The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpc_06 04 1991LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA JUNE 4,1991 1:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum II.Approval of the Minutes for April 23,1991. III.Members present:Fred Perkins Ramsey Ball Diane Cachere John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam Walter Riddick,III Joe Selz Brad Walker Members Absent:Rose Collins City Attorney:Stephen Giles June 4,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 TITLE:Hillcrest Commercial Overlay LOCATION:Kavanaugh from Walnut to Monroe STAFF REPORT: As part of the review of the Hillcrest area requested by the HillcrestResidentsAssociation,Staff reviewed the special concerns expressedabouttheKavanaughcommercialdistrictinHillcrest.There was aspecificrequesttochangethecity's standards to better address theneedsofan"urban commercial district"as opposed to a suburbancommercialarea.Staff met several times with the property owners inthewinterandspringof1990todiscussvariousrequirementsandstandards.A meeting was then held to discuss the draft overlay withtheimmediatelysurroundingresidents.Further revisions were madeanddiscussedwithpropertyowners,and a neighborhood meeting washeldtoreceivecommentsfromthelargerHillcrestarea. In early November 1990 property owners once again asked for comments and the Plans Committee was asked to review the draft as revised byallparties.After two meetings of the Plans Committee,more minorrevisionsweremadetothedraft.This document has been sent to eachpropertyowner(mailed March 22)for their review.In the letter,theownerswereinformedofthismeetingandinvitedtoattendandaddresstheCommission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (APRIL 23,1991) Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reviewed the history of this itemstartingoverayearagowitharequestfromtheHillcrestResident'sAssociationBoard(HRA).The concern expressed at the time was that"suburban"standards were being forced on an "urban"area.Items which were requested for review included reduced parking,setbacks,storefronts,etc.The property owners were contacted and asked fortheirinput.After meetings with property owners,surroundingresidentialresidentswereaskedtoattendameetingtodiscuss thedraftregulationsandtoexpresstheirconcerns.Staff next arranged a neighborhood meeting and finally took the draft to the Plans Committee.At each step,property owners were mailed the currentdraftfortheirreviewandcomment. 1 June 4,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO CONT Mr.Newman asked if the Commission would like a detailed review of thedraftwiththeCommissionindicatingthatwasdesired.Starting withSectionC,Mr.Newman reviewed the major points as follows: SECTION C:Maximum 5,000 sq.ft.per business, Not including R1,R2,R3 or R4 property SECTION D:Setbacks —Zero on Kavanaugh,front and side yardsL~d —K~h:Ht t t d pl t keep a 4 to 6 foot sidewalk clearance Beechwood:Retain 2 to 4 foot landscape between sidewalk and curb ~5'Alltll:C 5't t 1 59 f d Ground mounted:Face 12 sq.ft.~pt:H ght'9 ft.1*~pk'gg t g 1/2 t d d fo neighborhood commercial use shared parking encouraged Kavanaugh sideyard Beechwood front yard discouraged maximum 50%impermeable surface The Commission asked several questions about sign and parkingsections.Mr.Lawson indicated that the draft is an attempt to respond to neighborhood and owner concerns that business is avoidingHillcrestbecauseoftheneedtogetBoardofAdjustmentrelief.The neighborhood,owners and City want a viable area.The overlay concept was not conceived to create an overlay which will be reused everywhere,but rather to look at each area and encourage the unique character of that area. There was discussion about a parking garage and the balance between more commercial,and damage to surrounding residential.At this point Mr.Newman continued his review. ~L'ht:1 ldd tth gg t f H tfod (discussion of the light height,type,etc.) SECTION E:Residential:Allowed by right on second floor. Frank Whitbeck,property owner,indicated his family has been involved in Hillcrest for over 50 years.He discussed his efforts to keep the post office in the area.The businesses and owners hope to attract customers from the neighborhood and through the City.Originally he was excited about the proposal to help revitalize the area,but more residential owners than commercial owners worked on the plan.He requested a delay to further study the draft.A six month delay was recommended by Mr.Whitbeck.He stated that the proposal should not make healthy businesses unhealthy.The final document should be good 2 June 4,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 CONT. for everyone and encourage new businesses.The current draft is toorestrictiveandburdensome.Major concerns are with signage and parking.Mr.Whitbeck stated he would try to be reasonable and find a good middle ground. Mr.Richard Boles,owner of Kazuko,stated he enjoyed traffic fromallareas.His structure is approximately 9,000 sq.ft.and was an early suburban center attempt.Mr.Boles expressed concerns about putting restrictions on parking and the affect that it often has on businesses. Mr.Robert Friedl,owner of Hillcrest Square,stated that his 20 businesses had only three spaces with an additional 40 rented. While the parking needs to be relaxed,some parking must be provided. Mr.Friedl expressed concern about the height limit on parking lot lighting.He requested more time to review the ordinance. There was discussion about deferral and the parking related issues, lighting,location and amount.Mr.Whitbeck indicated the parking issues and signage were the major issues needing discussion.The P.U.D.section was mentioned as a way to get larger projects in the area or address other issues. Mr.Tom Johnson,President HRA,stated that the City needed to recognized that Kavanaugh is not Highway 10 or Rodney Parham and should have different regulations.He stated that some balance must be found for the parking question between neighborhood and business concerns.The HRA has no problem with a deferral to allow for more discussion on the issues.However signage requirements are appropriate to the area in the opinion of the association.In addition,Mr.Johnson asked if the frontyard parking on Beechwood could not be restricted. There was more discussion about the meeting process and parking issues (where,when and how).The Commission stated that parking options needed to be explored. Commissioner Leek made a motion to defer the issue until June 4th.By a vote of 8 for 0 against 3 absent (Riddick,Wells,Walker)the motion was approved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JUNE 4,1991) Ron Newman,Planning Manager,reported that the Staff had met with property and business owners in the Hillcrest commercial area,and that several concerns were raised.The concerns were that the proposed overlay would not alleviate the lack of parking space in the area.He informed the Commission that the Hillcrest Merchants, Businessowners and Neighborhood Association had been formed to further 3 June 4,1991 PLANS HEARING ITEM NO.:1 CONT. study the issue of parking.Frank Whitbeck,representing that organization,asked the Commission for a six month deferral on the overlay to allow for further study.Tom Johnson,President of the Hillcrest Residents Association,informed the Commission that his organization would be working with the Merchants,Business Owners and Neighborhood Association to arrive at a compromise.After discussion a motion was made to defer the issue to a maximum of six months.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 abstention,and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE:(JUNE 4,1991) After meeting with a group of commercial property owners,some minor changes are recommended in the lighting section (drop reference to high pressure sodium light)and leasable area (include verbiage from zoning ordinance allowing one business to be 10,000 square feet). 4 June 4,1991 PLANNING HEARING ITEM NO.:2 OTHER MATTERS TITLE:12th Street Study LOCATION:Fair Park to Battery ~RE UEP7:Board of Directors STAFF REPORT: At the request of the Board of Directors,staff began a review of the 12th Street Corridor,during the summer of 1990.The Board's request came as a result of a zoning case for a beauty shop on the north side of 12th Street,midblock between Peyton and Lewis. Staff has reviewed the zoning pattern on the 12th Street corridor and is requesting direction from the Planning Commission on how to address the concerns of the Board of Directors.(See attachment) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (APRIL 23,1991) Ron Newman,Planning Manager,indicated that approximately a year ago the staff began a review of 12th Street at the request of the City Board of Directors.The instructions were to look for ways to improve the area and prevent strip commercial.Today,the staff requests direction from the Commission on this study. Two options have been identified.One is to have the City initiate rezoning and land use plan changes.If this option is followed there could be no opting out,either we do it or we don'. There was some discussion about the boundaries of the study. The western terminus was of greatest concern.Also the Commission asked about voluntary rezoning. Option 2 would be some kind of overlay to address the specific concerns and issues along 12th Street. The Commission asked about the institutional uses (group quarters living)in the area.The issue was then referred to the Plans Committee with a progress report to the full Commission in six weeks. 1 ITEM NO :2 OTHER MATTERS CONT. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (ZUNE 4,1991) Ron Newman.Planning Manager,gave the Commission an update on the 12th Street Study.He informed the Commission thattheStaffhadbegunmeetingwithneighborhoodgroupswithin the study area with the intent to propose amendments to the Oak Forest,Stephens and Central High plans that would address the issues on 12th street. C-n~(rw ~~ 5.~v-/s- 2 ~~0 ~' RRHRHHRRRRHHRRRRlÃRSLWLESWEEEWESlRSSLEESSLESSEESHl@WEEEEWWEEWEESRRRWLLESSSESELS ..ISHSEELESSWESELSLCSSESLLSEWEWLLWW EQSWWLEEESESSWLWRSWWLEEEWWSWWE ~REhSEEEESEEESEWS ~RRWLWWWELWESWLE SWEE WEE WEELEELSEWSLEWSWEELEELWSSWRWWWSLWSSWRR~RRKSKimmRPNW1SIRRESEELEESLLESRRRESSEEEESEEESERSESWEWWEWEEESEHLESSEEWEEEEESEASLREEWSESWWLSSRLLSEESEESLELEELSSSEESEESLLLEWE% ) Ia