Loading...
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