Loading...
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 ��•�+