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