pc_07 28 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
MINUTES
JULY 28,1992
12:30 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten in number.
II.Approval of the June 16,1992
III.Members Present:John McDaniel
Brad Walker
Jerilyn NicholsonBillPutnam
Jim VonTungeln
Joe H.Selz
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Ronald Woods
Ramsay Ball
Diane Chachere
Members Absent:Kathleen Oleson
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
July 28,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
~RE VEST:To amend the Chenal Plan.
LOCATION:Chenal Valley —North slope
SOURCE:White-Daters (Deltic Farm and
Timber)
STAFF REPORT:
White-Daters as agent for Deltic Farm and Timber presented staff
with a proposed street and land use plan amendment for their
ownership in Chenal Valley,and requested approval of the plan.
After initial review,staff requested information as to the
specific changes and reasons for said changes.Additional
information was requested regarding the intersection of a
proposed collector with Highway 10.As of this report,the
information has not been provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends deferral until July 14 or 28 so that Deltic Farm
and Timber may provide additional information.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 30,1992 )
Staff reported to the Commmission that this item required
deferral in order to provide sufficient time for staff and the
applicant to work through the various changes proposed for the
Master Street Plan,the zoning and the land use plan.After a
brief discussion,the Commission voted a motion to defer this
item until July 28,1992.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and
2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:(JULY 28,1992)
Staff has met with the applicant,and in general supports the
request.The proposal to move an arterial further to the north
along Chenal Parkway appears reasonable (should have better site
lines and work better with the existing topography).As a result
of the arterial change and due to the rough terrain,several
collectors will be removed from the plan.Traffic Engineering is
in agreement with the requested changes.
1
July 28,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1 Continued LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
The land use changes involve removing the commercial,office and
multifamily uses north of Chenal Parkway at the original
intersection with the proposed arterial.Since the arterial will
be moved,there is no justification for the higher intensity of
uses.At the new intersection,a small amount of neighborhood
commercial is shown and would be appropriate.
The proposed change from public use to open space as the south
side of Taylor Loop West Extension is an improvement.The slope
is rather sever and should not be developed.
The expansion of commercial and office uses on Highway 10 is an
attempt by the property owner to balance the last of commercial
and office uses,discussed previously.There are several
unresolved issues:The exact intersection with Highway 101 and
the amount of commercial on surrounding properties.At the time
of the original "north slope"zonings,there was disagreement
between the property owners.Until this can be resolved,no
actions should be taken.
The last proposed change involves doubling the commercial on the
southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Highway 10.There are
some concerns about the expansion;however,a major utility
right-of-way could be used as a dividing line between commercial
and noncommercial uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In order not to create a "Spot Zone"and since further meetings
with adjacent property owners are needed.Staff recommends
deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(July 28,1992)
Staff reported to the Commission that concerns of the staff
regarding changes proposed for the Master Street Plan,the zoning
and the land use plan had not been resolved.After a brief
discussion,the Commission voted a motion to defer this item
until August 11,1992.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1
absent.
2
July 28,1992
ITEM NO.:2 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
~RE VEST:To amend the Geyer Springs
West Plan.
LOCATION:Southwest Corner of Dailey Road andBaselineRoad
SOURCE:City Board of Directors
STAFF REPORT
During a Board of Directors review of a recent zoning case,several directors became concerned that an area of commercial onBaselineRoadwasshownsurroundedbyofficeonthelanduseplan.The Board suggested that Baseline at Dailey Drive shouldbeshownasoffice.
The plan currently shows commercial to reflect an existing
Planned Commercial Development.The PCD,however,has expired.In order to make the land use plan consistent and to assure thatBaselineRoaddoesnotdevelopasstripcommercial,the planshouldbeamendedtofromcommercialtoofficeatthislocation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 28,1992)
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reported to the Commission that the
proposed plan amendment was requested by the Board of DirectorsasaresultofsomerecentzoningactivityintheBaselineRoadarea.There was a general discussion regarding notification ofthepropertyownerandtheprocedureusedtopresenttheplan
amendment.Mr.Newman explained that proper legal notices were
run in the newspaper and the owner of the property was present attheBoardofDirector's meeting when the issue was discussed.After further discussion,a motion was made to approve the plan
amendment.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1absent.
1
July 28,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:3
SUBJECT:1992 Annual Ordinance Amendments
Package 2
STAFF REPORT:
Package 2 of amendments consists of six (6)items.These are
procedural and/or technical.They were added to the review by
Planning staff,except one by direction of the Commission.
These subjects are not controversial and with the exception of
the last item,Board of Adjustment authority.Staff recommends
endorsement and placement on the list for later public hearing
and adoption.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 28,1992)
Richard Wood of Planning staff made a brief opening statement.
He identified a handout provided for the Commission as a guide
for the discussion on the several items on Package 2 of the
ordinance amendments.
Wood pointed out that of the eight items initially listed on the
Package 2 material,one had been removed at the recommendation of
the Plans Committee.That item had to deal with the Board of
Adjustment and its power and duties relative to interpretation.
The committee and staff discussed this item at length.It was
determined that rather than attempt to write language which will
be very difficult,it would more appropriate to have the Planningstaffbecomemoreinvolvedintheinterpretativeissuesby
providing specific recommendations.In the past,this was not
viewed as a good practice;however,the committee felt that it
would be supportive in nature to the Board of Adjustment and
would assist them in their deliberations.
Wood suggested that he present the several remaining items and
outline each for the Commission as to where we are and what the
committee is suggesting as resolution.The first two items were
identified as being interrelated.The issue is the parking of
commercial vehicles and the means of measuring the vehicles and
their load carrying capacity.He pointed out that the issue was
returned to the Commission for amendment as a result of an
enforcement action whereby City staff located a vehicle that was
not covered by the ordinance language.The particular instance
was a bulldozer owned by an individual.This individual was not
a contractor or businessman,he simply owned the bulldozer and it
was parked in his front yard.
1
July 28,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.
The second element of this amendment deals with developing a
means for determination as to the load carrying capacity of
commercial vehicles.This matter has been dealt with on several
previous occasions,with specific numbers as to carrying capacity
without regard to how you measure that capacity.This ordinance
amendment deals with the design of the chassis,the point on the
vehicle which is the baseline to measure add on or accessory
items to a vehicle.Typically,the factory produced product,has
a carrying capacity and is that above the chassis line.
A commissioner posed a question as to whether this regulation
would affect persons in the area beyond the city limits,with
respect to tractors and such vehicles.Wood responded by sayingthatwhetherinoroutofthecity,the zoning ordinance applies.
He would have to look at the particular circumstance and make a
judgment call as to usage that vehicle,if in fact,the tractorisemployedinanagriculture/forestry relationship such as a
dairy farm,then it would be part of that business whether
conforming or nonconforming.If a tractor mower or such is
employed by a residential occupant on an acreage lot again
whether in the city or extraterritorial,the staff would perhaps
look at that tractor as nothing more than a large mowing device.
Because that would,in fact,be its purpose.It would not be
considered a commercial tractor.The controlling factor forstaffinareviewofthiskindofcircumstancewouldbethe size
of the property involved.
A commissioner then posed a question concerning whether or notthisprovisionwouldapplytocommercialvehiclesemployedin the
construction of a residence.Wood's response was that the owner
of the property would not be the owner of the vehicles engaged inthisactivity.They would simply be attendant items to the
construction of the residence and as such part of the building
permit process.They would,of course,only be there for a short
period of time and then they would leave after their function is
performed.Further discussion of this commissioner's question
resulted in the determination that this type of activity wouldfallinthediscretionaryenforcementarea,much like the yardtractordiscussedearlier.
Wood then moved the discussion to the next item which deals with
home occupations,health spas and medical facilities.He
provided some background for this ordinance amendment.That
background being primarily a Board of Adjustment case and the
history of a specific home occupation.The modification proposedfortheordinanceisbroaderinnaturethansimplyidentifying
massage therapy.It does include other medical activities.Wood
pointed out that the current ordinance structure provides for thespecificlanguageastowhatusesarepermittedandwhatusesare
prohibited within the home occupation definition.
2
July 28,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.
A brief discussion of the proposal followed wherein a
commissioner posed a question as to whether this is over kill and
over reaction to a single circumstance.At this point,there
appeared to be some confusion as what the home occupation
ordinance included as for as guidelines.Wood read the basic
structuring of the ordinance provisions from the Code of
Ordinances.He outlined the list permitted the list prohibited
and the criteria for siting for uses that are permitted.He then
moved on to indicate that there is a review process for uses
which are not listed in any manner that being the Planning staff,
with appeal to the Board of Adjustment.The particular issue of
therapeutic massage that was involved was denied by the staff
because we felt that the activity and its intensity was not of a
nature appropriate to the middle of a single family neighborhood.
The applicant appealed that denial to the Board of Adjustment
which was the proper procedural route to follow.The Board of
Adjustment overruled staff and set some basic parameters for the
operation of her business,thereby allowing it as a home
occupation.The conversation then became general in nature with
the commissioner offering comments on the restricted nature of
this proposal.The targeting of a single type of land use.
There were comments offered to the effect that this business
activity could be carried on so as long as the person performed
the activity at the client's residence instead of their own
principal residence.
Jim Lawson pointed out that this type of use has been a problem.
This massage therapy business was not only one to have given us
some cause for problems in various parts of the city.The
discussion then moved to the kinds of standards that are applied
to this type of activity and the effects upon neighborhoods.
After additional lengthy discussion on the subject,the
Commission determined to move on to the next item and leave
resolution of this matter until the public hearing in the fall.
Wood then offered the next item on the list of amendments.He
identified this amendment as one dealing with accessory buildings
for commercial uses in the four commercial districts.Several
questions were posed by commissioners as to the application of
this provision to such instances as auto sales with detached
buildings and with display.Wood's response was that in some
instances it may cause the buildings to be attached or we might
decide to define the building as simply other than accessory.
Apparently a showroom could be a second principal use on the same
piece of property.
3
July 28,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.
A question was then posed as to whether or not the commercialdistrictsprovideforamaximumgroundcoverageby
buildings'oodrespondedbysayingwedonot.A brief discussion followedwhereinquestionswereraisedastowhetheritwasappropriatetolimitaccessorytothe304ratioinasmuchasitwasextractedfromresidential.It was pointed out that this is the coverageratiofortherearyardsetback,not the total land area.
The subject of detached canopies and car washes on servicestationswasintroducedwithquestionsconcerningwhether or notitwasappropriatetohavetoattachthesekindofstructuresineveryinstanceandthedifficultyindoingso.A commissionerintroducedtheideaoflimitationsonthetotalamountoflandareathatcouldbecoveredbystructuresoncommercialproperties.He felt that maybe the 40 foot setback asrepresentedinthisproposedregulationistosevere.Staffpointedoutthatweused40feetinthisinstanceforcommercialproperties,but residential requires 60 feet setback foraccessorybuildingsfromfrontpropertylines.
Wood reported that the committee discussed this issue at lengthandthatitisaveryinvolvedtypeofregulatorystructure.This approach was taken rather than get to detailed in how wehandlethissubject.A commissioner pointed out that perhapsappearancesarereallythecontrollingfactorsoncommercialproperties,and that some accessory buildings may be moreattractivethanotherswhetherplacedclosetothestreet or not.
He expanded on his comments to say that perhaps in order to takeadvantageofmorelandareathantheordinancerestrictionsthatperhapsaPCDwillberequired.Staff pointed out that the PCDapproachwasnotthedirectionthattheyweregoing.WoodsuggestedtotheCommissionthattheylookattheproposedparagraphclosely,feed information to the staff and to the PlansCommitteeforfurtherreviewpriortothepublichearing.Woodthenmovedtothenextitemonthelist.
This subject matter dealt with landscaping.Wood reported thatthiswasacontinuationofthePlanningCommission's effortduring1991whereintheordinancewasamendedtoprovidethatexistingdevelopmentsthatarenonconforminginaPUDprocess,must conform to buffering and landscaping.The proposalpresentedinthispackagecontinuesthatlineofregulation
through the several site plan review districts in the office,commercial and industrial.He pointed out that the basicdirectionforthisordinanceamendmentistoassurethat some
4
July 28,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.
level of landscaping is provided on every redevelopment project,
even those that have severe design constraints.The Planning
Commission would have specific authority to make a judgment as to
how much and where to apply the landscaping.Wood pointed outthatthisordinanceprovisionhasabackdoorandthatitdoes not
require specific rigid numbers.The last line of the proposed
paragraph indicates that in no case would any site,be permittedtocontinuetotalnonconforming.
The Commission discussed this proposal briefly and moved on to
the next amendment.Wood then offered an overview of the
proposal to amend the zoning ordinance with respect to
professional versus general offices.He reported this history
begins with Tony Bozynski's notation earlier this year that the
ordinance does not have a specific definition for "professionaloffice".In every instance where general office is listed in adistrict,professional office is also included in the samelisting.The ordinance provides for a definition of "generaloffice",but does not deal with "professional"in any respect.
The proposal here is to avoid a large editing project;thereby
removing the word "professional"from all areas of the zoning
ordinance.The proposal would be to simply add the word"professional"to the definition of "general office";therebytilingallofthelistingsatonepoint.
After a brief discussion of the proposal,the Chairman then moved
the discussion to the last item on the listing which dealt with
the Board of Adjustment and its authority.Wood reported that
the committee had determined it did not want to deal with tryingtomodifytheregulationdealingwiththepowersandauthorityof
the Board of Adjustment.The recommendation of staff and the
committee is that the item be removed from the package.
Wood offered as background a comment that over the last several
years staff has not been offering a specific recommendation on
appeal cases or interpretative issues.This was an attempt on
our part to avoid coloring the issue for the Board of Adjustment.
The Plans Committee felt that perhaps the staff should return to
a staff posture of recommendation.Thereby,providing guidance
and perhaps avoiding the appearance of land use involvement on
the part of the board and steering them in strictly interpreting
the issue at hand.
The Chairman then called this issue to termination and moved to
the next item on the agenda.
5
P
L
A
N
N
l
N
G
C
O
M
M
l
S
S
I
O
N
V
O
T
E
R
E
C
O
R
D
D
A
T
E
3
U
I
~
~
9
~
M
E
M
B
E
R
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
g
-
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
f
~
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
A
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
l
g
,
:
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
A
d
~
o
u
m
e
d
J
~
f
P
.
M
.
W
A
Y
E
~
N
A
Y
E
A
A
B
S
E
N
T
~
~
A
B
S
T
A
I
N
July 28,1992
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 1:29 p.m.
Date:
/
~~-C ir an r