pc_03 24 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
MINUTES
MARCH 24,1992
12:30 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine in number.
II.Approval of the February 11,1992
III.Members Present:Brad Walker
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen Oleson
Diane ChachereBillPutnam
Jim VonTungeln
Joe H.Selz
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Ronald Woods
Members Absent:John McDaniel
Ramsay Ball
City Attorney:Ernest Sanders
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1
SUBJECT:1992 Annual Ordinance Amendments
STAFF REPORT AND HISTORY
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.
STAFF REPORT AND UPDATE:(MARCH 24,1992)
The Plans Committee has held four work sessions dealing with thefirsteight(8)amendment proposals.The committee and staff
feel confident that the recommended solutions and text changes
will address the needs.
The staff will be prepared to offer an overview of the eight (8)
proposals and answer questions.
1
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
There may be persons present to respond to a mailing of the
materials in this phase.At this writing,we have not received
any comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 24,1992)
The staff presented a brief overview on the first eight (8)items
for the Commission's approval at a later public hearing.The
Commission determined that it would be appropriate for staff to
present the information on each of the items in order to inform
members of the Commission which are not members of the committee.
Richard Wood,a member of staff,presented the first item—
Item A —which dealt with Family Care Facility and Special Use
Permits.Wood offered a brief history on some types of locations
and issues which prompted the need to deal with this subject.He
then discussed the specifics on several pages of text offered by
the committee.The proposal consists of a new definition to
eliminate certain use language and language of a regulatory
nature,thereby leaving the definition broader in scope.The
current definition is very narrowly drawn.
The changes to various districts involved site location in a
manner which requires a Special Use Permit for these activities
in all of the residential zones.It also offers them as uses by
right in the O-l and 0-3 office districts.
Wood went on to explain,"There were several pages numbered
1-4 through 1-7 dealing with the "group home"element of this
ordinance amendment.Basically,the proposed changes are the
same structure as the "family care facility",and all of the
locations in R-1 through the R-5 multifamily district would be
conditional uses with locations within 0-1 through C-3 by right".
At this point,several questions were raised by a commissioner
concerning the definition of "family care facility"as whether
this definition would include such uses as drug rehab.A lengthy
discussion of the definition followed when staff indicated thatitdidnotbelievethatthisdefinitionallowsmorethana
residential relationship.
A question was then asked about the language contained in the
current ordinance which permits the special use activity to run
with the land and be transferrable.Staff responded by saying
the process involved in the review for special use permit or
2
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
conditional use allows the Commission the option in placing
a use,to either attach or detach the requirement of owner
occupancy running with the land.
Wood stated,"This provision when originally drafted was intended
to provide for "continuity of occupancy",especially in
circumstances where elderly or disabled persons are in a home or
family environment,and the owner occupant perhaps dies or leaves
the scene.It would then permit the use to run with the title to
the next operator in order to provide those persons with a
continuous family relationship.Originally,the emphasis was on
housing for elderly persons or disabled."
Another question was then asked on how we were dealing with suchactivitiesasdrugrehaboralcoholrehabwherepersonsare
receiving counseling and/or treatment.Staff's response was this
proposal would require these activities to be located within the
"group home"definition and be placed within the office and
commercial districts because of being medically related.The
definition and specific listing for "establishment for alcoholic,narcotic",etc.is provided only within the office and commercialdistricts.
A lengthy discussion followed where many persons offered comment
on the relationships between treatment facility,residentialfacility,and other styles of congregate living.There were many
opinions given on the appropriate placement based on the density
and the type of operation and character of activity carried on
within the uses.
One commissioner then pointed out that most of the language which
had been discussed at this point had been in the Ordinance for
many years.The commissioner explained that the language is not
proposed for change,but other language added to it or excluded
to make this proposal work better.
The discussion then changed,again toward the subject of
attaching a restriction not to run with the occupant and not with
the title to the property.There were several comments offeredatthispointwithsomeofthecommissionersindicatingthatthey
had problems with attaching a restriction.
The discussion was expanded into the area of poor management and
what approach will be taken or can be taken in these instances
where a project is poorly operated and impacts the adjacent
neighborhood.There were many opinions given in regard to this
question without specific resolution.Wood stated,"If there is
someone operating an activity beyond the scope of their approval,
they are,of course,in violation of the Ordinance and subject to
enforcement action".
3
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
A commissioner asked why we were making these changes in the
special use permit,and why did we not simply leave it as it was
and deal with the heavier and more involved uses in a different
way.Staff explained,that,if we eliminate them totally from
the special use process in the residential districts and these
kinds of activities,such as Stepping Stone,would be required to
locate on properties classified office or commercial which would
be considerably more expensive.
A question was asked why did we choose the numbers and densities
which are offered in this ordinance proposal.Wood pointed out
that less than the six figure offer for the special use permittiestoafamilyrelationship,and more clearly identifies with
single family occupancy.These activities such as a "group home"
or "group care facility"would be located within districts under
a somewhat different circumstance because they are classified as
more of a boarding or rooming house.Those that house specific
treatment facilities would be required to be in the office or
commercial zone.
The discussion again focused on the subject of a policing problem
with respect to who owned the property and who occupied it and
whether it was appropriate for the City to be regulating whether
the title holder lived on the premises or not.
Wood then stated,"It would be better to look at the original
draft of the ordinance definition and view the language which
determines what we are removing."Wood read through the current
Ordinance provided in the definition section.He stated the
proposal refers to a private residence.The language also deals
with family relationship,furthermore,the proposal removes
language about handicapped or aged persons.
The Chairman of the Plans Committee then indicated to the
Commission that we could speak on this particular subject for
another hour.The Chairman stated that there would not be a
vote taken at this meeting and indicated perhaps in October or
November.She further indicated this was offered to the
Commission for their review and consideration and for developingtheirthoughtsonthissubject.
Wood indicated to the Commission,it might deal with the
concerns offered by several commissioners by establishing within
the special use review a section of standards.These standards
would be structured similar to the currently proposed conditional
use permit requirement.Wood directed the Commission's attention
to the page in the package which provided the various review
standards.The six (6)standards listed deal with spacing,
numbers or types of activities,existing zoning and
accessibility.
4
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
A commissioner then stated that because of the manner in which we
often draft the language,we direct activities to specific
neighborhoods and this was inappropriate.
Wood suggested the type of language included within these review
standards were of a general nature.He went on to say the
purpose is to avoid the kind of firmly structured requirements
which are recommended by various ordinances and studies on thesubject.The intent is to provide the Commission with guidelinesforjudgmentintheplacementofactivitiesinagiven
neighborhood.
A commissioner then stated it would be her preference that we
include the same kind of standards within the "family carefacility"review.process as provided for conditional use.This
was based on her feeling that the definition worked,but it
appears that the Plans Committee needed further review and
discussion.
The question was then asked from a person in the audience.The
question was whether or not neighborhood people in the area of
some of these existing uses had received notice of this material
about this meeting.Wood responded by saying,"No one had
received notice based on this proposal.However,there were a
number of persons which were included in the general mailing of
the material as normal contacts."Wood explained that these
persons are neighborhood representatives scattered throughout thecity.The question was then asked about those uses existing in
neighborhoods which are perhaps operating outside the approval
guidelines and causing problems for the neighborhood.Wood
responded by saying these would be treated in the manner of anyotherzoningviolationandnoticegivenforcompliance.
A commissioner then stated that regardless of the language we
include,the State of Arkansas has always held itself above local
regulation with respect to these kinds of activities.He furtherstatedthatinthepasttheStatehadbeengraciousinmany
instances and sought compliance with local regulation.Perhaps,
the best run operation of this nature is going to be those which
are charitable in nature,and not owner occupied.He felt that
making it an owner occupied relationship might make it more
quaint,but maybe a negative stroke to the professionally runfacility.
Wood pointed out to the Commission the main purpose of this
meeting was to discuss the matters presented in the first package
and hear the committee's recommendations on solutions.He
further stated that if the commissioners had problems with any of
the solutions offered;they could feed their comments back to the
Plans Committee for further review.Wood stated the second
5
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
package of amendments may be reduced in number because of the
Sign Ordinance problems dealing with billboards,and would allow
more time to discuss the issues from the first package.
Wood then explained the second element of Item A,which is the
"group home facility".He indicated the language and structure
are much the same,except the development standards for
commission review.
Wood then spoke on the next item of the agenda —Item B,page 2.
He offered a general overview of the proposal and why we were
dealing with this item again this year.There was a general
discussion involving several commissioners on the four year
amortization for compliance on screening.The discussion moved
toward the area of whether an owner would be allowed to expand an
automobile salvage yard beyond the current boundary after the
four years.Wood pointed out that staff had performed studies of
the various use areas and had targeted specifically the land
coverage by acreage and other factors of the several existing
uses.Staff's activity in this area was done as an enforcement
tool to develop a photographic and written record on which to
base our actions in four years.The question was asked;how a
person would expand their nonconforming salvage yards at some
future point?Staff responded by saying they would have to
rezone the property.
The next item on the list —Item C,page 3
Office/Showroom/Warehouse.Wood stated the reason for the
modification was because of a need by a recent developer,for
location in C-3.The change entails a definition modification to
allow for retail in C-3 only,retaining the current conditional
use status within 0-3.
The next item Item D,page 4 —dealt with a "synonymous"
relationship between building and structure.Wood offered a
general overview of the problem and stated the solution offered
by the committee.He stated,"A list of exempted structures
would be placed in the Ordinance,and permitted by right on
properties in most districts.The list was offered by the Board
of Adjustment to resolve a recent problem with playground
equipment in a front yard area.A question was asked by a
commissioner concerning whether this amendment would modify or
change the regulations dealing with fences in any way.Wood
responded by saying,"No,because fences were regulated by the
Building Code."He further clarified that statement by sayingthisisachangeinthedefinitionofstructureandbuilding.It
does not change any of the regulatory language.
6
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
Wood then moved to the next item —Item E,page 5 —dealing withdisabilityrampsandstaff's review.He offered a brief history
and indicated that this amendment would allow the city to deal
with the Americans with Disability Act and provisions for
wheelchair ramps in yard setback areas.
The next item —Item F,page 6 —Planned Unit Development
approval conflict.He offered a brief review for this amendment
and the potential conflict and problem associated with the
phrasing of "Short-form Planned Unit Development".He indicated
the main problem was that a person with a phased project would be
penalized.The applicant would have to return each year for the
three year approval period for a reinstatement of the plan.A
commissioner then asked what the objective was in phasing out of
PUDis.
The commissioner expanded on his comment to say,"What is the
objective and the limitation of time,simply because someone does
not complete their project.To explain,in other words,why is
there not a commitment to the zoning relationship on the land."
Wood responded that the original drafting agents for the
Ordinance felt the PUD was a commitment to the community.He
explained that it was an arrangement to receive special
consideration not normally granted through rezoning.Projects
should have a termination date,if the agreement was not
consummated.He further stated the original PUD Ordinance
provided all PUD's be terminated at the end of one year if no
construction activity had occurred or if an extension were not
granted by the Board of Directors.
Wood explained that over years it has become apparent to bothstaffandthedevelopmentcommunity,especially the real estate
marketing people,that one year was not working.Therefore,some
type of extension was needed to assure an investor when
purchasing property.
A commissioner pointed out when a person approaches the city for
C-3 zoning on a piece of property for a convenience store,and
does not construct the facility;they retain their C-3 zoning
even though they have not constructed anything.Wood stated the
time constraint is a bookkeeping issue more than anything else.
According to the City Attorney's instruction,a PUD is not an
active zoning classification on the records and is not to be
posted until something is accomplished in the way of a final planorplatoractualconstruction.A lengthy discussion followed
and staff pointed out the procedures for the phasing of planned
unit developments.There were several comments made concerning
the benefit to the community from the developer having some
commitment to a zoning.
7
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
A commissioner pointed out that in some instances where a PUD had
not been utilized the zoning underlying was,in fact,heavier
than the PUD proposal.
Wood then moved to the next item —Item G,page 7 —site plan
review.He presented an overview and a typical situation which
creates the need to deal with this subject.Such a situation
would be the submittal of general plans on rezoning of a site
plan district.These plans could be subsequently viewed as some
type of commitment.The ordinance amendment proposed by the
committee is one which states "if you present a plan or
information to the Commission upon the filing of a site plan
review application,then that plan or material must conform to
the submittal standards set forth in the site plan review section
of the Ordinance".
Wood then moved to the next and last item in the amendment
package —Item H,page 8 —dealing with structural tie.Wood
presented the definition as an attempt to avoid the constant
interpretation of the ordinance as to whether a particular
construction created one building out of two.Wood explained
several circumstances.The most prevalent example was when a
property owner desired to have a covered sidewalk or breezeway
between a garage or accessory building at his principal
residence.In the past,we have operated under the Building Code
direction which says "if the tie is on a common foundation or
under a common roof,then it is a structural tie".This is very
hard to determine and we would rather not be in a position of
having to make judgments in this area.
Wood explained the end product of this effort would be to allow a
person to have a garage and make a weather cover between the
house and garage for access purposes.This would be allowed
while at the same time,the garage encroaches into the required
rear yard setback.If a structural tie is determined to exist,
the garage becomes part of the principal structure and must meet
the rear yard setback.Therefore,we have a Board of Adjustment
variance to deal with.
A question was posed as to how this would apply in a commercial
circumstance for development of commercial properties.Wood
explained it would apply much the same way,except most buildings
on a commercial site are,in fact,a separate use.One good
example would be a car wash on the same property with a service
station.A commissioner expressed concern about the relationship
between a car wash and a service station.The commissioner
stated that when someone proposes to install a canopy,they often
do it to avoid the multiple structure relationship.Wood stated
that this ordinance allows for this type of physical tie withoutitbeingconsideredastructuraltie.Therefore,there wouldstillbetwoprincipalbuildingsortwoseparatebuildingson the
8
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.
lot for a commercial property.Several examples of the multiple
structure commercial sites with ties were discussed with no
specific resolution.Commercial sites have many and varied forms
of development ranging from gas pumps and canopies to car washes.
There are many ways to approach developments of this type,either
PUD's site plan review,Board of Adjustment or even some staff
administrative approvals.
A lengthy discussion then followed concerning car washes and
their locational problems on sites zoned C-3 versus C-4.Also,
whether or not it was desirable to have heated and cooled spaces
between car washes and other commercial buildings on the samesitetoavoidsiteplanreview.The Commission determined that
their discussion of car washes was outside the scope of this
ordinance amendment and decided to move on.
The result of all of the foregoing discussion by the commission
and staff is that the committee will return to its work sessions
and continue to work on the second package of the ordinance
proposals and expand its efforts with regard to the subject of
"group care facilities"and "family care facilities".
9
March 24,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:2
STAFF UPDATE:
The Planning staff update of various "ongoing"projects.Ron
Newman,Planning Manager,will give status reports on several
projects including 12th Street and Chenal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 24,1992)
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,updated the Commission on the
Chenal Overlay project.Staff has been meeting with the Parkway
Improvement District Board to try and reach some agreements.A
general meeting of the owners will be held soon.Highlight of
areas of agreements and/or disagreements:There shall be a
constant 25 foot landscaped area (front);consistent signage
(areas still talking);minimum parcel size still must be
resolved;curb cuts a 300 foot spacing;request for expanded
notice —to all property owners along Chenal.
Walter Malone,Planning Staff,updated the Commission on the
12th Street Study.Mr.Malone informed the Commission of the
meeting held to date —to received input and suggestions.The
boundaries of the study area as well as some possible elements
to be included were reviewed.
1
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
GQ
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
(N
w
c
g
Z
4'
5
3
2
Qg
c
)
u
l
ar
ag
8
A
~
B
ME
M
B
E
R
z
BA
L
L
,
RA
M
S
E
Y
CH
A
C
H
E
R
E
,
DI
A
N
E
WI
L
L
I
S
,
EM
M
E
T
T
MC
D
A
N
I
E
L
,
JO
H
N
NI
C
H
O
L
S
O
N
,
JE
R
I
L
Y
N
OL
E
S
O
N
,
KA
T
H
L
E
E
N
VO
N
T
U
N
G
E
L
N
,
JI
M
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
WO
O
D
S
,
RO
N
A
L
D
SE
L
Z
,
JO
E
H.
WA
L
K
E
R
,
BR
A
D
TI
M
E
IN
AN
D
TI
M
E
OU
T
BA
L
L
,
RA
M
S
E
Y
CH
A
C
H
E
R
E
,
DI
A
N
E
WI
L
L
I
S
,
EM
M
E
T
T
MC
D
A
N
I
E
L
,
JO
H
N
NI
C
H
O
L
S
O
N
,
JE
R
I
L
Y
N
OL
E
S
O
N
,
KA
T
H
L
E
E
N
VO
N
T
U
N
G
E
L
N
,
JI
M
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
WO
O
D
S
,
RO
N
A
L
D
SE
L
Z
,
JO
E
H.
WA
L
K
E
R
,
BR
A
D
AY
E
'A
Y
E
A
AB
S
E
N
T
~A
+
AB
S
T
A
I
N
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
Z
ZP
-
P.
M
.
March 24,1992
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Date:
rman e eta