Loading...
5635 RESOLUTION NO. 5,635 A RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACCEPTING THE "RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GROWTH POLICY IMPLEMENTATION" AS SET FORTH IN BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON'S MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 1976; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The "Recommendations for Growth Policy Implementation" as set forth in Booz, Allen & Hamilton's memorandum dated September 23, 1976, a copy attached hereto, are hereby accepted and shall provide policy direction for amending existing ordinances, and drafting new ordinances and resolutions, which collectively together will form a land use guidance system and policy framework for the City of Little Rock. Provided, however, that no implement- ation shall be started by the Board of Directors until a Director of Comprehensive Planning has been employed, in order that he will have a part and working relation- ship with the Board in the implementation of the Booz-Allen and Hamilton Plan. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. ADOPTED: December 7, 1976 E 1 ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor I 111,"0. 7 Booz, Allen & Hamilton ` q SEP 1916 San Francisco September 23 , 1976 To: Carlton McMullin, City Manager Jim Finch, Planning Director From: Ron Jonash, Booz , Allen & Hamilton • Subject : Recommended Revisions To Preliminary Recommenda- tions For Growth Policy Implementation As Set Forth In August Memoranda In order to respond to initial comments from the Board, the Resource Committee, the Chamber Committee , the Home- builders, the Board of Realtors and city staff , we have clarified and modified our seven preliminary recommendations in a number of ways. These clarifications and changes affect recommendations 1 through 5 (primarily 1 , 2 & 3) and are outlined below: (1) Adopt A Planned Unit Development Ordinance As An Amendment To The Zoning And As Subdivision Ordinance Clarification/modification of intent of PUD recommendations . - To permit the City to consider and approve a specific development plan rather than a particular zoning designation To permit the City and the developer more flexibility in administering and conforming to zoning or subdivision requirements which sometimes appear unnecessarily arbitrary (particularly where mixed uses and varying site characteristics are involved) • • • 'Carlton McMullin Jim Finch -2- . September 23 , 1976 - To permit the City to utilize more objective guidelines (since they can evaulate a development proposal rather , than a zoning request) To permit one-step shopping where the approval of a specific development plan automatically carries with it all necessary subdivision and rezoning or variance approvals Clarification/modification of how PUD provisions would actually work. • Would be voluntary rather than mandatory in all areas of the City Virtually all types and sizes of develop- ment proposals would be eligible - Would include a preapplication conference with staff as currently provided in zoning/subdivision process First stage concept plan approval would include board passage of resolution of intent to rezone and provide other variances/waivers as needed -- Second' stage specific plan approval would • incorporate all necessary zoning changes , variances , etc . All of these necessary • changes would be conditioned on specific development plan. Major changes or • abandonment of project would subject property owner to the removal of all related zoning and subdivision approvals - First stage review of concept plan would most appropriately be before the Board of Directors , second stage specific develop- ment plan review could go either to Board of Adjustment or to Planning Commission or to Board of Directors for final approval Carlton McMullin Jim Finch -3- September i 23, 1976 Administrative flexibility would have to be provided where developer changed the specific development plan but where general concept plan and/or its impacts • were not substantially affected Review guidelines would be same as those being proposed for zoning/subdivision requests--i .e. , consideration of the proposal ' s conformity with the City ' s general land use plan (see #7 ) , of its impact on adjacent uses , of its impact on the adequacy of public facilities and services , of the costs of providing necessary improvement in facilities and services relative to the revenues available (from CIP and general fund and/or as specifically generated by new development) , of how any excess costs are to be met or deferred etc . These guidelines would not involve absolutes. • Regular zoning/subdivision requests would still be considered in all cases , but staff would use maximum development intensity and impact as basis for evaluation. Proponent at any time would have option to transfer into PUD process (2) Amendxgon$egx®xcdiamsr xToxRecirz±xexSpsssaixRexmitsxFox Betua0pmsM1 xXlixRxbasxxz l3? e txToxXxistikujxRxOssted SexuicexAnr x casststyxnel iemmies*xeapaoityxR ialysis fui dxaostxReu nuexAmaiysisxYoxAex PxinsipiexExikexia FoxxGxantingxRexmsts This recommendation has been deleted and its basic objective incorporated in clarifications/ modifications to #l , #4 , #5 and #7 . • • Carlton McMullin Jim Finch -4- September 23, 1976 (3) Expand TwoxNew Public Financing Approaches To _ Generate Additional Municipal Revenues Needed To Accommodate New Growth And Development Clarification/modification of intent of public financing recommendations . - To provide adequate revenues to meet combined needs of maintaining/replacing/ improving existing facilities while at the same time expanding facilities to accommodate new development - To provide most importantly for the provision of area-specific drainage and road improvements beyond those necessary to serve an individual parcel - To provide adequate revenues to meet combined needs of maintaining/improving existing service levels while at the same time expanding services to accommodate new development - To provide an equitable method for allo- cating costs and generating additional revenues to meet service and facility needs (sharing the on-site and off-site costs • of constructing area based public facil- ities between the city and developer/ property owners ; and recovering more fully the additional costs of providing additional public services to areas of new growth and development) - To provide a feasible, practical and immediately realizable way of generating these needed revenues - To establish priorities among alternative financing methods and sources • Carlton McMullin Jim Finch -G-- September 23, 1976 Convincing the state to allow the • City to more actively promote and adopt improvement/assessment di:.tri.cts (so that the City could initiate improvement districts unless 51% of the assessed valuation obj - ctc:ci) ; • Thu C i Ly convincing t hu local property uwlu.'t i or devu 1 )puma Lo auuuml,lu improvement districts (providing tech- nical assistance using City funds as matching funds) ; • The City adopting a set of user, connec- tion, or permit fees which could gen- erate a portion of needed funds in a special material improvement or drain-- ., age improvement fund (e.g. , a sliding fee scale based on a $350 connect fee for a single family home would generate an estimated $1, 000 , 000 a year for additional capital improvements and would probably not substantially affect the cost of housing) ; Convincing the County/State to place new development on the tax rolls earlier than now accomplished; . . The City continuing to require the developer to bear the full costs of on-site road or drainage improvements even if they are required in order to serve other developments as well (this is now required--and probably unfairly--in the subdivision ordin- ance) . -- A third priority would be for the City to explore ways of private/public cooperation to reduce costs and increase available revenues--especially those related to expansion of facilities Carlton McMullin Jim Finch -5- September 23, 1976 Clarification/modification of how public financing recommendations would actually work. First priority would be for the City to ' take actions (all dependent on other levels of government) to expand broad based general fund sources of revenue so that the City could set aside more ade- quate funds out of each years budget for capital improvements. This would entail: Encouraging the assessor to raise assessed valuations to the legally established maximum; • • Getting the state legislature to raise the bonding limit or mileage limits now imposed on the City; Getting the state, the federal govern- ment or county to allocate a fairer ' and increased share of special funds (such as the gas tax) to the City; • • Getting the State to enable the City to feasibly enact new revenue sources (sales tax, income tax) . These objectives have been pursued unsuccessfully for some time by the Board of Directors and should continue to be, but even if achieved, would not likely be adequate to meet projected needs. Second priority would be for the City to • take actions (some dependent on other levels of government) to expand area- based, user based, or new development based sources of revenue so that City could have more adequate and timely funds generated directly by the areas or develop- ment responsible for the increased costs 1 (particularly those associated with cost- liest area-based improvements of drainage and roads) . This would entail : ,rr.• p Carlton McMullin Jim Finch -7- September 23, 1976 (4) Amend The Subdivision Ordinance To Provide For More Flexible And Less Restrictive On-Site Requirements While At The Same Time Establishing Standards For Deyelphc�r PurL.ic ipat:ic>ct In The I'rovi_^ion nC Oft-Site • Improvements (Particularly Streets And Drainage) Necessitated By The Subdivision Clarification/modification of intent of subdivision recommendations . • To more adequately incorporate the City' s balanced concern and priorities for on-site • improvements (which may now be overdone) and off-site improvements (which are often inadequate) --given shortage of available • resources and already high cost of housing: . To incorporate the PUD provisions as discussed in #1 j - To more specifically incorporate review criteria (the adequacy of facilities , conditions for improvement waivers , conformity with general plan) Clarification/modification of how subdivision recommendations would work. On-site street widths and drainage requirements could potentially be reduced - Requirements for provision of on-site facilities necessary to serve larger areas could be reduced Requirements for equitable shared participation in the provision of off-site facilities needed to serve subdivision should be increased with provisions • for in lieu fees • • • • Carlton McMullin Jim Finch -8- September 23, 1976 (5) _ Amend The Little Rock Zoning Ordinance To Establish Additional Districts (Flood Plain , Open Space , Mining , Historic Preservation And intermediate Residential/Commercial Zones) , To Incorporate Objectives And Performance Standards Into Each District Definition And To Add A Li"sting Of Conditional And Transitional Uses To Each District (e.g . , Gas Stations , Parking Lots , Fast Food Outlets) Clarification of intent of zoning recommendations. To make miscellaneous changes which would help address some of the specific problems that have arisen in growing areas To provide a more explicit set of guide- lines for determining when various districts are appropriate • Clarification of how zoning recommendations would work. By providing additional districts they would provide the City more flexibility in accommodating development proposals -- By providing additional districts they would provide more adequate protection for environmentally sensitive or hazardous areas By providing for conditional uses , would provide for more careful yet flexible treatment of special uses - By providing for transitional uses , would provide more flexibility buffers on border line of adjacent districts • Carlton McMullin Jim Finch - 9 - September 23, 1976 (6) Develop Special Incentive Programs To Conserve, Revitalize And Renew Existing Residential Neighborhoods, The Downtown And Other Developed Commercial And Industrial Areas • Recommended action has the following purposes: - To encourage infill development in existing downtown areas - To conserve, revitalize and rehabilitate existing buildings - To renew blighted areas Techniques to accomplish the above actions are related to the following: - Land use regulations and special development districts - Fee waivers and procedural deferments Land assemblage and acquisition assistance - Financing assistance and tax incentives - Improvements in public facilities and services Code administration and rehabilitation counseling • The management's elements necessary for Little Rock to conserve, revitalize and renew existing areas should include: 4 - Preparation of a Strategic Development Program Preparation of a short-tcim tactical plan - Creation of a private sector relations program and an improved private investment climate - Development, adoption and implementation of the specific public actions and incentives necessary to get a revitalization process going (7) Initiate A More Thorough General Planning Process And More Specifically Develop A Series Of Special Area Plans And Strategies For Target Areas Of The City Experiencing Growth Or Change Comprehensive Municipal Plan serves several important functions: - It is an official statement of a community's plans and policies and notifies all those concerned with the physical growth of the community of the planned improvements 4 Carleton McMullin Jim Finch - 10 - September 23, 1976 It serves as the basis for the review of capital improvements and rezonings or other major projects - It generates important planning information and postulates solutions to complex issues To be effective, the comprehensive plan should contain a plan of action for realizing its proposed objectives The municipal plan should present the overall development policies and programs of Little Rock The implementation or phasing of the general plan should be _ reflected in: - 1 - Short range proposals and policies which are scheduled for execution in a one to five year range - Intermediate range proposals and policies for projected activities in a five to fifteen year range - Long range proposals and policies for projected activities exceeding fifteen years 4