated that they engineered the driveways on Garland with turnarounds. He noted that no cars would be backing out onto • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 4 Poplar Street. Lots 16, 17, & 18 would have co -mingled driveways with parking in each garage. They feel that this is an improvement over the design that the Highway Department approved in the previous project. Don Bunn stated that the staff has not looked at the increased parking on Poplar that would be generated by this development. Commissioner Allred asked how they propose to handle the parking congestion on the lots that extend west from the cul-de-sac radius. Mr. Whitfield stated that their plot plans show parking in front of those units with enhanced driveways. Because of the student population, they have made arrangements for more than the required number of parking spaces. Commissioner Klingaman asked why lots 21 through 28 are only 30' wide. Mr. Whitfield stated that they have a house design that is 22' wide. By placing a firewall on one side, they can build on that side. Lots 21 through 28 are basically single-family houses sitting on one property line with a firewall. He noted that, in a townhouse development, they could actually join all of those with a fire wall at the property line of each proposed lot. There would be a zero sideyard lot line, but not on the perimeter. It would still have the standard 25' setback from dedicated public streets and from the perimeter of the development. Dave Jorgensen stated that he has been advised by Don Bunn that they need to request a waiver of the standard side setback requirements. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Jorgensen stated that they propose to have a pavement width of 25', but it may turn out that they need a 50' wide driveway leading back to the five lots. Mr. Whitfield stated that when they make an application for their building permits, they are required to present a plot plan which has the parking arrangement and will be reviewed at that time. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Jorgensen stated that this property isn't in the 100 year flood plain. He added that he did check drainage calculations and the water that passes through that creek will pass under the drainage structure that is on the street to the east (Chestnut) with the drainage culverts that are existing. He noted that they plan on improving the channel and cleaning it out so that it will drain better. Commissioner Britton stated that if the stream is changed so that it flows faster, then a bottleneck will be caused with a pool of water. Mr. Jorgensen stated that he took that into account and he still proposes that it will all go into the culvert He added that he did his calculations based on a 20 -year storm. Mr. Whitfield noted that they have owned the land for four years and there have been several high water times where they have experienced no problem with drainage. NOTION Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments and Plat Review & Subdivision Committee comments including the provision for off-site improvements which would be half of a standard two-lane street, seconded by Springborn and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman stated that he is concerned about the flood situation. He added that they have seen a lot of instances in the past few years where the 100 year flood plain has been met two or three times in ten years. He wonders if they are going to be putting a bunch of houses close together and creating some unnecessary problems. Commissioner Klingaman stated that they will be in a better position to tell more about it when the final plat is submitted. But, once this preliminary plat is approved, it comes in steps and usually goes on Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 5 through. Commissioner Britton stated that Leverett is a good example of when any time a half way decent rain comes, the whole street is a lake. She asked if the elevation of the street will remain the same after it is paved. Don Bunn stated that the drainage will be addressed when Poplar is improved. He noted that the elevation of the center line once it is paved should be about the same as it is right now. There will be storm drainage constructed along with the street to take care of the drainage. However, it may change by one-half of a foot. Mr. Jorgensen stated that it is correct that they will maintain the grading as it is now. The contours that are there now will be almost the same at the end of the project. They do have to submit detailed plans and specifications on the water, sewer, streets, and drainage to the City for approval. The motion passed 8-1-0 with Cato, Nickle, Hanna, Springborn, Tarvin, Allred, Cleghorn, & Britton voting "yes" and Klingaman voting "no". CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ANTIQUE AND FURNITURE STORE c DORWIN KILGORE - 525 MISSION BOULEVARD The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for an antique and furniture store submitted by Dorwin Kilgore for property located at 525 Mission Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the Kilgores were granted a conditional use earlier this year by the Planning Commission to utilize the northern half of that building for a commercial business. They are now requesting a conditional use to utilize the rest of the building for commercial purposes. In the staff report there is background information on the history behind this property. Basically it is an old commercial building which has been there for years. At various times, it has been put to a number of different uses. At certain times, it has been a legal non -conforming use; other times it. has not been. It is not that now, because the 120 day time period has expired. The staff has cited two sections of the zoning ordinance in the staff report that address this. This is an R-1 piece of property surrounded by R-1 zoning and R-1 land uses. Basically, the staff has quite a number of concerns on this with respect to traffic and parking. There are only about five available parking spaces on the property. The staff doesn't feel that the paved area directly in front of the building is a safe place to park, because there will be a situation where people are backing out into Mission Boulevard, which is a heavily traveled street. The site distance for traffic coming eastbound on Mission is fairly poor. The staff is certainly not opposed to this building being used for commercial purposes, but they are opposed to expanding the building into two different businesses. Commissioner Tarvin stated that this business was apparently brought in as a non- conforming use in 1970, when the zoning was passed. At that time, it was one building and one business. He clarified that the reason they are making this request on the southern portion of the building is because the time has elapsed. Mr. Merrell agreed. Chairman Hanna stated that the staff had indicated they had no objection to this being used as an antique shop previously, but they thought it might be too much to have it divided into two antique shops. He stated that antique stores are probably about the lowest traffic type business. He stated that he envisioned that if someone was shopping for antiques, they would park and go in both antique stores if this were divided into two. If the other side were a different type of business, there would be the potential for twice as much traffic. But with two antique shops, he has a problem seeing how that will increase the traffic. /3s • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Merrell stated that the staff took into consideration not only customer parking but employees as well. He noted that on -street parking is not allowed on Mission Boulevard. Commissioner Allred stated that, if they deny this request, the degeneration of that property might be more detrimental. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff has thought about this, but the owners do have other options, one being a single tenant in the building. In answer to a question from Commissioner Britton, Mr. Merrell stated that the conditional use that was granted earlier this year was for an antique business in the northern half of building. He added that it would be his opinion that they would need approval from the Commission, if they wanted to change the type of use. Commissioner Springborn stated that he uses that street an awful lot and he doesn't recall any problems with people backing out from this antique store and creating traffic hazards. He added that there are residences on that street where people do back out into the street, and he has encountered hazardous situations in those instances. Mr. Merrell clarified that the staff isn't necessarily opposed to an antique store in this building; they are simply opposed to expanding this building and having two businesses in there, when they don't know what impact it will have. Ms. Bryant advised that the adjacent property owners, the Meltons, did report that they had some traffic problems such as their cars being blocked in their driveway. Dorwin Kilgore advised that their potential tenant for the south side of the building plans to have an antique store which will only be open about three days per week. He added that this is about the best use he can come up with for the other side of the building. , He noted that he had tried to rent the whole building for some time, but couldn't. Therefore, he decided to make it into two spaces. Commissioner Britton asked if Mr. Kilgore had any objections for paying to have lines painted on the parking area so that it is defined and doesn't conflict with the neighbor's ingress and egress. Mr. Kilgore stated that he had no objection to that. There being no one else wanting to speak to this, it was closed to the Planning Commission. MOTION Commissioner Cato moved to approve the conditional use including the provision that the parking lot be striped, seconded by Britton and followed by a question. Commissioner Klingaman asked if this motion limits the use of this half of the building for an antique store only. Chairman Hanna answered, yes. The motion passed unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HOME OCCUPATION - CU90-25 CHRIST ON CAMPUS - 695 RAZORBACK ROAD The sixth item was a conditional use for a home occupation - CU90-25 submitted by Mike Armstrong on behalf of Christ on Campus for property located at 695 Razorback Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this conditional use request is to establish a church for the Christ on Campus program. He noted that /3� • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 7 Becky Bryant, in her report to the Planning Commission, noted several sections of zoning ordinance that pertain to this type of request. As the staff understands, the ministry would anticipate hosting about three meetings per week with about a dozen or so people attending each meeting. About 300 square feet would be used for offices in the building and the remaining square footage would be used basically as living space. Most of the surrounding land use is pretty much single-family residential. On the other side of Razorback Road is the university property. The staff would like to point out that Razorback Road has served as a natural boundary between the university and some of the residential uses on the other side of the road for many years. There are some items required by ordinance (See items 1 through 8 in the staff report) that the staff feels the applicant can't meet. There is a significant amount of neighborhood opposition on this item. There is a letter from Mrs. Swartz, a property owner in the area, and other neighboring property owners in opposition to this request. Chairman Hanna stated that Mrs. Swartz's letter indicates that she is under the impression that there is a requested rezoning, but it is actually a conditional use request. Commissioner Nickle stated that the staff has applied this to the home occupation ordinance. He asked if the basis for considering this as a home occupation and not as a conditional use is because of the two students living there. Mr. Merrell answered, yes. Chairman Hanna stated that he feels that it might be more appropriate to be listed as a conditional use for a church in an R-1 zone rather than conditional use for a home occupation. It seems more fitting that it be considered a ministry rather than an occupation. Commissioner Britton stated that with all of the office space, it seems more like a residential -office type situation to her. Mike Armstrong, representing Christ on Campus, stated that the reason they filed the conditional use they did is because the staff recommended it. He advised that there will not be church services on the property as such, but mostly office and small group meetings. Ther would be occasional gatherings larger than that. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Armstrong stated that as far as office space he is referring to offices that he would use for counseling and study and for teaching small groups. At times they would use some of the living space for small group meetings. He noted that the maximum number of people would be occasionally as many as forty for a dinner or a social gathering. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Armstrong stated that right now they hold their larger meetings on campus in university facilities which are more accessible to students. He added that they are sponsored by about 25 independent christian churches around the state of Arkansas. A local church would be Oak Manor Christian church in Fayetteville. In answer to a question from Commissioner Mickley Mr. Armstrong stated that the staff has stated that there are five or six parking spaces available. However, he thinks there are probably eight to ten on-site spaces. Also, being across from some of the university parking would alleviate parking problems. Also, some of the students involved are on -campus students who would walk. Commissioner Allred advised that he doesn't have much of a problem with the conditional use except for the fact that there will be groups of forty people on occasion. If it was just going to be used for their office and maybe five or six people, he doesn't think it would have a negative impact. Commissioner Springborn stated that there have been a number of questions trying to sort out the business from the ministry or church. It seems to him that Mr. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 8 Armstrong indicates that he regards it more of as a business than as a church. Mr. Armstrong stated that he would be using that location for business purposes as opposed to large assemblies of people for worship. Commissioner Klingaman asked him to equate it to some other type of off -campus religious group. Mr. Armstrong stated that it would be similar in usage to the Baptist Student Union although they don't deal with as many students. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Armstrong advised that the house is vacant currently and they would be purchasing it. As he understands, it has always been single-family occupancy. He advised that the organization also has a ministry at Arkansas State University and are loosely affiliated with about one hundred ministries across the country. Chairman Hanna stated that he thinks some of them are having a little problem understanding the business aspect of it. Mr. Armstrong stated that it is not a commercial business. They don't collect money for counseling or for their services at all. Chairman Hanna clarified that mainly they would be using this facility for individual counseling and possibly social gatherings occasionally. Commissioner Springborn stated that he is having a little trouble with some of these questions that seem to be directed at trying to interpret this as a church and yet the applicant stated that he regards it more as a place to conduct the business aspect of his ministry. Becky Bryant stated that they could look at it as a non-profit type of organization. She noted that they have to make a distinction between residential' uses and all other uses. Commissioner Tarvin stated that he can understand how a good number of students would probably walk to this. He noted that he doesn't in many instances understand the concern for parking because it always seems that if there is no place to park, no one will stop. He asked how often there would be groups of forty people there. Mr. Armstrong stated that it would be less than ten times per year. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Mr. Armstrong stated that they conduct the same type of operation at 608 Garland currently. He added that the house is smaller there with one student living in it, and the parking is comparable or a little less. They lease the property, and the owner has indicated that he plans to sell it at a future time. In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell stated that the other student ministries located on Maple Street are most likely there by conditional use or rezoning. Becky Bryant stated that Christ on Campus has a conditional use for their location on Garland, which is zoned R-3. Ray Guzman of 533 North Razorback Road stated that he and the other members of the community that he has talked with feel that this is an invasion or encroachment of what has clearly been a residential area up to this point in time. He noted that it is called a conditional use, but the church is buying the property which seems to be a more permanent change. They are concerned about the domino affect that approval of this might create. They also worry about the market value of their homes. He noted that they all purchased their homes in a clearly residential area and expected it to stay a residential area absent some compelling consideration. He noted that he has difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling circumstance arising in this particular situation. John Stevens spoke in support of this home being used for Christ on Campus. He noted that he has been associated with Christ on Campus and a lot of the concerns of the home owners are not that necessary. As far as parking, most people will • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 9 park on university parking and walk to the house since there is a tremendous amount of parking within walking distance to the home. He noted that this location is just right across the street from the University of Arkansas and there are other things on the west side of Razorback Road other than just homes. The resident at 621 North Razorback Road stated they bought their house five years ago because it is close to the university where her husband works and close to the school. She added that it is a residential area and they would like to see that it stay residential. The house in question has a large yard which would be changed into parking lot if this is approved. She noted that this is the only street around the university which is livable in some sense and is plainly residential. Gordon McNeil, who lives in the neighborhood, stated that they would like it to stay residential and they are concerned about the domino affect. More specifically, on the subject of parking, he feels that everyone is getting a false impression. There isn't room for the number of cars at this house that has been mentioned. Furthermore, it is a bad spot as far as traffic because people dodge the traffic lights by taking this route. He noted that he supports the opinion of the staff which raised a number of points in objection. Fred Saffir of 1404 West Cleveland stated that this is clearly residential property and he feels it should stay that way. James Dale of 648 Gray Avenue stated that he would like to back up the comments of others who are voicing opposition to this. He disagrees that this is a conditional use when the property is being purchased by the church. He added that they fought a situation similar to this in this general neighborhood years ago when a sorority wanted a rezoning north of Cleveland. The City approved it and the sorority was never built; now it is filled with apartments. Also, the university parking lot across from this is always full of cars. He noted that he hopes they vote against it to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. Cotton Presley of 1429 west Cleveland stated that he lives immediately to the west of this proposal and would probably be the most affected by it if proximity is a factor. As far as parking, cars park all up and down the streets during the ball games and he hasn't heard anyone complain about that. He would like to go on record that he would welcome Christ On Campus into their neighborhood. Jim Gibson, representing his mother-in-law whose property adjoins the property in question on the south, stated that they feel it would be detrimental to her best interest to have this conditional use approved. They feel that there would be a certain amount of noise pollution, air pollution, and problems with parking in the neighborhood. There being no one else wanting to speak to this, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Springborn stated that it is always hard to take a view against a church, but in this instance it seems that the residents in the area are an overriding concern. He tends to believe that this is more of a business than a ministry. NOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to deny this conditional use request, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 8-1-0 with Cato, Klingaman, Nickle, Hanna, Springborn, Allred, Cleghorn, & Britton voting "yes" and Tarvin voting "no". • • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 10 Chairman Hanna apologized for not introducing the newest member of the Planning Commission at the beginning of the meeting. He introduced and welcomed Jana Lynn Britton who is replacing J. David Ozment. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - TANDEM LOT CU90-26 & WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT - JUDY EOFF - 580 CREST AVENUE The ninth & tenth items on the agenda were a conditional use request for a tandem lot - CU90-26 and a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split submitted by Judy Eoff for property located at 580 Crest Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that this is lot 4 of the Crest Addition and contains approximately two acres. The proposal is to split just over 8/10ths of an acre off of the east side with a 25' access easement given off of the south side of lot 4 to serve as access. Water and sewer is available to the proposed tandem lot. Sewer may not be available by gravity depending on where the house will be located. However, it could be accessed with a grinder pump. The staff did not research the possibility that there may be a covenant within the subdivision that would prohibit the additional splitting of lots which has come up several times before. He noted that the City does not enforce subdivision covenants. It is the staff's recommendation that the tandem lot and lot split be approved. He advised that the only allowed use on a tandem lot is single- family residential. Kurt Butcher, representing the owner, stated that he wants to make it clear what they propose to do. They want to split the back portion of this lot off which adjoins her mother's property on the north and sell that to her mother. Her mother recently lost her husband and she wants to build a small single-family dwelling behind her daughter's house. The lot slopes to the back so the house would not be visible from the road. They are not proposing to build a nursing home or a residential care facility which has been rumored. The zoning makes it impossible. Judy Eoff stated that her mother would like to be in her own facility yet very close to her. They felt that under the circumstances, this would be the best possible solution for her situation for her mother to be independent. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Butcher stated that as far as the access drive into this. He asked what the terrain is like going up to Crest Drive. Mr. Butcher stated that the terrain is flat with a driveway entering and the additional drive required to get to the new structure would be off of the existing drive. Commissioner Britton stated that her information states that the driveway is proposed on the south side of the property which is opposite of the existing driveway. Mr. Butcher stated that the surveyor persuaded them to have that easement there, but it would actually be extended from the existing driveway back to her mother's structure. Ms. Eoff advised that there are some very destroy if they put the access on the south that they will do nothing to take away from an 1,800 square foot house. There may be a her down the road. old trees that they would have to side of the property. He advised the property values. They propose housekeeper or someone to live with Mr. Butcher stated that there are no protective covenants on Crest Drive on the lots adjacent to this. Commissioner Springborn stated that he is concerned about the trees on the access easement. It seems to him that it would be possible to develop an instrument that would give the tandem lot owner a right to use the existing driveway. This /37 • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 11 is not without considerable precedence within the City Limits. Ms. Eoff stated that she would like to use the existing driveway with a semi- circle in front of the house and then curve back on the right side -so as not to destroy the trees on the other side. Commissioner Britton stated that it makes sense to her to have the access on the south side of the property without any connection whatsoever with her house, because this property is going to go into someone else's hands at some point in time. Commissioner Allred asked if the 25' right-of-way dedicated would have to be developed now. Could they not use the other driveway until such time as it became necessary to develop this easement? Mr. Bunn advised that the intent of the ordinance is that the 25' be used as access. The 25' doesn't necessarily have to be adjacent to the property line and it doesn't have to be straight. Ms. Eoff advised that the south side access option would be available. In answer to a question from Commissioner Tarvin, Mr. Bunn stated that there is a provision in the ordinance for two principle residences on a piece of property. The condition is that it be built such that it could be split and still meet the applicable setbacks. It could be done with the understanding that if they ever wanted to sell it, the lot split and conditional use would have to be approved. Chairman Hanna asked Ms. Eoff if she had considered that. Ms. Eoff stated that she would like to have the right to split it. Commissioner Tarvin advised that the purpose of his question was to show that, if she already has the right to build the house, then why should they deny this request. Commissioner Allred stated that if they were both sold as a package, it wouldn't make any difference. Ms. Eoff stated that it would be very difficult and would limit her. Also, her mother has never rented and wants to own her own home. Mr. Butcher stated that, with all due respect, the City regulations require that a split be possible before a house be built. Steve Gunderson, representing Dr. Murray who has the lot immediately south of this, stated that Dr. Murray has a problem with this because a house being built back there would be visible to their house. They purchased the property with the intent that these pieces of property would not be any further developed. They are concerned about the property values decreasing. Someday the house in the back may be a rent house which would destroy the whole characteristic of that neighborhood. They are concerned about more traffic on that street. The projections of a south side drive would have a tremendous impact on the Murray's property because that drive would have to go almost right down their property line. Me. Eoff pointed out this is an economical issue for them. In terms of the Murray's, as she understands it they don't even live on the property. In terms of the driveway, the distance between their houses is substantial so she doesn't' think it would make much of an impact. Boyd Cox of 545 Crest stated that he is interested in the preservation of the integrity of the neighborhood. There are a number of large lots in the neighborhood which would be impacted by a lot split of this type. With regard to this property, if one lot split is granted, there may be other requests. Putting houses behind houses along that street would completely destroy the integrity of that neighborhood. He noted that he has no objection to them building a guest house for a relative, but splitting off a lot to sell is what he is opposed to. • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 12 The resident of 625 Crest Drive stated that there weren't any covenants put on the subject property, but there is a covenant that no other residences be developed on the property on Crest Drive where his property is and Mrs. J.W. Eoff's property is. He noted that he understands that this would have to be defended in court He and others in the neighborhood are opposed to this request. He advised that Dr. C.R. Magnus and Thomas McNair weren't able to be present, but they are opposed to it. Betsy Cole of 520 Crest Drive stated that she is opposed to this lot split request. If they would like to build a cottage for her mother without splitting the lot, she could live with that. She noted that she is opposed to the drive being on the south side also. Mr. Butcher reiterated that they have no plans for any type of commercial usage here. He noted that several people have stated that they have no objections to a cottage being built, but they are opposed to a lot split which would render the whole property unmarketable. As far as covenants, Greer Abstract has assured him that there are no covenants or restrictions on Crest Drive. There are no plans at this time to do anything but build a house for her mother. The driveway issue is an open option. Mr. Bunn emphasized that the ordinance does allow for a second principle residence on a lot. The requirement is that it be placed as though it were on an individual lot and the City would be bound to issue a building permit as long as it were possible to split the lot. In this case, a conditional use for a tandem lot would have to be approved before they could sell off the lot. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Springborn stated that he was assigned to the Elderly Housing Committee for this Commission a few years ago and he looked into some of these things. As he recollects, the ordinance is as Mr. Bunn has stated. Commissioner Tarvin asked if it would be possible to approve a lot split and tandem lot conditioned on tying the two properties together so that they would always remain under one ownership. Mr. Bunn stated that he didn't think they would have any control over that once the property is split and put on two separate deeds. Chairman Hanna stated that he is concerned of the possibility brought up by Mr. Cox. They don't have a layout which shows the number of lots on Crest Drive that would be impacted by this. But, once a tandem lot is allowed, the potential has been created to either double or triple the number of houses on Crest Drive. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that what he is hearing is that the neighborhood doesn't object to Ms. Eoff building another house for her mother, they just don't want the property split up. Therefore, the solution is there because they could go ahead and built the house now. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to deny this conditional use and lot split request, seconded by Cato. The motion passed 8-1-0 with Cato, tackle, Hanna, Springborn, Tarvin, Allred, Cleghorn, & Britton voting "yes" and Klingaman voting "no". WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 ROBERT MERRY -SHIP - 708 MISSION BOULEVARD The eleventh item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1 submitted by Robert Merry -ship for property located at 708 Mission /3$ • • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 13 Boulevard and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Don Bunn, City Engineer, advised that the total property contains .47 acres. After the split, Tract A would contain .26 acre and Tract B would contain .21 acres. There is an existing house on the property which would be on Tract B after the split. This property fronts on two different streets, Mission and Fallin. He noted that sewer would be available near the southeast corner of Tract B, however, the sewer at that point is higher than the lot so a grinder pump would be necessary to utilize it. The staff has discussed with the applicant the option of obtaining sewer from another direction. Although it may be a little difficult to get to, it can be done. It is the staff's understanding that there is a property line dispute on the north side of the property and there is a difference in opinion about how much property that dispute involves. It is possible that if as much as 15' of that property on the north side actually went to the property to the north, the split would not meet the minimum lot size requirements set by the zoning ordinance. The staff recommends approval of this lot split subject to: 1) the accuracy of the survey, 2) the provision of sewer to Tract B in some fashion, 3) the granting of an additional 5' of right-of-way on Fallin Avenue, 4) the payment of the parks fee, and 5) construction of a sidewalk along Mission Boulevard. Rob Merry -Ship stated that their is a ditch shown on the survey which is 9' from the north property line. The neighbor property owners to the north are saying that this ditch is the property line. There is a discrepancy in the two deeds of this property and the property to the north. The neighbor's deed shows 142.4' and his deed shows 133.33'. He advised that his deed precedes the neighbor's deed by eight years and they do have warranty deed title insurance. Therefore, he doesn't feel that they have a problem. Also, even if the 9' along the north side went to the neighbors to the north, they would still be able to meet the minimum lot size requirements of 8,000 square feet. As far as the sewer, the Assistant City Engineer has stated that the City is in the process of putting an 8" line vs. a 4" line all along Mission Boulevard so he could grant an easement to that line instead of having to go uphill. He questioned whether a sidewalk would be needed on the east side of Mission Boulevard since there is an existing sidewalk on the west side of Mission. Mr. Bunn advised that the Master Sidewalk Plan requires a sidewalk on both sides of Mission. Therefore, a sidewalk will need to be constructed on the east side along this property. Mr. Merry -Ship advised that they don't have a problem with granting the additional right-of-way. In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Merry -Ship stated that these lots would be comparable in size to a lot of the lots around them. There are two houses on either side which would be deeper. This lot which is in the middle of two large lots surrounding Fallin on the back side. There are comparable lots on the west corner have been built on recently. He added that the proposed house on the new lot would only be about 1,200 square feet. In answer to a question from Commissioner Sickle, Mr. Merry -Ship stated that he has talked to few of the neighbors about what they are proposing. He added that his understanding was that if anything was going to be done about the discrepancy in the property line, it would be done before this meeting. Bronson Abstract and the Title Company are going to back up his abstract which is what the survey is based on. In answer to a questions from Chairman Hanna and Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Bunn advised that the City doesn't have any plans to upgrade that Fallin Street except possibly to chip and seal. He stated that in the past the staff has not recommended off-site improvements for single lot splits. In a case where three splits are requested creating four lots, the staff has required off-site improvements just as if it were a subdivision. It could be required on all lot • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 14 splits, but the City hasn't chosen to request it on single lot splits. Commissioner Britton stated that she had driven by this property and noticed that the houses on the properties to the north and to the south both set back further from Mission Boulevard than this one. She feels this lot split would compromise the integrity of that block. Mr. Merry -ship stated that the proposed house would not be obstructing the view of the existing houses. MOTION Commissioner Cleghorn moved to approve the lot split subject to the staff's recommendation and to each lot meeting the 8,000 square feet requirement after the property line discrepancy is resolved, seconded by Allred and followed by discussion. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cato, Becky Bryant(Associate Planner) advised that the Code doesn't require that the adjoining property owners be notified with lot split applications. Therefore, the only notification they would get would be in the agenda notice in the newspaper. A sign on the property would not be required unless it was a tandem lot request. The motion passed 8-1-0 with Hanna, Tarvin, Cato, Nickle, Allred, Springborn, Klingaman, & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Britton voting "no". REVERSIONARY REZONING R90-1 FRANK KRUPA & FRANK LYNCH - W OF SHILOH, N OF OLD FARMINGTON RD The thirteenth item on the agenda was a reversionary rezoning of R90-1 which was originally submitted by Frank Krupa & Frank Lynch and represented by Dale Benedict of Bio -tech, Inc. for property located west of Shiloh Drive and north of Old Farmington Road. The request was to revert zoning back to R-2, Medium Density Residential from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the original request was to rezone this property from R-2 to C-2 by Bio -tech so that they could relocate their plant on the property. It was twice denied by the Planning Commission and twice appealed to the City Board of Directors who ultimately voted to rezone the property subject to a bill of assurance. One provision in that bill of assurance was that the property would revert back to R-2 zoning if construction of the Bio- tech facility at this location did not begin within 6 months from the date of approval. Obviously, that has not happened and the staff feels that there is no alternative but to bring it back to the Planning Commission and recommend that the property revert back to R-2. In answer to a question from Chairman Hanna, Becky Bryant stated that Mr. & Mrs. Dale Benedict purchased the property from Krupa & Lynch. However, they bought the Cotner Vineyard property later where they plan to place their facility. She stated that the Benedicts were notified of this proposal to have the rezoning revert back. She noted that the staff didn't send a letter, but had telephone conversations with them regarding this. Commissioner Nickle advised that this is the property on which there was a water supply issue. Bio -tech had proposed to drill a well instead of going to the expense of extending the city water to the property. However, they wouldn't have been able to provide the required fire hydrant for fire protection. This issue is probably the reason why they did not follow through on their plan to develop a facility at this location. There being no one in the audience who wanted to address this issue, the public 137 • • 1 Planning Commission November 13, 1990 Page 15 hearing was closed. MOTION Commissioner Klingaman moved to to revert back to R-2 zoning as executed when a rezoning to C-2 passed 9-0-0. request that the City Board allow this property provided for in the bill of assurance that was was approved, seconded by Nickle. The motion OTHER BUSINESS John Merrell stated that it has been the tradition to hold only one Planning Commission meeting in December. He asked if the Commission wanted to hold true to that tradition this year. The consensus was to only have one meeting in December. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.