Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-13 Minutesi • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00, P.M., Monday October 13, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Don Hunnicutt, Elizabeth Crocker, Windell Cullers, Martin Redfern, Peg Anderson. Morton Gitelman, Newton Hailey, Keith Newhouse. Larry Wood, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Ross Fefercorn, Bill Lazenby, Gail Mainard, Tom Hopper, Wade Bishop, Bryce Davis, Bobby Hatfield, John Faucette, and other members of the press and audience. The minutes of the September 22, 1980 meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. MINUTES Beth Crocker, Acting Chairman for LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT the Subdivision Committee, stated that APARTMENTS since there had been no waivers requested for CALVIN EDENS this Large Scale Development plan, the Subdivision Committee had approved it and had not referred it on to the Planning Commission. The third item on the agenda was a BRONZE TREE VILLAGE request submitted by Ralph Brophy to relocate REQUEST TO RELOCATE sidewalks in Brophy Addition from North F, West SIDEWALKS sides of Brophy Circle to the South P, East sides of Brophy Circle. Ross Fefercorn was present to represent. He stated that Mr. Brophy is requesting that the sidewalks be moved from the West side of Brophy Circle to the East side of Brophy Circle. The reason for the requested relocation was the sharp grade of the terrain on the West side, and sidewalks are already constructed on the East side of Block 4, off of Brophy Avenue. Fefercorn said that Brophy had stated that the sidewalks located on the West side of Brophy Circle is a mistake in the plat, that they were intended to go all the way around the interior area of Block 5. Fefercorn said he had a letter from Mr. Brophy stating that it was Mr. Brophy's desire to have the sidewalks relocated. Mr. Brophy is the owner of the property involved in the relocation. Ernest Jacks asked if the relocation would make the sidewalks continuous. Fefercorn stated that is correct, if the sidewalks were constructed on the West side of Brophy Circle, they would end in a steep ravine. Windell Cullers moved to approve the relocation of the sidewalks from the West side of Brophy Circle to the East side of Brophy Circle. Peg Anderson seconded Cullers' motion to approve, and the motion passed (6-0). • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 Page 2 The next item of business was the approval of the Final Plat of Bronze Tree Village, Phase I, a Planned Unit Development, located North of Township Road and West of Brophy Circle; Ralph Brophy -Owner and Ross Fefercorn and Thomas Prokasky Zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. Ross Fefercorn was present to represent. Elizabeth Crocker, Acting Chairman for the Subdivision Committee that the Subdivision Committee had imposed two requirements: FINAL PLAT BRONZE TREE VILLAGE,.. PHASE I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Developers. stated 1. The Certificate of Dedication that is on the Plat needs to be reviewed by City Attorney, Jim McCord. The problem in the dedication occurs in that the utilities are designated as public utilities and the Committee felt it should read utility companies. Also, the certificate calls for dedication of all streets and alleys to the public, and the street within this PUD is a private street. 2. Sidewalks on Township Road need to be added to the Plat according to the Master Sidewalk Plan. The Subdivision Committee felt that sidewalks on Brophy Circle would be as per recommendation by the Planning Commission. Fefercorn stated that there are special problems in constructing sidewalks along Township Road due to the significant drop off due to terrain. The Developers were wondering how desirable sidewalks would be on Township. Ernest Jacks stated that Mr. Fefercorn would have to convince the City Board of Directors. Jacks asked if the open space within the PUD conforms to the minimum width requirements, as specified in the PUD Ordinance. (25 ft. minimum width.) Fefercorn stated that originally, on the lower part of the site, there were six connected units, this has been changed to allow for some drainage to go through, and they now have the required 10 ft. separation between buildings. Beth Crocker said that this is the first phase of four phases. Don Hunnicutt asked what percentage of open space the PUD contains. Ross Fefercorn stated that the PUD contains 56% open space. Beth Crocker moved to approve the Final Plat for Bronze Tree Village, Phase I, with the aforementioned conditions and Don Hunnicutt seconded. The motion passed (6-0). This item was approved by the Subdivision Committee and was not passed on to the Planning Commission as there were no waivers requested. The next item for consideration was the approval of the preliminary plat of Meadowridge Subdivision located West of Old Missouri Road and South of Zion LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT BILL LAZENBY BETTY. JO DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT MEADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION BEN ISRAEL (01 • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 Page 3 Road; Ben Israel - Owner and Developer; Gail Mainard - Engineer. Zoned.R-2, Medium Density Residential District. The Chairman asked for the recommendation by the Subdivision Committee. Beth Crocker, Acting Chairman for the Subdivision Committee stated that the Subdivision Committee had approved the preliminary plat for Meadowridge Subdivision with two conditions: 1. The small tract of land located to the North of Frazier Terrace and adjacent to Old Missouri Road will be indicated as Lot 13 on the plat, also, indicate on the plat that this is not a buildable lot by itself. 2. The Developer has requested a waiver of the distance between street lights on Sunflower Circle from the intersection of Frazier Terrace down to the cul-de-sac which is slightly in excess of 300 ft. and the Subdivision Committee felt the waiver should be granted. Beth Crocker moved to approve the preliminary plat for Meadowridge Subdivision taking into consideration the above mentioned conditions. Don Hunnicutt seconded. Beth Crocker commented that the Developer is improving Old Missouri Road by widening it and installing curb, gutter and sidewalks, where it abuts this Subdivision. The motion passed (6-0). The seventh item on the Agenda was the approval of the Final Plat of Heritage East Subdivision, Phase I, located South of Huntsville Road (Hwy. 16 E.), East of Curtis Avenue, and West of Happy Hollow Road; Charm Homes, Inc. - Owner and Developer. Crafton, Tull and Associates - Engineer. Current zoning is R-1, Low Density Residential District. The Developer is requesting rezoning Subdivision to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Tom Hopper and Wade Bishop were present to represent. Beth Crocker moved that the Final Plat of Heritage East, Phase I be approved with four conditions: FINAL PLAT HERITAGE EAST, PHASE I CHARM HOMES, INC. 1. Covenants will be recorded with the Plat and the City will be made a third party to the covenants. Also, indicate the book and page number of recorded plat on the plat. 2. Indicate sidewalk on the South side of Fairlane Street where it abuts Lot 12, Block 4. 3. Recommend a variance be granted in the required spacing between street lights from the intersection of Fairlane Street and Emily to the Northeast corner of Lot 31, Block 1, on Fairlane Street. Planning Commission Meeting • October 13, 1980 Page 4 • • 4. The Subdivider will enter into a contract with the City to insure the completion of the required improvements. Ernest Jacks asked if there had been some determination as to what the Subdivider's share of improvements to Fairlane Street would be. Beth Crocker stated that this Developer had constructed Fairlane Street from the intersection of Emily out to Happy Hollow Road ; including standard width, curb and gutter. The Developer was wondering how much he would be required to contribute to Fairlane Street if he constructs it into Phase II (West) of the Subdivision. In Phase I, the Developer has born the whole cost of the construction of Fairlane. Crocker said that this determination should have been made at the preliminary plat level. Hopper presented a plat of the whole subdivision to the Commission. He stated that Happy Hollow Road is 180 ft. from the Subdivision and the Developer had constructed it from the intersection of Emily and Fairlane Street to Happy Hollow Road. Hopper asked the Commission what the requirement will be from the intersection of Emily to the West edge of the Subdivision. Hopper said he did not feel that it is fair for the Developer to develop the whole length of the street when the North property owner will benefit from it. Ernest Jacks asked Hunnicutt and Crocker if they felt it was a 50/50 proposition, they both replied that they did. Ernest Jacks recommended that the Developer enter into a contract that states he will contribute 50% of the cost of construction of Fairlane Street from the intersection of Fairlane and Emily in Phase I to the West end of the Subdivision, Phase II. Ernest Jacks asked if the Subdivision Committee felt the Developer should enter into a contract at this time for the construction of Fairlane Street to the West end of the Subdivision. Crocker felt it would not be applicable at this time to enter into the contract, unless the Developers felt that they needed a committment from the City at this time. Hopper said he wanted the Commission to take into consideration the Developer's construction of Fairlane, East to Happy Hollow. Anderson said that construction had been essential to the Development of Phase I, that it had been good, but basically there could have been no development without the construction of Fairlane. Crocker agreed, that the Developer had taken it upon himself to construct Fairlane Street to Happy Hollow and that the 50% contribution would take into consideration only that portion of Fairlane in Phase II. Don Hunnicutt seconded Beth Crocker's motion to approve with the aforementioned conditions. The Commission voted on Beth Crocker's motion to approve and the motion passed (6-0). Culler's suggested that the Commission consider Item 12 on the Agenda next as it is directly relevant to the item just discussed. Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 Page 5 The Commission considered REZONING PETITION R80-23 the Public Hearing on Rezoning HERITAGE EAST SUBDIVISION Petition R80-23, Wade Bishop WADE BISHOP to rezone property located East of Curtis Avenue, South of Huntsiille Road, and West of Happy Hollow Road and North of 15th Street from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Wade Bishop was present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Planning Consultant Larry Wood's comments on this requested rezoning. Larry Wood stated that he was recommending the requested rezoning to the Planning Commission for the following reasons: 1. The R-2 zoning is consistent with the adopted General Plan which indicates Medium Density Residential in this area. 2. The public facilities and services are available to serve R-2, Density. 3. The potential R-2 development is compatible with the surrounding land use which is commercial to the East and Medium Density to the West which is currently existing apartments and a Mobile. Home Park. 4. R-2 will provide close in housing for the developing Industrial Park South of Highway 16. Wade Bishop addressed the Commission in favor of the proposed rezoning. He stated that he would like to consider duplexes for that Eastern portion of Phase I of the Subdivision that would start at Lot 9, Block 1 and Lot 22, Block 4, , but that he would like the whole subdivision rezoned to R-2. Ernest Jacks asked why Mr. Bishop wanted the whole subdivision zoned R-2, when he was only considering duplexes on the Eastern portion of Phase I. Mr. Bishop said that if he felt a duplex should go in another area of the subdivision, he did not want to have to come back before the Commission. The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience appearing in opposition to the rezoning request. There was no one present in opposition. Peg Anderson moved to approve the requested rezoning and Windell Cullers seconded. Bobbie Jones said that the Developer may need a waiver of the safety zone requirement for drives on lots which have a 70 ft. width, or the Developer may need a waiver of the side setback requirements from the Board of Adjustment. Peg Anderson asked if that would not come with individual development of lots. Ernest Jacks wanted Mr. Bishop to be aware of the parking and drive setback requirements, but felt that it was not applicable to the rezoning request which was before the Commission at this time. The Commission voted on Peg Anderson's motion to approve the requested rezoning and it passed (6-0). The eighth item on the Agenda was the approval of the Final Plat of Regency North Subdivision Phase II, located North of Appleby Road and West of North College Avenue; FINAL PLAT REGENCY NORTH, PHASE II CHARM HOMES, INC. Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 Page 6 Charm Homes, Inc. - Owner and Developer, Crafton, Tull and Associates, Inc. - Engineers. Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Tom Hopper and Wade Bishop were present to represent. Beth Crocker moved to approve the Final Plat of Regency North Subdivision, Phase II with two requirements: 1. Conform to Plat Review Committee comments. 2. Subdivider will enter into a contract with the City to insure that all improvements are completed. Don Hunnicutt seconded. The motion to approve passed (6-0). The next item for consideration was DISCUSSION ITEM a discussion of the procedure for PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING acquiring park lands as permitted PARK LANDS by the Subdivision Ordinance. Bill Waite, 1307 Crestwood, was present to represent the Parks Board. The Chairman said that work is currently being done on a Green Space Ordinance. He was not sure it would be possible to get something in motion before the ordinance is in place. The Chairman said that David Lashley, Chairman of the Parks Board, had seen an area within the Kantz Place PUD that he thought would be appropriate for park lands Jacks felt it would be an appropriate time for the procedure for acquiring park lands to be brought up before the Planning Commission. Mr. Waite addressed the Commission. He stated that there was a considerable amount of development going on in the area where the Kantz Place PUD is being developed, and that there is no park land available as yet. The Parks Board has developed a plan for park lands and they were wondering how they could get land set aside for parks in this area. The Parks Board's question for the Planning Commission is how do we procede? Jacks stated that he is currently serving on the resurrected Green Space Committee, and that one of the questions they had addressed was how to handle a PUD which is basically a private development, with a minimum of 30% open space as a requirement of the development of the PUD, and provided for persons living within that private PUD. They had addressed the question of those persons living within the PUD also using public open space, and should those persons not contribute open spaces. Beth Crocker said that David Lashley had appeared before the Subdivision Committee and had pointed out that there may be some authority already as far as acquiring park lands. Under Appendix C, Article 4, Section B, in the Subdivision Regulations, it states "For a period of six months after submitting an application for approval of a preliminary plat, with the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may require the subdivider to reserve sites for public use that are indicated withinuthe boundaries of the proposed subdivision which are indicated on an officially adopted plan to permit the public Board, Commission, or body having jurisdiction or financial responsibility the opportunity to acquire such said sites". "The Subdivider at his option, may provide such areas, or may be required to make them available for acquisition by the City Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 • Page 7 under statutory procedures." It was Mr. Lashley's contention that perhaps the Commission already has some authority. Jacks said this had come out at the Green Space Committee Meeting. Larry Wood stated that the plan submitted to the Subdivision Committee is not an officially adopted plan, that the only thing that has been adopted has been the study. The Chairman said he was not sure how much public open space was needed in a PUD, as it is private and more or less takes care of itself. Beth Crocker said that the Green Space within a PUD does not have to be private, that the Ordinance clearly states that it can be either public or private. In order for the green spaces to be public, they have to be dedicated to the City and accepted by the City. Waite said that the tentative plan requires the neighborhood parks to be on the order of 5 acres or more That is a sizableochunk out of a development. Waite wondered what the equitable solution would be to the problem. Ernest Jacks felt that cash in lieu of land would be an equitable solution. Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission. He said that the Mayor had felt that perhaps PUD's should be excluded from the mandatory donation of land, and that cash in lieu of land would be better, as far as a PUD goes. Perhaps land should be designated and property owners or developers would be put on notice that an area is being considered for a public park. Lindsey did not feel that it was fair to let a Developer go to the Plat stage and then tell him that some of his property is going to be a public park. The Developer should know in advance. - Beth Crocker said that since the public park had been written into the PUD Ordinance, that a Developer might be interested in developing the PUD around the concept of a public park. Jim Lindsey agreed, he felt that if the Developer was aware of the public park lands that he might be able to work the PUD around the park to his advantage. Ernest Jacks was in accord. He said that the Green Space Committee had been adjourned until after the elections. Jacks felt that this should be tabled until such time as the Green Space Committee was back in session. He did not feel he should make any snap decisions. Peg Anderson said she did not see how the Parks Board could apply their acquisition to something that is already in process. Waite said he agreed with the Commission, in that this PUD is really too far along, and that the lands for public parks should be designated. Peg Anderson: said that park areas have not been designated yet, and it should not apply to this subdivision. The Commission moved on to the next item on the agenda. The next item for consideration PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT was the approval of the preliminary plat of TRACTS 1 THROUGH 6 Replat of Tracts 1 through 6 Kantz Place KANTZ PLACE SUBDIVISION A Planned Unit Development, located North of Highway 45 and West of Highway 265, Ball Family Trust, Owner and Developer. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Tom Hopper was present to represent. Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 • Page 8 • The Chairman asked for the recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Beth Crocker, Acting Chairman stated that the Subdivision Committee recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. Remove curb and gutter from the Kantz Lane cul-de-sac when extending the street to form a straight street. 2. Waive required spacing between the following street lights: a. From the intersection of Kantz Lane and Ball Avenue from the North end to the street light on the West side of Lot 36. b. Waive the light required at the end of the cul-de-sac Kantz Cove. c. Waive the spacing between the light placed at the South side of Lot 27 and the North side of Lot 29. 3. Furnish a copy of the covenants to the Office of City Planning, also, assure that the community property will be maintained by the Developer. until such time as the Property Owner's Association will take over maintenance of the community property. Hopper said that the Developer would go ahead and form the Property Owner's Association and have the maintenance of the open space provided for in that manner. There followed some discussion as to whether the cul-de-sac should be removed or not and the Commission went with Clayton Powell's recommendation that the cul-de-sac be removed to form a straight street. Don Hunnicutt seconded Beth Crocker's motion to approve the preliminary plat with the above mentioned conditions. The motion passed (6-0). Beth Crocker made note of the fact that this PUD may have a problem with their curb cuts, and had requested a blanket waiver of the requirement that drives be 12-1/2 ft. from the property line or have a 25 ft. safety zone between drives. Crocker said the Committee felt that should be handled when the development of the individual lots occurs, and that a blanket waiver should not be granted. The next item 6f business was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-22, Bryce J. Davis REZONING PETITION R80-22 BRYCE DAVIS BETTY JO DRIVE to rezone property located at 1036, 1012, 952 and 938 Betty Jo Drive from R-0, Residential Office District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Bryce Davis was present to represent. The Chairman asked for Larry Wood's comments. Larry Wood said he was recommending the rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The requested R-2 zoning is consistent with the adopted General Plan which indicates a break at about this point between the Medium Density Residential District and the Service Commercial. • 2. The public facilities and services are already existing in the street and are available to the property. • • Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 Page 9 3. The R-2 is compatible with the surrounding land uses, there is potential offices to the North, offices existing to the West, potential commercial to the East, apartments are existing to the East, apartments and duplexes exist to the South. Ernest Jacks asked Bryce Davis what was going on with Lots 1 through 7. Davis replied that Lots 1, 2, $ 3 would remain R-0, and that Bill Lazenby has a Large Scale Development plan for apartments for Lots 4 through.7. Beth Crocker asked why Mr. Davis was not simply requesting a Conditional Use instead of a rezoning. Mr. Davis replied that there would be a difference in setbacks between the R-2 and the R-0. The Chairman asked for comments from the audience in opposition to the requested rezoning. There was no one present in opposition. Windell Cullers moved to approve Rezoning Request No. R80-22. Peg Anderson seconded. The motion passed (6-0). The next item of business REZONING PETITION R80-21 was the Public Hearing on GLENN M. $ LYNN T..MONAHAN Rezoning Petition R80-21, Glenn M. $ Lynn T. Monahan to rezone property located East of Hwy. 71 South, North of Bigger Street (unopened) and South of Lester Street from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Pete Estes was present to represent. The Chairman asked for the Planning Consultant's report on this requested rezoning. Larry Wood said he is recommending the requested rezoning from R-1 to C-2 for the following reasons: 1. This piece of property plus approximately 900 ft. North of it, and about 4 or 5 other, smaller tracts are the only properties not currently zoned industrial or commercial from the North end of the airport all the way up to and past Highway 62. 2. The widening of Highway 71 and the industrial potential to the West as well as the Commercial development that exists to the South make this property undesirable for residential development. 3. Public facilities are available to the property. Estes addressed the Commission in favor of the requested rezoning. He stated there is an existing subdivision plat on this property that was filed in 1926, and never developed. The property is still wooded. The type of development that is taking place in this area is no longer desirable for a residential subdivision. To the North and South of the property there are presently 18 commercial establishments. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in opposition to this requested rezoning. There was no one present in opposition. Windell Cullers moved that the rezoning request be approved. Martin Redfern seconded. The motion passed (6-0). • Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 Page 10 The next item on the CONDITIONAL USE agenda was the Conditional Use BOBBY.. HATFIELD Request submitted by 2302, 2240 $ 2228 WEDINGTON DRIVE Bobby Hatfield to construct duplexes at 2302, 2240 P, 2228 Wedington Drive, Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Bobby Hatfield was present to represent. The Chairman asked if the adjacent property owners have been notified. Bobbie Jones replied that a sign had been posted on the property, a notice published in the newspaper, and that she had return receipts from some property owners. Bobby Hatfield addressed the Commission in favor of the Conditional Use. He stated that there are three existing rental houses on the property. The property consists of 1.7 acres. He stated he was requesting permission to build the duplexes in order to get more income from the property. He wanted to clarify that he is not asking for a rezoning but a conditional.. use. He said he is unable to upkeep the property on the income it is now bringing in. The duplexes he is proposing would be brick. John Faucette addressed the Commission in opposition to the Conditional Use. He stated he owns the property at 2215 Hatfield, and that he is an adjoining property owner. He asked the Commission to refer to the petition representing 47 households. He said that these persons as well as himself are opposing the conditional use and the construction of the duplexes. They feel it will result in greater density than already exists in the neighborhood. It would result in the devaluation of the properties in the area. The allowance of duplexes in the neighborhood would change the characteristic of the neighborhood, from single-family to multi -family. Mr. Faucette said he did not want duplexes at his back door. Mr. Faucette said that the tennants you find in duplexes are of a transient type, and tend to be noisier than permanent residents. Upkeep of property maynot be as well done by transient type tennants. He said he did not want his property touching property of a greater density than his. Also, Mr. Faucette felt that it would add traffic to an already congested street. Mr. Hatfield said that there are presently apartments 1/2 block from the site. Mrs. Gregory Salamo, 2200 Ora Drive, addressed the Commission. She stated that there are apartments close to the site, but that so far, they have not extended into the single family area. Jim Williams addressed the Commission in opposition to the request. He stated that this area has always been an R-1 area. He said that the apartments Mr. Hatfield mentioned were_built in 1968. He stated that the area in question is R--1, and that certain areas should not be spotted out for duplexes. If the Planning Commission has planned the City and planned a certain area R-1, and then comes in and puts in duplexes, then there is no use for City Planning. Peg Anderson stated that she is generally in favor of duplexes. However, she did not feel that this plan as presented is a good plan for this area. She felt that nine duplexestare too many for the site. She said she would consider expanding or changing the units that are existing, but that this plan did not use the conditional use for duplexes in R-1 as it was intended to be used Anderson made a motion to deny the request for the conditional use, Windell Cullers seconded. Ernest Jacks stated that he was in disagreement with part of Mr. Faucette's Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 1980 Page 11 • statement; that being that when rentals are introduced into a neighborhood, that it goes downhill. He said that 50% of the single family houses in Fayetteville are rented, and therefore it would be logical to assume that there are many houses in this neighborhood that are rented. The motion passed (6-0). The next item for consideration OFF-SITE PARKING was the request for renewal of off-site PARKER AND WESTPHAL parking for the law office at 123 W. SPRING 123 W. Spring Street submitted by Parker $ Westphal, Attorneys. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial District. There was no one present to represent. The Chairman stated that a note had been submitted saying that the Attorney's would not be able to attend the meeting as they would be out of town. Windell made a motion to approve the off-site parking for another year. Peg Anderson seconded. The motion passed (6-0). The next item of business was the REPORT FROM JOINT PUD report on PUD's from a joint Planning COMMITTEE - PLANNING Commission and Board of Directors PUD COMMISSION $ BOARD OF DIRECTORS Committee. The Chairman said the Planning Commission had been represented in this Committee by Windell Cullers, Beth Crocker and himself. He stated he would give a report. Jacks stated that the two committees had had a rapid meeting of the minds He was to talk to Jim McCord in order to discuss the drafting of amendments to the PUD Ordinance to make a PUD a Conditional Use in R-1. A list of reasons for denial would be drafted, which would be essentially the same list that exists in the PUD Ordinance with some additional provisions about impact on the neighborhood. Also, a provision would be written in whereby the adjoining property owners would have an appeal process. The City Attorney had drafted an amendment to the ordinance, but it does not include the list of reasons for denial. Beth Crocker commented that in Section 2, it is broken down into two parts, the owner having the right to appeal, and the developer having the right to appeal. The owner of adjacent property having the right to appeal if the PUD is approved,. and the Developer having the right to appeal if it is not approved. Ms. Crocker said she does not agree with the provision in that the Developer should have the right to appeal if the PUD is approved with some special condition that the developer takes exception to. The Chairman suggested that the amendment be sent back to Mr. McCord with the suggestion that a list of reasons for denial be set up and also, the developer be given the right to appeal if a special condition is imposed that he takes exception to. Beth Crocker said that in Section I of the amendment, the zoning ordinance lists conditional uses and findings that the Planning Commission is to make if the PUD is approved. The City Attorney has referenced this in Appendix A, Planning Commission Meeting • October 13, 1980 Page 12 Article 9, Section (6) (c). He does not include the reasons for denial. There followed some discussion and the Commission passed on to the next item of business. The next item for consideration COMMITTEE REPORT was a Committee Report studying STUDY ON OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS off-site improvements not related to $ LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS Subdivisions or Large Scale Developments. The Chairman stated that the Committee consists of Mort Gitelman and Keith Newhouse, neither of them are present. Bobbie Jones had included a portion .of the Ordinance which requires her to make the determination of what off-site improvements will be required by a Developer developing a tract other than a Subdivision or a Large Scale Development. Ernest Jacks suggested tabling this item and including it in the next Agenda. There being no_further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:35, P.M.