PC Minutes 7/24/06-DRAFT
MISC. ITEM NO. 1: OLD BUSINESS
Hierarchy of Plans -- Returned from
City Commission for a specific response to the second request described in the
June 25, 2006 League of Women Voters letter.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Ms.
Leininger, Planning Staff, outlined changes made to the original Hierarchy of
Plans which was sent to City Commission on 7/18/06. The City Commission had concerns regarding
comments contained within the League of Women Voters letter. The City Commission voted to return the
Hierarchy for a specific response on the 2nd request (paragraph 4 in
the League of Women Voters letter). The
City Commission did not know if the issue was specifically addressed by the
Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission did discuss paragraph 4 of the League’s letter that the City
Commission has questions about. As
indicated in the attached draft PC minutes, it was noted that the point was
well taken but a detailed list of elements found in each plan was not
appropriate in these documents. Staff
recommends returning the Hierarchy of Plans to the City Commission for
concurrence.
PUBLIC HEARING
Betty Lichtwardt, League of Women Voters,
stated the letter was sent to the City Commission asking the Planning
Commission be more detailed about defining the neighborhood unit with high
density uses and needs to be within walking distance to conform to neighborhood
standards. This reinforces public
transit by providing bus hubs for these areas as in transit oriented
development. Development must design
areas to be accessible to the neighborhood.
Burress outlined 3 issues
with the League’s position:
·
Neighborhood plan description changed.
·
The plan did not change to be square mile.
·
Burress is not convinced the
Planning Commission should write what needs to be in the neighborhood plan now,
it perhaps should come later.
Lichtwardt stated she
would like to see language that would allow for this.
ACTION TAKEN
Moved by Burress and
seconded by Finkeldei to send back to the City Commission with the comment that
the Planning Commission believes the document is acceptable as amended.
Motion passed 7-0-1, with Harkins abstaining.
The Planning Commission then moved to Misc. Item No. 2