Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-24 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday November 24, 1986 in the Board of Directors Room of the City Administra- tion Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernie Jacks, Stan Green, Fred Hanna, Butch Robertson, Frank Farrish, Gerald Seiff, B.J. Dow and Julie Nash Sue Madison J.C. Jones, Bob Crafton, Ervan Wimberly, Louis Watts, Sandra Carlisle, Tessi Franzmeier, members of the press and others PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R86-18 J.C. b DAISY JONES - 2525 E. HUNTSVILLE RD. The first item on the agenda was consideration of rezoning petition R86-18 submitted by J.C. & Daisy Jones, for the north 400' of property located at 2525 E. Huntsville Rd. Request is to rezone from A-1, Agricultural & R-1, Low Density Residential District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Larry Wood was not present but his recommendation was; C-2 District was not recommended but R-0 District is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Commercial development at this intersection is not in agreement with the General Plan; 2. Allowing uses which rely on frequent in and out traffic will add to an already hazardous intersection; and 3. Commercial zoning at that location would encourage commercial strip development of Hwy 16 east. Mr. Jones said Hwy 265 and Hwy 16 east was one of the major intersections in Fayetteville and thought it should be zoned Commercial. Mr. Jones said the R-0 zoning would allow office space and his intention was not for offices but for a storage use. He said the storage would not cause any major traffic congestion. Seiff asked if there had been any opposition from the neighbors and Mr. Jones said he had a letter with signatures from all the neighbors stating they had no objection to the rezoning as long as he did not put a liquor store in. • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 2 Farrish asked if Mr. Jones or if that was something he Mr. Jones said the storage could get the financing and way. He said he would at and the first 100' he might was definitely planning on a storage unit would like to do. was something he would like to do if he that there were no storage units out that least use the back 300' for storage units do something else. Farrish said the reason he asked was because the objection to the C-2 zoning was the traffic hazard that it might create at that inter- section with commercial development. In his opinion the storage facili- ties would not be a high traffic operation. Nash asked if Mr. Mr. Jones said he she would hate to and a conditional Jones planned to sell the land or develop it himself. did not plan to sell the land right now. Nash said rezone it because future owners could do other things use might set better with her. Mr. Jones said the only objection that he had from the neighbors was was something to do with alcoholic beverages. In answer to a question from Dow, Carlisle said a conditional use would not allow storage units in an R-0 district. Jacks stated storage units were a conditional use in C-2 zoning and they would be a use by right in an Industrial zone. Richard Mayes stated he lived adjacent to the property on the west side. He said the zoning map that was included in the agenda showed the property due north across the highway to be C-1 and he said that was an error because it was C-2. Carlisle said that property had been rezoned to C-2 district. Mr. Mayes said there had been a lot of improvements on Hwy 265 and Hwy 16 east intersection and there had not been a wreck there in over a year. He said he had no objection to Mr. Jones putting the storage units in at that location. He said Mr. Jones had lived there for 8-10 years and he had lived there for 25 years. Mr. Mayes said he could not see why Mr. Jones would not have the same right to get a C-2 zone on his property at that intersection since the can of worms was already open across the street. In answer to a question from Seiff, Mr. Mayes said he had lived on Huntsville Road for 25 years and did not plan on moving. Hanna asked if the C-2 property across the street had a bill of assurance restricting alcoholic beverage sales and Carlisle replied not to her knowledge. • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 3 Hanna said he personally did not feel that property lends itself to R-1 or R-0 district. He could not imagine why anyone would want offices or new residences there. MOTION Hanna moved recommend approval of rezoning from R-1 and A-1 to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages, seconded by Green and followed by further discussion. Jacks said he would be more interested in a bill of assurance restricting the property to the storage units. Jacks asked Mr. Jones if he would be willing to tie the property down only to the storage unit use. Mr. Jones said he could not do that. Green said he agreed with Commissioner Hanna and saw 1 or 2 conflicts with Planning Consultant Wood's report that he did not understand. Green said one of the reasons in the report was that commercial develop- ment at that intersection was not in agreement with the General Plan and Wood says the General Plan calls for R-0 as a use for this property. Green said the R-0 would not be in agreement with the General Plan either. He said allowing uses which would rely on frequent in -and - out traffic would add to an already hazardous intersection; that it was true C-2 would add to the hazard that exists at the intersection but if he was not mistaken, the Commissioners were told to pass their standards for commercial property and thoroughfare commercial property was at a major intersection approximately one mile apart (Mexican Original at the intersection of Happy Hollow and Hwy 16 east). Green said he did not understand the objections from the Planning report for the rezoning as it seemed perfectly appropriate to him. Dow said she would not be opposed to the storage units and her major concern was the traffic pattern. She said she was concerned about increasing the in -and -out type of traffic at that intersection. Dow said if they could not have a bill of assurance for storage only then it concerns her and she would be opposed to it for that reason. In answer to a question from Farrish, Mr. Grimes said the 4-laning of Hwy 265 from Hwy 16 east to Hwy 45 had been included on the transpor- tation improvement plan but it was at the bottom of the list for City projects. Mr. Grimes said signals were not included for Hwy 16 and 265. The question was called and the motion to recommend the rezoning from R-1 and A-1 to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages failed to pass 4-4-0, Hanna, Seiff, Green and Farrish voting "yes" and Jacks, Nash, Dow and Robertson voting "nay". • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 4 MOTION Robertson moved to recommend the rezoning from R-1 and A-1 to C-2, seconded by Parrish. The motion to recommend passed 6-2-0, Nash and Dow voting "nay". APPROVAL OF A REPLAT OF A FINAL PLAT HYLAND PARK PHASE 5 - SOUTH OF HWY 45 AND EAST OF HWY 265 The second item on the agenda was the consideration of a replat of a final plat of Hyland Park Phase 5 submitted by Jim Lindsey and repre- sented by Bob Crafton of Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe. Property located south of Hwy 45 and east of Hwy 265, containing 15.7 acres and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Bob Crafton stated proof of notification and certified receipts of adjoining property owners had been submitted to Sandra Carlisle. Dow asked if the fire hydrant requested by the Fire Chief located at the southeast corner of lot 11 or between lots 4 and 5 on the north side had been included in the.the revised plat Bob Crafton replied that it had been included in the plan He said after the Plat Review meeting he went downstairs to the Water & Sewer department and checked the records and that fire hydrant was in place at that location. Mr. Crafton said he told the Fire Chief that it was in place. In answer to a question from Dow, Mr. Crafton said the lot sizes had been changed and 2 additional lots were added (lots 8 & 15) on the right side of the plat. MOTION Hanna moved to approved the replat as presented, seconded by Green. The motion to approve passed 8-0-0. APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT PARADISE VALLEY TRACT B - EAST OF OLD MISSOURI RD. AND SOUTH OF JOYCE The third item on the agenda for consideration was the final plat of Paradise Valley Tract B submitted by Jim Lindsey and represented by Bob Crafton of Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe. Property located east of Old Missouri Rd and south of Joyce Street containing 6.62 acres and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Bob Crafton said he had submitted proof of publication and certified receipts from adjoining property owners. Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 5 Jacks asked if the Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk had been submitted and Mr. Crafton said it was being prepared and the owner agreed to it but it was not prepared at that time. Jacks stated approval would be contingent upon the Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk and improvements to Joyce Street. MOTION Green moved approval contingent upon the Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk and off-site improvements with the stipulation that the off-site improvements do not exceed the improvements that abut this property, seconded by Seiff. The notion to approve passed 8-0-0. APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT OAKRIDGE PARK - SOUTH OF TOWNSHIP & WEST OF OLD WIRE RD The fourth item on the agenda for consideration was the final plat of Oakridge Park submitted by Oakridge Ltd. and represented by Ervan Wimberly of Northwest Engineers Inc. for property located south of Township and west of Old Wire Rd. containing 3.96 acres and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ervan Wimberly stated the bill of Assurance was in the process of being executed for sidewalks. He noted the owners were granting public service vehicles access to common driveways and to the convenants contained the same. Green said the bill of assurance that was referred to was for a sidewalk on the south side of Township and on Hummingbird. In answer to a question from Farrish, Wimberly said the public service access was in the covenants and would be noted on the plat as well. MOTION Farrish moved to approve the final plat as submitted with the addition of the Bill of Assurance, seconded by Hanna. The to approve passed 8-0-0. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY N.W. ARKANSAS RESOURCE RECOVERY AUTHORITY - SOUTH HAPPY HOLLOW RD The fifth item on the agenda for consideration was a request for condi- tional use for a Solid Waste Disposal Faciltiy submitted by the City of Fayetteville and the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority and represented by Louis Watts (Project Coordinator) for property located at South Happy Hollow Rd. containing 7.25 acres and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 6 Louis Watts, Projector Coordinator for the Resource Recovery Authority, stated he was working with the City to find a suitable site to build a Resource Recovery Facility He said the 7.25 acres on Happy Hollow Rd. had been selected by the Authority and by the City as a site for the facility. Mr. Watts said a Resource Recovery Facility was a Condi- tional Use in all zones in the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Watts said they would like to request that site be given a Conditional use for the purpose. Mr. Watts presented a model and explanation of what the facility would look like to the Commission. Dow asked where Abilities Unlimited was from the proposed site and Mr. Watts said the proposed property did not go up to Abilities Unlimited and there was a strip of land in between. Mr. Watts said one of the reasons for the selection of the proposed site was because of the location of the City shop and that was where the garbage trucks spend most of their time and maintenance was done on them at that location also. Mr. Watts said they were trying to reduce some of the cost to the Sanitation department and part of that cost reduction would be to shorten their trips, less maintenance and less gas for the trucks. Mr. Watts said it would be a very nice looking place and thought it would not be a place that anybody would be ashamed to have close to them. He said it would have 2 entrances, one off Happy Hollow and Thirteenth Street and the other would be straight off of Hwy 16 which would be for employees and visitors. He said the visitors and employees would not be using the same routes as the garbage trucks. In answer to a question from Hanna, Mr. Watts said the facility would be smokeless. Mr. Watts said the facility would have stacks for waste heat to come out of. He said they had to meet the State DPCSE regulations on air pollution and their standard would be .08 grains of particulate per cubic meter. He said they had required the plant be built, tested and operated at .03 grains so the air would be made cleaner than the standards were. In answer to a question from Seiff, Mr. Watts said the answer from the Pollution Control was to analyze some of the ash and they would let the City know what they could use it for. Mr. Watts said obviously they don't have any ash yet. Jacks asked who was DPC&E and Mr. Watts replied the Department of Polution Control and Ecology and that was the State agency which was the Federal agency that controls the EPA. • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 7 In answer to a question from Seiff, Mr. Watts said the the back side of the proposed property falls off into a flood plain and the suggestion was to install some retaining walls and the drainage be improved and then that would be used for the landfill for the ash. Mr. Watts said the proposed facility was a facility that could expand in the future. Dow asked what the projection was for expanding in the future and Mr. Watts said he thought the expansion would probably occur in the seventh year. He said it was a 20-25 year project and one of the processes they had to go through was having to finance the facility (selling bonds) and one of the first questions asked was how long did they want to borrow the money for. Mr. Watts said to answer that they would have to figure out how long the plant would last. He said they went to a consulting engineer and asked if the plant would last 25 years and the consulting firm said yes it would. Seiff assumed the 2 cooling towers were to cool water which meant they had to use water. His reason for asking that was were would the water come from and how much. Mr. Watts said he would assume from the City water supply and as to how many gallons he did not know. He said the water would be used to make steam and in this case the steam would be used to make electricty so that the water that was turned into steam condenses to turn the turbine and turns back into water and then it would be recirculated. Mr. Kemp, Director of Abilities Unlimited said they were located near the proposed plant. He said he represented the Board in speaking against the proposed location of the facility. He was not speaking against the technology or the need for it but basically locating the plant adjacent to Abilities Unlimited. He said he represents what normally was a devalued population. Mr. Kemp said they thought in spite of the fact that there was a sophisticated name for Solid Waste Disposal that probably the community as a whole would assume some kind of less fancy name like trash incinerator or something else. He said the association with that would continue to devalue their population and the mentally retarded clientel of the community. Mr. Kemp said he would like to speak against the location of the Solid Waste Disposal Plant. Nash asked Mr. Kemp how Abilities Unlimited felt about what was located around them now. Mr. Kemp said they felt that the City should have forced that to be cleaned up a long time ago. Mr. Kemp said it was his understanding that the City has ordinances requiring people to not store junk vehicles and to keep property mowed and tended to up to and including the City doing it and charging the property owner for it. So their feeling was it should not be that way to begin with • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 8 and to use the proposed plant as a reason to clean up a mess was not a justifiable argument as far as they were concerned. Mr. Grimes said the City had not had real good luck with the Courts when it came to force people to clean up that type of thing. He said at Hwy 71 South at Fifteenth Street there was a pile of junk on the east side. Mr. Grimes said the City took it to Circuit Court and the Court made the property owner move the junk at least in line with the front of the building and that was all. Mr. Kemp said they had met with Mr. Watts and heard all of his assurances that it would be clean and nice. Mr. Kemp said he was scheduled to go to Tulsa, at Mr. Watts recommendation, and view the facility there. Again, Mr. Kemp said it was important to say the site would not be a benefit to Abilities Unlimited. Mr. Kemp said he thought too that the owners of the 8 unit apartment complex across the street from the plant would protest and Mr. Jim Watson on the corner of Hwy 16 and Happy Hollow Rd. were not particularly in favor of it either in terms of doing business any good. Mr. Kemp did not know why those people were not there but suspected it was because they were not neces- sarily aware that this was happening on this date. He said if they had not been listed as a reference point several weeks ago in the newspaper he was not sure he would have known to be there then. Mr. Kemp said Abilities Unlimited located outside the Industrial Park to get a more work -oriented appearance. He said they were not in an old house that had been remodeled for their use, they were in a modern facility and they placed 31 people in competitive employment, that's disabled people, back into the community on jobs last year. He said Abilities Unlimited wanted to keep their image as positive as possible. In answer to a question from Dow, Mr. Watts said some of his Board members felt there should be a name for the plant. He said it would be a name somthing like the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Facil- ity. He said if someone wanted to name it something a little flashier he was sure there would be no objection to it. The company that would operate the facility would be the M.K. Ferguson Company. Mr. Watts said the contract said the facility would be kept clean and looking good or there would be cause against them. Mr. Watts said that was something the City had a control over in the future. Dow said she could understand what Mr. Kemp was saying and they all appreciate what Abilities Unlimited does. But the reason why she was not opposed to the Conditional Use was that the exterior was a nice looking facility and the garbage trucks would not be coming in off the main thoroughfare but would be coming in off the side road. She said there would be regular cars parked in front of the facility h7 • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 9 and the emissions would be above the State standards. NOTION Dow moved to approve the Conditional Use for the Solid Waste Disposal Facility, seconded by Seiff. The notion to approve the Conditional use passed 8-0-0. DISCUSSION OF TRH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The sixth item on the agenda was a discussion of the Subdivision Regula- tions. Jacks said the word "minimum': opened up a can of great possibilities. He said the engineers felt the developer should not have to contend with that. Jacks suggested the word "minimum" be removed and say the "testing would occur at certain intervals" and indicate other testing would be paid for by the City if they wanted additional testing. The Planning Commission agreed to the suggestion. Jacks said the second item was to eliminate the minimum distance between driveways in R-1 zones. Jacks said the present restriction states there must be 25' between driveways in R-1 zones. Seiff said he had a problem with that because of cul-de-sacs with pie shaped lots. He said his own property had only about 12' between driveways. Jacks said that was probably waived and that the Commission had essentially waived every one that had come before them because traffic was so light in those cases that it would not create a traffic hazard one way or another. Farrish said he thought they should be eliminated all together with Hanna agreeing. Jacks then advised the minimum distance would be eliminated. Jacks said they had discussed before if sidewalks should be required at the ROW line rather than at the curb line. Jacks then said the present ordinance does not stipulate one way or the other. He said the question was does the Commission want to stipulate that it be at the ROW line rather than the curb line. Robertson said it should stipulate in either place and Hanna agreed with that because there were some instances where sidewalks right beside the street were dangerous. Jacks said the question was that there were some cases where it really needs to be at the street. He said the only case that had come up that he recalled was Gregg Street property. • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 10 Dow said she did not because they could be they could write the certain cases. like the sidewalks next to the street either dangerous. She wondered if there was a way ordinance where they discourage it except in Jacks said then they would write it in to encourage sidewalks at the ROW line but not close the door for the curb line. Jacks stated he had a letter from Sue Madison asking to have the City Attorney fix the clause in the Green Space ordinance so that it applies to mobile home parks. It was decided to leave the ordinance alone until it came up for mobile home parks. Jacks said another comment from Commissioner Madison was to have a provision so that construction companies would be prohibited from tracking mud and clods of dirt and other debris into the streets during construction. The suggestion was not acted upon at this meeting. Jacks said the City Board approved the concept of raising the Planning Office fees. Jacks said the Board did not pass it but recommended the increase in fees for the Subdivision Regulation Revision. Ervan Wimberly said in the Reynolds first proposal, in addition to the Planning Office fees, there was a fee for review of the construction plans and specs for subdivisions. In answer to a question from Jacks, Sandra Carlisle said the new fee structure came from her. She said she had taken cost estimates on what it cost to process each individual item She said the fees would cover advertising cost but not all of the administrative cost. Farrish said the Board of Adjustment Fee seemed a little high to him and what all do they do on that. Carlisle said the Planning Office had to advertise the legal description in the newpaper, post a sign on the property and hold meetings the first and third Monday of every month. Farrish asked if the Board of Adjustment was an appeal place. Carlilse said they grant variances from the zoning ordinance such as Bulk and Area and setbacks. Dow asked how much the ads in the newspaper cost and Carlisle said it depended on the length of the legal decription. She said the Planning Office had one that cost $154.00 and the Board of Adjustment fee was °a • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 11 only $25.00. Jacks asked if the fee that in the proposed fee structure Jacks asked Mr. Grimes if the and Mr. Grimes replied "yes". MOTION Ervan Wimberly brought up was included and Carlisle said it was not. Board was happy with this recommendation Dow moved to approve the fee schedule as proposed, seconded by Nash. The motion to approved passed 5-2-1, Hanna and Green voting "nay" and Seiff abstaining. Jacks mentioned the criteria for the required number of ingress/egress points to a subdivision. He said the Commission had discussed it before. He said if there were one road into a subdivision how many units could be put there without a second means ingress/egress being provided. He said it had been done with as many as 100 units and Carlisle said Hyland Park had 5 phases with only one ingress/egress. Farrish said the Commission had just approved a replat of Hyland Park and there was no question of safety from the Fire Chief. Jacks said right now there was nothing in the proposed ordinance that pins down a figure. He asked if the Commission wanted to leave it that way or argue it out in each case. Seiff thought they definitely should examine each case. Jacks said it would be a hard figure to come up with and he spoke to Larry Wood and he really did not know how to come up with a solution. Dow was hoping Larry Wood would come up with a magic number and he had not. Carlisle said Larry Wood said it would have to be a judgment call because they could not make one criteria fit every subdivision in the sort of terrain Fayetteville has. Farrish said what made it difficult was if a developer owned a piece of property that was in the interior with basically undeveloped land all around and the developer goes in and builds an entrance into it, it would seem like they should be more interested in where the developer stubs out so that the pattern of development can take place orderly. Farrish thought it would be a mistake to come up with an arbitrary number. Nash agreed with Commissioner Farrish that the number really was not important and that each case was different and had to be judged accord- ingly. • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 12 Green said it seemed to him this subject had become an issue recently in that what had happened on Stubblefield Road and Park.Place were inconsistent with everything that had ever taken place with the City of Fayetteville before. He said it was almost like an issue without a reason. Jacks said they would leave it then without a requirement but with the understanding that it would have to be looked into. Jacks said he met with Deryl Birch on off-site improvements and Mr. Birch really did not have any suggestions to this problem either. Jacks said they finally ended up saying that really the only answer would be to change the reference to acreage as the primary means of addressing the question and include acreage, street frontage, use and misc. things like corner versus non -corner lots. Jacks said the present ordinance says off-site improvements could be assessed based primarily on acreage. Jacks said he thought the suggestion coming out of the meeting with Deryl Birch was the acreage stipulation may be changed to include those other possibilities. Farrish said just because someone had a peice of property that was 165' wide and 100' long and the guy next to them has one that was 1000' wide and 155' deep that those two should pay the same thing. He said the guy with the frontage knows that he was fronting the street and he knows whatever he builds there he would have to upgrade that street. Green said the problem was everybody was not treated equally by an arbitrary ruling. Green said what Commissioner Farrish was proposing was essentially what the Commission has been doing. Green said the most unfair thing to do was to have an arbitrary rule that applies to everyone without regard to the impact they have on a piece of property. He said there could be a church that had 1000' of frontage on a collector street and may only use the street two times a week and for one-half hour two times a week their usage would be real intense but compared to a subdivision the church's usage would be minimal. Green said the two usages would pay the same under what Commissioner Farrish proposed. Green said the concept of the ordinance was good. He said he never had a problem with the concept of the ordinance to try to make the people that cause the need for street improvements pay for the street improvements. He said the problem is the way it was being applied. Green said one of the suggestions he had was that they arbitrarily require people to improve the street to current City standards when their property abuts it using no judgement, no standard, no nothing, just do it if they abut it. Green said the City Attorney said in • • • • Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 13 his opinion that would not stand on it. Green said that was not to it he just did not think it was up in Court if they were challenged his only reason for being opposed fair. Farrish said he almost agreed with Commissioner Green but not quite because when a developer goes in to develop a subdivision the City requires the streets, sidewalks, curb and gutters all to be built to City standard. He said those were all arbitrary numbers that the City comes up with. He said the streets and sidewalks have to be so wide and that would be a cost that was assessed to the subdivision. When the developer goes in to do it at least he knows what those standards are rather than having to come in here everytime and the City says this time the street would be 40' wide and the next guy comes along and the City tells him the street would be 35' wide. That's the objection he had. Nash said Commissioner Farrish was not concerned about how the rule reads just as long as they stick to it with consistency. Farrish said he would like to see some consistency and some fairness. Green said he thought consistency was great as long as they were con- sistently right but if they were consistently wrong that did not impress him as being much of a courtesy. Green said if a developer wanted to build a subdivision on a State Highway the developer would not have to worry about conditions the State Highway was in, but if they wanted to build on Stubblefield Road then they would have to worry about it because it was a local street not up to City standards. Farrish said that was exactly right and those two factors influence the price of the land. Jacks said the only answer to the off-site improvements would be to hold it in abeyance if that was what the Commission wanted to do. Jacks said he planned to go back to the Planning Office with the changes that the Commission had made and rewrite the so called list of Substantive changes as recommendations from the Planning Commission and represent it to the Board with the off-site improvements unresolved. Carlisle noted that she and Larry Wood had talked about putting the Subdivision Ordinance together and Larry Wood said he would be happy to do so. Jacks asked Carlisle if Larry Wood was going take all of the notes and put them back into ordinance form and Carlisle replied "yes". Jacks said he would get an item on the Board agenda one day soon. •is Planning Commission November 24, 1986 Page 14 Mr. Grimes advised that Chairman Jacks wait until after the Thanksgiving Holidays to get an item on the Board agenda. APPROVAL OF THE 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE The seventh item on the agenda for consideration was the 1987 Planning Commission Schedule. Jacks said there were some changes to be made: Page 2, change May 22 to May 25 Page 2, change July 27 to June 29 Page 2, change July 29 to August 12 The schedule was approved with the above changes. OTHER BUSINESS Jacks appointed an Update Committee: Julie Nash, Gerald Seiff, Ernie Jacks and Chairman Fred Hanna. Jacks hope that Larry Wood would sit in with the Committee for additional input. MINUTES The minutes of the November 10, 1986 meeting were approved with the following correction: Page 4, paragraph 1, line 2; Change "City" to "State" There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 04)