Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 16 1999 special hearingLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 16,1999 4:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number. II.Members Present:Craig Berry Herb HawnBillPutnam Judith Faust Hugh Earnest Bob Lowry Pam Adcock Mizan Rahman Richard Downing Obray Nunnley,Jr. Members Absent:Rohn Muse City Attorney:Steve Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING SEPTEMBER 16,1999 4:00 P.M. I.ITEMS: 1.S-1257 Westview Medical Addition —Preliminary Plat 2.Downtown Plan Amendments 3.Downtown Zoning September 1,1999 ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1257 NAME:Westview Medical Addition —Preliminary Plat LOCATION:Southwest corner of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Freeway Park Properties,LLC White-Daters and Associates 100 Morgan Keegan Dr.401 S.Victory Street Little Rock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201 AREA:6.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT:11 CENSUS TRACT:24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Variance from the ordinance required minimum driveway spacing for the driveways proposed for Lots 1 and 2. A.PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 6.9 acres of property atthesouthwestcornerofKanisRoadandCenterviewDriveintotwo(2)lots.The area for Lot 1 is proposed to be 2 acres,with Lot 2 being 4.9 acres in size.The property is zoned0-3 and will allow future office developments.Theapplicantproposestofinalplatthelotsoneata time,beginning with Lot 2.No new streets are proposed. September 1~,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded.The property immediately south and east across Centerview Drive is also undeveloped and wooded.There are two single-familyresidencesonlargelotstothenorthacrossKanis Road. There is a mixture of commercial and residential uses to thewestandeastalongKanisRoad. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Sandpiper Neighborhood Association was notified of thepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the neighborhood. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Kanis Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minorarterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline is required (includes additional 10 feet for turn lane per Master Street Plan). 2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofKanisRoadandCenterview.3.Provide design and construct improvements for right turn lane to Centerview from Kanis Road. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Streetlights to be provided on Centerview by Developer with underground service. 6.Show driveway locations on the plat.Shared drive on Centerview with Lots 1 and 2 will be required per Ordinance ¹18031.No access to Kanis is allowed by Ordinance. 7.Provide in-lieu for traffic signal (25t of construction and engineering cost). 8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is required. 9.Grading Permit per Sec.29-186(c)and (d)is required.10.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of workisrequired. E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easementstoserveproperty. 2 September ~,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 APSL:No Comment received. Arkla:No Comment. Southwestern Bell:No Comment received. Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply in addition to normal charges. Fire Department:No Comment. Count Plannin :No Comment received. CATA:Very near CATA Route ¹5 —West Markham;approved fortransitpurposesassubmitted. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: No Comment. Landsca e Issues: No Comment. G.ANALYSIS The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff on August 5,1999.The revised plat addresses most of the concerns as raised by the Subdivision Committee and staff. The revised plat shows the required platted building lineforLot1,names of abutting recorded subdivisions and namesofabuttingpropertyowners.The sources of title and the addresses of the property owners for this property need to be shown on a revised plat.The 25 foot building line on Lot 1 along Kanis Road needs to be measured from the new property line,after right-of-way dedication. The revised plat also shows the driveway locations as required.Two (2)one-way drives are shown for Lot 2 along Centerview Drive and two (2)drives are shown for Lot 1,one on Centerview and one on Kanis Road.The applicant is requesting a variance for driveway spacing as the drives donotconformtocurrentordinancestandards. The northernmost drive on Lot 2 is located 75 feet from the north property line (125 foot spacing required)and the southernmost drive is also 75 feet from the south propertyline(125 foot spacing also required).The spacing between 3 September ,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 the two drives is approximately 235 feet (chord distance). The required spacing is 250 feet.A lot along a collectorstreetrequiresaminimumstreetfrontageof500linearfeetfortwodrives.The property frontage for Lot 2 is just under 400 feet. The proposed drive along Centerview Drive on Lot 1 is approximately 73 feet from the south property line and approximately 205 feet from the Kanis Road right-of-way. The minimum required spacing from the south property line is 150 feet and 250 feet from the Kanis Road right-of-way.The proposed drive along Kanis Road is 30 feet from the west property line and approximately 260 feet from the Centerview Drive right-of-way.The required spacing is 150 feet from the west property line and 300 feet from the Centerview Drive right-of-way.According to ordinance standards,no independent drive would be allowed for Lot 1.A shared drive between Lots 1 and 2 would be recommended. All of the drives shown are 40 feet in width.The maximum allowed width for a driveway,according to ordinance,is 36feet.As of this writing,Public Works has not made a recommendation on the variance request. In a letter provided to staff,the applicant notes that the developer of the property does not agree with the 25% contribution to the traffic signal at Kanis Road and Centerview Drive as requested by Public Works.The applicant notes,"Should an office building be constructed on both of the proposed lots,warrants for a signal would not be met.Therefore,the developer does not think it is appropriate that he contribute any amount of money to this signal especially when considering this property is 7 acresattheintersectionofacommercialcollectorandanarterialstreet.Development of this property would insignificantly contribute to the traffic counts on these two streets."The traffic signal issue needs to be discussed and resolved by the full commission. Otherwise,the plat is in generally good order.The proposed lot areas and widths conform to ordinance standards.The proposed plat should have no adverse effect on the general area. 4 September,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 H .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report.2.The issue relating to driveway locations must beresolved.Public Works will make a recommendation on the requested variance for driveway spacing prior to the public hearing.3.The issue relating to in-lieu contribution for traffic signal construction must be resolved.4.The applicant must submit a revised preliminary plat noting the sources of title,addresses of property owners,and 25 foot building line for Lot 1 measured fromthenewpropertyline(after right-of-way dedication for Kanis Road). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JULY 29,1999) Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of the preliminary plat,pointing out several notations which need to be shown on a revised plat drawing. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed, specifically driveway locations and traffic signal participation. Mr.White noted that one (1)driveway would be shown on Lot 1 and two (2)driveways on Lot 2.Bob Turner of Public Works, indicated that the driveways would not conform to the ordinance spacing requirements and variances would need to be requested. Traffic signal participation for the intersection of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive was briefly discussed.Mr.White stated that he would meet with the property owner regarding the participation and respond to staff. There being no further issues for discussion,the preliminaryplatwasforwardedtothefullCommissionforfinalaction. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 19,1999) Joe White was present,representing the application.Mr.White requested that this application be deferred to the September 2,1999 agenda due to the fact that only six (6)commissioners were 5 September ,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 present.The deferral opportunity was offered by the Commission and will not be charged to the applicant. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 2,1999 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,0 nays and 5 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Joe White and Robert Vogel were present,representing the application.There were no objectors present.Staff gave abriefdescriptionofthepreliminaryplatwitharecommendationofapproval,noting that the applicant had met all of the technical,ordinance requirements.Staff also noted that the driveway locations had been worked out by the applicant and Public Works.Public Works recommended approval of the variancefordrivewayspacing.Staff noted that the traffic signal issue was the only unresolved issue. Stephen Giles,City Attorney,provided the Commission with a memorandum during the agenda meeting.The memo stated that the Commission could not require traffic signal contribution as a condition of the plat because it is not one of the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the traffic signalissue,initiated by comments made by Commissioner Downing. Topics of the discussion included whether or not there was clear authority within the ordinance to require traffic signals with preliminary plats,possible ordinance amendments to includetrafficsignalrequirementsandtheCity's practices in the past with respect to traffic signal construction participation. Joe White and Robert Vogel addressed the Commission during thediscussion,in support of the application.Mr.Vogel stated that he felt it was the City's responsibility to provide the traffic signal and not his as a developer of a relatively small amount of property. Bob Turner,of Public Works,also spoke during the discussion. Mr.Turner quoted specific ordinance sections which,in his opinion,could include a traffic signal requirement.Mr.Turner 6 September ,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 and Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,also commented on past practices for traffic signal participation, which included consent by the applicant. There was a motion and a second to defer the application in order for the City Attorney to provide more information to the Commission.The motion and second were ultimately withdrawn in order for more discussion regarding the Commission's authority in dealing with the traffic signal issue and the City Attorney's memo and opinion. There was a motion and second to approve the preliminary plat application.There was also a motion and a second to defer the application.It was determined that the motion to defer took precedence over the motion to approve.The motion to defer was passed by a vote of 7 ayes,3 nays and 1 absent.It was decided that this item would be placed on the agenda for the special called meeting on September 16,1999. The discussion on this item ended with the Commission requesting additional information and opinion from the City Attorney'sofficeregardingthetrafficsignalparticipationwithregards to the Commission'authority. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 16,1999) Joe White was present,representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposed preliminary plat and a recommendation of approval.Staff noted that the only unresolved issue related to the traffic signal participation. Joe White stated that he had nothing to add at this time. Commissioner Downing addressed the Commission.He noted disagreement with the City Attorney's opinion.He discussed the Richardson case and that particular decision.He noted that the decision was for that particular subdivision.He noted that theresultofthatcasewasthatanapplicationcannotbedenied based on language that is not in the ordinance.He stated that the facts of the Richardson case are different from this case andthattheordinancehaschangedsincetheRichardsoncase. Commissioner Downing went on to discuss the City Attorney'sopinion.He presented the Commission with copies of specificsectionsfromCityordinances.He quoted from Section 30-216,30-278 and 30-218.He reviewed definitions of boundary street 7 September,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 improvements,purposes and reasons for boundary street improvements and what boundary street improvements include.Healsoquotedfrom31-201(h)and (i),noting the connection between the Subdivision and Boundary Street ordinances.Interpretationoftheordinancewasthendiscussed. Commissioner Downing stated that there was nothing arbitrary about this particular case.He noted that the development ofthispropertywillnotgeneratethemajorityofthetrafficon the abutting streets,but the applicant is required to constructhalfstreetimprovements.He concluded by stating that he didnotbelieveajudgewoulddecidethatthePlanningCommission was wrong in requiring participation in the traffic signal. Commissioner Faust noted that traffic signalization is notspecificallyreferencedintheordinance.She asked about theCity'policy in the past in dealing with the traffic signalissue. There was a brief discussion of past city policy.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,noted that in the past,developers have agreed to participate in traffic signalization. He noted that the City has used the word required"in the pastinrelationtotrafficsignalization.This issue was discussedfurther. Chairman Earnest asked Commissioner Downing if he thought there was enough language in the ordinance to require the signal. Commissioner Downing stated that he felt there was. Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr.Giles if his opinion had changedbasedonCommissionerDowning's discussion. Stephen Giles,City Attorney,stated that he still stands behindhisopinionandexplainedtheopinionwithrelationtotheRichardsoncase.He also discussed the National Home Centercase.He discussed specific ordinance requirements. Commissioner Nunnley asked that if it were determined that,traffic signalization could not be required,could pastapplicationswhichwererequiredtheparticipationcome back totheCommissionforrelief. Mr.Giles stated that they could not. There was a brief discussion relating to the preliminary/finalplatprocedure. There was additional discussion relating to past City and Planning Commission practices. In response to a question from the Commission,Bob Turner,ofPublicWorks,noted that a developer has never been required to 8 September 1,1999 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1257 contribute 100 percent of the cost of a traffic signal.He notedthatinthepastsomedevelopershavechosentodoso.He notedthatconstructionofsignalswouldberequiredwhentheyare warranted due to traffic volume. There was additional discussion relating to past signalizationpractices. Dottie Funk addressed the Commission.She noted that this was aheavilywoodedsite.She asked if the developer planned toclear-cut and grade the land.She asked if the buildings wouldbedesignedastoworkwiththeexistinggrade. Joe White noted that the developer will maintain some of theperimetertreesandthatthesitewouldconformtocurrent ordinance buffer requirements. There was additional discussion relating to traffic signalparticipationbydevelopersinthepast. Mr.White briefly discussed the issue of whether a traffic signaliswarrantedatthisintersection. There was discussion as to whether the plat and traffic signalissuecouldbeseparatedforvotingpurposes.Mr.Giles statedthattheycouldbe. There was additional discussion relating to the separation of theissuesandwhethertheapplicantcouldrequestawaiverfromthetrafficsignalparticipation.The amount of participation(percentage)was also discussed. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat subject tocompliancewithallpublicworksrequirements,including trafficsignalizationparticipation. There was additional discussion relating to separating the twoissuesandtheapplicantrequestingawaiver. Joe White requested a waiver of the required 25 percent in-lieucontributionfortrafficsignalconstruction. The Chairman called for a vote on the previous motion.Themotionpassedbyavoteof9ayes,0 nays,1 absent and1abstention(Putnam).The approval of this motion denied thewaiverrequest. The Commission requested that the City Attorney take thenecessarystepstobeginordinanceamendmentstoinclude specificlanguagerequiringparticipationbydevelopersintrafficsignalconstruction. 9 September ~6,1999 Item No.:2 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Downtown District Receue st:Adopt New Plan for Downtown STAFF REPORT: A citizen committee was formed to review the City's Plans for Downtown.This committee worked as four subcommittees to develop general proposals for the future of Downtown in four geographic areas:Capitol (West),Central Business District (Office Core),MacArthur (East)and East of I-30. These groups developed similar concepts;thus one committee was formed out of the four.From their work the Framework for the Zuture was developed,this document has been presented to the Commission and recommended. The Framework of the Zuture recommended that the City Land Use Plan be modified.This item is the first step in that process.Three changes are requested to bring the Land Use Plan into line with the recommendations of the Framework for the Zuture.First,a new land use category is proposed. This category is meant to help create a more traditional urban development form.The exact use is not as important as the design.Pedestrian friendly design and 24-hour activity are important elements.A mix of uses is desirable.The new category would be MXU —"Mixed Use- Urban."The proposed category is as follows: Mixed Use —Urban:This category provides for a mix of residential,office and commercial uses not only in the same block but within the same structure.This category is intended for older "urban"areas to allow dissimilar uses to exist, which support each other to create a vital area. Development should reinforce the urban fabric creating a 24-hour activity area.Using the Planned Zoning District or the Urban Use District, high and moderate density developments that result in a vital (dense)pedestrian oriented area are appropriate. The second change to the Land Use Plan is a complete change of the plan map for District 5 —Downtown.This is an area from the Arkansas River south to I-630 and from the Missouri Septembe s6,1999 ITEMS NO.:2 (Cont.) Pacific Rail Line east to I-30.(The current classifications date to 1980.)In this area the new land use classifications would be as shown on the attached sketch and described here. The entire district,except those areas described below, would be shown as the new "MXU"—Mixed Use —Urban category. The following areas would be Public Institutional (PI) State Capitol area —west of Woodlane and south of 3'treets;the Federal Buildings —Capital Avenue to 4 Street,Arch Street west to State Street,and City/County Buildings —Broadway/Markham area. The following areas would be shown as Low Density Residential (LDR):6 Street to 9 Street from Ferry to Cumberland;and 9 to I-630 from Commerce to alley between Scott and Cumberland. The following areas would be shown as Park/Open Space (PK/OS):MacArthur Park —9 Street to I-630, McAlmont to Commerce;and Riverfront Park-Arkansas River to Little Rock and Western Railroad Spur. In addition,the northern portion of the I-30 District fromI-30 to John and Arkansas River to 3 Street is changed to Public Institutional from Industrial (the Presidential Library site)and from 3 Street to 9 Street I-30 to College is changed to Mixed Use —Urban from Industrial and Transition. The third change to the Land Use Plan is a complete replacement of the text for the Downtown District.The newtextisfromtheFrameworkoftheZuture.It is basically the vision statement and goals/objectives.The new text would be as follows: DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPALS: Downtown should become a place where people want to live and visit and should have a lasting and recognizable image,distinguishable from all other nearby environments. Because it is the State Capitol and proud symbol of a metropolitan area,Downtown Little Rock has many opportunities.Downtown should be the financial,office and governmental center of the region and as 2 September x6,1999 ITEMS NO.:2 (Cont.) such should be planned as a place where people live,visit and work in a safe,vibrant,pedestrian-friendly environment. The built environmental should encourage a sense of community and safety among residents and visitors. Downtown should be planned to become a place of 24-hour activity.These general planning goals should be reinforced by such urban design and planning interventions as the following: ~Specify land uses for entertainment and residential use. ~Preserve and reuse existing buildings. ~Capitalize on the Presidential Library as an economic development tool. ~Provide an effective transportation plan with a variety of modes. ~Provide landscaping throughout the area. ~Utilize the Presidential Library as a regional educational resource center. ~Develop streetscaping plans designed for specific needs in designated areas. ~Develop a means to encourage property owners to reinvest in Downtown. ~Work with Federal,State and County governments to ensure the success of the vision. ~Specify land uses that will encourage the development of a niche for retail activities. ~Encourage a built form of quality architectural styles that evoke character. ~Preserve civic and historic heritage. ~Recognize the riverfront as a key urban activity generator. protected by,requiring structures be built to thestreetwithstreetlevelactivityandvisualconnection between the street and interior. Action Statement:Modify the development standards to encourage higher density development and zero lot line construction.Modify parking regulations (number of spaces,screening,etc.) 3 September x6,1999 ITEMS NO.:2 (Cont.) Special design studies should be undertaken and regulations implemented for streets and corridors of community-wide importance. R—" transit system is needed.'An investment must be made in a fixed transit system for Downtown that effectively connects the different parts of Downtown and moves people within that area. Action Statement:Build a transit infrastructure— fixed routes to serve the Downtown and immediate vicinity. R—" and successful Downtown.Because the Downtown residential area has lost most of its residential units,the City of Little Rock must invest in downtown housing to assist in reviving the area thereby creating housing opportunities for high as well as moderate- income levels. Action Statement:Create development and use incentives for owner occupied,market rate rental,and affordable rental residential developments in Downtown. most cities a quasi-public agency does this work.The City must establish (with Downtown property owners)an agency to advance the economic development of Downtown. Action Statement:Development a quasi-public downtown development agency to market and assist with the implementation of projects. developments should be mixed use and linked. Action Statement:Using the Framework for the Future document as a reference,establish consensus among quasi-public,City,County,and State entities regarding the vision of Downtown.Implement strategies conducive to the objectives of the established vision. Assist only developments that conform to the Framework guidelines. 4 September 16,1999 ITEMS NO.:2 (Cont.) LAND USE: Residential: The blocks,north and west of MacArthur Park,in the southeast corner of the District are designated as Low Density Residential (LDR).Within this area,north of Ninth Street is predominately Multifamily with some Single Family while south of Ninth Street is predominately Single Family with some Multifamily. Mixed Use: The majority of the district is designated for Mixed Use Urban.The uses range from high-rise office buildings to single family homes.The intent is to create a vital diverse area,which is pedestrian- friendly. Parks and Open Space: Riverfront Park runs along the Arkansas River along the northeast portion of the district boundary.MacArthur Park,the City'first municipal park established in 1892 is in the southeast corner of the district. Public/Institutional: The State Capitol and related buildings are designated as Public Use,in the western end of the district.The Federal Buildings between Capitol Ave.and 4 Street from State to Arch Streets are also designated Public Use.The third Public Use area is the County and City Buildings along Markham Street around Broadway. These changes to the City Land Use Plan will begin the implementation of the Framework for the Future already reviewed by the Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 5 September.J.6,1999 ITEMS NO.:2 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Because of the changes proposed by this item,the Commission asked that the item be deferred to allow more time for reviewing the proposal.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to September 16,1999.By a vote of 10 for 0 against (Commissioner Adcock absent)the item was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 16,1999) Walter Malone,Planning Staff,requested that the Chair recognized people with cards for item 2 or item 3 on each of the items.Mr.Malone proceed with the Land Use Plan Amendment.This brings the Land Use Plan in line with the Downtown Framework document. Mr.Malone reminded the Commission of the Framework committees desires for Downtown.Mr.Malone proceed to review the text and map changes:Addition of definition; map changes and inclusion of the vision statement and goals/objections from the Framework document. There was discussion about the Public/Institutional designation area for the Presidential Library site. Commissioner Nunnley asked about the Low Density Residential (LDR)area shown between 6 and 9 Streets on the eastern edge.There was discussion about the planning efforts around the Presidential Library site as well as the use and zoning pattern in the LDR area. Kathy Wells,presidential of Downtown Neighborhood Association,stated she was here to "cheer-you-on"and urge a speedy affirmative vote.At a conference for Downtown revitalization,James Kunstler was scalding in criticism of a block of blank wali'his zoning would work to preventthis.Professor Glasser,University of Arkansas,listedcitieswhichrequirestreet-access shops in parking decks. The mixed use is important and parking on Main Street is a problem.Also,use of rooftops is important.On Page 5 of regulations in the height section,the northern boundary should be 3 Street not Markham.The Committee wanted the skyscrapers back from the Old Statehouse and other public buildings. 6 September 16,1999 ITEMS NO.:2 (Cont.) Dickson Flake,this is a good product and will be an asset for redevelopment.Question about the definition of "primary street".Mr.Malone,using 3 Street,explained the definition.More work is needed on this definition because of the impact with the alley system and existing orientation of buildings.Mr.Flake suggested using a different set back west of Broadway where development more typically has not been to the street and more auto oriented. Finally,the regulations should not be made effective for one year from adoption,due to the long development process downtown (land consolidation,to design/finance to construction). Commissioner Rahman stated there was a lot of debate about these issues by the Committee.The definition of "primarystreet"may need work but the setbacks were debated.Things may need to be modified in the future,but the Commission should approve this.This is a good start. Commissioner Berry stated he was glad to see this before the Commission.There were a lot of competing interests involved in the development of these regulations.We are lifting the land use regulation,but we need to have design regulations to make sure everything fits in Downtown.Thisisagoodstartingpointandfeelgoodabouttheproposals. Commissioner Faust stated this represents a good piece ofstaffwork.The process brought a lot of interests (some competing)to the table.This process always works.This plan is an example of good sustainable development policy. Commissioner Adcock asked about the street buffers not being required.Mr.Malone stated in the "Urban Use"district the front landscape would not be required because you want the buildings close to the street not landscape or parking lot. Chairman Earnest spoke to the Goals and Objectives and how that was sustainable development.As we go forward these objectives should be used as the basis for downtown revitalization. Commissioner Hawn moved the approval of the Plan Amendments (seconded Commissioner Adcock).By a vote of 10 for 0 against the item was approved. 7 September 1v,1999 Item No.:3 Z-6730 through Z-6737 Owner:Various J%— 'ocation:Cross to College,Arkansas River to 15 Street RecCuest:Rezone from various in the Downtown area Puruose:Encourage a more urban,pedestrian oriented development pattern of mixed uses. STAFF REPORT: As part of the Framework for the Future (Downtown)review, alternative development standards were viewed as necessary.The desire was to achieve a development pattern which was more urban and pedestrian oriented.After discussion the committee reviewing downtown decided a new zone classification was necessary to allow and encourage "urban","pedestrian friendly" development.A draft ordinance was prepared which attempted to address the issues raised by the committee.The draft was made a part of the committee'final work —the Framework for the Future. The basic tenant was,use should not be a major issue as long asitisinsideanddoesnotadverselyaffecttheneighbors.Other important issues are described below.Buildings should be on thestreetwithsurfaceparkinglimitedandonlytotherearorside. Sidewalks and streets should encourage pedestrian activity and movement.Residential should be allowed everywhere,with MacArthur Park residential protected.There should be a unique urban feel to downtown with pedestrian friendly buildings andstreets. A second committee (three Planning Commissioners,three property owners,three representatives of Downtown Groups (Downtown Partnership,Downtown Neighborhood Association,MacArthur Park Residents Association)and a representative of the League of Women Voters)reviewed the concepts developed by the Framework for the Future committee and a new draft ordinance was developed. September 1~,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 The second committee surveyed property owners to get their reactions to the concepts.These comments were discussed prior to formation of a draft ordinance.In late spring 1999,a draft ordinance was distributed to property owners for comment. In order to achieve the recommendations of the Framework for the Future committee and Downtown Zoning Committee,three primary actions are needed:addition of new zone district(s), reclassification of areas to the new district(s),and repeal of the Zoning Plan for Central Little Rock Urban Renewal Project. Based on the work of the Downtown Zoning Committee,two zone classifications are proposed for addition to the Zoning Ordinance.They are Urban Use and Low Density Residential. Urban Use District is designed for "older"established commercial or business districts or for area where pedestrian oriented development which is mixed in nature is desired.The Low Density Residential District is patterned after the City's "R-4"Two Family District and Capitol Zoning'"M"Residential District. This district allows for a variety of residential uses and some nonresidential use (as a conditional use).The pattern reflects the existing mix and tries to capture the things liked about Capitol Zoning over the city's regulations. This change requires additions to the definitions section,height and area exception section,districts established section, exception/modifications (zoning buffer)section as well as adding the two new classifications.The attached outline has the proposed changes and wording for the new districts. Once the new districts are part of the ordinance,the recommendation of both committees is to rezone the Downtown area under city zoning regulations to one of the two districts.ThatistheareabetweenCrossStreeteasttoI-30 and the Arkansas River to I-630 would be the Urban Use District except for Riverfront Park and an area around MacArthur Park.The two Parks would be zoned Open Space (OS).The area between 6 and 9~ Streets,Ferry to Cumberland and 9 Street to I-630,Commerce to Scott north and west of MacArthur Park would be zoned Low Density Residential (see attached sketch map). The final change is to remove the Zoning Plan for Central Little Rock Urban Renewal Project from the zoning code.This portion of the zoning code is over thirty years old and has proven to bedifficultforstafftouseandexplain.Having Downtown zones be 2 September lv,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 part of the basic zoning code for the entire city is seen as more desirable and workable. In order to ease the change to the new classifications,staff has offered to grant C.U.P.'with the zone change.These C.U.P. requests will be included as an addendum to allow property owners more time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval ADDENDUM CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR NEW DOWNTOWN ZONING STAFF REPORT: As part of the downtown rezoning effort,property owners were given the opportunity to request conditional use permits.This was done in an attempt to reduce the number of nonconforming uses which might otherwise have occurred.The idea is to allow existing uses to continue to operate as legal uses,if at all possible. In the letters to property owners,they were given the option of providing a legal description and letter asking for a conditional use.Eight request were received and are described below: Z-6370-A Southwest Hotels,C.U.P.for lots 1-12 Block 292 and 1-3 Block 260 Original City.This is an area which currently has"I-2"Light Industrial zoning.The C.U.P.is for an existing warehouse use and expansion on to lots 10-12 Block 292 Original City using similar construction materials.This is the block between Capitol/4 Street and Cross/Ringo Streets.The C.U.P. further allows for a commercial surface parking lot on lots 1-3 Block 260 Original City.This would replace a lot on lots 10-12 Block 292 Original City.This is the block between Capitol/4 and Ringo/Chester.Both exchanges would be on 4 Street.The C.U.P.allows "I-2"uses and expansion of the use as noted. Z-6730-B Arkansas Graphics,for lots 1-12 Block 175 Original City.Arkansas Graphics currently occupies half of this block 3 September 1~,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 and plans to expand into the other half.The area is currently zoned "I-2"Light Industrial.The existing use does not require a C.U.P.in the Urban Use District.The proposed addition may. The addition is to be located on 9 Street.The site is between 8 /9 Streets and State/Gaines Streets.The C.U.P.allows "I-2" uses and the expansion noted. Z-6731-A,Heartland C.U.P.for lots 1-12 Block 13 Original City. This area is currently zoned "GB"General Business and "HR"High Density residential.The site is located between I-630/13 Street and Main-Scott Streets.The business is in place.The request is to allow "I-2"uses on this block. Z-6732-A,McElroy C.U.P.for lots 1-12 Block 9 Rectortown Addition.This area is currently zoned "I-2"Light Industrial. The site is located between I-30/Collins and 4 /Capitol Avenue. There is an existing industrial use.The request is to allow"I-2"uses on this block. Z-6732-B,Hayre C.U.P.for lots 7-9 Block 12 Rectortown Addition. The current zoning is "I-2"Light Industrial.The site is the northwest corner of 6 and Collins.The use is Industrial.The request is to continue the current use,which includes outside storage of materials.The owner also cannot meet the opening requirements and is planning further renovations to the structure,which will not meet this requirement.The owner wishes to continue operations at this site and requires these modifications —"I-2"uses and above modifications as noted on these urban use lots. Z-6734-A,Poe C.U.P.for lots 4-5 Block 44 Original City.The current zoning is "HR"High Density residential.The site is in the 900 Block of Cumberland.The office use is existing.The request is to allow "C-1"uses on these R-4A lots. Z-6734-B,Strehn C.U.P.for southeast corner of Trapnell Block in Stevenson'Addition.The current zoning is "HR"High Density Residential.The site is the northwest corner of 6 and Sherman.This is a multifamily structure with office use as well as residential.The request is to allow "C-1"uses on this R-4Alot. Z-6734-C,2"Baptist C.U.P.for the West 4 lots 4-6 Block 42 Original City.The current zoning is "HR"High Density residential.The site is the northeast corner of 8 and Cumberland Streets.The use is for religious education and 4 September 1~,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 related uses.The request is to allow "C-1"uses on these R-4A lots. Z-6734-D,Hundley C.U.P.for lots 1-3 Block 44 Original City. The current zoning is "HR"High Density Residential.The site is the southeast corner of 9 and Cumberland.The owner is requesting Multifamily and "C-1"neighborhood uses based on existing and surrounding uses. Z-6735-A,Parkview Towers C.U.P.for parts of Blocks 56 and 57 Original City.The current zoning is "HR"High Density Residential.The site is located 1200 Cumberland.The use is a elderly retired housing with 128 units.The request is for a conditional use permit for Multifamily. Z-6732-C,Meyer C.U.P,for lots 1-6 Block 8 Rectortown and lots1-6 Block 3 Woodruff'Addition.The current zoning is "I-2" Light Industrial.The site is located between Collins/Byrd and 6 /7 Streets.The existing use is Commercial and Industry. The request is for "I-2"uses on these Urban Use lots. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 2,1999) Because of the changes proposed by this item,the Commission asked that this item be deferred to allow for more time to review the proposal.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to September 16,1999.By a vote of 10 for,0 against (Commissioner Adcock absent),the item was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 16,1999) Walter Malone,Planning Staff,reviewed the process used to get the draft proposal to this point and then the specifics of the new zoning classifications for Downtown.After review of the specifics within the proposed "Urban Use"and "R-4A"districts, Mr.Malone began the presentation of the eleven requests for conditional uses within the proposed "Urban Use"and "R-4A" areas.These are existing uses and or allow an owner to keep an existing permitted use. There was discussion about the industrial uses in the areas near the Presidential Library site and whether we really wanted to keep them legal uses.Mr.Malone proceeded to review the conditional use requests. 5 September 1i.1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 The items were reviewed from east to west starting with Z-6732-A McElroy C.U.P.This is a request for light fabrication,machine shop and warehousing in the city block between Collins and Rector,4 and Capitol.The business is existing and wishes to continue operation.Z-6732-B,Hayre C.U.P.is for light fabrication and warehousing (including outside storage).The site is located on the northwest corner of Collins and 6 Streets.The existing use and zoning are industrial.Z-6732-C, Meyer C.U.P.is for light fabrication,machine shop and warehousing.The site is between Byrd and Collins from 6 to 7 Streets.There are several small businesses in one structure. The existing zoning is industrial. There are five requests for conditional use permits within the R-4A district around MacArthur Park.First is Z-3734-B Strahn C.U.P.The request is for professional offices located in a structure at the northwest corner of 6 and Sherman Streets. Second Baptist C.U.P.(Z-6734-C)located on Cumberland at 8 Street is a request for religious and philanthropic organization. This is an existing part of the Second Baptist campus.The next two are adjacent.Z-6734-D Hundley C.U.P.is for professionalofficesandmultifamily.The site is the southeast corner of 9 and Cumberland.There are two existing structures and a vacant parcel.Immediately to the south is the Poe C.U.P.(Z-3634-A) for professional offices.This is an existing travel agency. The final request within the R-4A area is Z-6735-A,Parkview Towers C.U.P.The request is for multifamily.There is an existing apartment between Commerce and Rock Streets,11 Street and I-30. The Heartland C.U.P.(Z-6731-A)is located between Main and Scott Streets,13 Street and I-30.The request is for warehousing. The current use is a Pinter.The proposal is not to change the actual use.There is some warehousing on site.Z-6730-B Arkansas Graphics C.U.P.is a request for warehousing.The siteislocatedbetween8and9StreetsfromStatetoGainesStreets.In addition there is an expansion to be located on 9Street. This addition will be a warehouse in support of the existing business.The C.U.P.request includes construction and sitingdifferentthantheUrbanUseDistrictrequires.The final request is Z-6730-A Southwest Hotel C.U.P.The request is for warehousing on the block between 4 Street and Capitol Avenue along Ringo Street.The owner is planning to expand the existing 6 September 1t.,1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 structure on the northwest corner of Ringo and Capitol.The request includes constructing the building to match the existing structure.A C.U.P.for the southeast corner of 4 and Ringo Streets is requested for a surface commercial lot.This replaces the lot on the southwest corner which is where they intend to construct the warehouse. Commissioner Rahman asked about the height regulations.Mr. Malone reviewed the proposal and the different boundaries for the greater build height subarea.Commissioner Berry also addressed the height area and the Markham Street boundary versus 2"or 3'treets.There was a discussion about limiting height to protect civic spaces. Jeff Hathaway stated support of the overall effort.However,the areas west of Broadway are different.If the intent is to force the "urban pattern",then you need to understand some development will not occur in the area but will go to other parts of the city.West of Broadway is different in development pattern andlotsize.The requirement to bring buildings to the street and forbid parking in the front should be relaxed in this area.The area west of Broadway competes with "Mid-Town"and "West Little Rock".Along with this development pattern,a nice monument style sign would add to the overall development. Barbara Patty,thanked the Commission for its work on this.Ms. Patty reviewed her involvement in the process.When visiting other cities,she tends to go to the urban center.From those experiences,what makes a downtown that works are:inviting exteriors,lack of dead space,respect for the pedestrian,civic spaces,mixture of uses,(activities and life with buildings residential above,commercial below),and clear attractive signage. Ms.Patty read paragraph two of the staff report and then asked the Commission to be sure the following were not a cross-purposes with this paragraph.The changes are in the surface parking, drive-in/drive thru,and dumpster location requirements. Kathy Wells asked that the boundaries of the no height area be changed to 3'nd 8 Streets on the north and south.No more looming buildings over historic or residential areas.Further that the "transparency"requirement not be reduced from 60 to 35 percent.If people can see and be seen,we will have a safer downtown.The need to make and keep downtown a safer place is one of our aims. 7 September lt,.1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 Dickson Flake was called.He indicated he had made all his comments previously (item 2). Commissioner Hawn called on Mr.Hathaway to discuss the issue of front yard parking.There was discussion about loading or one bay parking versus a larger lot in front of the structure and examples in downtown.There was discussion about rear and side parking for commercial uses.The discussion included the use of variances and planned development to permit some additional setback or parking on a case by case basis. There was a discussion about the length of time till the new regulations would take effect.Mr.Lawson stated he would work with Mr.Giles to develop a process to identify large projects which might be granted a longer time before implementation. Staff indicated that the Planning Commission's recommendation will be provided to the Board of Directors.Staff clarified that variances could be requested and other normal zoning processes would be available to potentially address issues on specificsitesinresponsetoCommissionerFaust'question.There will be some variations through the area.Overlays or the previously discussed methods could be used to address these issues. Additional discussion followed about the "no height"area. Commissioner Lowry asked about the one year request.Mr.Flake stated he believed the process of identification discussed by Mr. Lawson would be workable. Ms.Wells stated since variance,etc.are available why not just say it takes effect in 30 days otherwise ask for conditional use permit. Commissioner Faust wished to have the boundaries of the high buildings modified. Commissioner Berry asked to have the changes "walked through" (transparencies,building height,drive-thru,etc.). Commissioner Putnam asked to defer the item and let Plans Committee "iron out"these issues.The Commission agreed to spend twenty minutes to see if resolution could be found prior to considering deferral. 8 September 1v.1999 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)Z-6730 throu h Z-6737 Issues identified as in need of resolution were:The area of greater building Height;transparencies 60 versus 35 percent; drive-thru facilities;and front yard parking. building.Commissioner Hawn agreed that the Downtown Zone Committee had discussed this issue and we should try the proposed version. and west boundaries were discussed.Mr.Flake expressed concern about reducing the area since the reduction goes to a base,threestories,which is too restrictive.The discussion included the desirability of having intermediate height areas.The Commission concluded that the higher building area would be from between 9 and 2"Streets,Scott Street and Broadway with the two blocks from 4 to 6 Streets west of Broadway to the Federal Building. Trans arenc issue —The staff internally had discussed the issue based on comments from Mr.Flake and others.A third of the facade seemed more reasonable,because we want to have brick and other materials.Commissioner Rahman pointed out this is a minimum standard and most new buildings are more glass.Even though there was some concern about the change,the commissioners agreed to stay with 35 percent. Drive-thru issue —The change was from not seeing or accessing drive-in/drive-thru from any street to "primary streets". Staff'concern was the effect would be to outlaw the use even though alleys are permissible.The Commission concluded to leave the change though some had concern. Commissioner Hawn moved approval as presented with the resolutions developed by the Commission and to include the Conditional Use Permits presented in the application.By a vote of 10 for 0 against the item was approved. 9 ~(l~ rZoninOrdinancechanes: I)Amend Section 36-2 Definitions —adding: Drive Through —means an establishment which by design of physical facilities or by the type of service offered,the customer conducts business from a motor vehicle. Pedestrian 'urban'riented —means a development pattern designed at a human (pedestrian)scale and orientation.This includes provision of visual items of interest for the pedestrian —window displays,streetscape amenities. Integral accessory use —means an outdoor or partially enclosed use area,which is an integral part directly servicing in a subordinate role a permitted interior use. Build-to-fine —means the line where the exterior facade of a building is to be located excluding any projections. Commercial surface parking lot —means a surface parking lot,which has spaces for lease or sale on a daily,monthly or annual basis. Prima street —means the street with the hi hest classification in the Master Street Plan. II)Amend Article III,Section 36-156.Height and area exceptions —Changing R-4 to R-4A in paragraph 2c.as follows: "Accessory buildings or structures in the R-1 through R-4A districts..." III)Amend Article IV,Section 36-176.Districts established— adding: R-4A low density residential district UU urban use district IV)Amend Article V,Section 36-337.Districts —adding: R-4A low density residential district UU urban use district V)Remove Article Vl Sections 36-401 through 36-418-Zoning Plan for Central Liffle Rock Urban Renewal Project. DRAFT gRAFT V/)Amend Section 36-524.Exceptionslmodifications (zoning buffers)—adding: (11)Developments within the Urban Use (UU)District shall provide land use buffers only where abutting single-family and duplex use or zoning.Street buffers shall not be required. Land Use buffer.All sites developed.Modified or enlarged shall provide a land use buffer(s)as follows: 1.Side property lines at five (5)percent of the average width of the lot on both sides; 2.Rear property lines at five (5)percent of the average depth of the lot; 3.The minimum dimension shall be six (6)feet in all instances; 4.The maximum dimension required shall be forty (40)feet in all instances. Vll)Adding two new Zone Districts to Article V District Regulations —Urban Use (UU)and Low Density Residential (R- 4A) SECTION .URBAN USE DISTRICT (a)General Purpose and intent.The Urban Use district established by this chapter is designed to assure the continuation of development consistent with a traditional urban form.The Urban Use district is designed to help create a compact,dense,distinguishable core area.The district is established in order to provide for an urban form allowing mid-rise and high rise structures.This District is to provide for the office,civic and business core of the City.Structures within the Urban Use district are encouraged to provide multiple uses within the same structure.The ground or street level of structures should include street oriented activity and pedestrian amenities.The resulting area is to be pedestrian 'urban'riented. (b)Application of Regulations.The regulations of this District shall apply to new development,redevelopment,expansion of existing development or exterior modifications.Routine repairs and maintenance shall not require compliance with this section. Except for construction of improvements in the public right of way required by the City,and redevelopment or expansion of existing development,all uses, structures or lots which existed on the effective date of this section which do not conform to the standards and guidelines established in this section,shall be treated as nonconforming according to the provisions of Article III of this chapter. WAFT DRAFT (c)Development Criteria. (1)Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect light away from adjacent residential structures.Fixtures ad acent to roadwa s shall be of a desi n thatminimizes lare to the motorin ublic.No excessive or unusual noise,odor or vibration shall be emitted so that it constitutes a nuisance,which substantially exceeds that general level of noise,odor or vibration emitted by uses adjacent to or immediately surrounding the site. Such comparisons shall be made at the boundary of the site. (2)All trash receptacles and pickup shall be oriented away from the primary street side of the property and screened from the public right-of-way. 3 h p I h lib pl d~d*lly 3 lly available. tgt N ~dl -l dl -th ghhllg yb llbl tk dl t 3 th gt Nt t 3 develo ments with onl one street fronta e a conditional use review d. (4)Building ~fa ade materials .Fa ade materials ma be an standard material exce t corru ated or ribbed materials. (5)Landscaping a.AII vehicular use areas and public right-of-way shall be in compliance with chapter 15,article IV. b.Street trees (tree types as listed in the landscape ordinance)shall be a minimum 3"caliper trees.The trees shall be located a minimum of 2'-0"off back of curb and shall be 30'0"on center,no closer than 30'-0"to a street intersection with a water source provided. The tree canopy shall be maintained at least 8 feet above the sidewalk. c.Unless otherwise approved,the planter well shall have placed at its base a six (6)inch thick section of approximately one (1)inch gravel with filter fabric laid on top to assist with drainage. (6)Sidewalks. a.Sidewalks shall consist of a minimum 5 foot concrete walk,excluding the first 2 feet from the curb.Sidewalks shall provide a minimum 7 foot horizontal clearance at a height of 4 feet from the ground. DRAF& DRAFT b.Sidewalk sales and daily display or vending that is stored inside the principal business building during closed business hours,shaQ ~ma be allowed.However,these activities shall not obstruct pedestrian movement,fire lanes,or areas designated for access by the physically impaired. (7)Building orientation.Buildings must be oriented to the street.The primary entrance of the building shall be at street level on the street at the sidewalk.Entrances shall be designed so that the door will not swing beyond the property line. (8)Street-level floor.The ground-level (street fronting)floor of non-residential structures shall have a minimum of QQ 35 percent transparent or window display. If at least 50 percent of the street-level office and retail space has direct access to the street,the total building square footage may be increased with additional floor(s)at a rate of 2 square feet for each one square foot of leasable space directly accessible to the street.On the street level the maximum area of sign may also be doubled if the above requirement is met. (9)Projections (all requirements for a franchise remain in place). a.Objects shall not project from the building facade over the public right of way except for awnings and balconies. b.Awnings shall not project more than 5'-0"from the building facade and have a minimum clearance of 9'-0"above the sidewalk. c.Balconies over the public right of way shall have a minimum clearance of 9'-0"above the sidewalk.The maximum projection shall be 4'0". (10)Parking requirements.No off-street parking shall be required. Og jhow'T DRAFT a.Parking structures.The ground or street-level of a parking structure shall be constructed minimum clearance hei ht of 12 feet to allow for active use other than arkin such as offices li ht retail ersonal services and entertainment for at least 50 ercent of the street fronta e on the rima street.For structures with onl one street fronta e the 50 ercent re uirementis exclusive of entrance drivewa s stairwa s and edestrian ent a s 1 I I If the parking structure includes the alternative uses at the time of initial construction,then the related structure may add one story in height.In addition,the maximum area devoted to signage on the first story may be doubled if the alternative uses are in place at initial construction. b.Parking lots.Surface parking is to be located behind or adjacent to a structure,never between the building and abutting street.Nlthithiditil~il dpkiglt shall be permitted as a conditional use (11)Signs.Off-premise,pole,and monument signs are not allowed; otherwise,permitted signs shall be as in Section 36-553 "Signs permitted in institutional and office zones"of the Zoning Ordinance. (d)Use Regulations (1)Permitted Uses.Uses permitted shall include all those allowed in the Residential Districts,Office Districts and Commercial Districts as 'permitted uses',in Chapter 36.Except that,all uses must be inside or enclosed.Within the front setback where an integral accessory use is provided,the integral accessory use area need not be totally enclosed. (2)Conditjonal uses.Conditional uses shall include those allowed in the Light Industrial 'I-2'istrict as 'permitted uses',in Chapter 36.Except that all uses must be inside or enclosed. Dgg,f'T GRAFT (e)Height regulations.No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall exceed a height of three (3)stories or 45 feet,whichever is less.Developments which provide a minimum 20 percent of the gross floor area for residential uses are entitled to a maximum height of five (5)stories or 75 feet,whichever is less. Any structure which is certified by CATA (Central Arkansas Transit Authority)as providing a portion of the structure for mass transit (such as a bus stop,etc.),is entitled to one bonus floor.All building height bonuses are cumulative not to exceed ten (10)stories or 150 feet. In the area bounded by Markham Street on the north,Q4 9'"street on the south, Scott Street on the east,and Broadway Street on the west,building height shall be controlled by the Adams Field Airport Zoning Ordinance (section 7-57,height limitations in the Little Rock Code of Ordinances). (f)Area regulations. (1)Front yard.Five foot build to line.If there is an adjacent structure,which is closer than five feet,then the new structure may be built using the line of the pre-existing structure.(In no case may a structure be built in the right-of-way.)A development with an integral accessory use may increase the setback (build-to line)to 20 feet. Along Capitol Avenue,west of Broadway Street and east of Scott Street, the front building line shall be 25 feet.Along Chester Street from l-630 to La Harpe Boulevard the front building line shall be 10 feet. In no case is the storage or parking of vehicles allowed in the front setback. (2)Rear yard.No setback required except where adjacent to lots containing single family detached structures.In this case the rear yard shall have a set back of not less than twenty-five (25)feet. (3)Side yard.No setback required except where adjacent to lots containing single family detached structures.In this case the side yards shall have a set back of not less than four (4)feet. Gg P,F'T DRAFT Sec..R4-A Low Density Residential (a)Purpose and intent.The purpose of the R-4A District is to protect existing developed residential neighborhoods.It is intended for single family use with conversions to two family units or the addition of accessory residential units. The R-4A district should be located in developed areas of the city where an environment suitable for moderate-density residential (use)and in an established medium-density residential areas where densification may facilitate their continuation as desirable residential areas.Accessory uses,conditional uses and home occupations are permitted as long as they do not have objectionable characteristics and provided further that they otherwise conform to the provisions of this chapter.The district is intended to be an urban low to moderate-density residential area,where an occasional nonresidential use adds to the overall character of the neighborhood. (b)Use Regulations. (1)Permitted uses.Permitted uses are single-family and two-family residences. (2)Other uses.Accessory,home occupation,temporary,special and conditional uses allowed within the R-4A low-density residential district shall be the same as those in the R-1,R-2,R-3 single-family districts. In addition any by-right uses within the C-1 neighborhood commercial district may be allowed as conditional uses in R-4A as specifically approved by the Planning Commission.These uses must follow the development criteria listed under C-1 neighborhood commercial and have a traditional design consistent with the neighborhood. (3)Within the area bounded by Capitol Avenue on the north,9th street on the south,I-30 on the east,and Cumberland Street on the west,in addition to the above uses,multi-family use,as defined by R-5 urban residential district,shall be a permitted use. (c)Height regulations.No building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35)feet. (d)Area regulations. (1)Front yard.There shall be a front yard setback having a depth of not less fd ~d~ill fd f j.if id j dj which is closer than QS 15 feet,then the new structure may be built using the line of the pre-existing structure.In no case may a structure be built in the right-of-way. DRAFT 7 DRAFT (2)Side yard.There shall be a side yard on each side of the building having a width of not less than ten (10)percent of the average width of the lot, not to exceed five (5)feet. (3)Rear yard.There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than twenty-five (25)feet. -(4)-Lot-area regulations.There shall be a lot area of not less than five thousand (5,000)square feet.In addition,there shall be a lot width of not less than fifty (50)feet and a lot depth of not less than one hundred (100) feet. (3)Accessory structures and additions.Accessory structures or principal building additions of conventional on-site construction are permitted by right. VIII)Modify map to change the area,from Cross to l30 and l630 to River,to Urban Use and R-4A Districts. l Dg p,f'T 8 PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD DATE )grit ~RKvCJLAZ ~ 'g N86R',-': .':::-,-;:-'ERRY, CRAIG v' EARNEST,HUGH DOWNING,RICHARD v MUSE,ROHN 4 A A RAHMAN,MIZAN v FAUST,JUDITH p ADCOCK,PAM V PUTNAM,BILL p V NUNNLEY,OBRAY P LOWRY,BOB V v- HAWN,HERB p V p !,T,'.'.'IH!'AHQ".;-':T'IIIIIE:OUT BERRY,CRAIG EARNEST,HUGH DOWNING,RICHARD MUSE,ROHN A RAHMAN,MIZAN FAUST,JUDITH ADCOCK,PAM PUTNAM,BILL NUNNLEY,OBRAY LOWRY,BOB HAWN,HERB Meeting Adjourned ~$.P.M,+AYE ~NAYE ~ABSENT 6 ABSTAIN September 16,1999 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Date /Q //l'f f Sec eta y C ai an