Loading...
pc_08 15 1996I. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD AUGUST 15, 1996 3:30 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight (8) in number. Approval of the minutes of the July 11, 1996 meeting. The minutes of the last meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Ron Woods Suzanne McCarthy Members Absent: City Attorney: Hugh Earnest Doyle Daniel Herb Hawn Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Larry Lichty Pam Adcock Sissi Brandon One Open Position Cynthia Dawson (arrived after minutes approved) LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA AUGUST 15, 1996 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. 1996 Zoning Ordinance Amendments II. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal District Public Institutional and Park Open Space to Commercial August 15, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A NAME/SUBJECT: 1996 Zoning Ordinance Amendments REQUEST: That the Commission hold a review and instruction hearing for purposes of receiving public comment. STAFF REPORT At its meeting May 23, 1996, the Commission was presented with draft 3 of the 1996 Ordinance Amendments. This draft is the proposal of the Plans Committee and Staff after having worked through numerous changes over several months. Staff performed the typical mailing of materials to the comments and contacts list. This was accomplished several times and a final memorandum was mailed on June 6, 1996 asking for comments and advising of the public hearing date. A legal ad was published in the Daily Record as required. The fifty-two proposals included in this package involve the following areas of change: • 5 bulk and area modifications. These deal with how lots are utilized by structures. • 21 use regulation changes. These are placement changes which insert a new or redefined use in the various districts. • 18 procedural changes which deal with how the staff, applicants, owners, Planning Commission or City Board review applications. • 10 definition modifications or new. Definitions being the base for all use placement and identification. Absent changes introduced by the Commission or others, Staff proposes to forward this material for review by the Board of Directors and submit the Ordinance for adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 11, 1996) Cynthia Dawson, of the City Attorneys Office, presented to the Commission a statement concerning the City Attorneys recent review of the amendment package. She offered that there were a August 15, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (cont.) number of areas where the City Attorneys Office determined that there was language that needed to be cleaned up while properly structured to make it work better and be more enforceable. There were revised copies provided later in the hearing for the commissioners for their review. There was no discussion of the specifics of the material in the package. After a brief discussion, it was determined by the Commission that a deferral of this item would be in order. The deferral to the August 15, 1996 Planning meeting. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 15, 1996) Due to the order of hearing at this meeting, the Planning Commission placed this matter as the last item of business for the day. Upon reaching that point, the Commission was informed by Commissioner Adcock that she had problems dealing with this matter without a full discussion if there are issues to be discussed. A brief discussion followed during which time it was determined that it would be appropriate to defer this matter until a later time when there would perhaps more commissioners in attendance. There would be a broader discussion of the amendments prior to a vote. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 2 August 15, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal District LOCATION: North of Chenal and west of Markham REQUEST: Public Institutional and Park/Open Space to Commercial SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT: The property owner of land northwest of the Chenal - Markham intersection requested the property be shown on the adopted land use plan as commercial. The existing use is a church and open space. To the east is commercial development along Markham Street. Also to the south is commercial use (existing or proposed) to Markham Street. However to the north and west are residential use areas, single family to the north with multifamily to the west. The land use pattern for this area was basically set by the Markham Parkway zoning plan. This plan proposed commercial between Markham and Markham Parkway (Chenal Parkway) with multifamily and/or office to the north and south (then to single family). while there have been some changes, this basic pattern has been followed. From Markham to Kanis there is a set land use pattern. There is no commercial north of Chenal Parkway. Rather there is multifamily and some office. At the west end of the old Rock Creek Parkway (near Kanis) a commercial area is shown with office and multifamily between it and the single family to the north. This same pattern holds for the commercial north of Markham - east of the site. To change the requested property to commercial breaks the established pattern (east and west). There is available vacant commercial property both east and west of the site. Thus, there is no lack of land which this change would remedy - there is no need. Staff cannot support a major philosophic change without clear justification and showing of need. The Plan could be changed to either multifamily or office and be in keeping with the area land use pattern. Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 (cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial of request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 15, 1996) Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, began the presentation of the case. Mr. Lawson reviewed the land use plan in the surrounding area. The basic land use and zoning has been in place since the Rock Creek zoning plan (early 1970s). It is the desire of staff, including City Management to keep the use at office or less. By doing this the plan would step down from commercial (south and east) to residential (north and west). The Commission should examine the impact on the surrounding developments and sites if a change were permitted. In addition, the City Parks Plan shows part of the area for park land. Currently, the Parks Department is looking at plans to implement the Plan in this general location (along Rock Creek). The Parks plan would require acquisition by the City. In the past, the City has removed potential park sites because of lack of available funding and a desire of the owner to develop their property. There was discussion about the number of tracts involved; use along the Street; and time line of the Parks Department review. Mr. Lawson stated that whatever is done with the Land Use Plan the Parks issue mu" still be resolved. Commissioner Rahman stated then the Parks Plan does need to be considered when reviewing the issue. David Scherer, Civil Engineer, was asked to comment on the traffic issues. Mr. Scherer stated he would provide some information from the Chenal Study completed in 1995 by Peters and Associates. Chenal Parkway traffic counts have risen from 10,000 in 1992 to 24,000 in 1994. With full development, based on the City Land Use Plan, volumes should reach 58,000 in twenty years. Chenal Parkway will need to be 6 lanes to function at a Level of Service E. Without intensifying the use pattern the road system will need significant improvements. Jim Moses, principal for Moses-Nosari Real Estate, spoke on behalf of the application. Mr. Moses first thanked Staff and the Commission for their work and desire for quality development along the Chenal corridor. There will be a rezoning request to follow. The church needs to move. It is no longer appropriate in this location. For three years, Target has been looking for a site in West Little Rock. In fact a shopping center to the east was to have been a Target and other shopping, park, etc. However high development costs killed that request. There is a need for for a 20 acres site. 2 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 (cont.) Why is this location good for commercial use. First look at the street pattern. This is the only significant east -west arterial. Due to the way streets are built in Little Rock, private side does it, the need for higher uses along major streets is economic. Also, one should review the terrain around the site to see impact - which will be minimal to residential due to the terrain. Chenal and Markham is a significant, large commercial intersection. Secondly, the land use surrounding the site is important. In this case it is basically surrounded by commercial, with two auto dealers and two gas stations. The Plans has evolved and the church has never opposed rezoning of surrounding property. In every sense, this is a major commercial node. In this case, the neighbors are church members who need to relocate. The other neighbors are commercial. There will be no through streets to the north into neighborhoods. With the buffering to the north (Rock Creek) and west (existing medical clinic) the logical commercial boundary is Gamble. The next commercial to the west is a mile to mile and half away. A PCD will come next to assure the Commission of high quality development. The Land Use Plan is just a plan; it must change to facilitate growth. Quality commercial development is important. There were several questions. Twenty years ago Mr. Moses would not have predicted such intense development. The purpose of extending Gamble is to provide access to adjacent land, rather than direct access to Chenal. Also, Gamble would provide access to the linear park along Rock Creek. Mr. Moses assured the Commission the owners would work with Parks. Chairman Woods indicated this was a major commercial intersection. There was discussion about the Home Depot site; this being the last site; other public uses - intensity; zoning of medical office; and the location of the water line. Commissioner Hawn asked where the Plan had been changed. Mr. Lawson gave some examples. Commissioner Putnam asked if the Manager's Office was opposed. Mr. Lawson indicated the issue is how much is enough. Staff has been concerned about this corridor for some time. Finally land use planning is not a science. The Commission has heard several opinions, it is your call. Whatever the Commission recommends will go to the Board. This is the last tract of land and a change would finish out the area. The Commission must decide if this in part of the intersection or not, and where the commercial should stop - here or Gamble. Commissioner Lichty stated he had to leave put would have voted for the change. Attorney Meredith Catlett, for church, asked for a vote before the Commissioner Lichty left. With only one card in opposition, Chairman Woods called Ruth Bell to the front. 3 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 (cont.) Ms. Bell, League of Women Voters restated some of the recommendations in the Peters Study and reminded the Commission of all the rezoning from multifamily and office to commercial over the past 6 years. The League wishes to keep the use office or residential. Commissioner Lichty called the question. By unanimous vote (9 for 0 against) the amendment was approved. Gl August 15, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2 DISCUSSION ITEM NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment Process PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 15, 1996) Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, addressed the Planning Commission about a specific rezoning request (scheduled for the September 12, 1996 hearing) and the Commission's new policy on having a separate hearing for a plan amendment when a proposed reclassification was in conflict with the adopted plan. Mr. Lawson suggested that when a proposal involved a minor change in intensity, R-2 to MF-6, than the rezoning and plan amendment could be addressed at the same hearing. After some discussion, the Commission agreed with Mr. Lawson and acknowledged that certain zoning and plan issues could be placed on the same agenda. Tony Bozynski, Planning Manager, then requested some clarification from the Commission on the plan amendment process and whether every request that was in conflict with a land use plan would require a hearing on a proposed amendment. Mr. Bozynski said that the Commission's new policy was somewhat unclear and staff needed some direction. Some questions were asked of Mr. Bozynski and several commissioners offered comments on the issue. It was then decided to add this item to the agenda for the next Planning Commission retreat. 9 C� n T� 111"T ac' W i. 'x �Nzx F' x cn0E-4zaxz W❑ zzu=zUUZ zc��zoQw3az H CI) n`�H W z a N za �zawaOacx z z a W a O ❑ `<HzI<m W U aaa a -(O E ❑ M y+ .x E� U3 i l Ea O w w w z a z >4 0 E-4 .: x cn c� z ❑ ❑ �+ °z��n�'H ,,. x ~>woaZw�4 >1 w z z a z H O z-0 E{ W W i z a❑ ❑ < D ID4 O H a a W a z w a August 15, 1996 Keith Jones, Executive Director Central Arkansas Transit Authority made a presentation to the Commission on CATA. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 1