Loading...
10 FEB 11 sp mtg.doc CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2010 6:30 P.M. - 7:27 P.M. OPENING REMARKS: The Planning Commission of the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas met in regular session on February 11, 2010. Chairman Gray opened the meeting at approximately 6:30 p.m. expressing appreciation to those in attendance. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Art Brannen, Glen Keaton, Chad Young, John Herbold, Joe Ott, Eric McCleary, and Alderman Howard answered ROLL CALL. Chairman Gray answered roll and declared a quorum. PRESENT (8), ABSENT (1). Others present for the meeting were City Engineer Jay Whisker, Dickie Penn, interested citizens, petitioners, and press. CORRECTION AND/OR APPROVAL OF MINUTES: PUBLIC HEARING(S): REQUEST TO APPROVE PLAT(S): BUILDING PERMIT(S): GENERAL: ORDINANCE 1400 (#5-10) AN ORDINANCE CREATING JMC §18.18 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS); DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND, FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Chairman Gray noted that at the previous meeting there was discussion to create a new zoning, explaining that City Attorney Bamburg has created an ordinance for review. City Engineer Jay Whisker stated that Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Cabot share similar PUD ordinances. He stated that a PUD is the creation of a zoning and not a subdivision. He related that the zoning would be a “PUD” instead of for instance an R-1, R-2, or R-3. He explained that the Ordinance would establish a zoning for Planned Unit Developments. He added that a PUD’s complexity is due to the variations of each location, and would require a site plan to determine the workability of the site. He referred to the requirement of open space, noting that Little Rock requires as much as 30% while this Ordinance is being proposed to require 20%. He then offered that while other PUD ordinances mention density they referred to it in a planning sense without offering a specific minimum or maximum, noting that the proposed Ordinance would specify no more than eight (8) houses per acre. He explained that part of the guide to determine that measure was that current zoning for a trailer park does not allow more than eight (8) trailers per acre. He then related that Commissioner Dollar had pointed out in an email, distributed earlier, that a townhome development would be a separate issue from a housing PUD in his opinion. He continued saying that he does not think the Ordinance has structured that type of development into a PUD. City Attorney Bamburg stated that the Ordinance allows for latitude regarding density on the Commission’s part. He pointed out that 1 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2010 6:30 P.M. - 7:27 P.M. Section Five of the Ordinance states “In no circumstance shall there be more than Eight (8) residential units per acre unless said development includes multi-family, multi-story housing”, explaining that this language offers the Commission an opportunity in review to determine if the various factors would serve the development density being proposed. He explained his efforts to incorporate flexibility and latitude for the Commission in addressing development factors. He stated that in discussions with City Engineer Whisker, they felt in circumstances involving strictly single-family housing or a zero lotline type developments, placing more than eight (8) units per acre would create too great a density factor, particularly for a residential area of single-family homes. City Engineer Whisker pointed out that even in Sunnyside only portions of the subdivision with denser housing would be greater than eight (8) per acre. City Attorney Bamburg stated that while Commissioner Dollar’s point is well taken, the Ordinance provides discretion, which could be emphasized or amended in the manner directed by the Planning Commission. City Engineer Whisker noted that Mr. Penn has changed his sketch plat to be more reflective of these discussions, explaining that Mr. Penn was aware of the development factors being proposed in the Ordinance. He stated that he and City Attorney Bamburg agreed when developing the Ordinance that it should be created so as not to immediately have an exception to the standards. He stated that while the Ordinance is strict enough to address City favor, it also is flexible enough to allow developers to create well planned unit developments. He then noted that he feels Mr. Penn’s development is very close on open space requirements but fits within the “eight (8) per acre” requirement. He stated that he felt these two points were overall the major points of the Ordinance, adding that a PUD development would also require a landscape plan. City Attorney Bamburg related one point in the Ordinance not as emphasized as it could have been is the possibility of mixed use especially when addressing the issue of larger PUD developments that could incorporate commercial as well as residential. He noted that Maumelle is a good example of large-scale PUDs. He stated that a PUD can be used in order to enhance a development of that nature. He related that while Jacksonville is not a large metropolitan area, there are circumstances where mixed use could fit very well. He noted that in the current Land Use Plan there is an Overlay District that allows for mixed use along Main Street. He added that this District was established to promote the development of quiet commercial on the ground level and the possibility of residential on the secondary level. 2 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2010 6:30 P.M. - 7:27 P.M. He added that a PUD would be a good vehicle to promote that mix. He stated that there are other particulars, noting that Section Two list some standards that the Commission would review in making a determination regarding certain needs or compatibility. He then noted that there would be a pre-application conference and sketch plat or site plan submission as an alternative. He stated that this would be reviewed using the design regulations criteria offered on page three and four of the Ordinance. He then stated that the Permitted Uses would be those as allowed in other zones that would compare or be similar to what the PUD is proposing regarding the application of similar zoning standards. He reviewed the proposal for Design Regulations, saying that PUDs to his knowledge requires a property owners’ association or an improvement district in order to ensure future responsibility for maintenance and costs in an appropriate and legal fashion. He reiterated what City Engineer Whisker had mentioned earlier, that preservation and landscape plans would be required. He outlined the review process by the Commission as proposed in Section Six of the Ordinance. He stated that this is offered as a particular zoning classification and would require City Council approval following Planning Commission recommendation and public hearing. Chairman Gray offered opportunity for the Commissioners to submit questions for clarification. In response to a question from Commissioner Keaton, City Attorney Bamburg explained that Section Two (D) “Need” addresses the idea that development of a vacant in-fill parcel surrounded by an already developed area would be enhanced by allowing a PUD. He stated that the pertinent question would be if the proposed development would be something that could happen with a PUD but not under normal zoning regulations. City Engineer Whisker noted that with Mr. Penn’s circumstance there are six 50’ lots in width with a second row of lots to the rear. He then added that each lot is approximately 200’ deep, noting that the property is approximately 300’ X 400’. He pointed out that the lot size of 50’ X 200’ is not a usual size for single-family development. Commissioner Keaton pointed out that even with the unusual lot size they could still be developed under current zoning, adding that his understanding was that a PUD would come into proposal regarding areas that could not meet zoning. City Engineer Whisker emphasized that his understanding would be that a PUD would not be a vehicle used to skirt current zoning regulations. He offered that a PUD is reserved for circumstances that would be advantageous for both the City and the developer. 3 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2010 6:30 P.M. - 7:27 P.M. Commissioner Herbold pointed out that under Section Six, subsection (H) it states “Allow the building(s) and improvement(s) within the proposed PUD to maintain similar size and density characteristics as those currently existing in the affected area(s)”. He then pointed out that the six lots facing Jeff Davis are directly across the street from four instead of six lots. He offered that this would present a difference in density for the existing homes in the area. He added that he would have reservations if the Ordinance would apply to Mr. Penn’s proposal. City Engineer Whisker stated his understanding of the observation, adding that Mr. Penn is offering open space in that area. He then added that Mr. Penn is looking to offer this development to older residents that would be interested in smaller lot homes. Commissioner Herbold noted that an increase from four to six is a 50% density increase, which he feels would be a significant increase and would not adhere to regulation (H) in the Ordinance. City Attorney Bamburg stated that the term “similar” is used to allow something that is not exact, adding that in review the Planning Commission would make a determination whether what is being proposed fits into the existing area. He explained that if the houses on the six smaller lots were similar in size to the houses on the existing four lots, and the only change were a reduction in lot size because buyers are seeking a smaller yard or the lots are being marketed toward older residents that do not have small children. He explained that the Planning Commission would make the determination if the proposed development, while not exact, would mesh well together. He noted that the Planning Commission would be considering if the development were similar in characteristics with a slight difference of purpose or setup. He stated that an example of an unsuitable development across the street from residential homes might be a commercial development with multi-family living on the secondary level. He stated that while it would be residential it would not be similar in character to the residential homes located across the street. He added that equally the Planning Commission would not want to allow a one-acre mobile home PUD in the middle of a single-family subdivision. Chairman Gray remarked that currently the property on Jeff Davis is subdivided into six lots and could be developed to current zoning standards. He noted the possibility of questions from area residents who were assured of previous development plans. He stated his understanding that the Land Use Plan is taken into consideration regarding proposals for rezoning, adding that the provision within the Ordinance makes it more onerous on a developer than would be a petitioner requesting a rezoning. He related that a PUD request would require the developer to submit thirty (30) days in 4 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2010 6:30 P.M. - 7:27 P.M. advance a plan to the City Engineer to begin working through the entire process before being forwarded to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. He noted that the plans would need to be more fully developed to get to the process of requesting a rezoning. City Engineer Whisker concurred, saying that the idea is not to avoid waivers but the concept and land is different enough that it would not fit a normal zoning. He stated that certain design factors need to be identified before being presented to the Planning Commission. Chairman Gray noted that usually a petitioner would come before the Planning Commission to request a rezoning, which is recommended upon approval to the City Council and then the petitioner returns to the Planning Commission with development plans. He clarified that with a PUD the development plan would be submitted along with the request for a rezoning. City Engineer Whisker concurred that at a minimum there would need to be submission of a site plan in order for the Planning Commission to be able to discuss the particulars of requesting a PUD. City Attorney Bamburg noted that the Ordinance requires that a site plan be submitted when a PUD is requested for consideration. He stated that it would create additional tasks and responsibilities on a developer to come before the Commission requesting a PUD. He stated that a PUD rezoning offers greater flexibility and possibility regarding the development, which is why a plan is required. He added that following PUD rezoning approval it would still come back before the Commission for the preliminary and final. He related that the developer would still be responsible for meeting other obligations as far as streets and infrastructure. He stated that a PUD does not eliminate any steps but actually creates an additional step. Chairman Gray noted that it would be incumbent on a petitioner to make a good presentation of the planned unit development to the Planning Commission before this body would recommend approval to the City Council. He then questioned and City Attorney Bamburg clarified that if requested and approved, the developer is restricted by the Ordinance as to the scope of amendments or modifications that can be approved by City staff without being brought back to the Planning Commission for further approval. He noted those restrictions as being no changes to the ingress/egress, no internal traffic changes that alter the overall traffic patterns or functionality of the street, no new streets, and no changes in density or drainage. He stated that only minor changes could be addressed administratively without involving further action by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Herbold offered an amendment under Section Two, subsection (G) Site Plan to read as amended - “Submission of a detailed site plan satisfying the requirements herein will precede 5 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2010 6:30 P.M. - 7:27 P.M. consideration of any PUD proposal. If approved, property development must begin development within one (1) year and must follow the approved Site Plan exactly.” He noted that there have been circumstances where property has been rezoned for development but the development never occurs. He noted that the time period could be something other than a year but the property needs to revert back to its original zoning if the development does not occur. Alderman Howard concurred with the assessment that properties are rezoned but not developed as proposed under the rezoning request. Discussion ensued regarding the stipulation for a completion time. City Engineer Whisker offered that if the project has a nine month moratorium the zoning should revert back. Commissioner Young noted that it would need to be specific to the project, adding that some projects could be designed for a year or a year and a half before construction ever starts. He proposed that the time period be designated to be 24 months. City Attorney Bamburg offered that construction regarding large projects, such as plans for development of the bean field, would require an extended period of time regarding the engineering and architectural development plans. City Engineer Whisker noted involved and lengthy situations regarding approval from FEMA. Clarification was offered regarding property reverting back to its original zoning before being offered for rezoning for consideration for a PUD. Further clarification was offered that anything built in a PUD would remain that zoning even if a portion of the PUD were to revert back to its original zoning due to a lack of activity or failed development plans. City Attorney Bamburg concurred, clarifying that a situation would take into account a different circumstance than is normally dealt with when a development does not take place. He stated that it may stay as zoned under the PUD, not because of the lack of development but because of the failure of the developer to complete the project. He stated that this would represent a different set of circumstances. City Engineer Whisker added that the property could remain as a PUD and any later developer would have to develop the property as planned unless he requested a separate and different rezoning for the property. He stated that this would be more likely than the property reverting back to its original zoning because the property did begin development. 6 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2010 6:30 P.M. - 7:27 P.M. It was also noted that a PUD would require a bill of assurance and a property owners’ association, adding that as well the streets inside the development would be private. In response to a question from Commissioner Ott, City Attorney Bamburg stated that provisions for a public hearing are already in place and a PUD would be treated the same as a rezoning. He noted that the property would be advertised and posted. Commissioner Ott noted that under a rezoning it would be easier for the public to understand the action being requested but with a PUD, it might be difficult to know what development plans are being proposed. City Engineer Whisker stated that the best answer would be to have the proposed plans posted on the City website as well as having 11” X 17” copies available at the office counter. Chairman Gray offered that the advertisement could designate if it were a PUD residential, PUD commercial, or PUD mixed use. It was noted that the advertisement would clarify intent. Commissioner Brannen moved, seconded by Commissioner Young to recommend approval of Ordinance 1400 (#5-2010) as amended to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. ANNOUNCEMENT: City Engineer Whisker announced that the annual rd mandatory planning meeting would be held February 23 beginning at 4:00 p.m. at the Community Center. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Gray without objection adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _________________________ Susan L. Davitt 7