Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 06 1988LITTLE ROCK PLANNING HEARING SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 1:00 p.m. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being nine in number. II. Approval of the July 26, 1988 Minutes III. Members present: David Jones Jarilyn Nicholson Martha Miller Rose Collins Stephen Leek Richard Massie John Schlereth Fred Perkins Walter Riddick, III Members absent: Bill Rector One (1) Open Position City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles September 6, 1988 PLANNING HEARING Item No. A - Resolution Establishing a Policy and Procedure for Extraterritorial Subdivisions This resolution was prepared in response to a request that a procedure be formulated to aid the Commission in handling of Subdivisions in the Extraterritorial Area. Provisions of the resolution were discussed briefly at the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Directors on August 5, 1988. The resolution deals with total waiver requests, plat requirements, street improvements, and fees. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 6, 1988) Staff outlined the provisions of the resolution. Commissioner Rector had mailed out proposed wording changes that did not change the content of the resolution. Martha Miller suggested that the reference to transfers from parents to children be modified. It was agreed that the language should cover transfers "among family members." David Jones suggested an amendment in Section 3 to cover situations where a majority of lots along a roadway have been developed without street improvements and the making of street improvements in connection with the application would be impractical. Staff agreed with these changes, and the resolution was approved with the two suggested amendments. The vote was unanimous. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Package Public Hearing PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 6, 1988) There were several persons present that offered comment on the proposed amendments. These persons were Kathleen Oleson, Bill Hastings, Agness Beale and Ruth Bell, and Richard Massie. The Public Works Department was represented by Jerry Gardner. Richard Wood of the Planning staff presented the remaining ten ordinance amendments. The Commission determined that it would hear each amendment and vote on each separately. The several persons present indicated that they desired to address each concern on each proposal as it was presented. The first amendment offered was that dealing with church parking standards. Richard Wood stated that the Staff has changed its position to one of requiring the counting of seating capacity for choir areas as well as increasing the parking ratio from one space per five seats to one of one space per four seats in the sanctuary. He stated that Staff feels that this change would accommodate the accessory uses attendant to most church sites. Richard Massie was present to speak on the subject as a private citizen and representing only himself. He stated that he is involved in church planning and wanted to clarify Wood's statement concerning Conditional Use Permit or Site Plan Review as to whether the new standard would effect on existing facilities. Wood replied to Massie's comment by stating that the new standard would be applied and, if an existing church complied with this standard, then no new parking would be assessed. He stated that churches would be impacted by the new ratio as well as adding the choir loft requirement. He felt they should be treated like shopping centers are when they expand. He asked for a sliding scale for parking for existing churches if they are not expanding their sanctuary, and maybe even for new churches. Commissioner Schlereth asked if the requirement was still too stiff if the occupancy of a church was 75% as opposed to 100 %. This point was discussed at length with comments by Schlereth, Chairman Jones, and Commissioner Riddick. Commissioner Perkins addressed the ratio on a church he designed which has a ratio of one space per 2.8 seats and has been identified on several occasions as having a parking SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) problem. Commissioner Perkins said they have three services overlap, and this creates the problem. A general discussion followed during which numbers of services, the potential for the Commission to impose higher standards, and Planning Commission opportunity to extend waivers were discussed at length. Commissioner Perkins offered the possibility of adding to the standards a stacking arrangement allowing cars to be stacked against one another in such a fashion as to disallow free access. He felt this might be appropriate since the use is not an in and out parking arrangement. Chairman Jones asked what standards would apply on churches that don't comply with the Ordinance. Commissioner Riddick stated that he felt the new standards should be applied to new projects only. Gary Greeson addressed vested rights issues based on old standards. He stated he felt that these should be reviewed when discussing a project. Chairman Jones stated that from Richard Massie's comment, churches that expand may require waivers because of these standards. Gary Greeson added that if new buildings and additions to sanctuaries were the new requirement, then other expansions would not be affected or require more parking. The expansion of existing sanctuaries would be assessed against the new capacity only, similar to treatment of shopping centers. He clarified this by saying that any new church sanctuaries built would meet the one-to-four ratio or any addition to an existing sanctuary would meet this ratio. Commissioner Perkins again asked that stacked parking be considered. The Planning Staff commented on the stacked parking proposal by stating that it would be perhaps appropriate due to the type of use. Staff further felt that this type of parking arrangement could increase the capacity by 30% or more. A brief discussion followed wherein Staff restated the standards that appeared to be those selected by the Commission for a motion and vote. The standards agreed upon were as follows: Parking at a ratio of one space per four seats in new assembly areas or sanctuaries plus additions to SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) sanctuaries, and stacked parking to be approved by the Planning Commission on a specific Site Plan Review. Existing church buildings would be dealt with on the basis of the former ordinance requirement of one space per five seats. A motion was then made to recommend the amendment with the changes as stated by Staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 open position. AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, THE NEXT ITEM DEALT WITH WAS THE CAR WASH AMENDMENT. Richard Wood presented the amendment and changes from the last draft presented to the Commission. He stated that contact was made with Mr. Al Johnson, a local operator of car washes, to gain his comments. Mr. Johnson's response was generally that he felt the changes would create financial hardship for owners. He further stated that financing for future buyers due to all existing car washes being nonconforming would be a problem. These comments were presented to the Commission in a letter mailed to each member of the Commission. Richard Wood indicated that the new proposal is that car washes be conditional uses in the "C-2" and "C-3" zoning districts with "by right" use only in the "C-4" districts. Further, that Staff had dropped the definition in the former ordinance draft dealing with "car wash enclosed." Additionally, the Staff has modified the definition of "building enclosed" to omit the references to doors and windows inasmuch as this appears to be too difficult to draft reasonable recommendations. It was pointed out that this amendment would require expansions or damages caused by storm or fire to obtain a Conditional Use Permit prior to rebuilding. The possibility of an automatic Conditional Use Permit was raised by Commissioner Schlereth. The Staff responded by stating that this has been done in only one instance and that when the current ordinance was adopted in 1980. Commissioner Schlereth pointed out the comments of Mr. Johnson and indicated that these are concerns that are serious and should be considered. Chairman Jones expressed the thought that uses on the ground should be made legal in some form so as to avoid impact of this proposal. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No 1 (font i n u e d 1 Commissioner Schlereth felt there needed to be a process similar to the 1980 automatic conversion of zoning. Commissioner Nicholson said she thought they should come in and obtain actual rezoning as appropriate, not Conditional Use Permits. She felt it unfair that uses have done what was needed to be located where they are and we are now asking that they come back and do it again as a Conditional Use Permit. Staff again stated that these are just ideas developed and that the Staff has not offered a specific recommendation. Commissioner Nicholson asked about a grandfather clause to protect these types of uses. Planning Staff offered that it could be done. City Attorney Stephen Giles said that if you do not create something on the order of a grandfather clause, then you will be creating a problem for the existing uses. Chairman Jones then asked for comments from Agness Beale, a resident of a residential area recently experiencing car wash related problems. Ms. Beale offered comments to the effect that the conditional use process should be utilized so that neighbors can participate in the location and layout of car washes. She also felt that the definition of closed building versus open building should be resolved. She stated this is a use relationship existing around the City against other single family neighborhoods. These uses are open twenty -four hours a day and they are noisy. She felt this required special attention by the City. Chairman Jones asked for other comments and received none. He stated that he felt the direction now offered was appropriate. He stated for the record what he felt were the kinds of changes required in the draft to accommodate the Commission's position. These were as follows: Leave existing uses as is and be grandfathered with a clause in the ordinance to state that those uses in existence prior to this amendment be recognized as uses "by right" and to be treated as if a Conditional Use Permit had been granted. 2. New car washes were to be "by right" only in the "C-4" zoning district, and in the "C-2" and "C-3" districts they be a Conditional Use Permit. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued 3. Expansion of an existing car wash would require a Conditional Use Permit but that a fire or storm damage could be rebuilt "by right." A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 open position. THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS RETURNED TO THE AGENDA ITEM DEALING WITH BUFFERS. Chairman Jones asked Staff to present its recommendations. Richard Wood offered a brief reading of the several paragraphs and commented on the changes as suggested by Staff from the last draft. Commissioner Riddick inquired as to where fences would be located in the requirement proposed. Wood responded that they would be on the property line in every instance. Commissioner Perkins asked about openings in the fences such as gates in a designer fence. He stated that a design fence could have insets, offsets, or variable alignment. Chairman Jones felt that fences and the buffers work against each other. A brief discussion followed this comment with thoughts of several Commissioners being expressed on where buffers should be and the relationship of fences to residential versus the developer's site. Richard Wood then offered a history of a case on Markham to demonstrate the difficulty of where, when, and how to acquire and maintain fences and buffers when utilities and drainage significantly disrupt the buffer area. Commissioner Nicholson offered that there are examples where a fence is truly not needed. The Ordinance should not mandate those. After several comments on waiving fences, Wood pointed out that the same changes would be proposed for the Subdivision Ordinance so as to make the regulations compatible. It was pointed out by Mr. Greeson that waivers could be granted from the fence requirement by both the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Directors. Chairman Jones offered that forcing the easement issue on developers in addition to the buffer could place undo SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 t em No . 1 (Continued) hardship on development of smaller sites. He felt that on large sites it might be easier. Wood stated that the proposal offered placed the same requirements on every site, regardless of size. Commissioner Nicholson offered that a simple solution existed and could be offered by Mr. Hastings and Mr. Gardner. Commissioner Schlereth asked if we would be changing the width of any buffers now in the Ordinance. Richard Wood responded by stating that there would be a reduction of some current buffers from forty to twenty -five feet. He again commented on the need to change requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance inasmuch as the several requirements in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances varied significantly. A general discussion followed of the relationship of easements to buffers and the impact on each. Bill Hastings then addressed the issues stating that utilities have to come through buffers. This is the real world. He suggested a 10% horizontal or vertical intrusion into a buffer for service lines to a building and a 7.5 foot easement maximum along the rear line inside the buffer. Mr. Hastings and several Commissioners discussed at length the placement of utilities both in front and rear of a development site. Examples of buffers and easements were offered. Mr. Hastings felt the buffer should incorporate the easement and not be in addition to it. Commissioner Perkins felt that a 25 foot buffer with easements within it was not much buffer. A general discussion followed with comments on trees and buffer content. Kathleen Oleson representing the League of Women Voters was asked if she had comments. She stated that the League's position was to point out that the Zoning Committee and the Staff had made a commitment to the buffer issue and had offered much work on this proposal. She felt that it is entirely valid. She was concerned that a 25 foot buffer could not accept easements and be a buffer. She supported the Staff proposal and continued her comments by expressing concerns about enforcement, assurance of keeping large trees, and maintenance. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) Jerry Gardner then offered comments on his position on easements placed within buffers as well as the utilities within those easements. He felt that the 10% of lot width was an accommodation to the real world. It has to happen since you normally have three utilities in back of a lot and two in front. He felt that eight or ten feet is needed and could be landscaped somewhat but this was a private matter inasmuch as service lines are owned by the property owner, not the utility. He expanded his comments to include the prohibition of detention or retention basins. Again, he felt it was unrealistic to eliminate these activities. Drainage is something that has to go somewhere on a development site. In many instances, it can only go in a single location. This can place a burden on a developer in preparation of his site. He thought that it should be allowed where it is actually required or needed. Chairman Jones asked if the basis being discussed didn't in fact create a 35 foot buffer with the easements inside. It was agreed that this was the suggestion of both Mr. Hastings and Mr. Gardner. A general discussion followed involving several persons. A consensus was reached and Chairman Jones expressed it as being a 35 foot buffer with no parking allowed or drives plus allowing utilities and /or drainage easements within the buffer. Ruth Bell asked how much real buffer was guaranteed by this approach. Chairman Jones said there were no guarantees. Commissioner Schlereth offered that developers are not going to give up any more easements than are necessary to accommodate utility companies. Hastings offered that perhaps five feet on each side of a rear line might be enough for AP &L. Chairman Jones asked Hastings to comment on working with utilities inasmuch as he had experience in this area. Hastings stated that sometimes the utility companies ask for too much. He followed this by saying he thought 30 feet would be better as a total buffer than the 35 feet offered. He said land costs are high in many areas of the City and each five foot strip constitutes an expensive give-a-way of land. Kathleen Oleson commented that the amenities in a buffer are worth the money spent. The buffers are worth money also. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) A general discussion followed with several persons commenting on value and dimension. Chairman Jones felt that a developer could come in at the Subdivision time and report that the utility would accept a five foot dimension along the property line. He stated a developer in this situation could request a reduction in the buffer by five feet, from thirty -five to thirty. That being the case, Jones stated that the buffer should be set at 30 feet to begin with. It was pointed out that an existing buffer platted on a lot would still apply and that buffers have been required in many areas of the City both in connection with rezoning and site plan review issues. Kathleen Oleson asked if this proposal would preclude the City asking for a larger buffer in those instances where it would be appropriate. She was instructed that this would not be the case except where the Richardson Rule applied. Richard Massie offered that the easement will have to be ten feet or more inasmuch as the utility company would probably not accept 7.5 feet. He asked that both Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments be reviewed to add a provision to allow easements in addition to the access to get the power or sewer to a building. He followed that comment by saying that if it is approved by the Public Works Department or the City Engineer, any drainage or retention area be permitted based on topography or other difficulty of site preparation. He further felt that you couldn't accommodate several utilities in one ten -foot easement. In many instances it may require more dimension. Chairman Jones offered that it didn't bother him, if the easements are required and needed. Ruth Beale added that it didn't bother her if it's the only logical place for the drainage or an easement. It should be a matter of requirement and not a matter of choice or site selection. A general discussion followed wherein the various alternatives for placement of utilities occurred. Richard Wood then asked of the Commission that since the dimensions and location have been generally resolved that the substance of the buffer be discussed. He stated that most business persons do not want a briarpatch out back but would rather have a buffer such that it can be mowed and maintained. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No . 1 Continued A lengthy discussion followed involving comments on both landscaping and natural undisturbed areas as a requirement. It was clarified that areas already cleared before purchase by a developer would require a replanting. Kathleen Oleson suggested that perhaps the City Beautiful Commission might be engaged for its advice on the subject of plantings and landscaping inasmuch as there are a number of landscape architects associated with that organization. Chairman Jones posed the question of whether this requirement imposed mandatory retention as undisturbed or does a developer have the option of clearing and then landscaping a buffer area. Commissioner Nicholson reminded the Commission that the question posed is the reason this has not been resolved previously. The question comes down to whether we want pretty grass and trees, or whether we want scraggly brush and trees. A lengthy discussion followed on the merits of landscaping over natural areas. A question was posed as to whether the Commission is looking for landscaping or opaqueness in the vegetation. A point was made that with keeping the six foot fence on the property line, everything below six feet is immaterial to the residents on the other side. Chairman Jones then asked the City Attorney to respond to the question of whether we are looking for a sound barrier, visual barrier, or some other product. No response was offered. Commissioner Nicholson and Commissioner Riddick offered suggestions as to several language changes in the current draft. Commissioner Riddick offered comments on trees as a component of the buffer. He said that the City should not go beyond requiring large plantings inasmuch as the smaller foliage would not be observable above a fence. Commissioner Perkins suggested that this is not a flat land issue but that sites vary as to need. We need some graphics that illustrate the various kinds of situations. He asked the question "what about earth berms as a means of visual separation ?" He also suggested we needed some flexibility in application. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) Commissioner Leek suggested that the Commission needed some kind of minimum standard based upon natural state, perhaps aided by replanting. Commissioner Martha Miller suggested that the Commission might deal with a buffer area as a mini -site plan review. Several others agreed on this point. The only negative was that offered by the Planning staff which stated that some buffers are dealt with at the Building Permit level and the Commission would not be afforded the opportunity to review these items. Gary Greeson suggested additional language to say that all buffers should be retained in a natural state or be landscaped. If cleared or sparsely covered with vegetation, they would be landscaped. Replanting would be required according to the five listed items in the text. If variances were needed, they could go to the Board of Adjustment or through the Subdivision process. This would probably work in 90% of the cases. Chairman Jones asked for a motion inasmuch as it appeared discussion had ended and a consensus was at hand. Commissioner Nicholson offered a motion as follows: There is to be a 35 foot buffer which will allow within the buffer area a maximum of 7.5 feet of utility easement along the property line. The buildings on a site may be served by service lines and easements from the rear as specifically and absolutely necessary and at a maximum of 7.5 feet each in width. 2. The 6 foot high opaque fence would be required, with waiver requests to be accomplished by the Staff. 3. All buffers are to be retained in a natural state or be landscaped. If cleared or sparsely covered with vegetation, they are to be landscaped. Replanting or landscaping is to be as follows: Trees would be required to be planted within the cleared segments of the buffer. The trees SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) would be a minimum of 2" in calliper 1' above the ground and at least 12' in height. Ground cover shall be provided by reseeding as necessary with wildflowers and /or grasses. Maintenance of the buffer shall be assured so as to provide continuity of the original plantings and retention of natural growth. The developer shall present to the Office of Comprehensive Planning a landscape plan for approval prior to initiation of construction. 4. The buffer requirement does not preclude some allowance for drainage or retention basin if the City Engineer finds they are necessary within the buffer. Prior to the vote on the question, Mr. Bill Hastings posed a question as to whether the buffer would be dealt with on the preliminary plat. It was determined after much conversation that that would be the appropriate level for making determination. Gary Greeson asked if the Staff approving landscape plans as now written is the way desired by the Planning Commission. The response from the Commission, was yes, with appeals from Staff to be taken to Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was closed. A second was gained on the motion. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 open position. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS DEALT WITH THE SUBJECT OF SATELLITE PARKING. Richard Wood offered a brief comment on the proposal. It consisted of two items, one which deals with who may request a variance above the 25% limitation for off-site. The second has to do with documenting the public zoning records with the conditions on satellite lots to assure control and enforcement at some future date. After a brief discussion on this subject, a motion was made for approval as presented by the Staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 open position. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) THE NEXT ITEM PRESENTED WAS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TIME LIMIT MODIFICATION AND STAFF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS AND PLATS. Richard Wood offered a brief explanation of the proposed amendment. The amendment would allow a three year approval period for all Planned Unit Development proposals, at the end of which the Planning Commission could approve extensions. During the course of the three year period there would be no requirement for the applicant to make annual extension requests. In the text as offered, the Planning staff would have final plan and plat review in all cases where the submission complied with the preliminary plan and plat. There were no objectors present. Mr. Richard Massie supported the revised recommendation. A motion to approve the amendment as drafted was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 open position. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS WAS HEIGHT LIMIT MODIFICATION IN THE "O-2" DISTRICT. Richard Wood offered a brief explanation of the issue. A general discussion then followed wherein it was determined that the language as drafted was acceptable. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made to approve the text as drafted. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 open position. SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 THE NEXT AND LAST ISSUE TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEALT WITH THE MODIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. Richard Wood offered a brief overview of the first element of this proposal which is the establishment of a neighborhood notice list of all areas of the City with a view to offering neighbors better notice when large development issues are filed. The Staff will build a list which will be maintained and provide developers with names from this list when specific cases are filed for public hearing. The second element deals with proposed bylaw amendments to require three sign types for posting on various development projects. The first type would be the 11" x 17" sign currently in use for sites less than one acre. The second sign type would be a 22" x 34" sign for usage on sites larger than one acre up to ten acres. The third type of sign would be a 4' x 4' sign for location on proposals larger than ten acres in area. On the larger sites, a minimum of one sign per street frontage would be required. The larger sign will be purchased by the Planning Department and provided to applicants at a cost which will be determined based on the production. The signs in all cases will be erected at least thirty (30) days prior to Public Hearings. The third and last element of this amendment proposal is a bylaw change to require the ten (10) day notice on rezoning, conditional use permit, and Planned Unit Development be extended to fifteen (15) days minimum. A general discussion followed wherein a motion was made to accept the recommendation of the Staff and direct that the appropriate steps be taken to modify the bylaws accordingly. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 open position. September 6, 1988 Item No. 2 Comprehensi ve Land Use Plan_ NAME: Comprehensive Land Use Plan STAFF REPORT: At the July 26, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting an outline for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was presented. At this meeting Staff will present a draft document. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan map is a color map (composite of all adopted district plans) and text on the reverse side. The information included on the map is from currently adopted documents of the City of Little Rock. Staff will present the Land Use Map and review some of the material to be included on the reverse side of the map. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff would like to get a consensus on the material with a final review to be done at the October 18, 1988 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 6, 1988) Planning Commission action deferred. September 6, 1988 Item No. 3 - Policies for Development in the Highway 10 and Rock Creek Corridors 1. Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide a revised statement of those policies for which there was consensus, strong support, or no objection at the joint meeting of the Board of Directors and Planning Commission on August 5, 1988. In addition, the report includes various policy implementation tools to be examined by Staff. 2. Recommended Policies The following policies should be explored in greater depth with a view toward implementation. a. Increase Public Participation in Costs of Arterial Streets In order to meet future transportation needs, to avoid the need to rezone property to recover arterial street costs, and to distribute the costs of arterial streets among the private and public sectors, the following steps should be taken: (1) Initiate Joint Participation Program to Assist Development The City of Little Rock should initiate a "joint participation" program to provide public funds needed for street improvement costs beyond the obligations of private developers, in accordance with the Boundary Street Ordinance. (2) Survey Other Cities to Identify Street Improvement Programs A survey of other cities should be conducted to identify various financial means used to pay for street improvements. The extent of "joint participation" programs should be identified together with taxes and fees collected for arterial streets. September 6, 1988 Item.No. 3 (Continued) (3) Formulate Legislative Package to Increase Street Funding The City of Little Rock should work with other cities through the Municipal League to formulate a legislative package to increase funding possibilities for arterial street improvements in Arkansas cities. Examples include increasing the City share of the current millage tax, impact fees, city-formed improvement districts, and allocation of State funds to urban highway projects. (4) Expand Advanced Engineering Program City funding for advanced engineering should be increased to show how Master Street Plan details can be worked out with individual developers and to provide a basis for advanced right-of-way acquisition. ( 5 ) Expand Advanced Right-of-Way Acquisition City funding for advanced right-of-way acquisition along arterial streets should be increased. For example, additional right-of- ways at critical intersections should be acquired to allow for construction of future grade separations on the Rock Creek Parkway - Chenal Mountain Parkway. Require Tie-on Fees from Developments Benefiting from Arterial Street Improvements The City should establish requirements for paybacks to improvement districts, the City, the State, or developers which have constructed arterial street improvements. For example, property owners not adjacent to arterials would no longer get a free ride, but would contribute to arterial costs when a building permit is obtained. Also, an in -lieu fee would be provided by a benefiting developer after the public construction of an arterial street improvement. The current exemption for development after a street project is completed would be eliminated and provision made to require in-lieu fees to reimburse the public. September 6, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) C. Establ ish Design. Standards (1) Control Access to Arterials Access control standards specified for Rock Creek - Chenal Mountain Parkway (Ordinance No. 15,239) should be strictly followed. In addition, new standards and regulations should be formulated to provide for proper access control along all arterial streets. (2) Allow Commercial .Development with Higher Standards Additional commercial zoning beyond that shown on land use plans should be allowed if increased design requirements are met. This would involve primarily the expansion of existing commercial nodes shown on adopted land use plans. The additional design requirements would include buffer areas, setbacks, height limitations, minimum site sizes, floor area ratios, and access controls. The additional zoned areas would have to be compatible with adjacent land uses and could not constitute spot zoning. Designation of a specific use(s) through the PUD process would be desirable where the additional commercial zoning is adjacent to existing residential developments. (3) Acquire 120 Foot Minimum Right-of-Way Along Parkways A minimum right -of -way of 120 feet should be required along the Rock Creek Parkway - Chenal Mountain Parkway, to all future widening to six (6) lanes. (4) Review Master Street Plan Classifications The classifications of arterials in the Master Street Plan should be reviewed as information becomes available from special studies, such as the 36th Street interchange study, and from other sources. This is September 6, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) necessary to assure that right-of-way dedications, right-of-way acquisitions, and boundary street improvements will meet future needs. ( 5 ) Reviw Design Standards The design standards for the Rock Creek Parkway, Highway 10 and other arterials should be reviewed in light of projected traffic demand, anticipated commercial and office development, and the potential need for grade separations. Particular attention should be given to sections of the Rock Creek Parkway and Highway 10 where capacity deficiencies are expected. As part of this review, the establishment of scenic corridor regulations and special landscaping provision should be considered. d. Public Transit and Other Transportation Options Consideration should always be given to transit, park and ride, car and van pooling, transit incentives, and staggered work hours as means of meeting future transportation needs, relieving congestion, saving money, and providing for additional trip volume. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 6, 1988) By consensus, this item was deferred to the Commission meeting on September 20, 1988. September 6, 1988 There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 4.45 p.m. DATE: Secretary Chairman