HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-12 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, October
12, 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, Jerry Allred,
Kenneth Pummill Charles Nickle, J. E. Springborn, Joe Tarvin,
and Jett Cato
OTHERS PRESENT: Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1992 were
approved as corrected.
Mr. Nickle noted Mr. Wade Bishop had withdrawn his request for a conditional use
for a temporary office in Quail Creek Subdivision. He further noted the proposed
Tree Protection Ordinance had also been withdrawn from the agenda.
CONDITIONAL USE CU92-22
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - OAKSHIRE EAST APARTMENTS
KIRK ELSASS - S OF KANTZ LN, W OF CROSSOVER RD.
The next item was a conditional use and large scale development for Oakshire East
Apartments presented by Kirk Elsass for property located on the south side of
Kantz Lane, west of Crossover Road. The property contains 1.4 acres and is zoned
R -O, Residential - Office. The request for a conditional use is for a 36 unit
apartment complex to be developed as a large scale development.
Mr. Bunn reminded the Commission the application for the conditional use had been
withdrawn at an earlier meeting and had been resubmitted for their consideration.
He noted the Planning Department had not received any additional information
since the last hearing on the subject request. He stated staff recommendation
had remained the same.
Mr. Bunn then read the report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of
September 14, 1992:
"This property located on lots 3 and 4 of Block 2 of Kantz Place, is currently
zoned R -O, Residential Office and the request is to allow it to be used under Use
Unit 10, High Density Residential, for the construction of 36 units on 1.4 acres,
a density of 25.7 units per acre. Under the current zoning of R -O, a maximum of
9 units would be allowed. This request will approximately triple the density
normally allowed under the current zoning.
"The property is currently wooded and undeveloped with surrounding uses primarily
residential apartments. There is one exception to the east and that is the
office of Elizabeth Knowles, PhD. There are numerous other apartments in the
area and they are primarily 6 and 8 plexes and are well landscaped. Density was
calculated for the apartment complex to the west which the subject property would
adjoin; that development, Oakshire Apartments, consists of 52 units on 1.9 acres
for a density of 27.37 units/acre.
"Recommendation:
"Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use provided landscaping
commensurate with the surrounding apartments is incorporated at the frontage
along Kantz Drive."
o2OO
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 2
Mr. Bunn further explained that, when the property was originally zoned R -O, R-3
density was allowed by right but that density had been changed.
Mr. Kirk Elsass stated he was willing to make changes on the landscaping. He
explained he was planning on moving the middle building back to be parallel with
the other two buildings in order to allow more landscaping. He further stated
he was willing to move the parking lot further to the west to allow more space
in order to plant some trees and keep some of the present trees.
Mr. E. J. Ball appeared before the Planning Commission and gave the history of
the subject tract. He explained there had been a plan for development of the
area into apartments. He pointed out the number of existing apartments in the
area. He further stated he owned the property immediately to the south of the
subject tract and had no objections to either the conditional use or the large
scale development. He recommended approval of both requests.
Mr. Jim Lindsey explained that, when the subject area had been developed, they
had worked with Larry Woods and had gone through a buffering process with 20
acres of commercial, a buffer area of R -O, a buffer area of R-2, and then another
50 -foot buffer. He stated they would not have requested R -O zoning if R-3
density had not been allowed. He further pointed out there had been 5
conditional use requests after the city changed the density. He noted all 5
requests had been approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Scott Smith, 2035 Kantz Lane, spoke in favor of the requests. He stated they
did not have an excessive traffic problem as previously stated. He further
stated the design of the apartments allowed a good traffic flow for the area.
He noted he did not believe 24 units would be a large contributor to the traffic.
He stated he had no objections to the apartments being constructed.
Mr. Bunn stated there would be 36 units rather than 24.
Ms. Jennifer Page, a resident of the East Oaks area for six years, spoke in favor
of the apartment complex.
Mr. Richard Shewmaker spoke of the need for nice apartments in the city of
Fayetteville. He pointed out many residents could not afford single-family
houses but could afford a quality apartment. He stated he saw the subject area
as an area of apartments and could not see how a few more would hurt anything.
Dr. Elizabeth Knowles, a clinical psychologist immediately adjacent to the
subject property, appeared before the Commission to object to the conditional
use. She asked the Commission to deny the conditional use. She stated her
primary concern was increased traffic. She presented estimated figures on the
increased traffic showing an increase of 24.3 round trips per unit (875 round
trips per week). She pointed out there had been numerous traffic accidents at
the intersection of Crossover and Kantz, including fatalities.
Dr. Knowles stated her second reason for objecting was excessive noise. She
stated the noise would disrupt her business. She also noted there would be a
violation of privacy and confidentiality because there would be no screening or
fencing. She pointed out to the north of the subject property was R -O with
privately owned condominiums, to the west was R -O zoning and to the east was R -O
zoning. She explained this area was a buffer from the high density housing. She
further noted that every resident she had contacted had signed a petition in
opposition to the conditional use. She stated the area residents did not want
high density apartments. She recommended the development of duplexes rather than
high density housing.
sof
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 3
Dr. Knowles stated people had called both Mr. Elsass and the Planning Department
to object to the conditional use. She further stated that, when she selected her
building site, she had carefully examined the zoning of the surrounding property
and investigated the proposed development plans for the surrounding properties.
She stated the listing agent, Kathy Ball Adams, for Lindsey & Associates had been
delighted with her interest in the property because her building plans fit their
plans for professional offices in the area. She further stated Me. Adams had
told her a professional office would attract other people with the same type of
plans. She further noted she had rejected another tract of property, similarly
priced, because there was a high density apartment directly behind it.
Dr. Knowles requested they deny the request for a conditional use.
Mr. Mike Pennington, owner of Pennington Developments, Inc., stated he had just
developed a 27 -acre tract on Highway 45 with 58 lots. He further stated he did
not believe there was a traffic problem in the area. He explained the only time
this area was busy was when people were going to or coming from work. He stated
it was not busy during the daytime. He expressed support for the conditional use
and large scale development.
Mr. George McConnell, a neighboring resident, stated he had purchased a townhouse
in the area because it was a quiet neighborhood. He stated he was opposed to the
apartment complex. He also cited increased traffic as a potential problem.
Mr. Eric Knowles, a business owner at 2755 Kantz Drive, urged the Commission to
deny the request. He stated the subject property acted as a buffer between the
high density apartments and lower density residences. He further stated the
types of uses permitted under R -O were more appropriate uses than a high density
apartment.
Mr. Chet Caldwell, 2705 Copper Oaks, reminded the Commission he had appeared
before them previously when this matter had been considered. He stated the
Lindsey & Associate realtor had assured him there would be a buffer area between
the single-family area and the high density area; that the property would remain
R -O. He agreed with Dr. Knowles that 36 additional units would increase the
traffic hazards and noise.
Mr. Caldwell stated he had received a letter from Mr. Elsass stating he would be
happy to answer any questions Mr. Caldwell might have. Mr. Caldwell stated he
had called three times, leaving a message each time. He noted his calls had not
been returned until this date. He informed the Commission that, during the
conversation, Mr. Elsass had told him the price of the property was so expensive
that the multiple unit was needed to offset the economic factors of the
investment. He expressed concern regarding the continuity of the area. He
further stated his neighbors were also opposed to the granting of the conditional
use.
Mr. Barry Dowell, a real estate appraiser and a property owner on Kantz Drive,
expressed his opinion that the subject tract was beet suited for multi -family
housing, if it were to be used at its highest and best use.
Mr. John Ervin, adjoining property owner, stated he would be constructing four
tri-plexes on hie lots. He supported the granting of the conditional use and the
approval of the large scale development.
Dr. Knowles stated the people who lived and worked in the area strongly objected
to the requests. She further stated those people who were property owners but
did not reside on their property, did not have to live with the traffic and noise
problems.
002
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 4
Mr. Elsass stated he owned five single-family houses in the neighborhood,
townhouses in the neighborhood and had lived in the neighborhood since 1981. He
stated he did not want to damage his property either.
Mr. Suchecki asked for clarification in alteration of the large scale development
plan.
Mr. Elsass explained he would be moving Building 2 back to be parallel with
Buildings 1 and 3 in order to allow more green space. He further stated he had
contacted Dr. Knowles for her input regarding the landscaping should the
conditional use be granted. He also explained it had been brought to his
attention that it would be better to move the parking area 10 more feet away from
the east property line in order to put in a fence and/or trees.
Ms. Britton reminded the Commission that at the previous meeting other residents
of the area had been present and told of the traffic problem. She stated the
area did have good circulation but there was a traffic problem. she noted the
percentage of traffic that would be added by the construction of the apartments
was low by comparison, but that would be the argument of "two wrongs make a
right". She stated the zoning was by the text book -- exactly the way planning
was supposed to be done. She expressed her belief it could not have been better
planned.
Mr. Springborn stated he had been in the position of owning land which he wanted
to develop so he was sympathetic to the developers; however, the Commission's
obligation was to "see to the health, safety and welfare of the residents" of
this City. He stated that with the petition in opposition and with the residents
appearing in opposition he believed they should give them a show of the
Commission's support.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to deny the conditional use.
Ms. Britton seconded the motion.
Mr. Tarvin stated he lived in the area. He noted that, when he drove down the
street, he saw nothing but apartments. He further stated it appeared to him that
the nature of development which had taken place in the area was apartments. He
also'pointed out the subject tract was only one lot away from a state highway.
He expressed his belief the logical development for this tract was multi -family.
He pointed out there was C-1 buffered from R-2 by R -O. He stated a buffer from
C-1 should be the higher density. He also questioned why someone would purchase
property at the corner of a state highway if they were concerned about noise.
He stated he had not seen a traffic problem in the area.
Mr. Cleghorn stated he had also visited the site a number of times and he could
not imagine any other development for the subject tract other than apartments.
Mr. Cato stated it was a logical spot for apartments but he was concerned that
they would be tripling the amount of density allowed.
Mr. Allred stated this was a definite indication that they needed to work on the
20 -Year Plan. He asked if there was any indication of making Highway 265 a four -
lane.
Mr. Bunn stated the indication was that Highway 265 would be four lane between
Highway 16 and Highway 45 within the next five years or so. He further stated
it would seem logical that, at some point in the future, the four lanes would be
extended north.
(ID o3
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 5
Mr. Allred stated it seemed the density in this area was in the reverse -- that
it should be less dense to the north and west. He stated he agreed with the
neighbors that this was not a good solution; however, it appeared a precedent had
been set in the last 10 years with the other apartments and another apartment on
this street was normal progression.
Ms. Britton stated she would not want to live in an apartment that close to
Highway 265. She further stated it seemed more logical to be a residential
office. She expressed her belief that it would be more logical to have R -O
zoning the closer they got to either Highway 265 or 45.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn explained that, under R -O
zoning, two-family dwellings were allowed by right.
The motion failed 4-5-0 with Commissioners Britton, Springborn, Nickle, and Cato
voting "yes" and Commissioners Suchecki, Pummill, Tarvin, Allred, and Cleghorn
voting "no".
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to grant the conditional use subject to staff comments.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
Mr. Nickle asked for an amendment that landscaping and/or screening be provided
by the developer along his east property line. He noted he did not believe the
city could require fencing but could require screening.
Mr. Tarvin stated he would accept that amendment.
The motion carried 6-3-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Suchecki, Pummill,
Allred, Cleghorn, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Britton, Nickle, and
Cato voting "no".
Mr. Nickle explained the conditional use had been approved and they would now
hear staff report on the large scale development.
Mr. Bunn explained the large scale development consisted of three apartment
houses with a total of 36 units on 1.4 acres. He noted there had been no
significant comments by any of the utility company representatives at the Plat
Review meeting. He stated the Fire Chief had requested an additional fire
hydrant within the complex. He further noted it had been suggested that
landscaping be provided, although it was not a requirement.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan and
drainage plan for the area; construction of sidewalks and payment of parks fees
in accordance with City ordinances; granting of the requested easements by
separate instrument; and installation of the hydrant as requested by the Fire
Chief.
Mr. Elsass asked, if he made some adjustments in order to accommodate the
adjoining property owners, could the changes could be approved administratively.
Mr. Bunn stated it could be approved administratively as long as the changes were
not significant.
Mr. Suchecki suggested Mr. Elsass contact Dr. Knowles to see what type of
screening she would prefer.
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 6
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the large scale development for Oakshire East
Apartments subject to staff comments and agreement on the buffer zone/landscape
situation.
Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioners Cleghorn, Britton, Suchecki,
Springborn, Nickle, Tarvin, Pummill, and Allred voting "yes" and Commissioner
Cato voting "no".
CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW CU91-17 - CHILD CARE (HOME OCCUPATION)
ROSEANNE LEVERICH - 537 R. LAFAYETTE
The next item was a review of Conditional Use CU91-17 for a home occupation
(child care) presented by Roseanne Leverich, located at 537 E. Lafayette. The
property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Bunn reported the subject conditional use had been approved by the Planning
Commission on September 9, 1992, conditioned upon an automatic review at the end
of the one year time period. He noted there had been several neighbors who had
spoken in opposition to the operation of the child care as a home occupation at
the time the conditional use had been granted. He advised there had been
complaints received from only one person. He stated a copy of that
correspondence was included in the agenda packet. He advised the complaint
covered several items including too many children and traffic problems in picking
up and dropping off children. He explained those were items the city had been
unable to verify by visiting the site. He further stated the Planning Department
had written a letter to the applicant indicating there had been complaints and
requesting those situations be corrected if they existed.
Mr. Bunn stated the staff recommended renewal of the Conditional Use to permit
Child Care as a Home Occupation.
Ms. Leverich presented pictures of her home, a petition from the surrounding
neighbors (except the complainant) in favor of her home occupation, a letter in
support from the property owner across the street, and a letter from the State
licensing group.
Mr. Nickle stated it had been staff's recommendation that, unless there was
substantial evidence of traffic problems or violation of the agreement to keep
only six children, to renew the request.
Ms. Leverich stated she kept only six children, together with her two daughters,
aged 10 and 8. She explained her daughters did have friends over to the house
and she had kept her step -son during the summer.
Mr. Nickle asked if there had been any traffic problems.
Ms. Leverich stated there had not been.
In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Bunn explained it was a
stipulation of the home occupation code that the applicant could not add any
parking.
Mr. Nickle stated he remembered when this item had originally came before the
Commission. He noted there had been quite a bit of concern from the
neighborhood. He pointed out the vast majority of the neighborhood was now
supporting the request.
los'
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 7
Me. Britton suggested Ms. Leverich inform the parents of the children to not park
in the neighbor's driveway. She stated that was one of the complaints received
from the adjoining neighbor.
Me. Leverich stated she had informed the parents. She explained the Life Styles
van had accidently used the neighbor's driveway once when delivering a volunteer.
Me. Kathleen Harper appeared before the Commission and stated she was speaking
on behalf of her parents, Don and Donna Hendrix, the adjoining property owners.
She further stated that Me. Leverich was a good neighbor and had kept the
property looking very good. She further stated they had no objections to the day
care continuing as long as Ms. Leverich abided by the rules set by the Commission
including no more than six children and no children before 7:00 a.m. nor after
6:00 p.m. She stated that, through the summer, there was consistently someone
delivering his child between 6:15 and 6:30 a.m
Ms. Leverich explained she did take care of a child whose father was a deputy
sheriff and needed to be to work at 7:00 a.m. She asked if she needed to stop
watching that child.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms. Langley explained Ms. Leverich
could ask the Commission for a waiver to the hours set by code.
Ms. Leverich explained that not everyone worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She
stated she babysat for those people who needed her -- working people.
Mr. Nickle asked what hours she would prefer.
Ms. Britton explained they were trying to avoid 24-hour child care.
Mr. Tarvin stated he didn't
delivered to her house. He
his neighborhood. He stated
belief that it did not make
long as there were only six
understand how anyone would know when a child was
further stated he didn't know when someone drove in
he did not notice nor did he care. He expressed his
a difference what time the children were there as
children.
Mr. Springborn suggested that on an individual basis, and up to one child, they
grant the staff the authority to waive the time.
Ms. Britton explained that would allow flexibility for one person to be either
early or late.
Ms. Leverich agreed the hours needed to be flexible with day care. She explained
she did not want to overrun her house and have kids coming and going all the
time.
Mr. Bill Lonon, Environmental Affairs and Planning Administrator for Washington
County, stated Ms. Leverich took care of his daughter. He stated he was
concerned if this was an annual process.
Mr. Bunn explained it was on a complaint basis. He further explained if
complaints were received throughout the year, the Commission would review the
application.
Mr. Lonon explained Ms. Leverich had the support of the neighborhood and the
parents. He pointed out the petition signed by the neighbors and a letter from
Jack and Ann Butt in support of the conditional use. He stated he would hate to
see Me. Leverich have to come back before the Commission each year just because
they•received one complaint.
30G
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 8
Mr. Nickle stated the staff would determine whether the matter needed to come
before the Commission the following year.
Ma. Marybeth Harrison stated Me. Leverich also took care of her child. She spoke
in favor of granting the conditional use.
Mr. Tarvin expressed his opinion that if the hours of operation were extended,
there would be less interruption to the neighborhood.
Mr. Nickle agreed but pointed out when the adjoining neighbors had purchased
their home, they had not been aware the neighboring property would contain a
business. He stated he didn't believe the day care should be open in the
evenings but he could agree to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He pointed
out that would give the applicant some flexibility.
Ms. Leverich stated she did not babysit 24 hours a day. She explained she was
a full time mother, involved in both school activities and scouts. She stated
she liked to be off work at 5:30 p.m.
NOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to grant the conditional use for a child care home occupation
(CU91-17) and that the hours of operation be 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R92-31
BENEVOLENT BUILDING CORP. - NE CORNER ZION RD. & HWY 71
The next item on the agenda was a public hearing for Rezoning R92-31 for property
located at the northeast corner of Zion Road and Highway 71 (N. College Avenue)
submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of the Benevolent Building Corporation. The
request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial,
16.35 acres. The requests includes Conditional Use CU92-25 for a building
materials center in C-2 zoning.
Mr. Bunn reported the proposed use was one of heavy commercial activity such as
would normally be associated with the intersection of major arterial streets.
He pointed out Highway 71N was classified as a principal arterial and Zion Road
was classified as a collector street. He advised the Commission the subject
request was to rezone all of the parcel to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and then
request a conditional use under Use Unit 21 to allow construction of a building
materials sales center. He stated this use unit was a use by right under the
zone I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial.
Mr. Bunn further advised the development of the subject
submission of a large scale development plan which would be
the Plat Review Committee, the Subdivision Committee and the
He stated those plans had not been presented to the City for
site would require
subject to review by
Planning Commission.
review at this time.
Mr. Bunn stated the petitioner had presented a narrative on why the change in
zoning would not conflict with surrounding land uses. He further stated staff
concurred in the reasoning with the exception of the statement there was existing
traffic signalization adequate to properly control traffic. He advised that,
without additional details about the proposed development, staff was reluctant
to concur in that statement.
.207
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 9
Mr. Bunn pointed out that, with a rezoning to C-2, the property would abut an
area.zoned R -O for a portion of its northern and eastern boundary. The zoning
would require that screening be installed or a portion of the current trees
remain to accomplish this requirement. Mr. Bunn noted there was a further
recommendation that as much of the natural vegetation which currently existed
remain to provide a buffer and maintain some of the present character of the
site.
Mr. Bunn advised staff recommended the approval of the requested rezoning and the
conditional use to permit the development of a building materials sales center.
He further advised it was recommended that, at the time development begins to
take place, a joint meeting be held with the State Highway Department, the
Northwest Arkansas Mall, the developers, and the City to address any traffic
concerns at the intersection of those two streets. He explained this was a
concern because the Northwest Arkansas Mall had contacted the City on a number
of occasions regarding the traffic at the intersection. He further noted
participation by the developer in improvements to the intersection might be
required.
Mr. Harry Gray, representing the Benevolent Building Corporation, appeared before
the Planning Commission. He advised he also represented Lowes Companies who was
expressing interest in purchasing the property. He stated Mr. Eric Dowell from
Lowes was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. He
concurred with staff that a large scale development would have to be presented.
He stated the property to the south was zoned C-2 and developed, the property to
the west was zoned C-2 and developed, the west half of the north half was zoned
C-2 but was undeveloped and the remaining property was zoned R -O. He advised the
R -O would provide a buffer.
Mr. Nickle asked to see the plans for the development.
Mr. Dowell explained this site would be a relocation of Lowe's in Springdale.
He further stated the plans for the large scale development would be filed with
the City on Friday, October 16. He presented pictures of other Lowe's and stated
this development would be similar. He pointed out the store would contain
115,000 square feet which would be double the size of the store in Springdale.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Dowell explained the lighting
would be on the Lowe lot only by use of reflectors. He further stated they would
be landscaping the lot.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Dowell stated the store would be
employing from 75 to 100 people. He further stated he did not know how many
people the store in Springdale employed at the present time.
Mr. Nickle asked if this would come under the City of Fayetteville's tax base.
Mr. Bunn stated it would not. He stated the subject area was in the Springdale
School District.
Ms. Britton expressed concerns with the project. She reminded the Commission
they had just turned down a lumber yard on an intersection very similar to the
subject one. She further stated they had recently, by ordinance, gotten rid of
a problem on the subject road where there were heavy trucks driving over it,
extracting dirt. She stated there were numerous complaints from the residents
of the area. She further stated the street did not lend itself to that kind of
traffic and, since Zion Road would be the road that had to be used considering
the topography, she believed they were inviting a problem with heavy trucks
delivering lumber, coming from Highway 265 since this was the shortest distance
between two points. She further stated if they were going to be consistent with
aog
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 10
what they just turned down, she did not see how they could rationally approve
this lumber yard.
MOTION
Mr. Pummill explained the other lumber yard had been denied because it was in a
residential area and there was no comparison with the subject rezoning. He moved
to approve the rezoning request.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
Mr. Cleghorn asked if the company would preserve any of the natural landscaping.
Mr. Dowell stated it was his understanding they were abutting some residential
property and had planned to leave some of the trees separating the property. He
further stated he did not know the extent of tree removal but they were willing
to work with the city.
Ms. Britton stated she did not have a problem with the rezoning but did have a
problem with the conditional use.
The motion carried unanimously.
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to approve Conditional Use CU92-25.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
Ms. Britton asked if the petitioner was willing to give a Bill of Assurance
giving a 10 -foot greenspace buffer between the subject property and the
residential area.
Mr. Gray expressed his belief this would be discussed at the time of the large
scale development. He further pointed out they were required to provide
screening between C-2 and R -O zoning.
Mr. Dowell asked the width of the required buffer between residential and
commercial property.
Mr. Bunn stated screening, either vegetation or fencing, would be required.
Mr. Dowell stated the plans currently showed a 12 foot buffer along the north and
east property lines.
Mr. Bunn stated the setbacks, on the side when contiguous to residential
property, was 15 feet.
The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioners Springborn, Suchecki, Pummill,
Nickle, Allred, Cleghorn, Cato, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioner Britton
voting "no".
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING 92-32
DICK KEATING - S OF MISSION, E OF CROSSOVER
The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning 92-32 submitted by Dave Jorgensen
on behalf of Dick Keating for property on the south side of Mission Boulevard,
east of Crossover Road. The property contains 7.76 acres (a part of Crossover
Heights, Phase III) and the request is to rezone from C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial, to R-2, Medium Density Residential.
J
.7o
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 11
Mr. Bunn stated the request was to rezone all of the area currently shown on the
preliminary plat as Crossover Heights, Phase III, with the exception of Lot 12,
from its current commercial classification to a less intensive use of R-2, Medium
Density Residential. He explained Lot 12 was currently zoned C-2, and the
petitioners were requesting that Lot 12 remain as currently zoned. He noted the
preliminary plat of Crossover Heights, Phase III, was on the agenda immediately
following the rezoning request.
Mr. Bunn reminded the Commission that in March of 1992 the parcel immediately to
the south and east of the subject parcel was rezoned from C-2 to R-2 to
facilitate development of a 44 lot subdivision. He explained the parcel
requested for consideration would adjoin that parcel and would adjoin an area
zoned C-2 to the west. He stated surrounding land uses were commercial and
residential with some office use to the east.
Mr. Bunn explained the planned subdivision would provide an extension of Pointers
Lane'and connect Hunters Ridge north to the intersection with Highway 45. He
further stated that, while it was not noted on the plat, planned uses of all lots
with the exception of lot 12 were duplex development. He explained the
petitioner had stated the most likely use of Lot 12 was for office development.
Mr. Bunn stated staff had recommended approval of the requested rezoning because
it was down zoning from a more intensive use to a less intensive use. He noted
the requested classification was the same as the adjoining parcel to the south
and was compatible with area zoning. He explained the petitioner had the right
to exclude lot 12 from the rezoning petition; however, if the intended use was
for office space, the Planning Commission might wish to consider a classification
of R -O, Residential -Office, which would provide a buffer between the existing C-2
and the requested R-2 zoning
Dave Jorgensen explained the applicant had not requested rezoning on Lot 12
because he was considering constructing a professional office.
Ms. Britton stated she did not want to rezone the property to R-2 and leave one
lot commercial. She pointed out it could be developed commercially. She stated
she believed the rezoning would be inappropriate if the one lot was to remain
commercial.
There was discussion regarding if it would be possible to rezone lot 12 to R -O
without notification to the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Jorgensen stated the owner would be agreeable to R-0 zoning if a duplex could
be constructed on R -O zoned property.
Mr. Allred stated they would be rezoning property that had not been petitioned
to be rezoned. He further stated he did not believe they should do that. He
suggested tabling the matter. He pointed out they had no authority to rezone Lot
12
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to table the request.
The motion died for lack of second.
Mr. Bunn pointed out that the zoning on Lot 12 was existing. He advised the
property to the north was zoned commercial.
Ms. Britton stated the property to the north fronted on the highway.
010
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 12
Mr. Cato stated the Planning Commission could select property and start the
rezoning process on that property. He asked how this tract was different.
Mr. Bunn stated he did not know. He stated he believed proper notification would
have to be made but he was not certain. He suggested a Bill of Assurance that
Lot 12 would only be used in certain ways.
Mr. Jorgensen agreed they would provide a
would either be developed as a duplex or
concerned that, if the rezoning was denied,
year before requesting the rezoning.
Bill of Assurance that the property
as an office. He explained he was
the applicant would have to wait one
Mr. Cleghorn asked if the Planning Director had advised them to file
application excepting Lot 12.
Mr. Jorgensen explained they had seen no need to request down -zoning to
because the owner had understood someone wanted an office on Lot 12.
Mr. Bunn pointed out Ms. Little had recommended lot 12 be rezoned to R -O.
MOTION
the
R-2
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the rezoning requested by R92-32 subject to staff
comments and with a Bill of Assurance that Lot 12 be developed no more intensely
than R-0 allowed.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
Mr. Allred stated that, if someone wanted to rezone Lot 12 in the future, there
would be no public hearing nor notification. He asked if someone could sue
because the city had not followed proper procedure.
Mr. Pummill stated Mr. Keating owned all of the property and would be developing
it.
Mr. Bunn pointed out a duplex would not fit into C-2 zoning.
Mr. Springborn asked if there was time before the Board meeting to meet the
required notification.
Mr. Bunn stated 10 days notification was normally required and the Board would
meet on this matter in 8 days.
Mr. Tarvin asked if they could approve the rezoning subject to the petitioner
requesting rezoning for Lot 12 to R -O.
Mr. Suchecki withdrew his motion.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to recommend rezoning the subject tract, with the exception of
Lot 12, to R-2 subject to the petitioner applying for rezoning of Lot 12 to R -O.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - CROSSOVER HEIGHTS, PHASE III
BILL & DICK KEATING - S OF MISSION, E OF CROSSOVER
.2//
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 13
The next item was a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Crossover
Heights, Phase III, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bill and Dick
Keating, for property located on the south side of Mission Boulevard, east of
Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, with the
exception of Lot 12 which is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The
tract contains 8.13 acres with 23 proposed lots.
Mr. Bunn stated there had been no significant comments either by the utility
company representatives nor the staff at plat review meeting. He noted there had
been some changes in the fire hydrant location and an extension of a 6 -inch water
line in response to staff comments.
He advised the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the preliminary plat
to the full Planning Commission.
Mr. Bunn recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to plat review
and subdivision comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of
detailed plans for water, sewer, streets and drainage plans; and payment of parks
fees and construction of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances.
Mr. Jorgensen concurred with staff comments.
Mr. Nickle pointed out there were single family homes immediately to the east.
He noted lots 18 through 23 might be developed as single family homes instead of
duplexes.
Mr. Jorgensen agreed that was possible. He further noted lots 13, 14 and 15
would be made into 2 lots instead of 3.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff comments.
Mr. Cato seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
FINAL PLAT - NORTH HEIGHTS ADDITION
CHARLIE SLOAN - W OF APPLEBY, N OF BISHOP DR.
The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for North Heights
Addition, submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Charlie Sloan. The property is
located on the west side of Appleby, north of Bishop Drive and is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential, and contains 6.20 acres with 48 lots.
Mr. Bunn explained this subdivision was for development of townhouses. He noted
there had been no significant comments by the utility company representatives
other than adjustments made in easements. He stated staff had indicated the
street name needed to be change and that the location of a fire hydrant should
be changed because of the nature of the development. He further stated the
Subdivision Committee had recommended the final plat to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the final plat subject to plat review and
subdivision committee comments; execution of a contract with the City for the
unfinished improvements, including street lights; changing the location of the
fire hydrant to comply with Fire Department recommendations; payment of parks
fees and construction of sidewalks per city ordinances; and the administrative
approval of a lot line adjustment.
02/x7
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 14
Mr. Gray explained Jim Johnson, 9-1-1 Systems, had misread the street name. He
stated the name Cydnee was Charlie Sloan's new daughter and Mr. Johnson now
agreed with the street name.
•
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the final plat subject to staff comments.
Mr. Tarvin seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - KELLY EXCAVATION
LYNN KELLY - S OF 15TH ST., E OF S. SCHOOL AVE.
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for Kelly
Excavation submitted by Lynn Kelly for property located on the south side of 15th
Street, east of South School Avenue. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial
- Heavy Commercial and R-2, Medium Density Residential. The tract contains 4.05
acres.
Mr. Bunn explained the development consisted of an excavation company business
office and equipment repair shop. He noted there had been no significant
comments by any of the utility company representatives at the plat review
meeting. He explained staff had commented on the need for a drainage plan and
the need to hard -surface the parking lot. The developer indicated that he would
request a waiver on at least a portion of the parking lot surfacing due to use
by dozers and heavy equipment which would break up the paved surface.
Mr. Bunn further stated the Subdivision Committee had discussed the matter of the
required paving and agreed to recommend to the Planning Commission a waiver of
the requirement except for those areas where care were to be parked.
Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage
plan; granting of all utility easements by separate instrument; construction of
sidewalks, if required by the Master Sidewalk Plan; and resolution of the
pavement requirement issue.
Mr. Kelly discussed his drainage plan.
Mr. Nickle recommended he work out the details of the drainage plan with Mr.
Bunn.
Mr. Allred stated he concurred with the waiver on the paving of the entire lot
but was concerned that, should some other business be established in the building
in the future, someone should require paving at that point. He recommended the
waiver be granted only as long as the business remained the same.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff comments
and granting a waiver for a portion of the parking lot surfacing for the subject
business only.
Mr. Pummill seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
b713
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 15
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - NORTH HILLS NURSING CENTER
RICHARD OSBORNE & TOMMY HOLLAND - W OF APPLEBY, N OF BISHOP
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for North
Hills Nursing Center submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Richard Osborne and
Tommy Holland for property located on the west side of Appleby Road, north of
Bishop. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains 4 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained this development was to construct a 70 -bed nursing home. He
noted the Plat Review meeting discussion centered mainly on the access points
onto Appleby Road. He explained staff felt there would be site distance problems
with -the drives as presented and had requested the entrances be combined and
moved to the south. He stated the revised plat showed a revision made as a
result of the discussion. He further noted the owner had indicated his intention
to ask for a waiver of the required parking spaces from 70 to 40.
Mr. Bunn stated the Subdivision Committee had discussed the parking situation and
agreed to recommend the large scale development to the Planning Commission with
40 parking spaces rather than 70.
Mr. Bunn recommended approval of the large scale development subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; approval of detailed plans and
specifications for water and sewer; construction of sidewalks per city
ordinances; approval of a grading and drainage plan; and location of a fire
hydrant in accordance with the Fire Chief's recommendation.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Bunn stated both Mr. Gray and Ms.
Little had looked at the number of parking spaces at other nursing homes in the
area.
Mr. Gray explained none of the other nursing homes owned by Mr. Holland had a
parking space per patient.
Mr. Cato asked what type of notification had been sent to the adjoining property
owners.
Mr. Gray stated they had sent certified letters to the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Bunn noted Ms. Little had recommended screening on this tract.
MOTION
Mr. Pummill moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff
recommendations and grant a waiver on the parking requirements reducing the
required parking from 70 spaces to 40 spaces.
Mr. Springborn seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - HANNA WAREHOUSE
BURT HANNA - SW CORNER OF 15TH ST. & FRED HANNA DR.
The next item was a request for approval of a large scale development for Hanna
Warehouse, submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Burt Hanna for property located
on the southwest corner of 15th Street and Fred Hanna Drive. The property is
zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial, and contains 8.8 acres.
Mr. Bunn explained this large scale development was a continuation of a large
scale developed previously approved by the Planning Commission. He advised there
•
•
•
Planning Commission
October 12, 1992
Page 16
had been no significant comments at either the Plat Review meeting or the
Subdivision Committee meeting.
Mr. Bunn recommended the large scale development be approved subject to plat
review and subdivision committee comments; approval of a grading plan and
drainage plan; approval of the detailed plans for water and sewer; and if the
street is to be considered for city acceptance and ownership in the future, the
plans and specifications for the street construction must be approved by the
City.
Mr. Gray stated the street would remain a private street and there were no plans
to offer it to the city.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the large scale development for Hanna Warehouses
subject to staff comments.
Mr. Allred seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Street Vacations
Mr. Springborn asked why the matter of the donation of a city block of
Vandeventer Street appeared on the Planning Commission agenda. He stated he
would be happy for Ms. Little to reply to his question at the next meeting. He
stated this item had been on the Planning Commission's agenda approximately 10
years earlier and had been denied. He expressed his opinion that it was
especially important, since the City Board was about to step down, to refer the
matter to the Planning Commission for endorsement or approval, as appropriate.
He noted the Planning Commission would continue through election day and be
available to answer for their actions.
Mr. Bunn explained that over the last 8 or 10 years street closings had not
normally come before the Planning Commission but went directly to the Board.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
•
ais