Loading...
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