Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-24 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00, P.M., Monday, August 24, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Joe Wilson, Martin Redfern, Don Hunnicutt, David Williams, Newton Hailey, Elizabeth Crocker, Windell Cullers MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Morton Gitelman. Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, Paul Paul Marinoni, Jr., Sterling P. Anders, James E. John Maguire, Ken V. Hanshew, Louise Huey, Dale Larry Robbins, Vickie Butler, others. The minutes of the August 10, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as mailed. The next item for consideration was the Final Plat of Camelot Addition, Phase I, located South of Highway 16 West, East of Highway 71 Bypass, and West of Sang Avenue; Paul Marinoni 8 Sons, Owner and Developer. Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Paul Mattke and Paul Marinoni, Jr. were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a recommendation from the Subdivision Committee. Don Hunnicutt, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee stated that the Final Plat for Camelot Addition, Phase I be approved with the following conditions: Mattke, Potts, Holland, MINUTES FINAL PLAT CAMELOT ADDITION, PHASE I PAUL MARINONI $ SONS 1. All Plat Review Committee comments and requests will apply. 2. The Planning Commission is to consider the letter from Clayton Powell dated August 10, 1981, denying approval of the street plans and profiles for Phase I of Camelot Addition. 3. Recommend approval contingent upon the street width and other specifications being worked out. Paul Mattke addressed the Commission. He stated the problem occurs in the original curb and gutter which was installed at different elevations. The Developer recommends a certain crowning configuration which will be functional. The Street Superintendent recommends that one set of curbs be removed, and the Developer is taking exception to this recommendation. Hunnicutt stated that the Developers propose a 9" crown on the street and Clayton Powell does not feel that anything greater than a 6" crown should be installed. Jacks asked what the 9" crown will cause. Hunnicutt stated he did not feel the Subdivision Committee nor the Planning Commission should make determinations on street specifications. He stated the appeal of Mr. Powell's recommendation /y' • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 Page 2 is directed to the City Manager. Bobbie Jones said this appeal had been addressed to the City Manager on the advice of the City Attorney. Hunnicutt stated that if the curb is removed as recommended by Clayton Powell, Mr. Powell recommends that the street be widened to the 31 ft. required by the present ordinance. Hunnicutt stated that if the Final Plat is not approved contingent upon this matter being resolved, the Developer will have to come back before the Planning Commission. Hunnicutt stated he would make his recommendation a motion. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The next item of business was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R81-12, Sterling P. Anders, James E. Potts, and John Maguire to rezone property located West of Porter Road, North of Sycamore Street and North of U. S. Highway 71 Bypass from A-1, Agricultural District and R-1, Low Density Residential District to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. Sterling P. Anders, James E. Potts and John Maguire were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood. Larry Wood stated that I-1 District is not recommended for this property, but R-2 District is recommended for that part of the property located South of the North Branch of Hamstring Creek and the West half of that part North of the Creek. R-0 District is recommended for the remainder of the property for the following reasons: REZONING PETITION R81-12 POTTS, ANDERS, MAGUIRE WEST OF PORTER, NORTH OF BYPASS 1. One of the objectives of zoning is to promote planned and orderly growth for the benefit of the entire community, which this application does not appear to accomplish. The area is predominately residential or undeveloped at this time, rolling, tree covered and possessing the characteristics more commonly associated with residential development. 2. The area possesses limited capability for expansion of Industrial development which implies the I-1 District tends toward spot zoning. 3. The I-1 District request is not in keeping with the adopted plan nor the special study. The Chairman asked the Commission if they would rather look at this request after consideration of the proposed amendment to the general plan for property in this area. Newton Hailey stated he would rather consider this petition after the study has been considered. Cullers stated he did not think that it was necessary to switch the agenda as the proposed study had not been adopted. The Commission knows what is proposed in the plan and what these gentlemen propose. Hunnicutt agreed and moved that this Rezoning Petition R81-12 be considered at this time. )y9 Planning Commission Meeting • August 24, 1981 Page 3 • • Windell Cullers seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The Chairman asked for comments in favor of the request. John Maguire addressed the Commission. He stated that this property is presently under review for possible amendment to the general plan.. He felt that with the proposed interchange going in that the effects of traffic should be considered. He felt that the interchange has changed the potential uses for this area. The proposed interchange will put this property within minutes of Springdale, Bentonville and Rogers. He said there is an abundance of undeveloped property in this area, and that the developers could find no better property for warehouse and office uses that would be served by trucks and service type vehicles. The Developers are of the opinion it is good planning to put highway type uses next to the highway. They feel traffic of this nature should be moved away from downtown. They hope their petition will be further received favorably. Maguire further stated the adjoining 85 acres to the West of this property is owned by the same developers, they propose buffering the I-1 in some way. The 40 acres farthest to the West is currently zoned A-1, and they have no plans for zoning it at this time. They propose to develop the property in a manner socially and economically beneficial to the City. There is currently land zoned R-2 away from traffic noise. Maguire stated he lives 1320 ft. away from a highway and that he can still hear traffic. The developers would rather""take a whipping" then build houses next to the bypass. He said he could find only one new home being constructed on the bypass. Maguire stated there are several use units associated with the I-1 Zoning District and the developers will assure that those use units the Commission finds objectionable will not be permitted in the zone. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else in the audience appearing in favor of the request. Jim Vizzier addressed the Commission. He presented a map showing truck related businesses within the City, the proposed interstate which is to come through Fayetteville from Cato Springs Road to Highway 112, and some layouts showing the Flood Plains the developers propose using for buffering the I-1 from the property to the West. Vizzier presented some statistics concerning tax bases and densities and traffic flow for R-2, which has been recommended and the I-1 which the developers propose. Vizzier stated the Planning Consultant has stated that this property would be good for residential development. Vizzier said he thinks this is true if it were not for the interstate and the flood plain. The Planning Consultant was of the opinion that rezoning this property to I-1 would be spot zoning. Vizzier stated he has trouble thinking of 35-37 acres as spot zoning. Windell Cullers stated that if the property is rezoned as requested, he would not like to see certain uses put on the property. He asked how the developers will restrict undesireable development. Vizzier proposed making restrictions part of the sale agreement, and assure the City by Bill of Assurance that certain uses will not be implemented in the area. John Maguire stated the developers will assure that Use Units 18, 22 and 27 will not be developed in this area. Hunnicutt asked if the proposed bypass service road will be parallel to the interstate. Potts stated that is correct.. Maguire stated that all the property for the service road has been acquired except a small, land -locked piece of property. /50 Planning Commission Meeting • August 24, 1981 Page 4 Dan Epperly asked if the developers plan a truck stop. Maguire stated for the record, the Developers are not going to do anything that will hurt anyone in the area. He said he would be willing to restrict a truck stop. Williams asked what Use Unit the developers are interested in. Jim Vizzier said the Use Unit the developers are interested in is a warehouse, wholesale type use which is only permitted in I-1. Maguire said there will be nothing installed in this area that will not be compatible with what is already out there. ' Wilson Kimbrough, 3110 Mount Comfort Road, addressed the Commission. He stated he was concerned about the I-1 and the impact it will have on the single family area. He was not sure what I-1 entails and wondered what restrictions would be placed on the development. Ernest Jacks stated the Commission cannot make a determination of what is allowed and what is not allowed as a condition of approval of a rezoning. He stated if the developer or petitioner wishes to propose to the Commission restrictions, then they can be placed on the approval. Beth Crocker stated that if the property is sold, the restrictions will go with the land. Kimbrough stated the Commission needs to address the traffic problems that will go along with the interchange. The area is not conducive to good vision or safe driving. Larry Wood stated that he would have to agree with the applicant in that the development proposed will make less traffic volume than the proposed multifamily. The problem he sees is in the policy of land use relations. He felt the land use relations are perhaps more hazardous in terms of applying this use and its impact on the community. Hunnicutt asked Wood where he would propose these types of businesses. Wood stated he felt a good area for this type of use would be in the area from Highway 112 - East to Highway 71 B. It is flat land and there is lots of it. Access is roughly the same as at this intersection. Some of the land would be harder to get to. If that area is used for this use, industrial type uses would not be interceding into a principally residential area Mr. Wood said industrial uses are more associated with 5% grades or less and with larger tract sizes. Williams asked if the typical characteristics of a residential area were not cancelled out by the proposed interchange. Wood stated that if you are going to have residential development you will have heavy traffic volumes, heavier than in a light industrial zone. If traffic cannot be handled at the intersection of a collector and an expressway, then it can't be handled on interior streets. Williams asked about noise levels. Larry Wood stated that the noise level has not been so great as to cause concern with the EPC. He stated he agrees with Wilson Kimbrough that it doesn't make any difference what development takes place in this area, the traffic problems at this intersection are going to be bad. There is blind access for Northbound and Southbound traffic. There are 90 degree turns approaching the interchange. Maguire stated there is a natural tree line break across the Creek. He felt that area would be good for apartments. He felt the I-1 would buffer between the interchange and the residential development. He agreed with Larry Wood in that traffic will be bad at the interchange. He stated he did not know of any interchange that did not have 90 degree turns on and off the interchange. ' 15/ Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 Page 5 Don Hunnicutt moved that approval of Rezoning Petition R81-12 be recommended to the Board of Directors, with the developers entering into a Bill of Assurances with the City restricting the development to omit Use Units 18, 22, and 27. Maguire stated that if truck stops are not included in these Use Units, the Developers will agree to that exclusion also. Hunnicutt stated that his reason for the motion is he feels these uses need to be close to the highway. This way the traffic serving the development will be able to serve it easily. He stated he is in an area right now with several different zonings and it is extremely difficult to tell truck drivers how to locate their business. Also, he felt that with the installation of the interchange, the character of the area will be completely changed. Hunnicutt felt the services the Commission establishes along the bypass should be served by the bypass Hunnicutt amended his motion to also exclude truck stops. Windell Cullers seconded Hunnicutt's motion to approve with the above mentioned exclusions. Newton Hailey stated he felt this was a reasonable use for the land. He did not feel the noise along the bypass would make it desirable for residential development. He did not feel that economics has anything to do with it at this point. Wilson stated that he would not like to see a precedent set for I-1 and.! I-2 along the bypass. He thought by approving this request, there would be a lot of similar requests. He did not want this type of development along both sides of the bypass He stated he would go along with this request as the petitioners own the property adjacent to the West. Williams asked Wood if he felt the traffic generated by this type of development would be safer than residential traffic. Wood said it would create less traffic but he could not say it would be safer. Redfern said there is a need for this type of land use on the Northwest side of the City. With the location of this type of development along the interstate, he felt there would be less likelihood of Industrial development along the Bypass. The motion to recommend approval of Petition R81-12 to the Board of Directors passed (8-0). The next item for consideration REZONING PETITION R81-13 was the public hearing on Rezoning HANSHEW F, HUEY Petition R81-13, Ken V. Hanshew and NORTH OF OLD FARMINGTON ROAD Louise Huey to rezone property located West of One Mile Road and North of Old Farmington Road from A-1, Agricultural District to R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ken V. Hanshew and Louise Huey were present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant. Larry Wood stated the requested R-1 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The area is in the process of changing from a rural to an urban density pattern; and 2. Public facilities (water and sewer) are now available to serve this area. /5a J Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 Page 6 Ken Hanshew addressed the Commission. He stated he is interested in building a house next to his grandparents. He is moving next to his grandparents in order to help them maintain their chicken houses. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present appearing in opposition to the rezoning request. There was no one present in opposition. David Williams moved to recommend approval of Rezoning Petition R81-13 to the Board of Directors. Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Windell Cullers moved that Item 6 on the Agenda be considered at this time as it is directly related to the item just considered by the Planning Commission. David Williams seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The next item considered by the Planning Commission was a request for a variance from the lot size requirement applicable to a lot split submitted by VARIANCE REQUEST MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR A SPLIT LOUISE HUEY Louise Huey for property located North of Old Farmington Road and West of One Mile Road. This is the same property as is being petitioned for rezoning in Petition R81-13. Louise Huey was present to represent. Bobbie Jones explained that this is the second split on the original parcel. Redfern asked what the lot width would be on the parcel created. Hanshew stated it will be 145 to 148 ft. in width. Wilson said that if the applicant wishes to split another piece of property off, there may be problems. Louise Huey stated there is no more property for sale. She stated she is splitting this property off so that her grandson can construct a house She wants him to build a house so that he can be near enough to help her run the chicken houses Ms. Huey stated the first split had been performed for the same reason. She had split it off for her daughter. Later, her daughter had to move to Wichita. She assured the Commission that she does not plan to ever sell anymore of the property. Windell Cullers moved that the variance be granted. Martin Redfern seconded. The motion passed (8-0). The next item for consideration REPORT ON LAND USE STUDY was a report from the Planning NORTH OF WEDINGTON Consultant, Larry Wood, on the Land WEST OF GARLAND - SOUTH OF MOORE Use Study of the area bounded by Garland Avenue on the East, Wedington Drive on the South, Moore Lane on the North and Bird Haven Terrace and Giles Addition on the West. Public hearing tabled July 13, 1981, for further study and possible formulation of policy statement. Wood stated that he had met with Ernest Jacks and they had gone over the previous plan, and Jacks had asked that he tone down the previously submitted plan. Wood said he had kept basically the same recommendations for everything West of the bypass as submitted originally. On the East side of the bypass he /53 Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 • Page 7 has pulled out all the multifamily East of Porter Road. The multifamily has been scooted back West of Porter Road, and South of Sycamore. The Commercial and multifamily at the triangle at the Southeast corner of the proposed interchange and Porter Road between the Bypass and Porter Road has been changed from commercial and office to multifamily. Wood stated those are the only changes made. The plan has been toned down for everything on the East side of the bypass Jacks stated he had not seen a lot of opposition to what was proposed with the original recommendation for the West side of the bypass; but there had been a lot of different ideas about what should be done with the East side of the bypass. Jacks said he had felt what was proposed for the East side of the bypass would have a rash impact. Windell Cullers said he still did not feel the R-2 should be increased. He did not feel there was a great demand for it. He felt that zoning the property at the corner of Dean and Porter Road would be spot zoning. There is already some R-2 off Wedington Drive, and there is also some R-2 along the bypass. Cullers felt that to change the area to R-2 would change the usage of some land directly in front of five relatively new R-1 homes. These people built their homes knowing it was R-1 and thinking it would remain R-1. He felt the Commission should feel a little bit of responsibility in maintaining it. He felt the area should be left R-1 until there is a demand for the R-2. A gentlemen from the audience asked if his property had been zoned R-2 from A-1. He stated if so, he had never been notified. After looking at the zoning • map, it was discovered that his property is still zoned A-1. Beth Crocker stated she wished there was an intermediate zoning district to fit in between R-1 and R-2. She stated she did not see any streets or any kind of barriers to divide the proposed R-2 property from the existing R-1. She felt the zonings should be divided by some kind of physical barrier such as a street. Cullers stated that the Commission has been looking at this area for two months, he did not feel that a better plan for the property had been submitted. The plan submitted by Larry Wood has not been adopted. He stated he would prefer that the Commission not change the existing plan. The Commission did not adopt what was proposed for the West side of the bypass, and he stated he would prefer that the property on the East side of the bypass was not changed. Cullers so moved. The motion died for lack of a second. Jacks stated that he is expecting pressure because of the new interchange he felt it is wise to discuss it. Hunnicutt stated that the property can be rezoned whatever is adopted. He said the area has stayed the same for a long time and that it may not change. The adoption of the land use plan would simply be a guide. Williams asked what benefit changing the land use plan at this time would be to the community. Jacks stated that with the bypass and the unexpected addition of the interchange, the Commission felt that it would be under great pressure. Williams asked how adoption of the plan would put the Commission in a better position. Jacks stated it will have been studied, and considered. Williams stated he did not see any debate over the Commercial, the type of residential zoning seems to be the issue. • Hailey stated he did not think the area around the bypass will be a prime spot. He felt the plan should be left as it is and that items should be carefully considered as they come up. 159 Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 Page 8 Windell Cullers stated that he felt the Commission had benefitted greatly from the study. He moved that the Commission not take action at this time to change the land use Newton Hailey seconded. He felt that by leaving the area A-1 and R-1, it would give the Commission a little bit more control over development. Hailey felt that by changing the land use plan in the area to R-2, it may open the area up to other things. Redfern stated that if someone comes in and wants to do some rezoning, the study will be in the files and can be referred to as a guide. The motion to leave the land use plan as is passed (8-0). The next item for consideration was VARIANCE FROM LOT SIZE a request for a variance from the lot REQUIREMENT FOR A LOT SPLIT size requirement for a lot split submitted DALE HOLLAND by Dale Holland for property North of Lafayette, West of Tanglewood Avenue, and East of Mission Boulevard. Property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Dale Holland was present to represent. He stated there are presently two lots with total frontage of 186 ft. and they are 200 ft. deep. They are zoned R-2. He said there is another lot not included in this request which is 69 ft. by 160-70 ft. deep at the end of Lafayette and Tanglewood. Holland said that for the last few years he has built some small, starter houses and single family homes consisting of 1200-1600 square feet. He said he has had real good results. This property under application, is presently owned by First National Bank, and he owns the property at the end of Lafayette and Tanglewood. Holland said he is proposing single family homes for this property and that he hopes to construct townhouses on his other property East of this. Holland stated he would like permission to make three lots and construct three single family homes that would appeal to single people or couples. Jacks asked if this request is approved, if Mr. Holland will have to install improvements. Bobbie Jones stated that ordinance does not apply to single family homes. Jacks stated that the street fronting this property is not paved and needs to be improved. Holland stated he owns other property in the area, if he ever gets around to developing that property he would expect to deal with improvement of the street at that time. Improvement of the street at this time would make his proposal economically unfeasible. Hunnicutt asked if the existing older home would be torn down. Holland stated there is an old utility building on the property, other than that it is vacant. Hailey stated he felt the land in town needs to be developed. He moved the variance be granted. Redfern seconded. The motion passed (8-0). /SS Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 Page 9 The next item for consideration REQUEST FOR VARIANCE was the request for a variance from the MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR A LOT SPLIT lot size requirement applicable to LARRY ROBBINS two lot splits.submitted by Larry Robbins for property South of Deane Street, East of Sang Avenue and West of Lewis Avenue. Property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. Larry Robbins was present to represent. He stated there are two duplexes on Deane Street facing Deane Street. He said he would like to split the duplexes off this lot which would leave approximately 1.7 acres in the rear. This property is zoned R-3. He stated that the map submitted with his request designates the wrong piece of property, that the property in question is East of the property shown on his application. He stated the lot designated on the map already contains 24 units. Joe Wilson asked the applicant how he proposes access to the rear of the lot. Robbins stated there is already a concrete access drive off of Deane Street. Jacks asked Bobbie Jones if the tandem lot ordinance only applies to single family lots. Bobbie Jones stated that is correct. She further stated that the minimum lot width for multifamily is 90 ft. and that is measured at the building setback line. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement if safe access is provided, that is; safe access for fire and sanitation service and adequate parking. Jacks suggested Mr. Robbins talk his proposal over with the fire department and the sanitation department. Cullers stated that the only waiver that would have to be granted would be a waiver of the 90 ft. frontage requirement. He stated that the same situation exists less than 200 ft. away from this site. Cullers moved that this item be tabled until Mr. Robbins has a chance to get feedback from the Planning, Fire and Sanitation Departments. David Williams seconded. Hailey stated that he would vote to approve this item. The motion passed (8-0). The next item for consideration CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST was the conditional use request submitted MONTESSORI SCHOOL by Montessori School to have an elementary 1642 NORTH GARLAND school at Trinity United Methodist Church, 1642 North Garland Avenue, Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Vickie Butler was present to represent. Ms. Butler stated that she is the director of the Montessori School and that it has been operating in town for eight years. The School was held in the Unitarian Fellowship Hall, and they wish to move to the Trinity United Methodist Church. A Playground has been constructed, and the site has been inspected by State and County personnel as well as City personnel. The School serves toddlers from 18 months to 2-1/2 years, primary children from 2-1/2 years to 5 years, and elementary children from 6 to 9 years old. She stated there is plenty of parking and that parents exit off Sycamore. Newton Hailey asked what .the enrollment is. Butler stated 85 children. Hunnicutt asked how many of these children are elementary aged. Butler replied 16. • • • Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 Page 10 Windell Cullers moved that the request be granted. He stated he saw no comparison between this use and the one considered at the last Planning Commission meeting. The motion died for lack of a second. Beth Crocker stated she has a problem with the parking. She stated with the University students also using the parking lot, there may be a problem. Crocker asked how many spaces are required for this use by ordinance. Bobbie Jones stated the ordinance requires one space for every 1200 square feet of floor area She did not know how much floor area the School has leased. Windell Cullers stated he has never seen the parking lot at that location full, that there is a good amount of parking available Hunnicutt asked if the State had inspected the site. Butler stated she had had all the required inspections to obtain her license. Williams stated he did not think that parking was an issue in this particular case. However, he wondered about the screening. Vickie Butler stated the play area cannot be seen; that the view of the play area is obscured. Williams moved that the Conditional Use be granted. Windell Cullers seconded. Redfern asked if there was a maximum number of elementary students to be enrolled. Butler stated this year the maximum is 20 elementary students and next year there will be no more than 30. She said most of them must be moved up from toddler and primary programs within the school. Williams withdrew his motion and Cullers withdrew his second. Hunnicutt asked if this would be a parochial school. Bobbie Jones stated this is a private school operating out of a church building. She said she has recently approved a parochial school for a church in a commercial zoning district. Wilson stated there is a difference between a parochial school and a private school. Beth Crocker stated it is still a conditional use. Windell Cullers stated that he did not see a precedent. He felt the conditional uses should be evaluated on an individual basis. What is done in one case does not necessarily have to be done in another. Beth Crocker stated in this case, the private school has a low enrollment. She did not see it contributing to a bad traffic condition.or where utilities would be a factor. However, she felt if the school grows it should be reevaluated. She felt conditions should be placed on approvalregarding the period of time the conditional use is approved for. Beth Crocker moved the conditional use be approved subject to the following: 1. Enrollment will not exceed 100 children. 2. The period of time the conditional use will be approved for will be limited to one year at which time the school will reapply. The motion to approve with the above conditions passed (8-0). Next on the Agenda was the discussion DISCUSSION of a possible landscape ordinance. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Ernest Jacks, Chairman, started the discussion. He stated this proposal resulted from the formulation of the Commercial PUD Ordinance. Since the ordinance was going to include some mandatory landscaping with a Commercial PUD, the Committee 15,7 Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 Page 11 felt there should be an overall landscape ordinance to be applied to all development. The Committee used Bentonville's landscape ordinance as a guide line. It consists basically of: 1. Landscaping with any development consisting of 5000 square feet of developed land area 2. Landscaping of parking lots or vehicular use areas with 5 square feet of landscaping for every 12 parking spaces. 3. Perimeter landscaping for parking areas consisting of a buffer strip. The Committee proposes this item be included as an amendment to the existing screening ordinance. Newton Hailey stated that he is prone to go along with this amendment. However, he said he would like to see the matter tabled until Mr. Larry Wood could look into a couple of things. He stated it is hard to see how they will go. He would like to apply it to something like the auto parts store on South College and see how it actually affects the site. Also, he said he would like to see it applied to something like the shopping center going in at the Old 71 Drive -In site and apply it to one of the fast food chain stores on College. He stated this would give the Commission a better idea of what they are getting into. Newton so moved.. David Williams seconded. Jacks stated that the last time he submitted his recommendations to the Commission, they stated they wanted something to look at. Now the Commission wants to see something from Larry Wood. He wondered if there was enough interest in the proposed ordinance to warrant Larry Wood doing this study. Hunnicutt asked if an ordinance of this nature had been proposed in the past. Jacks stated only in conjunction with the screening ordinance. Ervan Wimberly addressed the Commission. He stated that if the ordinance is passed, that would mean 10% landscaping for the shopping center going in at the Old Drive -In site. He stated that amounts to 2.4 acres. This property costs $70,000.00 an acre. Frank Farrish stated he would like to see a landscaping ordinance. However, he stated it should be reasonable. He said the requirements ought to fit the development. A 100 ft. x 150 ft. lot is a little different from a 20 -acre shopping center. Also, he stated the ordinance ought not to be so difinitive. He asked what is the point of requiring a tree to be balled and burlapped. Jacks stated he agreed somewhat but that quality standards have to be set. Farrish stated he would be for a landscaping ordinance if it had reasonable guidelines strictly followed, rather than unreasonable guidelines with variances granted. Hailey stated existing trees in the site ought to be considered and perhaps something could be implemented to save trees.in...addition_.to'the plantings. Farrish stated time tends to improve landscaping. Instead of requiring a 30 ft. tall tree that is extremely expensive, a long term approach should be implemented where a smaller tree could be planted which would be the same size in five years. /58 A Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 Page 12 The next item for consideration COMMITTEE REPORT was the Committee report on proposed COMMERCIAL PUD ORDINANCE regulations for development of non-residential Planned Unit Developments. Ernest Jacks gave his report. He stated the formulation of the ordinance had come up with the development of the shopping center at the Old 71 Drive -In site. In these cases people want to own their building only and have foot -print ownership. Parking and maintenance of the grounds to be handled by the Property Owner's Association. The ordinance before the Commission allows foot -print ownership on various types of property and allows for developing a building envelope. Property lines will be set at the time the property is sold. As far as parking areas and so forth, the individual ownership will include reciprocal easements, or it can be accomplished with a Property Owner's Association, with common ownership. The proposed ordinance would also allow R-2 and R-3 development within a C-1 or C-2 zoning district. The PUD would mesh commercial and apartment properties in the total development. The proposal before the Commission pretty well covers what is necessary to alter the PUD Ordinance as it stands, in order to allow for this type of development to occur. Jacks stated he would like some minor modifications made to the proposed ordinance to include offices, etc. Also, there are certain sections of 4.15B that need to read residential. He stated he would like this to back to the City Attorney before it is sent to the Board of Directors. Jacks said the overall ordinance is in keeping with what the Committee had in mind. Newton Hailey stated that he could not really visualize the ordinance. He stated there is no model to go by. Jacks stated that the shopping center on Highway 71 is a good example. Hailey stated the ordinance seemed to be in favor of the Developer. Jacks stated that he did not necessarily agree. This ordinance would permit good development which would benefit everybody. Jacks felt there should be such a thing as a commercial PUD which allows individual footprint ownership and a Property Owner's Association to maintain the balance of the property. The Committee wants to extend it to incorporate a comprehensive ordinance that would allow commercial Planned Unit Developments and multifamily development. Williams stated he would like to look at the ordinance a little bit more. Jacks stated the ordinance would allow the developer to construct an envelope provide parking as required and have an approved concept. As the developer gets buyers for space within the envelope, the developer can strike a. line for the space the buyer wishes to occupy. Jacks stated he was not all that sure that this could not already be done legally under the horizontal property regime. Cullers asked if the Commission would entertain a motion to table. Frank Farrish stated he is anxious for the amendment to be resolved. He said he currently has preliminary plat approval on a project which is based on the passage of this ordinance. Hailey stated that the theory of the residential PUD does not carry through to the Commercial PUD in his opinion. /51 Planning Commission Meeting August 24, 1981 • Page 13 • • Bobbie Jones stated that in commercial development a group of things will be involved: maximum buildable area, parking requirements, frontage requirements, setbacks. She felt these are really the issues with a shopping center type development. Windell Cullers moved to schedule the public hearing on the proposed Commercial PUD Ordinance. Martin Redfern seconded. The motion passed (8-0). Cullers stated that one of the things OTHER BUSINESS the Board of Adjustment has trouble with is reasonable hardship. Cullers wondered if there could possibly be a change in the ordinance whereby f,one,.:.•.came to the Board of Adjustment with a variance appeal, and if his house was built based on a previous ordinance, their appeal could be considered based on that ordinance. For instance: Suppose a person brings. in an appeal for a change to a piece of property platted 30 years ago. The house sits 20 ft. back from the street. Anything he does to that house has to meet the 25 ft. setback requirement unless he has a hardship. Cullers felt that if someone's house was built in conformance with the standards set at the time it was constructed, the ordinance that was in effect at that time should be enforced. Jacks stated that• the City updates its ordinance as changes in the City occur. He thought that maybe in the situation described by Cullers the extra five foot of setback would not be appropriate. Cullers wondered if there was any interest in forming a committee to study a change in the ordinance. Jacks said he would be agreeable. Cullers moved that a study be done on the possibility of changing the ordinance for adjustment appeal. David Williams seconded. Bobbie Jones stated it would be a change in the nonconformity section of the code. Crocker wondered if it could be changed as the Board of Adjustment is locked in by State Statute. Cullers felt that an ordinance might be formulated to take care of some of the problems. As it stands, this is a reocurring problem. The motion passed (8-0) The Chairman appointed a committee consisting of Windell Cullers, David Williams, and Morton Gitelman as Chairman to study the problem. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:27 P.M. )C0