Loading...
pc_02 13 1990LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 13)1990 1:00 p.m. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being ten in number. II.Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. No action was taken on approving the minutes of theJanuary2,1990 public hearing. III.Members present:Martha Miller Rose Collins John McDaniel Stephen Leek Kathleen Oleson Fred Perkins Walter Riddick III Joe Sels Brad Walker Connie Whitfield Members absent:Jerilyn Nicholson City Attorney:Stephen Giles REZONING HEARING February 13&1990 DEFERRED ITEMS A.Plunkett Commercial "PCD"(Z-5282) REZONING ITEMS: 1.Z-5285 Doyle Springs Road and I-30 »R 2»to »I 2» 2.Z-5287 5922 South University "C-3"to "C-4" 3.Z-5288 Fair Park at I-630 &Maryland "R-6"to "C-3" 4.Z-5289 5804 Baseline Road »R 2»to»(3» OTHER MATTERS: 5.Board of Adjustment Recommendation 6,1990 Subdivision Ordinance Amendments 7,Buffer and Landscape Ordinance Report and Update February 13,1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.,:A FILE NO.:Z-5282 NAME:Plunkett Commercial PCD LOCATION:Northeast corner of Rodney Parham and Green Mountain Drive intersection. DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Fred Plunkett The Mehlburger Firm 5912 "R"Street P.O.Box 3837LittleRock,AR 72207 Little Rock,AR 72203 663-750&375-5331 AREA:0.81 acre NUMBER OF LOTS'FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:"R-2"PROPOSED USES'CD —Retail shop withoffice/retail expansion PLANNING DISTRICT:2 —Pleasant Valley CENSUS TRACT:22.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED:None STATEMENT OF,PROPOSAL l The owner's intent for this project is to build a smallretail/office building on the southern portion of the site. The building will be one story containing 4000 square feet and consist of steel frame with masonry construction,It will also have a covered walkway along the front of the building which will be facing the west property line.The walkway will extend the entire length of the building connecting the parking area and sheltering the entries to the various shops and offices. The building is presently being planned in two phases.Thefirstphase,1800 square feet,will be owner occupied (Balloonacy),The second phase,2200 square feet,will beforleasethroughtheowner. The floodway along the east property line is going to be modified.Plantings will be used between it and the parking and building for screening. 1 February 13,1990 SUBDIVISION Item No.A (Continuedj AD PROPOSAL/REQUESTS This application involves a single lot which is proposed in Phase I as a retail store and office space. The second phase will be leased to commercial businesses compatible with the nearby residential area. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently covered with scrub brush and small trees.The adjacent streets are developed on the south to City standards and on the west Rodney Parhamissubstandard.The property is surrounded by commercial on the east and south,and residential on the north and west. C.ENGINEERING COMMENTS'n engineering report on proposed floodway modifications will be required and must be approved by the City of Little Rock and Corps of Engineers.Traffic Engineering is preparing intersection designforthiscorner.Detention and excavation ordinances not applicable.Right of way and improvements to minorarterialstandardswillberequiredforthenorth Rodney Parham Road frontage.Engineering comments on proposed setback reductions is reserved pending reviewofspecificrequests, DE ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGNS There are several issues of concern relative to thesiteplan,the first being setbacks.The developer proposes 15 foot setbacks from the property lines and no setback from the floodway.According to Cityregulations,setbacks shall be 25 feet from the property line and 25 feet from the floodway.It appears that this site may be too small to be developed. A survey showing the floodway should be provided.An engineering report on proposed floodway modification will be required. 2 February 13,1990 SUBDIVISION Item No.A (Continued) E.ANALYSIS; The Planning and Engineering staffs have thoroughly reviewed this plan and there are a number of concerns.First,we would like to state that a report on proposed floodway modification will be required and must be approved by City Engineering and the Corps of Engineers.A second concern is the setback requirement.Although this is a PUD,we feel strict adherence to the commercial bulk and area standards is a must on this difficult site.Conformance to these dimensions will demand a less intense use and building.Finally,the staff view of this proposal is that thematerialsfiledbytheEngineerforthePCDrevieware somewhat sketchy in nature,We would suggest that the engineer have a more detailed plan developed in concert with the parking,drive improvements and building dimensions. F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff reserves its recommendation on this item inordertofurtherdeveloptheapplication,the information provided and our position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(January 18,1990) The application was represented.The engineer of theprojectpresentedhissiteplanandofferedreasonsfor thevariousdesignelementspresented.A lengthy discussion of the proposal followed during which time the Committee andstaffdeterminedthatafloodwaystudyandthereduction ofbuildingsquarefootagewouldbenecessaryforthissmallsite. There was a lengthy discussion of the means of right-of-waydedicationtotheCityandreductionofsetbacks.Several comments were made by Committee members and staff to theeffectthattheyfelttheproposedbuildingistooclose to Rodney Parham.The engineer offered comments concerning hisproposalonthesiterelatedtoright-of-way dedication and moving the building further north on the property.Heindicatedthatthesiteisonly40footwideonthenorthend.He also stated that they are willing to work with theCitytosolvetheseproblems. 3 February 13,1990 SUBDIVISION Item No.A (Continued} Comments from the Engineering Department were offered.It was pointed out that the City would require the right-of-waydedicationandhalfofthestreetimprovementsasapartof a future project widening Hinson Road and North Rodney Parham. The Planning staff agreed to a compromise with setbacks from the floodway and the street but the engineer of the projectneedstoworkonthebuildingsite,moving the buildingfurthernorthandreducingthesquarefootage.The engineeroftheprojectagreedtorevisethesiteplanandsubmitittothePlanningofficeforreviewbeforeThursdaynoon. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(January 30,1990) The applicant was present.The Planning staff offered a new expanded recommendation on this proposal as follows. The Planning staff approves Phase I,3100 square feet,butfeelsthatPhaseII,an additional 2400 square feet,is too much for this small site.The Planning staff recommendations are under the condition that the floodwaywillbechannelizedwithconcretelinesonbothsides.Additionally,from the land use point of view,this land shows an office area.According to the developer's letter,this will consist mostly of retail space.Staff concernsaretrafficproblems. Mr.Jerry Gardner of the Public Works department stated that he would like to see an engineering study proving that the floodway can be channelized.He also said if the floodway can be channelized,with this type of improvement,the needforthesetbacksbecomesmuchlessimportant.He also addedthatasetbackof251'eet from the floodway is just to allowforfloodwaymaintenance. Commissioner Joe Selz asked Jerry Gardner how the proposed curb cuts would affect the traffic pattern on Rodney Parham.Jerry Gardner stated the traffic is from east to the west and north.The street improvements the developer would havetodowillbehalfofafivelanefuturestreet.Be alsopointedoutthatentrancetotheparkinglotwillbedirect one way;proposed arrangements would add a right-turn lane. 4 February 13,1990 SUBDIVISION Item No.A (Continued} Mr.Wes Lauder&the engineer on the project,then addressedtheCommission,answering questions concerning use of thebuilding.He stated that the owner of this property also owns Balloonacy and that will be the only retail store inthisbuilding.He said that the owner agreed to prohibittherestofthebuildingfromretailuse.He also pointedoutthatexpenseswithchannelizingthefloodwayandstreet improvements would require at least 4500 square feet to maketheprojectaffordable. A brief discussion then followed concerning the size and useofthebuilding.Mr.Burt McAninch&property owner directlynorth,said that he has a floodway problem on his property. He objected to the traffic problem and floodway relocation. He stated that the floodway backed up to his property afteraparkinglotwasbuilteastofhisproperty. Mr.Randy Alexander,of the McKay Company directly east ofsaidproperty,stated that channelizing the floodway wouldeliminateanother3-4 parking spaces from his property whichisalreadylimited.He would like to know more aboutchannelizingthefloodwayandthepossibleimpacton hisproperty. A lengthy discussion oi'he proposal then followed with comments from Commissions to gain more information aboutchannelizingthefloodwayandprotectingabuttingpropertyowners.A motion to defer this item for two weeks to theFebruary13,1990 agenda was made and passed by a vote of10ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(February 13,1990) The applicant was present.The Planning staff offered its recommendation on this proposal as follows.The Planningstaffrecommendationremainsthesame.Staff supportsPhaseIasaBalloonacyandofficeusebyownerbutdenialofPhaseII.Stai'f's recommendation is based on theconditionthatthefloodwaywillbechannelized. Mr.Jim Lawson stated that he spoke with Mr.Randy AlexanderofMcKayltCompany.Mr,Alexander does not have anyproblemswithchannelizingthefloodwayaftermeeting with Mr.Jerry Gardner of Public Works and Mr.Wes Lauder of the Mehlburger firm on the site.Mr.Lauder,the engineer of 5 February 13,1990 SUBDIVISION Item No.A (Continued) the project,stated that Mr.Gardner and the occupants ofsaidpropertymetonthesitetodiscussfloodwaychannelization. The Chairman then asked Mr.Lauder what he thinks about thelackofsupportforPhaseII.He said that the projectwouldnotbeviableforhisclienttodevelopjustPhase I;his client his looking for full development. Mr.Jim Lawson asked the applicant to define what would beinPhaseIandIIofthedevelopment.Mr.Lauder statedthathisclientagreestousePhaseIforBalloonacyand hisofficeandPhaseIIforoffice. There was a lengthy discussion of the means of variances iftheapplicantappliesforrezoning.Several comments were made by Cosssissioners and staff to the effect that theprojectisagooddevelopmentandvariancesbecomelessimportant. Beth Zauner of the Mehlburger firm clarified that the totalsquarefootageforPhaseIwillbe2300squarefeetwhichwillinclude2000squarefeetforBalloonacyand300squarefeetforoffice.Phase II will be 2400 square feet and willbeofficeuseonly. A motion was made to approve Phase I and II with Phase IlimitedtoBalloonacy(2000 square feet for retail and300squarefeetforofficeuse)and Phase II (2400 squarefeet)limited to office use only.The applicant also agreedtochannelizethefloodwayandmakeallstreetimprovements.The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 nay,1 absent and 0 abstention. 6 February 13,1990 Item No.1 -Z-5285 Owner'.Sam and Charlie Chaffin Applicant:Sam Chaffin by Gene Eberle Location:Doyle Springs Road and I-30 Request:Rezone from "R-2"to "I—2». Purpose:Warehouse Size:3.02 acres Existing Use:Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Single Family,Commercial and Interstate Right- of-Way,zoned "R-2" South —Auto repair,zoned "R-2" East —Industrial,zoned "R-2" West —Vacant,zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone three acres at Doyle Springs Road and I-30 from "R-2"to "I-2"for a warehouse use.The siteisonthesouthsideoftheinterstateand,because of itsconfiguration,the property has frontage on both DoyleSpringsandtheserviceroad.At this time,the land is undeveloped and wooded. Zoning in the area south of the interstate is "R-2",SingleFamily.To the north of I-30,there is some nonresidential zoning,"0-3"and "I-2".Land use is mixed along Doyle Springs and includes single family,a gun shop,auto repair,warehousing and various other commercial and industrialuses.Across Doyle Springs is a warehouse complex and tothesouthisanautorepairbusiness.Located on a piece oflandtothenorthistheSunshopandasinglefamilyresidence.The same type of land use pattern is foundadjacenttoStantonRoad.There are also several vacanttractsfoundthroughoutthearea. The adopted land use plan,Geyer Springs East,identifiesthepropertyinquestionas"office/industrial".ThisparticularlandusedesignationisrecommendedforpropertiesalongI-30 and extends from Doyle Springs Road totheSouthwestCityMall.Some of the office/industrial area 1 February 13,1990 Item No.1 -Z-5285 [Continued) to the west is zoned "I-2"and the uses range from office towarehousing.On the Plan,the land to the east is shown aspartofthelargeindustrialarea.Because of the site'slocationandtheproposedreclassificationconformstothe land use plan,staff supports the requested rezoning change. ENGINEERING COMMENTS'oyle Springs Road is classified as a collector which has aright-oi'-way standard of 60 feet.If the existing right-of- way is deficient,dedication of additional right-of-way willberequired. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I-2"rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (February 13,1990) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred becausetheapplicantfailedtonotifytherequiredpropertyowners. A motion was made to defer the request to the March 27,1990meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 2 February 13&1990 Item No.2 -Z-5287 Owner:B.G.Montgomery Applicant:Sam B.Reynolds Location:5922 South University Avenue Request:Rezone from "C-3"to "C-4". Purpose'otorcycle sales and service Size:1.5 acres Existing Use:Vacant butldtng SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Auto sales&zoned "C-4" South —Commercial&zoned "C-3" East —Commercial&zoned "C-4" West —Single Family,zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The property under consideration is zoned "C-3"and the proposal is to utilize the location for motorcycle sales andservice.To allow the proposed use,the site must first berezonedto"C-4"which permits the sale of automobiles andmotorcycles.There is one building,formerly a restaurant, on the site;and a large percentage of the acreage is paved. The property has frontage on both Sout,h University andMabelvalePikewithaccesstothetwostreets. The zoning pattern along this segment of South University isacombinationof"C-3","C-4"and "I-2"with the propertyabutting"C-4"on the north and "C-3"on the south.AcrossSouthUniversity,the zoning is "C-4"and "I—2".Land use on South University between Mabelvale Pike and West 65thStreetisalmostexclusivelycommercialwiththeuses including retail,auto sales,an eating place,a financialinstitutionandautoservice.The large "C-4"and "I-2"tracts on the east,side of South University are undevelopedatthistime.To the west of Mabelvale Pike,there is awellestablishedsinglefamilysubdivisionzoned"R-2". On the 65th Street West Plan,the west side of SouthUniversityisshownfor"strip development",or the full range of commercial activities.The proposed "C-4"reclassification conforms to the adopted land use plan and 1 February 13,1990 Item No.2 —Z-5287 (Continued},, the open display aspect of the use does not introduce a new commercial element to the area.Therefore,there should be no impact on the residences to the west from the proposed rezoning change. ENGINEERING COMMENTS'abelvale Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as acollector.The existing right-of-way is deficient sodedicationofadditionalright-of-way will be required for atotalof30feetfromthecenterline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-4"rezoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (February 13,1990) The applicant was present.There were no objectors and theitemwasplacedontheconsentagenda.A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C-4"request as filed.Themotionpassedbyavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 2 February 13,1990 Item No.3 —Z-5288 Owner:Various owners Applicant:Jim B.Gray Location:Fair Park at I-630 and Maryland Request;Rezone from "R-6"to "C-3" Purpose:Commercial Size:1.5 acres Existing Use:Single Family and Day Care Center SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Single Family and Interstate Right-of-Way, zoned "R-2"and "R-6" South —Vacant and Single Family,zoned "R-3","R-6" and "O-l" East —Commercial,zoned PCD West —Single Family,zoned "R-6" STAFF ANALYSIS: The issue before the Commission is to rezone a total of11lotsfrom"R-6"to "C-3"for some type of commercialdevelopment.("R-6"is the High-rise Apartment District andhasamaximumdensityof72unitsperacre.)The propertyissituatedatthesouthwestcornerofthe1-630/Fair Parkinterchangeandhasfrontageontwootherstreets,TaylorStreetandWest9thorMaryland.The site is an entire cityblockwiththeexceptionofonelot(Lot 10).A majority oflotsareoccupiedbysinglefamilyresidencesand,on thenorthernmostlots(1,2 and 12),there is a day care center.Lots 1 and 2 have been reduced in size by the taking ofright-of-way for I-630. The zoning in the neighborhood is very erratic and is made up of llR 3ll IIR 4s sR 6tl IO 1 tl sO 3tt tlC 3s sI 2tl PCD.An example of this irregular pattern can be found ontheblocktothesouththatiscurrentlyzoned"R-3","C-3" and "I-2".Land use in the area reflects the zoning andincludessinglefamily,multifamily,office,commercial andindustrial,Across Fair Park on the PCD site,there is amajordevelopmentwithaneatingestablishment,motel and aconveniencestorewithgaspumps,the most recent addition 1 February 13,1990 Item No.3 —Z-5288 (Continued} to the block.North of I-630 is the War Memorial/Little Rock Zoo area which is a significant public use area. Throughout the area there are vacant lots including the"0-1"parcel to the south, In 1982,an attempt was made to rezone several of the lotsto"C-3"for a convenience store.Two separate applicationswerefiledforthelotsfrontingFairPark&the eastern one-half of the block,but the requests were heard together bythePlanningCommission.There was strong neighborhoodoppositionandbothrezoningsweredeniedbythePlanning Commission and the Board of Directors.(Based oninformationfromthetwocasefiles,it appears that the proposal was to develop a convenience store on the sixlots.) The location under consideration is part of the I-630 Planning District and is specifically addressed in the OakForestNeighborhoodPlan.The land use plan designates thepropertyinquestionformixeduse.A conceptual plan forFairParkbetweenI-630 and West 12th shows the block aspartofalargerofficeandcommercialareawithmultii'amilyusestothesouth. Staff has some concerns with the current request and cannot support the "C-3"reclassification as filed.By having toexcludeLot10fromtheapplication,an undesirable zoningpatternwouldbecreatedifthebalanceoftheblockisrezonedto"C-3".Another potential problem is thepossibilityofhavingacommercialuseoneachlot which would lead to a fragmented land use pattern.Also,a "C-3" rezoning f'r all lots could have an adverse impact on thesinglefamilyresidencesontheotherblocks.The City mustalsobesensitivetothezoo/park area and what kind of development pattern is appropriate for one of the fewentrancesintoauniquepublicenvironment.Finally,theissueofstrippingoutanotherarterialwith"C-3"zoningshouldbepartoftheCommission's review of the request. To ensure a quality development and to help minimize anypotentialimpactsfromacommercialreclassificationystaff recommends that a PCD be utilized for the lots that front onFairPark,Lots 1 through 6.Restricting a cosunercialreclassificationtotheeasternone-half of the block willhelpavoidaquestionablezoningconfigurationandalsomaintaintheone-half block depth for commercial propertiesthatexistonthewestsideofFairPark.A PCD is neededforthislocationbecausetheprocesscanlimitthe users or 2 February 13,1990 Item No.3 —Z-5288 (Continued) uses,and require site plan review.This should helpprotecttheresidentialinterestsintheneighborhood and the Fair Park corridor which functions as a primary entrance into the War Memorial/Zoo complex. ENGINEERING COMMENTS'air Park Boulevard is a minor arterial which has a minimumright-of-way standard of 90 feet.The exiting right-of-wayisdeficientsoadditionaldedicationisrequiredforatotalright-of-way of 45 feet from the center line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of "C-3"and suggests that a PCD beusedforthesixlotsthatfrontonFairParkBoulevardforaspecificcommercialdevelopment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(February 13,1990) The applicant,Jim Gray,was present.There were threeobjectorsinattendance.Mr.Gray spoke briefly and said he was representing the owners of eleven out of twelve lots. He then requested a deferral to the March 27,1990 hearingtoallowforadditionaltimetotrytosecuretheone remaining lot. John Kerr,901 Fair Park Boulevard,spoke and said that hedidnotobjecttotheitembeingdei'erred.Another residentaddressedthePlanningCommissionandsaidshewasconcernedwiththeuseofthesite.The same person also indicatedthatshewasnotopposedtodeferringtheissue. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 27,1990hearing.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 February 13,1990 Item No.4 —Z-5289 Owner:Lillie Mae Davis Applicant:National Pizza Company by Andrew Baden Location:5804 Baseline Road Request:Rezone from "R-2"to "C-3" Purpose:Eating place Size:0.75 acre Existing Use:Eating place (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Vacant&zoned "R-2" South —Multifamily,zoned "R-2" East —Commercial,zoned "R-2" West —Single Family and Commercial,zoned "R-2" STAPF ANALYSIS: The property in question is currently occupied by an eatingestablishmentandtherequestistorezonethesitefrom"R-2"to "C-3"to remove the nonconforming status.There isonestructureonthesitewithsomeofthelandareapavedforparking.Another factor for requesting the rezoning change is to utilize some of the unpaved portion of thepropertyforadditionalparking.This proposed parking areaisanexpansionofanonconforminguseandcannotbeundertakenuntilthepropertyisrezonedtoanappropriatedistrict. Land use along this segment of Baseline includes singlefamily,multifamily,mobile home parks&commercial and someindustrial.Several of the existing single familyresidencesarelocatedonElrodDrive,the street directlytothewest,and the remaining ones are found on Baseline.Properties with Baseline frontage are primarily used for commercial businesses and a high percentage are nonconforming.Some of the existing commercial properties and buildings are vacant at this time.The existing zoningpatternis"R-2","C-3","C-4"and "I-2". 1 February 13,1990 Item No.4 -Z-5289 (Continued} The Geyer Spring East Plan shows the site for commercialuse.Therefore,the proposed reclassification conforms totheadoptedplan.The land use plan recommends a commercialpatternforthenorthsideoi'aseline from Geyer SpringsRoadtoDoyleSpringsRoad,On the south side,the planmirrorsthenorthsidewiththeexceptionoftwoblocksbetweenLewDriveandSunsetLanethatareidentifiedformixeddensityhousingandpublic/institutional.There arenozoningissuesassociatedwiththisrequestandstaffendorsestherezoningto"C-3". ENGINEERING COMMENTS: None reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION! Staff recommends approval of the "C-3"rezoning asrequested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(February 13,1990) The applicant was present.There were no objectors inattendanceandtheitemwasputontheconsentagenda.Amotionwasmadetorecommendapprovalofthe"C-3"rezoningasfiled.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 2 February 13,1990 Item No.5 —Other Matters Subject:Board of Adjustment Recommendation At the January 22,1990 meeting of the Little Rock Board of Adjustment,the Board made the decision to recommend to the Planning Commission to rezone all of the "R-2"Single FamilyrailroadtracklocatedintheLittleRockPortAuthorityareato"I-2"Light Industrial.This area encompasses approximately one-fourth to a mile of track.The intent behind this recommendation is to prevent applicants whosepropertiesabuttherailroadtracksfromhavingtorequestvariancesfromthescreeningrequirementoftheZoningOrdinance. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(February 13,1990) Richard Wood of the Planning staff reported to the Commission that this item had been placed on the agenda fordiscussionpurposesattherequestoftheBoardof Adjustment.The history of this subject goes to variances by various persons where their properties abutted railroadtrackswhichwereclassified"R-2"Single Family.Currently,a developer in such a relationship must erect screening fences along the railroad right-of-way.The BoardofAdjustmentfeltthatthesetracksshouldbelocatedandrezonedtotheappropriateclassificationtoeliminatethisconflict. Since the review by the Board of Adjustment of this matter,the Buffer and Landscape Ordinance package from the CityBeautifulCommissionhasbeenfinalizedandwillbe presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 27,1990.The staff reports that the body of information in the exceptions standards for the Buffer Ordinance will eliminate the screening requirement in therailroadright-of-way instance.Staff suggested that the Planning Cosssission should perhaps leave this matter on the agenda until February 27th at which time they can discuss both approaches.The Commission determined this to be an appropriate action at this time.A motion to defer thesubjecttoFebruary27wasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nay&1 absent. 1 February 13,1990 Item No.6 —Other Matters Subject:1990 Subdivision Ordinance Amendments PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION;(February 13&1990l The Planning staff reported to the Commission that,aspromised,the first package of ordinance amendments for 1990havebeencompleted.A draft of this material is beingpresentedtotheCommissionatthismeetingforpurposes ofpreliminaryreview.This item will be placed on thePlanningCommissionagendaforApril10,1990 for a publichearing.Copies of this material will be provided to all ofthecontactsonthemailinglisttoassurethatinterestedpartiesareawareoftheproposals. 1 February 13,1990 Item No.7 —Other Matters Subject:Buffer and Landscape Ordinance Report and Update PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (February 13,1990) Richard Wood of the Planning staff reported that the CityBeautifulCommissionheldapublichearingonMonday,February 12,1990 at which time it received the report fromthePlanningCommissionSpecialCommittee.The CityBeautifulCommissiondeterminedthatitwouldholda publichearingatitsmeetinginMarchforpurposesofadoptionofthispackageofamendments.The Planning staff has placedthisitemonthePlanningCommissionagendaforFebruary27,1990 for a public hearing.Copies of the material have beendeliveredtointerestedparties.It is the hope of the CityBeautifulCommissionandPlanningstaffthatthePlanningCommissionwilladoptthisordinancepackageandrecommendtheseveralelementstotheCityBoardofDirectors.It wasdeterminedbytheCityBeautifulCommissionthatthePlanningCommissionshouldadoptitsbufferstandardsfirstinordertoprovidethebasisforadoptionoftheLandscapeandExcavationOrdinancepackage.Those ordinances are strongly tied to the Buffer Ordinance and its requirements. The Commission accepted the staff's report.There was nomotionoractiontakenatthistime. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD DATE ITEM NUMBERS ZONING SUBDIVISION MEMBER 3 W.Riddick,III Yalker Brad t McDanie I M.Hi ler LVv Vv'V J.Nicholson ad Selz,Joe v v S .Leek v M v C.Ãhitfield K.Oleson vv' R.Co11i s v'vvu& F,Perkins ~liYE NIIYE 4 AQsENT +llBsTllIN February 13,1990 There being no further business before the PlanningCommission,the meeting was adjourned at 1t40 p.m. nAvE:Q4/A 3 7