pc_12 19 1996I.
II.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 19, 1996
3:30 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
Approval of the minutes of the September 26, 1996 meeting.
The minutes of the last meeting were approved as
mailed.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
City Attorney:
Ron Woods
Suzanne McCarthy
Hugh Earnest
Sissi Brandon
Doyle Daniel
Herb Hawn
Bill Putnam
Craig Berry
Larry Lichty
Pam Adcock
Mizan Rahman
Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
AGENDA
DECEMBER 19, 1996
I. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Correctional Release
Centers
2. Master Street Plan Amendment - Modifying the collector
and arterial system between Kanis and Colonel Glenn
Roads, west of Bowman Road
3. Master Street Plan Amendment - Add a collector, east of
Autumn, between Financial Center and Kanis Road
4. Land Use Plan Definitions
II. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
5. Cloverdale -Woodson Neighborhood Plan
6. Park System Master Plan
December 19,1996
ITEM NO.: 1
Subject: A public hearing on a proposal to
amend the Zoning Ordinance for
purposes of establishing specific
regulation of correctional release
centers.
Source of Issue: The Little Rock Board of Directors
requested that the Planning
Commission through its Plans
Committee develop regulations
specific in nature for locating
release centers.
Staff Report:
• After receipt of its charge by the Board of Directors, the
Plans Committee set hearings to determine direction of
problem, resolution and specific ordinance language.
• The direction chosen was:
1. That all facilities of this nature would be required to
go through a public hearing process for site location;
2. That a specific definition be drafted that separates
these uses from the current definition listing.
3. That the conditional use permit process be employed to
assure proper notice, legal ad, signs posted, etc.
• The Plans Committee met two occasions October 22, 1996 and
November 4, 1996. During these meetings the Committee
discussed options available, specific language and received
guidance from the City Attorney's Staff.
• After the November 4 meeting, Richard Wood of Staff assembled
the comments offered and solutions developed, in the form of
an ordinance.
• This ordinance draft was presented to other staff persons and
Cindy Dawson of the City Attorney's Office.
• Minor changes were made and this agenda prepared along with a
legal ad.
• A mailing of the draft was made November 8 to all persons on
the contact list for ordinance review. This list consists of
December 19, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
45+ names of neighborhood association presidents,
professionals, development related and organizations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the amendments as presented.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 1996)
The Chairman identified the first item of business for this
agenda that being an ordinance amendment dealing with halfway
houses and similar facilities.
Tony Bozynski, of the Staff, offered a brief introduction of the
item. Mr. Bozynski then introduced Mr. Tom Carpenter, the City
Attorney. Mr. Carpenter was identified as taking the lead on
this item and he would introduce the subject ordinance.
Prior to Mr. Carpenter's comments on this item, Jim Lawson of the
Planning Staff, offered comments to the effect that the Planning
Staff had been working with the Plans Committee and City Attorney
on this matter. We had drafted an ordinance and the current
draft to be presented by Mr. Carpenter involves quite a bit more
and further clarifies the subject matter.
Mr. Carpenter stated that he had presented each of the several
commissioners with a copy of the latest draft and placed that
instrument at their seating arrangement. Mr. Carpenter, for the
record, identified the two ordinances as the one prepared by
staff and the Plans Committee with the guidance of Cindy Dawson
of his office and the new draft. He further expanded his comment
to include the changes that have been proposed in his earlier
draft to accommodate the differences between the two. He stated
that one of the primary goals of this ordinance was not only to
deal with the halfway house at issue but to deal with the City's
experience with federal facilities and the federal government's
willingness to deal with its own regulations and a concern that
there would be certain safety factors to meet on these kinds of
facilities.
Mr. Carpenter then offered an extended conversation on the
subject of the federal rules, The City of Faith operator of this
facility. He offered conversation about the bid documents and
specifications for the proposed use. Mr. Carpenter continued by
offering comments concerning the deficiency in requirements for
notice to both public officials and the neighborhood. Mr.
Carpenter described the approach that this owner had taken with
respect to contacting the Mayor and the City. He continued to
expand on the notice procedure that was utilized and the apparent
deficiency and that the contacts and notices did not deal with
2
December 19, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
specific site location until the date the building permit was
issued.
Mr. Carpenter then offered comments on the appropriateness of the
location and the need for participation by neighborhoods in site
selection, especially with regard to existing similar facilities
in the area. He stated that during all of his discussions on
this issue as it developed, what he kept hearing from the federal
authorities was, "does this proposal meet city zoning codes and
is OK if it complies with city zoning", then everything is okay.
He stated that was basically the reason he drafted the ordinance
that is presented to the Commission today. Mr. Carpenter then
briefly presented the ordinance text, the various sections of the
text, their impact and applicability.
He pointed out several areas that he stated had some concerns
prior to getting into the specific discussion of the ordinance
sections. He pointed out to the Commission that the Board of
Directors on Tuesday of this week had enacted amortorium for a
period of 90 days and that the intent of it was to offer a
sufficiency of time to appropriately to deal with these kinds of
issues and the proposed ordinance. That moritorium will refuse
zoning applications or building permits during the period. He
stated that the Board in adopting that resolution was aware of
this hearing before the Planning Commission and sufficient time
might be required to properly deal with this matter.
He stated that the amortorium is for a period of 90 days or the
actual effective date of the proposed ordinance to be presented.
Therefore, if the Commission comes up with something and it goes
to the Board prior to that 90 day termination, then that will be
the effective termination of the moritorium. He begin with
discussion of the ordinance text by identifying Section 1 which
is the definition section. It provides for a specific definition
of the zoning Ordinance in correctional facilities in as much as
they are not now discussed in the ordinance. He stated that he
believed it was basically the same definition prepared by the
Plans Committee and offered to the Commission. He stated that
one of the changes that his office had made in that definition
was the title, the staff and committee had used the term to be
defined as "correctional release facility". The word "release"
has been removed from the definition in as much as there are
other activities related to this facility that are not release
associated from correctional facilities.
He stated that there will possibly be parole violators or
misdemeanors that will be sentenced to a short time frame at this
facility. Therefore, this type of use is not really a release
facility. He stated that he wanted the ordinance to be all
encompassing.
3
December 19, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
He then moved to Section 2 which he identified as dealing with
the types of uses to be included within the ordinance. He then
moved to Section 3 of the draft which he stated gets into the
specificity of the conditional use. He stated that conditional
use permits by their nature are such that conditions can be
imposed but despite that circumstance this ordinance sets forth 6
additional criteria for obtaining or having a conditional use
permit. Mr. Carpenter then proceeded to read each of the 6 and
offer an explanation of their effect.
During the course of the discussion of these 6 items, the issue
of notice arose. Staff and Mr. Carpenter discussed with the
Commission the type of notice, the effect and how it has or has
not worked in the past. Several commissioners offered comments
on an approach which might be utilized for enhancing the notice
procedure specifically with source material and distance to be
notified. The subject also was discussed about notifying renters
versus property owners.
Mr. Carpenter inserted a comment relative to a notice procedure
which is required in this ordinance and would require some notice
be given prior to any contracts being executed committing the
properties. Mr. Carpenter offered some brief comments at this
point concerning other uses that may or may not be effected by
this conditional use permit process, specifically churches and
church outreach programs which may deal with youth or youth
issues.
In discussing Item 5 on this conditions list, the subject of the
notice procedure for notifying the police department or the city
relative to persons leaving the establishment without notice and
who would be responsible for making such notice to the city and
following up on enforcement or monitoring persons on these
premises. During the course of this discussion, Jim Lawson asked
Mr. Carpenter to backup to an earlier item No. 3 and explain the
distance measurement that is identified, the 500 feet. Mr.
Lawson asked "where is the 500 feet measured from, is it property
line to property line or is it from building to building". Mr.
Carpenters response was,'its between structures and that is to
deal with the variable size of adjacent properties.
Mr. Carpenter then described the effect of Subsection 2. which is
to limit the existing definitions and zoning Ordinance in various
districts which might be construed to include the correctional
facility that is to be regulated. This simply prohibits that
activity in these definitions. Mr. Carpenter then moved to the
next subsection which provides for a 4 year amortization period.
He offered an extensive conversation about the City of Faith and
their correctional facility with the terms that are associated
with the contract and the numbers of renewal periods allowed in
that contract. Mr. Carpenter stated that the purpose the for
this ordinance was to be an appropriate vehicle for the proper
4
December 19, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
location of these types of facilities in an appropriate portion
of the City of Little Rock. He stated that the ordinance does
not say don't come but the City wants to know what the proposal
consists of, where it to be located, and how it is to be
operated.
At this point, Commissioner Berry raised a question concerning
the notice and other aspects of this ordinance and its effect and
asked are we overreaching in the development of this regulation.
He asked whether we were overusing the conditional use permit
process in this regard. Mr. Carpenter offered as a response his
history with criminal law in his previous practice and the types
of changes that have occurred in the penal system as a result of
drug and other new effects that were not in existence a number of
years ago. Mr. Carpenter then returned to some of his previous
points and again discussed a notice issue and effect on
neighborhood.
Mr. Berry responded to Mr. Carpenter's comments by stating that
there is an endless number of conditions that you can place on
this type of regulation under the conditional use permit process.
A lengthy discussion followed involving several commissioners,
staff and Mr. Carpenter wherein he identified for the Commission
that it was their call at this point if there were some things in
this ordinance that they disagreed with, that, they should
indicate its removal.
At the end of this discussion, Commissioner Lichty framed a
motion which stated that this item be tabled until a commission
meeting following the Planning Commission's retreat on January
16, 1997. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
5
December 19, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 2
NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION: Between Colonel Glenn Road and
Kanis Road, Bowman Road to
Stewart
REQUEST: Modify the collector and
arterial pattern
SOURCE: A property owner/staff
STAFF REPORT:
At the request of a property owner (Capitol Development of
Arkansas), Staff reviewed a proposal to modify the Master
Street Plan in the Cooper Orbit Road area. In order to
accomplish Capitol Developments desired affect of reducing
traffic for Spring Valley Manor an alternative collector
pattern was proposed. Capitol Development proposed to
remove Cooper Orbit as a collector and added a new (more
direct) north -south collector to the west. Because of
topography and concern about the proposed collector
functioning as a higher type road (length, straight, etc.),
Staff suggested an alternative pattern.
The Staff proposal broke Cooper Orbit Road, turning it west
both north and south of Spring Valley Manor. The proposal
would continue to provide access and use the West Loop for
through north -south movement. Affected property owners were
notified and a meeting arranged. The property owners south
of Spring Valley Manor expressed concern about the proposal.
Staff and the owners have agreed to continue to work on the
problem, with the hope of reaching agreement on a Master
Street Plan modification for the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deferral to February 6, 1997
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 19, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II at the request of Commissioner
Brandon reviewed the request and status. After two
meetings, the area under review has been enlarged.
December 19, 1996
Commissioner Earnest, second Commissioner Adcock, made the
motion to defer the item to February 6, 1997. By an
unanimous vote (10 for, 0 against) the item was deferred.
December 19, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 3
NAME:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
SOURCE:
STAFF REPORT:
Master Street Plan Amendment
Between Financial
Kanis Road, east
Road
Add a collector
Staff
Center and
of Bowman
In 1987, there was an engineering alignment for Rock Creek
Parkway (Chenal-Financial Center) adopted by the Board of
Directors. This document was made part of the Master Street
Plan and has been the guide for street improvements in the
area. The engineering alignment set median cuts,
intersection design, etc. On the graphic for the alignment
a proposed collector is shown from -Rock Creek Parkway" to
Kanis Road. The median cut and intersection design adopted
for "Rock Creek Parkway" is that required for a collector.
It is the belief of the Public Works Department that the
1987 amendment added a collector. However, a collector has
not been added to the text or map of the Master Street Plan.
The Planning and Development Department believes it is
necessary to add the road by amendment.
The property owners along the northern leg of this proposed
collector have agreed to construct a street in this
corridor. Since the land use is all office and commercial,
any road will have to be constructed to collector standards.
The road will need other outlets than just the Parkway
intersection; thus, it is desirable to assure a connection
between the Parkway and Kanis Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 1996)
Walter Malone, Planner II reviewed the request with the
Commission, noting that both the Rock Creek Plan and Chenal
Task Force Report recommend the collector. David Scherer,
December 19, 1996
Civil Engineer explained the issues surrounding the hotel
site and road coming off of Financial Center Parkway.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, questioned the impact on
Kanis Road. There was discussion about Kanis Road, timing
of construction and design standards. Commissioner Putnam,
second Commissioner Lichty, made the motion to approve the
Plan Change. By an unanimous vote (10 for, 0 against) the
item was approved.
December 19,1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 4
NAME:
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 (BR) 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.
December 19, 1996
ITEM NO.: 4 (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.
Manny 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.
2
December 19, 1996
ITEM NO.: 4 (cont.)
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
definitions and have the Plans Committee
definition for the purpose of trying to
The motion was approved by a vote of 10
1 absent.
proposed Transition
review the
redefine Transition.
ayes, 0 nays and
3
CURRENT
LAND USE CATEGORIES
SF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: This category provides for detached single family homes at densities
not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically characterized by conventional single family
homes, but may also include patio or garden homes.and chister.homes, provided that the density remain less than 6 units per
acre.
MF MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: The multi -family category accommodates residential development of 10 to
36 dwelling units per acre.
LMF LOW DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY: This category accommodates a broad range of housing types including
single family attached, duplex, townhomes, and patio or garden homes. Any combination of these and possibly other housing `
s may fall in this category provided that the density
types Y a rY P is between six (6) and ten dwelling units per acre. /
MH MOBILE HOME PARK: This category accommodates an area specifically developed to accommodate mobile
homes.
MR MIXED RESIDENTIAL: The mixed residential category provides for a mixture of residential types and densities
not to exceed 10 units per acre.
O OFFICE: The office category represents services provided directly to consumers (e.g., legal, financial, medical) as well as
general offices which support more basic economic activities.
MOW MIXED OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE: This category provides for a mixture of office and warehousing uses to
occur. A Planned Unit Development is recommended if the use is entirely warehouse or if the use is a mixture of office and
warehouse.
SO SUBURBAN OFFICE: The suburban office category provides for the development of small -lot professional office
parks.
C COMMERCIAL: The commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal
and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade
area that they serve.
CS COMMUNITY SHOPPING: This category provides for shopping center development with one or more general
merchandise stores.
NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL: The neighborhood commercial category includes limited small scale
commercial development in close proximity to a neighborhood, providing goods and services to that neighborhood market area.
AG AGRICULTURE: The agriculture category provides for a transition between rural areas and the urban fringe, where it
would be appropriate to preserve existing rural land uses, prior to annexation into the city. v
LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL: This category provides for light warehouse, distribution or storage uses, and/or other
industrial uses that are developed in a .ell -designed "park -like" setting.
INDUSTRIAL: The industrial category encompasses a wide variety of manufacturing, research and development,
processing, warehousing, distribution and industry related office and service activities. In development typically occurs
on an individual tract basis rather than according to an overall development plan.
M MINING: The mining category provides for the extraction of various natural resources such as bauxite, sand, gravel,
limestone, granite or other. Mining uses will include assurances that these resources be properly managed so as not to create a
hazard, nuisance or the disfigurement or pollution of the land.
PKJOS PARK/OPEN SPACE: This category includes all public parks, recreation facilities, greenbelts, flood plains,
and other designated open space and recreational land.
PI PUBLICJNSTTI'UTIONAL: This category includes public and quasi public facilities which provide a variety of
services to the community such as schools, libraries, fire stations, churches, utility substations, and hospitals.
AGA AGRICULTUREf DUSTRIAL: This category allows for either agriculture and/or industrial uses to occur.
MCI MD(ED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL: This category provides for a mixture of commercial
and industrial uses to occur. A Planned Unit Development is recommended if the use is entirely industrial or if the use is
mixed commercial and industrial.
MOC MIXED OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL: This category provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses
to occur. A Planned Unit Development is recommended if the use is entirely commercial or if the use is a mixture of office and
commercial.
MOI MIXED OFFICE AND INTUSTRIAL: This category provides for a mixture of office and industrial uses to
occur. A Planned Unit Development is recommended if the use is entirely industrial or if the use is a mixture of office and
industrial.
NODE EXISTIl`TG BUSINESS NODE: This category provides for the existence of a sufficient concentration (minimum
of 3) of long-term established businesses on both sides of a major street. The businesses must be contiguous or in close
proximity. A Planned Unit development is required.
M" MIXED USE: This category provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Unit
Development is recommended if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three.
SHM SINGLE FAMILWAIlNING: The single-family/muting category recognizes that areas exist that are appropriate for
mining activities where mineral deposits exist but that are otherwise currently used as residential. This category pro-6des for a
transition from the existing residential uses to mining activities, in an orderly fashion.
TZ TRANSITION ZONE: The transition zone provides for an orderly transition between single family residential uses
and other more intense uses. A Planned Unit Development is required within the Transition Zone, except that properties on
Highway 10 which meet the Design Overlay District requirements in effect shall not require a Planned Unit Development.
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 warehousing, with a maximum building coverage of 30% of the site. All access to
transition zone uses shall be from a side street.
PROPOSED
LAND USE CATEGORIES
Residential
Single Family Residential - This category provides for single family homes at
densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential
SF development is typically characterized by conventional single family homes,
but may also include patio or garden homes and cluster homes, provided
that the density remain less than 6 units per acre.
Low Density Residential - This category -accommodates a broad range of
housing types including single family attached, single family detached,
LDR duplex, townhomes, and patio or garden homes. Any combination of these
and possibly other housing types may fall in this category provided that the
density is between six (6) and ten (10) dwelling units per acre.
MF Multi -Family Residential - The mulit-family category accommodates
residential development of ten (10) to thiry-six (36) dwelling units per acre.
MH Mobile Home Park - This category accommodates an area specifically
developed to accommodate mobile homes.
Office
Office - The office category represents services provided directly to
O consumers (e.g., legal, financial, medical) as well as general offices which
support more basic economic activities.
SO Suburban Office - The suburban office category shall provide for low intensity
development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential
areas to assure compatibility . A Planned Zoning District is required.
Commercial
Commercial - The commercial category includes a broad range of retail and
C wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general
business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending
on the trade area that they serve.
CS Community Shopping - This category provides for shopping center
development with one or more general merchandise stores.
Neighborhood Commercial - The neighborhood commercial category includes
NC limited small scale commercial development in close proximity to a
neighborhood, providing goods and services to that neighborhood market
area.
Existing Business Node - This category provides for the existence of a
NODE sufficient concentration (minimum of 3) of long-term established businesses
on both sides of a major street The businesses must be contiguous or in
close proximity. A Planned Zoning District is required.
Industrial
Light Industrial - This category provides for light warehouse, distribution or
LI storage uses, and /or other industrial uses that are developed in a well -
designed "park like" setting.
Industrial-- The industrial category encompasses a wide variety of
manufacturing, warehousing research and development, processing, and industry
related office and service activities. Industrial development typically occurs on
an individual tract basis rather than according to an overall development plan.
Mixed
Mixed Commercial and Industrial - This category provides for a mixture of
MCI commercial and industrial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required
if the use is mixed commercial and industrial.
Mixed Office and Commercial - This category provides for a mixture of office
MOC and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use
is mixed office and commercial.
Mixed Office and Industrial - This category provides for a mixture of office
MOI and industrial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is
a mixture of office and industrial.
Mixed Office and Warehouse - This category provides for a mixture of office
MOW and warehousing uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the
use is a mixture of office and warehouse.
Mixed Use - This category provides for a mixture of residential, office and
MX commercial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is
Other entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three.
Agriculture - It is the intent of this category to encourage the continuation
of agricultural uses of the land. The agricultrual classification also provides
A for a transition between rural areas and the urban fringe, where it would be
appropriate to preserve existing rural land use, prior to annexation into the
city.
MiDino - The mining category provides for the extraction of various natural
M resources such as bauxite, sand, gravel, limestone, granite or other. Mining
uses will include assurances that these resources be properly managed so as
not to create a hazard, nuisance or the disfigurement or pollution of the
land.
PKIOS Park/Open Space - This category includes all public parks, recreation
facilities, greenbelts, flood plains, and other designated open space and
recreational land.
Public/Institutional - This category includes public and quasi public facilities
PI which provide a variety of services to the community such as schools,
libraries, fire stations, churches, utility substations, and hospitals.
Transition One - The transition zone provides for an orderly transition between
single family residential uses an other more intense uses. A Planned Unit
T-1 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
T-2 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
Multi -family Residential, with a maximum density of 10 units per acre and Office
uses.
TRANSITION DEFINITION:
AN OVERVIEW
1986: The Highway 10 Plan, District No.1 of the
Extraterritorial Plan (Ord. No. 15,083)
Land Uses: Office and residential only
Intensity: Maximum floor area ratio of 0.2 for office
10 units per acre maximum for multifamily
1986: Upper Rock Creek District Plan (Ord. No. 15,147)
Intensity of Use:
Office - Maximum floor area ratio of 0.2
Warehousing - Building coverage not to exceed 30% of site
Multifamily - 10 dwelling units per acre maximum
1992: An ordinance amending Little Rock District and Neighborhood Plans
to standardize categories and adopt one ordinance to govern the future land use pattern of
Little Rock; and for other matters. (Ord. No. 16,222)
Transition Zone (TZ): The transition zone provides for an orderly
transition between single family residential uses and other more intense uses.
Within the transition zone, a Planned Unit Development is required. Other uses
that may be considered are: Multifamily residential, with a maximum density of 10
units per acre; office uses, with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.2; and
warehousing with a maximum building coverage of 30% of the site. All access to
transition zone uses shall be from a side street.
1994: An ordinance amending the city use plan, modifying the definition of transition zone; and
for other purposes. (Ord. No. 16,567)
The definition was modified to add a Planned Unit Development is required within
the Transition Zone, except that properties on Highway 10 which meet the Design
Overlay District requirements in effect shall not require a Planned Unit
Development,
1996: The staff recommended and the Planning Commission approved (May 23, 1996) the
following changes to the definition of Transition Zone.
Changed Transition Zone (TZ) to Transition (T)
Eliminated set floor area ratio for office use, warehousing as an acceptable use
and requiring access only from a side street.
• Concerning design overlay districts, the text was amended to read all
properties not just those along Highway 10.
The definition approved and forwarded to the Board of Directors read as follows:
Transition - 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 Multi -family Residential, with a maximum density of
10 units per acre and Office uses.
1996: After the definition package was placed on the Board's agenda, some questions were
raised about the Transition definition. In response, staff reviewed all the previous
Transition definitions and is now recommending two definitions: Transition One and
Transition Two.
Transition One - The transition zone provides for an orderly transition between
single family residential uses and 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 Multi -family Residential, with a maximum
density of 10 units per acre and Office uses.
December 19,1996
ITEM NO.: 5
NAME: Cloverdale/Watson Schools
Neighborhood Action Plan
STAFF REPORT:
At the invitation of two neighborhood associations,
Cloverdale and Fairfield, City Staff joined with the
residents of the Cloverdale/Watson Schools Neighborhoods to
begin the process of developing an action plan for the area.
Work began in February of 1996 with the formation of a
steering committee comprised of local residents. The
process which was used concentrated on three phases:
• Development of background information;
• Survey of neighborhood needs; and
• Development of a plan.
The first phase, development of background information,
consisted of a series of meetings held during February and
March of 1996. Employees of city and regional public
agencies met with the steering committee to discuss issues
such as transpiration, land use, zoning, and infrastructure.
This phase gave the steering committee an understanding of
city policies an allowed for an exchange of ideas and
concerns between city staff and local residents.
In March of 1996 a survey (phase two) was randomly
distributed to one third of the homes located in the
Cloverdale/Watson neighborhood. This included single and
multi -family residences and mobile homes. The results were
then presented to the committee.
During the late summer and into the fall of 1996 the
steering committee, using the data from the survey results
began to develop the action plan for the area. This
process included a review of the current land use and zoning
designations and the development of goals and objectives and
specific action steps to accomplish the goals.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 1996)
Pat Herman, Planner II briefed the Commission on the status
of the Cloverdale/Watson Schools Action Plan. Begun in
February of 1996, the Action Plan is to be presented to the
Planning Commission in February of 1997. Commissioner Hawn
suggested that members of the development community should,
along with area residents, be members of the steering
December 19, 1996
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 5
committee when action plans are being developed. There was
general discussion about the plan.
December 19, 1996
ITEM NO.: 6
NAME:
Park System Master Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 1996)
Bryan Day, Parks and Recreation Department, discussed the
Park Master Plan and presented a slide show. There was a
brief discussion and Mr. Day responded to several comments.
No formal action was taken by the Commission on this item.
1
0
cc
U
W
cc
W
F-
O
z
0
U)
0
0
z
Z
z
I
nYJ
l�
W
H
¢
ME
MEN
IN
son
on
on
all
110
O
W
2
F-
--
¢
�-
w¢=
Co
W
z uj
_ ¢rIj -�
O � Z 00
= (!) N_ Q J
Z S m m
W D Q< w Q¢
v¢¢ O�
W Co Td Lr ¢ 0-
¢
ZO
m¢
0
O
>
c¢ CO
W
Z
v Q
CL
:0
i.
F¢-
tp
m
I
Z
W
m
a
QI
W
z
December 19, 1996
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Date
7 40,�l
Chairman
V,