Loading...
pc_09 05 1989L I TTLE ROCK PLANN I NG HEAR I NG SEPTEMBER 5,1989 1:00 p.m. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being ten in number. II.Approval of the July 25,1989 Minutes. III.Members present:Walter Riddick,III Rose Collins Stephen Leek John McDaniel Martha Miller Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson Fred Perkins John Schlereth Connie Whitfield Member absent:Bill Rector City Attorney present:Stephen Giles September 5,1989 PLANNING HEARING Item No.1 Owner:Various Applicant:City of Little Rock Location:West of the City Limits and north of Denny Road Request:Rezone from unclassified to "R-2" Purpose:Initiate land use regulation ofextraterritorialarea Size:Approximately 11 square miles Existing Use:Various SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North —Arkansas River,unclassified South —Various,unclassified East —Various,zoned "R-2" West —Various,unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1.The request is to rezone approximately 11 square miles north of Denny Road and west of the City limits fromunclassifiedto"R-2",initiating land use regulations of the area by the City of Little Rock.The area is located west of the City limits,south of Natural Steps,east of Ferndale Cutoff Road,and north of Denny/Kanis.Predominate use in the area is single family residential and largely vacant parcels.There have previously been some zoning cases within this area located at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Highway 10,and north of Shinall Mountain on the proposed Chenal Parkway.The area along the river, including much of Pinnacle State Park,has been zoned"R-2"using the river zoning legislation in the late1970's.The balance of the area is unclassified at this time because of its being outside the City limits. 1 September 5,1989 PLANNING HEARING Item No.1 (Continued) The most recent zoning activity in the area involved zoning at the proposed nodes shown on the City Land Use Plans.The zoning request before the Commission wouldfillintheremainingareaconnectingthenodestotheCity.This application will complete theextraterritorialzoningprocessfor"Area 1"begun with the Intent to Zone Resolution. 2.The area is occupied by various uses,but is predominantly vacant/agricultural or single familyresidential. 3.This zoning application conforms to the Northwest Land Use Plan which was adopted for the sole purpose of guiding the zoning of this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "R-2"rezoning of this property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(September 5,1989) Jim Lawson of the City Planning staff reviewed the history of the zoning to date (of the Northwest Land Use Plan)which is presented today in map form,having been approved by the Board and the Planning Commission.Staff proposes to zone the areas in conformity with the plan;that is,all areas currently not zoned will be zoned "R-2"with those areas shown on the plan for uses other than residential being zoned to those zoning categories if the property owner provides a legal description of the property.Mr.Lawson went over the map and showed that large portions of the Area ¹1,northwest of the extraterritorial area,had already been zoned.Then he told the Commission that staff had met with property owners the previous week at a church at Highway 300/Highway 10 to explain the plan and zoning to thearea's residents. Mr.Lawson stated that,at the meeting,additional information was presented to staff about the area of Highway 300 and Highway 10.As a result,an amendment to allow a one-acre commercial site was being proposed to the Planning Commission at this time.Originally,staff had been concerned that by putting commercial at Highway 10 and 300,it would encourage strip development to the node at Chenal Parkway and Highway 10.However,since the area on 2 September 5,1989 PLANNING HEARING Item No.1 (Continued} either side of the one-acre commercial property is currently used for an office or public use and has deed restrictions requiring that use,and since across the street on the northwest corner of the intersection is the YMCA Day Camp with the northeast corner a large Methodist church,staff does not feel that strip zoning is a necessary result if we recognize the one-acre commercial use.Mr.Lawson went on to say that staff has received the property surveys forthreeparcelswhichstaffwouldrecommendzoning"C-1";twoatHighway300andPinnacleLane,and one at Highway 10 and Highway 300. Following this,there was a general discussion among the Planning Commission members and Mr.Lawson as to the ownership pattern,parcel sizes and general history of the property on the south side of Highway 10 at Highway 300 with the Commission expressing some concern about the future development of parcels between the node and the proposed commercial zoning area at Highway 300. Kenneth Moreland,property owner at Highway 300 and Highway 10,presented a letter to the Commission expressing his desire to have his property zoned "C-3".Mr.Moreland said he was pleased that staff would recommend "C-1"and that would be okay.Mr.Moreland then proceeded to go over the history of the property,commencing with the late1940's,and to go into a detailed description of the ownership,history and uses of the adjacent properties. Next,Betty Saugey came before the Planning Commission. Mrs.Saugey,who owns property at several locations in the northwest area,thanked the Planning Staff for recommending that some areas in the northwest area be zoned commercial to begin with.She said she appreciated that the City would recognize some of the existing uses since trying to rezone anything is very time consuming and costly to small property owners. Next to speak to the Commission was Ruth Presley.Mrs. Presley said that she owned property and represented other properties along Highway 10.She asked that businesses along Highway 10 get the zoning that would allow them to continue,i.e.,that all nonresidential property be zoned with some nonresidential zoning district.Mrs.Presley went on to state that,at a minimum,each property owner should 3 September 5,1989 PLANNING HEARING Item No.1 (Continued} be notified that his/her property was becoming nonconforming and exactly what that meant.She stated that she hadvisitedacoupleofpropertyownersthedayofthemeeting, and that they did not understand what nonconforming would mean. Jim Lawson stated that the City's plan is based on a node principal with commercial businesses being concentrated at major intersections.He said that some of the businesses currently in existence are in the middle of single familyareas.Mr.Lawson stated that at the meeting last weekstaffhadrequestedthatsomeevidenceofallofthe nonconforming uses be given to the City so that the City would know that these were nonconforming (existing uses)and could grant nonconforming status.Mr.Lawson went on to say that he would be happy to write a letter informing all property owners of their nonconforming use and have thisletterdistributed. Larry Mahar said that he has commercial property on Highway 300 north of the new Chenal road which was not being recognized by the plan as commercial property,and that he did have some problems with his property becoming a nonconforming use.He said that this would be a hardship on him since he would not be able to expand the business space that he rents out.Further,Mr.Mahar stated that businesses which use his facility were small and many small businesses tend to go out of business.He was concerned that he would have problems re-leasing his property and meeting the nonconforming requirements of not going to a higher use. Bart Moreland spoke to the Commission saying that he was not speaking as a property owner since his property was outside the area,but as a JP representative of the area.Mr. Moreland stated that the first time he had come before the Commission several months ago,he had expressed concerns about how the residential areas would be treated.He stated that they felt comfortable with the way the City was zoning the residential areas,and that this had been properly fixed.He said that he felt that the City had treated the area fairly,but that the City should try to treat commercial areas as fairly as the residential areas. 4 September 5,1989 PLANNING HEARING Item No.1 (Continued) Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,stated that to this point she really had no opinion one way or the other on the zoning.However,she had several questions which she felt needed to be answered.The first was:"If the area was zoned and then the overlay principal was approved at somelaterdate,what would happen?Would the overlay make theexistingareasbecomenonconformingduetothelotsize,or the sites unusable?"Mr.Lawson,in answer to this question,stated that the overlay would have no effect onexistingstructures.The only effect would be if one of the nonconforming,or existing structures,was demolished,in which case anything which replaced said structure would havetomeetthenewrequirements. The second question Mrs.Bell had was about having new standards on the adjacent properties,and then coming along the street to this existing,or older,business which would not have to conform to the standards,and what effect that would have to the overall visual impact along the road.In response to this question,Mr.Riddick stated that in either case,whether or not there is a nonconforming or existing business zoned,there would be this problem,not only on Highway 10,but any place where overlay zoning,or for that matter,any regulations are put into place since the existing structures would not have to conform to the new regulations. The Planning Commission began to discuss the possibility of changing regulations on expanding nonconforming uses,and the general desire of the Commission that nonconforming uses be allowed to have some expansion capability even though an amendment ordinance had already been sent by the Commission to the Board and the Board had refused to consider said ordinance. Additional questions were asked about overlay zoning and who was involved in it up to this point.Mr.Lawson stated that,to this point,the overlay zoning had been very general and had not looked at any one specific street;that only various interest groups have been involved to try to determine whether or not the overlay concept should even betriedatall.Mr.Lawson went on to state that,at such time as specific regulations are designed for the overlay on say Highway 10,the parcel sizes and other characteristics along the road where the overlay would be implemented would be looked at and the property owners along that road would have an opportunity to make comment. 5 September 5,1989 PLANNING HEARING Item No.1 (Continued) There was some discussion on whether or not to defer thevoteinordertoallowmoretimetocontactcommercialpropertieswhichwouldbemadenonconformingtoinformthem of this and to inform them that they could come to speakbeforetheCommission.It was suggested that possibly theareaswhichstaffhadalreadyrecommendedbezonedcouldbe zoned,and those areas where nonconforming uses could be noted (they would be dealt with at a later date).Sincetherewouldbeaminimumofeightsuchsitesscattered throughout the area,it was felt that it would be preferabletohaveaclean,complete package before sending it to theBoard. The Commission asked the property owners of the three sites whether or not they would be opposed to a deferral.In response to this,Mrs.Saugey stated that there were a lot of small businesses in the area that would not meet the requirements the City uses to determine appropriateness for commercial zoning.They are not at intersections;they may be part of a house;and there was no way that the City waslikelytoactuallyzonetheseareas.However,she statedthereshouldbewayforthebusinessestocontinueto operate and to expand.She stated that she herself had several business locations in the northwest area to be zoned today which were not shown for commercial zoning.Shestatedthatallareaswherethereisanexistingbusiness deserved to be considered for nonresidential zoning.Mrs. Saugey was not opposed to deferral since it was her understanding that staff,the City Board,and the Planning Commission,by approving the land use plan,felt that the location of her business at Pinnacle Lane and Highway 300 was an appropriate site.She was confident that nothing would happen in the intervening weeks to change that opinion. Kenneth Moreland,the only other property owner present who would be granted zoning other than residential,stated that he was not opposed to deferral. The Commission moved to have a two-week deferral during which time staff is to attempt to notify all business owners and property owners of nonresidential uses (commercial) which would become nonconforming.In addition,thisnotificationistoincludeinformationonwhatnonconforming means.Also,there is to be a meeting on September 19,1989 to discuss the zoning of the area.This motion was approved by a vote of 10 for,0 against,1 absent. 6 September 5,1989 PLANNING HEARING Item No.2 (Continued} Richard Wood of the Planning staff came before the Commission to review the sections of the package which dealt with matters which the Commission has regulation over;i.e. the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance matters.Mr.Woodstatedthattheproposalinthepackagewouldcallfor pulling all the buffering information out of the Subdivision and Zoning ordinances and putting it together in one place in the Zoning ordinance.This would create easier to find and use buffer requirements.However,the requirements would only deal with the locations of buffers and not thecontent.(Content would be contained within another ordinance such as the Landscape Ordinance).Mr.Wood statedthatthestaffhopedtheCommissionwouldreviewthe document over the next few days and weeks,and then possibly the Plans Committee together with a portion of the City Beautiful Commission could meet to review the document and make it final.These meetings would also include an opportunity for public input. Mr.Wood stated that the staff wished to underline andstressthatthiswasnotdoneasanend-around of the Planning Commission but was done at the request of the City Board of Directors. Mr.Vontungeln then stated that the Planning Commission was the first group outside of the group which was writing the revisions to actually see the proposal. September 5,1989 PLANNING HEARING Item No.2 —Discussion Item Title:Buffer and landscape ordinance revisions PROPOSAL: Presentation by Staff of the buffer and landscape proposal. At the request of the Board of Directors,the Planning and Public Works staffs worked with the City Beautiful Commission to develop the proposal presented today. STAFF REPORT: Jim Vontungeln,Chairman of the City Beautiful Commission, presented to the Planning Commission the results of the CityBeautifulCommissionreviewofthelandscapeordinance, buffer requirements and excavation ordinance.Mr. Vontungeln stated that the City Beautiful Commission had begun a review of the Landscape Ordinance as part of their work for this year.However,the Board of Directors had requested that the City Beautiful Commission look at the Buffer Ordinance several months ago when the Zoning Ordinance Amendment came before them. Over the intervening eight months or so,a subcommittee of City Beautiful and City staff (Planning and Public Works Departments)have reviewed the landscape and excavation ordinances and the buffer requirements in the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to try to come up with one comprehensive package.This information was now being presented to the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. Mr.Vontungeln said that the Planning Commission could approve,deny,or alter the package.He hoped that the Commission would accept the City Beautiful Commission's offer to work with the Planning Commission to review these documents.After public hearings,possibly jointly,a final package could be forwarded to the Board of Directors for their action. September 5,1989 There being no further business before them,the Planning Commission adjourned at 2:35 p.m. la ivory ...,.,..m~,P,