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