pc_01 08 1998LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 8, 1998
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number.
II. Members Present: Craig Berry
Herb Hawn
Bill Putnam
Judith Faust
Rohn Muse
Hugh Earnest
Larry Lichty
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Pam Adcock
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Steve Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING AND PLANNING AGENDA
JANUARY 8, 1998
4:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A. Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance
II. REZONING ITEMS
1. Z-6416 2117 Cumberland R-4 to R-5
2. Z-6417 2022-2024 Cumberland R-4 to R-5
3. Z-6430 10112 Chicot R-2 to 0-3
III. MASTER STREET PLAN ISSUES
4. Vimy Ridge Road north of Alexander Road to a
minor arterial
5. Riverfront/Rebsamen Park Road to a collector;
River Mountain Road to a residential street
IV. PLAN ISSUES
6. LU98-1 Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs
East District - 8300 Block of Scott
Hamilton
7. LU98-2 Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs
East District - west side of Hilaro
Springs south of Bruno
Co
Z3JIId
{�
W
rc
Q
C6
� w
W
�
W
Zi
N
Q
�O
N
�
4I
N
LL
O~Y�b�
w
�
X
O
N
NO1lIWVH
ODS
z
VJ LL
OJ
�iy
W
NINdS
K�
O
3ABO O
z
dd
y�
J
M
u
Q
ww
4
U
H y b �rc
15
V
Oµ0
u>
Lu
C�
O
W
w
z
�Z4
U�
u
J
o
N
s
O
yO�O
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A
SUBJECT:
Public hearing on WCF, Wireless
Communication Facilities
REQUEST: That the Planning Commission hear
comments and discuss the text of
the ordinance and pass on
recommendation to the City Board of
Directors.
STAFF REPORT:
The staff of the City Attorney's Office with assistance from
Planning Staff has drafted an ordinance we feel addresses the
issues we have confronted recently. Copies of this draft have
been mailed on two occasions to our ordinance review list of 45
persons plus the industry people we identified.
We expect comments from a number of sources in as much as we have
received numerous responses to the mailout. Some of the
recommended changes have been inserted within the text and this
will be evident as you read it. Stephen Giles of the City
Attorney's and Planning Staff will be available to answer
questions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 18, 1997)
There were several representatives of the wireless communications
industry present at the public hearing. Steve Giles, City
Attorney, explained various aspects of the proposed ordinance to
the Commission.
The various industry representatives expressed their concerns
with the proposed ordinance. Those concerns included tower
height (maximum permitted), setback from residential property and
the employment of an engineer by the City on appealed
applications.
The Commission, after a lengthy discussion, asked Mr. Giles to
revise the ordinance draft (based on the Commission's discussion)
and present it at the next available meeting for approval.
A motion was made to defer the item to the January 8, 1998
agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and
1 absent.
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO • A (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 8, 1998)
The Chairman recognized Stephen Giles of the City Attorney's
Office for purposes of presenting this item and the staff's
recommendation. Mr. Giles began by offering a brief history of
the proposed ordinance. He pointed out that the deferral from
the last meeting was primarily for the purpose of clarifying
those things which were obviously wrong and clarify those items
that needed to be clarified.
Mr. Giles stated that the presentation today to the Commission is
an ordinance. It will be simpler than the one previously
offered. He stated that he is more comfortable with the current
draft; however, there are a couple of additional changes that he
wanted to make. These were changes which are fairly obvious and
he would talk the Commission through this review. Before Giles
began the presentation of the ordinance and the staff's
commentary on this draft, he stated that perhaps for the benefit
of the persons who were viewing this Commission meeting on
television he would run through the basics of the ordinance.
Mr. Giles began his presentation by stating this ordinance deals
only with wireless communication facilities. He then proceeded
with a lengthy discussion of the ordinance draft. This involved
going through the ordinance a section and paragraph at a time
explaining the specifics of each design or use issue as well as
the administrative function built into the ordinance by right.
At one point in this presentation, Commissioner Nunnley requested
permission to address the issue of safety relative to health and
emissions. Giles responded by offering information that this was
something that was within the regulatory capacity of the Federal
Agency and the City could not and did not regulate such as the
emissions from the facility. He explained for the Commission to
what extent the Federal regulation affected the City of Little
Rock's ability to regulate towers and broadcast facilities.
Giles also indicated those areas where the federal law recently
permitted the City of Little Rock to enter into this area.
The discussion then moved to the location byright of the towers
and WCF facilities. Giles pointed out that the thinking now
among planners and attorneys it is now appropriate to place these
kind of facilities in residential areas. It would be difficult
to maintain them outside of residential areas. Giles then
pointed out that Little Rock has an enormous amount of land zoned
as residential. The exclusion of towers from residential zoned
properties would place a great burden on the establishment of
facilities. The discussion then continued for some period of
time between Commissioner Nunnley and Stephen Giles concerning
two subjects. One of these was the health hazard issue and the'
other was the placing of towers in residential zones. Giles
stated that if the Commission denied a tower location in a
2
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
residential neighborhood for zoning consideration, then the
Commission could do this. However, it could be based upon health
and safety but not upon emission standards.
Giles then returned to his presentation of the ordinance draft
dealing with the lighting and sound emission standards.
Completing that element of the discussion, he moved to the issue
of 150 foot tall towers. He reminded the Commission that they
had directed him to utilize this height as the tower height for
WCF. He then moved into a discussion of the subject of co -
location. Giles indicated that co -location was to be a policy
issue of the City of Little Rock. This was based upon a
commissioner's suggestion at least two facilities be permitted on
each tower and the initial tower construction be designed to
handle this consideration. Giles indicated that he had heard
from all of the providers' attorneys and the providers do this
anyway.
He stated that with co -location in mind he had added another
development standard. Prior to offering this new standard, he
offered arguments in support of it. The standard would be the
addition of a commitment in the filing of applications as to
whether or not the provider agreed to construct a tower to permit
co -location. Mr. Giles read the specific language of the
addition. In addition to this statement, Mr. Giles pointed out
some language in 7A in this text which stated "competitive
conflict and financial burden are not deemed to be adequate
reasons against co -location." Mr. Giles concluded this series
of remarks by stating at this point if an applicant approaches
the staff and complies with all of the above design standards
which have been presented, then this would permit the location as
byright. It would be reviewed through the conventional 5 day
building permit review. But if an applicant refuses to sign the
statement, this would send the issue to the Planning Commission
for review. At this point, the Commission could respond to the
applicant's reasons behind his statement. Mr. Giles then offered
some commentary on the review process. He restated that all
applications which do not meet the design standards would come to
the Planning Commission.
He then moved on to the subject of WCF on city property and
stated he is removing this paragraph. Mr. Giles pointed out he
originally felt this language was beneficial and there would be
encouragement to use city properties. The City would utilize
these facilities for revenue purposes. He also pointed out that
language would have allowed a lesser review process for location
on public properties. Giles pointed out that Mr. Stodola, an
attorney for Southwestern Bell, had stated it was unfair. Giles
said after he had thought about it and discussed it with the
staff, especially in light of we had gone to 150 feet on the
towers. He felt there was not now a reason to have a different
standard for placement on city property. So again, he stated
.K7
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
that the Commission should just take this paragraph out of the
ordinance.
Giles then moved to the ordinance element dealing with approval
procedures. He indicated just the afternoon of the meeting,
staff had made a change. The change dealt with the
administrative review. Mr. Giles read the language.
Giles indicated that originally the draft had indicated a
building permit would trigger the review; however, the building
review process is much broader dealing with fire and other
standards. He stated the staff did not need to get into this
area in this process. He closed this series of comments by
saying this action would remove some confusion.
Giles then moved to the discussion of the tower use permit
application. He stated that it had not changed from the previous
draft. It is similar to the conditional use permit process
currently used by the Commission. Giles then moved his
presentation to paragraph 5 of the ordinance dealing with the
several actions that the Commission could take on an application.
He briefly ran through the four identifying the function of each
and what purpose it served. Concluding the outline of these four
actions Giles stated that if the Commission felt comfortable with
how it has been dealt with, then there is no need for him to make
further changes in this section.
Chairman Lichty inserted a comment at this point stating to Mr.
Giles that if it would make the providers more comfortable with
this language such as "pursuant to the bylaws" could be added to
this section. A brief discussion followed involving several
commissioners and Mr. Giles having to do with the deferral
process and some history relative to the deferrals.
The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Faust for a comment.
She suggested that the language in the ordinance should be
retained as it is or perhaps add the language "pursuant to the
bylaws", but don't do anything else. Mr. Giles responded to her
comment by saying his feeling is we should leave it like it is as
far as not unduly delaying things.
He moved to the final element of the ordinance which was findings
of fact. He added some commentary on this paragraph dealing with
the Federal Communication's act. Giles added the word "written"
to the text to clarify the application. He then pointed out to a
bold highlighting that he had placed at the top of page 8 which
says "for which the application is filed." That was a response
to some concern as to what the sentence meant. He further
clarified that by saying this is in response to the Commission
having segmented its public hearings into three hearing processes
those being subdivision, zoning, and planning. He stated what
this meant was, that the filing would be for the subdivision
meeting.
4
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)
Giles stated under paragraph 8B he had deleted some language as
follows, except for some technical data that was not available at
the hearing before the Planning Commission meeting. He continued
by saying only such evidence or testimony in support or
opposition to issuance of the permit which was provided to the
Planning Commission may be presented to the Board of Directors
unless the Board by a majority vote decides to hear the new
information. He briefly explained the City had received
complaints about items that had been appealed to the Board. The
information submitted had not been previously discussed at the
Planning Commission level. Giles said the effect of this
language is to cutoff the introduction of new information.
Giles then moved his presentation of the ordinance to the subject
of appeals and the ordinance language dealing with expertise of
the staff and the City requiring outside expertise to provide
engineering analysis on an issue. He stated that he had reviewed
ordinances from other cities since the last commission meeting.
Having talked with those planners and engineers from those
cities, and in their areas this has worked effectively. He had
gleaned some language from those communications. He said both
Tom Carpenter, the City Attorney, and he supported this language.
Mr. Giles then proceeded to read the language as now drafted.
"If a denied application is appealed to the Board of
Directors upon the basis that the denial effectively
prohibits service or unreasonably discriminates
against the applicant, the City may deem it
necessary to employ an engineer qualified in the
design and installation of WCF to assist the City in
reviewing engineering aspects of the application.
In such case, any reasonable cost not to exceed
$1,500.00 for the engineer's review and
recommendation of the application shall be
reimbursed by the applicant prior to the hearing on
the appeal."
Giles followed that reading with some brief statements dealing
with the circumstance under which this procedure would be
utilized. He then moved his presentation toward the end by
discussing Sections 6 and 7 which deal with co -location. He
stated that he had cleaned up the language to state:
"All WCF shall provide for co -location where
technically and practically feasible. Applicants
shall show that a good faith attempt was made to
find a co -location site within standards and none
was technically or practically feasible.
Competitive conflict and financial burden are not
deemed to be adequate reasons against co -location. -
5
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
Giles then moved to the subject of nonconformity which is
paragraph 9C. He identified these nonconforming WCF as those
that are not in conformance with the design standards of the
ordinance. He then proceeded to read the new language and
concluded by saying that we would treat nonconforming towers much
like we treat other nonconformities. At this point, Giles
concluded his presentation of the ordinance draft.
Chairman Lichty then directed a question to the Commission asking
what are their questions. Commissioner Faust was recognized for
a comment. She stated her question dealt mostly with
clarification and with Section 4 dealing with structural
integrity. This dealing with tower structures supporting at
least two antennae array. She and Mr. Giles of the City Attorney
Office's briefly discussed the plurality of the language utilized
here and agreed upon modification. Commissioner Faust then moved
to a second question having to do with co -location. The question
she posed had to do with whether the requirements under the
signing of a co -location agreement had to do with the WCF
attached. Commissioner Faust and Mr. Giles again briefly
discussed the subject and they determined that WCF would not
involve the co -location requirement in as much as these types of
WCFs are mounted upon a building or some other facilities other
than a tower.
Giles agreed to modify the language to say "WCF's with support
structure to clarify this statement." Commissioner Faust then
introduced a third question dealing with section 6 of the
ordinance. She stated that the language here in the interest of
clarity should say, "If administrative approval is not obtained
because of noncompliance, then the applicant shall be required to
obtain a TOP." Then Giles and Commissioner Faust agreed upon
the language reconstruction for this paragraph.
Commissioner Faust then moved to another question dealing with
section 6. Again, she stated this having to do with
clarification of language. Her question had to do with the
language that stated for the next scheduled hearing. The
clarification agreed upon between Giles and Commissioner Faust
was the language would be modified to specifically identify the
meeting. An item would be attached to the filing deadline for
which the application was filed. In most cases, this is the
subdivision public hearing.
A lengthy discussion followed at this point involving both staff,
City Attorney and commissioners with a resolution being that the
next scheduled actually means the meeting for which the
application is filed and guided by the deadline on the calendar.
Giles then introduced modification of the language in this same
section dealing with Planning Commission authorization for
extension of time. The language introduced was developed after a
lengthy discussion between several persons.
G
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
Commissioner Berry was recognized by the Chairman at this point.
He first offered a statement that the ordinance was well-written.
His first question had to do with the removal of abandoned WCFs.
He stated that he understood the liability for such removal would
be with the provider in as much as most of them lease their
sites. His question extended was, "What if you have a provider
that goes out of business? And in that instance would the
property owner be liable?" A lengthy discussion followed here as
to the appropriateness of attaching requirement for removal from
the owner or the provider.
A lengthy discussion followed, including several commissioners,
Mr. Stodola representing Southwestern Bell, the City Attorney,
and Lawson of staff. They all offered particular comments as to
what they thought the circumstances of removal would be. At the
conclusion of this lengthy discussion, Stephen Giles of the City
Attorney's Office read the language that would be resolution of
the issues raised. The new language is to be that the City may
remove the tower and recover the expense from the owner of the
WCF or the landowner.
At this point Commissioner Nunnley raised a question as to what
the expense would be associated with the removal of a tower. Mr.
Randy Frazier, who was present representing one of the providers,
indicated the cost could range from $6,000 to $7,000. He
indicated that they had not had this experience yet. The
commissioner clarified his question further by stating he had
wanted to put some dollar figures on the subject of removal since
the City is talking about doing the removal.
Commissioner Berry was recognized by the Chairman for another
question. This question had to do with the subject of
notification and the distance involved, the adequacy of 200 feet
versus a distance such as 500 feet. A lengthy discussion
followed this statement by Commissioner Berry. There were
several participants offering different ideas concerning the
appropriateness of the additional notification. A particular
concern pointed out was whether or not it was appropriate to
notify a tenant or renter as opposed to always notifying owners
only.
The conversation at this point extended for some period of time
involving a number of commissioners as well as staff. The
discussion ranged from the manner in which the regulation could
be adjusted to adequately notify neighborhoods all the way to the
subject of whether or not every tenant and apartment complex
should be notified. The means for providing a list for mailing
notices was of some concern to several participants, especially
in most circumstances where renters would be notified as there is
no notice as is normally determined by an abstract company.
The Chairman indicated, the consensus appeared to be after all of
the various comments that ownership should be the key for notice
7
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)
rather than tenants. Commentary was then offered relative to the
height of the tower and its relationship to notice requirements.
Commissioner Putnam offered there were visibility issues tied to
the height of the tower. He did not understand how that would
work with the notice requirement. Jim Lawson of staff inserted a
comment at this point and he identified for the Commission the
notice requirement was not in the ordinance but in the bylaws of
the Commission. It is there more out of necessity due to the
fact that on occasion for some minor infraction the Commission
was required to or did occasionally extended a waiver of the
specifics of a notice. This could not be accomplished if the
notice was part of the ordinance.
After receiving several questions directed to him, Commissioner
Berry responded by saying he was simply trying to feel out the
Commission and get their feelings on the subject of modifying the
notice procedure. The Commission determined it was a broader
question to be resolved.
The Chairman asked if there were other questions from the
Commission. He then stated he had a couple of questions to ask.
The first question had to do with the process of the commitment
for co -location. Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office,
said that application forms would be utilized for filing and
would provide a space for the applicant to address this issue.
He stated the way it is structured is, if the applicant does not
choose to sign this requirement on the application, then it would
automatically send the issue forward to the Commission and remove
it as an administrative review. Therefore, the Commission would
have the opportunity of addressing the issue in public and asking
the provider, "why not."
The second question posed by Chairman Lichty was referenced to
the Commission having the capacity to impose the additional
standards beyond those set forth in the ordinance. The ordinance
indicates that it would be based upon findings of the Commission.
His question specifically was, "would the additional conditions
be based solely on those findings?" Mr. Giles responded by
saying that in the conditional use permit process the Commission
would impose reasonable conditions upon an applicant. Because
there is adverse impact or the policy or goals are not met in the
opinion of the Commission, the conditions being posed have to be
reasonable and capable of being accomplished. Giles followed up
this comment by saying the City had litigated the conditional use
permit process and these standards in this statement are taken
from that circumstance.
Chairman Lichty's next question had to do with evidence of
materials presented to the City Board of Directors being limited
to that which was presented to the Planning Commission. His
question specifically was, "Is this a new policy?" Mr. Giles
responded by saying yes and it is based upon experience with the
conditional use permit process. It is because of this history
11
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
that the City Attorney's Office proposes to make amendments to
this section in the ordinance. He further stated this is in
great measure based upon the Board's action. He stated that the
Board wants the Planning Commission to flush these things out and
then new materials would not surprise them at their public
hearing.
Chairman Lichty asked if it would not be good for this policy to
be applied to all of the issues to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Stephen Giles responded by saying yes.
Commissioner Berry inserted a thought at this point on the same
subject. He asked, "Is the process here to head off the
introduction of new information or evidence." Mr. Giles'
response was, "No, it does not and the provision for the Board's
majority vote allowing new evidence to be heard covers this
point. After the Board's action, it could be presented by either
the staff or the applicant.
Commissioner Nunnley was then recognized for a comment. He asked
a question, "If new evidence is developed, could we not have a
process where the staff could introduce this information when the
staff make its recommendation?" There was then an extended
conversation between Commissioner Nunnley and Stephen Giles and
how it possibly might be developed to introduce new evidence.
The Chairman then moved the Commission to the receipt of comments
from the persons present.
It was noted that present for the providers from the industry
were Mark Stodola, Hunter Stuart, Randy Frazier, and Ms. Matson.
Mr. Frazier was recognized first as a representative from
Telecorp. and he pointed out that having discussed his several
points with Mr. Stodola he was prepared to narrow the issue and
would question several points. He then turned the discussion to
the issue of co -location. Mr. Frazier stated that although the
industry does construct towers which will comply and provide for
co -location that it puts the City in a unique position with the
terminology that the applicant must sign a statement to
co -location but on commercially reasonable terms acceptable to
the parties is putting the City in the position of determining
what is commercially reasonable.
Mr. Frazier indicated what he thought the industry could sign was
a statement similar to what is there in the ordinance, which is
the provider agrees on the applications with support structures
to allow co -location. Mr. Frazier then moved his thoughts to
another page. Dealing with the specific language he pointed to
the competitive conflict and financial burden. These are not
deemed to be adequate reasons against co -location. He stated the
City is being put into the same position here, being judge and
jury of what competitive conflict is or financial burden. He
stated the industry is willing to co -locate, but to put those
standards there that the City of the Board have to determine is
9
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
possibly a restraint on trade. It is also an indeterminable
standard of what is competitive conflict and financial burden.
Although they were not identified on the tape, several persons
agreed with the speaker. Steve Giles then attempted to explain
the reasoning behind the introduction of the language in the
ordinance. As a solution to this, Randy Frazier addressed the
subject on page 8 to delete the newly added sentence that deals
with competitive conflict and financial burden, these are not
deemed adequate reason against co -location. Mr. Giles responded
to this comment by saying, "Deleting that language does not
dilute the City's position of still making the applicant make
this commitment to allow others to be on their towers."
After several more comments on this subject, Mr. Giles indicated
that the removal of this item was not a severe hindrance to the
pursuit of the ordinance. An extended discussion followed
involving Mr. Stodola and Mr. Giles as well as the Chairman. It
involved the several arguments for and against co -location and
the arguments which might be put forward by a provider relative
to the City's position. It was understood that co -location as a
element of the administrative review was something that would be
required. A person refusing to sign such an agreement on the
application and in taking it to the Planning Commission would
have the right to pursue arguments against co -location or at
least the commitment to location.
Toward the end of this discussion, Commissioner Faust asked a
specific question of Steve Giles relative to the sentence dealing
with co -location. Mr. Giles responded that given the current
number of providers plus, there are potential new providers to
come into the market. This might be valuable because of the
arguments that new providers may offer in the future as to why
the terms of their potential co -location were not reasonable.
Giles also stated this follows -up the language that the Board of
Adjustment uses as a guideline which is generally that cost shall
not be a factor in determining a decision, a variance.
At this point, Jim Lawson of staff offered possible scenarios
relative to zoning and potential providers and the kinds of
arguments that they might present. The Chairman then recognized
Mr. Randy Frazier who came forward and offered a response to the
two previous arguments. He stated that he was not suggesting the
removal of sentences or any kind of advantage for the industry.
He was trying to do this so we have an ordinance that will not
become subject to attack on terms like competitive advantage and
financial burden. He referred to a statement of Stephen Giles
earlier in the meeting which had to do with the
telecommunications act. This act requires the Commission to put
their findings of fact in writing if denied. Mr. Frazier then
went on to offer examples as to specific circumstances.
10
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
At this point, the Chairman recognized Commissioner Hawn. He
offered a statement relative to what he understood Commissioner
Faust's question and thoughts were. Commissioner Hawn stated
that it seemed to him the language of this sentence simply stated
to providers they should work out their differences.
Commissioner Putnam then offered his thoughts on the subject and
commented on its relationship to what he considered contract law
issues. His thought was that the Planning Commission was not in
a position to work out what was being discussed. Steve Giles of
the City Attorney's Office responded to Commissioner Putnam's
comments with the following: "If the Commission denies an
application because of a provider's arguments to the effect they
could not afford to co -locate under the terms he was sure this
statement has to be in the ordinance giving us a reason to say
those arguments are not really appropriate. He stated that he
was not intending to put anything in the ordinance which would
cause the Commission and staff some grief trying to interpret
what it means. His office felt the City could live without that.
However, he did agree with Commissioner Hawn's comment that the
language in the ordinance does cause the involve parties to work
out their differences.
At this point, Jim Lawson of staff reminded the Chairman that the
Commission had to vacate the room shortly. Lawson suggested that
perhaps omitting the language on page 7 and keeping the language
on page 8 as discussed. Lawson also pointed out that this
ordinance will go on to the City Board. The involve parties will
have another point of review of discussion. There was some
clarification by the Chairman and Stephen Giles that Mr. Lawson
indicated the wrong page and it should be page 5. Giles
indicated that the agreement was,a period would be introduced
into the paragraph as discussed,eliminating the balance. The
agreement would still be included on the application for
administrative review.
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Randy Frazier for further
comment. He stated that he and perhaps Mr. Stodola had a couple
of additional comments to make, again going to page 8 of the
ordinance. His first point had to do with the requirement for
provision of an engineer on behalf of the City. He stated that
the difficulty he had on behalf of the provider and he tied the
comment to the paragraph immediately above the one dealing with
the engineer which prohibits the introduction of new evidence at
the City Board. Mr. Frazier stated that the provider should not
have to pay for a private engineer for the City's benefit. He
stated that if an application is denied, then this kicks in the
provision that the City could retain the engineer for purposes at
the City Board level and this conflicts with the paragraph
proceeding which prohibits the introduction of new evidence. Mr.
Frazier stated this was mostly a procedural matter and if there
was a legal matter, then it is replete with problems requiring
11
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.)
the private industry to pay an engineer on a TUP where it is not
done elsewhere.
Mr. Stodola then stepped forward and offered a comment. He
stated, "Once his expertise (the engineer) was all brought into
the analysis, they may agree with the industry which negates the
entire analysis that was mentioned earlier by Commissioner
Nunnley. This is where we really flush out all of the issues at
the Planning Commission level. Mr. Stodola stated that if the
engineer's determination agreed with the industry side, then this
would make all of the Planning Commission's discussion and action
for naught.
Mr. Giles introduced a thought at this point. He agreed with the
comments offered by Mr. Stodola and Mr. Frazier, and he liked
their concept. Mr. Giles stated that the City should have the
engineer available for other Planning Commission procedures and
not just for denial. But, where the Commission deems it
necessary to have counsel that it is right or wrong.
Commissioner Earnest was recognized for a comment. He stated
that if someone is going to determine expense to put in an 150
foot tower they have taken the time and trouble to do adequate
engineering review. He stated that he thought we were talking
only about an extraordinary circumstance and he did not see
anything wrong with this provision. The Chairman recognized Mr.
Lawson of staff for a comment. Mr. Lawson agreed that it should
be left in the ordinance and he did not see anything wrong with
this provision.
Mr. Lawson said he agreed that the it should be left in the
ordinance, but it should say that the Planning Commission has the
authority to require this which means this would introduce a
deferral and hear it at a later date, then go on to the Board
level. He agreed with Mr. Frazier that the City was in a
position of saying that if it loses, then it will go and get a
bigger gun. He asked Mr. Giles if he could prepare some language
for introduction into the paragraph being discussed that would
clarify the issue that has been discussed. Mr. Giles offered
specifics which basically removed the element of the precondition
of denial before hiring the professional. Both Mr. Giles and Mr.
Lawson added comments relative to the Telecommunications Act and
its affect upon the operational structure of both the ordinance
and the Planning Commission.
A brief discussion followed concluded by a remark from Mr. Giles.
He stated that he did not want the language to be structured in
such a way to allow the establishment of the review engineer on
any action of the Commission. It has to be carefully
implemented if at all. The Chairman again recognized Mr. Frazier
for additional comment. He went back to paragraph A dealing with
co -location. His offering here was a language change which had
previously been raised by Commissioner Faust having to do with
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
recommended changes between Mr. Frazier and Mr. Stodola and this
language should say, "with support structures." Giles said this
would not apply to attached structures. Mr. Frazier pointed to
some other language which had to do with facilities constructed
and sighted to be capable of sharing. He stated that he and Mr.
Stodola agreed that "and siting" should be deleted. His point
was that siting had to do with a specific location of a specific
carrier. The location of an individual tower location could not
know whether a future co -location provider would need or could
use this tower or facility. Mr. Stodola suggested this was an
engineering issue.
Mr. Frazier offered his last comment dealing with the
nonconforming WCF in section 9 of the Ordinance, paragraph 2. He
indicated there was a change in the language offered by Mr. Giles
at today's meeting which is not reflected in the materials before
the Commission. This comment had to do with the replacement of
damaged or destroyed WCF. Mr. Frazier stated this was fine,
except for the nonconforming towers in sections of the City that
are strategically placed on a grid system where one tower feeds
on another. He stated that based on certain circumstances such
as variances being granted or the height of the facility being
nonconforming. He stated technically that the provider would not
be meeting all the terms of this ordinance. Mr. Giles responded
by saying this language would then require that the provider come
to the Commission to explain the circumstance.
Mr. Frazier stated that the industry was agreeable with coming
back into the process. He came back with another comment stating
that if the existing tower site is part of the system for the
grid of the provider, it ought to at least been allowed at the
same height and the same location. If it is not permitted the
loss of one tower could effect the entire group and it may be a
circumstance where it is not sitting back a 150 feet from
residential. At this point, Mr. Frazier and Mr. Giles discussed
potential language that could be introduced into the ordinance.
The general consensus being at the end of this discussion
nonconforming facilities that were destroyed or suffered some
cause for removal could be relocated to the same site and height,
but this would be processed through the Planning Commission for
review and be brought up to the ordinance design standards.
Commissioner Faust asked for clarification and suggested the
words were "former use of location and physical dimensions" and
striking the language obtaining a building permit and
substituting "subject to the provisions of this article."
The Chairman then recognized Mr. Stodola for purposes of asking a
question of Mr. Giles. He introduced a question on how to deal
with the subject of defining what damage means. He thought that
the damage meant over 50%. Mr. Giles clarified the situation by
saying under the provisions of the current ordinance which is
over 50% of the current value of the structure. He stated this
is in the current ordinance. Mr. Stodola introduced one
13
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.
remaining item. This was a suggestion that the ordinance have
some clarification of what is meant by administrative review. He
stated that at the beginning of the presentation by Mr. Giles
that he offered a good explanation of what administrative review
was. However, the ordinance does not provide for this. He felt
the language should be in the ordinance.
At this point, Mr. Giles reminded the Chairman that the
Commission's time had run out and we needed to move on. The
Chairman stated that we needed to hear from Ms. Ruth Bell, of the
League of Women Voters. Ms. Bell came forward and stated that
she was pleased with the ordinance the staff had prepared and
presented to the Commission since the Commission had already
asked the questions that she was prepared to ask. The League did
endorse the idea of expanding the notice distance. If such
facilities that the height permitted were placed in public green
spaces or parks, no one outside of the park would receive notice
or be aware that it is being erected.
Chairman Lichty stated, "At this point, he was not comfortable
with voting on this ordinance because of the changes which have
been made or proposed until the Commission sees the final draft."
Commissioner Hawn introduced a motion that the Commission defer
this matter until the Commission has a final copy. Stephen Giles
pointed out to the Commission that there is still the moratorium
that was established by the Board on this subject and the
moratorium expires on the 15th of January. This item has to go
to the Board. Mr. Giles stated he was very comfortable in
understanding what the Planning Commission wants as far as
language to put in. If the Commission would allow him to make
the changes by tomorrow, he would fax it to the Commission that
same day and allow the Commission to have review time over the
weekend. The staff needed to get this item on over to the Board
for next Tuesday meeting on January 13th.
Jim Lawson suggested that the Commission introduce a motion that
the draft be approved with the changes being made by the City
Attorney in conjunction with those items the Commission had
decided. After the staff gets a final draft and if one of the
commissioners has a concern, then the staff would report it to
the Board. Chairman Lichty then asked Commissioner Hawn to
reword his motion. The motion was basically as discussed by Mr.
Lawson and Mr. Giles. The vote on the motion produced 11 ayes,
0 nays and 0 absent.
14
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-6416
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
STAFF REPORT:
Raymond Rodgers
Raymond Rodgers
2117 Cumberland
Rezone from R-4 to R-5
Convert structure into
rooming/boarding house
.26± acres
Two Story duplex, boarded up
This item has been withdrawn by the applicant. In response
to suggestions from neighborhood residents, the item has
been filed as a Planned Development and will be heard at a
later meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 8, 1998)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had refiled the item as a Planned Development and had
requested withdrawal of this R-5 request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-6417
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
STAFF REPORT:
Raymond Rodgers
Raymond Rodgers
2022 and 2024 Cumberland
Rezone from R-4 to R-5
Convert existing structures
into rooming/boarding houses
.35± acres
2, Two -Story duplex residences
This item has been withdrawn by the applicant. In response
to suggestions from neighborhood residents, the item has
been refiled as a Planned Development and will be heard at a
later meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION_ ACTION: (JANUARY 8, 1998)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had refiled the item as a Planned Development and had
requested withdrawal of this R-5 request.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
r
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-6430
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
David Woodall
Woody Parker, Agent
10,112 Chicot Road
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3, with
conditions
Possible office development
2.26± acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Single Family residences, zoned R-2
South - Mostly vacant mobile home park, zoned R-7
East - Office building, zoned 0-3
West - Single Family residences, zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1. Chicot Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial. A dedication of right-of-way is
required to 55 feet from centerline.
2. Driveways do not conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577. With development combine the two entrances into
one driveway located at least 25 feet from the property
line.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
A Central Arkansas Transit bus route does extend down Chicot
Road.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Site is in the Geyer Springs West District. The Plan
recommends Suburban Office use. The request is for Office
use. The owner has placed conditions on the zoning --
height limitations and site plan review. While the request
does not meet the Land Use plan requirements, the request
does attempt to meet the intent of the Plan.
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6430
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 2.26±
acre tract from "R-2" Single Family to "0-3" General Office,
with conditions. The site is currently undeveloped. The
2.26 acres is the rear portion of a larger tract which
fronts onto Chicot Road. The front property (adjacent to
Chicot) is zoned C-3 and 0-3. An office building is located
on the 0-3 zoned portion. Although no specific development
is proposed for the immediate future on the subject
property, it is possible that the office development may be
expanded onto this site.
The property adjacent to the south is zoned R-7 and is
occupied by the remnants of a mobile home park. An office
building is located on the 0-3 zoned property to the east.
Single family homes are located on the R-2 zoned properties
to the north and west.
It is the proximity of these single family homes that the
rezoning request needs to be most sensitive to. Staff
believes office development is appropriate for this site if
it is designed so as to be compatible with and sensitive to
the adjacent residential properties. The applicant has
tailored his rezoning request to include conditions which
will help to assure compatibility of any development on the
site. The two conditions offered by the applicant are:
1. Any building constructed on the site will not exceed two
stories in height.
2. Prior to development of the site, a site plan must be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission.
Staff believes these conditions will assure that any
development of the site is sensitive to the adjacent
residential uses.
On November 13, 1997, the Planning Commission approved an
amendment to the Geyer Springs West District Land Use Plan
which changed the Land Use designation for this site from
Multifamily to Suburban Office. Staff believes that this
rezoning request, with the conditions offered by the
applicant, meets the spirit and intent of the Suburban
Office designation.
Chicot Road is classified by the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial street requiring right-of-way of 55 feet
either side of the centerline. Existing right-of-way is 35
feet from the centerline requiring a dedication of an
additional 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a waiver of
this requirement based on his assertion that the area being
K
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6430
rezoned is located 600 feet off of Chicot Road. Although
that much is true, the entire site is one ownership (1,278±
feet by 169± feet) with multiple zonings. Since it is one
tract of property with any development on the rear portion
having to take access off of Chicot Road, it is reasonable
to require that the abutting street right-of-way be brought
up to Master Street Plan standards. There is currently
insufficient right-of-way to allow for installation of
utilities behind the sidewalk or for future expansion of
Chicot Road to principal arterial design standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning with
the following conditions as offered by the applicant:
1. Any building constructed on the site will not exceed two
stories in height.
2. Prior to development of the site, a site plan must be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends denial of the request to waive the required
right-of-way dedication for Chicot Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 8, 1998)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed
to dedicate the required right-of-way for Chicot Road.
Staff recommended approval of the 0-3 rezoning request with
the conditions offered by the applicant.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, with
the conditions, by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 4
NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION: Vimy Ridge Road - Alexander Road
north to I-30
REQUEST: Amend from collector to minor
arterial
SOURCE: Public
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to change Vimy
Ridge Road from a collector to a minor arterial, from Alexander
Road north to I-30.
Vimy Ridge Road, south of Alexander Road, is shown on the Master
Street Plan as a Minor Arterial, as is Alexander Road. Vimy Ridge
is shown as a minor arterial on the Metro 2020 Plan. Between the
town of Alexander and Sardis Road, Vimy Ridge Road is currently
the only road proving a north/south connection.
Some time ago this portion of Vimy Ridge was shown on the plan as
a minor arterial but was amended to a collector because it only
provided a connection to the access roads on the south side of
I-30. Funding has now been approved to build an overpass at Vimy
Ridge which would provide access to both sides of the Interstate.
Given the change in Interstate accessibility and the lack of
other north/south connectors, Vimy Ridge will function as a minor
arterial by proving connections to and through the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Staff recommends approval of an amendment of the Master
Street Plan for Vimy Ridge Road from a Collector to a Minor
Arterial.
Public Work Staff does not believe the overpass will make a
significant difference in traffic volume on this section of Vimy
Ridge Road and recommends denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 8, 1998)
This item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved (10 for,
0 against and 1 absent).
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5
NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION: Riverfront Drive/Rebsamen Park
Road/River Mountain Road
REQUEST: Amend from minor arterial to
collector and residential street
SOURCE• Public
STAFF REPORT•
The request is to amend the Master Street Plan to change
Riverfront Drive/Rebsamen Park Road from a minor arterial to a
collector and River Mountain Road from a minor arterial to a
residential street.
In a recent election the public voted to leave Rebsamen Park Road
and River Mountain Road unconnected and to construct a non-
vehicular bridge across Jimerson Creek. As a result of this
action River Mountain Road/Riverfront Drive/Rebsamen Park Road no
longer provides connections to and through an urban area, which
is the role of a minor arterial.
The topography along River Mountain Road, its limited
development, low traffic counts, and severed connection to
Rebsamen Park Road support its change from a minor arterial to
residential street.
Rebsamen Road/Riverfront Drive is developed with recreational,
residential and office uses. However by not allowing through
traffic its function is that of a collector street - connecting
residential streets to arterials (Cantrell Road) or to activity
centers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Staff and Public Works Staff recommends approval of an
amendment of the Master Street Plan for River Mountain Drive from
minor arterial to residential and Rebsamen Park Road/Riverfront
Drive from minor arterial to collector.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 8, 1998)
This item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved (10 for,
0 against and 1 absent).
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 6
NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer
Springs East
LOCATION: 8300 Block Scott Hamilton Road
REQUEST: Low Density Residential to Light
Industrial
SOURCE: Norman Matuszyk
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to change the Land Use Plan from Low Density
Residential to Light Industrial. Originally submitted for a
rezoning, the request was in conflict with the Land Use Plan and
determined to be a major amendment.
The most recent plan amendment close to this site was in 1995,
changing Mixed Residential to Public Institutional and Single
Family; and Commercial to Mixed Office Commercial, at the
northeast corner of Scott Hamilton and Baseline Road.
The site, currently zoned R-2, is a vacant field. Surrounding
this property there are Industrial uses to the north (zoned I-2),
single family homes to the rear and mobile homes to the south (R-
2), and across Scott Hamilton Road is a Liquor Store, bar, AAA
Truck Lift, a single family home and an apartment complex.
Although the site is currently shown on the Plan as Low Density
Residential, it is unlikely that residential development would
occur along Scott Hamilton, a minor arterial. As there has been a
loss of commercial enterprises further south on Scott Hamilton,
new economic investment is welcomed. However, the close
proximity of single family dwellings facilitates the need for
site plan review for this development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment
from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial with a PZD
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 8, 1998)
The Commission was given a brief background on the requested
amendment by Pat Herman, Planner II. Ms. Herman stated that the
Planning Staff felt this request was a positive sign for economic
revitalization of the area; however, staff had concern for its
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO. : 6 (Cont. )
proximity to single family homes and was recommending a PZD
process be used to allow for sufficient buffering.
Commissioner Putnam raised the issue of minor and major plan
amendments and discussion followed that this was considered a
major plan amendment and a rezoning request would before the
Commission at a later date.
Commissioner Adcock discussed the types of business which would
be allowed in Light Industrial and the amount of traffic which
could be generated by future businesses. Discussion about
traffic generated by a business vs. multifamily dwellings
followed. The Commission voted to approve the amendment from LDR
to LI with a PZD required with a vote of 10 for, 0 against and
1 absent.
2
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO.: 7
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment -
Geyer Springs East District
Location: Either side of Hilaro Springs Road
south of Bruno
Request: Change an area from Single Family
to Commercial
Source: Owner - Marcy Marlin
Staff Report:
The site is in the Geyer Springs East District. The adopted Plan
shows Single Family for this site. The request is for Commercial
use. There have been three changes to the Plan in this area over
the last five years. In 1995, the north side of Baseline Road,
east of Scott Hamilton Road (Hilaro Springs) was changed to Mixed
Office Commercial and an existing church was recognized at Auxor
and Baseline Roads. To the west of Community Lane north of
Baseline, an area was changed from Mixed Residential (now Low
Density Residential) to Office. The last change occurred either
side of American Manor, east of Hilaro Springs Road, where a
Single Family area was changed to Multifamily.
This portion of Hilaro Springs Road was developed prior to
annexation and zoning regulation. The road is two lanes with
houses fronting the road. In addition, existing businesses and
multifamily uses are scattered along the road. For almost two
decades these tracts have continued to be legally nonconforming
uses. The owner bringing the request is under court action
related to mobile homes; however, the requested change is to
commercial. The site has three structures with "C-3", General
Commercial nonconforming status.
As in other sections of Little Rock, Staff is opposed to lining
Hilaro Springs with Commercial. The site in question is not at
an intersection much less a major intersection. If this site
were changed to commercial, how would the City prevent all lots
along Hilaro Springs from becoming Commercial. Staff cannot
recommend a change in the Plan in this location at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial of Commercial.
January 8, 1998
ITEM NO • 7 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
By unanimous vote (10 for 0 against), the
bylaw requirement and placed the item on
By unanimous vote (10 for 0 against) the
withdrawal.
2
(JANUARY 8, 1998)
Commission waived the
consent for withdrawal.
item was approved for
r
h
0
U
LUW
O
z
0
CO
0
z uw
z
�..
0
i
Q
LU
0
seeee�ee�
0
}
= 2 z Q
U J ¢m
O o = a m� g w
V-coZ W z V J 2
zw
wz
�z
z -
�oca 5 =�
o ,
}
Z=
O W m
Cl) it itz Y W _
�zzw�c~nOzz�z
w¢ O�_=
mw0 4:LCLz-j=
PE:
la
w
z
Q
ewn�e0000
o�lYl��
0
}
= 2 z Q
U J ¢m
O o = a m� g w
V-coZ W z V J 2
zw
wz
�z
z -
�oca 5 =�
o ,
}
Z=
O W m
Cl) it itz Y W _
�zzw�c~nOzz�z
w¢ O�_=
mw0 4:LCLz-j=
PE:
la
w
z
Q
January 8, 1998
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 6:12 p.m.
Date l
r.
ec eta
ClIai3zdan