Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-11 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 11, 1992 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Jana Lynn Britton, Tom Suchecki, Chuck Nickle, Joe Tarvin, Jett Cato, Kenneth Pummill J. E. Springborn, and Jerry Allred OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others MINUTES The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 27, 1992 were approved as distributed. PUBLIC REHEARING - REZONING R92-1 RICHARD MAYES - 1641 N LEVERETT The next item on the agenda was a rehearing of Rezoning Request R92-1 submitted by Lamar Pettus on behalf of Richard Mayes for property located at the southwest corner of Leverett and Sycamore (1641 N. Leverett). The request is to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Little explained the petition for rezoning the subject property had been heard on January 27, 1992 and had been approved by the Planning Commission subject to the voluntary offering of a Bill of Assurances that the buildings which would be constructed would uphold the present character of the neighborhood by continuing the use of the property as an automotive repair shop (the same use as currently existed as a nonconforming use). She further explained that, since the earlier hearing, the petitioners had expressed some concern over any conditions which would be imposed by offering a Bill of Assurance and now wished to have the property rezoned to C-2 with no additional conditions. She noted the petitioner had not decided what the property would be used for if it was rezoned. Ms. Little stated that, should the property be zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, without any conditions, any business - including hotels, restaurants, shopping centers, etc. - would be allowed. She explained the area, for the past 22 years, had remained residential in character. She also noted the opposing corner was zoned commercial but had not developed. She pointed out that need for additional commercial property was not substantiated. She explained staff had not found that the character of the existing neighborhood would be preserved by the imposition of C-2 zoning and therefore recommended against the requested rezoning. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little stated she did not know whether the property was in the city limits when the business originally started. She further explained that in 1970 the business became a non -conforming use when the property was rezoned. She stated that, with a non -conforming use property, if anything happened to change the business or the building was destroyed over 50%, the business owners were not allowed to continue that use. Mr. Tarvin asked whether the city compensated the Mayes for the change of zoning in 1970. • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 2 Ms. Little stated the city had not done so nor was it normal for the city to do so. Mr. Tarvin asked how much of the lot on the corner would be left after the city took its right-of-way. Ms. Little stated she believed approximately 60% of the lot would be left. She pointed out they would be losing over 50% of the business so they would no longer be a non -conforming use and they would not be able to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Lamar Pettus appeared before the Board and stated that, if the city were do to a major rezoning like they had done in 1970, the Mayes would have been entitled to compensation. He stated the area had not always been a residential area but had originally been an industrial area and the residences had encroached into that area due to the rezoning in 1970. He stated Mr. Mayes did not have a problem with limited restrictions on the property, but he did not want to be so limited on his property that he would have problems selling it at a future time. Mr. Pettus stated the fact that, if the City decided to widen the street and take the easements on the south side of the existing highway, Mr. Mayes wanted them pay for his property and his business now. He explained Mr. Mayes could not rebuild on the subject property and could not relocate. He stated Mr. Mayes was very limited on what he could do with the property. He explained that was why Mr. Mayes was opposed to restrictions requested by the Planning Commission. He noted the business had been there for 40 years and was part of the neighborhood. He stated they were just asking that the applicant be allowed to continue his business and, at some future date, be allowed to sell the property for a fair value. Mr. Nickle stated that, as he recalled the previous meeting in January, Mr. Mayes had been agreeable to the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Mayes stated he would be reluctant to rebuild his business with the requested assurances. Mr. Gary King, owner of 1637 N. Leverett, expressed his concern regarding the rezoning. He asked if the property located at 1639 was also included in the rezoning. Ms. Little stated it was included. Mr. King stated both houses (the one at 1637 and the one at 1639) and the business were built in the late 1940's. He asked if all general commercial establishments were allowed in C-2. He asked what would happen to the residential properties in the area should they grant the C-2 zoning. He asked where the line would be drawn to stop commercialization. Mr. Nickle stated all general commercial establishments would be allowed if the property were rezoned to C-2. He stated he could not speculate about other commercial properties in the area. He further explained each individual case came before staff and staff made their recommendations per individual case. Mr. King asked if they had a land use plan that was used to make such recommendations. Mr. Nickle stated staff did have a land use plan that they used as a guide. G9 • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 3 Me. Little stated the land use plan showed R-2 zoning. Mr. King stated he and his family were still opposed to the rezoning as they were in January. He expressed his belief that a change in the zoning would impact the entire neighborhood by expanding commercial zoning in the neighborhood. He stated he did not believe the rezoning was justified. Mr. Allred stated that Sycamore would become four -lane when it was extended. He asked if staff believed the area would develop as a commercial area with the new land use plan. Ms. Little stated there was some R-3 in the area and she believed the area would remain a residential area. Mr. Allred noted they needed to give some consideration to the corner areas since there would be a four -lane street. Ms. Little explained that at the completion of the land use plan there would be a new zoning ordinance. She further explained that they would be looking at future zoning at that time. She suggested that, rather than attempting to look at trends on an area by area basis, they look at it in its entirety at the time of the new zoning ordinance. Ms. Britton stated she did not see this area as a thoroughfare but as a neighborhood. She asked if at some near future time it could become thoroughfare commercial. Ms. Little stated she believed it would remain a neighborhood or neighborhood commercial before developing into thoroughfare commercial. Mr. Springborn stated this matter supported his efforts to accelerate action for a new land use plan which was scheduled for March of next year. He stated to conjecture without having such a plan was putting too much of a burden on the Planning Director. He stated they had been hard pressed to make decisions in cases like the subject one for several years without the plan. He stated he would make a motion to table the matter at this point until a new land use plan was complete and they could use it for reference. He noted the applicant could then come forward at any time and request that the case be taken off the table. He explained that at the rate the construction of new streets moved forward, he believed they could wait until March without causing any problem. In response to a question from Mr. Cleghorn, Mr. Pettus expressed his belief that a six month delay would not harm them. He pointed out it would keep his clients from making any plans for six months. He noted that should the Commission table the request, his clients could come back if the delay was too long. Mr. Bunn expressed his belief that Sycamore would not be widened within the next year. Mr. Tarvin asked if the city would acquire right-of-way within the next year and, if so, would Mr. Mayes have to vacate the property. Mr. Bunn stated he was not sure when acquisition of the right-of-way would begin. He explained the city had started negotiations with Mr. Mayes early because he had contacted the City. He noted this was ahead of the time the city would normally require right-of-way. He stated he believed it was due to Mr. Mayes' desire to do some planning. Mr. Tarvin asked if the right-of-way was acquired and Mr. Mayes was paid, would he be able to stay on the property until the rezoning was decided. 10 • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Bunn explained that would depend on the results of the negotiation. He further explained it could be a case where they allowed Mr. Mayes to stay on the premises until they required the property. He stated he had not been in on the negotiations for the right-of-way. Mr. Pettus stated it was his understanding the delay was due to funding problems. He stated he could discuss with his client how the delay would affect them and then contact the city with their position. Mr. Bunn stated the delay on release of funds would not directly affect the Sycamore Street project except they might have to delay purchase of right-of-way until funds were available. Ms. Little stated she had talked with the land agent regarding the acquisition schedule and it had been his understanding that the Mayes wanted completion of the project. She explained that was why the city had started negotiation so early. Mr. Nickle asked if there was a reason they could not consider C-1 zoning with a conditional use. Ms. Little explained auto repair required Use Unit 17 which would not apply in C-1 zoning even with a conditional use. Mr. Pummill state it was his understanding that under new land use plan the property would remain residential. Ms. Little stated she did not see a major change in the neighborhood. She explained the area was fully developed as residential and would remain residential. Mr. Pummill pointed out the same situation would come up again after a new land use plan was adopted. He expressed his belief that the applicant, who had been at the same location doing business for 40 years, had been from a zoning standpoint encroached upon, and now was unable to do business under the current set of circumstances mandated by the city. He stated if they postponed this decision it sounded like bureaucracy in action to him. He expressed his believed that they owed the applicant a decision. Mr. Springborn stated that while he appreciated Mr. Pummill's comments, he was trying to preserve a climate of objectivity under which to make a decision. He explained that, if they adopted a decision now without having the new land use plan, it could prejudice the outcome of the study. Ms. Little stated she believe it would be appropriate to read into the record the conditions Mr. Mayes currently was operating under and had operated under since 1970. "Section 160.038 Non -Conforming Structures. Should such non -conforming structure or non -conforming portion of structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." She noted Mr. Mayes had operated under this condition for 22 years. She further noted that as far as the city changing the area from an industrial zone to an R-2 zone in 1970, the process had been open to the public and public comments were taken at that time. She pointed out Mr. Mayes had an opportunity at that time to contest the rezoning. Mr. Nickle stated the Commission had made a decision in January and the applicant was asking the Commission to reconsider that decision. 1' • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Allred expressed his belief that this matter was the result of a proposed city action and they needed to have more latitude in their deliberations on the matter. He stated he would not be in favor of the rezoning at all if it was a normal matter but it was a taking by the city and the area would be affected by the land use -- it would either develop as R-3 or three other petitions would come in requesting commercial zoning for the corners. He stated they needed to determine what they wanted that area to be and what would be best for the city, not just the neighborhood. He expressed his belief they also needed to give some consideration for the Mayes since they were taking their property. He stated he did not think the Commission needed to delay because the land use plan was not done. Ms. Britton stated they had a situation that, in postponing a decision, they were not helping the people involved. She stated she believed the rezoning would be inappropriate use of the neighborhood. She expressed her belief they were not doing the petitioner a favor by misleading him to think his request was an appropriate use. She stated this would be an opportune time to get rid of an inappropriate use and allow the petitioner to relocate and put their economic investment in a better direction. Mr. Pummill asked what kind of residential building on the subject property could they expect if Mayes Auto was bulldozed down with the homes in the surrounding area being 40 years old. Ms. Little stated there were apartments directly to the east of the subject property and also diagonally and quite a few single family homes. She explained that multi -family dwellings of medium density (up to 4 units) were allowed in R-2 zoning. MOTION Mr. Springborn stated that in the interest of objectivity and with respect to the new land use plan and fairness to the applicant and to the city in general, he moved to table the request until completion of the new land use plan. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Cleghorn asked the applicant if it would it be helpful if this item was tabled or did he prefer to get it over with. Mr. Pettus stated his client preferred to get a decision. NOTION Ms. Britton moved to deny the rezoning. Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion failed 4-5-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Cleghorn, Allred, Suchecki, and Tarvin voting "no" and Commissioners Cato, Britton, Sickle and Springborn voting "yes". Mr. Allred stated the applicant had alluded earlier to some conditions which they might entertain. He asked if they had a list of those conditions. Mr. Pettus stated Mr. Mayes had considered the possibility of a Bill of Assurances that he would not sell the property for a liquor store or nightclub; that if someone wanted to purchase the property for those uses, they would have to come back before the city. 1t • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Allred asked if there was any other zoning that would allow Mr. Mayes to continue his business in that area, such as R -O. Ms. Little stated an auto repair shop was not allowed in R -O even with a conditional use. Mr. Nickle stated the rezoning they approved in January was only for an auto repair business. Me. Little stated that was correct and the matter had not been carried forward to the City Board for action at this point. Mr. Nickle stated should the zoning be denied, the property would revert back to a non -conforming use under R-2 zoning. Mr. Allred suggested the Commission table this matter for two weeks in order to allow the applicant to determine the conditions with which they would be happy. He stated the Commission could then reconsider the rezoning with the applicant's conditions. Ms. Little explained the Commission had an obligation to not contract zone any particular piece of property. She further explained the petitioner would have to voluntarily offer conditions. Mr. Pettus stated his client would accept a delay of two weeks. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to table this request for two weeks. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-2-0 with Commissioners Pummill, Cleghorn, Cato, Allred, Suchecki, Tarvin and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton and Springborn voting "no". PUBLIC HEARING - REEONINGS R92-14, R92-15 & LOT SPLITS #1, #2, & #3 BILLY BROWN ESTATES - N OF WEST 6TH, S OF OLD FARMINGTON RD., W OF ONE MILE RD. The next item to come before the Commission was two requests for rezoninge (R92- 14: a request to rezone 1.46 acres from A-1, Agriculture, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R92-15: a request to rezoning .54 acres from A-1, Agriculture, to R-2, Medium Density Residential) and three lot splits submitted by Dub Dunaway on behalf of Bob Mayes for the Billy Brown Estate and represented by Kirk Elsass. The subject property is located north of West 6th Street, south of Old Farmington Road, and west of One Mile Road. Ms. Little explained that currently the subject property was vacant. She also explained that the 1970 General Plan showed the area to be developed along Old Farmington Road as Low Density Residential and along West 6th Street as Medium Density Residential. She stated development along West 6th Street had tended to deviate from the General Plan with numerous parcels subject to rezoning for commercial uses. She recommended the requested rezoning of the parcel along West 6th Street to C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial, with concern for additional strip development of West 6th with regard to traffic safety and general appearance. She explained this tract would be subject to large scale development review at the time of development. 7j • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 7 Me. Little noted that, due to the surrounding vacant property, existence of single-family homes in the immediate vicinity and deviation from the General Plan, she recommended the Planning Commission consider a less dense use than the requested rezoning of R-2. She recommended a zoning classification of R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. She explained that would permit construction of up to three-family dwellings. She also concurred in the recommendation of the engineering staff to permit lot splits subject to conditions of their report. She also pointed out that the proposed lot splits would yield lots of approximately .18 acres each and that residential development under current zoning would require a minimum of two acres each for either single family or two- family dwellings, both of which would be permissible in A-1. Ms. Britton noted the subject property appeared to be quite a bit deeper than the other properties along 6th Street. Mr. Dunaway stated he was present should they have any questions. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Dunaway stated there was no proposed development for the commercial property at this time. He further noted R-1.5 would be sufficient for the other property since it would be used for single family development. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve rezoning, taking the downgrade to 1.5 as recommended by staff. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. Ms. Britton asked if .18 acres was adequate for 1.5 zoning. Ms. Little stated it was. The motion carried unanimously. Lot Splits: Mr. Bunn then explained the proposed split of property was located adjacent to Old Farmington Road and Highway 62 West, west of the bypass. He stated the proposal was to split a 2 -acre tract of land into 4 lots. He pointed out the petitioner was requesting proposed lots A, B, and C (0.18 acres each) be rezoned to R-2 and front on Old Farmington Road. He explained Tract D, the proposed C-2 lot (1.46 acres) would front on Highway 62 West. He stated water was available to each of the lots either off of Old Farmington Road or off of Highway 62 and sewer was available on Tract D. He noted the sewer would need to be extended to serve Tracts A, B, and C. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the lot splits subject to taking the proposed splits through Plat Review and granting of any easements that might be required by the utility companies; extension of sewer to each of the three lots facing Old Farmington Road; granting of 25 feet of street right-of-way from the centerline of Old Farmington Road; the execution of a contract with the owners of the property for the improvement of Old Farmington Road to city standards in accordance with city ordinances; construction of sidewalks along Highway 62 in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan; and payment of parks fees in accordance with City Ordinance. 7y • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 8 MOTION Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the lot splits subject to staff comment. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-17 & ANNEXATION TRUMAN YANCEY - S SIDE OF SKILLERN RD., E OF CROSSOVER RD. The next item before the Commission was a public hearing on Rezoning R92-17 and Annexation for property located on the south side of Skillern Road, east of Crossover Road, presented by Truman Yancey on behalf of James Riley Skillern. The request is to annex 70 acres and then rezone 112.83 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Little explained the acreage is currently vacant and surrounded by vacant land with scattered single-family residential dwellings. She stated the petitioner was proposing to subdivide the property for residential development. Ms. Little noted Skillern Road was county had indicated that they had explained that, under the present residentially provided a minimum of gravel at the present time, although the plans to pave it in the near future. She A-1 zoning, the area could be developed two acre lot size was maintained. Ms. Little recommended against the rezoning of this tract to R-1 until such time as the county had completed their improvements to Skillern Road. She further recommended against the requested annexation for the same reason. She explained that, with access by gravel road as currently provided, large lots and agricultural uses were deemed more compatible than the requested R-1 classification. She stated that, upon the paving of Skillern Road or agreement by the developer for improvement of Skillern Road to city standards, it would not be inappropriate for the City to reconsider the subject request. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little explained that under A-1 the lot size had to be larger. She also pointed out a gravel road would be appropriate for an A-1 development. Ms. Britton asked if any utilities were available to this tract of land. Ms. Little stated water was available but sewer would have to be extended and would probably require a pump station on the portion that would have to be annexed. She stated that would be at the expense of the developer. Mr. Truman Yancey explained the developers of this property were Mark Foster and B. R. Peoples with Mr. Jorgensen being the engineer for the project. He further pointed out the area to be annexed and explained the petition to rezone included all of the land proposed to be annexed together with approximately 30 acres that was already within the city limits. He further explained the developers intended a phased development of the area for residential use. He stated the developer desired to develop the area to city standards. Mr. Yancey explained that, should they have to develop the area as a rural subdivision and install septic tank systems, it would require more land and destruction of the wooded nature of the land. He stated the developers desired a quality project which would be more acceptable to the citizens of the area. He further stated the county, whether the land was annexed or not, intended to pave the road this summer. He pointed out the annexation would involve the south l5 • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 9 half of Skillern Road for a distance of approximately 2,500 feet beyond the city limits. Mr. Yancey presented a copy of a letter dated in March from Washington County showing the County's intention to surface the road. Mr. Charles Prince, 2880 Crossover Road, asked for a definition of low density zoning. Me. Little explained Low Density allowed up to 4 single family homes per acre. She stated she did not feel that was what the developer had in mind for this area. Mr. Dave Jorgensen submitted a concept plat to the Commission of the proposed development. He explained that would allow the Commission and adjoining residents an opportunity to see what they were planning. He explained the overall project would cover 112 acres. He explained in the first phase they would be developing 40 acres. He stated the area immediately adjacent to Skillern would have 28 lots consisting of approximately 1/3 of an acre with approximately 100 - 120 feet of frontage. He further stated they would then do a phase wherein the lots would be approximately 1 1/2 acres in size with 18 proposed lots. He stated they had not planned the remainder of the project. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was in favor of the annexation and rezoning. He explained he believed this would be an excellent neighborhood. Ms. Prince expressed concern that the trees in the area remain. Mr. Jorgensen explained they would keep all of the trees they possibly could. He further explained the only areas that would be bulldozed would be the street areas and the utility easements. He explained there was the alternative of leaving the property in the county but it was adjacent to the city. He expressed his belief the property was ready for city improvements. In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Yancey explained there were 6 or 7 residents along Skillern Road that were within the city limits. Mr. Tarvin pointed out the chip seal road would not hold up 6 months once they started hauling concrete over it. Ms. Britton asked if they could require that at least the city half of the road be brought up to city standards should the road be annexed. Mr. Bunn stated that it would be the city's requirement that either half of the road be built to city standards or the developers execute a contract with the city which required them to pay their share of bringing the road up to city standards. Ms. Britton stated the part that bothered her was the 1,300 feet between Old Wire Road and the proposed annexation. She asked if the city could require off-site improvements to that section. Mr. Bunn explained that traditionally the city had only required the upgrading of that part of the street that was actually adjacent to the subdivision. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated she did not believe it was advantageous to the city to annex the property and receive one-half of a street to be brought up to city standards. She pointed out they had no assurance on the other half when the county had stated they had plans to pave the road within the near future. 76 • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Allred pointed out the tax the city. He also pointed out county, the city had no control it could be developed and then base increase if the property were brought into that should the subject property be left in the over how the land would be developed. He stated annexed and would not be up to city standards. Ms. Little stated the developer would have the option of paving both sides of the street to city standards. Ms. Britton stated a single family residence did not generate an adequate amount of tax revenue to supply that particular home with water, sewer, fire, police and other city services. Mr. Pummill pointed out the water and sewer charges would be passed on to the developer and homeowners. Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Bunn if it would be better for annexation and subdivision with only half of the road standards or not to accept the annexation and let the seal on the road. the City to approve the being brought up to city county put a double chip Mr. Bunn explained he did not know what the city would require -- whether they would allow the developer to pave half the street or allow them to sign a contract with the city to pave the road at a later date. He explained the city would not improve Skillern Road to city standards within the next five years. He stated he would have to give more thought to the question. He further stated it would be desirable to have a 15 -foot wide strip built to city standards but he did not know if that was practicable in this instance. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Bunn stated the city would be responsible for maintaining one-half of the road. He noted there were other areas on the fringes of town where the city had annexed up to the center of a street where both the city and county had maintenance responsibilities. He expressed his belief there were some trade-offs but technically the city would be responsible for their side of the street. Mr. Nickle expressed concern that there be adequate public input throughout the process. He asked if notice had been given. Mr. Yancey stated there was public notice given for the present meeting. Ms. Little asked if they anticipated putting in a pump station for one portion of the development. She explained there was already one pump station in the area at Old Wire Road and Highway 265. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was not sure whether all of the property could be served by a gravity sewer. Mr. Bunn stated one solution to the road problem might be if the county would put all of the money they planned to spend on the road in one-half of the road and the developers did the other half of the road, they might get a decent road constructed to city standards. Mr. Jorgensen stated that, if the annexation and rezoning hinged upon the improvement of Skillern, he was sure such improvement could be worked out. Ms. Britton asked if it would be helpful to table this matter until the road issue was worked out. Mr. Nickle pointed out they had the option of recommending approval to the Board of Directors subject to the developer making acceptable improvements to the road. 1) • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 11 Mr. James Rimbey, 2870 N. Crossover Road, stated having the land developed as described would be far more desirable than having it developed to the county's standards. Another resident of the area expressed his belief that either the city or the county should own the entire road. Mr. Jorgensen noted Mr. Skillern's ownership went only to the center of the road. In response to a question from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Bunn stated the county did not own road right-of-way but had roadway easements granted by the adjoining property owners. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the annexation and rezoning subject to staff and the developer working out acceptable street improvements. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. After discussion, it was determined the motion included the full width of Skillern Road and the roadway would have to be improved to city standards. The motion passed unanimously. (Mr. Tarvin left the meeting) PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-18 & LOT SPLITS #1 & #2 DAVE JORGENSEN - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEDINGTON DR. & 54TH AVE. The next item was a request for a public hearing on Rezoning R92-18 and two lot splits submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located at the southwest corner of Wedington Drive and 54th Avenue. The request is to rezone 5 acres from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Little stated this parcel was within the city limits as it extended along Wedington Drive. She also noted the subject property was vacant. She explained the parcel was surrounded by parcels of like zoning. She pointed out the subject area of the city was rapidly developing primarily as residential units. Ms. Little explained the purpose of the A-1 zone by ordinance was to "protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban development had been accomplished" and "to prevent wasteful scattering of development in agricultural areas". She pointed out permitted uses in an A-1 zone included single and two- family homes; however, the minimum lot size was two acres. She explained the petitioner proposed to split the five acre tract into three lots and was therefore requesting rezoning since he would be unable to meet the two acre minimum lot size. Ms. Little recommended rezoning the property to R-1, Low Density Residential, subject to comments of staff regarding the lot splits. Ms. Britton noted that at the last meeting the same property owner had a similar proposal for lot splits west of 54th Street, property adjacent to the subject property. She asked if it would not be better for the tract to be a subdivision rather than lot splits. Ms. Little stated it would be better for the city if the property had been a subdivision. 77 Planning Commission �i May 11, 1992 Page 12 • • Mr. Jorgensen stated the developer had decided he did not want to make the tract into a subdivision. He stated these would be lots for single family homes. He reminded the Commission that at the last meeting, the owner/developer had split one five acre tract into two 2.5 acre tracts. He stated this five acre tract would be split into three lots. Me. Britton asked if the owner was getting by without providing any city amenities that he would have had to provide had he subdivided the property. Ms. Little stated a subdivision would have provided better coordination however, the City Engineer was recommending improvement of 54th Street. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out the owner was also required to put in sidewalks, water lines, and sewer line extension. He stated there would have been more of a long- term gain but the risk would have been higher. He stated this was the cheapest way to develop the property. Ms. Britton stated she realized this was a cheaper way to develop the property but she wanted to know if it was better for the community. Mr. Pummill asked what the benefit would have been to the city had the property had gone through a subdivision process. Ms. Britton stated her concern was they would be petitioned at a later date to split all of the lots and have tandem lots instead of a subdivision. She also wanted to be assured the developer would provide standard streets. Mr. Pummill stated it would then be their option to deny more lot splits at that time. Mr. Jorgensen stated it had been their intent to bring all of the lot splits and rezoning request before the Commission at one time but there was a problem with the legal description on the tract under consideration. He further noted they agreed with all of the staff recommendations with the exception of paying for the improvement of 54th Street. Mr. Mark Jordan, a member of the audience, asked if this property was to be for construction of duplexes. Mr. Jorgensen stated it would be single-family homes. MOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the rezoning. Mr. Pummill seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0-0. LOT SPLITS: Mr. Bunn explained the five acre tract would be split into three lots -- two of the lots would contain 1.47 acres and the third lot would contain 2.07 acres. He noted water was available to all of the lots either off of 54th Street or off Highway 16. He also noted sewer was available to the two southern lots, however, sewer would have to be extended approximately 130 feet north along 54th Street in order to service the northern lot. 77 • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 13 He recommended the splits be approved subject to construction of sidewalks in accordance with the Master Sidewalk Plan; payment of two parks fees in accordance with city ordinances; extension of sewer to serve the northern lot; and a contract with the city for the improvement of one-half of 54th Street to city standards. In response to a question from Me. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained a contract did not mean the road would be improved immediately. He further explained the ordinance allowed them to review the contract after five years and, if the improvement was not imminent, the city could require the money be spent elsewhere in the subdivision. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to approve the lot splits subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1 HARRY GRAY - 2579 N COLLEGE The next item presented was a request for wavier of subdivision regulations for Lot Split #1, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Ronald Curry for property located at 2579 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bunn explained this was a request for a first split on 1.20 acres located between Villa Boulevard and North College Avenue. He stated the parcel to be split off was 0.7 acres, leaving a tract of 0.5 acres. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of acres (Tract A) be restricted to per City ordinance on both Villa the lot split subject to access for the 0.67 Villa Boulevard and construction of sidewalks Boulevard and College Avenue. Mr. Gray stated he concurred with staff comments to restrict access to Villa Boulevard. except he questioned the need Ms. Little stated such restriction had been discussed as a part of traffic control. She explained the developer planned to demolish the structures currently on the property and construct a commercial type building. Mr. Gray noted access might not be that critical since they were proposing storage units. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little explained she was not suggesting a barrier be placed between the two properties but was recommending that•the property that fronted on Villa have access on Villa but not College and the property fronting on College have access on College but not on Villa. Mr. Allred recommended the buildings be designed so that traffic could not cut through from College to Villa. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the lot split subject to staff recommendations. • • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 14 Mr. Springborn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. (Mr. Springborn left the meeting) PRELIMINARY PLAT - WOODLANDS ADDITION HARRY GRAY - NW CORNER OF SALEM AND WEDINGTON DR. The next item was a preliminary plat for Woodlands Addition presented by Harry Gray on behalf of The Rogers Company, for property located on the northwest corner of Salem and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, contains 9.97 acres with 34 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained it was the intention of the developer to construct a duplex on each lot. He noted there were no significant comments at the Plat Review Meeting. He further stated there was considerable discussion at the Subdivision Committee concerning the traffic that would be generated by the subject development and increased traffic in general on Salem Road and Highway 16 West. He also informed the Commission two members of the general public had attended the meeting. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to plat review and subdivision comments; approval of plans and specifications for water, sewer, streets, and drainage facilities; submittal and approval of a grading plan; no entrances or exits be allowed directly onto Highway 16 West from lots 1 - 8; construction of sidewalks per ordinance; and payment of parks fees per city ordinance. Mr. Gray stated he concurred with staff recommendations. MOTION Mr. Cleghorn moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff recommendations. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. (Mr. Springborn returned to the meeting) CONCURRENT PLAT - WALNUT HAVEN ADDITION HARRY GRAY - SE CORNER OF SALEM RD. AND TIMBERLINE DR. The next item was a concurrent plat for Walnut Haven Addition, presented by Harry Gray on behalf of the Rogers Company for property located at the southeast corner of Salem Road and Timberline Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 1.20 acres with 4 proposed lots. Mr. Bunn explained the development plan was to construct duplexes on each lot. He noted there were no significant comments at the Plat Review Meeting. He stated the Subdivision Committee had recommended approval of the plat as a Final Plat subject to the provision that each lot have only one curb cut onto Salem Road. Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the plat as a Final Plat subject to plat review and subdivision committee comments; construction of sidewalks; and payment of parks fees per city ordinances. Zr • • Planning Commission May 11, 1992 Page 15 In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Gray stated all improvements were installed with the exception of two street lights. MOTION Mr. Allred moved to approve the concurrent plat as a final plat subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Cato seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Land Use Plan Ms. Little noted the Board of Directors passed a resolution appointing a committee composed of two members of the City Board and two members of the Planning Commission to work with the Planning Office in preparation of a land use plan. She stated the target date was March, 1993. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Little stated the Board had not determined how the two Planning Commissioners were to be appointed. Mr. Nickle stated they would discuss it before the next meeting and the appointments would be made at that meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Q Z