Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 27 1996LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 27, 1996 9:00 A.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number. II. Approval of the minutes of the January 16, 1996 meeting. III. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Pam Adcock Ramsay Ball Sissi Brandon (arrived after minutes approved) Suzanne McCarthy Doyle Daniel Herb Hawn Larry Lichty Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Ron Woods Diane Chachere Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 1996 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Hillcrest Local Ordinance Historic District II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Woodruff Neighborhood Plan IA. Amendment of the City Land Use Plan in the Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood 1B. Reclassification of several property from R-4 to R-3, C-3 to C-1 and C-3 to 0-1 within the Capitol View/Stifft Station Area 1C. Amendment to the Master Street Plan -- redefining right-of-way and paving standards for Markham from Pine to Woodrow 2. Amendment of Master Parks Plan -- Vimy Ridge Road and Alexander Road 2A. Amendment of Land Use Plan from Park to Industrial -- Vimy Ridge and Alexander Roads 3. Land Use Plan Text Adoption and Definition Changes III. OTHER 4. Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A NAME: Hillcrest Local Ordinance Historic District SOURCE: Hillcrest Residents' Association, Historic District Commission and Staff REQUEST: To create a Local Ordinance Historic District for a portion of the Hillcrest Neighborhood. STAFF REPORT: The Hillcrest Residents' Association has requested the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) to begin the formal process of establishing a local ordinance historic district for the Hillcrest neighborhood. Arkansas Statute 14-172-207 lays out a specific procedure for creating a local district, which includes review and comment by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and the local planning commission. The planning commission is charged with reviewing the information (report) submitted by the LRHDC and to make a recommendation. (The report from the LRHDC includes a letter and several attachments.) The Hillcrest neighborhood is currently a National Register Historic District, and the proposal is for the local district to follow the boundaries of the National Register District. A National Register Historic District is a historic district that is listed in the national register of historic places, the country's official list of historic places worthy of preservation. The register includes individual buildings and sites, as well as districts or neighborhoods that contain structures that are historically or architecturally significant. A national register listing recognizes the significance of these districts and offers investment tax credits for restoration, but includes no restriction on what one can do with the property. Therefore, a structure within a National Register district may be altered or completely demolished at the will of the owner, without any review. Little Rock has a total of four National Register districts: MacArthur Park Historic District, Governors' Mansion Historic District, Marshall Square Historic District and Hillcrest. A local ordinance historic district is designated by a local ordinance to protect the significant properties and historic character of an area. It provides local governments with the means to assure that growth, development and change will occur in ways that respect the historical, architectural and environmental February 27, 1996 Plannina Hearina ITEM NO.: A (Cont. character of an area. Local designation encourages sensitive new construction or modification of existing buildings and discourages unsympathetic changes from occurring. The adopted ordinance contains criteria for development in the local ordinance district and is adopted by the local governing body. A historic district commission has the authority to review and approve construction, reconstruction, alteration restoration, moving and demolition of buildings or structures in a local ordinance historic district. The purpose of the review process is to determine that the proposal is designed to respect and relate to the special character of the district. Little Rock currently has one local ordinance historic district, the MacArthur Park Historic District. The planning commission has sixty days to make a recommendation to the LRHDC. If a recommendation is not made within the sixty day period, the report will be presented to the LRHDC as approved. It is hoped that the planning commission will not find it necessary to take the full sixty days to make a recommendation and act on the request as soon as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 16, 1996) Staff reviewed the item for the Commission, and reminded the members that the statute states that the local planning commission is to review the Little Rock Historic District Commission report and make a recommendation. Other comments were made by staff about the process for establishing a local ordinance district and the Commission's role. Staff said the Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation and the report would be presented to the Little Rock Historic District as approved if no recommendation was made. Staff ask the Commission not to take the full 60 days to act on the report. Commissioner Larry Lichty then spoke and stated that he currently manages property within the boundaries of the proposed district, but the City Attorney's Office did not feel it was a conflict of interest. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's staff, reaffirmed their position. Jean Cockcroft, Paul Crawford and Jim Vandenburg, representatives of the Hillcrest Residents' Association, were present. Also in attendance was Jim McKenzie, Vice President of the Quapaw Quarter Association. There were no objectors. Jean Cockcroft spoke first and gave some background on the process, starting with the structural survey of the area for the National Register District. Ms. Cockcroft went onto say that the residents' association made a real effort to get the word out to the neighborhood. She said members of the association went door to door to try to speak to as many residents as possible and K February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A ( font . obtained signatures on a petition in support of establishing a local ordinance district. Ms. Cockcroft said that the association found very little opposition to the concept. Paul Crawford then spoke and described the differences between a National Register district and a local historic district. Mr. Crawford said that the primary difference was that a local district required additional levels of review and gave the local jurisdiction more control over demolitions and certain types of structural changes. Mr. Crawford pointed out that there were 1,800 local ordinance districts across the nation. He then went onto discuss the benefits of a local district and they included helping to stabilize a neighborhood, maintaining the character and property values and reducing insurance rates. Mr. Crawford said that a local historic district usually benefits the residents and commercial interests. He continued by saying that a local district will only have a minimal impact on property owners and it will not prohibit modifications to buildings. Mr. Crawford said that a local historic district will allow a process that reviews proposed changes to protect the historical character of the area. Jim Vandenberg then discussed the public involvement and outreach. Mr. Vandenberg said that meetings were held with the residents and petitions were circulated throughout the neighborhood. He then explained the door to door effort to contact as many residents and businesses as possible. Mr. Vandenberg said there were a total of 1,730 structures within the proposed boundaries of the district and 1,100 signatures in support were obtained. At this point, there were some questions about the signatures on the petition vs. the numbers of property owners within the boundaries of the proposed historic district. Jim Vandenberg responded to the questions and said every effort was made to contact all the property owners. Mr. Vandenberg said that there was a public meeting and a number of property owners were present. Discussion continued on the issue of property owners and the number signing the petition. Mr. Vandenberg said that it appeared that a majority had signed the petition supporting the proposed district. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, spoke and addressed the issue of design guidelines for the proposed district. Mr. Lawson discussed the differences between the MacArthur Park district and the Hillcrest neighborhood. He said that Hillcrest has many different architectural styles and the guidelines should be developed that are compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Lawson concluded by saying that a local historic district was a way of stopping decline within a neighborhood. M February 27, 1996 Planning Hearina ITEM NO.: A (Cont. Comments were then offered by various individuals including several commissioners. Paul Crawford spoke again and said the process to establish was long and ensured public involvement. Mr. Crawford said the churches were notified and the Hillcrest Merchants' Association provided a letter of support in support of the local district. There was a lengthy discussion about various issues. Jim McKenzie, Vice President of the Quapaw Quarter Association and Hillcrest property owner, said he strongly supported the local district concept because it provides stability and enhances property values. Mr. McKenzie also said that the intent of a local historic district was to enhance the entire neighborhood. There were a number of comments made about the various issues raised during the hearing. The Commission requested more information and it was suggested that the item be deferred. A motion was then offered to defer the item to the February 13, 1996 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) Because only seven commissioners were present, Jean Cockcroft, Hillcrest Residents' Association, requested a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 27, 1996 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) Staff introduced the item and reminded the Planning Commission members of their role in the process for establishing a local historic district. Staff said that the Commission sole responsibility was to make a recommendation based on the information provided in the Little Rock Historic District Commission's report. Staff made some additional comments and concluded by saying that the guidelines would be the responsibility of the Historic District Commission. Paul Crawford, Hillcrest Residents' Association then addressed the Commission. Mr. Crawford reviewed the report and the process (state statute) for creating a local historic district. Mr. Crawford then discussed the reasons for the first deferral - to give the Commission adequate time to review the report and to allow the residents to respond to various concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Mr. Crawford said that a number of individuals were prepared to address the Commission. Mr. 4 February 27, 1996 Plannincr Hearincr ITEM NO.: A (Cont. Crawford continued by discussing the process in detail and said the Hillcrest Residents' Association was present to supplement the information found in the report from the Little Rock Historic Commission. Mr. Crawford then responded to several of the concerns raised by the Commission. He said the only major disadvantage was the additional step'of Historic District Commission review prior to obtaining a building permit. Mr. Crawford then discussed the level of public support for the proposed historic district. He said the Hillcrest Residents' Association has been studying the issue and working with the residents for 5 years. There has been an on -going education process and a public meeting was held in September of 1995. He went onto describe the methods of informing the neighborhood and said there was strong support for a local historic district. Mr. Crawford said that there would be at least two more hearings, Historic District Commission and Board of Directors, to allow the opposition to express their opinions. Mr. Crawford said that a local historic district would ensure that structural changes were sensitive to the neighborhood's character. Jean Cockcroft, Hillcrest Residents' Association, presented some slides and discussed the housing styles found in Hillcrest. At this point, the Commission asked several questions. Commissioner Lichty asked why a historic district was needed. Jean Cockcroft responded and said a local district would protect the neighborhood's integrity and show the rate of demolitions. Paul Crawford said the guidelines would not prevent change, but provide needed guidance. Mr. Crawford made some additional comments and said Stax Store did not fit into the design of the neighborhood. Lynn Zollner, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, said she was available to answer questions. Ms. Zollner did say that the state did not impose guidelines. Cheryl Nichols, Quapaw Quarter Association, explained why Hillcrest was an asset to the city and discussed the history of the neighborhood. Ms. Nichols said the Hillcrest neighborhood was a National Register Historic District because of its architectural resources and the unique planning of the area. Ms. Nichols encouraged the Commission to recommend approval of the proposed local district. Charles Witsell, architect and resident of the MacArthur Park Historic District, discussed his experiences with living in a historic district. Mr. Witsell said he was involved with the historic district as both architect and property owner. He then reviewed the Historic District Commission process and the costs involved with submitting an application. Mr. Witsell said the local historic district helped stabilized the MacArthur Park 5 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) area. Mr. Witsell continued by saying that a historic district provides some assurance for reviewing plans, protect the environment, ensure compatibility and help maintain the neighoborhood's stability. Wally Gieringer, commercial property owner and a member of the Hillcrest Merchants' Association said he supports the formation of a local historic district and said there were very few areas like Hillcrest. Mr. Gieringer said Hillcrest was a strong, identifiable neighborhood and he would locate in Hillcrest even if it was a local historic district. Mr. Gieringer told the Commission that Hillcrest Merchant's Association supports the Hillcrest Residents' Association in its effort to establish a local historic district. John Graves, Arkansas Historical Association, spoke and said the association adopted a resolution supporting the proposed local district for Hillcrest. Mr. Graves reviewed the neighborhood's history and justification for the historic district. John Burnett, 507 Holly, said he was a resident of the neighborhood for 19 years and he was against the formation of a local historic district for Hillcrest. Mr. Burnett said that some residents were opposed to a historic district and a number of residents were confused about the concept. Mr. Burnett continued by discussing the state statute for historic districts and questioned whether a local historic district was appropriate for Hillcrest. He expressed a number of concerns and said the character of the neighborhood did not need this level of protection. Mr. Burnett said that he did not understand the problem and most residents probably did not understand what a local historic does. Mr. Burnett concluded by saying a local historic district gives the city standardless discretion over the neighborhood. Dan Scott, a resident of the Argenta (North Little Rock) Historic District, said a historic district tends to increase property values and private investments go up. Mr. Scott said residents of a historic district have the ability to obtain grants and positive advice. Mr. Scott stated that neighborhoods age and there was a need to help preserve older neighborhoods. Charlette Crawford, a Hillcrest property owner, said she was in favor of a local historic district and the residents support the concept. Tom Colford, 600 N. Martin, then addressed the Commission. Prior to Mr. Colford making a statement, Commissioner Brandon said that Mr. Colford was her contractor for a remodeling project and she felt that there was a possible conflict of interest. After some discussion, Chairman Woods declared that there was no conflict. Mr. Colford continued by discussing the process and said an 6 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (Cont. effort has been made to educate the neighborhood. Mr. Colford said preservation of the neighborhood was important and a historic district could increase property values. Bill Rector, a resident of the neighborhood, said he was opposed to the local historic district. Mr. Rector gave a history of his involvement with historic properties and as a member of the Quapaw Quarter Association. Mr. Rector said his current residence was built in 1899 and he purchased it in 1974. He said his house was a contributing structure and he was very interested in the Hillcrest neighborhood. Mr. Rector told the Commission that a local historic district was not the appropriate vehicle for preserving the area. Mr. Rector went on to say the Hillcrest neighborhood was not broken and it did not need fixing. He also pointed out that his residence was on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Rector felt that the existing ordinances provide adequate control over what takes place in the neighborhood and a local historic district was not needed. Mr. Rector concluded by saying that Hillcrest has created its own value. There was additional discussion about the proposed historic district and several questions were asked. A motion was made to approve the Historic District Commission's report for establishing a local ordinance historic district for Hillcrest. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays and 1 absent. 7 NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DLSTRICTILOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT A National Register historic district is a historic district that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register is our country's official list of historic places worthy of preservation. It includes individual buildings, structures, sites, and objects as well as historic districts that are historically, architecturally, or archaeologically significant. National Register listing recognizes the significance of properties and districts. By doing so, it identifies significant historic resources in a community. Boundaries of National Register districts are tightly drawn to encompass only concentrated areas of historic buildings. Information compiled to nominate a historic district can be used in a variety of planning and development activities. National Register listing also makes available specific preservation incentives and provides a limited degree of protection from the effects of federally funded, licensed, or permitted activities. LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT A local historic district is a district designated by local ordinance and falls under the jurisdiction of a local preservation review commission. A local historic district is generally "overlaid" on existing zoning classifications in a community; therefore, a local district commission deals only with the appearance of the district, not with the uses to which properties in the district are put. The designation of a local district protects the significant properties and historic character of the district. It provides communities with the means to make sure that growth, development, and change take place in ways that respect important architectural, historical, and environmental characteristics. Local desia-nation encourages sensitive development in the district and discourages unsympathetic changes from occurring. This happens through a process called design review, whereby the preservation commission approves major changes that are planned for the district and issues Certificates of Appropriateness which allow the proposed changes to take place. NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT • Identifies significant properties and • Protects a community's significant historic districts for general planning purposes. properties and areas through a design review • Analyzes and assesses the historic process. character and quality of the district. • Protects the historic character and quality of the district with specific design controls. ® Designates historic areas based on uniform national criteria and procedures. • Designates historic areas on the basis of local criteria and local procedures. • Sets district boundaries tightly, based on the actual distribution pattern of • Sets district boundaries based on the intact historic properties in the area. distribution pattern of historic resources plus other preservation and community planning • Makes available specific federal tax considerations. incentives for preservation purposes. • Provides no tax incentives for preservation • Provides a limited degree of protection purposes unless such are provided by local from the effects of federally assisted tax law. undertakings. • Provides no additional protection from the • Qualifies property owners for federal and effects of federally assisted undertakings. state grants for preservation purposes, when funds are available. • Does not qualify property owners for federal or state grants for preservation purposes. • Does not restrict the use or disposition of property or obligate private property • Does not restrict the use to which property owners in any way. is put in the district or require property owners to make improvements to their property. • Does not require conformance to design guidelines or preservation standards when • Requires local commission review and approval, property is rehabilitated unless specific based on conformance to local design guidelines, preservation incentives (tax credits, before a building permit is issued for any grants) are involved. "material chants" in appearance to the district. • Does not affect state and local government Does not affect federal, state or local activities. government activities. • Does not prevent the demolition of historic • Provides for review of proposed demolitions buildings and structures within designated within designated areas; may prevent or delay areas. proposed demolitions for specific time periods to allow for preservation alternatives. February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 NAME: Woodruff Neighborhood Plan LOCATION: North of I-630 to Markham, east of Elm to State Capitol and east of Deaf/Blind School REQUEST: Resolution of support for Policy Plan SOURCE: Woodruff CDC & Neighborhood Planning Committee STAFF REPORT: In the late spring of 1994, the Woodruff Community Development Corporation (CDC) requested that the City assist with efforts to prepare a comprehensive neighborhood plan to guide efforts in the neighborhood. The Neighborhoods and Planning Department agreed to make use of some Community Development Block Grant monies and staff resources to assist with the requested planning effort. The CDC formed a Planning Committee to work with City Staff and the work begun in the fall of 1994. A three part process was agreed to - background information; survey of needs and plan development. The first part of the process occurred during the fall of 1994. "Experts" on various topics were brought to the committee to discuss transportation, land use, zoning, housing, and other issues. The second part began in the fall of 1994 with the development of a survey and continued into the winter of 1995 when the survey results were presented to the committee. At the same time, a market analysis of the neighborhood was completed (attached for commission review). In the spring of 1995, the committee took this information and began the third part, plan development. A copy of the committee's report is attached for review by the Commission. This document has already been presented to the neighborhood at meetings in January and February of this year (Note: Sections of the report were given to the neighborhood during 1995). Section I of the report is the existing conditions portion and provides some background information. Section II of the report provides information from the neighborhood survey conducted in October and November of 1994. The survey forms used by the City of Little Rock in the Hillcrest and John Barrow neighborhoods were distributed to the Steering Committee for comment. Based on those comments and review of two surveys by the Capitol View Association, a revised survey form was developed. Addresses for all residential units were obtained February 27, 1996 Planningr Hearinq ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont. from the City Geographic Information System. For each address a survey was mailed along with a postage -paid return envelop. Of the 1473 surveys mailed, 19.7% were returned to the City by November 1. City 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 check. The 19.7 percent return rate provides a good response for a mail survey and should provide a good representation of the study area. The survey was conducted to identify concerns and problems so that they could be addressed with suggested remedies and/or steps to lessen the negative impacts. Overall statistics for the Capitol View/Stifft Station area will be presented first, followed with highlights for each subarea - neighborhood. In the accompanying report Section 2 provides overall statistics for the neighborhood and highlights from the responses for subareas within the Study Area. With the survey, neighbors were asked if they wished to participate with the Plan Development. From this list the Committee added members to increase geographic representation on the Committee. (The remaining individuals were asked to comment on the Goals and Objectives, before they were presented to the entire neighborhood.) The Planning Committee took the survey data, their knowledge and information provided by the "experts" to develop a plan to achieve the neighborhood aspirations. The Committee is bringing four 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 today's agenda. The Plan will be reviewed as this item. The following items will address Land Use Plan, Zoning and Master Street Plan issues. The Plan is a Policy or Action Plan which the Committee developed. It is based on the survey results, as well as information provided by "experts" and the committee's personal knowledge. The goals were designed to address needs identified in the earlier activities. The committee agreed on 10 general goals related to nine topics. Each goal topic was given to a committee person to develop (write) a "statement." The committee reviewed the goals and agreed to each statement. The goal was given to a member for development of objectives which would accomplish each goal. Again the objectives were presented to the committee and final wording agreed on. In late February, 1995, the committee presented the Goals and Objectives to a group of neighbors. These were people who asked to be involved in the Plan Development by returning a request 2 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) card in the survey. Based on comments received, the committee refined the Goals and Objective statements. The modified Goals and Objectives were then presented to the neighborhood at a neighborhood organization meeting. Again, comments were taken; however, only minor changes were proposed. The neighborhood thanked the committee for their effort, congratulating them on a job well done. The Goals and Objectives were finalized by the committee and three subcommittees or teams were formed to independently develop a "Plan" for the area based on only three of the goals. The subcommittee developed action statements to accomplish their Goals and Objectives. In September 1995, the committee came back together to agree on the action statements. From this body of work, the following must be accomplished to meet the needs and desires of the Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood. • Preserve rich cultural diversity and historical significance by clearly identifying the image we want to portray. • Involve all segments of the neighborhood to identify key structures and places, protect them, and enhance them. • To develop and promote public investment in the CVSS area while retaining the distinctive character of the neighborhood. • Improve the traffic flow and parking situation in the Capitol View/Stifft Station neighborhood. • Insist that city leaders vigorously address the crime and safety issues of our area. • Plan and implement community development projects that will improve the neighborhood such as rehabilitating older homes, building new infill homes, revitalizing commercial areas, or providing needed community facilities. • Promote private investment in the neighborhood. • Develop a community center to serve as a hub for neighborhood activity and interaction, established and maintained by the neighborhood for the use of local residents and organizations. • Provide alternatives to gang and other criminal activity in the neighborhood. • To enhance safety, linkage, recreation and natural habitat in area through the development of open spaces and vacant lots as parks. 3 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) These overall neighborhood goals are the basis on which all decisions affecting the neighborhood should be based. The Committee felt there were seven key issues which would make or break the overall plan. Therefore, the committee recommends the implementation of several major new initiatives necessary to protect and nurture the vitality of the neighborhood. • Renovation and restoration of the Stifft Station Commercial area. • Redevelopment of the 7th Street Corridor (Woodrow east). • Development of a multiuse trail through the neighborhood connecting the River, Downtown and Medical Complex. • Redevelopment of Capitol Avenue streetscape using historic elements. • Development, adoption and implementation of historic architectural standards for the neighborhood. • Redesign of traffic flow in the Med Center and Stifft Station areas to minimize impacts of through traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Neighborhood Planning Committee requested their items be deferred to May 23, 1996. Several issues have come up in the last month which could affect one or more of these items. The Committee needs time to review the issues and get neighborhood approval on any changes. While there may be no changes in some of the items, the Committee wishes to keep all four together. Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that due to recent proposals by the Med Center, the Neighborhood Committee needs time to go back to the neighborhood to review elements of the Plan. While the changes may not affect all four items (1, 1A, 1B, 1C), the Committee wishes to keep all four together. By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the items were deferred to May 23, 1996. 4 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1-A NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment - I-630 and Heights/Hillcrest Districts LOCATION: Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood REQUEST: Change various areas from Single Family, Low Density Multifamily, Multifamily, Suburban Office and Industrial to Single Family, Low Density Multifamily Mixed Use, Mixed Office Warehouse, Office and Commercial SOURCE: Neighborhood Planning Committee STAFF REPORT: The neighborhood planning committee as part of their plan effort reviewed the Land Use Plan for their area of Little Rock. Basically the Committee felt that the Plan as adopted in 1980 was still appropriate. However, a few changes were believed to be necessary. First along the western edge of the neighborhood, the Medical Center has acquired an addition city block since 1980. The Plan had indicated Suburban Office for this block, but the use will be as part of the Medical Center. In order to help stop the Medical Center's drive into the neighborhood the plan should allow for more nonresidential. The hope is that a Mixed Use Classification from Plateau to Capitol will increase property values by allowing nonresidential use. These nonresidential uses, however, must be carefully designed so as to protect the remaining homes and not cause further intrusions of nonresidential uses. The existing Commercial between Plateau and Markham would be recognized by the Plan. No nonresidential use should be allowed at the Pine/Cedar interchange. The desire is not to encourage highway related commercial uses. Low Density Multifamily is proposed to keep the residential nature and allow some densification. However, the desire is to keep as much single family character as possible; therefore, the Low Density Multifamily between 6th and I-630 east of Pine is changed to Single Family. Currently, the area is Single Family and there is no desire to change the area. February 27, 1996 Planning Hearincr ITEM NO.: 1-A (Cont. The second area of changes is the 7th Street Corridor, east of Woodrow. As recommended by the Market Analysis, Mixed Office Warehouse is proposed for the area east of Woodrow and south of 7th Street. The Plan currently shows Multifamily and the existing use is primarily Single Family. In recent months several houses have been demolished in this area. Along the north side of 7th Street, the area proposed for Low Density Multifamily is changed to Office. This 7th Street Corridor is of concern to the neighborhood. They do not wish to get a "West Little Rock" type of development. The desire is that new buildings be in keeping with the design of the period 1920s and 30s. Storefronts etc. are preferred. The remaining Low Density Multifamily along 6th Street should be changed to Single Family. This area is having street work completed now and the Woodruff Community Development Corporation is working on several homes in the area. The existing use is Single Family along 6th Street and to the north. The third area of plan changes is along Markham and east of the Deaf and Blind Schools. The low area at the east end of 3rd Street is proposed as part of an overall Park Plan the neighborhood wishes to develop. This park site would be connected by linear park land and bicycle paths to the War Memorial Center and Rebsamen Park. The Low Density Multifamily north of Markham and east of Park should be Single Family. Due to the change in topography, the area has little to no relationship to the Multifamily to the south. Rather, it is part of the Single Family to the north. The final change is along Gill north of Markham. The area is zoned Industrial and proposed for Low Density Multifamily. There are existing industrial uses; however, access is poor and the best access is through a single family area. Lower intensity of use is desirable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Neighborhood Planning Committee requested their items be deferred to May 23, 1996. Several issues have come up in the last month which could affect one or more of these items. The Committee needs time to review the issues and get neighborhood approval on any changes. While there may be no changes in some of the items, the Committee wishes to keep all four together. Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that due to recent proposals by the Med Center, the Neighborhood Committee needs time to go back to the neighborhood to review elements of the Plan. While 2 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1-A (Cont.) the changes may not affect all four items (1, 1A, 1B, 1C), the Committee wishes to keep all four together. By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the items were deferred to May 23, 1996. M February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1-B OWNER: Various APPLICANT: City of Little Rock LOCATION: Along 7th Oak to Thayer along Capitol and Valmar to Woodrow, Park at 4th, Lloyd east of Park REQUEST: R-4 Duplex to R-3 Single Family I-2 Industrial to R-3 Single Family R-5 Urban Residential to R-3 Single Family C-3 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-3 General Commercial to 0-1 Quiet PURPOSE: To reclassify properties to more closely zone as is currently used. EXISTING USE: Various STAFF REPORT: As part of the neighborhood planning effort in the Woodruff 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 than the current zone, Staff proceeded. For those not meeting this requirement, the parcel was removed from the list of rezoning candidates. The remaining parcels were taken to the County Assessor's Office to determine that owner. Letters were drafted and mailed to each owner in September of 1995. Each owner was told the existing zone and new zone to which the City wished to change their property. If they had questions or did not wish to have their property reclassified, they were asked to contact the Neighborhoods and Planning Staff. Any asking to not be rezoned were removed from the list - no reason was necessary. A final listing and map were provided to the Planning Committee in December 1995 and to the Neighborhood in January and February 1996. The property owners were sent a second letter on February 2, 1996 telling them the City would proceed to rezone their property on February 27 unless they contacted Staff. This is the same procedure used in Hillcrest, Central High, Stephens and the Governor's Mansion area. Staff, therefore, February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1-B (Cont.) believes that there is agreement to reclassify the following properties as described. FROM R-4 Duplex to R-3 Single Family: 3719 W. Markham - Pt. Lots 24 and 25 Block 1 Plateau Addition 604,608,610,612,620,624 S. Oak - Lots 9-15 Block 3 Heisman's Addition 3719 W. 6th, 605,607,609,619,621,623,622,620,618, 614,606,602 S. Oak - Lots 1-4, 6-12, 15-16 Block 4 Heisman's Addition 701 Oak, 700,702,710 Maple - Lots 1, 14-16 Block 5 Heisman's 700,704 S. Oak - Lots 15-16 Block 6 Heisman's 710,714,720,722,723 Valentine, 701,705,711,715,723 S. Maple - Lots 3-7, 9-12 Block 1 Central Heights 726 Valentine, 727 Maple - Lots 1, 12 Block 2 Central Heights 3415 W. Capitol, 500 S. Martin - Lots West 1/3 Lots 1-3, 4 and 5 Block 2 C. O. Kimball's and Bodeman's 3301,3303,3315,3319 W. 7th, 3322,3320,3308,3300 Lamar - Lots 1-3,5, 7-10,12 Block 5 C. O. Kimball's and Bodeman's 3401,3405,3411,3417,3419,3423 W. 7th, 3406,3410, 3418,3412,3420 Lamar - Lots 1-12 Block 6 C. O. Kimball's and Bodeman's 700,708,712,722 Valmar - Lots 1-6 Block 7 C. O. Kimball's and Bodeman's 730 S. Valmar - Lots 1 and 2 Block 8 C. O. Kimball's and Bodeman's 3401,3405,3409,3417,3415,3425 Lamar - Lots 1 and 2, 11 and 12 Block 9 C. O. Kimball's and Bodeman's 714 Johnson, 3100 Block 7th, 3120,3124 Lamar - Lots North 37.5 feet Lots 12-14, South 11 feet Lots 1-3, 7-9 Block 1 Plunkett's 0 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1-B (Cont.) 3200 Block, 3219 W. 7th, 3216,3220,3212,3210,3200 Lamar - Lots 1-4, 812 Block 2 Plunkett's 3416, 3418 Capitol - Lots 5 and 6 Block 6 Beach's 310 Rosetta - Lot 3 Block 5 C. S. Stifft's 301 Booker - Lot 7 Block 1 Hick's of Boone 423, 421 Johnson - Lots 7-8 Block 4 Hick's of Boone 3000, 3004 Capitol - Lots 11 and 12 Block 3 Boone FROM I-2 Industrial to R-3 Single Family: 2822 W. 7th - Lot 7 Block 5 Ferndale Addition FROM C-3 General Commercial to 0-1 Ouiet Office: 2105 Lloyd - Lot 15 Block 8 Bodeman's Addition 2723 W. 7th - Lots 5 and 6 Block 11 Ferndale Addition FROM C-3 General Commercial to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial: 2716, 2720, 2722, 2700 Block W. 7th - Lots 7-12 Block 6 Ferndale 2701,2709 W. 7th - Lots 1-3 Block 11 Ferndale STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Neighborhood Planning Committee requested their items be deferred to May 23, 1996. Several issues have come up in the last month which could affect one or more of these items. The Committee needs time to review the issues and get neighborhood approval on any changes. While there may be no changes in some of the items, the Committee wishes to keep all four together. Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that due to recent proposals by the Med Center, the Neighborhood Committee needs time to go back to the neighborhood to review elements of the Plan. While the changes may not affect all four items (1, 1A, 1B, 1C), the Committee wishes to keep all four together. By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the items were deferred to May 23, 1996. 3 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1-C NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment - Markham -Cedar to Woodrow LOCATION: Markham -Cedar to Woodrow REQUEST: Reduce the right-of-way and paving standards SOURCE: Neighborhood Planning Committee STAFF REPORT: As part of the work completed by the Neighborhood Planning Committee concerns about requirements to widen Markham Street were raised. Along Markham from Cedar to Woodrow there is little to no room between existing structures and the road. Since the goals of the neighborhood are to protect and preserve the character of the area, there was a consensus that requirements for Markham Street should not require additional encroachment into the neighborhood. For example, the Stifft Station area does not and cannot meet the standards with removal of structures. In order to protect the nature and character of the neighborhood no actional right-of-way or widening of the street should be required or encouraged. The Markham Street right-of-way and paving width already has been reduced to 70 feet right-of-way (from 90 feet) and four lanes from five lanes. Staff has two major concerns about further reductions. First, the paving width - with traffic volumes in excess of 15,000 vehicles per day twelve foot lanes are a desirable safety consideration. Second, with volumes this high adequate sidewalks are desirable and because of ADA may be mandatory. The 70 foot right-of-way is necessary in order to meet ADA requirements and still have a utility easement for power lines. Staff will agree that without significant redevelopment (which is not proposed), chances of public funds being designated to widen Markham is unlikely. However because ADA is a federal requirement sidewalk and utility reconstruction may have to occur at public cost. Reduction in requirements may be in conflict with federal mandates, therefore it is advisable not to further lessen the standards. February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1-C (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Neighborhood Planning Committee requested their items be deferred to May 23, 1996. Several issues have come up in the last month which could affect one or more of these items. The Committee needs time to review the issues and get neighborhood approval on any changes. While there may be no changes in some of the items, the Committee wishes to keep all four together. Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that due to recent proposals by the Med Center, the Neighborhood Committee needs time to go back to the neighborhood to review elements of the Plan. While the changes may not affect all four items (1, 1A, 1B, 1C), the Committee wishes to keep all four together. By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the items were deferred to May 23, 1996. February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.• 2 NAME: Master Parks Plan Amendment LOCATION: Northeast corner Vimy Ridge and Alexander Road REQUEST: Remove a proposed Park Site from the Plan SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT• The property owner of a proposed park site became aware of this fact as part of the Land Use Plan review completed last year. The owner is an industrial user and the land in question is for expansion of an existing facility. At the time of the land use review, Staff advised the owner to request an amendment to the Master Parks Plan. In mid -December a request to remove the Park site was received by Planning Staff. The Parks Department was asked to review the request. In mid -January the Parks Department responded, "Due to recent land acquisition and past modification to the Park System Master Plan, we believe this removal is appropriate." Parks finds that the recreation needs for the area can be met with other park sites. The Planning Division also finds no reason not to grant the property owners request. There are two additional park sites which have been added to the west and east which should provide the recreational facilities this site had been envisioned to provide. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Walter, Planner II, indicated ridge and Alexander Roads had removed from the Parks Plan. Department, City Staff finds site. (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) that the property owner at Vimy asked that their ownership be After review by the Parks that they can support removal of the February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) The owner wishes to use the property for future expansion of their existing manufacturing business. The area is zoned for Industrial use and other sites to the east and west are being developed for Park use. By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the item was approved. 2 February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2A NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - Otter Creek District LOCATION: Northeast corner Vimy Ridge and Alexander Road REOUEST: Park/Open Space to Industrial SOURCE: Owner STAFF REPORT: The adopted Land Use Plan for the City reflects the other adopted Plans. Since the Master Parks Plan has a requirement to hold development for one year, the Land Use Plan attempts to reflect any park sites proposed. The Plan calls for a park on the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge and Alexander Road. This land is owned by an industrial user and is zoned for industrial use. The owner is holding the property for possible expansion of their facility. The property owner does not wish for the property to be a park and has asked that it be removed from the Parks Plan. The Parks Department believes there is no longer a need for this site and recommends the request be approved. The adopted Land Use Plan is generally industrial or light industrial north of Alexander Road, in this area. Since the area is zoned I-3 and the area to the north and northwest is Industrial, it would appear appropriate to amend the Plan to Industrial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) Walter Malone, Planner II, stated that the Land Use Plan for the area needed to be amended since the proposed park had been removed from the Master Parks Plan. The area is shown for Park/Open Space and is zoned I-3 Heavy Industrial. The owner has a plant to the north and is holding this property for expansion. To the north is Industrial use with a creek (Park/Open Space) to the east. February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO • 2A (Cont.) Staff believes it is appropriate to change the plan to Industrial. By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the Commission approved the Plan Amendment. A February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.• 3 NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment - Accompanying Text and Land Use Definitions STAFF REPORT: The City Planning Staff is proposing a written document to supplement the City's Land Use Plan map. while the land use map gives a broad picture of the City's land use, written text allows for an expanded description of the usage, the highlighting of specific or strategic locations, and an explanation for suggested uses. The base of the Land Use Plan Text/Narrative Textural Document was taken from existing neighborhood and planning district plans. Because many of those plans were developed in the early 1980's, small changes were made to many of the planning districts. The changes consisted of updating or deleting statements which are no longer relevant, or proposed developments that have since been implemented. The following districts had a substantial amount of changes made or are newer planning districts for which no text existed. • District 2 - Rodney Parham: development principals were added • District 5 - Downtown: development principals added, text added about the East Markham Entertainment District, the Historic District, and MacArthur Park • District 8 - Central City: development principals, in bulletined section text added on Central High School. • District 11 - I-430: area descriptives updated to reflect current usage • District 16 - Otter Creek: parks and open space addition, text over proposed Otter Creek Park • District 17 - Crystal Valley: new district • District 18 - Ellis Mountain: was paired as one with Crystal Valley, text deleted to reflect the district's new boundaries • District 19 - Chenal Valley: new district • District 20 - Pinnacle: new district • District 21 - Burlingame Valley: new district • District 27 - Fish Creek: new district • District 28 - Arch Street South: new district Due to concerns about the Transition Zone name, and implementation of mixed use categories, Staff took this opportunity to review the land use classification and definitions and recommends the following changes. February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) Residential: - change Low Density Multifamily (LMF) to Low Density Residential (LDR) and add single family detached housing as an allowed housing type. - delete the Mixed Residential (MR) classification which duplicates Low Density Residential Industrial: - create a more distinct separation between light and heavy Industrial uses by eliminating warehousing and distribution from the Industrial definition. Mixed: - change wording from recommended to required in that a planned development will be required for any mixed use development that occurs in these categories (MCI, MOC, MOI, MOW, MX). Other: - delete the categories of AG/I and SF/M - addition of first sentence to Agriculture definition. - change Transition Zone (TZ) to Transition (T) to eliminate any confusion with zoning categories. - In Transition (T) definition, concerning overlay districts, amend text to read all properties not just those along Highway 10. Eliminate set floor area ratio for office use. Eliminate warehousing as an acceptable use. Eliminate requiring access only from a side street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Due to the definition changes, Staff needs to re-examine the text for changes. Deferral to April 11. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) Tony Bozynski, Planning Manager, stated staff was still reviewing the wording and wished the item deferred to the April Plans Hearing. By unanimous (10 ayes, 0 noes) vote the Commission voted to defer the item. E February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT: Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment This matter is submitted for commission discussion and action following the suggestion of Department Director Jim Lawson at the commission meeting on January 30th this year. The language offered simply deletes two paragraphs in IUD." special rules of procedure." Those being the first two paragraphs of Subsection 4.c. on page 10. These set forth automatic deferral on certain votes and set a two deferral limit, prior to submitting to the Board of Directors. The Staff recommends that these two paragraphs be deleted and the balance of D.4.(c) be retained. 4. Majority Vote (a) A simple majority of those members present at a meeting shall be sufficient to approve any administrative or procedural action. (b) An approval or a denial of an issue shall constitute final action. A majority vote of the full Commission shall be required in order to take final action on any issue requiring Planning Commission approval at a public hearing. (c) In those instances where no action is required by the Board of Directors and the action before the Commission fails to receive the required six (6) votes, the request shall be declared to be denied. For actions requiring the City Board of Directors approval, such matters shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors with a recommendation of denial. The minute record of the hearing and the Board of Directors' communication shall reflect the motions and voting on the matter so as to fully convey to the Board the Planning Commission record for such matters. February 27, 1996 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996) The Chairman asked Staff to make a presentation of this item. Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, came forward and offered general commentary on what the amendment proposed and offered some background on why the item is before the Commission. A general discussion then followed with numerous comments from the Planning Commission as to the construction and effect of the proposed Bylaw Amendment. The general consensus was that this would be a more flexible and appropriate bylaw structure given the kinds of circumstances that develop before the Commission. After a lengthy discussion, it was determined that the item was appropriate to proceed to adoption; however, a question of a commissioner brought forth an instruction from Cynthia Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office. Her comment dealt with the structure for public hearing and adoption process. She stated that the current bylaws require that this item be presented at this meeting in written form and another hearing be set for the specific adoption of the Bylaw Amendment. A motion to accomplish that action was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention. KI 0 CC 0 W W 0 Z 0 V5 U) 0 0 z z a J a 1� 1 1 ee� u en a INIMINEN MENNEN IIIIIIININ IMININININ MENNEN 1111101101 millmlill mill-milill limmillml MENNEN E-lilmiml 11110111111 millilmill milill Nil N ONA Q m Q z w U) cc Q W Q Z w Q February 27, 1996 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.