Loading...
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