Loading...
pc_09 08 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 8,1992 12:30 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the July 28,1992 meeting. The Minutes were approved as mailed. III.Members Present:Brad Walker,Chairman Emmett Willis,Jr. Jerilyn NicholsonBillPutnam Ramsay Ball Jim VonTungeln Kathleen Oleson Ronald Woods Joe Hirsch Selz Diane Chachere Members Absent:John McDaniel City Attorney:Stephen Giles September 8,1992 ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-5135-B NAME:Horton —Planned Commercial District LOCATION:12,412 Sardis Road DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT: ROGER AND WINSTON HORTON R.M.STEELMAN Horton Printing Company 10411 West Markham 12,412 Sardis Road Suite 220 Mabelvale,AR Little Rock,AR 72205 AREA:3.29 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 PLANNING DISTRICT:31 Shannon Hills CENSUS TRACT:4 1 .04 A.STAFF ANALYSIS: This proposal consist of expansion of the existing building with a 50 feet by 100 feet addition.Another addition is also planned for the future as Phase II.It also will be 50 feet by 100 feet. If approved the PCD will allow the applicant to continue operating his printing business at this location and expand the facility later on.Currently,the printing company is nonconforming C-3 use. This is the third attempt by the applicant to bring the property into some type of conformity.The site is in theOtterCreekdistrictandtheadoptedlanduseplanshowsthe property as single family. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff reserves the right of not making a recommendation until the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 8g 1992) The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectors present. After some discussion,this case was approved with the conditionslistedbelow.The vote was 8 ayes,0 noes,2 abstentions (Selz and Oleson)and 1 absent. A.All parking requirements being met including paving. 1 September 8,1992 ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5135-B B.All landscaping requirements being met including screening. C.Provide a legal survey. D.Use being restricted to a printing business only. E.No outside storage of any kind. 2 September 8,1992 ITEM NO.:B 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 staffwithaproposedstreetandlanduseplanamendmentfortheirownershipinChenalValley,and requested approval of the plan.After initial review,staff requested information as to thespecificchangesandreasonsforsaidchanges.AdditionalinformationwasrequestedregardingtheintersectionofaproposedcollectorwithHighway10.As of this report,theinformationhasnotbeenprovided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral until July 14 or 28 so that Deltic FarmandTimbermayprovideadditionalinformation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 30,1992) Staff reported to the Commission that this item required deferralinordertoprovidesufficienttimeforstaffandtheapplicanttoworkthroughthevariouschangesproposedfortheMasterStreetPlan,the zoning and the land use plan.After a briefdiscussion,the Commission voted a motion to defer this itemuntilJuly28,1992.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 therequest.The proposal to move an arterial further to the northalongChenalParkwayappearsreasonable(should have better sitelinesandworkbetterwiththeexistingtopography).As a resultofthearterialchangeandduetotheroughterrain,severalcollectorswillberemovedfromtheplan.Traffic Engineering isinagreementwiththerequestedchanges. 1 September 8,1992 ITEM NO.:B Continued LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT The land use changes involve removing the commercial,office andmultifamilyusesnorthofChenalParkwayattheoriginalintersectionwiththeproposedarterial.Since the arterial willbemoved,there is no justification for the higher intensity ofuses.At the new intersection,a small amount of neighborhoodcommercialisshownandwouldbeappropriate. The proposed change from public use to open space as the southsideofTaylorLoopWestExtensionisanimprovement.The slopeisratherseverandshouldnotbedeveloped. The expansion of commercial and office uses on Highway 10 is anattemptbythepropertyownertobalancethelastofcommercial and office uses,discussed previously.There are severalunresolvedissues:The exact intersection with Highway 101 andtheamountofcommercialonsurroundingproperties.At the timeoftheoriginal"north slope"zonings,there was disagreementbetweenthepropertyowners.Until this can be resolved,noactionsshouldbetaken. The last proposed change involves doubling the commercial on thesoutheastcornerofChenalParkwayandHighway10.There are some concerns about the expansion;however,a major utilityright-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 meetingswithadjacentpropertyownersareneeded.Staff recommendsdeferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 11,1992) Staff reported to the Commission that the applicant had verballyagreedtorealigntheproposednorth-south collector to alignwiththeentranceofJohnsonRanchattheHighway10intersection.This being the only outstanding issue,staffrequesteddeferraltotheAugust25hearingtoallowtimefor theapplicanttosubmitthechangeinwriting.After a briefdiscussion,the Commission voted to defer this item until August25,1992.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 25,1992) This item was deferred to September 8,1992 Planning Commissionmeeting. 2 September 8,1992 ITEM NO.:B Continued LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 8,1992) Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reminded the Commission that this item had been on several previous agendas.The major issue was the alignment of the north-south arterial.The connection should be close to The Ranch and the developers have identified that the alignment shown was as close as you could get an agreement.The request is to shift commercial from the Parkway to Highway 10. The staff does have a concern about creating a "spot zone"and would prefer for the area to be rezoned (down zoned)at the same time as the plan changes'here was discussion about the existing zoning pattern and how it would be changed. Commissioner Oleson asked if it was correct that staff approvediftheareawasrezoned.Mr.Newman stated it would be better ifitwasalldoneatonce.There was discussion about doing the zoning and legal notice,etc.Commissioner Putnam stated why not wait and do all the zoning at once,both down and up zoning. Joe White,representing Deltic Farm and Timber,stated the problem historically has been the alignment with Johnson Ranch Road.The staff would like alignment and another property owner was involved.The applicant needs the Master Street Plan amended which is tied to the plan changes;however,there is reluctance to down zone without getting the new zoning. There was general discussion about the relocation of the arterial and Master Street Plan.Should the item be held for the rezoningtobefilled.Deltic understands the concern about "spot zoning" and assures the City that the area will be rezoned.Mr.Newman stated that staff supports the land use plan changes and Master Street Plan changes as long as the area is down zoned.The Commission asked if the Master Street Plan alignment could be made contingent to down zoning.Mr.White stated that within a month both the down zoning and up zoning will be filed within a month. A motion was made to approve the land use plan and Master Street Plan contingent on rezoning.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 3 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO ~:1 12TH STREET STUDY TITLE:12th Street Study LOCATION:I-630 to 20th Street and Battery to University REIEUEST:Land Use Plan Amendments and Rezoning,identify needed areas. STAFF REPORT At the request of the Little Rock Board of Directors,the Planning Staff began a review of land use and zoning along 12th Street.While discussing a mid-block commercial rezoning case, various Directors had expressed concerns about the amount of commercial in the area versus the need for additional commercial zoning.In addition,there was a desire to prevent further strip commercial development along 12th Street,east of University, which would over-zone the area.The Directors generally agreed that some action should be taken to improve the area and produce a more appealing neighborhood.The Plans Committee of the Planning Commission,expressed concern about limiting the study to just the 12th Street corridor.The Staff then expanded the study area north to Interstate 630 and south to 22nd Street.The east boundary was set at Battery and the west boundary at University. Staff began a review of existing uses,adopted plans,and existing zoning.The review revealed problems or conflicts between the land use plan,existing land use and zoning.The review was conducted by driving throughout the study area and conducting a windshield survey of land use.The result showed that most of the area consisted of single family homes with some institutions located in those neighborhoods.Those institutions have not proved to be a negative impact.Along 12th Street,a mix of uses was found with office and commercial dominant.In addition,the old "mom and pop"store connected to the home was found in several locations.Some of these businesses are still in use,while others were abandoned. The existing zoning pattern and future land use plans were reviewed and compared against the existing land use pattern.In addition,a housing condition survey was conducted to help identify the areas most in need of rehabilitation or infill housing.These blocks were noted as areas of high housing need. 1 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Continued 12TH STREET STUDY In an attempt to get citizen involvement,presentations were madetotheCentralHighNeighborhoodAssociation,Forest Hills Neighborhood Association and persons from the Stephens area.Staff,in order to get more input,held three "office hours"intheneighborhoodatHooverUnitedMethodistChurch.Comments and concerns were received by staff at these meetings.Staff asked each group to list concerns and needs for their area and the study area as a whole.The neighborhoods were asked to identify zoning problems and street problem areas.They were encouragedtoaddressanyandallareasofconcerns. Staff reviewed the concerns presented by residents and property owners.A series of land use plan changes couple with some zoning changes was determined to be the best way to protect theexistingneighborhoodsandincreasethestrengthofthe plans'nadditionthezoningofCentralHighSchoolshouldbechangedtopredominantlysinglefamilysincethatisthepredominantuse. This zone change also would support the revitalization efforts oftheCity(Paint Program,increased code enforcement and targeted housing funds —Model Block). As for housing issues,the City has a model block in two to sixidentifiedhousingneedareas,four are within the city'revitalization area and two are within the area of a community development corporation.Since efforts are already underway,no new efforts are proposed.However,it should be noted that additional housing assistance,both public and private will be necessary to turn around and stabilize much of the area. The housing issue together with several others will require Board of Directors'olicy and monetary concern to be addressed these include sidewalk and alley maintenance and construction,morestreetlights,neighborhood street improvements and garbage pickups.Other issues of concern to area residents are the future location of Stephens Elementary and traffic circulation/parking at Children's Hospital and Central HighSchool. Recommendations: I.)Amend the City of Little Rock land use plan as follows: 1.Oak Forest District: Overall changes to encourage mix of office and commercial use along 12th Street. 2 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Continued 12TH STREET STUDY Proposed Changes: West of Fair Park Blvd.and North of 10th Street officetomixeduse(existing motel,restaurant,gas station PCD);Northwest corner of Fair Park Blvd.and 12thStreetmixedusetocommercial(Delta Mart and Rally'sdrive-thru);South of 12th Street either side of TaylorStreet.Single family to office (daycare);Southeast corner Jackson and 12th Street single family to office (daycare);North of 12th,Monroe to Madison low density multifamily to public institution (church)Madison to Adams low density multifamily to commercial (various commercial uses)Adams and Washington single family to commercial (various commercial uses)Washington to Elm single family to mixed use (various uses,commercial tosinglefamily—mostly single family);South of 12theithersideofAdamssinglefamilyandcommercialtopublicinstitutional(churches),Peyton to Abigailsinglefamilytomixeduse(predominantly single family)Abigail to Elm single family to publicinstitutional(church). 2.Stephens District: Along 12th Street maintain single family with commercial at major intersections. Proposed Changes: Elm to Oak South of 9th Street multifamily to low density multifamily (mostly single family use);Pine to Cedar north of 9th Street office to publicinstitutionalfornewHealthDepartmentoffice;CedartoOakbetween14thand15thStreetslowdensity multifamily to single family (single family use);either side of Johnson south of 12th single family to public institutional (church);Southwest corner Woodrow and 12th single family to commercial (Chief AutoParts);Southeast corner Booker and 12th Streets single family to low density multifamily (duplexes). II.Rezoning,reduce the intensity of the area as much aspossible.Zone duplex area which are single family tosinglefamily,etc.All commercial zoned areas not shown or used for commercial should to be rezoned. 3 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Continued 12TH STREET STUDY From R-4 (Duplex)to R-3 (Single Family) ILLING'S Subdivision DICKINSON Subdivision Lot 1-3,5-12 Blk 18 Lot 1-12 Blk 19 Lo't 2 10I 12 I 15 I 18 I 20 24 I GREENTAW'S Subdivision Blk 20 Lot 1-12 Blk 21 Lot 1-19 Blk 21 Lot 26-37 Blk 20 Lot 2-19 Blk 33 PARK Addition CENTENNIAL Addition Lot 1-14 Blk 1 Lot 1-7,9-12 Blk 2 Lot 1-3,except Middle 1/3 Lot 1-9,except South 1/3 Lots Blk 107-9 Blk 3 Lot 1-2,4-11 Blk 15 Lot 1-7 Blk 4 Lot 1-11 Blk 16 Lot 1-3,10-12 Blk 6 Lot 10-12 Blk 4 Lot 1-6,East 1/2 Lot 8,W 1/2 Lot 1-11 Blk 17 Lot 9 Blk 7 Lot 1-8,10-12 Blk 18 Lot 1-2,4-14 Blk 8 Lot 1-2,4-11 Blk 25 Lot 1-5,6-8 Blk 12 Lot 1-3,5-7,9-11 Blk 24 Lot 3-12,Blk 13 Lot 1-12 Blk 23 Lo't 1 4 I 6 11 I Blk 14 Lot 1-12 Blk 30 Lot 1-13 Blk 15 Lot 1-11 Blk 31 Lot 1-13 Blk 16 Lot 1-11 Blk 32 Lo't 1 4 I 68I 10 12 I Blk17 Lot 3-19 Blk 33 Lot 1-8 Blk 19 Lot 1-12 Blk 34 Lot 1-9 Blk 20 Lot 1-9,&11 Blk 35 Lo't 15I 10 13 I 16I 1819 Lot 1-11 Blk 36 Blk 22 Lot 1-11 Blk 37 Lot 1-20 Blk 23 Lot 1-11 Blk 38 Lot 1-6 Blk 8 WORTHEN &BROWN'S Addition Lot 1-6 Blk 9 Lot 1,7-12 Blk 1 FULK'S Addition Lot 4-8 Blk 6 Lot 1-12 Blk 13 Lot 1-19 Blk 40 Lot 1-11 Blk 17 Lot 1-17 Blk 41 Lot 1-2,4-18 Blk 18 Lot 21-39 Blk 41 McDONALD &WHEELER Addition PARESH'S Subdivision Lot 1-12 Blk 12 Lot 1-18 Blk 42 Lot 1-14 Blk 13 Lot 20,22-26 Blk 42 Lot 1-18 Blk 43 4 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Continued 12TH STREET STUDY AIKENS Subdivision Lot 1-11 Blk 7 CAPITOL HILL EXTENSION Lot 1-11 Blk 1 Lot 2-12 Blk 2 Lot 1-12 Blk 3 Lot 1-4 Blk 4 Lot 2-4,6-7,10&12 Blk 5 Lot 1-11 Blk 6 Lo't 1 g 3 g 4 6 8 12 Blk 7 Lot 1-5,6-10 Blk 8 Lo't 13'g7g8Blk9 Lot 4,10-12 Blk 10 Lot 1.3.5-10 Blk 11 Lo't 6g8g9g12Blk12 Lot 7 Blk 13 Lot 4-10 Blk 14 Lot 5-7 Blk 15 MARSHALL WOLF Addition Lot 4 Blk 4 Lo't 3 g 5g 9 Blk 5 Lo't 7@ 8@ 10Blk6 Lot 7-12 Blk 7 Lo't 15g7g1012Blk8 Lot 4 Blk 9 Lot 1 Blk 14 Lo't 14g7g1012Blk15 Lo't lg 35'g 10Blk18 Lot 5-6 Blk 19 From C-3 (General Commercial)to R-3 (8ingle Family) CEDAR HEIGHT'S Addition Lot 5-6 Blk 4 NEIMEYERS Addition Lot 2 Blk 9 BRADDOCK'S Addition Lot 9 Blk 16 5 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Continued 12TH STREET STUDY BRADDOCK'S Addition Lot 9 Blk 16 From I-2 (Light Industrial)to R-3 (Single Family) MAYS Addition Lot 10 Blk 2 From C-3 (General Commercial)to 0-3 (General Office) CUNNINGHAMS Addition Lot 1-6 Blk 28 MCDONALD &WHEELER Addition Lot 5 Blk 28 From I-2 (Light Industrial)to C-3 (General Commercial) CUNNINGHAMS Addition Lot 1,3,4 Blk 30 From C-3 (General Commercial)to R-3 (Single Family) BUHULERS TENTH ADDITION Lot 14-17 Blk 9 PINE FOREST Addition Lot 18-22,25,164 &165 PARK Addition Lot 2 &3 Blk 2 Lot 1 Blk 13 Lot 3 Blk 12 III.Housing,six areas have been identified as "high need" areas.Both public and private efforts will have to be used to address each area's unique problems.Three of the areas have been identified for Model Blocks,intensive assistances and/or Community Development Corp.areas.Additional efforts are needed in the study area to protect the existing housing stock and stabilize the area. 6 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Continued 12TH STREET STUDY IV.Other Issues: ~Housing —encourage scattered site public housing;convert Highland Courts to owner occupied units. ~Schools —work to keep Stephens School in its currentlocations;encourage community outreach programs at Central High (night classes). ~Sidewalks —more city involvement with maintenance and new construction. ~Garbage Pickup —concerns about no longer using thealleys.Maintenance of alley and litter on streets (infrontyards). ~Children's Hospital —growth and parking as well astrafficcirculation. ~Street Lights —city streets are dark,the addition ofmid-block lights would improve safety. Deterioration of neighborhood due to liquor stores and pawnshops. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 8 I 1992) Walter Malone,Planner II,reviewed the proposed land use plan changes.There were some questions about why changes were proposed along Fair Park,etc. There was concern expressed by Commissioner Woods and to some degree by Commissioner Chachere about not showing higher uses(office or commercial)along 12th Street,east of Pine and Cedar. Most of the discussion centered on the area between Woodrow andBattery.The concern was that there is some existing commercial not shown and with the high traffic volumes on 12th Street.Thelocalpeopledonotconsiderittobearesidentialstreet.Staff informed the Commission that the City did not want to encourage strip commercial.On plans,staff tried to error onthesideofsinglefamily.Commissioner Oleson added the BoardofDirectorshadaskedforthestudyasawaytopreventstrip commercial along 12th Street.Mr.Alfred Lynch of 2201 West13th,stated that 12th Street has always been a "commercial»street. 7 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 Continued 12TH STREET STUDY There was some discussion about the rezonings and the Chairman, Commissioner Walker,asked if the items (land use and zoning) should be separate or considered together.Staff indicated either would be appropriate;however,Ron Newman would explain the rezoning.After a short discussion,Mr.Newman addressed the Commission. The rezoning effects several hundred parcels.Two separatelettersweremailedtopropertyownersinformingthemofan intent to rezone their property.If the owner did not wish to have the property rezoned,they were asked to contact the City. There were some questions about the way the mailing was done and the number of requests not to be zoned.This was followed by a general discussion about the way the meeting was going and whether to proceed. Several commissioners expressed concern about not knowing what was proposed (partly due to not receiving the packets before the meetings);while other commissioners stated the issue had been generally discussed at two or three meetings over the past six months to a year.Jim Lawson,Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,stated he wanted the Commission to be comfortable and another presentation would be developed.This is a part of anefforttostabilizeandrevitalizeolderneighborhoods.He indicated that the drop list showed the City was making the extraeffort;there should not be displacements since duplexes would not be rezoned.Further,the area does need help,single family units are being demolished at a rate of 35 per month.And there had not been a demand to rezone 12th Street to commercial,due in part to the poor condition of the surrounding neighborhoods. The Commission asked that a drawing be provided which would show the result of the action.Commissioner Selz restated his concern for the letter should have required a positive rather than a negative response. Ms.Ginny Hatch of 2005 West 16th spoke in support of the rezoning.Ms.Hatch stated they,the neighborhood,wanted it back to single family.They do want more houses cut up which encourages drug activity.The neighborhood needs the City' help.(She also repeatedly asked the Commission to visit the neighborhood.) After some discussion,Commissioner Chachere moved that the issue be deferred.By unanimous voice vote the item was deferred until October 20. 8 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:2 TITLE:Suburban Mobility Report LOCATION:Barrow to Bowman,Kanis to River SOURCE:Metroplan —Pulaski Area Transportation Study (PATS) R~EUEST:Review Traffic Demands and recommend changes. STAFF REPORT: Metroplan staff will present some of the study's findings and recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 8,1992) Ron Newman,Planning Manager,informed the Commission that Metroplan,due to recent developments,had asked to defer the briefing to a later date. Commissioner Chachere at the end of the meeting asked for a copy of the executive summary for each commissioner. 1 September 8,1992 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:3 TITLE:Planning Issues LOCATION:Various SOURCE:Staff/Plans Committee STAFF REPORT: Staff will discuss some studies and future work. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 8 g 1992) Since there had been questions about the appropriate location of commercial uses,Ron Newman reviewed the guide used by many planners.That is commercial should be limited to major intersections (arterial-arterial)or in some cases at collector intersections small amounts of commercial to meet neighborhood needs might be appropriate. A question about street classifications was asked.In response, Walter Malone reviewed the classifications and gave an example of each.Both Mr.Newman and Mr.Malone indicated that copies of the Master Street Plan and land use plans were available to anyone upon request. For the next Plans hearing a discussion of Public Hearings was suggested. 1 September 8,1992 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Date:O~~t~ r Chair n cretary