Loading...
03-26-1985 PLANNING AND ZONING C SSION, Public Hearing, 3-2 5 actual development. �, 1 Mr. Wall asked what the proposed uses of that land are. Mr. Dundon stated strictly convenience stores or hobby craft stores. 1 As stated originally, they would have liked to put an animal clinic on the property, but there is nothing definitely planned 2at the time. This was requested at the time the City was going to rezone the land from A-2 to residential. 3 Mr. Wall asked if the land is in the possession of the future 4 developers. Mr. Dundon stated no; the land is totally owned by his wife. They have not decided as to whether or not they will 5 do the developing or retain a developer. 6 Mr. Rivera stated in looking over the submitted plot plan, from a development point of view, he has a problem with it. They are 7 showing a 200' buffer, and according to the plot plan, the center line of Micro Road pretty much hits the center of their 200' 8 buffer. For single family residences, they cannot permit private roads, and given that either side of the center of the 200' is 9 1001 , it would not meet their minimum off-set for street intersections of 1251 . From a development point of view, the way 10 the buffer zone is layed out is impractical. It would either need to be much deeper or in a different configuration. 11 Mr. Dundon stated if this presents a problem, then they could 12 make the one lot that is on Tellbrook Drive access off Tellbrook and the other two lots could have access through the land to the 13 north, which is not being rezoned, but is currently owned by the Dundons. 14 Mr. Rivera stated in reviewing the proposed change, staff feels 15 that south on Tellbrook Drive, they have a whole block that was zoned C-2. A couple of lots have been built upon in triplexes, 16 but there is still some vacant C-2 land to the south. What staff would recommend for this particular parcel in question would be 17 perhaps a 1 or 1 1/2 acre C-1 site at the corner of Las Alturas and Tellbrook and the balance to remain in R-1 residential zone, 18 with perhaps an L-shaped loop drive connecting Tellbrook to Las Alturas. 19 Mr. Wall asked the applicant if he would be agreeable to that. 20 Mr. Dundon stated not at this time. He thinks the reduction of C-1 down to 1 or 1 1/2 acres is to great a deduction. He thinks 21 there is a demand for large commercial land at thab- intersection. He personally doesn' t think it is appropriate to put R-1 adjacent 22 to the existing 1 acre lots there, which would mean they could have up to 8 houses per acre. 23 Richard Brundage stated he lives about 1500 feet due east of this 24 proposed zone change. He stated his biggest problem is he was led to believe that R-1 required sewer lines, and there are no 25 sewers out there that he knows of, unless the City is going to extend sewer lines out there. When he bought land out there, he 26 was led to believe that is was all under covenants. He stated he would have no problem with a 1 or 1/2 acre lot size in R-1, but 27 he does have a problem with eight houses to the acre. He also has a problem with C-1. Originally they were talking about 28 1 putting an animal clinic at that location, and he would have no trouble with that, but he does not particularly want a 29 convenience store sitting on the corner. He stated he feels in keeping with the spirit of the convenants and the fact that the 30 land is originally owned by them at which time they could have made allowances for this. He feels that R-1 and C-1 is too much. 31 Derek Partridge stated he lives in the house closest to the S2 proposed rezoning. He stated as a personal preference, he wouldn' t want to see any commercial there. The reason he lives there is because he wanted to get away from those sorts of things. He did attend the meeting with the Dundons and it was 3 60 PLANNING AND ZONING Cc, SSION, Public Hearing, 3-2� I Mr. Wall moved they approve Case #S-85-002. Mr. Diemer secbnded the motion. Gil Gardner was present to answer questions. 1 Wayne McCreesh stated the developer will pay a park fee of 2 $7,971.48. They have requested no variances. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat contingent upon the 3 City's direction to development of the frontage road bounding the subdivision on the east. Mr. Greenfield, Director of PEP, has 4 come to the conclusion that the developer can build the full width of the road half of the distance to the north. 5 There being no further discussion, the Chairman called for the 6 vote on the motion. The motion carried 5 to 0. 7 PUBLIC HEARING 8 OLD BUSINESS 9 Clrequest by William E. Dundon for a zone c �;- {Rural Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial) 10 on a 10.856 acre tract owned by Shirley E. Dundon and located on the northeast corner of Las Alturas Drive and Tellbrook Road. 11 (This request was tabled last month at the owner's request to clarify the proposal.) 12 Mr. Wall moved the item be removed from the table. Ms. Shinn 13 seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 to 0. 14 Mr. Dundon stated since the last meeting, he and his wife have met with some of the neighbors to the east of the subject 15 Property. He stated the outcome of that meeting was a compromise to change the request to show a 200' wide buffer zone on the east 16 edge of the lot, roughly 3 acres. Also, they are changing the request from C-2 to C-1 on the balance of the land. 17 Mr. Smith stated the have in their y packets the letter from the 18 Dundons requesting that change, including a map showing the 200' "buffer" of R-1. Staff still has some concerns about commercial 19 zoning in this location. C-1 by nature does not permit large businesses. Shopping centers over 2 acres would require a 20 special use permit in C-1 zoning. Although they have an extensive buffering effect with the R-1, they still have over 7 21 acres of C-1 zoning. Staff still feels it is too much; possibly an acre and a half of C-1 zoning on the corner might be 22 appropriate. 23 Mr. Griffin stated if this is rezoned to C-1, they could build a series of small shops, as long as they are not above a certain 24 size. Mr. Smith stated each business has to be under 3000 square feet, which would require extensive subdivision of the property; 25 it would take many shops to do almost 8 acres. 26 Ms. Shinn asked in the meeting with the adjoining property owners, what was their response to the buffer. Mr. Dundon 27 stated they were basically in favor of having a residential buffer. That buffer will carry the same covenants as the Las 28 Alturas Subdivision immediately to the east, which is 9/10 of an acre minimum lot size, and all the other restrictions which 29 apply. 30 Ms. Shinn stated that would be then 3 dwelling units on that 3 acres. She asked how he proposes to access them. Mr. Dundon 81 stated there would have to be either a private road or else a dedicated City street along the commercial area to serve these 32 three lots. Ms. Shinn stated he is proposing access between the commercial and the housing. Mr. Dundon stated that is correct; at the present time they are not making any proposals for the 2 59 PLANNING AND ZONING C ISSION, Public Hearing, 3-2 5 w 1 agreed that some C-1 commercial on the corner and A, low degsity buffer zone would be an appropriate compromise, becAuse the best they can get from the City in a rezone is R-1, 8 houses per acre, which is an enormous increase. It seemed that if the applicant would agree to a lower density housing, then he would have to 1 agree to C-1 on the corner. He doesn' t like the idea of 7 acres of C-1; he doesn' t see the pressing need for commercial 2 development out there since the C-2 in Tellbrook has been around for a long time and has no commercial development. He personally 3 doesn' t want to see convenience stores, gas stations or fast food restaurants at that location. He does not have any problem with 4 an animal clinic; he thinks that would be appropriate on that corner. He asked if commercial development can have covenants on it. 6 Mr. Smith stated they have certain development standards in all ? the zones already, but the owner could put any restrictive covenant they want on their own land; the City can' t place 8 restrictive covenants on the property. Mr. Wall asked if he attended the meeting and at the meeting agreed to the almost 8 acres of commercial. Mr. Partridge stated 10 the meeting was general disagreement for about 3 hours, and finally it was suggested they have a low density buffer zone 11 with the same covenants as Las Alturas and the rest C-1. He stated he didn't agree to figures of almost 8 acres of 12 commercial, but he agreed in principal to trading off low density residential for C-1. As far as he remembers, the actual 13 acreage of the proposed C-1 was not discussed at the meeting. 14 Mr. Griffin stated unless the City puts a sewer system in, which is highly unlikely, the highest density they can use with septic 15 tanks is 1/3 acre, so 3 dwelling units per acre is probably all they could get. 16 La ttimer Evans stated he has lived in Las Alturas for 25 years, 17 and they bought and built there with the idea that it was a residential area. He stated he opposes any commercial, but the 18 main objection he and his wife would have is 7 acres of commercial, which could lead to a fair amount of traffic that 19 would not be conducive to what the community now offers. 20 Daniel Allen stated he lives adjacent to the area in question. He asked how many thousand square feet of development would be 21 permitted under the zoning on the area in question: Is there potential for a shopping center, one or two stores with so many 22 square feet, etc.? Mr. Smith stated the requirement in C-1 is that they be 3000 square feet or less per business. The minimum 23 lot size is 5000 square feet. Assuming they could get their parking in, they could a business on every 5000 square feet, but 24 most of the parking would prohibit that. Mr. Allen stated so that is a potential of 60 lots of commercial development. Mr. 25 Smith stated they would have to have sewer to go to that density. 26 Grant Kisner stated he has been a resident of Las Alturas for ten years, and he objects to the proposed zoning change. He also 27 brings the objections of his neighbors, George Gurtiky and ?? who could not be present at the meeting. He stated he objects to a 28 change of any kind, and he objects to an animal clinic because animals that have to be kept over night will more than likely be 29 kept outside, and he has been around situations like that, and the animals make noise all night long. 30 Mr. Partridge asked in reference to sewage disposal, what is the 31 density of the new subdivision which was approved with a new sewage disposal system? Mr. Smith stated that is located north 32 of Mission Bell, and they have about 4 or 5 units gross to the acre. They have a new sewage system that is not City owned or operated. 4 61 PLANNING AND ZONING CO ISSION, Public Hearing, 3-26-85 Ir Mr. Wall asked if the option of a Planned' Unit Development was discussed with Mr. Dundon. Mr. Smith stated no; MYl:. Dundon wants commercial land, Mr. Wall asked Mr. Dundon if he was aware of the option of a PUD. Mr. Dundon stated he is vaguely aware of it, but not in detail. He cannot see how it fits into the 1 discussion right now. Mr. Wall stated because it appears that they have one resident that doesn' t want them to change the zone 2 from agriculture at all, and there are others that want him to restrict the land uses there, and the only way he can see that 3 he can meet all of their interests would be to submit a proposal with the detailed use of that entire plot of land. He might 4 further investigate that option. 5 Mr. Smith stated in this case, they weren' t considering a PUD because Mr. Dundon doesn't have any uses in mind and obviously 6 can' t do a site plan for that. He could do a PUD, but if the neighbors don't want commercial, they still aren't going to want 7 it in a PUD. Mr. Wall stated he just wanted to point out the option of a PUD. 8 Mr. Dundon asked if there is a time limitation on developing a 9 PUD. Mr. Smith stated the time limitations are put on at the time of the approval of the PUD. 10 Mr. Dundon stated as a counter-proposal, what if they request to 11 3 acres of commercial at the intersection and the balance R-1. Mr. Wall stated he still has a problem with that because they are 12 telling people what they are and aren' t going to do with the acreage, and once the zone is made, he can do whatever he wants 13 to do. The people that have been out there for several years are interested in what their surroundings are going to be and how he 14 is going to alter their styles of life. 15 Mr. Dundon stated the zoning is pretty definite as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. At the meeting, he passed out 16 copies of the C-1, C-2 and A-2 sections of the Zoning Code to the seven families that were represented at the meeting. He stated 17 the original Las Alturas Subdivision 1 and 2 comprising some 90 acres has roughly 29 lots, of which 15 are built on, and 7 of 18 those 15 were represented at that meeting. 19 Mr. Wall asked if there was a spokesman for the residents. Mr. Allen stated there was no spokesperson; they were not there to 20 represent a group or to act as a spokesman or as a negotiating committee; they were there simply as interested parties to hear 21 Mr. Dundon and discuss their thoughts and exchange''views. They did not have the authority, formal or otherwise, to represent the 22 neighborhood. 23 Mr. Diemer stated the request is so vague that is hard for him to favor it, simply because there are so many options left open once 24 they get this zone. If he came in with a PUD request, it would identify for the Commission a concept that dealt with most of the 25 details of what would happen in the area, not just a general idea. He stated when they start talking about taking little 26 chunks of land at a time, he sees problems with the engineering that is going to be involved to do that, because just off of the 27 corner is a very low spot, and the kind of engineering work that 28 would need to be done there to put a satisfactory commercial development in would have some kind of effect on the kind of residential development that could go in behind it. Right now he 29 is not in favor of this because it leaves too many questions 30 unanswered. 31 Mr. Dundon stated to answer these questions, even to the extent of going the PUD route, there would have to be considerable 32 engineering done to determine what could or could not be accomplished. As stated at the first meeting, the initial request was not made in the sense that they were ready to start building commercial , but rather than have the City change it from 5 PLANNING AND ZONING ISSION, Public Hearing, 3- 5 ti I A-2 to residential, since this land from"the previous owners had been tentatively set aside as commercial, they felt,, it wasi appropriate to make the zone change now rather than go through the additional step of zone changing. There was further discussion on development of the site. Mr. 1 Griffin pointed out that if he did present a PUD, they would 2 still have to have a public hearing, and it may not be approved. .1 Mr . Dundon stated lie wuuld like to aiaQLiJa his re(-,,i,,,: ►;n 7, of C_1 at the intcr.secti.on of r.,as Al Lurzit,) Drive :in-': 'PoI l },nook, and the balance of the property in R-1. He sta tuu i.c, tale middle 4of the lot there is a ridge that would probably dictate whether the 3 acres is in an exact square or not. The configuration of 5 i the 3 acres would be close to a square. 6 Mr. Wall moved that the motion to recommend approval be amended ? to reflect Mr. Dundon's request as stated above. Mr. Diemer seconded the motion. 8 There was discussion of the alternatives to voting on the motion 9 and possibly denying it. 10 Mr. Partridge stated he withdraws his temporary agreement to the compromise, because now that it is R-1 with no restrictions, he 11 does not see the buffer zone anymore. 12 ' There being no further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote on the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 5 to 0. 13 2. Case #29766: A request by owners Floyd L. and Deanna L. 14 johnson or a zone change from A-2 (Rural Agricul tut a 1) to R--2 (Medium Density Residential) and a special use perm.� for a mobile 15 home park on a 5.5517 acre parcel on Stern Drive near the southern City limits. (This request was tabled last month fur further 16 information and consideration.) 17 Ms. Shinn moved that the item be removed from the table. The motion carried 5 to 0. 18 Mr. Griffin stated the applicant has requested that this be tabled 19 until next month. 20 Mr, Wall moved the case be tabled. Ms. Shinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 to 0. 21 NEW BUSINESS 1. Case #20767: A request by owner Ayoub Mehdizadeh for a zone 22 change from 0-1 (Office) to R-3 (High Density Residential) on a 0.6394 acre site on the southeast corner of Missouri Avenue and 23 Thomas Drive. 24 Ms. Shinn moved they recommend approval of Case #Z0767. Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. 25 Cary Taylor representing the applicant stated this property was 26 originally zoned R-3. The real estate agent who sold this property to Mr. Mehdizadeh requested a zone change to C-1 but was 27 granted 0-1, which happened to be more restrictive than the R-3 was. R-3 seems to conform with the surrounding land uses. 28 IMr. Smith stated they have a tentative site plan for what is Z9 proposed for this property which is 16 apartment units. The site plan is in conformance with requirements, except that the entry on 30 Thomas should be further down to avoid clear site triangle. From traffic count estimates, it would be slightly less to have an R-3 31 than 0-1. Staff recommends approval. 32 There being no further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion carried 5 to 0. 6 63