pc_10 20 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARy AND MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 20,1992
12:30 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11)in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the September 8,1992 meeting.
The Minutes were approved as mailed.
III.Members Present:John McDaniel,Chairman
Emmett Willis,Jr.
Jerilyn NicholsonBillPutnam
Ramsay Ball
Brad Walker
Kathleen Oleson
Ronald Woods
Joe Hirsch Selz
Diane Chachere
Members Absent:Jim VonTungeln
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
Susan Oswall
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:12TH STREET STUDY
TITLE:12th Street Study
LOCATION:I-630 to 20th Street and
Battery to University
~RE VER: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
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO A 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"in
the neighborhood at Hoover United Methodist Church.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 propertyowners.A series of land use plan changes couple with some
zoning changes was determined to be the best way to protect theexistingneighborhoodsandincreasethestrengthoftheplans.
In addition the zoning of Central High School should be changedtopredominantlysinglefamilysincethatisthepredominantuse.
This zone change also would support the revitalization efforts of
the City (Paint Program,increased code enforcement and targeted
housing funds —Model Block).
As for housing issues,the City has a model block in two to six
identified housing need areas,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 thatadditionalhousingassistance,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 BoardofDirectors'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
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY
Proposed Changes:
West of Fair Park Blvd.and North of 10th Street office
to mixed use (existing motel,restaurant,gas station
PCD);Northwest corner of Fair Park Blvd.and 12th
Street mixed use to commercial (Delta Mart and Rally's
drive-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 to
single family —mostly single family);South of 12th
either side of Adams single family and commercial to
public institutional (churches),Peyton to Abigail
single family to mixed use (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 public
institutional for new Health Department office;Cedar
to Oak between 14th and 15th Streets low density
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 as
possible.Zone duplex area which are single family to
single family,etc.All commercial zoned areas not shown or
used for commercial should to be rezoned.
3
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY
From R-4 (Duplex)to I-3 (Single Family)
ILLING'S Subdivision DICKINSON Subdivision
Lot 1-3,5-12 Blk 18 Lot 1-12 Blk 19
Lot 2 10'2'5 18 20 24/
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 10
7-9 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
Lot 1 4 g 6 11 g 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
Lot 1~4,6-8,10-12,Blk 17 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 1 5g 10 13g 16I 18 19 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
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A 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
Lot lg3g4g6g812Blk7
Lot 1-5,6-10 Blk 8
Lot 13I 5g7g8Blk9
Lot 4,10-12 Blk 10
Lot 1.3.5-10 Blk 11
Lot 6g 8g9g 12 Blk 12
Lot 7 Blk 13
Lot 4-10 Blk 14
Lot 5-7 Blk 15
MARSHALL WOLF Addition
Lot 4 Blk 4
Lot 3,5,9 Blk 5
Lo't 7 @8'0 Blk 6
Lot 7-12 Blk 7
Lot 15g7g1012Blk8
Lot 4 Blk 9
Lot 1 Blk 14
Lot 1-4,7,10-12 Blk 15
Lot 1,3-5,7,10 Blk 18
Lot 5-6 Blk 19
C &P JOHNSON Addition
Lot 6 Blk 5
Lot 11 Blk 9
Lot 11 Blk 11
From C-3 (General Commercial)to R-3 {Single Family)
CEDAR HEIGHT'S Addition
Lot 5-6 Blk 4
NEIMEYERS Addition
Lot 2 Blk 9
5
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A 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
Prom I-2 (Light Industrial)to C-3 (General Commercial)
CUNNINGHAMS Addition
Lot 1g3g4Blk30
Prom 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.Additionaleffortsareneededinthestudyareatopzotectthe existing
housing stock and stabilize the area.
6
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A 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 current
locations;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 the
alleys.Maintenance of alley and litter on streets (in
front yards).
~Children's Hospital —growth and parking as well astrafficcirculation.
~Street Lights —city streets are dark,the addition of
mid-block lights would improve safety.
Deterioration of neighborhood due to liquor stores and pawn
shops.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 8,1992)
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 and
Battery.The concern was that there is some existing commercial
not shown and with the high traffic volumes on 12th Street.The
local people do not consider it to be a residential street.
Staff informed the Commission that the City did not want to
encourage strip commercial.On plans,staff tried to error on
the side of single family.Commissioner Oleson added the Board
of Directors had asked for the study as a way to prevent strip
commercial along 12th Street.Mr.Alfred Lynch of 2201 West
13th,stated that 12th Street has always been a "commercial"
street.
7
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A 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 separate
letters were mailed to property owners informing them of an
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 an
effort to stabilize and revitalize older neighborhoods.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
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY
PLANNING CO IS CTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992)
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,requested that the Commission take
separate votes on the land use and zoning questions.Mr.Newman
then began his presentation with background information.The
12th Street Study was started at the request of the Board of
Directors.There was concern about the commercial zoning and
land use pattern along 12th Street.The Plans Committee felt a
look at just 12th Street would be to narrow and a broader area
should be included in the study.
The identified neighborhood groups in the area were contacted for
ideas on what should be included in the study.At the same time,staff began a review of existing conditions and adopted plans.
Major problems identified by staff were conflicting existing land
use,zoning,proposed land use and significant housing stock loss
(particularly in the Stephens area).
Staff met with the Central High,Stephens,Oak Forest and Forest
Hills neighborhood associations,and also conducted "office
hours"at Hoover United Methodist on 12th and Cedar three times
from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.These meetings were to receive ideas
from people in the area as well as their concerns.Out of these
meetings and staff's work,two items are presented to the
Commission for action on land use plan amendment and several
rezonings.
There was some discussion about attendance at the meetings held
in the neighborhood.Attendance was generally light,having
seven or less persons at the "office hours",with more people at
the neighborhood association meetings.
Walter Malone,Planner II,presented the proposed land use plan
changes.Mr.Malone went over each change proposed.There was
a question about why single family was shown along 12th Street
between Woodrow and Battery.Commissioner Woods believed there
was sufficient commercial along 12th to show no single family.
He had counted 26 commercial businesses between Woodrow andBattery.Mr.Malone stated there was commercial for several
blocks east of Woodrow and the Battery area was shown for mixed
office/commercial.However,the City tried to error on the sidesinglefamilyandthefourblocksshownontheplanwere
dominantly residential.Commissioner Woods did not agree withthisstatement.
The existing land use map was shown,followed by some discussion
about the model block on Dennison and the desire of the City to
try to strengthen the neighborhoods housing stock in order to
bring back the neighborhood.
9
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY
Pam Marshall,President of Central High Neighborhood Association,distributed a letter from the association on both the land use
plan and zoning changes.Ms.Marshall stated that there wassufficientcommercialalreadyinplacealong12thStreet.Thereisboardedupcommercialavailableifsomeonewantstomovein
now.Further,the commercial between Woodrow and Battery Streets
does not serve the area.People loiter and come from other areasoftheCity.While Harvest Foods and a few other businesses are
trying to improve,the record is not good.There was a
discussion about problems at two businesses.If the commercial
will add to the area,it would be beneficial.
Addressing comments that only 12th Street should have been
addressed,Ms.Marshall stated that you must look at the
surrounding area and impacts not only to areas backing up to 12thStreet,but several blocks away.There are older people in the
neighborhood and historically commercial along 12th Street has
not been a plus to the neighborhood.
The neighborhood would like to see more housing to fill vacantlotsandreducethenumberofdemolitionsinthearea.
In response to a question,Ms.Marshall stated a comprehensive
plan for the area was needed.As an example of problems with
commercial,she reviewed the history of a commercial site at 13th
and Woodrow.Commercial leaves the neighborhood open to
problems.Ms.Marshall responded to a question from Commissioner
Chachere about adding public facilities (parks,etc.).Based on
Centennial Park,unless there is a great.deal of adult
supervision only additional problems will be created.
There was discussion about concerns noted about a conveniencestoreandliquorstoreaswellasenforcementtocleanuparealots.To date the City has over $275,000 in liens on property
which owners have not maintained.It was suggested a prolonged
period of enforcement would have a longer lasting affect.It
was further noted that two alert centers would soon be open in
the Central High area,one north of 12th Street and the other
on Wright Avenue.Possibly,the City should make a complainttotheAlcoholicandBeverageCommissionabouttheliquorstore.
There was discussion about landscape requirements and an overlayoption.The question was called and by unanimous vote (10 ayes,
0 noes)the land use amendments,as proposed,were approved.
Mr.Newman,Planning Manager,brought the zoning changes before
the Commission.The staff reviewed the area,and where the land
use plan and existing use were less intensive than the zoning,staff proposed reducing the zoning.Two letters were sent to
each property owner and if the owner requested,the property was
10
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO A Continued 12TH STREET STUDY
dropped from the rezoning request.First,the area west of the
railroad tracks behind Central High,was presented.At Monroe
and 12th Streets,a church,the proposal is to change from C-3
to 0-3;an isolated I-2 lot to R-4 in the neighborhood and
several I-2 lots to C-3 along 12th Street.There is also a
scattering of C-3 to R-3 in both Oak Forest and Stephens.
Mr.Newman pointed out the location on a map.
Commissioner Putnam expressed concern about the method used,
requiring the owner to respond.Also,the agenda only gives a
legal description and most commissioners are not going to know
the location.There was discussion about this being an attempttocleanupanareazonedtwofamilyin1937.Mr.Newman stated
two letters were mailed to each owner by regular mail and the
ownership was determined using the assessor records.
Mr.Newman next proceeded to review the Central High area.The
map shows those not to be rezoned —hatched;those indicatingtheirapprovalofrezoning—yellow;those not responding —no
color (white).The proposal is to rezone from R-4 duplex to R-3
single family the areas is yellow and white.No commercial
parcel will be rezoned;if a nonconforming commercial (currently
R-4)was missed,it would still be nonconforming with R-3.
Mr.Wood,Manager of Zoning and Subdivision,reminded the
Commission that in R-3 a second dwelling could be placed on thelotwithCommissionapproval,so this is a very small change.
Commissioner Chachere moved that the areas recommended be rezoned
on condition that the filing fee and notice by waive for one yearafterapprovalbytheBoardofDirectorsforanypersonwishingtozonebacktothecurrentzoningiftheyhadnotrespondedtodate.By unanimous vote (10 ayes,0 noes)the motion was
approved.
11
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO ~:B FILE NO.:Z-2222-A
NAME:Woods —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:4216 West 12th Street
OWNER APPLICANT:Eric B.Woods
PROPOSAL:To utilize the existing structure
as a barber and beauty salon.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This application is proposed on a residential lot at thealleycorner,immediately west of Lewis Street and lying
immediately west of the Auto Zone Parts Store.
2.Com atibilit with Nei hborhood
The subject property has been classified as 0-3 GeneralOfficeforseveralyears.The issue of nonresidential
zoning in this block west of Lewis Street has long been
resolved as office and commercial occupancy.The blockcurrentlycontainsabeautyshopandseveralhousesto the
west facing 12th Street,and compatibility should not be a
problem.
3.On-Site Drives and Parkin
The application survey indicates a long paved strip of land
now utilized for parking which backs into the 16 foot alleyadjacentontheeast.There are sufficient parking spacestoservethisuseandaccessisquitegood.The alley is
extended north through to 11th Street for alternate access.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The existing site has been converted from a former two storyresidencetoabusinessactivity,without benefit of
providing a conversion of the residential lawn,trees and
such to a commercial screening and buffering effect.
Currently,the parking spaces extend on the south to the
12th Street right-of-way leaving little or no land area
adjacent to the sidewalk for landscaping.
5.Cit En ineer Comments
The sidewalks along 12th Street should be repaired.
Dedication of additional right-of-way to meet the MasterStreetPlanalong12thStreetisrequiredtoadimension of
45 feet from the street centerline.
1
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2222-A
6.Utilit Co en s
There were none to be reported at this writing.
7.~AA
The application as presented appears to be entirely
appropriate.The use and access and other factors in place
suggests there will be little or no impact on the
neighborhood.Some effort should be made to clearly
delineate the alley pavement from the pavement of the Auto
Zone Store and the headin parking on the east side of thislot.Currently,some of this surfaced area is in poor
repair and some resurfacing may be required.
8.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the application with
modifications in the parking to provide for additional
landscaped area along 12th Street,adjacent to the building
and along the west line of the parking surface.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(SEPTEMBER 3,1992)
The applicant was not in attendance at the meeting.Staff
presented the application.A brief discussion followed with
the Committee forwarding the item to the full Commission forfinalresolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 22,1992)
The applicant was in attendance.There were no objectors
present.Richard Wood of the Planning staff reported that the
applicant has not yet paid the required filing fee and that thenoticesweresentbyregularmail,and not by certified mail as
required.
After a short discussion with the applicant,a motion was made to
defer this item until the October 20,1992 commission meeting to
allow Mr.Woods time to pay the filing fee and properly comply
with the notice requirement.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992)
The applicant was not present.Dana Carney of the Planning staff
presented a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with
City Engineer comments.Also,approval is subject to the
2
October 20,1992
P S HEARING
ITEM NO.:B Continued FILE NO.:Z-2222-A
applicant modifying the parking area to provide for additional
landscaping adjacent to West 12th Street,adjacent to the
building and along the west line of the parking surface.
Mr.Carney also reported that the previous comment from the City
Engineer was in error.The Master Street Plan required a
right-of-way of 35 feet from the street centerline,not 45 feet
as previously noted.
Deborah Brewster,the applicant's mother then addressed the
Commission.She stated that she could not speak for Mr.Woods
regarding any agreement to the conditions stated by staff.
(Mr.Woods was out of town and unable to attend.)Commissioner
Chachere then made a motion to defer this item to the
November 3,1992 meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO.:1
~RE UEEE:Modify collector pattern
LOCATION:Southwest Little Rock,South
of Baseline Road
SOURCE:City Staff
STAFF REPORT:
In order not to create a collector acting like an arterial,the
Warren Road/Dailey collector is to be shortened.The City does
not wish to make it more desirable to cut through the center of
several neighborhoods in order to miss traffic on Geyer Springs
or Chicot Road.To this end,the Dailey Road collector to Warren
Road should be removed.
There is an elementary school at Valley and Warren;therefore,itisrecommendedthatValleyremainacollector,and Warren from
Valley south to Mabelvale Cutoff be a collector.The resultingcollectorpatternwouldserveboththeschoolandneighborhood.
The second change is Warren (south of Guinevere Road).
Currently,the road stops just north of a creek.Due to the cost
of bridging the creek as well as concerns about the length of
Warren,suggest that Warren south of Guinevere be removed from
the plan.This would discourage cut-through traffic and the
remaining collectors should support the single family
development.Additional collectors would only be needed if
higher densities are proposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval for this item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992)
Walter Malone,Planner II,reviewed the changes (the removal
of the collector Warren-Dailey north of Valley and south of
Guinevere).There was some discussion about the northern
proposal affect of the park.Several commissioners reminded therestthattheCommissionhadassuredresidentstheroadwouldnot
be built and had granted a waiver to Parks.By unanimous voice
vote the amendment was approved.
1
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
ITEM NO '
SUBJECT:1992 Ordinance Amendment Package III
STAFF REPORT
The Plans Committee of the Planning Commission has completed work
on Phase III of the 1992 Ordinance Amendments.These several
items are offered to the full Commission for purposes of review
and endorsement for placement within the annual package.The
Committee attended several work sessions and have eliminated a
couple the proposals and expanded on others as necessary.One of
the items presented will require that the Planning Commission
determine the appropriateness of continuing that item in 1992 ordeferralto1993forfurtherstudy.This subject deals with theextraterritorialareaandthedevelopmentofaboundaryorcontrollineforimprovementsandinstallation.This item was
generated by the multitude of cases going to the City Board for
waiver of street,curb and sidewalk.The Committee does notofferspecificcomment,except to say this is an item for thefullCommissiontoresolve.
The staff and Committee recommend the balance of Phase III in the
annual package.Both recommend the setting of a public hearing
date for receiving comment from the many persons on ourdistributionlist.The next Planning Hearing has been set for
December 1.This date will permit staff five weeks to mail outthecompletepackageofmaterialstothe50+persons on our
mailing list and development their comments in a report formatforthecommissionhearing.Additionally,this will offer the
Planning Commission the opportunity to review all of the material
and feed their comments to the staff prior to the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992)
Richard Wood of the Planning staff presented a brief overview of
the several items contained within Phase III of the ordinance
package.He presented the Plans Committee's recommendation on
each of the several proposed amendments with justification for
the recommendation.There was a lengthy discussion of theseveralitemswiththeonlyitemofconcernbeingtherecommended
approach on Item G of page 21.This is the specific language astowhethersiteplansshouldbebroughttototalordinance
compliance on a second review or revision.Commissioner Brad
Walker offered several concerns and potential language.
After a brief discussion of the several items,staff requestedthattheCommissionforwardtoitsofficetheircommentsor
suggested language modifications.Staff then requested that
the Commission set a public hearing for all of the items
contained within the 1992 Amendment Package.
1
October 20,1992
PLANS HEARING
IT NO 2 Continued
A motion was made to set a public hearing for December 1,1992 at12:30 p.m.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and
1 absent.
2
October 20,1992
PLANS HE ING
ITEM NO.:3
TITLE:Planning Issues
Id2cATZON:Various
SOURCE:Staff/Plans Committee
DISCUSSION TOPIC:Public Hearing
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 20,1992)
No discussion
1
IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
~Eggggggggg
EEEEEEEEgggg-
~Egggggggggg gg
Egggggg -.
~EEEEggggggg ~
EEEEEggg-~EEEEEEEgggg Eg
EEEEEEE:
~Egggggggg gggg
Egggg
~EEEEEEEgg Eggg
Egggg
Egggggggggg Eggg
Egggg
~ggggggggggg ~
Egggggg
.E~g
Egggggggg ggggggg
Eggg
Egggggggg Egggg~
Egg
4
~
~
0 0 0 0 0 ~
October 20,1992
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission,themeetingwasadjournedat3:30 p.m.
Date:/2 /12
Ch x an ec etar