Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-29 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission vas held on Tuesday, May 29, 1984 at 5:00 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Sue Madison, David Williams, Stan Green, Joe Tarvin and Fred Hanna Newton Hailey, Jr., Melanie Stockdell and Barbara Crook Larry Wood, Greg House, Colonel Paul Spencer, Roland Moore, Jim Morton, Bill Springer, Dr. David Crittenden, Jim McGinty, Gary Harrell, Bruce Johnson, Tim Bole, Bill Pendergraft, Wade Bishop, Ken Poore, Judy DeLap, James Gordon, John Kehn, Janice Hanna, Dan Daily, Bill Flynn, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Ernest Jacks, acting Chairman by virtue of Commissioner with the most tenure. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the May 14, 1984 meeting. Minutes were approved as distributed. APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR A PUD: GREG HOUSE - TOWNSHIP RD & OLD WIRE RD The second item on the agenda Greg House for property located Road and Old Wire Road North. Use request for 6 duplexes. Zoned was the approval of a concept plan by at the southwest corner of Township This proposal includes a Conditional R-1, low density residential district. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, recommended consideration of the conditional use for duplexes subject to the submittal and approval of a small area PUD. Wood gave five reasons for his recommendation: 1. The property is located at the intersection of a proposed minor arterial and a collector street with no access to any other residential street in the neighborhood. 2. The land area remaining after the right-of-way is granted would support 13 single-family houses at 8000 s.f. per lot. The applicant is asking for 14 units under duplex concept. 110 Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 2 3. The access to the property would be safer developed under a PUD rather than a standard R-1 development. 4. There are currently duplexes located to the west of the property along Township Rd. 5. Under a PUD, the structures can be more easily moved to save trees than under a standard R-1 development. Ernie Jacks advised that duplexes are allowed as Conditional Use within a 250 ft. setback for a Planned Unit Development and setbacks within the PUD are the same as for single-family dwellings; 20 ft. on rear yards, 25 ft. for front yards. Gregory House was present to speak in favor of this proposal which Jacks explained was primarily to see if the Planning Commission agreed with it in principal before entering into the expense of engineering. House stated that, being at the intersection of two major streets, the surrounding development is dense and his proposal would be compatible with these. He said he thought he could tastefully develop the property in a fashion that would befit the neighborhood. House said, after conversation with Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, that he would prefer to develop the property in this stated manner rather than to use a lot of streets and break up the proposed land site. Sue Madison inquired of House if he were going to add a single-family dwelling to which House replied that he is allowed to build 14 units on this acreage and he will build one single-family home in addition to the one already existing. Madison stated that she would object to this proposal if the single-family dwelling fronted on collector streets, as this would not comply with code recommendations. House responded that he would be willing to correct this problem. Jacks asked for speakers in opposition to this proposal. Colonel Paul Spencer, 2433 Old Wire Road, spoke for Mrs. Smith, a neighbor to this proposed development. He stated that there are no other houses in close proximity except the two duplexes to the west. Spencer also advised that he thought parking would be a problem here if duplexes were developed and that, overall, duplexes would lower the value of neighboring properties. He said that the traffic count on Old Wire Road was between 1800 and 2100 per day and would worsen if this project were approved. 111 • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 3 Roland Moore, owner of a duplex to the west of this proposed development, said that his tenant objects to the development because there would be too many apartments in the area. Moore also cited that the plan that was circulated for this project doesn't seem to include any parking facilities. He stated that he didn't see how the large, old trees could be preserved and he also felt that traffic would greatly increase if this plan were approved. Jacks clarified that what was being reviewed was merely a concept plan and a more formal version would have to be made showing streets, rights-of-way, parking and so forth. Jim Morton, 1404 Township Road spoke in opposition. He said that his principal objection (along with what has already been stated) was that if the duplexes were used as rental properties, there might be parties going on all the time. Bill Springer, 1524 Terry, stated that Township and Old Wire Road was a blind intersection and the proposed exit from the property will constitute an additional hazard. He cited some of the many accidents that have occurred at this corner. He said that the proposed accesses do not seem to be adequate and that the density of the project didn't seem aesthetically compatible with the density of existing housing. Springer stated that he felt the quality of living in this neighborhood would decrease if this project was approved. Dr. David Crittenden, 1408 Elmwood, stated that he agreed with all the objections already voiced and he pointed out that he felt the applicant had slightly misstated the density of the neighborhood. He advised that the property on the other side of Old Wire Road was "almost" Agricultural and there were all single-family dwellings there. Crittenden said he thought that approving this development would be de -facto re -zoning because there is no R-2 or R-3 in the immediate area. Jim McGinty 2280 Mockingbird Lane, reported that there are 3 or 4 vacant lots at the top of Mockingbird which abut several large vacant lots on Township. He said that he was worried about there being a development on each end of Township Road because the vacant lots in- between may also be recommended for development which would change the character of the neighborhood. Jacks invited House to address these opposing comments. House stated that both parking and green space are dictated by City Codes with which he intends to comply. He said that he will take safety factors into consideration. House added that his intention is to leave the large trees because he, too, is concerned with the aesthetics of the property. He stated that he wished to develop units that would be of a particular value, attracting those people of a responsible nature and not behaving in a rowdy manner. 112 • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 4 Jacks closed the Public Hearing to discussion amongst Commissioners. He repeated that House's development was in the planning stage only. David Williams asked if Township Rd. between Old Wire Road and Crossover Road will be a collector street. Jacks answered that it would and Jones added that it's on the priority list for construction in 1984. Williams clarified that the entire intersection is surrounded by R-1 district, including an adjacent property which has a conditional use. Madison asked to clarify the use of the proposed duplexes. House said that his intention was to sell the units individually and that he had no control over the rental of said units. Colonel Spencer stated that the neighboring properties were valued in the 100 thousand dollar level and he did not want small duplexes in the area because it would devalue the neighborhood. Madison responded that because of the current economy and the housing market, she found House's use of this land agreeable. She said duplexes and/or smaller houses will provide (not necessarily inferior) housing for more people. Madison added that when Township goes through to Highway 265, the traffic will increase greatly. Joe Tarvin asked if Commissioners' decisions should be based on the Ordinance or on personal opinion. Jacks replied that both a Conditional Use and a Planned Unit Development needed to be considered in this case. He said that it could be denied if it was not within the intent of the Ordinance or approved if thought to be a good planning proposition with appropriate safeguards. He briefly outlined the points in Appendix A., Art.8, Sec.12 to be considered. MOTION Fred Hanna moved to deny the request for Conditional Use as well as the Concept Plan because he agreed with Dr. Crittenden that approval would amount to de -facto re -zoning. Joe Tarvin seconded the motion followed by discussion. Stan Green stated he would vote to deny but he wanted all to be aware that there is nothing to prevent a developer from coming in and building a series of small houses at this location. He said his reason for voting no was in consideration of the residents who purchased property here long ago under the assumption that the zoning would remain R-1. House responded that he thought a 2400 sq.ft. duplex was more attractive than two 1200 sq.ft. houses especially is there is thought to aesthetics. Motion passed 5-1 with Sue Madison voting "nay". 113 • • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 5 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE TO RELOCATE A PORTABLE BUILDING UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH The third item on the agenda was a request for a Conditional Use to relocate a portable building to one of three possible sites by University Baptist Church. Gary Harrell was present to speak for this proposal. He stated that the church did not have a high priority on any of the indicated choices. He added that the building is presently on the site of the proposed new pre-school educational building. Harrell said that the building is 24 X 40, is insulated, paneled, air conditioned and used for Sunday School. He stated that he expects the building to remain in the new site for a while. The Public Hearing was closed and discussion ensued between Commissioners. Jacks said he preferred portable buildings to be put out of sight as much as possible and his first choice would be #1 on the plan; to the south of 505 W. Maple, zoned R-3. Jones advised that options 112 and 113 are reversed on one of the maps as well as on the agenda. Option #3 should be behind the house that fronts on West Avenue. (428 N. West Ave. -zoned R-3) Option 112 is on the west side of Campbell Avenue, south of Lafayette where the "second mile parking lot" is. Zoned R-0. Hanna said he preferred the location behind the aforementioned house. NOTION Williams moved to approve option #3. Joe Tarvin seconded and then withdrew the second when Jones explained that according to the agenda, option #3 was Campbell Avenue when, in fact, option 113 should have read "West Avenue". The motion died for lack of a second. NOTION Williams moved to approve option #2, Campbell Ave.) This motion died for lack of a second. When Harrell was asked if it made any difference to the church whether 112 or #3 was approved, he indicated that because of available utilities and aesthetics, the location on Campbell Street would be best. NOTION • Williams moved to approve either option #2 or #3 at the discretion of UBC. Second by Joe Tarvin, the motion passed 6-0-0. • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 6 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR 1159 S. HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD WHITE RIVER HARDWOODS — ZONED C-2 The fourth item on the agenda was a request for a Conditional Use for White River Hardwoods to add on to an existing building at 1159 S. Happy Hollow Road. Bruce Johnson, 170 E. Prospect, was present to speak for this request. Johnson stated that he is the owner of White River Hardwoods and that he is in need of additional storage room at his current location. He said that he has recently put up a sawdust collection system which meets EPA discharge standards. Johnson added that he felt the proposed addition would help to eliminate some of the noise which has been a problem to a neighbor. Speaking in opposition to this proposal was Phil Pendergraft, 1104 Emily Drive which 1s located behind the Hardwoods business. He stated that the noise from the shop is disruptive and that a tarp used for covering the sawdust collection system often blows loose in the night wind and contributes to the noise. Wade Bishop, owner of property to the west of Johnson also spoke in opposition to this proposal. Mr. Bishop complimented Johnson on correcting the sawdust pollution problem but, he added, that the method used for correcting this problem has led to another problem. The new problem, Bishop said, is the eyesore of the collection system and the noise pollution connected with the operation of same. Bishop stated that he has checked with the City Planning Office and found that the previous owner of Johnson's property had submitted a drawing (in May, 1978) showing a wooden fence or a fence of shrubbery that would be constructed if a Conditional Use in a C-2 zoning was approved. Bishop reported that by 1982 the proposed fence still had not been constructed so he built a screen fence himself. He advised that in the Fall he accom- panied a person who was qualified to operate a decibel reading machine and the readings recorded on that day were in violation of the Sound Ordinance. Bishop said this report was given to Johnson. He added that he thinks the sawdust collection system is unaesthetic. Bishop said the original application for rezoning on this property was for a plumbing shop. He said he felt that enlarging the current operation would only increase the noise pollution problem. Bishop clarified at Jack's request that the decibel readings had been taken December, 1983. Johnson stated that new decibel readings had been taken today. Bishop reported that he spoke to the operator who told him that today was not a good day to take readings because of the high humidity and wind velocity. He added that Johnson was not running his planer today. 115 _A • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 7 Bishop stated that the site is very untidy due to materials and old equipment being stored outdoors. He said he is trying to sell homes in this vicinity and it is very difficult due to this business. Johnson repeated that today's decibel reading did not indicate violation and, indeed, none were more than 10 decimal points below the maximum allowed. Johnson added that the collection system could be painted to improve the aesthetics. He introduced Tim Bole, an employee, who wished to speak for this request. Bole said that this business became tenants of this property after the Conditional Use had been approved for the previous owner. He said that the complaints are new to him and will need to be addressed by the owner of the property. Jones stated the Planning Commission had approved the Use for plumbing and building materials. Hanna reminded the Commission that the issue to the legality of the operation. original Conditional be decided was not Bole and Johnson said that the proposed addition will be an insulated warehouse and will block off a great deal of the noise that Bishop is concerned about. Jacks stated that he would like to know about the legality of this situation before he could make any decision which might increase the production level. Madison asked Jones why an Industrial Use is being allowed at this location under C-2. Jones stated that she had cleared this use after the Planning Commission cleared it for a building materials establishment. She said the request had not been any more specific than stated above except in its similarity to a cabinet shop, which is permitted in C-2. (Use Unit 17) The identity of the decibel reader was not ascertained other than the person was a woman who had just finished her schooling to learn this skill. Bole and Johnson assured Mr. Bishop that, now that they aware of the noise problem, they will definitely do something to correct it. Enclosing and insulating the blower was suggested by Bishop as a possi- bility. Jacks closed the Public Hearing to Commission discussion. Hanna suggested that a motion could state approval subject to enclosing and insulating the blower and reducing the noise. L 116 • • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 8 Williams stated that if the current use was not one that is authorized he would vote against it because he didn't want to compound the problem. He also said he felt that a bonafide health problem exists and if the Commission approved the request he felt the burden of proof of noise reduction should be on the applicant. MOTION Williams moved to table this request until: a. clarification is received that the use is authorized. b. evidence is received that if the use is authorized, there is adequate protection from noise hazards. Johnson asked if today's decibel reading would be sufficient proof and Williams said he it would not be adequate. Madison seconded the motion and it passed 6-0-0. Williams was excused from the meeting at 6:00 P.M. He stated that he would like to be included in the discussion of the Green Space Ordinance that had been scheduled for "Other Business" at today's meeting. Jacks commented that his preference was to table this item until more Commission members could be present for discussion. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF DRIVEWAY SAFETY ZONE BACKING INTO A PUBLIC STREET KEN AND FREDA POORE 1603 LUNSFORD The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a variance of the driveway safety zone for Ken and Freda Poore, 1603 Lunsford. Ken Poore was present to speak for this request He stated that although he has owned this house for a long time, it has been rented, and he has only recently moved into it himself. Poore stated that it is unsafe to enter and exit the drive because it is at the intersection of Lunsford and Hammond Street. He said he wants to build a new driveway to the east of the present driveway to get his vehicles off the street as traffic is presently having to pull around them while parked on the street. The new driveway would not meet the 12.5 ft. safety zone from side property line. No one was present in the audience to speak either for or against the request, and the Public Hearing was closed for Commission discussion. MOTION Hanna moved to approve the request, seconded by Stan Green, followed by discussion. 117 18� • • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 9 Madison asked Jones if parking was currently allowed on Lunsford to which Jones replied it was. Madison also requested to know if backing into the street from the driveway is allowed. Jones advised that backing into a street is allowed for one or two parking spaces. Jacks asked if the Ordinance could be interpreted so that anything above a two-family residence must set up a parking lot so that backing into the street would not be a factor. Jones replied that two off-street parking spaces are allowed to back into the street and that if the two requested drives meet the safety zone separation specification that it could be approved. Motion passed 5-0. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF LOT SIZE FOR IAT SPLIT — JUDY DELAP FOR JAMES E. LINDSEY: S.W. CORNER HWY. 45 E. & WHIPPOORWILL CT. The sixth item on the agenda was a request for a variance of lot size for a lot split submitted by Judy DeLap for James E. Lindsey. Property located on the southwest corner of Highway 45 and Whippoorwill Court. Zoned R-0, Residential -Office. Through discussion between Jacks, Jones and DeLap, it was determined that this piece of property had been split in 1982 but has never gone through the Planning Department for approval. Jacks asked for clarification of property lines and Jones indicated that the streets for Sequoyah Woods had been added to the Zoning Map after the map was prepared and an error had been made in placing these streets on the map. She said the correct map was the one showing the streets and the lots. Jacks also had clarified that the use was being requested for the eastern most piece of property. Judy DeLap was present to speak for this request. She stated that she was asked by Mr. Lindsey to legally file this split. Jacks stated that the Ordinance covering lot size for lot splits was to prevent development from taking place in a piece -meal fashion without participation in improvements. Jones said in this case, they will have to extend sewer to serve each parcel of the property or take it to the Board of Directors for approval of the lot split. She added that DeLap will also need to process a Large Scale Development on the portion she is working with because it is more than one acre. • Green asked if the variance for lot size was granted, whether the sewer would have to be extended to the property. Jones advised that • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 10 either they would have to extend the sewer or bring it before the Board of Directors. She added that she thought the sewer presently comes up to the north line of the last lot in Sequoyah Woods along Whippoorwill but that Ms. DeLap would need to check this out. Jones said the sewer needs to cross Whippoorwil and also needs to cross the open space between the property and Whippoorwill. MOTION Stan Green moved approval of the lot split, seconded by Joe Tarvin. Motion passed 5-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST BY JUDY DELAP PROPERTY LOCATED S.W. CORNER HIGHWAY 45 EAST AND WHIPPOORWILL COURT — ZONED R-0 The seventh item on the agenda was a request for Conditional Use for a "small family restaurant" for property located on the southwest corner of Highway 45 East and Whippoorwill Court by Judy DeLap. Zoned R-0. Jacks stated that there have been many problems with the R-0 zoning. He said that originally it was set up to serve the high-density residential and office property thought of as being near the center of town. Jacks said he thought that at the time the zoning was passed, that perhaps Fayetteville was not quite ready for this type zoning and consequently the R-0 zoning has been used for low-density areas. He added that he was concerned that this request (if approved) would extend the Commercial type zoning that presently ends at Highways 45 and 265. Jacks stated that he did not think this request was in line with the Ordinance. Judy DeLap spoke for the request. She said that she had been advised that small restaurants were part of the R-0 zoning as long as the establishment was not a drive-in type. Jacks replied that the Code does allow them as "conditional uses" only. DeLap said that Sequoyah Woods consisted of multi -family dwellings and that water and sewer was difficult to obtain anywhere along the line leading back to the intersection of Highways 45 and 265. She said the difficulty was in locating another piece of property to construct a restaurant in this area with proximity to all utilities. DeLap advised that there is no other place in the immediate vicinity to eat. She said that her restaurant would serve the residents, as well as the construction workers who are currently helping to develop this area. She said she did not anticipate a noise problem as she would be closing at 7 P.M. 111 J • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 11 Several people spoke in opposition to this request: James Gordon, 3779 Whipporrwill, said he was concerned that the designation of the proposed restaurant might be changed at some later date and consequently the hours may change resulting in noise and traffic pollution. Jacks asked Jones if the Conditional Use would remain only until such time as ownership changed hands. Jones advised she thought the ownership could change, but not the use without approval. John Kehn, 1782 Souix Court, said he had several objections. The first objection he cited was that the neighborhood was currently a residential area and traffic is limited to that entering and exiting the subdivision (from one entrance only). He said he felt that adding an additional entrance to the west would compound the traffic problem. Another objection Kehn stated was that of the continuing approval of restaurants along this Highway. Janice Hanna, 3124 Navajo, said she was concerned about the children playing around this area and that the added traffic would be dangerous. She added that she didn't think there would be a problem if an office or something similar were located here; that it would fit better with the neighborhood. Dan Daily, 1832 Seminole, stated that he felt the junction of Highways 265 and 45 was a better location for a restaurant than at the threshhold of a residential area. He added that all the streets in this subdivision are dead-end except for Whippoorwill which has an indirect access to Joe Fred Starr Road. Daily advised that nine years ago when he first purchased property at this location, there had been plans for condominiums and the neighbors had been notified and had agreed to the plan. He said that he felt a restaurant would add hazards for the children of the area. Daily also said he felt unsure that there could be any guarantee that a restaurant area would stay as clean and as noiseless as what was being represented. DeLap replied that this is the last of the R-0 property in this area and that unless re -zoning took place, no other business of this type could be established. It was determined that the area on the east side of Whippoorwill was still zoned A-1, Agricultural. Sue Madison asked if any screening requirements along Whippoorwill would be in order if this request was allowed. She also wished to know if a driveway from this restaurant could intersect Whippoorwill. Jones reported that a drive could only intersect Whippoorwill by gaining the consent of the owner of the property that borders Whippoorwill. She said that there was green area on both sides of Whippoorwill as dictated by the PUD that currently exists. Jones advised that there / 20 • • • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 12 is a requirement for screening between Commercial type use and abutting R -zoned property. (In this case on the south side as well as between this property and the PUD Association). Madison asked where the school bus made its pickup. Through discussions amongst several members of the audience it was determined that one bus stop is made at Whippoorwill and Highway 45. Tarvin said he agreed with Jacks in reference to extending the Commercial zoning along Highway 45. He said he was concerned that Highway 45 may develop into another "College Avenue" type area. Bill Flynn wished to speak on behalf of his aunt, Gertrude Flynn, and Max Bryant, 3779 Whippoorwill, both neighbors to the proposed restaurant. He said they were against the proposal for many reasons, one of which was the traffic hazard that may be created by this addition. He was also concerned about the future use of the area because of the changes it might go through. DeLap said there will be no driveway onto Whippoorwill. Instead, she said, the drive will be around the building on the far west side, as far from the hill as she could possibly get. DeLap stated that an R-0 zoning excluded live music as a use. She cited many other possible uses that might occur in an R-0 zone which includes a car wash or a filling station which she advised would probably not be as neat and orderly as she planned the restaurant to be. DeLap advised that Highway 45 is developing and she felt it was only a matter of time before residents will see businesses in this area. She added that she has asked for a blinking light at the intersection of Highway 45 and Whippoorwill and she was told that this idea was "not out of the question". DeLap also said she has talked to the County about installing caution signs at the bottom of the hill and was told it could be done. She stated that she thought the traffic flow would be from west to east in the mornings and east to west in the evenings. Stan Green said he thought that a restaurant would be out of character with everything else in the area. He added that the reason this area might be developing so quickly (residentially) is because of the tight control over the extension of Commercial development. NOTION Green moved to deny the request for Conditional Use, seconded by Fred Hanna and followed by discussion. Madison said she felt that as residential areas are developed, certain needs had to be met, one of which may be eating establishments. She said that Mrs. DeLap does not create the needs, but residents do. Madison said her main concern is the safety factor and if the school bus is making it's stop for children at Highway 45 she would vote to deny. /2l 1 Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 13 It was clarified that the bus does pick up at this intersection. One citizen reported that the bus actually stops directly on the Highway in the evenings. The motion passed 5-0-0. REQUEST FOR RE -ZONING OF ABOVE PROPERTY Several citizens requested to know if there was any procedure that could be used to rezone the site of Mrs. DeLap's request so that this situation would not occur again. Jacks replied that the owner would have to request a re -zoning or the Planning Commission could initiate a petition to change the zoning. He said he feels that the R-0 zoning has been misused since it's incep- tion. Jacks added that there is an Update Committee that is supposed to be going through Ordinances and making appropriate recommendation for changes but the Committee has not met recently. Tarvin advised that now that a lot split has been approved there is a vacant parcel which is zoned R-0 and can legally be used as such. Jacks reiterated that the Planning Commission does have the option to initiate a re -zoning for this property. OTHER BUSINESS Other business for today's meeting concerned the Green Space Ordinance. Jones presented a letter regarding Green Space from Jim McCord, City Attorney, which she indicated spoke for itself. She added Mr. McCord had told her that if more direction were needed on this issue it would have to be gained from the Board of Directors. Jacks advised that he had found a letter dated December 7, 1977 from McCord quoting a similar Ordinance from somewhere in California in which the court said that "...if a legislative body were required to give credit for private recreational areas furnished by a subdivider, the viability of the Master Plan would be destroyed and the subdivider would be substituted for the City as the arbiter of the Community's park needs". Jacks stated that the final outcome of this was that the Planning Commission may give credit reducing the dedication of land... Jones reported that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has meet since the last Planning Commission meeting and they do not recommend a waiver on the Windsor Townehomes development. l22 • Planning Commission May 29, 1984 Page 14 Jacks stated that he was hoping to table this discussion until such time as Commission members could read the information from McCord and also at such time as absent members of the Commission could be present. Jones said that if the Commission felt McCord was needed at a Planning Commission meeting he may be required to attend only at the request of the Commission Chairman. Jacks, as acting Chairman, formally requested that Mr. McCord attend the next Planning Commission Meeting to discuss this matter. NOTION Fred Hanna made a motion to table the discussion of the Green Space Ordinance, seconded by Madison. Motion passed 5-0-0. Jones stated that the other letter she was presenting was in regard to the differences between Large Scale Developments and Planned Unit Developments. An answer received from McCord indicated that Jones has been administrating this issue correctly. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55. 123