Loading...
pc_10 20 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARy AND MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 20,1992 12:30 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven (11)in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the September 8,1992 meeting. The Minutes were approved as mailed. III.Members Present:John McDaniel,Chairman Emmett Willis,Jr. Jerilyn NicholsonBillPutnam Ramsay Ball Brad Walker Kathleen Oleson Ronald Woods Joe Hirsch Selz Diane Chachere Members Absent:Jim VonTungeln City Attorney:Stephen Giles Susan Oswall October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:12TH STREET STUDY TITLE:12th Street Study LOCATION:I-630 to 20th Street and Battery to University ~RE VER:Land Use Plan Amendments and Rezoning,identify needed areas. STAFF REPORT: At the request of the Little Rock Board of Directors,the Planning Staff began a review of land use and zoning along 12th Street.While discussing a mid-block commercial rezoning case, various Directors had expressed concerns about the amount of commercial in the area versus the need for additional commercial zoning.In addition,there was a desire to prevent further strip commercial development along 12th Street,east of University, which would over-zone the area.The Directors generally agreed that some action should be taken to improve the area and produce a more appealing neighborhood.The Plans Committee of the Planning Commission,expressed concern about limiting the study to just the 12th Street corridor.The Staff then expanded the study area north to Interstate 630 and south to 22nd Street.The east boundary was set at Battery and the west boundary at University. Staff began a review of existing uses,adopted plans,and existing zoning.The review revealed problems or conflicts between the land use plan,existing land use and zoning.The review was conducted by driving throughout the study area and conducting a windshield survey of land use.The result showed that most of the area consisted of single family homes with some institutions located in those neighborhoods.Those institutions have not proved to be a negative impact.Along 12th Street,a mix of uses was found with office and commercial dominant.In addition,the old "mom and pop"store connected to the home was found in several locations.Some of these businesses are still in use,while others were abandoned. The existing zoning pattern and future land use plans were reviewed and compared against the existing land use pattern.In addition,a housing condition survey was conducted to help identify the areas most in need of rehabilitation or infill housing.These blocks were noted as areas of high housing need. 1 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY In an attempt to get citizen involvement,presentations were madetotheCentralHighNeighborhoodAssociation,Forest Hills Neighborhood Association and persons from the stephens area.Staff,in order to get more input,held three "office hours"in the neighborhood at Hoover United Methodist Church.Comments and concerns were received by staff at these meetings.Staff asked each group to list concerns and needs for their area and the study area as a whole.The neighborhoods were asked to identify zoning problems and street problem areas.They were encouragedtoaddressanyandallareasofconcerns. Staff reviewed the concerns presented by residents and propertyowners.A series of land use plan changes couple with some zoning changes was determined to be the best way to protect theexistingneighborhoodsandincreasethestrengthoftheplans. In addition the zoning of Central High School should be changedtopredominantlysinglefamilysincethatisthepredominantuse. This zone change also would support the revitalization efforts of the City (Paint Program,increased code enforcement and targeted housing funds —Model Block). As for housing issues,the City has a model block in two to six identified housing need areas,four are within the city'revitalization area and two are within the area of a community development corporation.Since efforts are already underway,no new efforts are proposed.However,it should be noted thatadditionalhousingassistance,both public and private will be necessary to turn around and stabilize much of the area. The housing issue together with several others will require BoardofDirectors'olicy and monetary concern to be addressed these include sidewalk and alley maintenance and construction,morestreetlights,neighborhood street improvements and garbage pickups.Other issues of concern to area residents are the future location of Stephens Elementary and traffic circulation/parking at Children's Hospital and Central HighSchool. Recommendations: I.)Amend the City of Little Rock land use plan as follows: 1.Oak Forest District: Overall changes to encourage mix of office and commercial use along 12th Street. 2 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY Proposed Changes: West of Fair Park Blvd.and North of 10th Street office to mixed use (existing motel,restaurant,gas station PCD);Northwest corner of Fair Park Blvd.and 12th Street mixed use to commercial (Delta Mart and Rally's drive-thru);South of 12th Street either side of TaylorStreet.Single family to office (daycare);Southeast corner Jackson and 12th Street single family to office (daycare);North of 12th,Monroe to Madison low density multifamily to public institution (church)Madison to Adams low density multifamily to commercial (various commercial uses)Adams and Washington single family to commercial (various commercial uses)Washington to Elm single family to mixed use (various uses,commercial to single family —mostly single family);South of 12th either side of Adams single family and commercial to public institutional (churches),Peyton to Abigail single family to mixed use (predominantly single family)Abigail to Elm single family to publicinstitutional(church). 2.Stephens District: Along 12th Street maintain single family with commercial at major intersections. Proposed Changes: Elm to Oak South of 9th Street multifamily to low density multifamily (mostly single family use);Pine to Cedar north of 9th Street office to public institutional for new Health Department office;Cedar to Oak between 14th and 15th Streets low density multifamily to single family (single family use);either side of Johnson south of 12th single family to public institutional (church);Southwest corner Woodrow and 12th single family to commercial (Chief AutoParts);Southeast corner Booker and 12th Streets single family to low density multifamily (duplexes). II.Rezoning,reduce the intensity of the area as much as possible.Zone duplex area which are single family to single family,etc.All commercial zoned areas not shown or used for commercial should to be rezoned. 3 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY From R-4 (Duplex)to I-3 (Single Family) ILLING'S Subdivision DICKINSON Subdivision Lot 1-3,5-12 Blk 18 Lot 1-12 Blk 19 Lot 2 10'2'5 18 20 24/ GREENTAW'S Subdivision Blk 20 Lot 1-12 Blk 21 Lot 1-19 Blk 21 Lot 26-37 Blk 20 Lot 2-19 Blk 33 PARK Addition CENTENNIAL Addition Lot 1-14 Blk 1 Lot 1-7,9-12 Blk 2 Lot 1-3,except Middle 1/3 Lot 1-9,except South 1/3 Lots Blk 10 7-9 Blk 3 Lot 1-2,4-11 Blk 15 Lot 1-7 Blk 4 Lot 1-11 Blk 16 Lot 1-3,10-12 Blk 6 Lot 10-12 Blk 4 Lot 1-6,East 1/2 Lot 8,W 1/2 Lot 1-11 Blk 17 Lot 9 Blk 7 Lot 1-8,10-12 Blk 18 Lot 1-2,4-14 Blk 8 Lot 1-2,4-11 Blk 25 Lot 1-5,6-8 Blk 12 Lot 1-3,5-7,9-11 Blk 24 Lot 3-12,Blk 13 Lot 1-12 Blk 23 Lot 1 4 g 6 11 g Blk 14 Lot 1-12 Blk 30 Lot 1-13 Blk 15 Lot 1-11 Blk 31 Lot 1-13 Blk 16 Lot 1-11 Blk 32 Lot 1~4,6-8,10-12,Blk 17 Lot 3-19 Blk 33 Lot 1-8 Blk 19 Lot 1-12 Blk 34 Lot 1-9 Blk 20 Lot 1-9,&11 Blk 35 Lo't 1 5g 10 13g 16I 18 19 Lot 1-11 Blk 36 Blk 22 Lot 1-11 Blk 37 Lot 1-20 Blk 23 Lot 1-11 Blk 38 Lot 1-6 Blk 8 WORTHEN &BROWN'S Addition Lot 1-6 Blk 9 Lot 1,7-12 Blk 1 FULK'S Addition Lot 4-8 Blk 6 Lot 1-12 Blk 13 Lot 1-19 Blk 40 Lot 1-11 Blk 17 Lot 1-17 Blk 41 Lot 1-2,4-18 Blk 18 Lot 21-39 Blk 41 McDONALD &WHEELER Addition PARESH'S Subdivision Lot 1-12 Blk 12 Lot 1-18 Blk 42 Lot 1-14 Blk 13 Lot 20,22-26 Blk 42 Lot 1-18 Blk 43 4 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY AIKENS Subdivision Lot 1-11 Blk 7 CAPITOL HILL EXTENSION Lot 1-11 Blk 1 Lot 2-12 Blk 2 Lot 1-12 Blk 3 Lot 1-4 Blk 4 Lot 2-4,6-7,10&12 Blk 5 Lot 1-11 Blk 6 Lot lg3g4g6g812Blk7 Lot 1-5,6-10 Blk 8 Lot 13I 5g7g8Blk9 Lot 4,10-12 Blk 10 Lot 1.3.5-10 Blk 11 Lot 6g 8g9g 12 Blk 12 Lot 7 Blk 13 Lot 4-10 Blk 14 Lot 5-7 Blk 15 MARSHALL WOLF Addition Lot 4 Blk 4 Lot 3,5,9 Blk 5 Lo't 7 @8'0 Blk 6 Lot 7-12 Blk 7 Lot 15g7g1012Blk8 Lot 4 Blk 9 Lot 1 Blk 14 Lot 1-4,7,10-12 Blk 15 Lot 1,3-5,7,10 Blk 18 Lot 5-6 Blk 19 C &P JOHNSON Addition Lot 6 Blk 5 Lot 11 Blk 9 Lot 11 Blk 11 From C-3 (General Commercial)to R-3 {Single Family) CEDAR HEIGHT'S Addition Lot 5-6 Blk 4 NEIMEYERS Addition Lot 2 Blk 9 5 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY BRADDOCK'S Addition Lot 9 Blk 16 From I-2 (Light Industrial)to R-3 (Single Family) MAYS Addition Lot 10 Blk 2 From C-3 (General Commercial)to 0-3 (General Office) CUNNINGHAMS Addition Lot 1-6 Blk 28 MCDONALD &WHEELER Addition Lot 5 Blk 28 Prom I-2 (Light Industrial)to C-3 (General Commercial) CUNNINGHAMS Addition Lot 1g3g4Blk30 Prom C-3 (General Commercial)to R-3 (Single Family) BUHULERS TENTH ADDITION Lot 14-17 Blk 9 PINE FOREST Addition Lot 18-22,25,164 &165 PARK Addition Lot 2 &3 Blk 2 Lot 1 Blk 13 Lot 3 Blk 12 III.Housing,six areas have been identified as "high need" areas.Both public and private efforts will have to be used to address each area's unique problems.Three of the areas have been identified for Model Blocks,intensive assistances and/or Community Development Corp.areas.Additionaleffortsareneededinthestudyareatopzotectthe existing housing stock and stabilize the area. 6 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY IV.Other Issues: ~Housing —encourage scattered site public housing; convert Highland Courts to owner occupied units. ~Schools —work to keep Stephens School in its current locations;encourage community outreach programs at Central High (night classes). ~Sidewalks —more city involvement with maintenance and new construction. ~Garbage Pickup —concerns about no longer using the alleys.Maintenance of alley and litter on streets (in front yards). ~Children's Hospital —growth and parking as well astrafficcirculation. ~Street Lights —city streets are dark,the addition of mid-block lights would improve safety. Deterioration of neighborhood due to liquor stores and pawn shops. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 8,1992) Walter Malone,Planner II,reviewed the proposed land use plan changes.There were some questions about why changes were proposed along Fair Park,etc. There was concern expressed by Commissioner Woods and to some degree by Commissioner Chachere about not showing higher uses (office or commercial)along 12th Street,east of Pine and Cedar. Most of the discussion centered on the area between Woodrow and Battery.The concern was that there is some existing commercial not shown and with the high traffic volumes on 12th Street.The local people do not consider it to be a residential street. Staff informed the Commission that the City did not want to encourage strip commercial.On plans,staff tried to error on the side of single family.Commissioner Oleson added the Board of Directors had asked for the study as a way to prevent strip commercial along 12th Street.Mr.Alfred Lynch of 2201 West 13th,stated that 12th Street has always been a "commercial" street. 7 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY There was some discussion about the rezonings and the Chairman, Commissioner Walker,asked if the items (land use and zoning) should be separate or considered together.Staff indicated either would be appropriate;however,Ron Newman would explain the rezoning.After a short discussion,Mr.Newman addressed the Commission. The rezoning effects several hundred parcels.Two separate letters were mailed to property owners informing them of an intent to rezone their property.If the owner did not wish to have the property rezoned,they were asked to contact the City. There were some questions about the way the mailing was done and the number of requests not to be zoned.This was followed by a general discussion about the way the meeting was going and whether to proceed. Several commissioners expressed concern about not knowing what was proposed (partly due to not receiving the packets before the meetings);while other commissioners stated the issue had been generally discussed at two or three meetings over the past six months to a year.Jim Lawson,Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,stated he wanted the Commission to be comfortable and another presentation would be developed.This is a part of an effort to stabilize and revitalize older neighborhoods.He indicated that the drop list showed the City was making the extraeffort;there should not be displacements since duplexes would not be rezoned.Further,the area does need help,single family units are being demolished at a rate of 35 per month.And there had not been a demand to rezone 12th Street to commercial,due in part to the poor condition of the surrounding neighborhoods. The Commission asked that a drawing be provided which would show the result of the action.Commissioner Selz restated his concern for the letter should have required a positive rather than a negative response. Ms.Ginny Hatch of 2005 West 16th spoke in support of the rezoning.Ms.Hatch stated they,the neighborhood,wanted it back to single family.They do want more houses cut up which encourages drug activity.The neighborhood needs the City' help.(She also repeatedly asked the Commission to visit the neighborhood.) After some discussion,Commissioner Chachere moved that the issue be deferred.By unanimous voice vote the item was deferred until October 20. 8 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY PLANNING CO IS CTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992) Ron Newman,Planning Manager,requested that the Commission take separate votes on the land use and zoning questions.Mr.Newman then began his presentation with background information.The 12th Street Study was started at the request of the Board of Directors.There was concern about the commercial zoning and land use pattern along 12th Street.The Plans Committee felt a look at just 12th Street would be to narrow and a broader area should be included in the study. The identified neighborhood groups in the area were contacted for ideas on what should be included in the study.At the same time,staff began a review of existing conditions and adopted plans. Major problems identified by staff were conflicting existing land use,zoning,proposed land use and significant housing stock loss (particularly in the Stephens area). Staff met with the Central High,Stephens,Oak Forest and Forest Hills neighborhood associations,and also conducted "office hours"at Hoover United Methodist on 12th and Cedar three times from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.These meetings were to receive ideas from people in the area as well as their concerns.Out of these meetings and staff's work,two items are presented to the Commission for action on land use plan amendment and several rezonings. There was some discussion about attendance at the meetings held in the neighborhood.Attendance was generally light,having seven or less persons at the "office hours",with more people at the neighborhood association meetings. Walter Malone,Planner II,presented the proposed land use plan changes.Mr.Malone went over each change proposed.There was a question about why single family was shown along 12th Street between Woodrow and Battery.Commissioner Woods believed there was sufficient commercial along 12th to show no single family. He had counted 26 commercial businesses between Woodrow andBattery.Mr.Malone stated there was commercial for several blocks east of Woodrow and the Battery area was shown for mixed office/commercial.However,the City tried to error on the sidesinglefamilyandthefourblocksshownontheplanwere dominantly residential.Commissioner Woods did not agree withthisstatement. The existing land use map was shown,followed by some discussion about the model block on Dennison and the desire of the City to try to strengthen the neighborhoods housing stock in order to bring back the neighborhood. 9 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY Pam Marshall,President of Central High Neighborhood Association,distributed a letter from the association on both the land use plan and zoning changes.Ms.Marshall stated that there wassufficientcommercialalreadyinplacealong12thStreet.Thereisboardedupcommercialavailableifsomeonewantstomovein now.Further,the commercial between Woodrow and Battery Streets does not serve the area.People loiter and come from other areasoftheCity.While Harvest Foods and a few other businesses are trying to improve,the record is not good.There was a discussion about problems at two businesses.If the commercial will add to the area,it would be beneficial. Addressing comments that only 12th Street should have been addressed,Ms.Marshall stated that you must look at the surrounding area and impacts not only to areas backing up to 12thStreet,but several blocks away.There are older people in the neighborhood and historically commercial along 12th Street has not been a plus to the neighborhood. The neighborhood would like to see more housing to fill vacantlotsandreducethenumberofdemolitionsinthearea. In response to a question,Ms.Marshall stated a comprehensive plan for the area was needed.As an example of problems with commercial,she reviewed the history of a commercial site at 13th and Woodrow.Commercial leaves the neighborhood open to problems.Ms.Marshall responded to a question from Commissioner Chachere about adding public facilities (parks,etc.).Based on Centennial Park,unless there is a great.deal of adult supervision only additional problems will be created. There was discussion about concerns noted about a conveniencestoreandliquorstoreaswellasenforcementtocleanuparealots.To date the City has over $275,000 in liens on property which owners have not maintained.It was suggested a prolonged period of enforcement would have a longer lasting affect.It was further noted that two alert centers would soon be open in the Central High area,one north of 12th Street and the other on Wright Avenue.Possibly,the City should make a complainttotheAlcoholicandBeverageCommissionabouttheliquorstore. There was discussion about landscape requirements and an overlayoption.The question was called and by unanimous vote (10 ayes, 0 noes)the land use amendments,as proposed,were approved. Mr.Newman,Planning Manager,brought the zoning changes before the Commission.The staff reviewed the area,and where the land use plan and existing use were less intensive than the zoning,staff proposed reducing the zoning.Two letters were sent to each property owner and if the owner requested,the property was 10 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY dropped from the rezoning request.First,the area west of the railroad tracks behind Central High,was presented.At Monroe and 12th Streets,a church,the proposal is to change from C-3 to 0-3;an isolated I-2 lot to R-4 in the neighborhood and several I-2 lots to C-3 along 12th Street.There is also a scattering of C-3 to R-3 in both Oak Forest and Stephens. Mr.Newman pointed out the location on a map. Commissioner Putnam expressed concern about the method used, requiring the owner to respond.Also,the agenda only gives a legal description and most commissioners are not going to know the location.There was discussion about this being an attempttocleanupanareazonedtwofamilyin1937.Mr.Newman stated two letters were mailed to each owner by regular mail and the ownership was determined using the assessor records. Mr.Newman next proceeded to review the Central High area.The map shows those not to be rezoned —hatched;those indicatingtheirapprovalofrezoning—yellow;those not responding —no color (white).The proposal is to rezone from R-4 duplex to R-3 single family the areas is yellow and white.No commercial parcel will be rezoned;if a nonconforming commercial (currently R-4)was missed,it would still be nonconforming with R-3. Mr.Wood,Manager of Zoning and Subdivision,reminded the Commission that in R-3 a second dwelling could be placed on thelotwithCommissionapproval,so this is a very small change. Commissioner Chachere moved that the areas recommended be rezoned on condition that the filing fee and notice by waive for one yearafterapprovalbytheBoardofDirectorsforanypersonwishingtozonebacktothecurrentzoningiftheyhadnotrespondedtodate.By unanimous vote (10 ayes,0 noes)the motion was approved. 11 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO ~:B FILE NO.:Z-2222-A NAME:Woods —Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:4216 West 12th Street OWNER APPLICANT:Eric B.Woods PROPOSAL:To utilize the existing structure as a barber and beauty salon. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.Site Location This application is proposed on a residential lot at thealleycorner,immediately west of Lewis Street and lying immediately west of the Auto Zone Parts Store. 2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood The subject property has been classified as 0-3 GeneralOfficeforseveralyears.The issue of nonresidential zoning in this block west of Lewis Street has long been resolved as office and commercial occupancy.The blockcurrentlycontainsabeautyshopandseveralhousesto the west facing 12th Street,and compatibility should not be a problem. 3.On-Site Drives and Parkin The application survey indicates a long paved strip of land now utilized for parking which backs into the 16 foot alleyadjacentontheeast.There are sufficient parking spacestoservethisuseandaccessisquitegood.The alley is extended north through to 11th Street for alternate access. 4.Screenin and Buffers The existing site has been converted from a former two storyresidencetoabusinessactivity,without benefit of providing a conversion of the residential lawn,trees and such to a commercial screening and buffering effect. Currently,the parking spaces extend on the south to the 12th Street right-of-way leaving little or no land area adjacent to the sidewalk for landscaping. 5.Cit En ineer Comments The sidewalks along 12th Street should be repaired. Dedication of additional right-of-way to meet the MasterStreetPlanalong12thStreetisrequiredtoadimension of 45 feet from the street centerline. 1 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2222-A 6.Utilit Co en s There were none to be reported at this writing. 7.~AA The application as presented appears to be entirely appropriate.The use and access and other factors in place suggests there will be little or no impact on the neighborhood.Some effort should be made to clearly delineate the alley pavement from the pavement of the Auto Zone Store and the headin parking on the east side of thislot.Currently,some of this surfaced area is in poor repair and some resurfacing may be required. 8.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application with modifications in the parking to provide for additional landscaped area along 12th Street,adjacent to the building and along the west line of the parking surface. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(SEPTEMBER 3,1992) The applicant was not in attendance at the meeting.Staff presented the application.A brief discussion followed with the Committee forwarding the item to the full Commission forfinalresolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 22,1992) The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectors present.Richard Wood of the Planning staff reported that the applicant has not yet paid the required filing fee and that thenoticesweresentbyregularmail,and not by certified mail as required. After a short discussion with the applicant,a motion was made to defer this item until the October 20,1992 commission meeting to allow Mr.Woods time to pay the filing fee and properly comply with the notice requirement.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992) The applicant was not present.Dana Carney of the Planning staff presented a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with City Engineer comments.Also,approval is subject to the 2 October 20,1992 P S HEARING ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2222-A applicant modifying the parking area to provide for additional landscaping adjacent to West 12th Street,adjacent to the building and along the west line of the parking surface. Mr.Carney also reported that the previous comment from the City Engineer was in error.The Master Street Plan required a right-of-way of 35 feet from the street centerline,not 45 feet as previously noted. Deborah Brewster,the applicant's mother then addressed the Commission.She stated that she could not speak for Mr.Woods regarding any agreement to the conditions stated by staff. (Mr.Woods was out of town and unable to attend.)Commissioner Chachere then made a motion to defer this item to the November 3,1992 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 3 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 ~RE UEEE:Modify collector pattern LOCATION:Southwest Little Rock,South of Baseline Road SOURCE:City Staff STAFF REPORT: In order not to create a collector acting like an arterial,the Warren Road/Dailey collector is to be shortened.The City does not wish to make it more desirable to cut through the center of several neighborhoods in order to miss traffic on Geyer Springs or Chicot Road.To this end,the Dailey Road collector to Warren Road should be removed. There is an elementary school at Valley and Warren;therefore,itisrecommendedthatValleyremainacollector,and Warren from Valley south to Mabelvale Cutoff be a collector.The resultingcollectorpatternwouldserveboththeschoolandneighborhood. The second change is Warren (south of Guinevere Road). Currently,the road stops just north of a creek.Due to the cost of bridging the creek as well as concerns about the length of Warren,suggest that Warren south of Guinevere be removed from the plan.This would discourage cut-through traffic and the remaining collectors should support the single family development.Additional collectors would only be needed if higher densities are proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for this item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992) Walter Malone,Planner II,reviewed the changes (the removal of the collector Warren-Dailey north of Valley and south of Guinevere).There was some discussion about the northern proposal affect of the park.Several commissioners reminded therestthattheCommissionhadassuredresidentstheroadwouldnot be built and had granted a waiver to Parks.By unanimous voice vote the amendment was approved. 1 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO ' SUBJECT:1992 Ordinance Amendment Package III STAFF REPORT The Plans Committee of the Planning Commission has completed work on Phase III of the 1992 Ordinance Amendments.These several items are offered to the full Commission for purposes of review and endorsement for placement within the annual package.The Committee attended several work sessions and have eliminated a couple the proposals and expanded on others as necessary.One of the items presented will require that the Planning Commission determine the appropriateness of continuing that item in 1992 ordeferralto1993forfurtherstudy.This subject deals with theextraterritorialareaandthedevelopmentofaboundaryorcontrollineforimprovementsandinstallation.This item was generated by the multitude of cases going to the City Board for waiver of street,curb and sidewalk.The Committee does notofferspecificcomment,except to say this is an item for thefullCommissiontoresolve. The staff and Committee recommend the balance of Phase III in the annual package.Both recommend the setting of a public hearing date for receiving comment from the many persons on ourdistributionlist.The next Planning Hearing has been set for December 1.This date will permit staff five weeks to mail outthecompletepackageofmaterialstothe50+persons on our mailing list and development their comments in a report formatforthecommissionhearing.Additionally,this will offer the Planning Commission the opportunity to review all of the material and feed their comments to the staff prior to the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992) Richard Wood of the Planning staff presented a brief overview of the several items contained within Phase III of the ordinance package.He presented the Plans Committee's recommendation on each of the several proposed amendments with justification for the recommendation.There was a lengthy discussion of theseveralitemswiththeonlyitemofconcernbeingtherecommended approach on Item G of page 21.This is the specific language astowhethersiteplansshouldbebroughttototalordinance compliance on a second review or revision.Commissioner Brad Walker offered several concerns and potential language. After a brief discussion of the several items,staff requestedthattheCommissionforwardtoitsofficetheircommentsor suggested language modifications.Staff then requested that the Commission set a public hearing for all of the items contained within the 1992 Amendment Package. 1 October 20,1992 PLANS HEARING IT NO 2 Continued A motion was made to set a public hearing for December 1,1992 at12:30 p.m.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 2 October 20,1992 PLANS HE ING ITEM NO.:3 TITLE:Planning Issues Id2cATZON:Various SOURCE:Staff/Plans Committee DISCUSSION TOPIC:Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992) No discussion 1 IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII ~Eggggggggg EEEEEEEEgggg- ~Egggggggggg gg Egggggg -. ~EEEEggggggg ~ EEEEEggg-~EEEEEEEgggg Eg EEEEEEE: ~Egggggggg gggg Egggg ~EEEEEEEgg Eggg Egggg Egggggggggg Eggg Egggg ~ggggggggggg ~ Egggggg .E~g Egggggggg ggggggg Eggg Egggggggg Egggg~ Egg 4 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ October 20,1992 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission,themeetingwasadjournedat3:30 p.m. Date:/2 /12 Ch x an ec etar