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,