Loading...
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