Loading...
pc_07 14 1987LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 14, 1987 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being nine in number with one absent and one open position. II. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed. July 14, 1987 Item No. A - Continued At this point, the Chair offered to hear additional opposition comment. Mr. Bill Woodard, a resident, requested additional time to address the park issue. Thelma Hobby added to that comment expressing the desire that it be a park. Lindsey Huckaby made comments to the effect that she was responsible for the opposition turnout but wants more time to deal with the park issue. Therisa Brown added comments from the perspective of catholic church members and lay persons and suggested that the church reconsider its action due to the neighborhood opposition. The Commission then entered again into general discussion of deferral of the proposal. The Chairman and others entered into a discussion with Mr. Huckaby on procedural matters. Commissioner Massie then offered that perhaps a two week deferral could allow time for the opposition to organize, obtain professional expertise, get direction from the Board of Directors, and ask the church to take a harder look at the park issue. Mr. Massie then offered a motion in these terms and indicated the July 14 Planning meeting as being appropriate meeting date to take up the matter again. Attorney David Meens, a representative of the Catholic Church, added to the record that the church was thoroughly involved with the views of the lay membership. He noted that lay boards within the church organization had held many meetings on this proposal and were committed to the project. A vote on the deferral motion passed by 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 2 abstentions (Jones, Ketcher). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-14-87) The chairman, Mr. Rector, identified the issue and asked for cooperation when speaking. He instructed everyone to speak directly into the microphone and identify themselves inasmuch as a court reporter was present and recording the meeting. Mr. Rector then reported to those in attendance that this is not the usual meeting for this type of issue but normally deals with planning matters such as parks plans and district plans. July 14, 1987 Item No. A - Continued The first order of business on this case was a request by Commissioner Nicholson to address the issue of abstaining. She stated that she had contacted the City Attorney and would be abstaining from participation. She was advised that she did not have to identify her reasons for doing so. Mr. Rector then advised that the abstention affected the vote inasmuch as six positive votes are required to pass or deny an action before the Commission. He stated for the record that there was one open position and one absent, leaving only eight to participate with one additional potential abstention. At this point Commissioner Collins stated that she had a conflict of interest and would not participate thereby leaving only seven voting eligible. Mr. Huckaby, a neighborhood representative, offered comments on the abstentions and the composition of the Commission. Commissioner Jones offered comments on the deferral process and the effect of automatic deferrals on the voting. Mr. Huckaby offered a request to quash the proceeding as being inappropriate due to the notice deficiency. His statement was that the 200 foot notice even though in accordance with the law and procedure is not adequate when many persons further away are affected. The Chairman and Mr. Huckaby agreed that the notice had been accomplished as required by law and procedure. The City Attorney stated that the notice had been accomplished as required per state law. Mr. Huckaby then requested a deferral due to the resignation of Dorothy Arnett and that effect upon the Commission. A general discussion followed with several Commissioners and Mr. Huckaby offering comments on the effect of the Planning Commission composition. Commissioner Jones offered a statement on Mr. Huckaby's comments and the Commission's integrity. The City Attorney offered that the Commission could conduct business as there were sufficient numbers present to conduct business. A general discussion followed during which the City Attorney and others discussed the issue of participation by various Commissioners. The Chairman then asked Mr. Flake to make his presentation. Mr. Flake's comments were preceded by Commissioner Schlereth requesting that the letter from the City Manager be read into the record. Mr. Greeson read the material which addressed the Board of Directors' instruction as to the proposed park site. July 14, 1987 Item No. A - Continued Mr. Flake then made his presentation in summary form from his June presentation. The Chairman then recognized supporters of the application. These were Mr. Jack Williams, Mr. Ray Kemp. Both supporters talked about the need for this type of unit in the area, and the current unsightly state of the property. (There were three cards submitted indicating a request to address the Commission in support of the application.) The Chairman then recognized the opposition. Mr. Huckaby was recognized first. He offered general comments on the issue and offered a second package of approximately 1,000 signatures. These signatures are on petitions of objection. He added that thousands were to follow. (There were 20+ persons in attendance in opposition. There were 27 cards filed with requests to speak. Mr. Huckaby then read several paragraphs of the Zoning Ordinance from the Planned Unit Development Section concerning harmony, compatibility, neighborhood involvement, and response. He stated that there had not been an adequate test of traffic generation during construction time of approximately four years or so. He stated that cluster housing is an inappropriate housing type in this neighborhood. Commissioner Massie requested that the staff describe the PUD process and state whether it is the only approach to development projects such as this. Mr. Greeson, the Planning Director, offered that the PUD process was the only approach to developing this type of development. Chairman Rector then offered comments on district application and density. Mr. Huckaby then made comments on the saleability of the project and traffic test needs, the fact that the church has not committed to no other sales in the future. He challenged Mr. Flake's assertion that units in the project were of average floor area in the area. He challenged the architectural compatibility of the project. He stated that it is a condo type project no matter what it is called. He offered that the project would depreciate neighborhood land values and increase traffic. A lengthy discussion of the issues followed. This discussion centered on traffic, marketability, commitment of the church on other lands. At this point, it was discussed that the numbers of petitions offered should not be used to make land use decisions. July 14, 1987 Item No. A - Continued The next issue discussed was the burden of proof in this matter. It was offered by the objectors that the burden of proving the appropriateness of this project fell to the developer and not with the objectors. Several Commissioners offered comments on the difficulty of the development process for PUDs and the Commission's reliance on the Planning staff to develop the issues. Mr. Lowery offered that there were two basic issues involved in this case. The first of which being that between uses as single family and uses as Planned Unit Development with exception to standards. The second being the purposes stated in Article 9 in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Rector then described the PUD process, the Commission's involvement and the church's options for development. (A brief recess was called.) The meeting was called to order. The hearing reconvened on this matter. A brief discussion occurred at this point relative to the usage of a court reporter for this public hearing. The City Attorney stated he would pay part of the reporter cost. At the Chairman's request, the staff outlined the procedures involved in the review of a Planned Unit Development proposal from the occasion of first contact with the staff through the public hearing process. Henk Koornstra, the Traffic Engineer, then presented comments on the traffic counts. He discussed Taylor Street as being a minor collector. He stated that traffic numbers were not an issue and answered questions from both the Commission and the audience. Another lengthy discussion followed involving statements about benefit to be received by the area from this project. Also what is considered when reviewing a case such as the one filed. The points outlined as important were density, access to the site, traffic generation. The discussion then shifted to comments as to traffic access onto Taylor Street vs. Polk Street. Commissioner Jones discussed whether there was a way to assure in any neighborhood of this city that traditional development can or will remain without change and without encroachment by other land types. July 14, 1987 Item No. A - Continued The discussion then moved to whether the Planned Unit Development process allowed a better development versus maximizing development potential on a given site. Comments were made about the subjectivity of the Planned Unit Development review and the staff added that actions on Planned Unit Developments should be reasonable and defensible based on the surrounding area. Several objectors stated at this point that they wanted nothing on the site especially sameness. The discussion then centered on the issue of housing type being attached versus open side yards. The objectors thought there was something special about this area of the City and what should be kept there is side yards and setbacks in a conventional format. Mr. Groh, a resident of the area, offered his thoughts about keeping the park site, the City bond issues, these being condos, and whether action would go to the City Board with support for a park site. Mr. Flake was requested to describe his building design. He offered that he did not have to file elevations, floor plans, and detail drawings but did to help the review. He continued by saying many of the units in his projects are 18 feet apart, providing courtyards and spaces between. The garages and parking are screened from view by the attachment of the buildings. He felt this would save trees by the clustering and allow the design to fit the terrain. The discussion then moved to the Taylor Street improvements and the inevitably of getting onto a public street at some point with the traffic generated by this development, both the residents and the construction equipment during the estimated four years. The construction type was discussed on the private street and whether it would hold truck traffic. Mr. Flake stated it would be constructed of brick and designed in curvilinear fashion to avoid trees and obstructions. Further comments pointed out that it would be built to City standard and withstand a fire truck and would possibly support construction vehicles. Discussion followed concerning access to Taylor Street, its length, and the trees and natural foliage to be lost. July 14, 1987 Item No. A - Continued Brief comments were then presented concerning whether the strong emotions on this subject on both sides were of value and effect in this proposal. Several objectors again raised the park question. Some objectors offering that perhaps they didn't understand all of the plan as presented. The Chairman, Mr. Rector, again addressed the subject of the park and the Commission's position. A discussion of a meeting of the two sides for resolution of the issues outlined in the hearings resulted in the objectors stating they were denied opportunity to resolve the issues at the last occasion. The discussion moved on to whether a person could be found to represent the opposition side. During the course of discussion, organization of the opposition in the form of an agent could not be gained. The discussion moved to the subject of deferrals and whether the applicant can call for a vote. It was determined that Mr. Flake had that right to make a request for action. However, a comment followed that the Commission could defer the matter again if it so desired. The discussion then moved to the subject of a totally acceptable development. Comments were made relative to the various types of development proposals that could be made in this area, including large lot single family, conventional lot, condominiums, or attached housing, etc. It was pointed out by a Commissioner that the Board of Directors was the final determiner, and in the final analysis will decide this case on the basis of nontraditional development in a traditional neighborhood setting. The discussion moved to rules for deferral and how best to deal with the bylaw application. The City Attorney, Mr. Stodola, offered guidance on the rules and instructed the Commission as to how they may proceed. The discussion then extended into areas of amending the bylaws to accommodate the voting procedure. The applicant was asked about his position on deferral. He repsonded by saying that he did not want to polarize the opposition. July 14, 1987 Item No. A - Continued Comments were offered by an opponent as to the location of a shrine in the ravine either on or adjacent to this property. It was apparent that no one knew the specific location. The Chair then asked that the issue be brought to a vote. A brief discussion of whether the resolution on the park should be dealt with prior to the vote on the PUD. The City Attorney's comment was that it should be a secondary vote. A motion was then made to suspend the rules of procedure to allow the resolution to be entered into the record. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position, 2 abstaining (Collins and Nicholson). Mr. Rector then read the resolution into the record (attached Exhibit A). A motion was then made for adoption of the resolution. A brief discussion followed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position, 2 abstentions (Collins and Nichsolson). Commissioner Jones then made a motion to defer the application for a period of two weeks to July 28, which would permit a meeting with a good faith attempt on the part of those involved to come to an agreement on this project. Additional comment by other Commissioners introduced an amendment to the motion which states an understanding that the debate on this subject will be limited to 30 minutes on the July 28 agenda. A vote was then taken. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 open position, 1 absent, 2 abstentions (Collins and Nicholson). A discussion followed wherein Mr. Lowery and Mr. Huckaby were encouraged to take the lead and meet with Mr. Flake and Jerilyn Nicholson, a Commissioner, to moderate the session. A report on the results of this meeting to be presented to the Commission on July 28. EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION _ A RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION RESTATING ITS SUPPORT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ON THE ST. JOHN'S SEMINARY SITE, CONDITIONED UPON THE CITY'S FINANCIAL ABILITY TO ACQUIRE THE SITE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Little Rock recommended the adoption of the Master Parks Plan of 1963 which included the area of the St. John's Seminary as a general park site and, WHEREAS, the Commission recommended the readoption of the Master Parks Plan in 1971 and 1983 which then included as a fixed park site #10 -NF, an area of 10 acres and which is part of the St. John's Seminary and, WHEREAS, in late 1986, the owner of site #10 -NF wished to pursue plans to develop this property and did not want to spend considerable sums of money on a development plan if the City intended to purchase the site for a park and, WHEREAS, the owner therefore requested its removal from the Master Parks Plan and, WHEREAS, the staff of the Office of Comprehensive Planning of the City of Little Rock recommended the site's removal from the Plan "due to current financial limitations" and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Little Rock thereupon recommended its removal and, WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock deferred final action on its removal until it had received the Commission's recommendation on the owner's proposed development of the site and, WHEREAS, there has arisen considerable neighborhood opposition to the removal of the site from the Master Parks Plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ­35 36 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The Planning Commission restates its support for a neighborhood park at site #10-NF. SECTION 2. The Commission's support is conditioned upon the financial ability of the City of Little Rock to acquire the site within the time frame set forth in the Master Park Plan ordinance. ADOPTED: APPROVED: Date Chairman July 14, 1987 PLANNING HEARING Item No. 1 - I -30 District Plan NAME: City of Little Rock LOCATION: East of I -30, north of eastbelt freeway, west of Missouri Pacific Railroad/ Bond Street, south of the Arkansas River REQUEST: To adopt the I -30 District Land Use Plan STAFF REPORT: The I -30 Planning District is composed of roughly three square miles in the eastern portion of the City of Little Rock. The district is largely developed with scattered vacant parcels in the industrially zoned areas. The majority of the district is composed of industrial uses. The I -30 District is a long -term industrial area, benefiting from access to railroad and freeway access and proximity to the Little Rock Airport and the Little Rock Port. A significant portion of the district is committed to public /quasi - public uses: three large cemeteries and two schools. Three distinct residential neighborhoods exist in the district. Roughly half the residents of the district are home owners. The plan recognizes the long -term industrial nature of this district and indicates a continuance of the more stable residential neighborhoods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the I -30 District Land Use Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Chairman took note of the fact that the hour was late and requested a motion to defer this item. A motion was made to defer the I -30 District Plan to the August 25, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 open position. July 14, 1987 r*-m M- 13 Ordinances Preliminary Discussion on Ordinance Amendments Package Subjects: 1) Mobile home definition changes and district modification 2) Nonconforming use /structure expansion or continuance 3) Group homes definition and district placement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission taking note of the late hour made a motion to defer the balance of the agenda to their next Planning hearing on August 25, 1987. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 vacant position. Miscellaneous Items 3. Update on Court Cases - Stephen Giles 4. Presentation on Manufactured Housing - Steve Rogers 5. Report by Planning Commissioners on recent APA Planning Commissioner Workshop in Hot Springs ITEM NO. 3 Other Matters /Rescinding a plat /Resolution A briefing by Stephen Giles of the City Attorney's Office in the matter of the Misty Lane lot split. July 14, 1987 PLANNING HEARING Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Steve Giles of the City Attorney's Office offered the following in response to the Chairman's request for comment on this matter. "As a result of the litigation in the Constance vs. Hodges lot split on State Highway 10 at Misty Lane has culminated in a Supreme Court decision in the chancery case and a summary judgment in the Circuit Court case. The City is mandated to vacate the plat of Cantrell Place I and II which was the splitting of the lots. In order to vacate a plat properly, an action of the Commission is needed in the form of a motion or resolution to go the Board of Directors for an ordinance vacating that plat." A motion was then made to recommend to the City Board of Directors that an ordinance be passed and filed of record rescinding the previous plat action on Cantrell Place I and II. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. July 14, 1987 PLANNING HEARING Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Chairman taking note of the late hour requested a motion be made concerning the balance of the agenda. A motion was then made to defer the balance of the agenda to the next scheduled planning meeting on August 25, 1987. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. July 14, 1987 PLANNING HEARING Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Chairman taking note of the late hour requested a motion be made concerning the balance of the agenda. A motion was then made to defer the balance of the agenda to the next scheduled planning meeting on August 25, 1987. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. July 14, 1987 PLANNING HEARING There being no further action proposed for this public hearing, the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Date Secretary Chairman