Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 06 1997I. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 6, 1997 3:30 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight (8) in number. Approval of the minutes of the December 19, 1996 meeting. The minutes of the last meeting were approved as mailed. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Larry Lichty Suzanne McCarthy Hugh Earnest Doyle Daniel Herb Hawn Bill Putnam Craig Berry Pam Adcock Mizan Rahman Ron Woods Sissi Brandon Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA FEBRUARY 6, 1997 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Correctional Release Centers B. Master Street Plan Amendment - Modifying the collector and arterial system between Kanis and Colonel Glenn Roads, west of Bowman Road II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Cloverdale/Watson Schools Neighborhood Action Plan 2. Land Use Plan Amendments - Geyer Springs West District (Cloverdale/Watson Area) 3. Rezoning I-2 to C-4 and C-3 and R-5 to 0-2 in the Cloverdale/Watson area 4. Land Use Plan Amendment - West Little Rock SF to Office 5. Master Street Plan Amendment - Remove collector (Labette) east of John Barrow Road III. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 6. Sale of Surplus Abandoned Right -of -Way 7. Chenal Planning and Traffic Task Force Recommendation February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A Subject: A public hearing on a proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance for - purposes of establishing specific regulation of correctional centers. Source of Issue: The Little Rock Board of Directors requested that the Planning Commission through its Plans Committee develop regulations specific in nature for locating release centers. Staff Report: • After receipt of its charge by the Board of Directors, the Plans Committee set hearings to determine direction of problem, resolution and specific ordinance language. • The direction chosen was: 1. That all facilities of this nature would be required to go through a public hearing process for site location; 2. That a specific definition be drafted that separates these uses from the current definition listing. 3. That the conditional use permit process be employed to assure proper notice, legal ad, signs posted, etc. • The Plans Committee met two occasions October 22, 1996 and November 4, 1996. During these meetings the Committee discussed options available, specific language and received guidance from the City Attorney's Staff. • After the November 4 meeting, Richard Wood of Staff assembled the comments offered and solutions developed, in the form of an ordinance. • This ordinance draft was presented to other staff persons and Cindy Dawson of the City Attorney's Office. t • Minor changes were made and this agenda prepared along with a legal ad. • A mailing of the draft was made November 8 to all persons on the contact list for ordinance review. This list consists of February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO • A (Cont.) 45+ names of neighborhood association presidents, professionals, development related and organizations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the amendments as presented. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 1996) The Chairman identified the first item of business for this agenda that being an ordinance amendment dealing with halfway houses and similar facilities. Tony Bozynski, of the Staff, offered a brief introduction of the item. Mr. Bozynski then introduced Mr. Tom Carpenter, the City Attorney. Mr. Carpenter was identified as taking the lead on this item and he would introduce the subject ordinance. Prior to Mr. Carpenter's comments on this item, Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff, offered comments to the effect that the Planning Staff had been working with the Plans Committee and City Attorney on this matter. We had drafted an ordinance and the current draft to be presented by Mr. Carpenter involves quite a bit more and further clarifies the subject matter. Mr. Carpenter stated that he had presented each of the several commissioners with a copy of the latest draft and placed that instrument at their seating arrangement. Mr. Carpenter, for the record, identified the two ordinances as the one prepared by staff and the Plans Committee with the guidance of Cindy Dawson of his office and the new draft. He further expanded his comment to include the changes that have been proposed in his earlier draft to accommodate the differences between the two. He stated that one of the primary goals of this ordinance was not only to deal with the halfway house at issue but to deal with the City's experience with federal facilities and the federal government's willingness to deal with its own regulations and a concern that there would be certain safety factors to meet on these kinds of facilities. Mr. Carpenter then offered an extended conversation on the subject of the federal rules, The City of Faith operator of this facility. He offered conversation about the bid documents and specifications for the proposed use. Mr. Carpenter continued by offering comments concerning the deficiency in requirements for notice to both public officials and the neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter described the approach that this owner had taken with respect to contacting the Mayor and the City. He continued to expand on the notice procedure that was utilized and the apparent deficiency and that the contacts and notices did not deal with 0 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO • A (Cont.) specific site location until the date the building permit was issued. Mr. Carpenter then offered comments on the appropriateness of the location and the need for participation by neighborhoods in site selection, especially with regard to existing similar facilities in the area. He stated that during all of his discussions on this issue as it developed, what he kept hearing from the federal authorities was, "does this proposal meet city zoning codes and is OK if it complies with city zoning", then everything is okay. He stated that was basically the reason he drafted the ordinance that is presented to the Commission today. Mr. Carpenter then briefly presented the ordinance text, the various sections of the text, their impact and applicability. He pointed out several areas that he stated had some concerns prior to getting into the specific discussion of the ordinance sections. He pointed out to the Commission that the Board of Directors on Tuesday of this week had enacted amortorium for a period of 90 days and that the intent of it was to offer a sufficiency of time to appropriately to deal with these kinds of issues and the proposed ordinance. That moritorium will refuse zoning applications or building permits during the period. He stated that the Board in adopting that resolution was aware of this hearing before the Planning Commission and sufficient time might be required to properly deal with this matter. He stated that the amortorium is for a period of 90 days or the actual effective date of the proposed ordinance to be presented. Therefore, if the Commission comes up with something and it goes to the Board prior to that 90 day termination, then that will be the effective termination of the moritorium. He begin with discussion of the ordinance text by identifying Section 1 which is the definition section. It provides for a specific definition of the Zoning Ordinance in correctional facilities in as much as they are not now discussed in the ordinance. He stated that he believed it was basically the same definition prepared by the Plans Committee and offered to the Commission. He stated that one of the changes that his office had made in that definition was the title, the staff and committee had used the term to be defined as -correctional release facility". The word "release" has been removed from the definition in as much as there are other activities related to this facility that are not release associated from correctional facilities. He stated that there will possibly be parole violators or misdemeanors that will be sentenced to a short time frame at this facility. Therefore, this type of use is not really a release facility. He stated that he wanted the ordinance to be all encompassing. 3 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont. He then moved to Section 2 which he identified as dealing with the types of uses to be included within the ordinance. He then moved to Section 3 of the draft which he stated gets into the specificity of the conditional use. He stated that conditional use permits by their nature are such that conditions can be imposed but despite that circumstance this ordinance sets forth 6 additional criteria for obtaining or having a conditional use permit. Mr. Carpenter then proceeded to read each of the 6 and offer an explanation of their effect. During the course of the discussion of these 6 items, the issue of notice arose. Staff and Mr. Carpenter discussed with the Commission the type of notice, the effect and how it has or has not worked in the past. Several commissioners offered comments on an approach which might be utilized for enhancing the notice procedure specifically with source material and distance to be notified. The subject also was discussed about notifying renters versus property owners. Mr. Carpenter inserted a comment relative to a notice procedure which is required in this ordinance and would require some notice be given prior to any contracts being executed committing the properties. Mr. Carpenter offered some brief comments at this point concerning other uses that may or may not be effected by this conditional use permit process, specifically churches and church outreach programs which may deal with youth or youth issues. In discussing Item 5 on this conditions list, the subject of the notice procedure for notifying the police department or the city relative to persons leaving the establishment without notice and who would be responsible for making such notice to the city and following up on enforcement or monitoring persons on these premises. During the course of this discussion, Jim Lawson asked Mr. Carpenter to backup to an earlier item No. 3 and explain the distance measurement that is identified, the 500 feet. Mr. Lawson asked "where is the 500 feet measured from, is it property line to property line or is it from building to building. Mr. Carpenter's response was its between structures and that is to deal with the variable size of adjacent properties. Mr. Carpenter then described the effect of Subsection 2. which is to limit the existing definitions and Zoning Ordinance in various districts which might be construed to include the correctional facility that is to be regulated. This simply prohibits that activity in these definitions. Mr. Carpenter then moved to the next subsection which provides for a 4 year amortization period. He offered an extensive conversation about the City of Faith and their correctional facility with the terms that are associated with the contract and the numbers of renewal periods allowed in that contract. Mr. Carpenter stated that the purpose the for this ordinance was to be an appropriate vehicle for the proper 4 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO • A (Cont.) this ordinance was to be an appropriate vehicle for the proper location of these types of facilities in an appropriate portion of the City of Little Rock. He stated that the ordinance does not say don't come but the City wants to know what the proposal consists of, where it to be located, and how it is to be operated. At this point, Commissioner Berry raised a question concerning the notice and other aspects of this ordinance and its effect and asked are we overreaching in the development of this regulation. He asked whether we were overusing the conditional use permit process in this regard. Mr. Carpenter offered as a response his history with criminal law in his previous practice and the types of changes that have occurred in the penal system as a result of drug and other new effects that were not in existence a number of years ago. Mr. Carpenter then returned to some of his previous points and again discussed a notice issue and effect on neighborhood. Mr. Berry responded to Mr. Carpenter's comments by stating that there is an endless number of conditions that you can place on this type of regulation under the conditional use permit process. A lengthy discussion followed involving several commissioners, staff and Mr. Carpenter wherein he identified for the Commission that it was their call at this point if there were some things in this ordinance that they disagreed with, that, they should indicate its removal. At the end of this discussion, Commissioner Lichty framed a motion which stated that this item be tabled until a commission meeting following the Planning Commission's retreat on January 16, 1997. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT: The Commission discussed the proposed ordinance at length, hearing both support and concern for its direction. Tom Carpenter, the City Attorney, presented the latest draft and arguments supporting the regulation. At the end of the discussion, the Commission determined that the proposal be placed on the next Planning Commission plans meeting February 6th. 5 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 1997) The Chairman asked that staff present the first item of business. Tony Bozynski,of the Staff, identified the first item as Item "A" on the agenda, a public hearing on a proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance for purposes of establishing regulation over correctional centers. The matter was then shifted to Stephen Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, to present commentary and an update on the ordinance draft now before the Commission. Mr. Giles began his commentary reminding the Commission that this item was discussed at the retreat on January 16, 1997 at which time the City Attorney presented the ordinance draft and suggested that a public forum would be an appropriate place to add comments, both positive and negative as related to the ordinance. Further, it would be important to do so at this public hearing. Therefore, it would establish the record on this matter and have all the comments on record. Mr. Giles pointed out that at the retreat the issue had been discussed relative to its constitutionality and the City's rights within the context of this ordinance. The City could regulate correctional release facilities as identified here from other properties because of the nature of the use in that it houses persons convicted of crimes. He further pointed out that Mr. Carpenter had stated that the City is not really certain or within a degree certainty as to what type of persons would be housed in the facility. Therefore, the City has to take steps to protect adjacent property owners. Mr. Giles continued by pointing out that this ordinance draft provides that this type of use will be a conditional use in certain zones and that in addition to all of the expressed conditions and the conditional use process, this activity will have additional requirements in order for the Commission to be able to approve a type of location at which one is proposed. He pointed out that some of the factors for consideration would be safety, separation of use, procedural requirements, notice to owners. Mr. Giles offered for the Commission that he would go through each of the several items in the additional requirements if the Commission so desired. It was apparently their wish and he proceeded point by point to outline the ordinance. Mr. Giles stated that the first item was entered in this ordinance so as to assist in eliminating the apparent confusion such as existed with the existing activity. Mr. Giles added additional commentary relative to the Board of Directors concern level with the notice issue as it had developed. He then clarified the item for notice dealing with notice prior to certain activities occurring such as contracts being signed. He 6 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont. also discussed procedures related to that. Mr. Giles then moved to item 3 on the list dealing with the proximity of proposed facilities with schools and other uses. He pointed out that this is not a new requirement. It is also embodied in regulations dealing with sexual -oriented business. He stated that the primary reasons for this requirement is that there is an attempt made here to prevent the clustering of these types of uses within a certain neighborhood and that these uses are not located too close to special uses such as schools. Mr. Giles read item 4 on the list. It being self-explanatory he did not add additional commentary. On item 5, he read this item and then introduced a length discussion of the involvement with notice to the police department relative to the notice required and the various circumstances involved in such a notice. He explained that the current language includes one hour notice and that earlier had been for 30 minutes but that an hour seems to be more reasonable. He briefly touched on the last numbered entry, no. 6 dealing with adequate security. He stated that it is attached to no. 5 and the number of occurrences within a 30 day period if such a failure should occur. Mr. Giles then moved on to paragraph B of this ordinance. He pointed out to the Commission that these requirements were in addition to other provisions in the ordinance dealing with conditional use and that they are mandatory not directory. He also made a point of the second sentence in that paragraph dealing with conflict with those provisions of the code and that these requirements shall control. He also covered the subject of substantial compliance. He then briefly discussed the basis for denial attached to substantial compliance and pointed out the 120 days within which the permit may be rescinded by the Planning Commission. Mr. Giles then moved to the next paragraph dealing with the definitions of "group care, rooming, religious, charitable and philanthropic establishments. He strongly pointed out that these definitions within the ordinance shall not include correctional facilities as a permitted use. This has previously been the case within the ordinance and was the basis for the existing facility on Garfield Street. Mr. Giles then briefly read paragraph D dealing with amortization and explained the relationship of a use which may be in place relative to this ordinance and the four year effective limit of the amortization. He pointed out that 4 years will allow this owner to get through their contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and 4 years has been determined to be a constitutional amortization provision. Mr. Giles then closed his commentary and returned the item to the Chairman. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Putnam for a comment. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Giles whether or not the notice 7 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont. requirements in this ordinance would override the current conditional use permit notice requirements. Mr. Giles stated that this ordinance where it is in conflict with those requirements would prevail. Commissioner Putnam then expanded his question -to.deal with the existing use..on Garfield Street relative to the amortization as to whether or not they would be required to remove the operation. Mr. Giles responded to the question by discussing the removal of church from the standards for location and that with respect to Commissioner Putnam's question the answer is no. This use would not be required to move on the basis of notice, but comply with amortization. The discussion then moved to Commissioner Adcock and two questions. The first of these had to do with security as to who determines what security is adequate and the second question dealt with regulation of such as a drug treatment home. Mr. Giles stated this ordinance does not deal with the drug treatment type facilities. Mr. Giles' response to the security question was that the City Attorney's Office has determined that it would not be appropriate for the City to make this judgment. He stated the primary reason being there are federal guidelines which are established to provide for this and certain contractual requirements. This discussion carried forward for a brief time with additional commentary dealing with security and who reports incidents and to what city agency. The discussion then moved to Commissioner Berry. He stated that he had a couple of questions for staff. The first question being does Little Rock currently have any conditional use permit ordinances that are retroactive. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, identified the medical waste ordinance as being one of those. His second question was how many correctional facilities do we now have in Little Rock and how many do we foresee. Jim Lawson stated that this facility on Garfield that was recently dealt with and perhaps the local municipal or county jail would be the only facilities. Lawson stated that the city and county jail facilities are exempt by this ordinance. Lawson continued his response by stating that the City had no way of knowing if there would be additional facilities established by the federal government. He expanded on the thought by saying that Tom Carpenter, the City Attorney, had commented at the retreat on the type of sentencing procedures that are now in place and how this may generate additional facilities of this type. Chairman Lichty addressed a question to Commissioner Berry as to whether or not the answer he had just received responded to the reservations he had about the overly restricted nature of this ordinance. Commissioner Berry responded by saying no. There 3 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) being no further points of discussion offered by commissioners. Chairman Lichty indicated that he had a couple of concerns that he would like to discuss. The first of these being the second "whereas" which deals with the federal government not enforcing its written notice requirements. He stated that he felt this statement was somewhat sarcastic in tone. Chairman Lichty wanted to go on record that he did not think that the current language in that sentence is appropriate. Chairman Lichty then addressed a question to Mr. Giles concerning paragraph C on page 3 as to whether that was a typo. Mr. Giles indicated that it was and would be corrected. Mr. Lawson, of the Staff, pointed out to the Chairman and to the Commission that this ordinance is before them for public hearing and if they want to change any portion of it this is the occasion. Mr. Giles also pointed out that the Board is asking for the Commission's thoughts on this ordinance. Discussion then passed to the Chairman again. Chairman Lichty asked the other commissioners if there was not some concern on their part or did they share the same concern he did about that paragraph 2 and its appropriateness. The matter was passed to Commissioner Ernest who stated that he would like to offer for the record that he shared the same concern that the Chairman did in the second paragraph and that he thought there was an earlier agreement to remove this. The discussion then passed back to Stephen Giles who responded to the Chairman's question and Commissioner Ernest's concern. He stated that perhaps there is a legal requirement and really we are looking for a rational basis. If we defend these kinds of things in court, the City has to show that it had a rational basis for giving these stringent standards. It has been the City's history and experience with the correctional facility that is in place, where the federal government did not enforce its notice provisions. It allowed the contract to let and the lessee to go forward with the facility or spend the money on the building and did not meet the requirements of the contract dealing with notice procedure. Therefore, the City felt like it was necessary to provide notice provisions that we could enforce if they were not going to. He stated that is the reason the notice provisions are strict. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, then pointed out and reminded the Commission they were in a position to strike this provision of the ordinance. You can recommend that it not be included and it goes on to the City Board and if it is left in, the Planning Commission's recommendation is carried forward with it, then the City Attorney could offer justification to the Board. Stephen Giles followed that comment by stating that the City Attorney, Mr. Carpenter, was not dead set on having that provision in the ordinance but that it expressed the opinion of the Board. Chairman Lichty then offered some potential language modification V] February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont. and continued by saying he did not think the current language served any purpose. Chairman Lichty then posed a question as to whether or not a motion is required to forward this ordinance at this time. Mr. Giles stated that he felt that the Commission should proceed with a motion as a proper procedural step. Commission Putnam was recognized for a motion. His motion being that the discussion matter of the second "whereas" be relayed to the Board of Directors with the commentary of both the Commission and the Staff and the concerns related and the ordinance be approved. The Chairman recognized a second on the vote and asked for a show of hands for ayes. The vote on the matter produced 6 ayes, 2 nays and 3 absent. (The nays were Hugh Ernest and Craig Berry.) At the conclusion of the vote, Commissioner Putnam asked the Chairman if it would be appropriate to ask the no votes to express their concerns. Commissioner Ernest stated that he would be happy to do so. He stated that he disagreed with the process in its entirety. He said that it was an after -the -fact kind of action and he disagreed with the conditional use process to regulate this use. He concluded his remark by stating that he felt it set a dangerous precedent for the City. He stated that he had the same concern relative to the medical waste facilities. 10 February 6, 1997 ITEM NO.: B NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment LOCATION: Between Colonel Glenn Road and Kanis Road, Bowman Road to Stewart REQUEST: Modify the collector and arterial pattern SOURCE: A property owner/staff STAFF REPORT: At the request of a property owner (Capitol Development of Arkansas), Staff reviewed a proposal to modify the Master Street Plan in the Cooper Orbit Road area. In order to accomplish Capitol Developments desired affect of reducing traffic for Spring Valley Manor an alternative collector pattern was proposed. Capitol Development proposed to remove Cooper Orbit as a collector and added a new (more direct) north -south collector to the west. Because of topography and concern about the proposed collector functioning as a higher type road (length, straight, etc.), Staff suggested an alternative pattern. The Staff proposal broke Cooper Orbit Road, turning it west both north and south of Spring Valley Manor. The proposal would continue to provide access and use the West Loop for through north -south movement. Affected property owners were notified and a meeting arranged. The property owners south of Spring Valley Manor expressed concern about the proposal. Staff and the owners have agreed to continue to work on the problem, with the hope of reaching agreement on a Master Street Plan modification for the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral to February 6, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II at the request of Commissioner Brandon reviewed the request and status. After two meetings, the area under review has been enlarged. Commissioner Earnest, second Commissioner Adcock, made the motion to defer the item to February 6, 1997. By an unanimous vote (10 for, 0 against) the item was deferred. February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 10, 1997) Walter Malone, Planner II reviewed the area of the Master Street included in the amendment and briefed the Commission actions taken since December. Commissioner Adcock made the motion to defer the item to allow further review (Commissioner Ernest, second). By a unanimous vote (8-0) the item was deferred. 2 February 6, 1997 ITEM NO.: 1 NAME: Cloverdale/Watson Schools Neighborhood Action Plan LOCATION: I-30 north to Mavelvale Cuttoff, Chicot Road east to Geyer Springs Road REQUEST: Resolution of support for Action Plan SOURCE: Cloverdale/Watson Schools Neighborhood Planning Committee STAFF REPORT: At the invitation of two neighborhood associations, Cloverdale and Fairfield, City Staff joined with the residents of the Cloverdale / Watson Schools Neighborhoods to begin the process of developing an action plan for the area. Work began in February of 1996 with the formation of a steering committee comprised of local residents. The process which was used concentrated on three phases: • Development of background information; • Survey of neighborhood needs; and • Development of a plan. The first phase, development of background information consisted of a series of meetings held during February and March of 1996. Employees of city and regional public agencies met with the steering committee to discuss issues such as transportation, land use, zoning, and infrastructure. This phase gave the steering committee an understanding of city policies and allowed for an exchange of ideas and concerns between city staff and local residents. In March of 1996 a survey (phase two) was randomly distributed to one third of the homes located in the Cloverdale / Watson neighborhood. This included single family, multi -family and mobile homes. The results were presented to the committee in June. During the late summer and into the fall of 1996 the steering committee, using the data from the survey results, began to develop the action plan for the area. This process included a review of the current land use and zoning designations and the development of goals and objectives and specific action steps to accomplish the goals. With the completion -of this third phase, the completed plan was presented to the residents of the community in a series of meetings held in the Cloverdale, Allendale, and Santa Monica neighborhoods. February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) A copy of the action plan is attached for review by the Commission. The Environmental Analysis portion of the report describes the existing conditions of the area and other background information. The Policy Plan is the portion of the report containing the goals, objectives and action statements formulated by the steering committee. Appendix A and B contain the survey form and the survey results. The survey was conducted in February and March of 1995. Using the Capitol View/Stifft's Station survey as a starting point, the steering committee made revisions and created a new survey form. Using the City Geographic Information System addresses for one third of the residential units were randomly selected by the computer. Each of these addresses were mailed a survey and a postage -paid return envelope. Surveys were also left at the Clover Valley Apartments. Of the 510 surveys distributed 115 were returned, a return rate of 23 percent. Planning staff coded the forms and entered the answers into a computer database. The coding sheets were spot checked against randomly selected survey forms. Any errors were corrected and -two additional surveys were pulled to be spot checked. The results of the survey are contained in Appendix B. The Steering Committee took the survey data, their knowledge and information provided by the "experts" to develop a plan to achieve the neighborhood aspirations. The Steering Committee is bringing three items to the Commission which they request be approved and sent to the Board of Directors. Each item is addressed with a separate item on the agenda. The Policy plan will be reviewed as this item. The following items will address Land Use and Zoning. The Plan is a Policy or Action Plan which the committee developed. Based on the survey results, the information provided by "experts", and the committee's personal knowledge, the Plan contains goals, objectives and actions statements designed to address the neighborhoods needs. The Steering Committee agreed on 6 general goals. During bi- monthly meetings in the fall of 1996, the committee developed objectives to accomplish each goal. Next the committee committee developed actions statements to accomplish their goals and objectives. The following goals highlight the areas where the neighborhood feels action must be taken. Traffic Control Goal: Ensure safe and efficient movement of traffic in, around, and through the neighborhood. 2 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) • Economic Goal: Create a competitive and adaptable economic environment that encourages investment and a diversity of employment opportunities. • Infrastructure Goal: Have an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage systems, within the neighborhood which is designed and works to produce a safe and attractive neighborhood environment. • Human Services Goal: Develop a neighborhood where people of all ages, backgrounds and capabilities can meet their individual needs for human development through the various stages of their lives by providing opportunities for employment, learning, culture, recreation and social well- being. • Public Safety Goal: Assure that crime and safety issues in the neighborhoods be aggressively dealt with by city government. • Neighborhood Pride and Preservation Goal: Foster strong neighborhoods and create an environment that supports independence and personal development by planning and developing a healthy community. The plan was presented to the residents of the Cloverdale Watson Schools area and has received their support. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends approval of resolution of support. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 1997) Pat Herman, of the staff, presented a brief history on the Cloverdale/Watson Schools Action Plan. Mr. Troy Laha, Chairman of the Steering Committee and Cloverdale resident, spoke on behave of the neighborhood residents asking for approval of the resolution of support. By unanimous vote (8-0), the Planning Commission voted approval by resolution of support. 3 February 6, 1997 ITEM NO.• 2 NAME: LOCATION• REQUEST: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: City Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs West District Cloverdale/Watson Schools Neighborhood Change various areas from Single family, Multifamily, Low Density Multifamily, and Parks/Open Space to Single family, Office, Mixed Office Warehouse, Public Institutional, and Parks/Open Space Neighborhood Planning Committee The neighborhood planning committee as part of their plan effort reviewed the Land Use Plan for their area of Little Rock. The Committee felt that the overall plan was appropriate however, a few changes were believed to be necessary. • The area north of the Cloverdale Subdivision to I-30 is currently Multifamily. With this property's access to the frontage road and I-30, Office would be a compatible land use with the existing Single Family. A hundred foot Open Space buffer between Single Family and Office will protect the Single Family from intrusions of non-residential uses. • A block of land on the northeast corner of Frenchman's and 83rd Street is currently Multifamily. A change to Office would blend well with the surrounding Commercial and Public Institutional uses. • Extend the office on the north side of Baseline Road between Cloverdale and Verbena. Baseline Road is a major arterial with high traffic volume and is rapidly becoming developed as a commercial strip. Office would allow a less intense use along this part of Baseline Road. • The Southwest Community Center and Police Substation is currently shown as Park/Open Space. A change to Public Institution would recognize its existing uses. • Multifamily is shown on the plan for the area around Atkins Drive. A change to Mixed Office Warehouse would be a good transitional use between the existing Commercial and Single Family uses. February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) • Between Chicot Road and Oakgrove just north of Mabelvale Cutoff, Multifamily shown on the plan changed to Single Family. • Recognize the existing church on Mabelvale Cutoff with Public/Institutional. • Change the Commercial at the northwest corner of Geyer Springs Road and Mabelvale Cutoff to Single Family. It is surrounded by Single Family uses. • From Valley Drive east of Warren Drive to Valley Drive at Geyer Springs Road, change the existing Single Family, Low Density Multifamily, and Office to Park and Open Space. This would alleviate a strip of Multifamily development and provide a recreation area close to existing Multifamily development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of all requested land use changes except for the change at the corner at Geyer Springs Road and Mabelvale Cutoff (Commercial to Single Family). The property is currently zoned commercial. The owner was contacted and did not wish to rezone the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 1997) Pat Herman, of the Staff, presented the land use plan amendments in the Cloverdale/Watson Schools Area. Planning Commissioner Putnam raised concern over changing land use without notification of the property owner, or without consultation with persons involved with real estate or economic development. Pat Herman stated that had been asked for comment on the proposed changes and had not been against them. She also stated that individual property owners have not been notified of land use changes recommended during the Action Plan process. Two property owners were present to speak against the proposed changes at specific locations. John McKay, representing River City Land Company, spoke on the proposed change from Commercial to Single Family at the northwest corner of Geyer Springs Road and Mabelvale Cutoff. He mentioned that the property was zoned commercial and had been for over 25 years. Mr. McKay indicated while he would like a commercial development he was willing to meet and work with the neighborhood representatives. E February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont. James Phillips spoke on the property north of Cloverdale Subdivision with a proposed change from Multi -family to Office land use. He does not feel a change to office would allow for proper development of the site. The Planning Commission voted (7-0) with one abstention to approve all of the land use plan amendments except for the area north of Cloverdale Subdivision to I-30 and on the northwest corner of Geyer Springs Road and Mabelvale Cutoff. These are to remain unchanged. 3 February 6, 1997 ITEM NO.: 3 OWNER: APPLICANT• LOCATION• REQUEST: PURPOSE: EXISTING USE: STAFF REPORT: various City of Little Rock Southwest corner of I-30 and Geyer Springs Road, and Northeast corner of Frenchmans Lane and 83rd Street I-2 Light Industrial to C-4 Open Display Commercial I-2 Light Industrial to C-3 General Commercial R-5 Urban Residence to 0-2 Office and Institutional To reclassify properties closer to their current use. various As part of the neighborhood planning effort in the Cloverdale/Watson Schools Area, the Planning Committee identified areas they felt were inappropriately zoned. Staff reviewed the areas identified, checking the zoning, land use and adopted Plan. If both the use and the Plan were less intensive uses then the current zone, Staff proceeded. For those not meeting this requirement, the parcel was removed from the list of rezoning candidates. Property owners were researched at the County Assessor's Office for the remaining parcels. Letters explaining the existing zone and the requested new zone were sent to each owner in June of 1996. If the owners had questions or did not wish to have their property reclassified, they were asked to contact the Planning Staff. Any asking to not be rezoned were removed from the list. Property owners were sent a second letter on January 13, 1997 telling them the City would proceed to rezone their property on February 6, 1997 unless they contacted Staff. Staff, therefore believes that there is agreement to reclassify the following properties as described. FROM I-2 Light Industrial to C-4 Open Display Commercial 8014 Geyer Springs Road - Lot 3 Eagle Commercial Subdivision No. 3 6015 Mitchell Drive - Lot 4 Eagle Commercial Subdivision No. 3 February 6, 1997 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) 8000 Geyer Springs Road - Lot 7A and 7B Eagle Commercial Subdivision No. 3 FROM I-2 Light Industrial to C-3 General Commercial 6100 Mitchell Drive - Lot 17R Eagle Commercial Subdivision No. 3 FROM R-5 Urban Residence to 0-2 Office and Institutional Arnold Highland Acres Lot 2, less and except the east 180 feet STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 1997) Pat Herman, of the Staff, withdrew the requested reclassification at Arnold Highland Acres Lot 2, as the property owners could not be contacted. The remaining reclassifications were approved by the Planning Commission by unanimous vote (8-0). K, February 6, 1997 ITEM NO.: 4 NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment - West Little Rock District LOCATION: 8315 Cantrell Road REQUEST: Plan change from Single Family to Office SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT: The property owner has requested a Plan Change from Single Family to Office at 8315 Cantrell Road. The property in question is adjacent to Pavilion in the Park on the west and Reservoir Park on its south and east sides. Single family houses sit to the north of the property, across Cantrell Road. The property is isolated from other residences on the south side of Cantrell Road by Reservoir Park. Allowing Office on this site would blend well with the existing Single Family in the area. Office would also provide a good transition between the commercial use of Pavillion in the Park and Reservoir Park. The presence of Reservoir Park will prevent Office or Commercial uses from continuing westward on the south side of Cantrell Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 1997) Tony Bozynski, Planning and Development staff, presented the proposed plan amendment and said the request was a reasonable change for the location. Mr. Bozynski then responded to several questions from the Commission. There was no public comment. A motion was to recommend approval of the office plan amendment. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. February 6, 1997 ITEM NO.: 5 Title: Master Street Plan - Amendment Request: Remove Labette as a Collector, east of John Barrow Road Source: Brownwood Terrace Association Staff Report: The Public Works and Planning Departments reviewed a request to remove Labette Drive as a collector. This was determined not to be the real issue. The neighborhood wishes to isolate itself and prevent any connections to the east or south. Further they want a gate or other traffic control device to stop people from entering their neighborhood. Staff does not consider the idea of walling off each neighborhood a good idea. This development pattern increases traffic volumes on major streets and lengthens driving distance and time for many trips. However the current development standards in Little Rock (Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances) allow such development. Until such time as the development standards are changed, requests such as this will be difficult to reject. The areas which would be serviced by Labette and Michael can take access from Kanis, John Barrow, Cobb, Dorchester and Walker. Labette Drive will need to be abandoned and removed from Michael Drive east. Michael Drive will also need to be abandoned and removed south of Howell Drive. If the roads stop at undeveloped property, then they may be extended. If Labette is extended, it will function as a collector. Staff will not oppose the Master Street Plan Amendment conditioned on the removal of the public streets as described above. In order to do this further, applications are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferred by Planning Commission, held for 6 months to allow for the neighborhood to take necessary actions. The item will be reheard when actions are taken or in six (6) months. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 10, 1997) Walter Malone, Planner II reviewed the request and area involved in the Master Street Plan Amendment. Staff met with members of February 6, 1997 Planninq Hearing ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. the Association during today's meeting and now they clearly understand the situation and some of the options. In order to permit time for the Association to take the action recommended by staff a six month deferral is recommended. Commissioner Adcock made the motion to defer (Commissioner Putnam, second). By unanimous vote (7-0), the item was deferred. 2 February 6, 1997 ITEM NO.: 6 SUBJECT: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: Sale of Surplus Abandoned Right -of -Way City Board of Directors The Board has initiated a policy discussion on the issue of whether or not to sell surplus or abandoned right-of-way. To help facilitate the process, the staff researched 1995 and 1996 requests for abandonment (a total of 26) and developed criteria for reviewing them. This information has been compiled in a report (attached) for the Commission to review and determine what the next stop should be. In a memorandum to the Mayor and Board, the city manager suggested that the Commission could hold further public meetings or develop recommendations based on the report prepared by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff introduced the item and Office, discussed the issue in some background and referenced the two-year review. (FEBRUARY 6, 1997) Stephen Giles, City Attorney's some detail. Mr. Giles presented some the abandonments included in Comments were offered by the Planning Commission, David Scherer, Public Works, and Tim Daters. After some additional discussion, it was decided that the City Attorney's Office would draft a document and present it to the Commission at the next retreat. There was no formal action taken by the Planning Commission on this item. February 6, 1997 ITEM NO.: 7 SUBJECT: Chenal Planning and Traffic Task Force Recommendations REQUEST: To review and discuss the recommendations of the Chenal Task Force. SOURCE: City Board of Directors STAFF REPORT: In 1995, the Chenal Planning and Traffic Task Force (a total of 18 members) was formed to study a variety of traffic and planning issues associated with the Chenal Parkway corridor. The Task Force met a number of times and developed a group of recommendations. The Board of Directors has now directed the city manager to bring forth the recommendations and to begin the process of preparing the necessary ordinances or amendments to implement key recommendations (Resolution No. 9893). The Board would like the Planning Commission to review the recommendations and provide input on how the various recommendations should be implemented. Attached are copies of: 1. Board of Director's Resolution No. 9893 2. The final report of the Chenal Task Force PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 1997) Staff reviewed the item and suggested that it be deferred to the March 20, 1997 hearing because of the low attendance and some new information that has been developed for the Kanis Road Study. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, spoke and asked the Commission to encourage the Board of Directors to give mass transit a higher priority. A motion was made to defer the issue to March 20, 1997. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent. A �t z D m 0 D W m z Psi �. I -o r z Z Z O in cn z O m m m v C D 0 D 7CJ D n m x m a m m _1 �=0-joz=o>mmm -G = Z Dt7r->m0m p m y a Z Z �7 GZ =Z- D DON�-„=�v <> Z = � - = D r m D z m O m -i milli �l laws 1 1111 mill Ell mill Ill -o r z Z Z O in cn z O m m m v milli laws 1 1111 mill Ell mill Ill 11 NINE 11 IN III n MIN 0 NUNN on son In m -o r z Z Z O in cn z O m m m v February 6, 1997 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m. 31-1/'?7 Date Chairman