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