pc_01 29 1997_special meetingI.
we
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 29, 1997
4:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Larry Lichty
Pam Adcock
Craig Berry
Sissi Brandon
Doyle Daniel
Hugh Earnest
Herb Hawn
Suzanne McCarthy
Bill Putnam
Mizan Rahman
Ronald Woods
Stephen Giles
LITTLE-ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
JANUARY 29, 1997
4:00 P.M.
I. ITEMS
1. Transition Definition
2. Resolution requesting support from the Board of
Directors
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1
SUBJECT:
REQUEST:
SOURCE:
STAFF REPORT:
Land Use Definitions
To review the Transition
Definition
Board of Directors
At a recent meeting, the Board of Directors expressed some
concerns with the proposed definition for Transition and
referred the item back to the Planning Commission for
additional review. Also, several interested individuals
have now raised some questions about the Transition
definition, especially the elimination of warehousing as an
acceptable use. The definition package, which included the
new Transition definition, was approved by the Planning
Commission on May 23, 1996. Following details all the
changes endorsed by the Planning Commission:
Residential:
• change Low Density Multifamily (LMF) to Low Density
Residential (LDR) and add single family detached
housing as an allowed housing type.
• delete the Mixed Residential (MR) classification
which duplicates Low Density Residential.
Mixed:
• change wording from recommended to required in that
a planned development will be required for any mixed
use development that occurs in these categories
(MCI, MOC, MOI, MOW, MX).
Other:
• delete the categories of AG/I and SF/M.
• addition of first sentence to Agriculture
definition.
• change Transition Zone (TZ) to Transition (T) to
eliminate any confusion with zoning categories.
• In Transition (T) definition, concerning overlay
districts, amend text to read all properties not
just those along Highway 10. Eliminate the set
floor area ratio for office use, eliminated
warehousing as an acceptable use, and eliminate
requiring access only from a side street.
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
Because of the questions, staff reviewed the previous
Transition definitions and is now recommending two
Transition definitions: Transition One and Transition Two.
Transition One - The transition zone provides for an
orderly transition between single family residential
uses an other more intense uses. A Planned Unit
Development is required within the Transition area.
Other uses that may be considered are: Multi -family
Residential, with a maximum density of 10 Units per
acre; Office uses, with a maximum floor area ratio
of 0.2; and office showroom warehousing, with a
maximum building coverage of 30% of the site.
Transition Two - The transition designation provides
for an orderly transition between single family
residential uses and other more intense uses. A
Planned Zoning District is required. Properties
which are required to conform to Design Overlay
District standards, in effect shall not require a
Planned Zoning District. Other uses that may be
considered are Multifamily Residential, with a
maximum density of 10 units per acre and Office
uses.
The primary difference is the addition of office
showroom/warehousing as an acceptable use in Transition One.
The Transition Two definition is the same as what the
Planning Commission endorsed and was included in the 1986
Highway 10 Plan (Ordinance No. 15,083) as Transition Zone
Area Guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 1996)
Tony Bozynski, Planning Manager, said this item was referred
back to the Planning Commission by the Board of Directors
and provided a detailed history of the Transition
definition, starting with the one developed as part of the
1988 Highway 10 Plan. (A written copy of the definition
overview was provided to each member of the Planning
Commission.) Mr. Bozynski said staff was recommending two
definitions for Transition, Transition One and Transition
Two.
E
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
Maury Mitchell, representing a property owner on Highway 10,
made some comments about the definitions and expressed some
concerns about what has occurred along Highway 10.
Tom Cole, representing property owners on Highway 10 and
Kanis Road, gave some background on the definition and what
has taken place on Highway 10. Mr. Cole said was concerned
with inconsistency and property owners not being notified of
the proposed definition changes. He said that he viewed
taking a use out of the definition as a major problem. Mr.
Cole made some additional comments about the notice issue.
Commissioner Bill Putnam spoke and said a more definitive
definition for Transition was needed.
Other documents were then offered and it was stated that
having two Transition definitions was not wise.
Tom Cole spoke again and recommended that multifamily be
added to the definition of Low Density Residential. Staff
indicated that they did not have a problem with Mr. Cole's
recommendation.
Bill Rector addressed the Commission and presented some
history on Highway 10 and the Design Overlay District. Mr.
Rector indicated that nothing was happening on Highway 10
and the overlay has impacted development on Highway 10. He
went on to say Highway 10 was at a disadvantage because of
the Design Overlay District and the Land Use Plan.
There was a lengthy discussion about a number of the issues
and it was suggested that some consideration should be given
to looking at the Highway 10 Plan.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, offered some comments
about notification, the Design Overlay District and Highway
10.
A motion was made to delay action on the proposed Transition
definitions and have the Plans Committee review the
definition for the purpose of trying to redefine Transition.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
At the December 19, 1996 hearing, the Commission discussed
the transition definition and heard comments from the
public. Staff provided a detailed history and recommended
3
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
two definitions for Transition. A number of commissioners
felt that having two definitions would cause confusion and
create additional problems. After a lengthy discussion, a
motion was approved to delay action on the definition and
refer it to the Plans Committee.
The Plans Committee met on January 14, 1997 and discussed
the Transition definition. Some of the points made during
the discussion included:
• avoid two Transition definitions
• remove any references to uses
• need a point of reference
• be very specific
• uses need to be time sensitive
• some reference to noise and traffic should be
considered
It was also suggested that the last sentence in the
definition could be reworded to add "for example. -
The Plans Committee did not reach consensus on the
definition and agreed to continue the discussion at the
January 27, 1997 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 1997)
Tony Bozynski, Planning and Development staff, presented the
item and reviewed the written information provided to the
Commission. Mr. Bozynski said that the Plans Committee met
on January 14, 1997 and there was a lengthy discussion about
the Transition definition. A number of thoughts were
offered, but the Committee did not reach consensus on a
definition to forward to the Planning Commission.
Several individuals addressed the Commission including David
Jones and Tom Cole. They provided the Commission with
history and background on the planning efforts for the
Highway 10 corridor and the old Ellis Mountain Planning
District. Mr. Jones addressed a number of issues and said
more notification of the property owners was needed.
There was a long discussion and various commissioners
offered comments about the definition and the process.
Commissioners Berry and Hawn said the Plans Committee
started with the May 1996 definition and felt it was the
right direction to go in. Commissioner Earnest said that
the committee discussed possible changes to the May 1996
4
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
definition and Commissioner Berry said input from the entire
Commission was needed. Other comments were made by
Commissioners Adcock and Putnam.
At this point, a show of hands was asked for as whether or
not to send the definition back to the Plans Committee. The
commissioners present, a total of nine, indicated that the
item needed to be referred back to the Plans Committee.
The discussion then turned to the six points that were
discussed by the Plans Committee at the January 14, 1997
meeting. Comments were made and Commissioner Berry said he
had problems with being too specific and the definition
needed to be flexible.
David Jones provided some additional background and history
on Highway 10.
Ruth Bell spoke and discussed the planning efforts for
Highway 10 and the definition for Transition.
Tom Cole offered some comments about plan changes that have
occurred along Highway 10.
Jim Lawson, Planning and Development, spoke and said the
Board of Directors wanted the -loophole" closed by changing
the definition and it was a mistake to combine the two 1986
definitions. Mr. Lawson told the Commission that Highway 10
is the real issue.
There was a lengthy discussion about the definition and
warehousing. It was suggested that the issue of warehousing
needed to be a future discussion item.
Tom Cole spoke and questioned whether precluding warehousing
from the transition definition would eliminate mixed uses.
There was additional discussion about the process and the
definition.
Commissioner Hawn suggested that the Plans Committee resolve
the definition and the Commission support the Committee's
definition.
A motion was offered to reaffirm the Commission's previous
action and forward to the Board of Directors the May 1996
definition. The motion did not receive a second.
There were additional comments made about a number of
issues.
5
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
Another motion was then made to forward to the Board of
Directors the May 23, 1996 definition without a footnote.
The vote was 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3 absent. The motion
failed.
A final motion was made to refer the definition to the Plans
Committee for further discussion at the January 27, 1997
meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay and
3 absent.
2
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
STAFF UPDATE:
The Plans Committee met on January 27, 1997 and all five
members were present.
The Committee held a lengthy discussion on the transition
definition and a number of comments were offered. The
Committee agreed that warehousing needed to be excluded from
Transition and the definition needed a preamble or opening
statement. Other thoughts included the need to have a
definition that the public will be able to understand and
the definition should establish a policy benchmark, a
starting point.
The Committee finally reached agreement on the following
definition to present to the entire Planning Commission.
TRANSITION: Transition was established to deal with the
frontage areas which contain residential uses and zoning and
nonconforming non-residential uses. Transition recognizes
that market pressures will be brought to bear on some
property in the frontage areas for redevelopment.
Transition, however, stipulates that the redevelopment which
occurs should be limited to office and low density multi-
family uses, thereby being compatible with residential
areas. The Transition designation provides for an orderly
transition between residential uses and other more intense
uses. A Planned Zoning District is required, except for
those properties which are required to conform to Design
Overlay District standards. For example, uses that may be
considered are low density multi -family residential and
office uses if the proposals are compatible with the quality
of life in nearby residential areas.
The Plans Committee also decided to hold a special Planning
Commission meeting on Wednesday, January 29, 1997, 4:00
p.m., to act on the Transition definition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 1997)
Staff announced that January 29, 1997 was a special called
Planning Commission meeting for the purpose of resolving the
Transition definition.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, reviewed
the issue before the Commission and said the Board of
Directors was looking to the Commission to act on a final
definition for Transition as soon as possible.
ej
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
Commissioner Hugh Earnest summarized the Plans Committee's
January 27, 1997 meeting and said the group tried to clarify
what was meant by the original Highway 10 definition.
Commissioner Earnest also commented on the idea of including
a preamble and suggested that the preamble should stand
alone.
Jim Lawson spoke and said a purpose and intent statement
needed to be part of the definition. Mr. Lawson continued
by discussing the changes recommended by Commissioner Larry
Lichty in a January 29, 1997 correspondence.
Commissioner Earnest made some comments and said some of the
opening statement could be eliminated from the definition.
Richard Wood, Planning and Development staff, said he
thought the preamble should be for the entire section and
not for one definition.
There was a long discussion about the opening statement or
the preamble. Jim Lawson suggested using the first sentence
and Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, said reference
should be made to Transition being a land use plan
designation.
Commissioner Earnest said the Plans Committee debted the use
of "for example" and decided to use it because of some
flexibility. There was a long discussion about the
inclusion of "for example" and Commissioner Herb Hawn
offered his reasons for including "for example."
Comments were then offered by several commissioners on a
number of items.
At this point, a show of hands was asked for on the
inclusion of "for example." A majority of the commissioners
favored removing "for example" from the definition.
Stephen Giles made some comments and read the revised
definition for Transition into the record.
Transition - Transition is a land use plan
designation which provides for an orderly
transition between residential uses and other
more intense uses. Transition was established to
deal with areas which contain zoned residential
uses and conforming nonresidential uses. A
Planned Zoning District is required unless the
application conforms with the Design Overlay
standards. Uses which may be considered are low
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
density multifamily residential and office uses
if the proposals are compatible with quality of
life in nearby residential areas.
As motion was then made to approve the Transition definition
as read by Stephen Giles. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
0
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Resolution
REQUEST: To pass a resolution
requesting the City Board of
Directors support for the
original Highway 10 Plan by
affirming the denial of the
Bella Rosa reclassification
request.
SOURCE: Plans Committee
STAFF REPORT:
The Plans Committee has prepared a resolution for
consideration by the entire Planning Commission. The
resolution requests the Board of Directors to support the
original Highway 10 plan by affirming the denial of the
Bella Rosa reclassification. The 1986 Highway 10 Plan did
not include warehousing in the land use guidelines for
Transition. The Planning Commission reaffirmed the concept
of no warehousing in Transition by voting to endorse a new
definition for Transition, which removed warehousing as an
acceptable use. The vote to change the definition occurred
at the May 23, 1996 hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 1997)
Commissioner Larry Lichty started the discussion on the
proposed resolution and the intent of the resolution.
Commissioner Doyle Daniel spoke and said the Bella Rosa
proposal meets all the requirements and he supported the POD
request. Commissioner Daniel expressed some concerns about
changing the rules and opening the city to a major law suit.
Commissioner Daniel concluded by saying he could not support
the proposed resolution.
Comments were offered by several commissioners and Stephen
Giles, City Attorney's Office, was asked to respond to the
comment about lawsuits.
Stephen Giles said that the whole discussion of this
application, with reference to Highway 10, has been meeting
the definitional requirements of the land use plan. Mr.
Giles then commented on the appeal before the Board and the
Planning Commission's action on the POD. Mr. Giles went on
January 29, 1997
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.)
to say that the Bella Rosa application does not meet the
definitional requirements of Planned Office Development, a
zoning ordinance definition. Mr. Giles said if you read the
zoning definition and Pfeifer II (Pfeifer vs. the City of
Little Rock), the Supreme Court said the City of Little Rock
has alot of discretion in zoning but the city's zoning
decisions have to conform with the definitional requirements
in the zoning ordinance. The Supreme Court went on to say
that the decisions do not necessarily have to comply
specifically with the definitional requirements in the land
use plan, but it is a rational basis for the city to use the
land use plan as support or denial of an application. Mr.
Giles emphasized rational basis and said the plan is not
controlling, but rather the zoning ordinance is controlling.
Mr. Giles went on to say that there is no provision in
Planned Office Development for warehousing. The POD
district is combination of office and commercial uses in a
carefully planned configuration. Mr. Giles said that the
Bella Rosa application is not a planned commercial and
office development. Mr. Giles it is a nice mini -warehouse
project, but it does not fit POD. Mr. Giles continued by
making some comments about land use on Highway 10 and the
issue before the Board is whether the application meets the
Planned Office requirements in the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Pam Adcock made some comments and asked about
the Board's comments about the loophole in the definition.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, responded
and said that the current Transition definition allows
warehousing and several Board members felt the definition
was creating a loophole.
Other comments were offered and the resolution was
redrafted. The revised resolution was read to the
Commission.
A motion made to approve the resolution as redrafted. The
motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent
and 1 abstention (Daniel). (A copy of Resolution No. 112 is
attached.)
There were some additional comments and it was decided that
Commissioner Earnest would attend the February 4, 1997 Board
meeting to present the resolution.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
RESOLUTION NO. 112
A RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION REQUESTING THE SUPPORT OF THE LITTLE
ROCK BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WHEREAS, the Little Rock Planning Commission, in its meeting on November 21,
1996, has by majority vote of its members recommended denial of the request for a zoning
change to allow a warehouse use, which by zoning ordinance definition includes mini -storage,
in the vicinity of Highway 10 and Bella Rosa Road; and
WHEREAS, it was the intent of the commission, through its vote, to defend the intent
of the original Highway 10 Plan (adopted May 20, 1986) by not allowing this particular use in
the Transition area; and
WHEREAS, the commission by its previous vote on May 23, 1996, reaffirmed its
commitment to no warehouse uses in Transition areas; and
WHEREAS, the commission is of the opinion that the current land use plan definition
of "Transition" does not require the placement of warehouse use in Transition, but rather
allows its placement to be considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission, by unanimous vote of its members present at
the called meeting on January 29, 1997, has amended the definition of Transition to be
consistent with the intent expressed in this resolution as follows:
Transition is a land use plan designation which provides for an orderly transition
between residential uses and other more intense uses. Transition was established to
deal with areas which contain zoned residential uses and nonconforming
nonresidential uses. A Planned Zoning District is required unless the application
conforms with the Design Overlay District standards. Uses which may be considered
are low density multifamily residential and office uses if the proposals are compatible
with quality of life in nearby residential areas.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission, by passage of this resolution, respectfully
requests that the Little Rock Board of Directors support the original premise of the Highway
10 Land Use Plan by affirming the denial of the Bella Rosa rezoning request.
PASSED: January 29, 1997
ATTEST:
4ittle
Law ecretary
Rock Planning Commission
APPROVED:
Larryichty, Chai rson
Little Rock Planning Commission
January 29, 1997
OTHER MATTERS
The Planning Commission voted to revise the Planning
Commission by changing the public hearing time from 3:30 to
4:00. An agenda session will be held from 3:30 to 4:00.
U
W
cc
W
0
Z
0
C
0
z
Z
z
a
V
F
V)
r
IMENINIEN
1
1
11
t
MINEMINEI
t
01111111111
MINNIMIllINEIIIIIam
m
1
1111
t
t
t
10
ozi
a
�I
w
Q
z
w
January 29, 1997
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Date Za
Secret6ry