pc_01 16 1996I.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 16, 1996
9:00 A.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
Approval of the minutes of the November 28, 1995 meeting.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Pam Adcock
Ramsay Ball
Sissi Brandon
Doyle Daniel
Herb Hawn
Larry Lichty
Bill Putnam
Mizan Rahman
Ron Woods
Diane Chachere
Suzanne McCarthy
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
AGENDA
JANUARY 16, 1996
9:00 A.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
II. Approval of the Minutes of the November 28, 1995 meeting
III. Presentation of Hearing Items
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
AGENDA
JANUARY 16, 1996
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. State Highway Logo Signing Program
B. City Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal and Ellis
Mountain Districts
II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Review of a proposed Hillcrest Local Ordinance Historic
District
III. OTHER
2. 1996 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Package
3. Discussion of Planning Commission Meeting Time
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: A
NAME: State Highway Logo Signing
Program
APPLICANT• Staff
PROPOSAL: A request has been made by the
Public for the City of Little
Rock to participate in the
State Highway Logo Signing
Program. If approved by the
City, the program would allow
the installation of logo signs
at interstate interchanges
inside the city limits where
outdoor off premise
advertising is prohibited.
PROGRAM PROCESS, AND DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Process
The program is designed so that the City of Little Rock may
formally request from the State Highway Commission
permission to be included. The Staff is offering the
proposal to the Planning Commission for review and a
recommendation to the Board of Directors. If the Board
approves a resolution, the State Highway Commission will
review it and in all probability include Little Rock in the
Program. The Highway Commission has two primary criteria to
review. The criteria are: (1) a formal request from the
City asking for the logo program; and (2) a municipal
prohibition of outdoor off premise advertising along the
interstates where the program is requested.
2. Proposed Locations
The logo signs would be located along all interstate
highways inside the city limits where outdoor off premise
advertising is prohibited. The interstate highways that
meet the above criteria are: (1) I-430; (2) I-440; and (3)
I-630.
3. Design Standards
The Logo Sign Program consists of main lane sign panels and
ramp sign panels. The main lane panels will be erected
about one mile in advance of an exit with one sign placed in
each traffic direction (approximately 10, X 16' in area and
between 20, and 25, in height). The logos themselves will
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO • A (Cont.)
be 3' X 4' and 3' X 5' with up to six (6) logos per panel.
The ramp sign panels will be one half the size of the main
lane panels (6' X 8' in area and 14' to 16' in height) and
will be placed on or near the exit ramp with one sign facing
in each traffic direction.
4. Analysis
The Staff has received a request from a business owner with
property located on a scenic corridor. Since the city
prohibits outdoor off premise advertising on scenic
corridors, the business owner thought the City might avail
itself of the State Highway Department's program. The Staff
has also received comments from the public stating that the
Logo Program on the interstate highways is an aid to the
motoring public. The staff would tend to agree with the
aforementioned comments and likes the idea of a uniform
signage system which informs the public as it travels
through the city on its interstate highways.
5. Staff Recommendation
The Staff recommends approval of the adoption of the State
Highway Logo Sign Program.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 17, 1995)
The Staff gave a brief background on the item and how it had come
to be on the Planning Commission agenda. The Staff also stated
that it had received additional information which had led it to
reconsider its recommendation. The Staff said that it had
changed its recommendation to denial of the sign logo program due
to: (1) the fact that the number of signs could be much greater
than it had originally believed; (2) a loss of regulatory
control by the City once the state began the program; and
(3) reservations about a state government program that would
usurp the private sectors role in the market place.
A lengthy discussion ensued. Commissioner Brandon stated that
she felt a limited approach would be beneficial to both the
public and businesses located near the interstate. The Staff
concurred but stated they were uncomfortable with the loss of
regulatory control of the program.
Mr. Terry Pack, of the River City Energy Company, stated that he
had personally found the logo signs useful. He also stated that
his company operated a chain of convenience stores located along
the interstates in Central Arkansas and that his company had
received positive feed back from the public as a result of the
logos being recently installed in Conway. Chairman Walker asked
Mr. Pack whether a generic "gas" or "food" sign would be helpful.
January 16, 1996
Plannincr Hearing
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
Mr. Pack stated that they would but a brand logo would be more
beneficial to a traveler looking for a particular gas station or
hotel.
Ms. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, stated that she had
benefited from the logo signs in her travels and in general
thought they were a good idea. She further stated that after
hearing the staff's concerns, she felt uncertain about the
program if it were to undue what had been accomplished by the
Sign Ordinance in the "scenic" corridors. Finally, she stated
that additional study of the issue may be warranted.
Commissioner Putnam concurred.
Mr. John Schlereth, of Baird, Inc., asked to read a letter of
opposition to the Sign Logo Program. He stated that the State
Highway Department should not be allowed to institute a program
the private sector had been prevented from doing.
Mr. David Reed, General Manager of the Donrey Outdoor Advertising
Company, spoke in opposition to the logo program. He said his
opposition was based on the following reasons. The reasons are:
(1) The State Logo Program was intended for rural areas (defined
as areas of 5,000 in population or less) and that Little Rock did
not meet the definition; (2) The State Program discriminates
against local unknown businesses versus well-known national
companies in both recognition and location in that companies
nearest the interstate are favored over those further away from
it as the national companies can better afford to be nearest to
the interstate; (3) The logo signs are a form of outdoor
advertising which is prohibited to private enterprise; (4) The
smaller signs are a traffic hazard in that they are placed in
right-of-way areas; and (5) The City would lose regulatory
control over the number, size and spacing of the signs. Mr. Reed
then stated he would like to submit nineteen (19) letters of
opposition to the Sign Logo Program from local businesses. He
also read a letter from Mr. Bob Wimberly, State Director of the
National Federation of independent businesses, which Mr. Reed
said represented over 800 businesses in the Little Rock area.
The letter requested the state legislative council to stop the
expansion of the Sign Logo Program into urban areas because it
was intruding into the domain of private enterprise. Mr. Reed
further stated that Donrey would like to sit down with the City
and create a private logo sign program that the City could
control with regard to the design, size, number and location of
the signs. Finally, Mr. Reed produced graphics and photos to
illustrate what the logo program would entail. He also stated
that they had done a survey of the City which showed that there
was twenty (20) affected exits. The twenty exits would allow a
potential of 16 signs per exit (8 main lane and 8 ramp signs) or
a total of 320 signs or one full acre of sign space.
01
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)
A lengthy discussion ensued. A motion was made and seconded to
appoint a committee to study issues such as: (1) The legal
implications of authority on the interstate rights -of -way; (2)
what information would be beneficial (on signs); and (3) what
procedures would be necessary to approve the program. The motion
also was to defer the item until the first planning meeting in
January 1996, and to include on the Committee Commissioners Ball
and Daniel as well as Ms. Bell and Mr. Reed. The motion was
approved 10 ayes, 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 16, 1996)
The Staff updated the Commission on its committee meeting (which
was held on November 9, 1995 and included Cindy Dawson of the
City Attorney's Office, Larry Long of the State Highway
Beautification Department; David Reed and Tony Ferguson of Donrey
Outdoor Advertising; Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters;
Ramsey Ball of the Planning Commission and Van McClendon of the
Staff) and reiterated its recommendation of denial of the
adoption of the Sign Logo Proposal. The Staff further stated
that the general consensus of the Committee was that the City
probably should not adopt the program due to: (1) the fact it
would create visual clutter along the Scenic Corridor; (2) the
program was primarily intended for rural areas; and (3) there
didn't seem to be any real demand from the public for the
program. Finally, the Staff stated that the City Attorney had
opined that the City would not have any regulatory control over
the State if the program was instituted and that there did not
appear to be any middle ground in the sense the State Generic
Blue Sign Program stating food, gas and lodging had been
discontinued.
Commissioner Ball stated that this request was not initiated by
the State Highway Department and that the City might send an
informational letter to the Highway Department stating that the
City did not want the program and requesting the Department
contact the City if it were to begin one.
Mr. Barksdale McKay spoke in favor of the Logo Program. He
stated that his business had a visibility problem on I-440 and
the Logo Signs would assist customers. He also stated that he
had other business locations around the state that benefited from
both billboards and the State Logo Program. A general discussion
ensued.
Commissioner Hawn stated that the corridors didn't appear scenic
to him and he felt the logo signs were beneficial to the motoring
public.
A general discussion ensued.
4
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO • A (Cont.)
Ms. Ruth Bell, of the League of
blue generic signs would seem to
the City and Mr. McKay's needs.
longer existed, the League could
as a replacement.
Women Voters, stated that the old
be the best suited program for
However, since that program no
not support the new logo program
A motion was made and seconded for the City to make a request to
be included in the State Highway Logo Signing Program. The vote
was 1 aye, 8 noes and 2 absent. The motion to adopt the State
Highway Logo Signing Program failed.
W
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: B
NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment -
Chenal District
LOCATION: North of Rock Creek
REQUEST: Modification of the Land Use
Pattern
SOURCE: Landowner
STAFF REPORT:
The City Planning Staff was asked to review the Land Use Plan in
an area north and south of Chenal in the Kirk Road area. The
property owner was asking for further intensification of land
uses. South of Chenal to Mixed Office and Commercial (removal of
last Multifamily) and Office to the north with Single Family
changed to Multifamily at the West Loop.
Staff agreed to look at the Plan and meet with representatives of
the owner. Staff could not limit the review to one ownership and
requested that representation of Chenal also meet with Staff to
discuss possible land use plan changes. After review of the area
and having met with the two major owners affected, Staff does
believe some intensification is justified as well as some
reconfiguration.
There is basic agreement on a plan amendment, however, in order
to get agreement on the overall package some additional time is
needed. Staff will brief the Commission on most of the changes,
but final action cannot occur until early 1996.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 28, 1995)
Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that the property owners and
Staff were close to agreement but had not reached an accord yet.
However, Staff still wanted to review the changings and the area
under consideration. Mr. Malone reviewed the physical area where
the amendments will be considered and generally what type of
changes are being considered. By unanimous vote the item was
deferred to January 16, 1996.
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.)
STAFF UPDATE:
(DECEMBER 1995)
The owners still have not provided Staff with information on
their property. Therefore, Staff would recommend a deferral for
12 weeks giving the owners the right to call the issue up soon if
necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 16, 1996)
Staff informed the Commission that a rezoning case had been filed
for the February 13 hearing. Due to a lack of input by one
property owner and the other's desire to proceed, Staff
recommends deferral to the February 13 hearing so as not to
adversely affect the property owner.
By unanimous vote the item was deferred to February 13, 1996.
2
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1
NAME: Hillcrest Local Ordinance
Historic District
SOURCE: Hillcrest Residents'
Association, Historic District
Commission and Staff
REOUEST: To create a Local Ordinance
Historic District for a
portion of the Hillcrest
Neighborhood.
STAFF REPORT:
The Hillcrest Residents' Association has requested the Little
Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) to begin the formal
process of establishing a local ordinance historic district for
the Hillcrest neighborhood. Arkansas Statute 14-172-207 lays out
a specific procedure for creating a local district, which
includes review and comment by the Arkansas Historic Preservation
Program and the local planning commission. The planning
commission is charged with reviewing the information (report)
submitted by the LRHDC and to make a recommendation. (The report
from the LRHDC includes a letter and several attachments.)
The Hillcrest neighborhood is currently a National Register
Historic District, and the proposal is for the local district to
follow the boundaries of the National Register District. A
National Register Historic District is a historic district that
is listed in the national register of historic places, the
country's official list of historic places worthy of
preservation. The register includes individual buildings and
sites, as well as districts or neighborhoods that contain
structures that are historically or architecturally significant.
A national register listing recognizes the significance of these
districts and offers investment tax credits for restoration, but
includes no restriction on what one can do with the property.
Therefore, a structure within a National Register district may be
altered or completely demolished at the will of the owner,
without any review. Little Rock has a total of four National
Register districts: MacArthur Park Historic District,
Governors' Mansion Historic District, Marshall Square Historic
District and Hillcrest.
A local ordinance historic district is designated by a local
ordinance to protect the significant properties and historic
character of an area. It provides local governments with the
means to assure that growth, development and change will occur in
ways that respect the historical, architectural and environmental
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
character of an area. Local designation encourages sensitive new
construction or modification of existing buildings and
discourages unsympathetic changes from occurring. The adopted
ordinance contains criteria for development in the local
ordinance district and is adopted by the local governing body. A
historic district commission has the authority to review and
approve construction, reconstruction, alteration restoration,
moving and demolition of buildings or structures in a local
ordinance historic district. The purpose of the review process
is to determine that the proposal is designed to respect and
relate to the special character of the district. Little Rock
currently has one local ordinance historic district, the
MacArthur Park Historic District.
The planning commission has sixty days to make a recommendation
to the LRHDC. If a recommendation is not made within the sixty
day period, the report will be presented to the LRHDC as
approved. It is hoped that the planning commission will not find
it necessary to take the full sixty days to make a recommendation
and act on the request as soon as possible.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 16, 1996)
Staff reviewed the item for the Commission, and reminded the
members that the statute states that the local planning
commission is to review the Little Rock Historic District
Commission report and make a recommendation. Other comments were
made by staff about the process for establishing a local
ordinance district and the Commission's role. Staff said the
Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation and the report
would be presented to the Little Rock Historic District as
approved if no recommendation was made. Staff ask the Commission
not to take the full 60 days to act on the report.
Commissioner Larry Lichty then spoke and stated that he currently
manages property within the boundaries of the proposed district,
but the City Attorney's Office did not feel it was a conflict of
interest. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's staff, reaffirmed their
position.
Jean Cockcroft, Paul Crawford and Jim Vandenburg, representatives
of the Hillcrest Residents' Association, were present. Also in
attendance was Jim McKenzie, Vice President of the Quapaw Quarter
Association. There were no objectors.
Jean Cockcroft spoke first and gave some background on the
process, starting with the structural survey of the area for the
National Register District. Ms. Cockcroft went onto say that the
residents' association made a real effort to get the word out to
the neighborhood. She said members of the association went door
to door to try to speak to as many residents as possible and
2
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
obtained signatures on a petition in support of establishing a
local ordinance district. Ms. Cockcroft said that the
association found very little opposition to the concept.
Paul Crawford then spoke and described the differences between a
National Register district and a local historic district. Mr.
Crawford said that the primary difference was that a local
district required additional levels of review and gave the local
jurisdiction more control over demolitions and certain types of
structural changes. Mr. Crawford pointed out that there were
1,800 local ordinance districts across the nation. He then went
onto discuss the benefits of a local district and they included
helping to stabilize a neighborhood, maintaining the character
and property values and reducing insurance rates. Mr. Crawford
said that a local historic district usually benefits the
residents and commercial interests. He continued by saying that
a local district will only have a minimal impact on property
owners and it will not prohibit modifications to buildings. Mr.
Crawford said that a local historic district will allow a process
that reviews proposed changes to protect the historical character
of the area.
Jim Vandenberg then discussed the public involvement and
outreach. Mr. Vandenberg said that meetings were held with the
residents and petitions were circulated throughout the
neighborhood. He then explained the door to door effort to
contact as many residents and businesses as possible. Mr.
Vandenberg said there were a total of 1,730 structures within the
proposed boundaries of the district and 1,100 signatures in
support were obtained.
At this point, there were some questions about the signatures on
the petition vs. the numbers of property owners within the
boundaries of the proposed historic district. Jim Vandenberg
responded to the questions and said every effort was made to
contact all the property owners. Mr. Vandenberg said that there
was a public meeting and a number of property owners were
present. Discussion continued on the issue of property owners
and the number signing the petition. Mr. Vandenberg said that it
appeared that a majority had signed the petition supporting the
proposed district.
Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, spoke and
addressed the issue of design guidelines for the proposed
district. Mr. Lawson discussed the differences between the
MacArthur Park district and the Hillcrest neighborhood. He said
that Hillcrest has many different architectural styles and the
guidelines should be developed that are compatible with the
neighborhood. Mr. Lawson concluded by saying that a local
historic district was a way of stopping decline within a
neighborhood.
3
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
Comments were then offered by various individuals including
several commissioners.
Paul Crawford spoke again and said the process to establish was
long and ensured public involvement. Mr. Crawford said the
churches were notified and the Hillcrest Merchants' Association
provided a letter of support in support of the local district.
There was a lengthy discussion about various issues.
Jim McKenzie, vice President of the Quapaw Quarter Association
and Hillcrest property owner, said he strongly supported the
local district concept because it provides stability and enhances
property values. Mr. McKenzie also said that the intent of a
local historic district was to enhance the entire neighborhood.
There were a number of comments made about the various issues
raised during the hearing.
The Commission requested more information and it was suggested
that the item be deferred. A motion was then offered to defer
the item to the February 13, 1996 meeting. The motion passed by
a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent.
4
January 16, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
REPORT:
1996 zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Amendments
The Staff brings to the public hearing process a large collection
of proposals to amend various portions of the two ordinances.
There are approximately seventy (70) general topics or language
issues to work through during 1996 and a portion of 1997. In as
much as this is the largest package presented for review in many
years, it will require more time on the part of staff and
commissioners. I estimate an additional four to six months,
which will place us well into 1997, with City Board adoption in
the summer of 1997.
In the creation of committee assignments for 1996, it should be
understood by those on the Plans Committee, that, a couple of
short work sessions of two or three hours will be required each
month. These sessions are necessary if the process is to move
along. Much of the work can be accomplished in public hearing,
but that should be limited to critical decisions and not language
or technical detail.
Due to the size of the text the staff did not print the proposals
for general distribution at this time.
Also, this is not a public hearing for comment, that will come
later. At this meeting staff requires endorsement of the package
and approach.
After commission endorsement, Staff will mail forty plus copies
of the text to the contact and comment list. This list includes
neighborhood associations, developers, engineers and architects
and many others. Their comments will be forwarded to the
Commission through the Plans Committee.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 16, 1996)
Richard Wood of Staff presented a request for confirmation of the
1996 Work Program. He suggested that after acceptance by the
Commission an organizational meeting is needed for Plans
Committee. The Plans Committee members were identified except
for the fifth position which will have to be filled by
Commissioner McCarthy.
After a brief discussion the Commission voted unanimously to
accept the work program as presented.
January 16, 1996
\Planningt Hearincr
ITEM NO.: 3
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Planning
Commission Meeting Time
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 16, 1996)
Staff reviewed the issue and informed the Planning Commission
that Director B. J. Wyrick was present. Director Wyrick briefed
the Commission on the work of the Board of Directors/Planning
Commission Subcommittee and made some comments about citizen
involvement in the planning process. Director Wyrick went on to
discuss changing the Planning Commission's starting time till
later in the day, after 3:00 p.m.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, offered some comments and said
3:30 or 4:00 would be reasonable times to consider.
After some discussion, a motion was made to move the Planning
Commission's meetings to 3:30 p.m. on Thursdays. The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent and 1 abstention
(D. Doyle).
Staff indicated that the new meeting time would begin March 14th.
Staff also said that the Planning Commission's action amended the
adopted 1996 calendar.
oQ�
cr-
W
cc
W
0
Z
U)
o�U
z
z
z
a
J
a
MENNEN
MEMNON
MENNEN
Emil
-ME
NOMINEE
MEMNON
MENNEN
MEMNON
MENNEN
MENNEN
MENNEN
MENNEN
MENNEN
00111111
n._
0
0)
Ono
co
z
w
m
4
w
Q
z
w
Q
I
January 16, 1996
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
Date ��•�+