Loading...
pc_06 21 2007 special called hearing LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL CALLED HEARING MINUTE RECORD JUNE 21, 2007 4:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight (8) in number. II. Members Present: Pam Adcock Chauncey Taylor Troy Laha Jeff Yates Robert Stebbins Fred Allen, Jr. Lucas Hargraves Darrin Williams Members Absent: Jerry Meyer Mizan Rahman 1 Open Position City Attorney: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL CALLED HEARING JUNE 21, 2007 4:00 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: Item Number: File Number: Title 1. Hillcrest Design Overlay District • Final DOD map • Hillcrest DOD draft June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT Name: Hillcrest Design Overlay District Location: Between Markham and North Lookout, University to Woodrow Request: Approve a Design Overlay District for the area Source: Hillcrest residents & Staff PROPOSAL / REQUEST: The proposal is to approve a Design Overlay District for the Hillcrest neighborhood. During a series of five neighborhood meetings initiated by the Hillcrest Residents Association in 2005, it became apparent that residents were concerned with the trend of teardowns and replacements with oversized structures. As a group, the pros and cons of alternatives that might help Hillcrest avoid the demolition trends in other areas of central Little Rock were discussed. City Staff provide information on new residential construction in Hillcrest and the surrounding area. In Hillcrest on average since 2000 there have been three new homes permitted per year. To the north in the Heights twice as many permits were issued annually and for the remaining close-in areas slightly more homes have been built per year than that in Hillcrest. Since the areas are all developed many of these new homes also represent a teardown. A summary of these meetings was made available for review on the Save Hillcrest website (www.savehillcrest.org). While the residents group was worried about teardowns and their replacement with incompatible structures, they were equally concerned that new regulations not limit the diversity and growth of Hillcrest and prevent residents from making improvements to their property. If new parameters were needed, it was important not to overdo it – there was a strong desire not to ‘over’ regulate and allow people the ability to continue the diversity, which makes Hillcrest. As part of the development of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan of 1999, residents were asked about neighborhood character. At that time, 90% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed, “the character and image of Hillcrest should be protected and preserved.” 68% agreed or strongly agreed that “Hillcrest should be designated as an historic district as a means of preserving the neighborhood’s character” while 68% agreed or strongly agreed that “a mechanism should be put in place to review building plans in terms of quality, impact on environment and appearance.” The residents working on this issue took this information as a basis for what should be done in the neighborhood. June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 2 So the residents group considered the options of historic districts, conservation districts, and design overlay districts. Meetings were held with city officials to discuss the pros and cons of each option. After learning that historic and conservation districts require years of set-up and an additional review board, the residents group decided that an overlay district would be the best choice. An overlay district could be written specifically for Hillcrest and would be enforced using existing structures, such as the Little Rock Planning Commission. An overlay district cannot address demolitions directly – a “local ordinance district” would be needed for that – but it can make them less likely. By using scale factors – like floor-to-area ratios – the incentive to buy traditional size homes replacing them with much larger "McMansions" is lessened. Local business owners will also benefit from the proposed overlay district in several ways. First, the setbacks will allow them greater flexibility in the design and use of their commercial property. Second, parking requirements are improved by giving businesses “credit” for available street parking at a more favorable rate than the standard set by current city ordinances. Both of these changes are made to encourage the re-use of existing structures and guide future development to be a more classical ‘urban nature’ rather than the typical ‘suburban nature’ of current development. The resulting draft Design Overlay District for the Hillcrest area was presented in November to the Hillcrest Residents Association for their approval, before submitting to the city. The residents group believes it addresses the major concerns of our neighbors for continued vitality in the area, while not limiting our ability to make desirable improvements to our property. It is important to note, that should a Hillcrest property owner wish to build and/or remodel in conflict with any of the overlay standards, a Planned Zoning District request for alternative development can be heard by the Planning Commission and then ultimately the Little Rock Board of Directors. The neighborhood provided Staff with a draft Design Overlay District (DOD) in early 2007. The DOD had two major parts, residential and non-residential components. Staff divided the draft this way for review with the Plans Committee. Representatives of the neighborhood attended each Plans Committee meeting and working with Staff and the Committee revised wording on the draft DOD. This review occurred during March and April 2007 with a line- by-line discussion. The Plans Committee at their April 18 meeting put the draft back together for one final review. June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 3 The DOD adds two new definitions: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Grade Plane. The FAR is used to control lot coverage (size of structures) by limiting the square footage of the structure based on the lot area. The Grade Plane is used to measure building height, using the ground level around the structure to the ridge- line of the roof. The district boundaries are somewhat larger than the Hillcrest Historic District, but generally consistent with the neighborhood association boundary. For residential section of the DOD, building scale and massing is controlled by the FAR. A FAR of 0.37 is used for a one-story structure with a maximum of a 0.55 FAR for structures with two or more stories. In no case is the FAR calculated with a lot size of greater than 8000 square feet no matter the actual lot size. The DOD allows new structures or additions to use the existing setback of structure in the block rather than the zoning setback. A building height of 39 feet is used rather than 35 feet to adjust for the affect on the different method required for measuring height. The non-residential section of the DOD requires the use of similar building materials as those in the area and allows buildings to be built closer to the street if others in the ‘block’ already are constructed that way. As with residential structures, non-residential structure building height is 39 feet and is measured using the new ‘grade plane’ definition. New construction and additions must be constructed such that rooflines and elevations must be ‘broken’ so that large wall faces are not created. The parking standards are reduced by half and on street parking in front of a development may be included. Free standing, neon-lit and off premise signs have additional requirements. Finally the site and building lighting must conform to the ‘dark sky’ requirements as outlined in the ordinance. The exception process within the DOD area shall be the Planned Zoning District process. This requires a public hearing before both the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. With the assistance of the County Assessors Office, Staff developed a mailing list of property owners. A mailing to all the potentially effected property owners was sent in mid-May, 2007. This included a cover letter explaining what was being proposed, a letter from the residents association (HRA) on the overlay, a draft DOD, and a map of the proposed area. Approximately 2400 owners were notified of the public hearing before the Little Rock Planning Commission and invited to provide comments. The draft Hillcrest Design Overlay District was placed on the City website on May 8, 2007 for property owners and others to review. In addition, the Hillcrest June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 4 Residents Association posted the draft DOD on their site. This same document is attached for the Planning Commission review. Staff Recommendation: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 21, 2007) Walter Malone, Planning Staff, informed the Commission that staff would give a general overview and then Mr. Jim Metzger, neighborhood representative, would present the specifics. The neighborhood had been working on this issue since 2005. Mr. Malone reviewed some of the early history with issues of Historic District designation, prevention of ‘net’ loss of residential units, Conservation District or Design Overlay District. The concerns of over-regulation versus preservation of the character of the area were covered. The result is the draft before the commission today. The Overlay has a couple of parts. The residential section regulates scale with Floor to Area ratios in order to attempt to not have residents which over whelm their neighbors. In addition the draft would allow larger accessory structures in the rear setback as is often done with rear yard garages off the alley. The building height measurement process is changed and the maximum height was increased to partial offset this change in measurement process. In the non-residential section the draft reduces the parking requirement in half and allows a credit for on-street parking. It also includes regulations similar to the Midtown Design Overlay District to ‘break’ the massing of large structures (over 100 linear feet). Signage changes would forbid future ‘billboards’ or neon signs over 30 square feet in sign. ‘Dark Sky’ regulations similar to those in the Midtown DOD are proposed. Finally the variance or apply process would be with the Planned Zoning District process rather than going to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Jim Metzger, neighborhood representative, started by talking about the five meetings the neighborhood had during 2005. At these meetings the discussion covered: local ordinance districts, conservation districts and overlays. There seemed to be a consensus for some kind of protection but not to have ‘pretty police’. There was a desire to make it more difficult to scrap and rebuild. Hillcrest is unique. It is the first suburb and was a part of Pulaski Heights. The built environment is very diverse. June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 5 After hearing the comments and concerns of the community at the meetings in 2005, there was a break to do research. In 2006 they looked at what other cities were doing. The idea developed to have a plan that look at ‘mass’ and ‘scale’ with an eye to slowing teardowns in the neighborhood. After review of other regulations it was decided to use Floor-to-Area Ratios (FAR) for this to add some flexibility for smaller lots and whether it is an one- or two-story structure. Lot coverage was an issue, whether to include all the paved surfaces. It was decided to include anything ‘under-roof’ for this, such as a carport. In the non-residential section, currently parking regulations do not work in Hillcrest. This is a more urban-pedestrian area and the regulations are suburban (they do not fit with this neighborhood). This is a predominately residential area and we do not want to threaten the present housing. One concern is that commercial building might purchase the adjacent home and remove it for parking. It was decided in late 2006 and 2007 it was too difficult to regulate garages and as you see there is nothing in here on that. Other things were also dropped to develop the consensus document here today. The Hillcrest Residents Association did review this and was part of the consensus group, which developed the document. Two issues have arisen from the mailing to property owners that we would like to address. The first is Hocott’s and surrounding commercial building currently zoned ‘C3’; and the apartments to their east zoned ‘R5’. (These owners have asked to be removed.) After review and discussion, we believe that if there is any redevelopment at this site it would require a Planned Zoning District or other review and thus we would not lose anything by it not being in the DOD area. A boundary change from “L” street south on Kavanaugh to Lookout is now suggested. Second, are the large properties already in existence within Hillcrest, such as along hill or Midland, Ridgeway. In the FAR section of the draft it states that if you combine lots you still can only use a maximum of 10,000 square feet for calculations of FAR. Since there are existing lots over 10,000, and the desire was only to try to prevent future combinations, we suggest a new sentence on Page 3 under scale: “Any lot of record or any combination of lots creating a zoning lot of record exceeding 10,000 square feet in existence at the time of the adoption of this section shall have an FAR as described for lots exceeding 8,000 square feet.” This would then not penalize the existing homes. Mr. Metzger closed with a quote from one of the letters received: “I think that the design overlay plan as outlined is a good compromise between no restrictions on development and more stringent restrictions”. June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 6 Mr. Hank Bates, Vice President Hillcrest Residence Association (HRA), indicated the HRA does support the draft overlay with the amendments. The association has used their list-serve to share comments on the draft as it has been developed. Based on comments from HRA, the draft had been changed prior to the draft presentation to the City. A majority of the residents are happy with the document. This is an attempt to preserve what everyone likes about Hillcrest and not do too much. It does strike a good balance. Mr. Craig Berry, Hillcrest resident (480 Ridgeway), indicated this is an outgrowth of the neighborhood plan for Hillcrest. It is an evolution of the Plan. As far as it being another layer of regulation, only the FAR is something new. In the commercial section we are trying to address a flaw in the current regulations. One could not rebuild with the current regulations. This would allow a greater build out with more leeway. FAR is a methodology. A lot of structure can still be built with the proposed FAR. Mr. John Selva and Mr. Steve Gardner both indicated they had nothing further to add and did not wish to speak. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, supported the overlay. It is well thought out and deserves a positive vote. The league would have preferred that additional controls be included so that new construction or additions would look like the period of most of the current structures construction. The national historic structures standards should be used as a guide. A commissioner asked about the boundary change and if the Association was correct that a redevelopment would be reviewed. Mr. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director, indicated that most likely any redevelopment of that site would need a PZD due to setback and other issues. Mr. Andy Francis, Hillcrest resident (309 Fairfax), indicated he and others did have concerns about the draft overlay. Many people do not understand what is happening or being proposed. The letter sent as notice does not give enough detail to the residents. This reduces the buildable area on a 50-foot lot, where now a one-story structure could be 4000 square feet in size. This mass change is a change in buildable area. The change is from a static in the ordinance using setbacks, to a flexible based on lot size and stories. In addition the change in height using the ‘grade plane’ is confusing for the average citizen to understand. This is a massive change to the regulations in affect. The commission should know how many structures might be made non-conforming by this change. Mr. Francis quoted some of the letter sent to property owners as notice, indicated the reader did not get enough information about the actual proposals. June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 7 Mr. Francis asked the Commission what was the problem that requires this change? Where is the Fire? There may be a problem in the Heights. But this construction activity could also be, a maximizing the value of the lots and a reinvestment in the neighborhood. In 2006 there were 19 single-family units removed in the combined Heights and Hillcrest areas. There are over 3000 structures in Hillcrest. In the last ten years there have been 127 housing units removed. Is there really a problem? This commission is assigned the responsibility to plan for the community. Therefore you should review all the issues prior to action. The first question you should ask is, is there a need? This process as designed does not asked that question, rather it asks for comment on what is proposed for regulation. Mr. Francis had more discussion about the issues in the Heights area and the effect both these regulations and what is happening in the Heights have on property values. He restated the need to know about the non-conformity issue, how many homes would be made non-conforming. Also what will be the cost on compliance if one rebuilds, etc. All this should be looked at prior to any action. In the commercial section, Mr. Francis used the case at Markham and Kavanaugh as an example about the lack of parking and the impacts that could have on the surrounding neighborhood. Before placing this over a broad area, we should check on the existing availability and on-street parking possibilities versus the demand of each use. This would push traffic into the residential areas. If we relax the requirements, we are likely to get an expansion of commercial since only the limitations on parking have control to date. There are many ambiguities in the draft, for example what is representative in the area? Who decides this? What is the style in the area? Who decides? This draft would open Hillcrest for a lot of problems. Teardowns are not a problem in the area. Taste is a subjective thing, for which we should not be regulating. Great neighborhoods are made of great neighbors not great buildings. This whole document should be more carefully reviewed and checked with facts before the Commission acts. There was some discussion. Mr. Francis indicated he had not shared his concerns with the HRA prior to the meeting. However it is the responsibility of this Commission to review the Plans not the HRA. Only this group has the authority. Commissioner Williams asked Mr. Metzger to respond. Mr. Metzger indicated the parking changes proposed would have little impact on the Markham –Kavanaugh site since there would be little existing parking and no on-street parking to June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 8 receive credit. As for the involvement in this effort, at the Fall 2006 meetings there were usually 30 to 40 people with different folks at each meeting. He discussed several issues about concerns in the neighborhood. This draft does not try to regulate style. As for the ‘grade plane’, the group felt after looking at other ordinances this is where planning was moving. It is a fair method for measuring. People did have input into the document. There was some discussion about setbacks. Mr. Metzger indicated several homes in the area recently permitted were checked with the proposed FAR and only one did not meet it. This home was not in the immediate Hillcrest area. There was a question about the correspondence from the Hocotts. Mr. Malone indicated with the change proposed by Mr. Metzger this would no longer be an issue. There was some discussion of the content of the email. There was a question about the impact to the larger homes on Hill and Midland. Staff indicated that with the second change proposed to allow existing lots to use their area for the FAR calculation, very few if any should not meet the requirements. A discussion about parking followed. The setting of a maximum as well as a minimum and whether this was ‘a wise decision’ was discussed. Parking standards in general as well as other overlays and the Urban Use district parking requirements were discussed. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney’s Office, asked that Mr. Metzger as the applicant to state the amendments for the record. Mr. Metzger outlined the boundary change at Kavanaugh, “L” Street and Lookout and the sentence added to the end of section “A. Scale” to allow for FAR measurement with all existing lots. Mr. Metzger indicated, “As to the question of Hillcrest has been around for over 100 years and is working so why change things now?” During the 1960s through the 1980s Hillcrest was not working well. In the last 25 years the area has been doing better. This effort is looking to the future, not being reactive to a ‘FIRE’. Because the area is close in and people want to live in Hillcrest there will be growing pressures. Mr. Metzger gave some examples he believes are ‘over building’ of the site in Hillcrest. This is not designed to stop restoration or development in the area. There have been teardowns to the north and west of Hillcrest and this is likely to continue. We are asking for these restrictions in case this moves into Hillcrest. The Planned Zoning District process is in place to address those specific cases where exceptions need or should be made. There was discussion about some of the requirements in the commercial section and whether a PZD would be required. This included the awning requirement, building form issues and exterior façade requirements. There was a question about metal siding. Siding such as that placed on homes is allowed. There was discussion about the variance procedure. Currently, the Board of Adjustment (BOA) reviews for these issues in the overlay a PZD would be required. This is a change from a one-month process and one hearing to a three to four month June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 9 process with two hearings. Fences are not covered by the overlay , thus would still be a BOA issue. There was a question about rebuilding structures destroyed by ‘acts of God’. The ordinance says now and continues to say if they were constructed prior to the current zoning ordinance legal under the old regulations they can be rebuilt using those same former regulations. There was a question about the City moving to ‘grade plane’ to measure height. Mr. Bozynski confirmed that there had been an earlier proposal to make this change to the City ordinance. This was dropped due to some confusion but would be in the next package the Commission considers. Commissioner Yates expressed surprise at the lack of people at the hearing either for or against. There was some discussion about this. Mr. Francis indicated the way the notice was worded did not encourage attendance. The proposal would reduce by half the developable area of lots. Based on the setbacks in ‘R2’ and ‘R3’ a 4000 square foot one-story house could currently be built. With the proposed overlay this possibility would be removed. If after reviewing recent permits and not finding they would be over built why propose a change. Some general discussion on variance followed. When asked about the concern that limiting parking requirements would push parking out into the neighborhood and encourage more commercial. Mr. Francis indicated that currently parking requirements are a constraint on commercial development so by relaxing them one could expect an expansion of commercial use. Mr. Francis gave the example of a restaurant’s request on Kavanaugh near Kroger on how the system is working now. Ms. Ruth Bell returned and clarified that the League was in support of the overlay. This is a good compromise to keep the area a livable ‘urban village’ without freezing change. This should help keep Hillcrest a livable neighborhood. Commissioner Hargraves thanked the HRA for its work and agreed that he was surprised by the low turn out. Commissioner Williams reviewed the letter sent out by Staff and indicated it was a fair letter and if he had questions, he would have been at the meeting. In addition there is a second letter from HRA, which gives even more detailed information. Commissioner Yates also indicated the time and efforts of Staff and the neighborhood in the development of this draft. Though he is not favorable to additional regulations with staff recommendation he would support this overlay. Commissioner Williams moved the approval of the overlay as amended. By a vote of 7 for, 1 against, 2 absent and one open position, the motion was June 21, 2007 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) HILLCREST DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT 10 approved. Mr. Malone indicated anyone with a card would be notified when this goes to the Board of Directors and invited anyone else in the audience to turn in a card to be notified.