pc_08 23 1994I.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
AUGUST 23, 1994
12:30 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Diane Chachere
Brad Walker
Kathleen Oleson
Joe Hirsch Selz
Ramsay Ball
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Bill Putnam
Ron Woods
B. J. Wyrick
John McDaniel
One Open Position
Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
AGENDA
AUGUST 23, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING•
1. Master Street Plan Amendment
2. 1994 Ordinance Amendment
August 23, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1
TITLE: Amend the Master Street Plan
LOCATION: Saline County
REQUEST: Remove all streets
SOURCE: Staff
STAFF REPORT:
The City of Little Rock recently removed all areas in Saline
County from our planning area. This action effectively removes
the City's ability to enforce the Master Street Plan in Saline
County; therefore, this document should be appropriately changed.
All classified streets in Saline County should be removed from
the adopted plan and map. This action is intended to bring the
Master Street Plan into conformance with the other ordinances of
the City of Little Rock.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 23, 1994)
Ron Newman, Planning Manager, stated that the Master Street Plan
Amendment to remove al streets in Saline County is a follow up to
the previous action taken by the Commission, which removed all
planning and enforcement activities from Saline County.
Commissioner Oleson asked if cases already approved in Saline
County would be required to meet the conditions of approval. Mr.
Newman responded that approved projects in the extraterritorial
area are not required to obtain construction permits, so there is
no monitoring of actual construction. Richard wood, Zoning and
Subdivision Manager, stated that in Saline County, only one issue
had come to the Planning Commission and Board for approval; a
preliminary plat. That plat was filed and recorded in Saline
County and the City of Little rock had no further jurisdiction
after the preliminary review.
August 23, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
After discussion, the Commission voted to approve the ordinance
by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 absent and 1 unfilled position.
K
July 12, 1994
August 23, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 2
SUBJECT: An amendment to the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance establishing
rezoning procedure and conditional
approval.
REQUEST: To approve the content and
recommend the draft submitted by
the City Attorney and forward to
the Board of Directors.
STAFF REPORT:
At its meeting on August 2, 1994, the Board of Directors directed
staff to pursue the creation of an ordinance amendment that would
permit the placement of conditions within a rezoning ordinance.
This request resulted from a hearing on an application of
significant interest.
Although the subject of conditional rezoning has been discussed
by the Board and numerous cases approved with conditions the City
Attorney and certain Board members felt that the Zoning Ordinance
should be clear on the matter. The Planning staff worked with
Mr. Carpenter and his staff to draft language that is workable.
It should answer questions that consistently reoccur, while
avoiding both P.U.D. conflict and contract zoning.
The draft submitted is constructed so as to place the applicant
at the control point of allowing the applicant to initiate a
conditional request at the Planning Commission level. The
applicant could introduce use, bulk or area, access or density
restrictions in response to concerns voiced in the Commission
meeting. The application would come to the Board with the
Commission's recommendation. The Board would then act to
approve, deny, modify or return for more study.
We feel this amendment will permit all involved parties to be a
part of the process, see concerns dealt with in a controlled
fashion and a permanent public record made of commitments.
A copy of the draft is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Approved as submitted.
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 23, 1994)
The Chairman asked the staff to present its comments on the
proposed ordinance.
Ron Newman, of the Planning staff, presented a brief overview
identifying the history of the ordinance proposal and its origin
with the City Board of Directors.
Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, then continued Mr.
Newman's comments by adding his thoughts on the need for the
ordinance and the purpose of the current ordinance draft. In
general, those comments were centered about the need that was
perceived by the City Attorney's Office for specific language in
the Zoning Ordinance, providing for what the City Board is
currently doing. Mr. Giles stated that the City Attorney's
Office had on numerous occasions identified that the City's
legislative authority was broad with respect to land use.
He followed that comment by a statement that "an open zoning
classification in some instances might not be appropriate for a
particular location. But with some conditions attached to it,
the Commission might find that it is compatible; therefore, the
proposed process here is somewhere between a straight rezoning
application and a true P.U.D. application." He stated further
that "unlike a P.U.D., which is user specific, this type of
application would not be user specific."
Mr. Giles pointed out that he wanted to stress that every zoning
situation will not be susceptible to this process or the kinds of
conditions proposed by this ordinance. "It is only to be used in
those circumstances where the Planning Commission finds it
particularly appropriate." He stated that "this ordinance does
not attempt to state what those kinds of locational circumstances
are but leave some discretion to the Planning Commission. Any
conditions imposed would be those imposed by the applicant upon
his or her request. The Commission after accepting such
conditions imposed by the applicant would then forward the
recommendation on the application to the City Board."
Chairperson Chachere asked that the City Attorney address the
issue of time constraints on an application. Mr. Giles responded
by saying, " that is not one of the several issues in it to hear.
It deals with such as bulk and area, use and access.
Mr. Giles offered an example, being a C-3 application where
concerns offered by both the Planning Commission and neighbors as
to certain factors involving the uses allowed by the district.
2
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
He pointed out that with the applicant's concurrence that the
Commission could accept a restriction on the use listing to
eliminate those that were deemed to be inappropriate to a given
location.
Mr. Giles also pointed out that on the official zoning map the
posting of the reclassification would include a notation with
conditions, and the ordinance that creates that conditional
relationship would set forth all of the various conditions
imposed. These would subsequently be filed with the circuit
clerk's office to assure a tie to the title to the property and
would run with the land and provide notice to subsequent buyers
of the property.
Chairperson Chachere then posed a question of Mr. Giles as to the
circumstance of a conditional rezoning where circumstances change
in the future and how that would be accomplished. Mr. Giles
responded by stating that, "it would be treated much like a new
application in that the owner would have to go back through the
same process to make modifications in the classification and
condition list."
Commissioner Oleson then posed a question as to whether an
applicant could initially approach the staff and file an
application with conditions that would subsequently be submitted
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Giles responded by pointing to the ordinance provision, as
now drafted, which would require that a public hearing be held
first before conditions are discussed and that those conditions
would then have to be offered by the applicant or owner. He also
pointed out that once established at the Planning Commission
level these conditions don't change to the Board of Directors'
level. The Board would then have the several options that are
pointed to in the ordinance. That is, approval as recommended by
the Commission, a denial or referral to the Planning Commission
or the possibility of accepting and placing within the ordinance
conditions that are more restrictive in nature.
Commissioner Ball then posed a question very similar to
Commissioner Oleson's as to whether or not the staff would
encourage someone to file an application with conditions imposed.
Mr. Giles responded by stating that was not the intent of this
ordinance. The intent is that those conditions arise during the
public hearing process at the Planning Commission level. Such a
circumstance with an applicant should actually be filed as a
P.U.D. on the front end.
Mr. Giles once again clarified the point that once a public
hearing has been accomplished and before a vote on the issue, the
Commission would identify those concerns that had been expressed
both by the Commission and neighbors. At that point then, the
3
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued
applicant could introduce those kinds of conditions in the
proposed ordinance that would deal with the concerns expressed.
Once a consensus was reached, then the application could be
forwarded to the Board.
Commissioner Ball then posed the question as to whether a
circumstance where an applicant did not want conditions imposed;
where the applicant could simply obtain a vote on his application
as filed or would he be required to deal with conditions.
Mr. Giles responded by stating that "this ordinance is not
intended to impose requirements on a developer and cause them to
submit to conditions they do not want to accept. Mr. Giles says
he feels like this ordinance will not force an applicant to
accept what it does not want. If an applicant wanted a vote up
or down on his application, that he should receive such a vote."
Commissioner Ball then asked whether an application that was
voted down without the application's being conditioned could the
applicant refile within the year and place the conditions on the
petition. The Chairman at this point commented that she thought
that an application would have to be appealed to the Board that
the one year rule would not apply until that issue had been
resolved at the higher level.
Mr. Giles concurred in this opinion. He stated "the application
would still go on to the Board with the recommendation of denial
by the Planning Commission and it would be the Board's decision
finally to determine the status of the application."
In response to Mr. Ball's question about the one-year turnaround,
Mr. Giles stated he had not thought out that question thoroughly;
however, he felt that the refiled application would have to be
substantially different from that which was previously submitted
and reviewed. That is a requirement of current ordinance.
Commissioner Ball then posed his last question which was
concerning landscaping as to whether or not that could be one of
the conditions imposed. Mr. Giles indicated that he did not
think it could since that is not one of the forms of conditions
that could be imposed under this ordinance.
After a brief conversation with Richard Wood of staff, Mr. Giles
stated that the landscape ordinance is in fact a separate
ordinance. The City Beautiful Commission provides for its
administration and enforcement. Mr. Giles asked for
clarification as to whether or not Commissioner Ball intended his
question to include the Commission imposing super landscaping
requirements.
Commissioner Ball responded by stating that basically yes in as
much as everyone coming through for site plan review typically
offers or is asked to install a larger open space, landscaping or
4
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued
whatever may be appropriate to go beyond the minimum landscape
strips. Mr. Giles responded by saying the ordinance includes
only bulk and area uses, access, and density. It does not
specifically include landscaping.
A brief discussion followed involving Mr. Giles and Commissioner
oleson and others concerning the many occasions which landscaping
is the issue on which an application will turn.
Commissioner Walker then posed a question as to whether this
ordinance proposal includes a staff allowable such as the 5%
modification allowed the Planning Director in the P.U.D.
Mr. Giles responded by saying that this ordinance did not intend
staff interpretation but that those conditions imposed by the
ordinance be specific in nature.
Chairperson Chachere then asked if there were no further
questions by members of the Commission whether it was appropriate
for Mr. David Jones to come forward and offer his comments.
There being no additional questions Mr. Jones was requested to
present his position on this ordinance.
Mr. Jones offered a brief history of the origin of this
ordinance, especially as it related to an application that he has
currently before the City Board of Directors. He offered
additional comments on the appropriateness of the type of
legislation that is being offered here by the City Attorney and
that which the City Board is expecting to be presented to them.
Mr. Jones pointed out that he had observed that this Commission
had been dealing with conditional zoning relationships for as
long as he had been dealing with zoning before the Planning
Commission. He pointed out that the Planning Commission had not
been privileged to receive a copy of the detail memorandum
prepared by City Attorney, Tom Carpenter, and presented to the
City Board which specifically outlined the intent of the area
provision of this draft ordinance. That communication gave
Mr. Carpenter's interpretation of what this ordinance is intended
to do and how it will be interpreted by the City staff and
ultimately carried through the Planning Commission and the Board
of Directors.
Mr. Jones stated that the area in the ordinance that he took
specific exception to "was" and he quoted from Mr. Carpenter's
memo to the Board, that the volunteer nature of the applicant
under these restrictions is going to be changed to where it will
be required and that the authority will shift to the Planning
Commission to demand that an application be restricted to certain
conditions that come out of the public hearing. He stated that
he felt that he would interpret the ordinance as saying that a
vote would in fact be on required conditions imposed by the
5
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued
Planning Commission in addition to the actual zoning requested.
He continued by saying that in regard to the Camp application on
Hinson Road that he was still agreeable to do those things which
he said he would do. However, he stated that was not the reason
that he was here before the Planning Commission today.
He said that was a good faith effort on his part and they will
continue to do what they promise to do. Mr. Jones stated that he
felt some of the Board members agreed with him that there was
really no need for further legislation to do what the Planning
Commission has always being doing, as long as he could remember.
Attaching additional requirements at the request of the applicant
if they agreed so, and if not the Commission would simply vote
the issue down. He stated that he felt the legislation was
coming down as a direct result of Director Adcock asking a
question at the Board meeting "is there any way that we could
assure that these restrictions that are agreed to by the
applicant will be carried on no matter who owns the land." At
that meeting, Mr. Carpenter, the City Attorney, responded by
saying "no and the only way you can assure is to impose a P.U.D."
Except, Mr. Jones stated that he did not agree with that
interpretation of Mr. Carpenter and felt that most of the
commissioners agreed with him.
Mr. Jones stated that he felt like all the people that had been
involved in all of these conditional issues and compromises
reached over the years would not agree. But now, all of sudden
their actions are lacking the authority to be enforced at any one
point in time. Mr. Jones said "he felt like that practically
speaking there are no minimum standards remaining after the
adoption of an ordinance such as this." The reality of it is
when it comes before the Planning Commission with a C-3 or 0-3
request and the Planning Commission has the ability to attach
additional restrictions guess how many times requests will be
granted simply with the conditions set forth in the ordinance.
He stated "that if the Planning Commission feels like there are
additional standards or requirements required in the ordinance
that those zoning districts should be modified to deal with
that." This ordinance means, if adopted, that nothing is
definite. There are no fixed standards such as setback
requirements and height.
He felt this ordinance imposed the P.U.D. process on every
rezoning application short of the use listing. Mr. Jones then
posed the question of whether or not this was contract zoning and
in his opinion it was. Mr. Jones stated that he felt that this
legislation was simply a knee jerk reaction to his application on
Rodney Parham and Hinson Road, too out of line and way too
restricted. He indicated that the rest of the development
community probably had questions and reservations about it.
0
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
Commissioner Oleson then touched on the question Mr. Jones raised
about contract zoning. She asked Mr. Giles to respond.
Mr. Giles indicated there was a fine line in certain
circumstances between contract and conditional zoning. He
offered some comments about case law in other states and an old
case in Arkansas dealing with the Hocott properties on Kavanaugh.
He stated that after looking at cases and studying the Arkansas
law, that the City Board can do this through this ordinance. He
stated that "the concern that his office has had is that the City
has been doing this without legislative authority." He stated
that "its not that the City can't do it under state law. It is
just that we have not made provision for such in the past and
that the bottom line is if we are going to follow state law, we
must have an ordinance to authorize what we are doing." He
stated.that "it legitimizes what the Planning Commission has been
doing for a number of years, especially in those cases where the
Commission had questioned the appropriateness of conditional
relationships."
A general discussion followed between the City Attorney and
commissioners involving history of several cases. Commissioner
Putnam then offered a number of comments about this ordinance
proposal and what he felt was appropriate or inappropriate about
it. He offered some history on Planning Commission activities
with regard to conditional zoning. He closed his comments by
stating that as he understood it this ordinance proposal allowed
the staff and/or the Planning Commission to impose conditions on
an application for rezoning whether the applicant agreed or not.
Mr. Giles responded by stating no that is not the intent of this
ordinance. He stated that if an applicant did not want to be
hamstrung with conditions imposed by the Commission or the staff.
The Commission could not impose those conditions upon the
applicant.
Mr. Putnam expanded on his previous comments by stating that he
was not certain that he understood the line or direction that was
being taken by the staff and City Attorney on this proposal. He
felt like that more study was needed on this ordinance.
Commissioner walker then offered a comment along the lines of he
had proposed and worked an arrangement with the Commission and
staff a number of years ago whereby the Planning Commission would
not receive these kinds of single ordinance issues but develop a
package for each year and not expand upon it until they complete
that package before initiating the next series of amendments. He
felt like the Board of Directors was well past the time when this
package of amendments was assembled and they
7
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
had missed their window of opportunity. He stated that what he
was hearing from David Jones was that David would not like this
ordinance to be approved.
Mr. Jones responded to that comment by stating that he was not
necessarily opposed to people allowing conditions to be attached
to their application. He was not against anything except that
this ordinance specifically says "Planning Commission has the
right to demand additional restrictions."
Mr. Giles then pointed out that Mr. Jones had the wrong draft for
the ordinance that it had changed since he had received that
copy. There was a brief give and take between Mr. Jones and
Mr. Giles as to what the ordinance content was at this point.
Mr. Jones read specifically language from the ordinance that he
said specifically gave the Commission the direction that he had
indicated.
Mr. Giles then offered to Mr. Jones and the Commission a response
to Mr. Jones' objection by reading what the current language and
the current draft proposes which was provided the Planning
Commission, before the public hearing. "A rezoning may be
conditioned upon the applicant's request and subject to the
Planning Commission's recommendation for an issue concerning the
number of permissible uses, bulk, area and access and density may
be made more specific than the provisions allowed within the
zoning classification when the following has occurred."
Mr. Giles then identified that language as coming from a memo
that was prepared by Mr. Carpenter and directed to the Board on
the 22nd. He stated that this was done after conversations
between his office and Mr. Jones. Mr. Giles pointed out that the
draft before the Planning Commission is a previous draft and is
not the one now recommended by his office. Several persons then
offered commentary on the appropriateness of continuing
discussion of this item on the wrong ordinance as being submitted
for their review.
Mr. Giles indicated that this was done as result of discussion
with Mr. Jones on the previous day and there was apparently not
enough time to provide everyone with a revision of the ordinance
text.
Mr. Jones then stated that if it could be stated that is the
voluntary discretion of the applicant where the conditions are
attached to an application, he had no problem with the ordinance
proposal. However if the Commission or the Board still have the
authority to impose conditions, he opposes the ordinance. He
stated that he and his attorney both agreed that what the staff
and the Planning Commission has been doing for a long number of
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
years which is agreed with restrictions and for those added to
the ordinance on file, that those were legal and binding. If
somebody does not abide by them and if the City Board wants to,
they could come in there and remove the development. He again
stated that he only objected to moving these conditions away from
the discretion of the applicant to a mandate from the Planning
Commission or Board.
Commissioner Walker then offered a comment to continue a previous
statement. The thrashing out of details and perhaps timing is
something that is important to deal with the ordinance that the
City Board wants to deal with. He felt that it was very
important that Ramsay Ball's issues about the one year limitation
be addressed and needs to be expressly stated within the
ordinance that an application denied for a conventional rezoning
could be refiled and under what circumstances within the year.
Mr. Giles clarified that statement for purposes of the record.
Commissioner Walker then stated that in his former capacity as
Chairman of the Planning Commission he always made sure that the
applicant controlled his application. With the direction of the
City Attorney, the Commission had always allowed an applicant to
decide whether he wanted a vote on the application as filed or
with some modifications. In any event the Planning Commission
tried to avoid the appearance of extorting conditions from an
applicant.
Commissioner Walker commented further that he thought that we
should not be institutionalizing something that the Planning
Commission has been painfully dealing with over a period of time.
Mr. Giles then asked for clarification on Commissioner Walker's
comment as to whether he meant that an applicant, if he wished
not to include conditions in his application and it were denied,
that, he would have to wait for a year. Commissioner Walker
indicated that he believed that would certainly be a way to deal
with it. Commissioner Ball then inserted a comment at this point
that his previous comments were not necessarily directed to the
professional developers and realtors but directed to those
persons not familiar with the process. These persons would not
necessarily understand the ramifications of agreements that they
might make.
David Jones then came forward and offered comments about P.U.D.'s
and the value of land and the ability to determine value in land
based upon zoning and decisions made by the City. If all the
variables such as height and area are subject to negotiations
then that does hurt the value of the land.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, was then recognized.
Mrs. Bell came forward and offered comments. She stated that it
appeared to her that the Planning Commission did not understand
0
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO • 2 (Continued)
the proposal that had been presented and that this sounded like
perhaps attorneys are deciding that more laws are better than
less. She said that she was not convinced that this was a needed
ordinance.
Commissioner Putnam then inserted a thought that this change that
is now being discussed was handed out after the fact. The
Commission was given a draft which is now modified without their
benefit of having seen language. He stated that the Planning
Commission had not asked for any changes to be made and that the
Board of Directors had not explained to the Commission why they
were having problems. Commissioner Putnam said he felt that this
was an important piece of legislation and should not be passed
without due diligence. He felt the Plans Committee or the whole
commission should review this issue at length.
Commissioner Willis then offered some concerns about the process
contained in this ordinance. He asked Mr. Giles "are we now
asked to look at this ordinance at this time and then vote on it
or do we need to table this and obtain the additional
information."
Mr. Giles then stated that he understood the language in the
draft before the Commission sounded like the Commission would be
controlling the circumstances and imposing conditions. He stated
that this is not the case. The draft has been modified. He
indicated that this modification was accomplished after
discussions with Mr. Jones. Mr. Giles stated that the Commission
imposing conditions in that fashion would be true contract zoning
which is not permissible.
Commissioner Oleson then asked for clarification as to whether or
not the Planning Commission could asked that a request be changed
to a P.U.D. Mr. Giles responded yes they could do that.
Mr. Giles again pointed out the language and that it was in the
control of the applicant in this draft. After revision, the
Planning Commission would not be imposing conditions.
Mr. Giles also pointed out the conditions under which the
Planning Commission would deal with and forward a conditional
rezoning application. He stated that the City Attorney's Office
had intentionally inserted language that now puts the applicant
in charge of his application. The applicant would have to
verbally accept the conditions before a vote was taken by the
Planning Commission on his application.
Commissioner Selz then offered a question, "Why are we doing this
if the Supreme Court had already ruled that the process utilized
in the Hocott case on Kavanaugh was appropriate?." Mr. Giles
responded by saying that was under a former and much older
ordinance and there was a somewhat different subject and it was a
10
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
Bill of Assurance required by the City. He stated that the way
the City has been doing business with conditional
reclassification is not the same issue as the Hocott.
Giles then offered comments concerning the effect on an applicant
not performing conditions applied under our current structure and
the problem with attempting to enforce those.
Commissioner Oleson echoed comments by Mr. Giles and stated that
all of this is doing is attempting to place in the Zoning
Ordinance procedures for legally doing what we are already
accomplishing.
Commissioner Selz pointed out that he felt that from this point
on under this structure that everyone who comes before the
Commission would be possibly subjected to a commissioner
requesting or asking for more landscaping or more of some
particular design facet.
Chairperson Chachere then pointed out that in some circumstances
her vote would not have been obtained by the developer had not
some conditions raised by the Commission not been included within
the applicant's petition.
Commissioner Putnam then restated a previous comment as he thinks
that more people in the community need to look at this proposal
before its rushed through the process.
Mr. Jones then stated that although he had not read all of the
language since the ordinance draft had been modified and he was
reluctant to accept things verbally without having read them, he
would offer that if no other changes have been made other than in
the paragraphs that were read by the City Attorney as far as he
was concerned, all that this ordinance does is restate what is
currently being done. However, the ordinance draft that the
Commission has before them at this time substantially changes the
way we do business. He restated a previous comment of his that
if what the City Attorney is saying is factual and the changes do
what Mr. Giles had pointed out, then he has no problem with it
and would like to see it moved through as quickly as possible.
He felt that a holdup or continuance of this issue would be used
against him and hold up his application.
Commissioner Putnam posed a question as to whether or not a
deferral for two weeks would be of particular significance. It
was determined that September 6 would be the next hearing of the
Planning Commission, which is the same date that the City Board
next meets.
Mr. Jones said he felt like the Planning Commission could hear
this issue on the afternoon of the September 6, and then the
matter be handed to the Board for their hearing that, night that
he would have no problem with that.
11
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
Chairperson Chachere then pointed out that she felt like the
Commission would expect corrected versions to be provided as soon
as possible within the next few days.
Commissioner Ball stated that he would like some further
discussion of landscaping as related to these kinds of
conditional ordinances and it is typically one of the items that
is discussed.
Mr. Giles pointed out again that this ordinance deals with use
type, area, bulk and access.
A brief discussion was then held involving Richard Wood, of the
Staff. Mr. Giles and the commissioners centered their discussion
on the Planning Commission meeting on September 6 being a heavy
agenda with many items and the need to place this item first on
that agenda to assure proper discussion and disposal of the
matter.
The discussion then moved back to conditions and types of things
that the ordinance might regulate such as hours of operation.
Commissioner Selz pointed out that the more you add things to
this and broaden the conditions the more it begins to look like a
P.U.D. Mr. Giles pointed out that this process is entirely
different from a P.U.D. and that a P.U.D is filed initially by
the applicant using a different set of criteria and difference
ordinance. It is something directed by the applicant from the
beginning point to completion. He pointed out that it does open
up some of the kinds of things that are dealt with in a P.U.D.,
but it is not intended to be a P.U.D. He pointed out that this
does pen the project down to a specific user such as a P.U.D
would.
A brief discussion followed involving several of the
commissioners and Mr. Giles as to whether or not a site plan
could or would be utilized in the context of this ordinance
structure. It was generally understood that it would not.
Mr. Giles stated that what this ordinance was trying to do was to
put something in place that would be workable and then at the
same time would not be abused or be abusive.
Chairperson Chachere pointed out that it appeared to her that it
looked like we were going to reconsider this item on the 6th of
September. Mr. Giles then asked the Chairman if it would not be
possible to make this item the first item heard on the 6th in
order to expedite the matter and provide time for discussion and
a little time for potential modification of the text before it
has to be presented to the Board.
12
August 23, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
Ron Newman, of the Planning Staff, then injected a thought that
perhaps the Plans Committee of the Planning Commission could look
at this between now and September 6 and render a determination.
Mr. Newman felt that might shorten the process at the regular
public hearing on the 6th.
A brief discussion followed where it was determined that a
meeting would be held by the Plans Committee. The Chair then
asked staff if a motion was in order on this issue. Richard
Wood, of the Staff, responded by stating that this was an
advertised public hearing, and therefore, a motion by the
Commission for deferral would be required. A motion to defer the
item to September 6 was made. Seconded and passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position.
And for the record Mr. Giles asked that Mr. David Jones be
advised of the time and place of the Plans Committee so that he
might participate. At the suggestion of the Chair, Ron Newman
brought the issue of the time for a Plans Committee meeting. For
discussion he suggested the 1st of September, a Thursday. It was
decided that 12:00 noon would be appropriate on that day, and the
meeting be held in the Staff Conference Room at 723 West Markham.
13
0
cc
O
U
W
crW
I--
0 O
Oi
z
W
co
m
W
z
W
¢
r
�s
70
W
Z
Z
J
CC
W
W
D
}
W
¢=
W
O
LU
z
-�
¢
Z
�¢
Cf)-�
:Em
JOYmcncc:
Z¢
Z
J
0=
LuC°
cr
CC
:v
W
w
W
J
Z
Y
t!)
O
CC
W
Cr
J
=
U
CZ
-r
O
O
W
U¢
CC
O
O
J
W
J
m
gLLJ
co
:�F
o�a��cn�
Oi
z
W
co
m
W
z
W
¢
�s
70
r
i
Z
i
Z
LUZ¢
LU
Z
J
CC
W
W
O
F-
W
d
�—
w(Dl-
-r
LLJ
z
¢
Z�=�-10Ycnm�wm
a¢
W
W
W
J
Z
Y
O
CC
Z
WJOJ0=CCcz0NJ
CC
=
V_j
Q
O
0
U¢
O
Y
�
¢
=
_T
U
U
LLJ
>E
¢
co
CD
AZO
m
co
Oi
z
W
co
m
W
z
W
¢
August 23,1994
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Date: �
Chairman