pc_12 01 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARy AND MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 1,1992
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 October 20,1992 meeting.
The Minutes were approved as mailed.
III.Members Present:Brad Walker
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Jerilyn NicholsonBillPutnam
Ramsay Ball
Kathleen Oleson
Ronald Woods
Joe Hirsch Selz
Jim VonTungeln
Diane Chachere
Members Absent:John McDaniel,Chairman
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
Susan Oswalt
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1
SUBJECT:Chenal/Financial Center Parkway
Design Overlay District
STAFF REPORT:
On October 17,1989 the Board of Directors passed an ordinance
providing for the creation of Design Overlay Districts (DO)).
The Board specified that the purpose of these districts wou'ld be
to protect and enhance the unique natural scenic beauty or
features of selected road corridors,while providing development
opportunities along those corridors.The Board also allowed
Design Overlay Districts to be used to protect or facilitate aparticulardesignthemeestablishedthroughacertainarchitecturalstyleorperiod.
In 1991,the Planning Division Staff began a study of the
Chenal/Financial Center Parkway corridor and it's uniquecharacteristics,such as underground utilities,smaller lotsizes,and irregular lots that resulted from the construction of
the parkway after the land was platted.In addition,much of the
parkway either has or will have medians,with median cuts to only
be at collectors and above.The staff then began the process of
compiling ownership and parcel information and analysis.As astartingpoint,the Staff superimposed the Highway 10 DODstandardsoveraparcelmapofChenal/Financial Center Parkway toseehowtheHighway10standardswould"fit".On July 30,1991,all owners of property abutting Chenal Parkway and Financial
Center Parkway were invited to a meeting to discuss the Design
Overlay District.As a result of that meeting,both Staff and
property owners agreed that the unique features of the Parkway
would warrant a separate and distinct set of standards.ManypropertyownersagreedwiththePlanningStaffthataDesign
Overlay District on Chenal/Financial Center Parkway would helpmaintaintheuniquequalityofthecorridor.
On October 21,1991,a meeting was held with property owners andtheStafftodiscussmediancutsandcurbcuts.At that meeting,the Public Works Staff reviewed the median plan for the road,previous agreements that had been made and the location of future
median and curb cuts.
After much interaction between the Planning Staff and the BoardofDirectorsoftheChenalParkwayImprovementDistrictandother
owners of abutting property,the Staff drafted proposed standardsforthedesignoverlaydistrict,and called another meeting ofaffectedpropertyowners.That meeting was held on August 6,
December 1,1992
PLANS H
ITEM NO.:1 o n d
1992.Again a discussion was held on the proposed standards and
further refinements were made.
The Planning Division Staff has completed the study of the
corridor and is proposing the adoption of the following standardsfortheChenal/Financial Parkway corridor:
1.DIST ICT BOUND IES -The Chenal/Financial Center
Parkway Design Overlay District encompasses all land
with Chenal Parkway or Financial Center Parkway
frontage lying within 300 feet of each side of the
right-of-way of Chenal Parkway or Financial Center
Parkway.The eastern boundary of the district shall be
the intersection of Financial Center Parkway and
Shackleford Road and the western boundary shall be theintersectionofChenalParkwayandHwy10.
2.APPLICATION OF DISTRICT REGULAT ON —The
Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Design Overlay District
regulations shall overlay all other zoning districts
and other ordinance requirements regulating the
development of land.In cases where standards are notspecificallylisted,the underlying regulations shallcontrol.
3.LOT SIZE —There shall be a minimum development tractsizeofnotlessthan30,000 square feet.The design
overlay standards for Chenal/Financial Center Parkwayshallapplyonlytolotsorpropertywithfrontageon
Chenal Parkway and Financial Center Parkway.
4.FRONT LDING SET C —All principal and accessorystructuresarerequiredtohaveaminimumsixtyfive
(65)foot building setback from the property line
abutting Chenal and Financial Center Parkway.
5 ~PARK NG DSCA ING —The Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance currently requires that all sites developed,
modified or enlarged shall provide a street buffer of
5%of the average depth of the lot exclusive of right-
of-way.The street buffer for the Chenal ParkwayfrontageandtheFinancialCenterParkwayfrontageofthosepropertiesthatabutChenalandFinancialCenterParkwayshallbeaminimumoftwentyfive (25)feet and a maximum of forty (40)feet based on the
depth of the lot.For lots up to 500 feet in depth,they shall have a twenty-five (25)foot setback.Lotswithdepthsmorethanfivehundred(500)feet shall use
5%of the depth not to exceed forty (40)feet.Therequiredstreetbuffershallbelandscaped,as required
under the Zoning Ordinance and no parking shall be
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Continued
permitted within the buffer.Landscaped treatment
shall be as follows:
a.Developed landscaped areas shall have water
sprinkler systems to maintain plant materials.
b.Erosion retardant vegetation shall be used on all
cuts and fills where necessary.c.Tree species to be planted within this corridor
should be compatible with other species present.
d.The landscaped area shall contain organic and/or
combined man-made/organic features such as berms,
brick walls and dense plantings such that
vehicular use areas are screened when viewed from
an elevation of 42 inches above the elevation of
the adjacent street.Alternative screening
methods and designs must be approved by the plans
review specialist.Appeals from the staff will be
directed to the Planning Commission.Within the
landscaped area,trees shall be planted or be
existing at least every 20 feet and have a minimumof2inchesindiameterwhenmeasured12inches
from the ground at the time of planting.e.Rear and side yards shall have a landscaped buffer
averaging a minimum of 25 feet from the propertyline.Where such yards abut a street right-of-
way,a 15 foot landscaped strip shall be required
adjacent to land zoned office and residential.A
7 foot landscaped strip shall be required when
adjacent to lands zoned commercial.
6.SIDE AND S —Side and rear yard setbacks andbuffersshallapplyasrequiredunderthecurrent
zoning ordinance.
7.SIGNAGE —The maximum size of principal site signs
along Chenal/Financial Center Parkway shall be 100
square feet in area and eight (8)feet in height.Each
landowner will be permitted to erect one sign perparcel,except for parcels fronting on two differentstreetsuponwhichonesignperstreetfrontagemay beerected.The signs will be "monument"type signs.
8.gCEB CtER —~:A g of o (1)h t
per 300 feet,and no curb cut closer to an intersection
than 100 feet.Exceptions will be as previously agreed
upon by the Department of Public Works.Developerswillbeencouragedtoprovideaccesstoout-parceltractsthroughinternalaccess,rather than directly
from Chenal/Financial Center Parkway.
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont n e
9.LIGHTING AND UTILITIES -Parking lot lighting shall be
designed and located in such a manner so as not to
disturb the scenic appearance of the corridor.
Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not
reflected to adjacent parcels.All lighting and otherutilitiesonlotsadjacenttoChenal/Financial Center
Parkway which are located in front of the rear line of
the building,or in front of the rear line of the
building if such lighting and utilities were
constructed prior to building construction,shall be
underground.Notwithstanding the foregoing limitation,
no overhead utilities shall be constructed within one
hundred (100)feet of the Chenal/Financial Center
Parkway right-of-way.
10.BUILDING SITES —The maximum number of buildings per
commercial development shall be one (1)building perthirtythousand(30,000)square feet.Accessory
structures shall be allowed as specified under current
ordinance.In the case of a commercial development or
other development involving multiple building sites,
whether on one or more platted lots,the design overlaydistrictstandardsshallapplytothedevelopmentasanentiretract,rather than to each platted lot.
11.PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT —Property that cannot be
developed under the design overlay district standards
shall be reviewed through the Planned Unit Development
(PUD)section of the zoning ordinance.Applicantsshalldemonstratethatsuchpropertieshavedevelopmentconstraintswhichwouldrestrictdevelopmentunderthe
design overlay district ordinance.
12.~EXCEPEXC 2 —At th t of 'of h 1d gpermit,the Planning Director shall have the authoritytograntanexceptiontoone(1)measurable standard
per development,of not more than ten (10)percent ofthatmeasurablestandard.Exceptions may be granted incasesofextremehardshipandshallbelefttothediscretionofthePlanningDirector.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the design overlay district.
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Con 'nued
PLANNING C C 0 (DECEMBER 1,1992)
Jim Lawson,Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning,began the presentation by going over some of the high
points in a report which was prepared by the Staff for the
Planning Commission and was distributed to Commissioners and
interested individuals.This report,entitled enal Financial
Center Urban Corridor Overla ,presented unique characteristics
of the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Urban Corridor,proposed
development standards,a comparison of the proposed standards
with those adopted in the Highway 10 Design Overlay District and
a proposed ordinance for Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Urban
Corridor.
Mr.Lawson made a comparison of the Chenal corridor and the
Highway 10 corridor and pointed out the unique characteristics of
each corridor.Those differences included larger lot sizes on
Highway 10,smaller and irregular lots on Chenal Parkway,as a
result of the roadway being built after lots were platted,
differences in the roadways (limited curb cuts,medians and
median cuts,etc.),differences in the characteristics of the
corridors and underground as opposed to above-ground utilities.
Mr.Lawson then presented the proposed standards and answered
questions from the Commission.
Ruth Bell,spoke first on behalf of the Pulaski County League of
Women Voters.She stated that she supports overlay standards in
general and that she supports the proposal for an overlaydistrictontheChenal/Financial Center Parkway corridor.Inaddition,she stated that in looking back since overlay districts
were first proposed,that the League feels that overlays are
appropriate in certain parts of the city and that removes the
need to be concerned about development standards for specificprojects.
The next speaker was David Zones of Vogel Realty.Mr.Jonesstatedthathisfirmrepresentedthirteenownersofproperty on
Highway 10.He stated that he recommends and supports the
reduced restrictions on Chenal Parkway.He stated that he
strongly disagrees,on behalf of his clients and himself,withthediscussioncomparingHighway10andChenalParkway.Hestated that the two corridors are significant and are
competitors,when it comes to commercial development and that the
standards applied to the Chenal/Financial Parkway corridor should
be mirrored and applied to the Highway 10 corridor as well.
The next speaker was Robert Shults representing Financial Center
Corporation,Ranch Properties and other properties on Highway 10
and Chenal/Financial Center Parkway.Mr.Shults stated that hegenerallysupportstheChenal/Financial Center Parkway standards
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:Continue
and that they are a more thoughtful way of approaching an overlay
district than Highway 10.He further stated that they should be
the same since they are directly competitive.He further pointed
out that the comparisons between Chenal and Highway 10 are not
factual.Mr.Shults asked if a lot is developed on Financial
Center Parkway that has power lines at the rear of the lot,would
they be required to put the lines underground to conform with the
overlay standards.Mr.Lawson responded that the power would
have to be put underground.Mr.Shults further stated that
Chenal Parkway does not have a continuous median and parts do not
have a turn lane and that the overlay should have begun at Autumn
road or at the beginning of Chenal Parkway because Financial
Center Parkway is mature and fully developed.He questioned as
to why property owners did not have the option of smaller minimumlotsizesifpowerwereputundergroundonHighway10.
The next speaker was Bill Spivey of the Wright,Lindsey and
Jennings Law Firm who stated that he was the attorney for the I-
630 to Highway 10 Property Owners Improvement District,which is
commonly referred to as the Chenal Parkway Improvement District.
Mr.Spivey stated that the property owners and the Planning Staff
have worked for over one year in an attempt to reach an agreement
about the application of overlay standards to the roadway.Mr.
Spivey then outlined the many meetings and hours of work that
went into development of the standards.Mr.Spivey acknowledged
the unique characteristics of Chenal Parkway,its development,
construction and financing.Mr.Spivey then gave a history of
the development of the roadway.Afterward,he went over the
agreed-on modifications to the ordinance and those that were not
agreed upon by the staff,the latter being 5(d)of the standardsrelatingtoscreeningandthespacingofplantings,and 5(e)relating to the landscaped buffer.Other modifications relatedtocompensatingbuffersinsideandrearyardsand,in paragraph
8,that language referring to Resolution No.8292 be added,which
formally accepted the dedication of the Chenal Parkway
Improvements.
Mr.Dickson Flake,the next speaker,stated that he representedtheCatholicDioceseofLittleRock,which owns land on Chenal
Parkway.Mr.Flake stated that since the parkway was financed
based upon the benefits to the owners of property abutting thedistrict.The assessment to each property owner was based upontheusablelandareaofeachtract,after right-of-waydedication.Mr.Flake suggested using offsetting reduced buffers
on the side and rear yards to offset the additional buffer on thefrontyard,so as not to reduce the usable area which is thebasisoftheassessmentsandthebackingofthebondfinancing.
Mr.Flake commented that property owners might be less willing toparticipateinfutureimprovementdistrictsifthereisanydoubtthatthe"ground rules"might change after the formation of thedistrictandthatwearenotgoingtogettheimprovementsthat
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont'ed
we need to develop the infrastructure of this city unless
property owners voluntarily participate.
The next speaker was Danny Thomas,the general partner
representing a group of owners of twenty acres on Chenal Parkway.
He stated that he is supportive of the group represented by Mr.
Spivey but is apprehensive of the overlay.He stated that he
wants the Planning Commission to be very sensitive of the overlay
plan for Chenal so as not to stifle the growth in that area andifwehavetohaveanoverlayplan,that he supports the reports
given by Bill Spivey and Dickson Flake.
Bob Shults spoke again to add one point.He stated that the
developers of the Financial Parkway properties built Financial
Parkway and paid cash,rather than using an improvement district.
He further stated that they invested based upon the zoning that
was in place at that time as well.He stated that since they
dedicated right-of-way to build the parkway with a median,that
now some of their properties are less than the minimum lot size.
Commissioner Oleson asked for a clarification about the term"offsets"in regard to Mr.Spivey's and Mr.Flake's statements.
Mr.Spivey responded that to the extent that the standards would
require a frontage buffer in excess of the 25 feet currently
required under present zoning,then that buffering requirement
should be offset reducing side and rear yard buffering
requirements.Mr.Lawson responded that this issue had been
discussed early on in the process but that the Board directed thestafftodevelopanoverlaywithhigherstandardsthanwhatisin
place now,and this might need to be resolved by the Board ofDirectorsasapolicyquestion.
Commissioner Walker stated that since he did not participate in
the Plans Committee review of this issue,he would like someclarificationastowhetheritistheintentionoftheoverlay totaketheplaceoftheTrafficEngineerwithregardtocurbcuts
and access issues.Mr.Lawson responded that at first it was the
intent to try to resolve all of those issues and to include them
in the overlay ordinance,but since there is not agreement
between the Public Works Department and the landowners as to what
was agreed to years ago,this overlay refers hack to the
ordinances that are in place now in regard to curb cuts,mediancutsandaccess.He suggested that the improvement district work
out the differences with Public Works to determine what the
requirements are.There was then a review by Jerry Gardner oftheadoptedordinanceregardingaccessonChenalParkway.Mr.
Spivey stated that he thought the issue has been resolved a longtimeagoandthatResolutionNo.8292 states that the Parkway,asbuilt,complies with the Master Street Plan.Commissioner Walker
asked why paragraph 8 is in the standards.Mr.Lawson respondedthatitwasintheretoaddressthecurbmediancutissueandto
December 1,1992
P I G
ITEM NO.:1 Continue
acknowledge the ordinances that are in place now.There was then
a general discussion on the curb and median cut issue.
The next speaker was James Lasley,representing a group of
property owners on Chenal Parkway,who stated that the reason
Resolution No.8292 was passed by the City Board is that after
the Parkway right-of-way was dedicated and the land was given to
the City to build the road,the Department of Public Works asked
for ten feet more right-of-way on each side of the roadway,
without compensation.
The next speaker was David Jones.He stated that references made
that the methods used to build and pay for Chenal Parkway,have
no legal consequence relative to what this Commission or the City
Board can take into consideration when granting regulations andrestrictionsonapieceofproperty,and that this would becontractzoning.Mr.Giles responded that if the sole basis for
deciding whether to place the overlay on these properties is thefactthatthepropertyownerspaidforthepublicimprovements,it would be a contract zoning scenario.However,the specificsofthesituationonChenalParkwaygobeyondtheimprovements
that were made as a result of the improvement district.Mr.
Jones stated that he felt that the lesser standards placed on
Chenal Parkway were a compensation based on the amount of usable
land after the Parkway was built and that is contract zoning.
Commissioner Putnam stated that a discussion of Highway 10 should
be kept out of the discussion of Chenal Parkway.Commissioner
Walker asked whether it is necessary to cite Highway 10 in thereport.Mr.Lawson responded that Highway 10 was mentioned toexplainthedifferencesinthetwocorridorsandtomakethe
point that they are different.Commissioner Walker stated that
he wanted it clear that,in reviewing the standards,he is
looking uniquely at Chenal Parkway.Mr.Lawson stated that thereportisareportofstafffindings,a background report,andthattheordinanceisthedocumentthatistobeactedupon.Mr.
Lawson then restated the modifications to the standards that were
agreed upon by the staff.
Bob Shults again addressed the Commission,suggesting that the
word "new"be added to paragraph 8 of the standards,before the
word "curb cuts"and "median cuts".Commissioner Walker statedthatthosetwosentenceshadalreadybeendeleted.
Dickson Flake again spoke,stating that the median and curb cutissueisamatterofequity,where commitments were made by the
City Board,at a point in time,for reciprocal commitments fromindividualpropertyowners.A change in that,would be a breachofgoodfaithandthatincludingtheresolutionintheordinancestandardswouldreaffirmthosecommitmentssotherewouldnotbe
a postdating that would be interpreted as a change.The
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Continued
offsetting buffer against any increase that would be imposed by
the overlay buffer requirement,is also a matter of equity and it
would affect the attitude of future property owners to
voluntarily assess their property for improvements to the City'
infrastructure.
Commissioner Walker referred to the fact that several years ago,
the buffer requirements were greatly enhanced and the hillside
excavation ordinance was enacted,which severely limited usable
area of properties.Changes in ordinances will always have
economic impact on property owners,and they are not done in badfaith,but are done considering what is appropriate development.
Mr.Flake responded that this overlay applies specifically tothiscorridor,addressing directly compensating agreements that
were made between the city and the property owners.
Mr.Lawson stated that the Planning and Public Works staff would
reserve comment and the resolution issue would be included in astaffreporttotheBoardofDirectors.
Commission Selz stated that once the city makes a commitment and
that person is committed financially to make improvements based
on that commitment,the Commission ought to live up to the
commitment.
A general discussion was held between the Commission and Staff.
After discussion,Commissioner vonTungeln moved to recommend
approval of the ordinance with the agreed-upon additions to
paragraphs 5(e),6,and 8,of the standards as drafted in thereport,and for the language regarding Resolution No.8292 andoffsettingcompensationstobereservedfordirectBoardconsideration.Commissioner Willis seconded the motion.The
motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no,1 abstention and 1absent.
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:2
SUBJECT:1992 Ordinance Annual Amendments
STAFF REPORT:
The Planning Commission staff and Plans Committee have completed
all of the work assignments scheduled for 1992 relative to the
ordinance amendments.As you will recall at the Planning
Commission on October 20,1992,the Commission received Phase III
of the ordinance amendment proposals.At that time,the
Commission set a public hearing for December 1 for purposes of
receiving comment from interested parties.Attached to this
agenda is the complete detailed package,including the
Committee's recommendation outline,the various worksheets for
each change and the proposed text to carry out those changes.
There are a total of 49 ordinance amendments included within this
package produce by 22 areas of discussion.At this writing,
staff has not received comment from any outside party other than
Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters relative to the total
package for this year.Staff mailed a notice on October 12,1992
to the established mailing list identifying December 1 as the
public hearing for their comments.The staff and Plans Committee
are at this time prepared to recommend approval of the materials
in this package and recommend that the City Board of Directors
adopt these changes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 1,1992)
Richard Wood of the Planning staff presented the Ordinance
Amendment Package to the Commission with a brief statement.The
statement was the status of the committee meeting and staff's
work on this year's amendments.The only item specifically
discussed and presented by staff dealt with the modification of
language within the Subdivision Ordinance,dealing with the final
plat submittal requirements.Wood pointed out that the amendment
on page 20 in this year's worksheet provides for specific
information being submitted by way of certain compatible
diskettes and compatible with a certain format utilized by the
Public Works Department for their PAGIS Monumentation system.
Wood pointed out that although a number of mailings had been
accomplished on this agenda item,there were no specific written
or verbal comments in the record.Wood indicated there were
perhaps persons in the engineering community that were not aware
of this ordinance amendment although this proposal has been
available for the better part of 1992 and mailings have been
accomplished to several of the engineering firms in the
community.
1
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:2 Continued
A general discussion then followed involving several of thecommissionersandstaff.Their concerns were the impact of this
amendment on the cost of land development and the impact on thefilingofmaterial.The Chairman then asked if there were otherspresenttomakecommentsonthisissue.Mr.Tim Daters ofWhite-Daters and Associates,an engineering firm,was inattendance.Mr.Daters made a brief presentation of his thoughtsandwhatheknewwerefeelingsofanumberofthedevelopmentcommunityengineers.He said that,although there would be somecostinvolvedinbringingnewtechnologyon-line and updating the
way everyone does business.It was needed and if the PAGISsystemwastoworkproperly,all of the material has to becompatible.
Mr.Daters'omments were discussed by staff and the Commission.It appeared a consensus of the commission was that,althoughtherewouldbesomeminorimpactonthedevelopmentcost,thiswasaneededordinanceamendment.Richard Wood then asked theChairmanifitwashisdesirethateachofthemanyitemsin theordinancepackagebediscussedseparately.The Chairmanindicatedthatwithoutarequestforfurtherdiscussion fromothersonthePlanningCommission,a vote on the entire ordinance
was appropriate.There being no further questions or concernsofferedbytheCommission,a motion was made to approve thisyear's ordinance amendment package and recommend the materialtotheBoardofDirectorsforadoption.The motion passed byavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
2
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:3
TITLE:1993 Planning Commission
Calendar of Meeting Dates
STAFF REPORT:
The Planning staff has reviewed the dates for public hearing bythePlanningCommissionduring1993.We have determined that the
only area for discussion and possibly modification is the dateset,December 28,1993 for a Subdivision hearing.This falls
between the week of Christmas and New Years and in line with the
Commission's recent discussion of meeting dates during holidays.
We can offer an alternate meeting date if it is acceptable to the
Commission.This date would be January 4,1994.This will,ofcourse,extend the review period to seven weeks which is notunusual.
After a brief discussion,the Commission determined to accept themodificationinfilingdates.A motion was made to approve thecalendarfor1993aspresentedasmodified.The motion passed byavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR —1993 ADOPTED:12-1-92
REZONING HEARINGS:
~tl D t ~L)Ad ~HD t )1)
11-23-92 12-11-92 01-05-93
01-04-93 01-15-93 02-09-93
02-12-93 02-26-93 03 —23 —9303-29-93 04-09-93 05-04-93
05-10-93 05-21-93 06-15-93
06-21-93 07-02-93 07-27-93
08-02-93 08-13-93 09-07-93
09-13-93 09-24-93 10-19-93
10-25-93 11-05-93 11-30-93
12-06-93 12-17-93 01-11-94
SUBDIVISION HEARING:
Subdivison (2)Hearing (1)
~HA D t ~L)Ad Committe Date
12-21-92 12-31-92 01-07-93 01-26-92
02-01-93 02-12-93 02-18-93 03-09-93
03-15-93 03-26-93 04-01-93 04-20-93
04-26-93 05-07-93 05-13-93 06-01-93
06-07-93 06-18-93 06-24-93 07-13-9307-19-93 07-30-93 08-05-93 08-24-9308-30-93 09-10-93 09-16-93 10-05-9310-11-93 10-22-93 10-28-93 11-16-9311-22-93 12-03-93 12-09-93 01-04-94
PLANNING HEARING
~LA Ad H~Dt 11)
12-23-92 01-12-93
02-03-93 02-23-93
03-17-93 04-06-93
04-28-93 05-18-93
06-09-93 06-29-93
07-21-93 08-10-9309-01-93 09-21-93
10-13-93 11-02-93
11-24-93 12-14-93
NOTE:(1)All Public Hearings shall be held at 12:30 P.M.
Unless otherwise changed by the Commission.
(2)All meetings shall be held at 1:00 P.M.unless
changed by the Subdivision committee.
NOTICE:AN INTERPRETER WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE HEARING
IMPAIRED UPON REQUEST.REQUEST SHOULD BE MADE
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING
AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED
MEETING DATE.
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.'
SUBJECT:Staff report on a proposal to
reduce the paper and printingcostforPlanningCommission
agendas and minute records.
STAFF REPORT:
Richard Wood of the staff presented a verbal report on a reviewperformedbystaffinassociationwiththe1993citybudget.It
was reported that,although the city printshop may in fact beretainedforusebythedepartment,all costs will increase.
Wood explained that staff would like to use this opportunity toreduceitsoverallprintingcostandtheuseofpaperbyutilizinganewformat.
The new format would follow a structure which would consist of anoutlineindicatingforeachapplicationtherequestwithbasicinformation,variances,staff recommendation and subdivisioncommitteecomment.This would be prepared on a letter size pagewithcontinuousfrontandback,page to page printing.Thisshouldreduceourtotalcostbyone-half.
The basic agenda would not include sketches.This would be boundseparatelyandpreparedforhandoutintheCommissionandstafffolders.
The Commission would receive a complete detailed write-up of allitemsasamailout.The meeting folder would include only thebasicagendaplussketches.The total number of agendas printedwouldbeapproximately20copies,with the minute recordconsistingofapproximately12copies.This would be asignificantreductionfromtheaverage70copiesnowprinted.
This format would reduce paper and page count by approximately
60%and our cost through the City's printshop by an equivalent
amount.
The copies prepared for public handout prior to and at themeetingswouldbethebasicagenda,and not sketches.A set ofthe various sketches would be available for handout toindividualsasnecessaryatthehearings.
All of the agenda and minute pages could be provided by thein-house copy machine,except for the 10 or 20 item count forcommissiondistribution.
In summary,the agenda modification will reduce the cost per copyoftheagenda,approximately $2.00.It will reduce the cost inpaperbyapproximately1,700 pages per printing.It would alsoreducetheminuterecordbyacomparableamount.
1
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEN NO.:4 ntinued
After receipt of this information,the Commission discussed the
matter briefly.The staff offered that it was too late to follow
this procedure for the December 15 Planning Commission hearing,
but one of the meetings in January would be appropriate as a
startup in trial run to determine the various elements
appropriateness.The Commission made a motion to accept
the staff's report and its recommendation for modification of
the agenda and minute format.The motion passed by a vote of
10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
2
December 1,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:5
SUBJECT:Planning staff report on 1992
usage of large rezoning signs.
STAFF REPORT:
The Planning staff presented an oral report on its annual usage
of large rezoning signs.This report was promised by staff in
1991 at which time the Bylaws were modified by resolution to
allow a reduction in the 4 foot by 4 foot sign.The sign
produced for staff use is approximately half that scale.Ten
copies of that sign were produced for 1992,only three of which
were actually utilized.The staff reported that there was little
history of the sign usage to support specific action.However,it was the feeling of the staff that the signs and theirvisibilityhavenotpresentedaproblem.We have not received
complaints from persons about being unable to see the signs or
read the material.
Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters was present and offered
comments on the staff report indicating her objection as she did
in 1991.Ms.Bell felt the signs should be maintained at the
larger size if at all possible.A brief discussion of thestaff's report followed in which it was determined by the
Commission that it would be appropriate to produce a Bylaw
amendment resolution.This resolution would be submitted at an
upcoming planning commission meeting for specific resolution of
the question and perhaps modification of the Bylaws.A motiontothiseffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 nays and 1 absent.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE 1Z h5 COYSFN 7-Ac.eeoc
MEMBER 3 J 0 X&l
ABYSS
10K
BALL,RAMSEY Ag u u
CHACHERE,DIANE V
WILLIS,EMMETT v
MCDANIEL,JOHN A.4A n
NICHOLSON,JERILYN v v
OLESON,KATHLEEN
VONTUNGELN,JIM v v
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD pr f
SELZ,JQE H.P
WALKER,BRAD
TIME IN AND TIME OUT
BALL,RAMSEY I2'$0
CHACHERE,DIANE tw lz.go
WILLIS,EMMETT lsd r2:3o
MCDANIEL,JOHN
Ause'ICHQLSON,JERILYN w lz:3o
OLESON,KATHLEEN
VQNTUNGELN,JIM w l z;yo
PUTNAM,BILL l2leo
WOODS,RONALD r~l 2;3o
SELZ,JOE H.lrl Ig.,'g5
WALKER,BRAD Iv l2;3o
Meeting Adjourned 5,dd P,M,~AYE ~NAYE A ABSENT A~ABSTAIN
December 1,1992
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission,themeetingwasadjournedat3:10 p.m.
Date:/
i n e ret