Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-26 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 26, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center. MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Crook, Stan Green, David Williams, Melanie Stockdell, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, & Ernie Jacks. MEMBERS ABSENT: Newton Hailey, Jr. OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Wood, Fern McNair, Wanda Sugg, Truman Yancey, O.U. Green, Jerry Brannon, Bobbie Jones, Jeanette Crumpler, members of the press and others. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chairman, Melanie Stockdell. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1984. There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. REZONING PETITION R84-6 GREG HOUSE The second item on the agenda was a request.from to table Rezoning Petition R84-6, until the April This petition was advertised for Public Hearing MOTION Greg House, owner, 9, 1984 meeting. for this meeting. David Williams moved to table this Rezoning Petition until the April 9, 1984 meeting. Motion seconded by Ernie Jacks. Motion passed 7-0. REZONING PETITION R84-7 2699 West Sixth FERN MCNAIR, PETITIONER The third item on the agenda was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R84-7, Fern McNair -petitioner, to rezone property located at 2699 West sixth, from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Fern McNair and Wanda Sugg were present to represent this matter. Wanda Sugg advised that this petitioner would like to place a hair styling salon at this location and would like to change the wiring, put in air conditioning, chat the parking area, etc. Stockdell requested that Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, provide his report on this matter. Wood advised that it would be his recom- mendation that the Planning Commission consider this rezoning due 58 A • • t o the fact that the General Plan recommends Commercial as the future land use for this property as well as for the following reasons: 1. The General Plan recommends commercial as the future land use; 2. There are existing commercial uses north, east and west of the property; and 3. The public facilities the property. and services are available to serve The public hearing was opened. Stockdell requested to know if there was anyone wishing to speak either in favor of or in opposition to t he Rezoning Petition. There was no one present to speak on this matter. Jones stated that Ms. Sugg had mentioned chatting the parking area, advising that the area will need to be paved. Stockdell requested that the Planning Administrator provide the necessary requirements to the petitioner. The public hearing was closed. MOTION Ernie Jacks moved to approve the Rezoning request of Fern McNair. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna. Crook requested to know if this Rezoning Petition was being approved for the reasons presented by the Planning Consultant. Jacks stated that was correct, advising that a study had been performed in the area. Motion passed 7-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT JOYCE STREET BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, INC. The fourth item on the agenda Development of Butterfield Trail Property is zoned R-2, Medium Agricultural. was the Village, Density approval of the Large Scale Inc. located on Joyce Street. Residential District and A-1, Stockdell reported that this matter had been heard and approved by the Subdivision Committee and would not need to come before the entire Planning Commission unless there was a question. LOT SPLIT BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE, INC. The fifth item on the agenda was a Request for Lot Split for Butterfield Trail Village, Inc. Planning Commission action is required because t he remaining property does not have access to an improved public street. Although the City plat book shows Ellenberger Ave., engineers have not been able to confirm a right-of-way dedication. 59 PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - MARCH 26, 1984 Crook requested to know if the street referred to as Ellenberger was on the west side of the property. Jones advised that the plat map does show Ellenberger Avenue on the west side of the property, however, Tom Hopper with Crafton, Tull, et. al. has surveyed the property and cannot find a right-of-way dedication and Truman Yancey has not been able to locate a right-of-way dedication for Ellenberger. Jacks stated he did not see how a lot split could be granted due to the fact that there was no access. Stockdell advised that this could be approved contingent upon this developer providing access to the property which is being split, (that portion of Tract I between Old Missouri Road and the requested lot split). Stockdell requested to know if Mr. Yancey would like to clarify this matter. Yancey advised that all of the information had been presented t o the Planning Commission. Yancey advised that this developer has not looked into dedication of right-of-way where Ellenberger is presently shown. Yancey advised that if the land to the west should ever develop, a street would have to be placed in this area. Yancey advised that this developer has provided to the seller of the land, an easement for use through this development. If this developer did not exercise their option on the land to the south, this developer would prefer to provide a future developer access to the east of Old Missouri Road. Jacks stated he did not understand, if Tract II is a different piece of property, why it is being addressed at this time? Yancey advised that it was a single piece of property with this developer buying off of that single piece of property. Jacks requested to know if the Planning Commission was being called upon to approve this lot split with an easement? Crook expressed concern that with the current easement, the City would not be assured right-of-way in the future. Madison requested to know if this lot split was approved with an easement across Tract I, and if this developer chooses to develop Tract II, would it then be too late to require an easement to Old Missouri Road. Stockdell advised that in the Subdivision Committee Meeting, this developer stated they would access Tract II via Old Missouri Road at the time of future development. Crook expressed concern over the fact that if Tract I is developed and the future were to preclude development of Tract II, with Tract II being sold to another developer, Tract II would not have access to a public street. Yancey reiterated that this developer could not preclude a Tract II developer from having access without providing an alternate access through Old Missouri Road. Crook advised that the City would have to be assured that Tract II would have access to Old Missouri Road, with this assurance being placed in writing. Yancey advised that he did not think this was practical and would be more practical to request right-of-way down the west side of this developer's property. Yancey advised that there is right-of-way off of the adjoining property owner, stating that t his adjoining property owner thinks that Ellenberger has already been dedicated entirely off of his property. Hanna requested to know who owns Tract II at the present time, with Yancey advising that the property is owned by Mr. Fleming. Hanna stated if Mr. Fleming is satisfied with access through the Butterfield Trail development, then he did not see the problem. Jacks agreed. Yancey advised that h e would not be willing to specify the location of the easement. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION - 4 - MARCH 26, 1984 Fred Hanna moved that the lot split be accepted as requested. Motion seconded by David Williams. Crook advised that she would vote against this motion as presented, but could vote for the motion if there was some assurance in writing of future access for city street dedication from either Old Missouri Road or Joyce Street. Stan Green requested clarification on the ownership of property, requesting to know if this developer would be willing, at this time, to guarantee access to Tract II from Old Missouri Road, location of said access to be decided in the future? Yancey advised he would not be willing to guarantee that access at this time, stating that access will be provided, either from Old Missouri Road or down the west side of the property, with the first choice of access being down that which is platted as Ellenberger Street. Yancey stated he would not accept that there was no dedication of Ellenberger or that Ellenberger is not a street, but only that it cannot be found at the current time. Green stated he did not see the problem since Yancey agrees to provide the access through one of two locations in the future. AMENDED MOTION Jacks amended the motion requesting that the said motion be contingent upon this developer's agreement to provide public access to Tract II, from either Old Missouri Road or Joyce Street. Amended motion seconded by Barbara Crook. Amended motion passed 7-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT FRONT STREET EL CHICO'S RESTAURANT The sixth item on the agenda was the Approval of the Large Scale Devel- opment of El Chico's Restaurant, located on Front Street. Owner and developer --Joe Thomson. Property is zoned as C-2, Thoroughfare Com- mercial. Stockdell advised that this Large Scale Development was heard by the Subdivision Committee and approved at that time. Stockdell advised there would be no reason for this matter to be heard before the full Commission unless there was a question. LOT SPLIT EAST 5th STREET 0. U. GREEN The seventh item on the agenda was the Request for waiver of the mininum 3 acre lot size requirement applicable to a lot split for O.U. Green, for property located on East 5th Street. 0. U. Green was present to represent this matter. 61 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - MARCH 26, 1984 Stockdell requested that Mr. Green explain his intentions on this with Mr. Green advising that there are two separate houses at this location which he would like to sell separately. Green advised that the houses have been at this location since 1961, that the street is in, the sidewalk is in, the curbs are in, and the water is in. 0. U. Green stated that in his mind, the property has already been split. MOTION Jacks moved approval of the Waiver of the minimum lot size requirement applicable to a lot split. Motion seconded by Sue Madison. Motion passed 7-0. • CONDITIONAL USE EAST 7TH STREET JERRY BRANNON The eighth item on the agenda was the Approval of the Conditional Use request submitted by Jerry Brannon for property located on East Seventh Street. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Ms. Jerry Brannon was present to represent this matter. Ms. Brannon advised that this request would be more of a workroom for her; that she will be taking the draperies to other homes for customers to make their selection and sewing them in the proposed building. Brannon advised that she will be requesting a waiver of the parking requirements as well as a waiver of the lot size. Crook requested clarification on the matter of this being for retail store, with Brannon advising that she would be doing good if she had one customer per day. Madison requested clarification on the Use Unit which this occupation had been placed in, with Jones advising that this was the only Use Unit in which Ms. Brannon's occupation could be placed without an actual change of zoning. Jones stated that this could have been treated as a home occupation if it were in her home, but since it is a separate structure, this could not be done. Crook requested to know if there was a requirement for this conditional use in which the neighbors had to be notified. Jones advised that this was not a requirement on this particular conditional use, but has been done as a matter of policy. Jones advised that six property owners had been notified. Stockdell requested to know if any of the property owners were present. There were no surrounding property owners present. MOTION Crook moved approval of the Conditional Use due to the fact that there were no surrounding property owners present to object to this Conditional Use, as well as the fact that Ms. Brannon does not feel that this business would contribute to any additional traffic. Motion seconded by Fred Hanna and Sue Madison. 62 J • • • PLANNING COMMISSION - 6 - MARCH 26, 1984 David Williams requested to know the duration of this Conditional Use. Jones advised that since Ms. Brannon was building a new building and that this was not a home occupation in an R-1, there would be no time limit on this Conditional Use unless the Planning Commission wished to place a time limit on it. Jones advised that the property would be approved for this use only with no change in use being allowed except to a residential use. Williams clarified that this can be used only for an interior decorating shop, specializing in draperies as long as this Conditional Use is approved, but could not be converted to another business without coming back to the Planning Commission for specific Conditional Use approval. Jones advised this was correct. Williams requested to know if there would be a stipulation on this Conditional Use as to the hours of operation. Jones advised that this was also a part of the home occupation and would not apply to this Conditional Use. Motion passed 7-0. ZONING RESTRICTIONS ON LOCATION OF MANUFACTURED ROUSING AND POSSIBLE DRAFT OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The ninth item on the agenda was the discussion of zoning restrictions on the location of manufactured housing and draft of possible ordinance amendment. Stockdell advised that the material had been received at the last meeting and requested a report from Barbara Crook. Crook advised that a mobile home study had been undertaken out of concern for the ability to provide housing for elderly or handicapped, stating that recommendations had been tabled in the past awaiting need to arise. Then, the City Board was presented with an ordinance to restrict mobile homes to mobile home parks, the Planning Commission had concern that this might make it difficult to accomplish temporary housing for elderly or handicapped members of the family. Stockdell advised that this had become an issue through a family who came before the Planning Commission with this type of situation. Crook advised that she talked to Lane Kidd, who is the Executive Director of the Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association and he clarified some things. Stockdell requested that committee work should take care of anything which is committee work. Crook stated that she did wish to give some definitions for the Planning Commission to be thinking about: 1) Mobile homes Pre -1976 2) Manufactured homes Post -1976 3) Modular homes 4) Prefabricated homes 5) Panalized homes Must meet HUD requirements May not meet HUD requirements May not meet HUD requirements May not meet HUD requirements Ernie Jacks stated that the crucial issue, however, was whether or not any of the above met the Standard Building Code. Crook stated that the City Attorney wanted to separate the above by those which are placed on a permanent chassis. Jacks stated that he felt that chassis is an illusive word and would not take care of the problem. Crook stated that the present ordinance appears to be 63 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION - 7 - MARCH 26, 1984 working as mobile homes are not located in an R-1 and R-2 Districts. MOTION Crook moved that this be tabled and referred back to the Housing For The Elderly Committee. Motion seconded by Ernie Jacks. Bryce Davis stated he would like to address this matter and requested to know if "Housing for the Elderly" was the matter being discussed. Crook stated that the original concern of the Planning Commission was the need for families to provide temporary housing for elderly or handicapped relatives on their land. Davis then requested to know if a mobile home, manufactured home, or a modular home could be built on any lot which is located in an R-1 or R-2 District. Crook advised that under the existing ordinance, this committee's research has led them to feel that if all other requirements have been met, i.e., setback requirements, bulk land area, etc., and if the manufactured home met the Standard Building Code, this would be possible. However, they are very expensive and not readily found. Davis advised that in other States, most of this type housing is set into separate subdivisions. Davis requested to know if the restrictions which go with the subdivision would preclude this. Jones advised that the City cannot enforce subdivision covenants. Jacks reiterated that the City could not enforce the covenants; that it would be up to the Property Owners Association to enforce their covenants, and that the City could issue a building permit if the Standard Building Code was met. Davis expressed great concern over the devaluation of property if this were to occur. Jacks advised that when the new zoning ordinance was put into effect in 1970, the Planning Commission was interested in allowing prefabricated construction. However, they were not interested in the average mobile home. Therefore, these were separated, i.e., mobile homes and pre- fabricated homes. Jacks stated that they cannot be separated aesthe- tically, however. Therefore, the only way to separate them was by building code, with prefabricated construction meeting the building code and mobile homes not meeting the Standard Building Code. Jacks stated that this has worked well for the past 13 years. Now, with the passage of the HUD ordinance in which the State Attorney General determines that all ordinances are null and void as long as the HUD ordinance is met. Jacks stated, to him, this would be the real question, and possibly, the City's ordinance will need strengthening. Green stated he did not see where this would mean that the City would have to allow mobile homes in a residential district. Wood clarified that placement can be restricted by zoning. Motion passed 7-0. RESOLUTION 35-84 AMENDNBNT OF ZONING ORDINANCE FOR EXPANSION OF NON -CONFORMING USES Stockdell advised that unless the Planning Commission is currently ready to act upon an ordinance, this matter should be referred to the Update Committee for their best recommendation. Hanna advised that this is a matter similar to that presented recently in the non- conforming use of the bicycle shop. Hanna stated everyone agreed „4 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION - 8 - MARCH 26, 1984 that if someone wished to expand an existing building with a use that was acceptable, the Planning Commission would prefer to accomplish this rather than rezoning the property, requesting to know why this matter should be referred to the Update Committee. Williams advised that the Update Committee could do the homework and drafting of the ordinance. Wood advised that one of the recommendations coming out of the Update Committee is more strict control over non -conforming uses, stating that the full Commission, through the Update Committee, would probably want to take a look at this matter. Jacks stated that he was not ready to accept the ordinance as presented and was not ready to draft an alternative ordinance at this time. Jacks expressed concern over the wording of ordinances stating that when ordinances are drafted, they appear to permit the Planning Com- mission's action to pass an issue if 1/1 and #2 of the ordinance are true. However, in most cases, it appears that the Planning Commission must pass an issue if #1 and #2 are true. Jacks stated that it is not always his wish to allow a particular item even if 111 and 1/2 are true. Jacks stated this was an extremely permissive approach and did not wish for another ordinance to be worded in this manner. Madison suggested that perhaps in the future, the Planning Commission should be careful about tailoring ordinances to special needs. NOTION Williams moved that Resolution 35-84 be referred to the Update Committee for drafting of the Ordinance. Motion seconded by Ernie Jacks. Motion passed 7-0. RESOLUTION 36 -84 -BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONCERN OVER DRAINAGE PROBLEMS CREATED BY HILLSIDE AND HILLTOP DEVELOPMENTS The eleventh item on the agenda was Resolution 36-84 expressing concern from the Board of Directors over drainage problems created by hillside and hilltop developments. Stockdell advised that as a member of the Subdivision Committee, they have also been concerned over this issue and are trying to take the drainage problem on a case-by-case basis. Crook requested to speak stating that she appreciated the concern expressed by the Board of Directors because this would strengthen the authority of the Subdivision Committee in requiring drainage improve- ments. Crook stated that the City Board's expression of concern is certainly a welcome one. Madison stated that she wished the Resolution had more guidance for enforcement of drainage problems. NOTION Williams moved that the Planning Commission acknowledge and accept the Resolution as presented by the City Board with appreciation. Motion seconded by Ernie Jacks. Motion passed 7-0. 45 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE COMMITTEE PRESENTATION - 9 - MARCH 26, 1984 The twelfth item on the agenda was the presentation from the Update Committee. Presentation was made by Chairman David Williams. Williams advised that the Update Committee wished to brief the Planning Commission on three types of undeveloped land areas, some workable solutions with the intention that the Planning Commission understands what the Update Committee is trying to accomplish. Upon acceptance of this first report, the Update Committee will look upon the City Staff to assist with appropriate public hearings to consider ordinances and resolutions which grow out of the solutions. Williams requested that Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, present the Update Committee's findings. Wood advised that the Update Committee had discovered that roughly 23% of the City is developed and 77% of the City is undeveloped. Thus, there was discussion of the problems which are created by undeveloped pieces of land, when there are developments occurring on the outskirts of the City. Wood advised there are basically three different types of undeveloped properties which are difficult to separate. Passed over parcels -Properties which exist within the developed area of the city (the core). Within that area, there exists quite a few parcels of undeveloped property. These properties are not returning revenue to the City and are causing the City expense in some minor cases. SOLUTIONS: 1) Restrict peripheral development through tighter control and denial of utility extensions. (Utility extensions have been one of the prime causes for core property to remain undeveloped). 2) Reduce side setbacks where compatible. (There are, within the City, properties which are developed with setbacks less than the zoning ordinance requires. Next to these pieces of property, are undeveloped properties which would now have to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. With reduction of the side setbacks,'this type of property would be allowed to develop according to the setbacks of the sur- rounding property). 3) Consider alternative land use possibilities such as additional use units, slightly greater density and condo development. (In the residential districts, perhaps additional residential use units could be added to the R-1 district, maybe the duplex could be introduced again at it was in 1970. Or, perhaps the density of the R-1 district could be increased slightly to allow a greater density and the condo development to recognize the difference between duplexes for rent and duplexes for sale as separate units). 66 • • PLANNING COMMISSION - 10 - MARCH 26, 1984 4) Restrict the use of septic tanks (on the periphery of the City, or stricter control than is currently enforced). Wood advised that the Update Committee was not certain at this time as to the legal implications involved in this restriction, and will need to be researched. Wood then addressed transition areas as follows: A transition area is an area that had some undeveloped parcels of land, basically the R-1 district, with reluctance on the part of the owners of the undeveloped parcels to develop single-family houses on this undeveloped land due to possibly increased traffic flow or the possibility that the area is not as desirable to live in as it was when the original houses were constructed. Therefore, there is pressure on the Planning Commission for a different use in the transition areas, on the undeveloped land. Wood stated there is also pressure for a different use for the properties developed. Wood explained that a redevelopment area can be a combination of un- developed properties within a fairly intensely developed area or, it can be an area that is totally developed, but in need of redevelopment. Crook requested to clarify that item which is referred to as having little or no "architectural" significance... Wood stated that this could be better referred to as ....little or no "historic" signifi- cance... WORKABLE SOLUTIONS -REDEVELOPMENT AREAS 1) Utilize outside funding sources to improve the area. (Federal assistance programs possibly). 2) Program public improvements to correct deficiencies. 3) Form improvement district or redevelopment district (This power is granted to municipalities in the Arkansas Community Redevelopment Financing Act - AS 13-2501; Sec. 1, ACT 716 of 1981 and can be found in the Handbook for Municipal Officials Title 17, Chapter 6.5). 4) Strict enforcement of non -conforming use provisions. (Non- conforming uses have been identified as a cause for the need of redevelopment, or perhaps a very early cause of the area running down or becoming less desirable for the original intent). WORKABLE SOLUTIONS -TRANSITION AREAS 1) Consider alternate land use possibility such as additional use units, slightly greater density and condo development in areas which are in transition. 2) Establish performance standards for the introduction of new uses. UNDERDEVELOPED LAND AREAS • Wood explained that this would be a parcel of land which was much larger than an ordinance would require for the use which is on it 67 PLANNING COMMISSION - 11 - MARCH 26, 1984 at the current time, i.e., single-family house on a three acre tract. The recommendation of the Update Committee on this matter would be the same as the recommendation on the passed over parcels as well as that of the transition areas. Williams requested to point out that the total acreage for Fayetteville is 27,039 acres. R-1 and R-2 compose approximately 10,500 acres which is 40% of the total acreage. Then, adding A-1 of 11,430, this would add another 42% and does not leave too much. Of the 40% which is R-1 and R-2, 1/3rd is developed. Williams stated that if the Commission is a Planning Commission as opposed to a Compliance Commission, then priorities should be recommended for the City to look at in developing, with the Planning Commission recommending use of facilities already present, stating that much of the problem areas are already facilitated with sewer, etc. Williams stated that the City finds itself extending sewer, etc., to outlying areas. Jacks requested to know if the City of Fayetteville had an excessive amount of leap -frogging. Wood advised that the answer is very difficult since little is published on subject. Wood stated he felt that Fayet- teville was probably high on the undeveloped side when compared to the total land. Jacks stated that he would much rather see the objective as incentives rather than restrictions. Madison felt that if the City would go ahead and do some street improvements in the downtown area at the City's expense (in the inner core area), then it would be much easier for the land to be used by developers. Williams advised that the Update Committee felt as though they had presented some incentives as well as the restrictions, with the incentives being as follows: 1) Reduction of side setbacks. 2) Consideration of alternate land use possibilities. 3) Use of outside funding to improve the area. 4) Public improvement programs to improve deficiencies such as unpaved streets, etc. 5) Formation of an improvement district, enabling public sector and private individuals to have 6) Establishment of performance of new uses as an incentive, joint ventures. standards for introduction i.e., possibly a duplex or quadruplex design which fits into the neighborhood. Madison advised that upon re -appraisal of Washington County, undeveloped land will be taxed according to its highest and best use. This information was obtained through the Galloway Re -appraisal Service who is conducting the re -appraisal of Washington County. Crook requested that the charge of the Update Committee be restated; that when the Update Committee was set up, it was for update of the current plan, i.e., update of Use Unit 4, Use Unit 12, some of the areas with which the Planning Commission has problems. Crook advised that the report as presented, appears to be the beginning of a long range study which has not been funded by the City Board. Crook questioned 62 PLANNING COMMISSION - 12 - MARCH 26, 1984 if the Planning Commission should vote to restate the charge of the Update Committee or should the Update Committee direct their efforts toward the problem areas currently encountered by the Planning Commission, which was the original intent of the charge. Crook advised that if a long range planning study would be the method of choice to rewrite the land use plan, then this should go through the City Board's Profes- sional Services Policy for bid purposes. Crook stated that the report is great and does need to be done, however, does not appear to be the original charge of the Update Committee. Williams advised that Crook was right, that some things do need to be taken care of right now; and on the other hand, as these problems are dealt with topically, the Update Committee found that pieces of the puzzle would not fit. Therefore, the Update established a working policy. Williams advised that the working policy has been to establish a clear problem statement. The Committee would then place these in categories of either short term (within 90 days) or long term problems (greater than 90 days), and refer other things of worth to other areas in the City which has been done to items not under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Williams again reiterated that he experience this Commission as being a Compliance Commission instead of a Planning Commission, assuming the responsibility of shaping and directing the City. Williams stated that he had interpreted the Update Committee's charge and led the Committee to look at current problems in the City Plan inclusive of the day-to-day solutions, not being restricted or limiting to the day-to-day problems in management. Stockdell requested to know if the day-to-day problems could be solved without looking at the long range goals, and if the project which has been funded be completed in the allotted time and still accomplish as much as has been undertaken. Wood stated that the 12-18 month allotment would depend upon the direction; that the current method was quite extensive. Crook stated that a greater question in her mind would be the funding rather than the time involved. Williams stated he did not think the charge was necessarily to just address the day-to-day problems, but also to look at problems in the plan as well as the day-to-day management problems. Williams stated that it would be his suggestion that the Update Committee go back and look at the original charge and compare their product, and come back to the Planning Commission with their findings. If their direction is not correct, then the Planning Commission will be able to advise how the Update Committee can accomplish the means and stay within the limits of the allotment. Green requested to know if the specific question of funding can be addressed, determining whether or not this approach would ultimately result in overrun of the funding or if the funding would carry the committee through in its current manner, stating that he liked the approach as presented. Green stated if there was no problem with the funding, he would like to see the approach continue in the manner as is currently being under- taken. PLANNING COMMISSION - 13 - MARCH 26, 1984 Stockdell requested that the minutes reflect what a good job has been accomplished by the Update Committee, stating that she had no idea of what was involved. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. 10 J