Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 07 1995LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 7, 1995 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number. II. Members Present: Diane Chachere Brad Walker Doyle Daniel Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam Pam Adcock Joe Selz Ramsay Ball Emmett Willis, Jr. Ron Woods Mizan Rahman Members Absent: None City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA FEBRUARY 7, 1995 12 :30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum Ii. Approval of the Minutes of the November 15, 1994 meeting III. Presentation of Hearing Items LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA FEBRUARY 7, 1995 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Amend the Master Street Plan - Kirk Road area II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Amend the Master Street Plan - Hermitage /Autumn intersection Amend the City Land Use Plan in the Otter Creek and Geyer Springs West District Z- 3504 -A and Z- 3543 -A I -3 to I -2 and NW of Alexander I -3 to I -1 Road and Sardis Road Amendment Package - Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances III. OTHER MATTER: 5. Briefing on Planning Activities February i, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A NAME: Amend the City Master Street Plan LOCATION: North of Chenal Parkway, south of West Loop and west of St. Charles Subdivision REQUEST: Change the classification of roadways and alignments SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT: A property owner requested an arterial be downgraded to a collector. Planning staff after review of the area found that the proponents request was not appropriate due to no decrease in intensity of use. Further, the arterial had been added because of increased zoning along the collector and extension of the road creating a through movement. Upon further request for review, staff believes that if the alignment is altered together with the alignments of several collectors and the addition of a collector, the downgrade may work. However, this would offset several property owners. In order to allow the affected owners time for review and comment on the plan changes, additional time is needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 15, 1994) Walter Malone, Planner II, stated that a property owner had requested the downgrading of an arterial north of Chenal Parkway and south of the West Loop. The request affects four property owners and staff is meeting with each to review alternatives. To this point, there is not an agreement among the parties, however, staff believes that by the first meeting in 1995 the issues should be resolved. By unanimous vote the Commission deferred the item to the first plan meeting in 1995, February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that Staff recommended action for only a part of the requested area. A north -south arterial, just to the west of the St. Charles Subdivision would be downgraded to a collector. Mr. Malone briefly outlined other changes under review. The arterial to be downgraded was pointed out on a large Master Street Plan map. After some discussion and distribution of the letter from an adjacent property owner, the Commission voted unanimously to downgrade Wellington Place Drive to a collector. 2 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO. 1• NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment Realignment Intersection LOCATION: Southwest Corner Autumn Road and Chenal Parkway REQUEST: Realigns Hermitage Road Connection with Chenal /Autumn SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT: The property owner located at the southwest corner of Hermitage and Autumn requested a redesign of the intersection. Planning Staff referred the issue to Engineering, since the problem is an engineering design issue. The Traffic Engineer, Bill Henry, met with a representative of the owner and alternatives were discussed. The owner's representative provided staff with a request to amend the Master Street Plan and a new design was provided for review. In late November, the design was "okayed" by Mr. Henry and Sherman Smith, Manager of Civil Engineering for Bill Anderson, City Engineer. With Engineering approval of the design, Planning Staff is forwarding the request to the Commission for action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Walter Malone, Planner II, directed the map. Mr. Malone indicated this was an was an engineering issue. The Master S not deal with this level of detail. Ho importance of Chenal Parkway this detai There was some discussion about a media control the traffic flow. Bill Henry, Engineering, discussed the intersection (FEBRUARY 7, 1995) Commission to the sketch intersection redesign and treet Plan typically does wever due to the 1 has been incorporated. n in Autumn Road to Manager Traffic with the Commission. There was further discussion about the need to notify other property owners. Staff agreed to notify the other property owners at the intersection. The Commission by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 abstention voted to approve the amendment subject to notice for the Board of Directors hearing. February 7, 1995 Planning Hearincr ITEM NO. 2• NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment - Otter Creek and Geyer Springs West Districts LOCATION: West of Heinke Road and South of I -30 REQUEST: Change Various Classifications SOURCE: Staff STAFF REPORT: The Planning Commission changed the zoning pattern north of Alexander Road about 6 months ago. Before that time all the land north of Alexander was shown for industrial on the plan and was zoned I -3 "Heavy Industrial" or I -1 "Park Industrial." However after the Commission and Board's actions, single family zoning was introduced on the north side of Alexander Road. Staff indicated this was a major violation of the Plan and as a result, staff would begin a review of the area. Reviews of existing conditions, zoning, etc. were completed, and major property owners, of undeveloped tracts, were contacted. Because of the existing zoning pattern and unwillingness of owners to change the zoning, Staff was limited on what could be changed. Concern was raised about the amount of 11I -3" zoned property in the area close to schools and single family. Later in the process, the Quail Run Property Owners Association asked that the review area be expanded and that Mixed Residential designation be removed from their subdivision. Staff review of the larger area proceeded and further discussions with three "I -3" property owners began. A proposed land use plan amendment package was shown to the executive committee of the Quail Run Association on Wednesday, January 4, 1995. At that time, those presented indicated basic support for the changes. At the same time, the three 11I -3" owners were asked about reclassification to "1 -2" or "I -1." Again in the first week of January, it appeared that there was agreement from at least two of the owners. Therefore, Staff now brings the following plan changes for the Commission's consideration: Public Institutional to Park Open Space Morehart Park - Mabelvale Cutoff Road Proposed Park - NE corner Alexander Road /Vimy Ridge Road (site on adopted Master Parks Plan) February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) Single Family to Park Open Space South of Hall Lane, either side of Otter Creek - City owned Light Industrial to Public Institutional AP &L substation south of Otter Creek Church west of Vimy Ridge, North of Alexander Road Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily to Single Family NE of County Line Road /Vimy Ridge - existing Single Family Mixed Residential to Single Family West of Hall Lane south of village Terrace - Single Family and vacant West of Vimy Ridge either side of Pleasant Hill Road - Vacant and Single Family Light Industrial to Single Family South of Crooked Creek and north of Alexander Road - vacant Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily to Low Density Multifamily NE of County Line and Vimy Ridge - vacant and zoned MF -6 Mixed Residential to Low Density Multifamily either side of Pleasant Hill Road at Vimy Ridge - Vacant and zoned MF -6 and R -2 Light Industrial to Suburban Office West of Blake - Mix of uses and zoned I -2 and R -2 Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Office and Commercial NW corner Alexander and Sardis - vacant and zoned 0 -3 and C -3 Mixed Residential to Mixed Office and Commercial South of Alexander either side Vimy Ridge Road - mix of uses zoned R -2 Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial NW corner Alexander at Vimy Ridge - existing commercial Light Industrial to Mixed Office and Industrial North of Alexander and west of Sardis to Otter Creek - vacant zoned I -1 and I -3 (rezoning of I -3 to I -1 attached) South of Alexander east of Otter Creek - Light Industrial uses and I -1 zone Light Industrial to Industrial South of I -30, Otter Creek to Crooked Creek - existing industrial zoned I -3 and R -2 2 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995) Staff informed the Commission that a major property owner wished to further discuss the issue. Therefore, the item should be deferred to May 2, 1995. By unanimous vote the item was deferred. 3 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO. 3: FILE NOS.: Z- 3545 -A and Z- 3504 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Conservation Fund and Arkansas Power and Light City of Little Rock North of Alexander Road, Sardis to Otter Creek Rezone I -3 to I -1 and I -2 Warehouse /Office Warehouse 201 acres (I -1) and 32.7 acres (I -2) Vacant North - Otter Creek Industrial and School, zoned I -2 and R -2 South - Residential, zoned R -2 East - Residential, zoned R -2 West - vacant and Industrial, zoned I -3 STAFF REPORT: As a result of a rezoning along Alexander Road to R -2 Single Family, staff began a review of the land use and zoning pattern. After discussion with the major owner, the Conservation Fund, staff suggested the "I -3" area be classified. The Conservation Fund basically agreed but could not decide what the new zoning should be. Staff recommended "I -1" to keep the industrial option open. Once staff realized that the zoning would not change significantly but would reduce in intensity, the other two "I -3" owners were contacted. These two users were more industrial in nature and staff suggest an "I -211 classification for each. The area involved is vacant currently. There is an existing industrial distribution center to the north, with industrial usings to the northwest. A railroad line forms the northern boundary and residential uses are located to the east and south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NOS.: Z- 3545 -A and Z- 3504 -A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995) By unanimous vote the Commission deferred the item to May 2, 1995 meeting. 2 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO. 4: SUBJECT: Public hearing on the 1994 Annual Ordinance Amendments for zoning and Subdivision REQUEST: That the Planning Commission receive comments from all agencies, citizens and organizations and formulate a recommendation to the City Board of Directors. HISTORY: Preliminary - This package of amendments was developed over the later months of 1993 and offered to the full commission on January 25, 1994 for comment. The Commission added several items for discussion and directed staff to close the list. Richard Wood, of Staff, outlined the tentative work schedule for the project and advised the Commission that due to the 1993 package extending to February 1994. This work would possibly extend into 1995. On February 8, the staff presented the revised list that was to be distributed to the mailing list. The Commission directed that staff and Plans Committee begin work. PHASE I This phase was initiated February 11, 1994 by the mailing of approximately 45 copies of the material to the mailing list requesting comment. The Committee through several work sessions developed the amendment package working with staff and some comment from contacts. The Committee completed Phase I and placed it on the April 5 commission agenda. The Commission accepted the work and placed it on hold for later public hearing. This package consisted of eight (8) areas of change. Phase II package was mailed to contacts on May 2, 1994. PHASE II The Committee through several work sessions developed the amendment language working with staff and some comment from contacts. This package completed on July 2, 1994. The Committee placed this item on the commission agenda for July 12, 1994. The commission accepted the work and placed it on hold for later public hearing. This package consisted of thirteen (13) areas of change. February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) Phase III was then mailed to contacts on August 2, 1994. PHASE III The Committee through several work sessions developed the amendment language working with staff and some comment from contacts. This package was completed in October and set for commission agenda November 1, 1994. The Commission accepted the work and placed it on hold for later public hearing. This package consisted of six (6) areas of change. Phase IV was mailed to contacts on October 4, 1994. PHASE IV The Committee through several work sessions completed Phase IV and the last of the proposals. The package was completed on January 10, 1995, and set for commission hearing on February 7, 1995. At that meeting, staff will offer the entire amendment package in ordinance form for public hearing. Again a mail notice will be sent to all persons on the contacts list advising them of the hearing date. A copy of the discussion outline will be included with a request for comment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995) Chairman Walker recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of introducing this item to the public hearing. Wood identified the package and that this was a public hearing for purposes of adopting this year's annual ordinance amendments. Wood pointed out that there were 55 changes in this material and they could be presented to the Planning Commission in several ways. Chairman Walker suggested that the best approach would be to allow members of the Commission or persons in attendance to come forward and raise individual issues with which they are concerned or involved. The first question was posed by Commissioner Adcock. Her question concerned an item at the bottom of page 4 of the ordinance amendments. This proposed change dealt with the allowable space outside for display for seasonal and temporary sales. Wood explained that the 50% factor in that paragraph is admittedly a large number. However, the types of stores which typically have this type of display are not of the Wal -Mart character and would typically have less than this amount of displayed merchandise. Pa February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) Commissioner Adcock expanded on her question by asking why the significant increase. Wood responded by saying that this was a response to the tremendous ongoing enforcement problem with outdoor display. Commissioner Putnam then offered a comment. He felt the Commission has not had this long enough to go through all the various sections and subsections and digest all of the material presented. In response to Commissioner Putnam's concern, Chairman Walker suggested that this public hearing could simply be a working session to hear all comments and that a vote on the matter be deferred until the next scheduled meeting. Staff indicated that this arrangement would be acceptable. The Chairman then confirmed that this would be a working session only and that the public hearing would be deferred to February 21 for the final vote. For purpose of clarification of the structure of this package, Wood pointed out to Commissioner Putnam and the commission that the amendments structure allows an individual to place this package beside their current copy of the ordinance. By looking at each subsection and the numbers included beside it, be able to make a comparison of that regulation in the book versus what is purposed. Wood expanded on Commissioner Putnam's question concerning subsection (p) by stating that we were simply changing nomenclature and going from plant sales to temporary sales outside, which was a more inclusive term and covered more than vegetation. Chairman Walker and Commissioner Putnam briefly discussed the format and annual review procedure. Wood provided additional comments concerning the annual review process: who is involved, what is involved and those actions that lead to today's public hearing. There being no further comments or the Commission. The Chairman then persons present with questions and package. questions from the members of asked if there were those specific items in this Stephen Giles, the Deputy City Attorney, indicated that he had several questions once others had completed their comments. There were several persons in attendance that indicated they had comments. The first of these was Kathleen Oleson. Ms. Oleson came forward and identified her position relative to representing the Pulaski County League of Women Voters. Her comment dealt 3 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) with the concerns of the League with the expansion of the time and amount of outdoor display which this ordinance amendment will permit. She had several comments relative to how these kinds of activities impact the community in a visual fashion. She offered comments concerning the effects of the recent banner ordinance adoption and the kind of effects that it had on local street systems and neighborhoods. Her comments indicated that the League was concerned about the impact of banners and outdoor displays and such as that on recent gains in landscaping and other site treatment about the City. Ms. Oleson was questioned as to what specific item within this package was of concern. She indicated that it was the same material that Commissioner Adcock had questioned that dealing with the expansion of display area as well as the length of time and the manner in which it could be displayed. Richard Wood, of the Staff, reasons for the introduction outdoor sales or promotional which are currently included banner to be on the property actual promotional event. reported that one of the primary of this amendment was to align events with the banner provisions, in the ordinance. This allows the a greater period of time than the The Chairman then recognized Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, for purposes of several comments. Giles' comments dealt with conditional use permits and the circumstances where a denial of the Planning Commission is appealed to the City Board. He indicated that there were some questions concerning whether or not items of evidence submitted at the Board level could be dealt with at that time if they had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission during its public hearing process. Giles indicated that there had been some discussion at the Board level about limiting the introduction of additional materials, reviewing only that information on materials that was presented in the Planning Commission hearing. Giles stated that he was opened to suggestions or comments on this matter from the Commission and that modification of some language in this package could accommodate the needed changes. Giles indicated the appropriate location to introduce such language modification as he proposed would be on page 1 of the ordinance draft. Giles then moved to a second area which he desired to comment on. This is located on page 3 of the ordinance draft. Mr. Giles pointed out in paragraph b in subsection (h) there was some language there that bothered him somewhat as to construction. He stated that this is the kind of language that he occasionally encounters when reading through the ordinance and likes to make changes when he feels that it is appropriate to clarify the intent of the language within the paragraph. 4 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearincr ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) In this instance, Mr. Giles pointed out that in the fourth line the words "more restrictive classification" was somewhat confusing. He felt like that the rest of paragraph is understandable and is workable. However, these three words can cause confusion. Giles introduced two words in place of these three, instead of "more restrictive classification "; he suggested inserting two words "less intensity" ending the sentence at that point. Mr. Giles then moved to his next and last item which was on page 6 of the ordinance under subsection (y), paragraph c. Mr. Giles pointed out that in this paragraph there are several words which he would like to change to avoid misunderstanding and to make the paragraph read better. He indicated in the first sentence, the second line the word "finds." He feels like there are better words to serve the intended purpose. He stated that the words "reasonably believes" inserted for the word "finds" would work better in this sentence. Additionally, the agenda reference to his or her opinion he felt that could be eliminated in "its entirety once reasonably believed" is inserted above. These words makes the sentence read better. Following Mr. Giles' comments, Chairman Walker suggested that for purposes of the conditional use permit modification that he needed to delay that until the next years' annual review package in as much as there had not been public discussion or offering for comment from others. Richard Wood offered a comment concerning the delay of this item. He stated that for purposes of obtaining input from outside sources, the general public, professionals and others that this package of materials in several forms have been mailed four or five times this year. On each occasion requesting other persons to become involved and comment on the suggested changes. He stated that although mailing this again might be the requirement of law to serve that particular need, practically speaking, it would probably be a waste of postage. Giles offered that his feelings on the subject were that if conditions were placed on the appeal process that it would put more of a burden on the applicant to present its case more strongly at the Planning Commission level instead of introducing matters at the City Board level that the Planning Commission had not dealt with. Commissioner Woods then offered a comment that he would have a problem with restricting someone from developing additional information unless you let them return to the Planning Commission with that. Stephen Giles then inserted a comment about a special meetings to consider additional information that not previously heard by the E February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont. Planning Commission. He suggested that the Commission might hold a special called meeting to re- introduce the case and the new material. After being referred back from the Board or prior to going to the Board. Giles stated that the whole case is developed at the Planning Commission level and what is reviewed by the Board is the appropriateness of the Commission's action. Commissioner Chachere questioned whether or not it would be the Board's decision to send it back to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Chachere's question about who would ?make the decision to return the matter to the Commission. Giles pointed out that it could possibly be a role of the staff. Commissioner Daniel then offered his comments on items that are presented to the Commission and then are presented to the Board of Directors in a somewhat different fashion. He stated that he like the idea of issues coming back to the Planning Commission if additional information and support of the application is developed. After additional comments involving the Chairman and Stephen Giles, the question was posed as to whether or not we want to move this item to the 1996 Amendment Package and delete it from these proposals. Staff offered that deferral of the issue would perhaps be until 1996 in as much as a 1995 package has not been proposed. Comment closed without specific resolution of the point. The point being to withdraw the item from this package. Chairman Walker then recognized Marie Dougan, representing Little Rock Municipal Water Works. The comments offered by Ms. Dougan centered upon the subsection (ww), which in this draft of the ordinance remains blank. She understood that it has to do with the proposal to modify the .DXF diskette format for PAGIS) and final plats. Wood stated that because there was the expanded text of this provision of ordinance attached to the back of the package and the specific subsection is blank at this time, this subject is open for discussion and no resolution is offered. Richard Wood, oflthe Staff, pointed out that there were a couple of gentlemen here earlier with Mr. White who he felt would address the subject. However, Mr. Joe White remains in the room and perhaps will offer some commentary. Prior to Mr. White offering his commentary, Richard Wood offered a little background on this subject. He pointed out that for a number of months he had attempted to gain the involvement of the engineering and land survey community in as much as that group of professionals had offered problems attached to the filing of diskettes. Wood stated that he had received little or no input from that community. As recent as 3 weeks ago, a letter was -1 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) mailed to all the design professionals involved in this requirement with the response being zero. Wood stated that at this time he still does not understand the total problem and would appreciate the development community would coming forward to identify the subject matter. This staff does not propose to offer changes in as much as our office and Public Works do not desire to change the code. After a brief discussion between the Chairman, Commissioner Putnam and Richard Wood of staff, Joe White was invited to come forward and offer his comments on the subject. Mr. White begin his comments by stating that he had no problems with the requirement currently existing in the ordinance. Mr. White indicated that some others in the development community had told him that they had problems with it. He offered to meet them at the meeting today and help them discuss the matter. However, they have not put in an appearance. Mr. White then added a comment that he did have a problem with another issue that is included with this ordinance. This problem is dealing with the final platting arrangement and the assemblage of all small -lot filings within a single overall plat. Before Mr. White offered his comment, he asked a question of the Commission as to what precipitated this ordinance amendment. The Chairman asked Richard Wood, of the Staff, to respond. Wood offered a lengthy explanation of the involvement of the County Assessor's Office and others and attempting to remedy the problems associated with filing lots one, two or three at a time without a follow -up plat encompassing all of the lots and streets that are filed of record. Wood pointed out that the record system at the courthouse is in disarray because there are no overall plats of many subdivisions. He further indicated that creates a terrific amount of additional paperwork in his office as well as the assessor's office. Attempting to keep track of all these developments. Wood pointed out that most of the engineering firms dealing with large subdivisions work from a computer base and it occurred to him that if this is developed over a period of time, eventually the computer could simply be asked to print out an overall plat of the subdivisions encompassing all of the previous phases. Joe White offered commentary on what he perceived to be some of the problems attendant to trying to make this ordinance amendment work. He indicated several subdivisions with which he has some familiarity that have filed plats of record, one lot per occasion. He indicated what he thought was some of the legal and 7 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont. physical constraints as well as changes in engineers and ownerships over a period of years. There were several options then for remedying the perceived problem. These were offered by Mr. White and by the Chairman, Mr. Walker. Richard Wood, of the staff, offered brief comments on what he perceived to be the staff's problem with this current type of filing approach. Commissioner Willis then suggested a new approach to the problem that being the filing of the preliminary plat of record at the courthouse when the first phase of lots were placed of record. This point was discussed at length by several commissioners as well as Mr. White. It was suggested that perhaps it might be in order to pull this item from this year's amendment package and delay it until a later time in order to allow additional work on the language and review of the problems. Chairman Walker then recognized Commissioner Rahman. He identified Mr. Rahman as being a professional engineer and perhaps having some insight into this problem. Commissioner Rahman indicated that he felt this was not a problem. The Committee has discussed it at length in the work sessions. He felt that the problems identified attendant to the process in this amendment can be worked around or with to accomplish the end product. Commissioner Rahman said that his feelings were that if a single engineer had worked on so many phases of a subdivision more than one lot or more. Increments that he should be able to combine those lots and place them of record. Chairman Walker then identified what he felt was impossible entanglements or legal questions concerning who filed a combined plat after some of the lots have been sold and they were in various holdings. Chairman Walker pointed out that it may be that the Commission needs an additional time period to work with staff and others toward resolving the questions attendant to this request. Richard Wood, of the Staff, stated rather than accomplish a quick fix he would rather see the item pulled from this package for later disposition. Chairman Walker asked Marie Dougan, of the Little Rock Water Works if she had further comments on this subject. She offered that not to the specific discussion held. She felt like that the record should reflect an overall boundary survey of the subdivision at some point because these fragmented and one lot filings do not produce the public record with the overall boundary of the preliminary plat. 0 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont. The discussion then moved to the possibility of the first final plat being filed with a boundary which will encompass the entire preliminary plat identifying all of the unplatted portion as a tract or lot for future development. Joe white then offered comments in support of those expressed by Marie Dougan and the Chairman. The Chairman then suggested it looked like it was appropriate to pull this item from this package at this time. Chairman Walker took this opportunity to offer an idea concerning the entire Planning commission acting as a committee as opposed to a five - person body reviewing these proposals apart from the balance of the Commission. Chairman Walker then asked if there were additional questions from others concerning these amendments. Commissioner Putnam made a request of staff as to what was being accomplished with the subsection dealing with Hwy. 10 and Chenal Overlays. Richard wood, of the Staff, responded by saying that not a single word was being changed in the text as currently adopted by the City Board. The only modification in the code is that these two overlay districts are being codified for the first time and brought into the zoning ordinance where they should have been placed initially. They were adopted by the City Board as freestanding ordinances which makes it somewhat difficult to keep the materials in a single resource location. Richard Wood then introduced another item that he wanted some support or clarification on from the City Attorney. This had to do with a two page addendum to the ordinance amendment package which was a follow -up to the PUD Ordinance rewrite. Wood asked of Stephen Giles whether the City Attorney's Office desired to continue their press for inclusion of the eight new P.U.D. and PD- Districts within theses amendments. Mr. Giles offered comments to the effect that his office needed to follow -up on the legal action involving the National Home Center on Hwy. 10. Wherein our ordinance was challenged as to single use. Mr. Giles added additional commentary regarding the structure of the revised P.U.D. and PD standards. He identified for the Commission what the 8 districts mean and the new form. Mr. Giles closed his comments by saying that it was not a big deal to include these but that he felt it would serve consistency and yes, he needed them on the ordinance. Wood then stated that his presentation was concluded. The Chairman then pointed out that assuming the Commission accepts his direction and that a vote on this proposal is deferred for two weeks until the next meeting. He would hope that this item would be placed on the agenda as the first item as a deferred matter. I February 7, 1995 Planning Hearina ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont. Kathleen Oleson at this point injected a question and asked for clarification of a point concerning the planned industrial versus planned district industrial. Mr. Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, stated that he could respond to her question. He offered some history again of the modification of the ordinance to follow through on the decision in the Pfeifer case. He clarified the difference between a P.U.D. district being multiple use and a PD- District means single use. Chairman Walker in the absence of further comments from the other commissioners or others in attendance, he asked for a motion on the proposal to defer the item vote until the meeting on the 21st of February. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes. 10 February 7, 1995 Planning Hearin ITEM NO. 5: Planning Staff briefed the Commission on the Woodruff Neighborhood Plan which is currently at the goal setting stage. Another ongoing project, the Bikeway Plan, is concentrating work on development of a 3 to 5 year plan. Tim Polk, Acting Director, briefed the Commission on the Pankey and John Barrow Plan efforts and the vision projects to start in 1995. There was discussion about the Pankey Market Study with several commissioners requesting copies. The March 21 Plans Hearing will be set at an alternative site, such as the Adult Center and will be a retreat format. Chairman Walker informed the Commission that he wised to change the way the Plans and Subdivision Committees worked. As the Plans Committee, it would be a committee of the whole and meet every six weeks at the Plans Hearings. While the Subdivision Committee will rotate members on a quarterly basis. Chairman Walker assigned four commissioners to 3 month periods for the year. 0 cc O U W cr- W H O Z O Fn U) O 0 Z Z Z a J d. s J.. W H ¢ WE vi N c 0 cm a� a� r: m I LI. F- z W CO m QI W i ¢ z W f IH C\4 VN OZ m E' Z Z�2UjIr¢JUQU) Lu t— w 2 JU J¢ ¢ mU��cr0¢m ¢ E5 cc 2— H W J¢ii J W Z ¢ N (J) U U¢¢ N 1E 2 J 0� wLJoz Z 0- d U C.::) J _J m H Z O 0 W �OW J W¢ cA� m J cc: LLJ m- wQ2J�. � W� 2 ¢W co LU Z ¢ M U ME W J W Z Z N = F— U= 2 Z N Z <<0 cr- Lu J �- D c — W Z o 2 Y 0 ¢ J J ED ¢ z =)DUJ¢ ci- C) J Z 0 0 W Ocl J C/D ¢ C[: J WE vi N c 0 cm a� a� r: m I LI. F- z W CO m QI W i ¢ z W IH OZ m E' Z Z�2UjIr¢JUQU) Lu t— w 2 JU J¢ ¢ mU��cr0¢m ¢ E5 cc 2— H W J¢ii J W Z ¢ N (J) U U¢¢ N 1E 2 J 0� wLJoz Z 0- d U C.::) J _J m H Z O 0 W �OW J W¢ cA� m J WE vi N c 0 cm a� a� r: m I LI. F- z W CO m QI W i ¢ z W February 7, 1995 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Date:— Z txa i an