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