pc_02 11 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 11,1992
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
II.Approval of the November 19,1991
III.Members Present:Ramsay Ball
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
John McDaniel
Diane Chachere
Jim VonTungeln
Joe H.Selz
Brad Walker
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Ronald Woods
Members Absent:Bill Putnam
City Attorney:Ernest Sanders
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A
TITLE:Hillcrest Commercial Overlay
LOCATION:Kavanaugh from Walnut to Monroe
STAFF REPORT
As part of the review of the Hillcrest area requested by the Hillcrest
Residents Association,Staff reviewed the special concerns expressed
about the Kavanaugh commercial district in Hillcrest.There was aspecificrequesttochangethecity's standards to better address the
needs of an "urban commercial district"as opposed to a suburban
commercial area.Staff met several times with the property owners inthewinterandspringof1990todiscussvariousrequirementsand
standards.A meeting was then held to discuss the draft overlay withtheimmediatelysurroundingresidents.Further revisions were made
and discussed with property owners,and a neighborhood meeting was
held to receive comments from the larger Hillcrest area.
In early November 1990 property owners once again asked for comments
and the Plans Committee was asked to review the draft as revised byallparties.After two meetings of the Plans Committee,more minorrevisionsweremadetothedraft.This document has been sent to each
property owner (mailed March 22)for their review.In the letter,the
owners were informed of this meeting and invited to attend and address
the Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (APRIL 23,1991)
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reviewed the history of this itemstartingoverayearagowitharequestfromtheHillcrestResident's
Association Board (HRA).The concern expressed at the time was that"suburban"standards were being forced on an "urban"area.Items
which were requested for review included reduced parking,setbacks,storefronts,etc.The property owners were contacted and asked fortheirinput.After meetings with property owners,surroundingresidentialresidentswereaskedtoattendameetingtodiscuss thedraftregulationsandtoexpresstheirconcerns.Staff next arranged
a neighborhood meeting and finally took the draft to the Plans
Committee.At each step,property owners were mailed the currentdraftfortheirreviewandcomment.
1
February ll,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A CONT.
Mr.Newman asked if the Commission would like a detailed review of the
draft with the Commission indicating that was desired.Starting with
Section C,Mr.Newman reviewed the major points as follows:
SECTION C:Maximum 5,000 sq.ft.per business,
Not including R1,R2,R3 or R4 property
SECTION D:Setbacks —Zero on Kavanaugh,front and side yards
keep a 4 to 6 foot sidewalk clearance
Beechwood:Retain 2 to 4 foot
landscape between sidewalk and curb
Ground mounted:Face 12 sq.ft.
~Parkin —suggesting I/2 standard for
neighborhood commercial use
shared parking encouraged
Kavanaugh sideyard
Beechwood front yard discouraged
maximum 504 impermeable surface
The Commission asked several questions about sign and parkingsections.Mr.Lawson indicated that the draft is an attempt to
respond to neighborhood and owner concerns that business is avoidingHillcrestbecauseoftheneedtogetBoardofAdjustmentrelief.The
neighborhood,owners and City want a viable area.The overlay concept
was not conceived to create an overlay which will be reused
everywhere,but rather to look at each area and encourage the unique
character of that area.
There was discussion about a parking garage and the balance between
more commercial,and damage to surrounding residential.At this point
Mr.Newman continued his review.
Licihting:Included at the suggestion of Harvest Foods
(discussion of the light height,type,etc.)
SECTION E:Residential:Allowed by right on second floor.
Frank Whitbeck,property owner,indicated his family has been involved
in Hillcrest for over 50 years.He discussed his efforts to keep the
post office in the area.The businesses and owners hope to attract
customers from the neighborhood and through the City.Originally he
was excited about the proposal to help revitalize the area,but more
residential owners than commercial owners worked on the plan.He
requested a delay to further study the draft.A six month delay was
recommended by Mr.Whitbeck.He stated that the proposal should not
make healthy businesses unhealthy.The final document should be good
2
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A CONT.
for everyone and encourage new businesses.The current draft is too
restrictive and burdensome.Major concerns are with signage and
parking.Mr.Whitbeck stated he would try to be reasonable and find
a good middle ground.
Mr.Richard Boles,owner of Kazuko,stated he enjoyed traffic from
all areas.His structure is approximately 9,000 sq.ft.and was an
early suburban center attempt.Mr.Boles expressed concerns about
putting restrictions on parking and the affect that it often has on
businesses.
Mr.Robert Friedl,owner of Hillcrest Square,stated that his
20 businesses had only three spaces with an additional 40 rented.
While the parking needs to be relaxed,some parking must be provided.
Mr.Friedl expressed concern about the height limit on parking lot
lighting.He requested more time to review the ordinance.
There was discussion about deferral and the parking related issues,
lighting,location and amount.Mr.Whitbeck indicated the parking
issues and signage were the major issues needing discussion.The
P.U.D.section was mentioned as a way to get larger projects in the
area or address other issues.
Mr.Tom Johnson,President HRA,stated that the City needed to
recognized that Kavanaugh is not Highway 10 or Rodney Parham and
should have different regulations.He stated that some balance must
be found for the parking question between neighborhood and business
concerns.The HRA has no problem with a deferral to allow for more
discussion on the issues.However signage requirements are
appropriate to the area in the opinion of the association.In
addition,Mr.Johnson asked if the frontyard parking on Beechwood
could not be restricted.
There was more discussion about the meeting process and parking issues
(where,when and how).The Commission stated that parking options
needed to be explored.
Commissioner Leek made a motion to defer the issue until June 4th.By
a vote of 8 for 0 against 3 absent (Riddick,Wells,Walker)the motion
was approved.
STAFF UPDATE:(JUNE 4,1991)
After meeting with a group of commercial property owners,some minor
changes are recommended in the lighting section (drop reference to
high pressure sodium light)and leasable area (include verbiage from
zoning ordinance allowing one business to be 10,000 square feet).
3
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A CONT.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JUNE 4,1991)
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reported that the Staff had met with
property and business owners in the Hillcrest commercial area,and
that several concerns were raised.The concerns were that the
proposed overlay would not alleviate the lack of parking space in the
area.He informed the Commission that the Hillcrest Merchants,
Businessowners and Neighborhood Association had been formed to further
study the issue of parking.Frank Whitbeck,representing that
organization,asked the Commission for a six month deferral on the
overlay to allow for further study.Tom Johnson,President of the
Hillcrest Residents Association,informed the Commission that his
organization would be working with the Merchants,Business Owners and
Neighborhood Association to arrive at a compromise.After discussion
a motion was made to defer the issue to a maximum of six months.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 abstention,and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:(NOVEMBER 19,1991)
It is Staff's understanding that the Hillcrest Commercial Group has
met to review the proposed ordinance.To date Staff has not met with
any groups about the overlay ordinance nor discussed any proposals.
Since the Hillcrest organizations have not met with Staff to propose a
new ordinance,no ordinance or changes.Staff is bringing the
Commission the same draft as presented on June 4.
STAFF REPORT:(NOVEMBER 19,1991)
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,stated that Mr.Whitbeck,representing
the businesses in Hillcrest,and the HRA have asked for a deferral to
work out an alternative to the Overlay Ordinance.While staff does
not wish to indefinitely defer this issue,a one month deferral is
recommended.By unanimous voice vote the Commission deferred the
issue to December 17.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (DECEMBER 17,1991)
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,informed the Planning Commission that
the deferred Hillcrest Design Overlay District ordinance was being
brought back to the Commission for action.The original deferral
was to allow the Hillcrest Residents Association and the Hillcrest
Merchants,Business Owners and Neighborhoods Association the
opportunity to have input into the proposed overlay.After a brief
review of the case,Mr.Newman stated that he had not had a response
from the above groups and was bringing the ordinance back to the
Commission as it was originally drafted.
4
February ll,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A CONT.
After discussion,the Commission instructed Mr.Newman to schedule
a hearing,with representatives of both groups present,for the
purpose of discussing the issue.A motion was made to defer the
item to a subsequent hearing,the latest being the Plans Hearing on
February ll,1992.The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY ll,1992)
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reviewed the process used to develop the
Ordinance.The process was initiated by the Hillcrest Residents
Association (HRA)as part of a package of items for the area.In the
commercial area concerns about using suburban standards in an urban
area,setback,parking requirements,existing use and signage were all
reviewed.Several meetings were held with residents and property
owners.During April of 1991,a formal presentation was made to the
Commission and at the request of the commercial businesses a six month
deferral was approved.In the intervening time,no real comments were
made;however,there were meetings with Mr.Tom Johnson of HRA and
Frank Whitbeck of Commercial Merchants Association.Staff recommends
that the ordinance be dispensed with today,one way or another.
Mr.Newman next reviewed the intent and design standard sections.
Commissioner Chachere asked what staff expected to see if the
ordinance was defeated or withdrawn.Mr.Newman stated to continued
parking variance requests and Mr.Wood,Manager of Subdivision and
Zoning,added bulk and area issues —setbacks,etc.
Tom Johnson,President of HRA,agreed that HRA had started the process
along with several other issues.The residents believed that the
commercial area is important to Hillcrest's continued health,and they
were hoping to solve the areas problems (congestion,parking and
lighting).In recent months,the opinion has developed that the once
preferred 504 reduction of parking requirements could compound the
problems.While there is a lot of good in the overlay,at this point
no good solutions are available.HRA's position is to relook at the
area in depth —as an urban design problem developing a comprehensive
plan.While the HRA wants to eliminate the continuous applications
for variances;currently a table or deferral vote is requested
(withdrawal).
Commissioner Diane Chachere asked what problems still needed to be
reviewed.Mr.Johnson stated the parking issue and encouraging small
shops.Commissioner Chachere asked what alternatives had been looked
at during the six month deferral,questioning whether there had been
any proposals.Mr.Johnson responded by saying there was a need for
an outside planner to look at it,and to show where to pick up the
needed parking.Commissioner Chachere asked who would pay for the
consultant.Mr.Johnson stated there were discussions with staff and
a search for money.Commissioner Chachere asked if something new
would be reviewed.Mr.Johnson stated the same issues would be
5
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A CONT.
reviewed,but urban design issues would be added.There is a need for
a development plan.Commissioner Chachere asked staff what public
input had been received.Mr.Newman responded by saying input was
received for the surrounding area and owners;however,staff had not
looked at where a parking lot could be located.
Commissioner Brad Walker noted that six parking spaces had been lost
due to the traffic departments remarking of the street.
Chairman McDaniel agreed that Hillcrest has an unique character,but
the same problems noted do occur in other commercial areas.Chairman
McDaniel stated that there is no way to manufacture a solution for the
parking problem,and an outside consultant is not going to know more
about the area.
Commissioner Ron Wood stated a consultant would not have to be from
out-of-state.Commissioner Wood explained by saying an urban design
consultant is trained to look at problems that staff is not.
Frank Whitbeck,representing Commercial,Business and Neighborhood
Association spoke to the Commission.His organization,though dormant
a year ago,dates back to the 1950's.Mr.Whitbeck wished to note
that only property owners and HRA members were contacted,no
commercial renters ~He went on to say good had come out of the
process,the business people have organized,and opinions and issues
have come out.He noted the current ordinances do allow new
businesses into the area.His organization wishes to work together
to develop a plan,but this is not the plan.A comprehensive plan
is needed because there are no buffers in the area,a plan for buffers
is needed.There is no plans for traffic issues.In response to a
question,Mr.Whitbeck stated that new construction is not to code
and there has not been consistency in applying regulation throughout
the area.
Chairman McDaniel stated Hillcrest has an image and questioned how one
would design regulations to fit the image.
Mr.Johnson,HRA,stated a design plan is needed.The product would
be a site plan for the area (commercial and surrounding residential).
Issues such as parking,lighting,sidewalks,etc.must be addressed.
He indicated that there would have to be some zoning changes such as
those addressed in the ordinance.
Commissioner Jerilyn Nicholson stated there was design in the overlay.
Her concern from the beginning had been the amount of staff's time
devoted to one neighborhood.Mr.Johnson stated the process has
helped define the problems.With the comprehensive plan as a guide,
he hopes an improvement district could be formed to address the
issues.
Commissioner Walker noted the zoning was only the minimum and that in
Little Rock at least urban design was not mandated.He encouraged the
parties to move forward without public sector funding.
6
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A CONT.
After some discussion,both Mr.Whitbeck and Mr.Johnson agreed that
they preferred withdrawal without prejudice.Commissioner Walker made
a motion to that effect.
Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,stated it was nice both groups weretogether.In order that the issue not disappear,a timeframe isneeded.Mr.Johnson stated that 12 to 18 months would be long enough.
Ms.Bell agreed that a non-city employee's review was a good idea,butthereshouldbestaffinvolvement.
The question was called.By a vote of 9 for,1 against
(Diane Chachere)the ordinance was withdrawn without prejudice.
7
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1
TITLE:Amendment Otter Creek Land Use Plan
~RE VEST:Change from Mixed Residential to Commercial,
Single Family and Open Space
LOCATION:North of Mabelvale and South of Pine Dale
Subdivision
APPLICANT:Staff/Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT:
The property owner requested that his property be zoned
commercial,since the City created a major traffic intersection
in front of the subject property.At the location,two
arterials intersect (Mabelvale West/Mabelvale Pike with Main
Street/Mabelvale).The site is vacant and much of the
surrounding area,while predominantly residential has a mix of
uses.There is an existing (new)single family subdivision to
the north of the subject property with a low area between
(prone to flooding).Some of this "low"area has been dedicated
to the City for park land.Therefore,the low area between
the subdivision and Mabelvale West is to be shown for Park/Open
Space.This includes some of the ownership originally requested
for commercial.In order to highlight the City's desire to
protect the existing single family,a change from Mix Residential
to Single Family is proposed.This area of single family is on
the south side of Sibley Hole Road to the open space area.The
existing multifamily to the east of the new commercial area is
proposed to be shown as (MF)multifamily.
Less than a mile to the north is an industrial/commercial mix
area.Thus any new commercial area must not be allowed to expand
to the point it results in the loss of the residential area.The
plan amendment shows Commercial north of Mabelvale West with open
space to the north and an open space buffer of 50 feet to the
east and west.This change will make the land use plan reflect
the spirit of the agreed to zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval
1
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 CONT.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 11,1992)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff,reviewed the plan changes.
Commissioner Walker asked if the South Loop impacted the area.
Mr.Malone stated the South Loop was to the west and a connection
would do on the west side of the creek.
There were no further questions.Commissioner Nicholson moved
that the amendment be approved.By unanimous vote (10,0)the
amended was approved.
2
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:2
SUBJECT:1992 Annual Ordinance Amendments
STAFF REPORT:
The Plans Committee of the Planning Commission has begun the
annual work program established for purposes of providing an
ongoing review of land development codes.The Committee offers
the 1992 revisions list for the Commission's review and
endorsement.It is hoped that this will be accomplished at this
meeting in order to expedite the process.
There are twenty-six areas of modification included in this
package which is a comfortable number for the process now used.
Typically,the Committee will eliminate one or more of these or
suggest deferral until a later time.However,in accordance with
the Walker resolution no new matters will be added to the list
after the Commission's endorsement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 11,1992)
Richard Wood of the Planning staff presented the ordinance
amendment package as developed by staff and the Plans Committee.
He identified twenty-seven areas of involvement for commission
review for this calendar year.Wood indicated that at least two
items have been added to the package by the Committee at the
suggestion of persons on the contact list receiving the first
mailing.Wood outlined the process for this year which will be
the same as 1990 and 1991.There will be three basic packages of
material to be presented to the Commission during this year with
the conclusion of the project,approximately November 15.
A general discussion then followed which included comments on the
items in the package as well as the procedure.This discussion
was followed by a motion to accept the list of items for 1992 as
offered by the Plans Committee.The motion passed unanimously.
1
February 11,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:3 OTHER MATTERS
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
SUBJECT:Bylaw Amendment offered by staff
at the January 28,1992 Planning
Commission meeting.
REIEUEST:Temporary authorization to reduce
the size of the rezoning sign
(large 4 feet X 4 feet)to a
dimension of 2 feet x 4 feet for
a period of one year.
STAFF REPORT:
This request is a necessary action by staff due to reduced funds
for signs in the budget for 1992.Staff will make every effort
to ensure that proper posting is accomplished and that funds are
available in 1993.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 11,1992)
The Commission received the report and bylaw amendment from staff
on the provision of smaller signs for rezoning applications.The
staff proposed a one year maximum period for use of smaller size
signs in the absence of adequate funding.Every effort will be
made to return the 4 foot X 4 foot sign to use as early as
possible.
A motion was made to approve the temporary bylaw modification and
approve the resolution as presented.The motion passed by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION PROVIDING FOR A MODIFICATION OF
THE SIGN POSTING STANDARDS WITHIN BYLAW
ARTICLE IV,SECTION A.4.B.(6)
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has set forth BylawProvisionsrequiringtheerectionoflargenoticesigns;and,
WHEREAS,the Staff of the Planning Commission has
determined that there are budgetary constraints to providing thesignsatfourbyfourfeet;and,
WHEREAS,Staff feels that a sign with less surface areawillsufficeuntilsuchtimeasadditionalfundsareavailable.
NOW I THEREFORE E BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANN ING COMMI SSION
OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
That Article IV,Section A.4.b.(6)be set aside for a periodofoneyear,with respect to Provision No.3.
That Staff be authorized to acquire signs two feet by fourfeetandofthesamestyleandlettering;and,
That Staff be directed to produce the rezoning logo at thelargestpossiblescale.
That Staff report to the Planning Commission in one calendaryear,not later than February 1,1993 on the status of the s'gns.
ADOPTED:fvhrvar 11 VZ APPROVED:
Ch 'r an,John cDaniel
ATTEST
ec e y,Jim Lawson
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
V
O
T
E
R
E
C
O
R
D
D
A
T
E
0
2
—
-
9
2
~
~
u
l
a
w
o
y
e
r
&
4
a
M
E
M
B
E
R
A
1
Z
3
B
A
L
L
,
R
A
M
S
E
Y
C
H
A
C
H
E
R
E
,
D
I
A
N
E
W
I
L
L
I
S
,
E
M
M
E
T
T
p
M
C
D
A
N
I
E
L
,
J
O
H
N
N
I
C
H
O
L
S
O
N
,
J
E
R
I
L
Y
N
O
L
E
S
O
N
,
K
A
T
H
L
E
E
N
V
O
N
T
U
N
G
E
L
N
,
J
I
M
P
U
T
N
A
M
,
B
I
L
L
A
W
O
O
D
S
,
R
O
N
A
L
D
S
E
L
Z
,
J
O
E
H
.
W
A
L
K
E
R
,
B
R
A
D
T
I
M
E
I
N
A
N
D
T
I
M
E
O
U
T
B
A
L
L
,
R
A
M
S
E
Y
C
H
A
C
H
E
R
E
,
D
I
A
N
E
W
I
L
L
I
S
,
E
M
M
E
T
T
M
C
D
A
N
I
E
L
,
J
O
H
N
N
I
C
H
O
L
S
O
N
,
J
E
R
I
L
Y
N
O
L
E
S
O
N
,
K
A
T
H
L
E
E
N
V
O
N
T
U
N
G
E
L
N
,
J
I
M
P
U
T
N
A
M
,
B
I
L
L
W
O
O
D
S
,
R
O
N
A
L
D
S
E
L
Z
,
J
O
E
H
.
W
A
L
K
E
R
,
B
R
A
D
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
~
~
0
P
.
M
.
A
Y
E
N
A
Y
E
A
B
S
E
N
T
A
B
S
T
A
I
N
February 11,1992
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Date:
C
airman c e y