Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_11 02 1993LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD NOVEMBER 2, 1993 12:30 P.M. I. �-.oll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the September 21, 1993 meeting. The Minutes of the Previous Meeting were approved as submitted by a vote of 6 ayes, D nays, 4 absent and 1 abstention. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Brad walker Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson John McDaniel Diane Chachere Joe Hirsch Selz Ramsay Ball Emmett Willis, Jr. Bill Putnam Ronald Woods Jim VonTungeln City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING BEARING AGENDA NOVEMBER 2■ 1993 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 1 Rezoning and Land Use Plan Amendment in Governor Mansion South Area 2. Ordinance Amendments - zoning and Subdivision Regulations 3. Master Street Plan Amendment Adding interchanges at Chenal Parkway and Markham; Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road; and Financial Center Parkway at Shackleford. November 2, 1993 ITEM NO: 1 TITLE: GOVERNOR'S MANSION SOUTH REZONING AND PLAN CHANGES LOCATION: 23RD STREET TO ROOSEVELT ROAD AND GAINES TO MAIN STREET SOURCE: DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION STAFF REPORT: The Downtown Neighborhood Association requested the Planning staff review the area between 23rd and Roosevelt from Main to Gaines for rezoning to less intensive uses. In response to this request, staff is using the same methods previously used in Hillcrest, Central High and Oak Forest. First, the existing land use, zoning and adopted plan are reviewed. Areas of possible rezoning, based on the adopted plan and existing use are identified. Plan amendments could also be recommended based on the review. The preliminary areas for changes are reviewed with the requester (July 8, 1993) and presented to the Plans Committee (July 1, 1993). The owners are identified for those areas which are candidates for rezoning. Letters are sent to the owner stating the City's desire to rezone the property and asking them to notify the city if they do not wish to be rezoned (July 12, 1993). Those requesting not to be rezoned are removed from the requested rezonings. A second letter is mailed to the remaining property owners giving them the date, of a public hearing to rezone their property (September 3, 1993). This second letter also gives the owners the option of contacting the Planning staff to have their property removed from consideration. On August 10, the Planning staff presented the Governor's Mansion South rezoning and land use plan amendments to the Commission for discussion. The major issue of concern raised at the meeting dealt with the high densities of the new zoning pattern, after some discussion the concerns were reduced. The actual plan changes were presented, however, only the general zoning pattern changes were discussed. The general zoning pattern changes consist of "R-6" ,properties along Main Street at 24th Street (rezone to "R-511); two "R-5" areas, one between Spring and Center Streets and the other west of Gaines Street (rezone to "R-4"); an 110-3" area east of Gaines Street {rezone to November 2, 1993 PLANNING HEARING ITEM NO.: 1 _(Cont.) "R-411); a "C-3" area either side of 24th between Broadway and Gaines Streets (rezone to "R-411); and a "C-3" area north of 24th on Broadway (rezone to "R-511). The specific zoning changes recommended are as follows: A. R-6 (High -Rise Apartment) to R-5 (Urban Residential) along Main Street between 23rd and 24th Streets, more specifically Lots 15-18, 21, 22 and North 35 feet of Lot 20 Rapley Estates and the South 2/3 of Lot 3 Fulks Subdivision of Rapley or 106 East 24th Street; 2300, 2310, and 2324 Main Street, B. R-5 (Urban Residential) to R-4 (Two Family Residential) between Spring and Center Streets from 23rd Street to Roosevelt Road, more specifically Lots 1-3, 10-12 except West 36 feet of East 72 feet of West 1/2 Lots 10-12 Block 22 Fultons Addition and Lots 5-22 Block 27 Fultons South Addition and Lots 1-4, 24, 25 Joseph McCoppin Subdivision or 301, 315 West 23rd Street; 2311. 2315. 2319. 2323, 2413, 2415 and 2419 Spring; 308, 314 Roosevelt Road; 2318, 2322, 2408, 2410, 2414 Center Street. C. R-5 (Urban Residential) to R-4 (Two Family Residential) west of Gaines between 23rd Street and Roosevelt Road, more specifically Lots 11-16 Block 2 and Lots 7-12 except West 50 feet of North 1/2 of Lots 11 and 12 Block 3 Clark Addition or 2418, 2408, 2404, 2322, 2318, 2310 and 2300 Gaines. D. 0-3 (General Office) to R-4 (Two Family Residential) east of Gaines Street between 23rd and 24th Streets, more specifically Lots 1-6 Block 3 Clark Addition or 2301, 2305, 2309, 2319, 2321 Gaines Street. E. C-3 (General Commercial) to R-4 (Two Family Residential) between 23rd and Roosevelt Road from Gaines Street to Broadway, more specifically Lots 13-14 Block 1 and Lots 7-10 except North 44 feet of Lots 8 and 57 feet of Lot 9 Block 4 Clark Addition and Lots 1, 5, 6 and North 1/2 Lot 2 Block 1 and Lots 1-4 and North 35 feet of Lots 14-16 Block 2 E.W. Gibbs Addition or 2414, 2416, 2418, 2403, 2405, 2407, 2409, 2310, 2312, 2324, 2315 Arch Street and 515 west 24th Street. F. C-3 (General Commercial) to R-5 (Urban Residential) east of Broadway from 23rd to 24th Streets, more specifically Lots 1-3 and East 128 feet of Lot 4 Block 4 E.W. Gibbs Addition or 2311, 2315 Broadway. 2 November 2. 1993 �saW"Lk;lit-Ic- 'ICS ITEM 1(Cont.) The land use plan amendments consist of the following: 1. TO OFFICE a. Either side of Broadway south of Roosevelt from Commercial and Single Family b. Between wines and State north of Roosevelt from Single Family C. The southwest corner of State and Roosevelt from Public Institutional 2. TO COMMERCIAL RCIAL a. Either side of Roosevelt west of Arch from Mixed Use b. South of 23rd either side of Arch from Mixed Use 3. TO MIXED USE a. Either side of Gaines south of 24th from Single Family b. Either side of Louisiana south of Roosevelt from Single Family 4. PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL a. Between 23rd and 24th west of Spring from Commercial b. Northeast corner of Louisiana and 26th from Single Family The proposed changes list above are designed to help stabilize the residential neighborhood and allow the neighborhood to more effectively use the plan for their area to guide future development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of zone changes and plan amendments. 3 November 2, 1993 ,ff_�0. v Lm., 6 ail_ ITEM NO.: 1 ( ont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 2, 1993) Ron Newman, Planning Manager, stated this item was began at the request of the Downtown Neighborhood Association. The process was the same as that used in other neighborhoods - review the existing conditions, plan, zoning to develop amendments for the plan and areas of potential rezoning. Letters were sent to the effected property owners and those requesting not to be rezoned were removed. Walter Malone, Planner II, presented the plan changes. The new commercial areas are the 23rd and Arch intersection, which is existing commercial and the Roosevelt and Arch intersection, which is existing commercial. In response to a question, Mr. Malone clarified that only the lots at the intersection were affected. Along Gaines - south of 24th Street to the office area, the use would be changed from single family to mixed use. In response to a question, Mr. Malone stated the neighborhood association had not had any problems with the plan changes.. Along Roosevelt from Gaines to State, the single family would be changed to office, existing use are office and single family. The old post office at State would change from public to office. In addition south of Roosevelt, either side of Broadway would be changed from commercial to office. The existing uses are converted houses with office and institutional uses. Further to the west at Louisiana and Roosevelt, the single family would be changed to mixed use. This area is currently a parking lot and residents. To the south the existing church parking lot would be changed to public use from single family. And finally, the AP&L substation would be changed from mixed use to public use. The zoning changes started as the areas in yellow 11R-4" and the orange -red areas for "R-5". After contacting the owners, the areas with an "X" will not be rezoned either due to the owner asking for it not to be rezoned or the City not being able to contact the owner. Mr. Malone directed the Commission to the sketch maps to show more clearly the effected sites. In response to a question, Mr. Malone indicated that just under 50 ownerships would be rezoned. In response to a request to know the neighborhood position, Kathy Wells, vice President of Downtown Neighborhood Association, was recognized. Ms. Wells stated that the Association was pleased with the staff's efforts and that 4 November 2, 1993 PLANNING H ITEM NO .: 1 staff had included more areas than the original area of concern. This was a positive action and the Neighborhood Association requests approval of the item. Chairman walker suggested the Commission take the plan changes first. By vote of 8 for 0 against the amendments were approved. Next the question of the rezoning omitting two sites requested for deletion was taken up. By vote of 8 for 0 against the commission approved the rezoning. 5 November 2, 1993 ITEM 2 BII JECT: Ordinance ,amendment - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations REQUEST; To amend the ordinances for purposes of restructuring the access, driveway and circulation standards. To make them consistent and common to both ordinances. AFF REPORT: This amendment proposal is a holdover item from discussions by the Commission and the League of women Voters of Pulaski County. The Commission determined early in 1993 that an annual amendment package with multiple items would not be produced, but that this single subject be developed. The Planning Staff developed a first draft for discussion purposes during May of 1993 and distributed the draft internally, for department level comment. The Plans Committee received copies during the first week of June and then set a work session for July 1. The Committee held two additional sessions on August 5 and 26. At the August meeting, final changes were made per Traffic Engineering comment and staff was directed to seek a public hearing date from the full commission. At the. September 21 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested and received a hearing date of November 2. The Planning Staff mailed copies of Draft 4 to all contacts on the 45 person list for ordinance review. This mailing was accomplished on September 27. The draft was accompanied by a memo with an invitation to participate in the continuing review. The proposed ordinance restructuring: A. Delete conflicting or redundant language in Sections 31-287(3). B. Section 31-312 needs reference to new section. November 2, 1993 C. All site plan review sections in the Zoning ordinance require reference to 31-210. They are: 1. 36-126 zoning site plans 2. 36-280(b) (5) 110-211 3. 36-300(b)(4) IAC -2 4. 36-319(b)(6) "I-1" 5. 36-460(i)(1 thru 6) 6. 36-260(b)(3) "R-631 7. 36-107(6) C.U.P. D. Subdivision ordinance design standards for nonresidential plats requiring reference to 31-210 (new section). 1. 31-287 (commercial plat, internal circulation) needs rewrite and downgrade on paragraph (3), defer to 31-210. 2. 31-312 needs rewrite of language to include a reference to site access and internal circulation. Also, re -title section to "street and access design and refer to 31-210." 3. 31-13 subdivision multiple structure or building site plan review. This section requires the addition of language to tie access driveway and internal circulation to Section 31-210. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 2, 1$93) Chairman Brad walker announced this issue for public hearing and asked that staff offer its comment. Richard Wood, of the Planning staff, offered a brief overview of the ordinance proposal with its changes as proposed and purpose and intent of creating a new ordinance provision. He pointed out that the several areas of concern are as follows: 1. The elimination of conflicts between the three current ordinances. 2. The creation of a central point for access to regulations on driveways. 3. Standardization of staff commentary and review processes for dealing with land development. 2 November 2, 1993 PLANNING HEARING ITEM NO, 2 _ wont, S 4. Do what we are now accomplishing through a negotiation process. 5. Establishment of a purpose and intent, an article to run with this section of the code to identify why or how it works. Wood then moved his comments to the process for arriving at this point in the public hearing. He pointed out that the conventional mailing had been accomplished in late September for about 45 to 50 contact persons. The response had been very light with a couple of engineers and Ruth Bell responding. These persons indicated that they would attend this meeting for purposes of commenting on various elements within the proposal. He pointed out that none of these persons were in attendance, but that Mrs. Bell had offered her comment and it had been received and dealt with by the Committee. The staff offered that it was in support of these ordinance. amendments and recommends that the Commission endorse their approval by the City Board. The Chairman then asked for other commentary. Jerry Gardner, of Public works, came forward to offer his thoughts on application of the current regulations to development issues. Mr. Gardner pointed out that the staff had historically used the current commercial and industrial standards on arterial streets for purpose of negotiating appropriate design for other developments such as churches, apartment houses, etc. The ordinance did not provide us with specific language which permitted requiring those standards. This ordinance as drafted produces a broad range of standards which cover all types of development issues other than single family and a rational design approach, utilizing the basic traffic manuals and accepted design practice in the industry. A brief discussion then followed involving several members of the Commission. Chairman walker asked if there were any corrections or comments specifically addressing the draft. There was one comment forthcoming addressing a spelling error which staff identified would be corrected in the final draft for City Board. The Chairman then observing that there were no proposals by members of the Commission dealing with modifications of the ordinance ,placed the issue was on the floor for a motion. 3 November 2, 1993 PLANNINQ HFIMING The motion was made for approval and recommendation to the City Hoard as drafted. The motion passed by unanimous vote of 8 ayes, 8 nays and 3 absent. November 2, 1993 ITEM No: 3 .. DAME: Master Street Flan Amendment LOCATION: Chenal from Markham to Shackleford RROUEST: Add Interchanges SOURCE: Traffic Engineering STAFF REPORT: The proposal is to add urban interchanges at arterial intersections along Chenal to Markham, more particularly Markham./Chenal, Bowman/Chenal and Shackleford/Financial Center. Urban interchange designs would be incorporated into the City's adopted street plan for Markham/Chenal and Bowman/Chenal, while Shackleford/Financial Center would be included in the I-430/1-630 interchange design. The interchanges are needed to prevent gridlock or complete breakdown of the Chenal Corridor. This amendment will bring the City's street plan into conformance with the regional transportation plan which recommends interchanges at these three arterial intersections. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLAMING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 2, 1993) Hill Henry, Traffic Engineer, indicated that the two interchanges at Bowman and Markham had been discussed for sometime. The Shackleford Road interchange will be done by the Highway Department and like the other two is shown on the Pulaski Area Transportation Study. Today, preliminary designs are being presented to give right-of-way information. Final designs will still need to be done. Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney, indicated this would give everyone an idea of the amount of right-of-way needs. When asked if the design would take more land on the northeast corner, Mr. Henry responded by saying yes. Chairman Walker asked about the Markham/Chenal interchange. Mr. Henry indicated it was on the plan; Chenal is to have traffic volumes of around 50,000; and Markham currently has N7ovember 2, 1993 IGII-AvyERt� �[K•S1 a volume of approximately 15,000 that would double by 2010. Commissioner Oleson asked why the presentation was not made a year ago. Mr. Henry indicated that Public works had tried to get some right-of-way with the Wal-Mart site (southwest corner), but another department had approved waivers for the site. He noted again that the issue of interchanges has been discussed for years. Chairman walker asked, if affected property owners had been notified. Mr. Henry indicated they had not. Commissioner Nicholson asked about the impacts on the northeast corner. Mr. Henry indicated that more property would be needed on the south edge of the site. Retaining walls would be used and ramps similar to those along I-630 would be designed (urban -slip ramps). Chairman walker stated the owners needed to be notified because of the added land they must contribute. The traffic will be there, but the issue is landowner rights. Allowing more time is reasonable and the number of owners is limited. There was a discussion about impacts to commercial businesses along the northwest corner of Bowman and Chenal. Mr. Henry stated reserving the right-of-way is very important. Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Oleson, moved to defer the issue to November 30, 1993 and that the adjoining owners be contacted. By a vote of 7 for, 0 against and 1 abstention (Ramsay Hall), the issue was deferred. Pa November 2, 1993 ITEM NO: 4 REOUE T• Planning staff desires direction as to the establishment by the Plans Committee of the committee membership for the beginning of work to create the language, modify the Sign Ordinance. STAFF REPORT: Richard Wood asked for Plans Committee members to determine a startup work date for the committee work sessions on the Sign Ordinance and pennants issue. Also, the Plans Committee should give direction as to the composition of the outside members of the Committee to work on this ordinance. The response by the Committee, primarily from Jerilyn Nicholson, was that Chairman VonTungeln should meet with staff and draft a list of several persons identified at the last meeting. These persons should be added and then begin the process. After a brief discussion, the staff and committee members determined that a first working date could be November 11 at 2:00 p.m. The meeting would be held in the staff's Conference Room as usual. Richard Wood instructed the Committee that this would be done and Chairman VonTungeln would be notified. M;� z cn cn z W U) m a QI W Q r1 November 2, 1993 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:21 p.m. Date: IZ- t4- q3 i hai n eget ry f 1