Loading...
pc_10 18 1988LITTLE ROOK PLANNING HEARING OCTOBER 18, 1988 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being nine in number. II. Approval of the September 6, 1988 Minutes III. Members present: David Jones Jarilyn Nicholson Martha Miller Bill Rector Rose Collins Connie Whitfield John McDaniel John Schlereth Fred Perkins Walter Riddick, III Members absent: Stephen Leek City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles OCTOBER 18, 1988 Item No. 1 - Amendment to the Master Street Plan - Downtown Name: Update street functional classifications of downtown roads Location: Downtown Little Rock, generally between Chester and Interstate 30 and Arkansas River to I-630 STAFF REPORT: In March, the Planning Commission approved a new Master Street Plan for the City and planning area. However, because of controversy surrounding the possible opening of Metrocentre Mall, the downtown portion of the Plan was removed before approval. The Metrocentre Commission has now recommended a plan for opening some of the Mall. After initial review by the Staff and discussion of concerns between the City and Metrocentre, the Staff is now prepared to recommend a Master Street Plan for the downtown area (see attached map). A listing of the proposed roads by functional classification is attached. This is the same plan as was presented back in the fall of 1987 and winter of 1988 for the Commission's review. The map generally conforms with a preliminary study done by the Parking Authority. As required, a notice has been published by the City advertising this public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 18, 1988) Walter Malone of the Planning Staff went over the exhibit on the downtown functional classifications. The Commission was informed of Metrocentre support and that the street plan shows only collectors, minor and principal arterials, and not local streets. Mr. Rector asked that the shading be removed from the "Mall" area. Mr. Malone said it would be done. Mr. Rector, with that condition, moved that the amendment be approved. The amendment was approved by unanimous voice vote (10, 0, 1 absent). OCTOBER 18, 1988 Item No. 2 - Amendment to the Master Street Plan - West Little Rock Applicant: Deltic Farm and Timber by Manes, Castin, Massie & McGetrick (MCMM) Name: Modification of Alignments and Functional Classifications for West Little Rock Location: North of Kanis Road, south of Cantrell, and west of the current City limits STAFF REPORT: The MCMM request is to eliminate an arterial and alter the collector pattern in the area north of the Parkway, south of Cantrell and west of the proposed "West Loop." Concerns about the slopes (grades) and need for an arterial have been discussed. In preliminary discussions with Staff, an alternative alignment was also discussed. There is a large area of steep slopes in Area #1 (see map) which should reduce the amount of development and also prevent connections between the Cantrell area and the Chenal development. Due to the limited number of connections, each will act like a funnel (more traffic than would normally be expected). This concern, together with an attempt to space arterials at about one mile intervals, the Staff feels requires an arterial to be built between the "West Loop" and the arterial to Johnson Ranch PCD. In addition, the 2010 estimate (assuming approximately 30% development) indicates an ADT of about 4000 for the said road. After review of the grades for the Taylor Loop connection, the Staff finds them to be within acceptable range and would be willing to discuss reduced standards because of the topography. Though the alignment shown on the Master Street Plan would provide a better flow, Staff is willing to discuss alternative alignments. In the past, Little Rock has reduced the number of arterials and located them so that traffic flows would be discontinuous (1 -430, West Loop, Cantrell /Markham area). The result has been that collectors have carried high traffic volumes and have operated in a dual collector /arterial function. An example of this dual function is Shackleford Road. By the year 2010, most of the collectors in this area are projected to have 7000 to 11,000 OCTOBER 18, 1988 Item No. 2_._(Continued) vehicle trips per day (ADT) -- design volume is 5000 ADT for collectors. The Staff has requested that a traffic impact analysis be done by Deltic on their North Slope rezoning request which covers this Master Street Plan area. We anticipate that the preliminary numbers will be available by this meeting for review. These numbers will assist in determining whether the Taylor Loop connection should be an arterial or a collector. (There is also the possibility for a reduced arterial standard for the alignment due to topography and limited access.) STAFF RECOMMENDATI ON: Deferral for two weeks to review traffic study information. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 18, 1988) Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff informed the Commission that Staff has asked for a two -week deferral in order to get the results of a traffic study. Mr. Lawson said Staff and a Deltic representative would like to present information to the Commission today. Mr. Castin, representing Deltic Timber, reviewed the Deltic holdings. He continued the presentation showing the proposed open space and public use areas within the Deltic holdings. He proceeded to discuss the arterial system for the area. Mr. Castin presented both the Deltic proposal and the current Master Street Plan alignment. Due to concern about how the arterial alignment off of the west leg of Taylor Loop occurred, Mr. Malone of the Planning Commission went over what was shown on the pre -1988 Master Street Plan and ET Study. On both of these plans, three breaks in the ridge were shown; two were arterial and one a collector. Staff felt that all three should be arterial due to the spacing of one and one -half to two miles and only three possible connections through the ridge. Mr. Shultz, representing Johnson Ranch, expressed concern about the notice on Master Street Plan changes. Mr. Shultz also expressed some confusion about the status of Taylor Loop and when, or if, Taylor Loop was an arterial. He also said that the Taylor Loop /Hinson Road (east /west) connection was logical and should be made more direct. Mr. Jones expressed some concern about adequate notice being given to property owners, particularly large ones, for both OCTOBER 18, 1988 Item No. 2 (Continued) Master Street Plan or Master Parks Plans changes. Mr. Greeson stated that notice has been given to both Deltic Timber and Glenn Johnson Ranch developers prior to the current Master Street Plan being adopted. A motion was made to defer the issue to the November 1, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote (10, 0, 1 absent). OCTOBER 18, 1988 Item No. 3 - Amendment to the Upper Rock Creek Land Use Plan Name: Land Use and Road Modifications Location: North of Kanis Road and west of the City limits STAFF REPORT: This amendment is the same which was made to the Extraterritorial Plan approximately six weeks ago. The public /quasi - public uses are relocated to more accurately reflect the Chenal Plan and zoning. (The governmental service center /park site is redefined to eliminate the Chenal Parkway frontage and place more property on an adjoining collector street.) Also, a large area of commercial is shown at the southeast corner of the Parkway and outer loop (as is zoned). The Research Office Park is moved south toward the outer loop also to reflect existing zoning. South of Rock Creek Parkway a "MF" and "LMF" area is changed to "SF" and "LMF" to more closely reflecting development. Minor changes to the collector pattern are also made to more closely reflect the Master Street Plan. In general, all these amendments are clean-up to make the Plan more accurately reflect the existing and future conditions of the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 18, 1988) Mr. Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff presented the amendments to the Upper Rock Creek Plan. He stated that these same changes were made to the ET Plan a few months ago. The changes are proposed to more accurately show approved zoning. The Commission asked some questions about changes in public use areas. Mr. Castin of MCMM and Deltic stated that the government center was now a larger area and that Deltic was reserving lands for schools. Since no one knows which districts the schools would be a part of, Deltic wanted to decide when and to whom the land was given. Deltic Farm and Timber did not wish to give the City of Little Rock the school designated areas to hold for the October 18, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) schools. There was further discussion of the junior /senior high school site and floodland which went through the site as well as the amount of commercial at the Parkway and West Loop intersection. Mr. Lawson of the Planning Staff assured the commission that the area was already zoned as the changes indicated. By a voice vote, the amendments were approved (10, 0, 1 absent). OCTOBER 18, 1988 Item No. 4 -- Ordinance to Regulate Adult Entertainment Businesses Name: Regulation of Adult Businesses Location: Various STAFF REPORT: Over the last several months the City Attorney's Office has been working on an ordinance which would regulate the location of adult oriented businesses (bookstores, topless bars, etc.) and the definition of an adult business. The Planning Staff served a support role gathering information and discussing alternatives. Currently there is no difference between an adult bookstore and Walden's Books in the City Ordinances. Due to the effects that adult businesses have had in other communities, the Staff feels additional regulations are needed. (Studies have shown a correlation between adult businesses with increased blight and higher crime levels in the neighborhoods which had such a business in them.) The City recognizes that these businesses have a Constitutional right to exist. However, the City also has regulator powers to assure that the community is protected. (See City Attorney's write-up for Ordinance outline.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (October 18, 1988) The Staff feels that the proposed ordinance achieves the proper balance between the businesses' right to exist and the community's right to regulate businesses which can cause harm to surrounding land uses. Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 18, 1988) Stephen Giles of the City Attorney's office said that his department needed to perform further research relating to the ordinance. The Commission voted to defer this item to November 29, 1988 by a voice vote (10, 0, 1 absent). DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Northwest Extraterritorial Land Use Plan Mr. Lawson of the Planning Staff presented the Plan and went over those areas already zoned or where current zoning has been requested. Mr. Jones asked about areas of commercial use and asked if this was not the same as the ET Study. Mr. Lawson said it generally was with added areas on Pinnacle/Highway 300. B. Highway 10 - Policy on Commercial in Transition Zone Mr. Jones recommended that a committee be formed to answer the Board's questions: is commercial zoning a third alternative in the transition zone in addition to office and multifamily and, if so, why? Mr. Jones also recommended that Jerilyn Nicholson, Rose Collins, Martha Miller, John Schlereth and John McDaniel be on the committee with Jerilyn Nicholson as chairperson. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters said that the review should follow the same rigorous process that produced the plan. A general discussion followed about commercial zoning on Highway 10 and a recent zoning case on Highway 10 near Bella Rosa. Mr. Jones said he would not participate in any discussion of the issue, only about setting up the committee. The transition zone (history); time, effort and money that have gone into the plan; the intent of the transition zone and possible restrictions on commercial zoning were discussed. Mr. Massie of MCMM reviewed how the transition zone occurred and what it was for. Mr. Riddick made a motion that the answer to the Board be, "No, commercial is not a third alternative absent specific restrictions and design criteria that assure developments will meet transition zone goals." There was further discussion and Mr. Rector made a motion that the response be "Yes, with the intent of allowing quality development, avoiding a hodgepodge strip development, and any development must adhere to specific standards such as being in certain transition zones, having less floor area ratio, larger parcel size, reduced signage, reduced curb cuts (number) and provide buffer (landscaped) strips." There was further discussion with the general tone being that everyone wanted to avoid an eyesore, but some commercial development was likely and would be demanded by the population in the area. In order to avoid sounding too affirmative, the motion was revised to answer the Board "No, unless it is the intention of allowing quality commercial development but avoiding a hodgepodge commercial strip and it meets certain restrictive criteria such as: (1) not necessarily in all areas of Discussion Items (Continued) the Transition Zone; (2) less dense floor area ratio than allowed for office development, (3) larger minimum parcel size than allowed for office development; (4) proper curb cut spacing; and (5) greater setbacks than allowed for office development.” The motion was approved by a vote of 6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention (David Jones). OTHER DISCUSSION Mr. Schlereth asked Mr. Greeson about a traffic study requirement for a zone change case on South University. Mr. Greeson said the Staff had requested a traffic study. Mr. Schlereth asked if no traffic study was done, would that prevent the case from being heard, or affect the Staff's recommendation. Mr. Greeson stated that the Staff would ask the Commission to wait on any decision on the case until a study was completed but that the study was not a requirement. Mr. Greeson asked if the Commission had anything they wished to discuss at the retreat. He then reviewed the items tentatively on the agenda: 36th Street Interchange Study, Urban Development Awards, major rezoning cases in West Little Rock, and ordinance amendments. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 3:20 p.m. DATE: SECRETARY CHAIRMAN