Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-17-1994 P&Z MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COIVIlVIISSION NIINUTES Meetiug of February 17, 1994 Present: Chairman Tom Ensley, Madeline Buckendorf, Phil Frye, Mary Higdem, Terry McConnell, Bettie Pilote, Rick Wells Absent: None Staff: Dennis Crooks, Liz Yeary The regular meeting of the Planrung and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Ensley, at 7:15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Three copies of Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings were approved as distributed except for the Minutes of the meeting of January 20, 1994, where the roll call showed Madeline Buckendorf and Bettie Filote as absent. This was amended since they had not yet officially been seated on the Commission. The Comrnission then moved to the public hearing section of the agenda. The fust public hearing scheduled was a Variance to pernut a reduction of the required setback from ten (1Q) feet to zero (0) feet involving the placement of a six (6) foot high solid fence adjacent to a sidewalk within the street side corner yard of a corner lot at 1722 Carol Avenue. The applicant was James Hollis. Denni x s e plauied tha.t the Zomng Orduiance allows for Vanances based on certain criteria. He suggested that the most important criteria listed is for unique or unusual circumstances which are applicable to the property. He demonstrated on the overhead the location of the property and the unusual orientation of the property to the surrounding properties. Photographs were also presented. Mr. Hollis, the applicant, then testified that he had resided at the address since July 1993. He presented photographs showing the fence and its relationship to the neighboring driveway. Mr. Hollis disputed the neighbo�'s assertion that it blocked his vision when backing out of the driveway. Mr. Hollis stated that he would be willing to angle the fence rather than remove it and perhaps plant a tree to match the existing tree. The original reason for constructing the fence was for privacy and to prevent his rear yard from being used as part of the play azea for the neighborhood. In response to a question from Mary Higdem, the applicant stated tha.t he believed he constructed the fence in October, 1993. He did not contact the Building Department prior to constructing the fence. The next person to testify was a Virgil McAbee of 1760 Cazol whose property is next door to the applicant. Mr. McAbee stated that prior to construction of the fence the sidewalk was unusable because of shrubbery over�owth and he supported the fence stating that it was an improvement. MINLTI'ES P&Z 2-17-94 Page i ` James Hall of 413 Gregory Court testified. He stated that the children play in the road and ride their bikes. His concern was the safety of the children and the inability of incoming drivers to see the children. He did not think it would help moving the fence back ten feet. Sue Shipman of 1805 Carol testified in opposition citing safety concerns for children. She felt the fence was so close to the sidewalk the children could not ride safely on the sidewalk. Dale Cortez of the same address agre�d stating that, because of the location of the fence, the children are forced onto the road. Lerters were presented in opposition to the request from Lois Lundquist and E.B. Smith. Mr. Smith's property is the property immediately to the west and he is concerned about the visibility problem when exiting his driveway, posed by the fence, and also the appearance. Mr. Hollis responded to the testirnony stating that he felt it was less safe for a child to cross Carol Avenue, which is relatively busy, to play in Gregory Court. He aLso reminded the Comrnission that only one portion of the fence is not built according to Code. The public hearin� was then closed. In response to a question from Mary, Dennis stated that the fence technically is on the rear property line and the Code does not address a rear property line that is also facing a street. If Mr. Smith's property is considered, it would seem the tree is more of a problem than the fence. Fences are normally required to keep a distance back from sidewalks to enable people to use sidewalks safely. Rick Wells agreed that there could be a safety problem but that since this is a cul-de-sac traffic should be proceeding slowly. He felt there is a need to respect the applicanYs privacy. He did not see that moving back the portion of the fence under discussion would help sa.fety. In response to a question from Terry McConnell, Dennis stated that a chain link fence could be placed along the sidewalk in accordance with Code and the same constraints would apply for children having room to ride their bikes. Teiry stated that he felt the only vision problem was where the tree is situated and that is a pleasant addition to the area. Mary Higdem did not feel that the neighbo�s driveway situation was a problem and that vision should be adequate. She had viewed the property when school buses were in the azea and the children were not using the sidewalk at all. Madeline Buckendorf agreed stating that cars should be slowing down to enter the cul-de-sac. Phil Frye asked if the fence had not been constructed, would the Commission pernut the variance. Mary Higdem a�eed with this observation and asked Rick Wells if there were exceptional conditions to warrant a variance. Rick responded that due to its location in the cul- de-sac he felt there were. Terry McConnell felt there were sufFcient circumstances to wanant the variance. Mary Higdem stated that it is a very unusual piece of property because of the cul-de-sac. She could not envision that there would be a lot of fast traffic in that area and she did not see the fence as a safety hazard. MIlVUTES P&Z 2-17-94 Page 2 Phil Frye stated that if it is the Commission's job to enforce the code, he did not see where he could base an approval on loss of property value. He did not see how the applicant could be prevented from reasonable enjoyment of his home if the fence were placed ten feet back. Mary Higdem agreed stating that she did not feel the Commission could set a precedent and the need to identify this as a very unique situation. Mary asked Dennis if it were possible to approve the Variance in part. Dennis ab eed that a partial approval was indeed an option, reminding the Commission that in asking the applicant to move back the fence a certain distance, he would recommend that mention should be made for the record what intent is for the rema;n;ng portions of the fence which are in the rear yard. Mary offered a motion to approve the variance in part to pemut the fence but modify the placement of the portion which is considered to be in the side yard at the owne�s discretion from five (5) to ten (10) feet (the south side of the lot) including the five conditions suggested by staff. Phil Frye seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Higdem, Frye, McConnell. Those voting no: Buckendorf, Wells, Filote. Absent and not voting: None. Due to the fact that there was a tie vote, the Chairman cast a deciding vote in favor of the Motion. MOTION CARRIED The Chairman explained the procedure for those who wish to appeal the decision of the Commission. The second public hearing was a Special Use Pernut application to construct a church on property located on the corner of Marble Front and Norrh 9th Avenue. The applicant is the North and Spanish Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the representative is Cam Gepner. Dennis explained the background to the request, the fact that the applicant is considering purchase of the property from the City, contingent on the successful outcome of this hearing. The City offered the Maverick store the option to purchase the property originally but the Maverick store rejected the offer because of the somewhat restrictive development ability due to the presence of utility easements. The property was subsequendy put up for auction. The one bid received was lower than the appraised value, and the City rejected the bid. Dennis advised the Commission that the parcel was part of an area that was rezoned from R-3T to C�T in 1982, and that a letter had been received from one of the neighboring property owners objecting to the use because they had purchased the property for investment purposes. In 1992 there was a Special Use Pernut �-anted to Mr. Brumfield to construct a duplex immediately south of the subject property. Cam Gepner then testified, stating that they had out�own their facility on E. Elm where they had been for many years. He felt that their neighbors had found them to be good neighbors. Their operational hours are generally weekday evenings from about 7:30 to 10:30 p.m. and Sundays. In response to a question from Rick Wells, Mr. Gepner replied that children are included in all MiNIJTES P&Z 2-17-94 Page 3 • their services and activities. Mr. Gepner also stated that he would be constructino a sidewalk on two sides of the property and will extend the curb in front of the vacated Joliet Street. Mary Higdem asked about the tentative waiver of alcohol restriction for future developable parcels. Mr. Gepner said that they wouid be happy to provide signatures to that effect upon purchase of the property. They will also work with the Fire Department on location of fire hydrants and fire flow water pressure. David Linden of 1715 Marshall spoke in favor of the permit citing�a willingness to fit in with the neighborhood and be a 000d neighbor. Ralph Korn expressed concern about traffic in front of his residence on North 9th Avenue. He stated, in response to a question from Terry, that he was not opposed to the church but was opposed to the pazking lot entrance on 9th Avenue. Dennis stated that he had been contacted by people who live on the ridge southeast of the property who had expressed general support for this kind of use. He explained that fire hydrants are required as part of the plan check process and need not be spelled out in conditions. In response to a question from Mary, Dennis stated that the City Attorney, Bill Gigray, had not come to the conclusion that construction of a church would constitute a"taking" but felt as a Special Use tha.t it would more appropriately be viewed as a possible damage or detri.ment to a neighboring property owner. Also, the attorney stated that it would be perfectly appropriate to have a condition of approval as part of the use permit to ask the applicant to waive any protest involving on-site sales and consumption of alcohol bevera.ges for pernutted commercial uses. Dennis went on to state that since the property has been rezoned to commercial for a period of more than ten years, no commercial development has taken place. Thus, the market trend appears to be residential rather than commercial for this particular area. In response to a question from Rick Wells, Mr. Gepner said that some kind of fence would be constructed between the Maverick Store and the subject property. Madeline Buckendorf commented that it is a nice transition between the residential uses on the hill and the gas station. Dennis reported that Engineering did not see any major impact on Marble Front tiaffic, particulazly since peak hours for the church are different from normal tzaffic peak hours. Phil Frye offered a Motion, based on finding that there appeared to be no damage, detriment or nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood, to approve the Special Use Pernut with the ten conditions as stated by staff, changing the time frame in item #3 from one year to two years for ina.uguration of use and an eleventh condition that the 9th Avenue ingress/egress, if not reqwired for safety reasons, should be deleted. Terry McConnell seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Frye, Pilote, McConnell, Higdem, BuckendorF, Wells. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED MINUTES P&Z 2-17-94 Page 4 v There was some discussion concerning the desire of the Parks Department that the Commission make some oesture of opinion about the deposition of the funds resulting from the sale of the property, that the funds be deposited in the Parks Development Fund. Phil Frye questioned the appropriateness of the Commission to make such a statement. Bettie Pilote aa eed and also Mary Higdem. It was agreed that the Commissioners could go to City Council as individuals and make such a recommendation. The public hearing portion of the meetin� was then concluded. � The next item of business was a request by staff to initiate a public hearing for possible pemut revocation on the Group Child Care Facility at 1805 Blaine. Dennis explained that this property had originally been �anted a Special Use Pemut in 1992 and due to non-compliance with conditions including a near fatal accident, a hearing had been held to discuss revocation in September 1993. At that time, the Permit was continued based on further conditions. Dennis reported that the owner has not complied with the conditions set down, in particular, the fencing requirements for safety purposes. Mary Higdem offered a Motion to ask staff to advertise and schedule a public hearing at the earliest convenience. Madeline Buckendorf seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Higdem, Buckendorf, Wells, Frye, Pilote, McConnell. Those voting no: None. Absent and not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED The next item of discussion was review of the concept site plans and elevations for Sunridge Subdivision which had been submitted prior to the meeting as a requirement of Condition #19 of the Special Use Pernut reviewed and approved at the January 21 hearing. Bettie Pilote removed herself from the discussion, citing conflict of interest. Madeline Buckendorf explained that since she was not present for the public hearing for these cases she would prefer to abstain. Dennis explained that this was not a public hearing but a review by the Commission of concept site and elevation plans in order to have some idea of what the appearance of the development will be. Mary Higdem asked Art Solis, a partner in the development, whether or not there would be more landscaping or berming on Kunball. Mr. Solis replied that there are restrictions as to what is put in the right-of-way. In response to a question from Mary, Dennis stated that people in the area of the development had approached City Hall and looked at the concept plans and had appeared to be cautiosly receptive. He did feel they were seeking some ldnd of commitment that this is representative of the type and quality of hame that would be built. Mary asked how the Cornmission could support the plans and ensure the standards submitted aze maintained. MIIYiTfES P&Z 2-17-94 Page 5 + Dennis replied that we can get assurances from the applicant that this is in fact a representation of what is intended to be done. He added that in reviewing this condition the Commission can as part of this condition attach these plans as concept plans with the direction and understanding that they are to be a representation of the type of unit that is intended to be constructed. ' Art S�lis said that they had rPViewed a great many plans and want to build an attractive development. Typically, a developer goes in and develops a piece of property and another builder participates in construcrion of the homes. The plans are their idea of what they want built in that development. It does not mean that that is what another builder will construct but if the plans aze recorded they will have to abide by them. The applicant said they have reduced the density and are willing to abide by the conditions set down. In response to a question from Tom Ensiey, Mr. Solis agreed that there would be covenants. Phil Frye expressed concern that his original request for a concept plan of the entire development was not satisfied. Mr. Solis explained that it was impossible to o ve a rendering of the whole subdivision until the plat is revised. He would be able to provide an idea of the whole project but it is impossible to provide a rendering of a total development of 72 developed lots. Mary Higdem said that originally she a�eed with Phil, but having seen the concept plans she felt differently. Terry agreed stating that while he sees Phil's point of view, if Mr. Solis were going to develop and build every home he could agree with Phil but since the lots are for sale and will be built by others as long as there is a covenant to keep the standard that is about all that can be required. He added that this is preliminary stage and it will be reviewed again before final approval. Phil responded that he places no weight on covenants since they can be changed at any time. Dennis reminded the Commission that the project is technically under appeal. It is preferable to all parties involved to try and have some concepts evaivated by the Commission so that conditions requiring follow-up review by the Coinmission can be resolved in some fashion before the item is taken to Council. He added that while he understands Phil's request, he felt the Commission requested something more general. Rick Wells stated that based on the concepts submitted he had no problem with the projected appearance. Phil Frye stated that he felt it is of paramount unportance of wha.t it would look like when it is all developed. With some further discussion concerning appearance of the development and possible concept plans, Mary Higdem offered a Motion to approve the site plan concept with the understanding that the developer agrees that the design quality shown in this packet is what he intends to do and that he will put in the appropriate covenants with other contractors and builders and ensure the quality shown in these plans. Mary stated that the intent of the motion is to have a�eement with the developer that we have continual input and approval on what is going into the development. MIIVLTI'ES P&Z 2-17-94 Page 6 � Phil Frye seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE. Those voting yes: Higdem, Frye, McConnell. Those voting no: Wells. Those abstaining: Buckendorf, Pilote. Absent and not voting: None. MOTION CARRIED Dennis then reviewed items acted on by Council and discussed projected agendas for March 3 and March 17. He informed the Commission that from his experience it appeazed there would have to be two meetings in March and two meetings in April. With no further business the meetiug adjourned at 10:35 p.m. �-� ��%�-�, Recording Secretary � Liz Yeary Tom Ensley MINUTES P&Z 2-17-94 Page 7