pc_01 25 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 25, 1994
12:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the December 14, 1993 meeting.
The Minutes of the Previous Meeting were approved
as submitted by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Diane Chachere
Brad Walker
Kathleen Oleson
John McDaniel
Joe Hirsch Selz
Ramsay Ball
Emmett Willis, Jr.
Bill Putnam
Ron Woods
Rogers Faust
Jerilyn Nicholson
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
AGENDA
JANUARY 25, 1994
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Pankey Study
2. Bike Plan
3. 1994 Ordinance Amendments
4. Master Street Plan Amendments
January 25, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 1
TITLE: Pankey Plan
REQUEST: Development Plan for
Pankey CDBG Area
SOURCE: Community Development
Block Grant Committee
STAFF REPORT:
As part of the City's Community Development Block Grant
Program, a neighborhood study for the Pankey area was
funded. This study was to produce a development plan for
Pankey that the City and private citizens could use as a
guide in making development and investment plans.
At today's meeting representatives from the consultant (The
Donaghey Project) will present the plan which they together
with the neighborhood and City staff have developed. Items
to be covered are the survey and analysis of the area, goals
and objectives, plan alternatives developed, recommendations
for residential or commercial project, public facilities and
implementation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 25, 1994)
Tim Polk, Assistant Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
briefed the Commission of why the study was begun. Mr. Polk
explained that Community Development Block Grant monies were
being used and that the Donaghey Project had been hired to
do the project. Staff has worked with Donaghey as have
representatives of the community. The goal is to have a
plan developed by and for the community to guide the build
out of the Pankey area. Since Mr. Mercado of Donaghey
Project had not arrive, the Commission moved on to the next
item.
(After disposing of Items 2 and 4, the Commission returned
to Item 1.) Mr. Mercado, of Donaghey Project, indicated
they were the technical advisors to the community on the
project. Mr. Mercado detailed the citizen involvement
including a door-to-door survey and neighborhood meetings.
Ownership maps were produced to determine the amount of land
controlled by local people. Pressure from outside Pankey as
well as internal pressures were identified and ways for the
community to take charge of their future became key.
January 25, 1994
ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued)
A major part of the project's efforts have gone toward
trying to organize the community and focus on a single
future path to take. Mr. Mercado also reviewed graphics
showing development alternatives and community facilities -
recreation center/bus stop.
Commissioner Oleson asked about commercial development of
the area. Mr. Mercado responded that the new commercial
option had been rejected in favor of keeping the current
land use plan. Based on the survey, most residents felt
there was enough commercial and any new commercial could be
located on land contiguous to Pankey already designated for
commercial uses. In response to a request, Mr. Mercado
reviewed in more detail the Phase III development: infill
housing, elderly housing, new subdivisions, proposed
recreation center and enhanced bus stop to help build
Pankey's image of self identity. No dense development has
been proposed since the residents like the existing
character. Hopefully in the near future, Pankey will bring
the plan to the Commission for approval.
E
January 25, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 2
TITLE: Little Rock Bicycle Plan
REQUEST: Develop and Revise Bike
Plan for Little Rock
SOURCE:
STAFF REPORT:
Several years ago the Junior Chamber proposed to do a
Bikeway Plan for the City of Little Rock. This effort was
started based on the assumption the City had no bicycle
plan. During the development process, the group discovered
there was an adopted plan. This plan had not been
implemented nor were the staffs of Public Works or
Neighborhoods and Planning aware of the plan. Since the
plan was only a "paper" plan, the group decided to continue
with its plan development. Preliminary work was done for a
map and text, with drafts presented to staff for review and
comment.
After several months of work, the group lost its drive and
the drafts were left for several more months. In June of
1993, Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
instructed the Planning staff to "pick-up" the draft and
complete the plan. With assistance from Traffic Engineering
and Parks Design, a revised draft was prepared and the idea
of placing the Bike Plan in the Master Street Plan was
advanced.
Drafts of the plan were mailed to the realtor/developer
contact list and a half dozen representatives of the biking
community. Some comments were received; however, in order
to generate further comment, staff set up two "information"
meetings. At these meetings additional comment was received
from both bicyclists and realtor/developers. Some minor
changes were discussed.
At this time staff would like to brief the Commission of the
plan as it stands now and discuss how staff should proceed
from this point.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 25, 1994)
Walter Malone, Planner II, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Malone first directed the attention of the Commission to
the map showing the existing Bikeway Plan. Even though many
people do not believe the City has a bikeway plan , this
January 25, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued)
document was approved in early 1981. However, the current
effort did not start with the adopted plan, but an effort
started about three years ago by the Junior Chamber.
Mr. Malone reviewed the Junior Chamber's efforts and stated
the City took up their work in June of 1993. After
discussion between Parks, Public Works (Traffic) and
Planning Departments, the plan was changed to parallel the
Master Street Plan. Draft text was distributed in September
for comment. In order to increase the number of comments, a
second notice was distributed with "scare" phrases used to
encourage comment. Two public information meetings were
held, with individuals both supportive and questioning
present. Based on these comments, further revisions have
been made. This brings us to today's meeting.
Staff would like to get the Commission's comments on the
draft plan and would like to have a Commissioner appointed
to work with staff on this project. Commissioner Walker
volunteered to work with staff on the Bikeway Plan.
There were various questions about the need for a plan,
money available to build paths, effects on development of
requiring addition costs of bikeways, and demand for
bikeways. Mr. Malone stated that no survey of existing
usage or demand had been done. Most of the other issues
still needed to be addressed in the review process. No
final decisions have been made and both negative and
positive impacts still must be reviewed.
2
January 25, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 3
TITLE:
REQUEST:
SOURCE:
STAFF REPORT:
1994 Ordinance Amendment
Package
Preliminary approval to
proceed
Staff
Preliminary review and acceptance by the Commission of the
1994 Work Program for ordinance amendments. Setting the
date for the first work session.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 25, 1994)
Richard Wood, of the Staff, presented to the full Commission
copies of Draft 1 of the 1994 Ordinance Amendment Package.
Wood identified this as the first review for the Commission
as well as the Plans Committee, due to a compress time frame
for this years ordinance amendments. The late start in
February requires a compression of the normal distribution
and review process. However, staff will follow all of the
required steps contained in the continuity of requirements
of the Planning Commission.
Wood reported on the various items indicating there were a
few controversial issues included. Most of the changes were
technical or error corrections. He also asked that the
Plans Committee and the balance of the Commission review
this package over the next two weeks, and on February 8
endorse this listing for the annual work program. Wood
explained that, at this time, items offered by the
Commission or other sources would be added and the work
program finalized to reduce the total number and prevent the
add on of items throughout the year.
Commissioner Walker offered several amendments that he
desired to be added to the package. He outlined verbally
those for the staff and offered a written commentary for
inclusion within the package.
There was a brief discussion of the term "virgules" being a
slash symbol, which is utilized within both subdivision and
zoning ordinances. Stephen Giles, Assistant City Attorney,
indicated the history of this request being derived from
January 25, 1994
ITEM NO • 3 (Continued)
litigation concerning the National Home Center's development
on Highway 10. Staff and Attorney Giles indicated they
would work through the process to identify all listings of
this symbol and correct the language as appropriate.
After a brief discussion of other issues, the Commission
accepted the package for its review for a report back to the
public hearing on February 8. No vote was taken on the item
or the discussion.
2
January 25, 1994
Planning Hearing
ITEM NO.: 4
TITLE: Master Street Plan
Amendment
REQUEST:
Add Cross -Sections, Text and
Reclassify Chenal/Financial
Center Parkway
SOURCE: City Staff
STAFF REPORT:
In order to clean up the Master Street Plan, staff would
like to add seven new cross-sections and text to better
define two of these cross-sections. The urban arterial
section has reduced sections for older arterials approved
over a year ago. An open ditch section is added for
collector and local streets. These sections are consistent
with require roads in the port and outlining large lot
subdivisions. The seven lane section better illustrates
language which has been in the ordinance since 1988.
The Parkway text addition and sections, take the existing
median principal arterial and further define it. The first
"parkway" designation is proposed for Chenal/Financial
Center Parkway. Currently, this road is designated
expressway. The proposed reclassification includes a six
lane standard east of Kanis Road and a four lane standard
west of Kanis Road.
Copies of the cross-sections and text were distributed to
engineers, realtors and developers the week of January 18
(see attached memo).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 25, 1994)
Jerry Gardner, Chief Civil Engineering, presented the staff
position on this item. Mr. Gardner first reviewed the
history of the Chenal-Financial Center -Rock Creek Parkway.
The adopted design standard and the Master Street Plan
requirements were discussed versus the actual right-of-way
and road construction. There are definite discrepancies and
this amendment is needed to settle the issue once and for
all with the parkway recommendation.
Mr. Gardner reviewed each of the cross-sections indicating
that most were simply clarification and the open ditch
sections were to allow for flexibility in the outlining
January 25, 1994
ITEM NO • 4 (Continued)
areas. In response to Commissioner McDaniel's statement,
there was discussion about finished ditch requirements and
slopes.
Dennis Yarbro, Little Rock Water Works, expressed the
Utilities' concerns about the limitation of placement of
utilities in a 10 foot easement. Also, these requirements
do not agree with the approved utility placement guide
signed off on by the City. Mr. Gardner indicated there was
not an intension of excluding utilities from the right-of-
way. However, there could be problems with utilities in the
drainage ditch area. Possibly, the sections should be
modified as to the utility placement guide. Staff will need
to review the two documents to see if this problem cannot be
resolved.
Bill Aste, CARTS Technical Advisory Committee - Little Rock
Representative, in this capacity, Mr. Aste asked that the
City wait and take the regional agencies information on how
streets should look into account before amending the plan.
There needs to be regional coordination and cooperation on
the street system. As a representative of Southwest Little
Rock and the Coalition of Neighborhoods, Mr. Aste had real
problems with a seven lane street and questioned its need or
appropriateness. Also, there are negative land use
implication of a seven lane street.
There was discussion about the need for greater carrying
capacity and likely gridlock if six and seven lane roads
were not built. The statement was made that just because we
have always done it that way does not mean we must continue.
Mr. Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
expressed the need to proceed with the Parkway portion of
the amendment.
Mr. Joe White, of White-Daters Engineering, stated he
supported the plan amendment. However, "when was enough
enough", the City needs to stop making development construct
all roads. At some point the added capacity becomes the
Public's responsibility. Before the late 19801s, the City
stated any road more than four lanes was the Public's
responsibility. A third lane should be the Public's
responsibility to construct.
2
D
crO
U
W
W
F-
O
Z
O
O
U
U
Z
Z
Z
(3 -
LU w
0
r;
►0
`<I
w
Z
w
¢
r"
1..�
�Y
\f'
c-
N
V
L LIJw
m
.`�
W
WCf)
J
<
m
LU
Q
1 d
W
=
U
U
W
W
V
J
s
J
W
Z
U
w
_
V
z
ui
-'
}¢¢—
Y
O
U)}Z-
W
o
P
J
m
2
¢
:so
a
Z
�
cn
0
O
L j
O
)
W
cn
o
Ci
m
W
J
¢
r;
►0
`<I
w
Z
w
¢
r"
1..�
�Y
\f'
V
L
=
O
z
J
LLI
z
f-
}
¢
J
m
W
Q
o
w
¢
U�
W
W
-�
=
O
LU
W
W
-'
J
U
Z
W
J
{—
z
W
o
Z
LJ
z
Z
of
-�
~
m
Z
O
o
cw
0
co
r;
►0
`<I
w
Z
w
¢
January 25, 1994
PLANNING HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Date:
Chairman Secretary
1