Loading...
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