HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_12 12 1984_joint public hearingBOARD OF DIRECTORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
SPECIAL MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1984
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum of the Board and Directors and Planning
Commission was found to be in attendance.
Board of Directors
Present
-- Mayor Benaf ield
Director Shackelford
Director Hess
Director Herget
Director Jones
Director Bussey
Director Weeks
City Attorney Present
Carolyn Witherspoon
Planning Commission
Present
Chairman Schlereth
Commissioner Rector
Commissioner Massie
Commissioner Arnett
Commissioner Sipes
Commissioner Jones
Commissioner Ketcher
Commissioner Summerlin
Commissioner Niholson
Commissioner Boles
Commissioner Clayton
Item No. 1 - Ordinance and Public Hearing - Proposed
amendment to Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances providing
for definition and restriction of buffers.
Mayor Benafield called the joint public hearing to order.
He asked that the Planning Commission Chairman identify the
members of the Commission and respond to the issue at hand.
Chairman Schlereth addressed the buffer issue proposal and
stated that the Planning Commission in general viewed the
issue as being an enforcement problem and not one of need
for further regulations. A proper definition of the term
"buffer" was viewed as more important.
Commissioner Massie stated his concurrence with Chairman
Schlereth's comments. He broadened on those comments
somewhat.
Commissioner Nicholson offered comments in response as to
the confusion of many persons both in and out of government
relative to the definitiion of "buffer."
Chairman Schlereth added additional comments relative to
overextending the review process for developers by adding
additional layers of requirements.
Commissioner Jones added comments relative to the damage
produced in many instances by utility companies placing
their facilities within the buffer areas.
Director Weeks offered comments as to the construction of
the term "buffer" relative to the definition offered and
comments he had made at the last Board meeting. He further
stated that he viewed enforcability as being the real
issue.
Commissioner Rector identified for the record that the
Planning Commission had been tied up most of the past year
with drainage regulations and other matters. Because of
this involvement, they had not yet gotten to the problem
involving the buffer issue.
Directors Weeks and Jones offered comments which basically
stated that a broader definition than what is apparently
offered is needed but that this definition should be one
that is workable.
Commissioner Jones offered support of that statement.
Mayor Benafield for the record stated that the staff through
the Manager's Office should be directed to develop a
definition and work in concert with the Planning Commission
and others toward a workable definition. He further
directed that this matter should not be returned to the
Board of Directors for their review until the Planning
Commission is satisfied with the workability.
Director Jones said that growth in the Little Rock area in
the coming years will be primarily of an infill nature and
create significant problems for existing neighborhoods. She
felt this makes the buffer issue more critical.
Discussion of the buffer matter ended at this point with the
Planning staff understanding that they would proceed to
draft the subject definition and work with the Planning
Commission.
Item No. 2 - Discussion Matter - Discussion of the City of
Little Rock official annexation policy line and its change
to reflect potential and future development.
City Manager Susan Fleming identified for the Board and the
Planning Commission the history of this issue and suggested
that staff had a resolution to offer.
Mayor Benafield directed the Planning staff to make their
comments and recommendations known.
Jim Lawson of the staff made comments and discussed the
graphics and the plan outline. He also offered the time
staging for the various growth areas in ten year increments.
Director Jones asked that the Board be provided information
about the connection of Sewer District 222 to the force main
proposed along the river.
Jim Lawson responded by discussing the history of the
restrictions on District 222, the problems attendant to that
district and stated that the district will tie into the
force main. Jim Lawson added additional comments relative
to the Sewer Committee's policy position on three units per
acre and imminent release thereof.
Several Planning Commission members stated their position on
the policy of annexation.
Mayor Benafield and other Board members discussed briefly
a study of the expansion of the policy line and its
implications.
General discussion of the time frame and procedure for
change and resolution directing the staff was held. Several
Commission members offered comments relative to the effects
of annexation restrictions on large owners and the extension
of services to those potential development areas.
Director Weeks clarified his comment from the general
discussion on the resolution.
Commissioner Massie discussed his firm's involvement in the
Deltic Timber Properties and their vast holdings west of the
existing City limits area.
Director Shackelford offered discussion relative to the
problems of piecemeal land use control over a period of
years versus development of a long-range land use plan.
City Manager Susan Fleming stated that the land use plan
proposed by staff for the four new areas are definitely
Board concerns and need immediate attention by the staff in
order to provide continued stability of growth policy.
A general discussion of resolution of the issue resulted in
the Planning Commission stating that they would on December
n
18 of this year reivew and probably approve the Glenn
Johnson ranch application. It was further pointed out that
it would then be forwarded to the Board at the next
appropriate meeting for rezoning and annexation action.
Mayor Benafield decided to clear for the record the comment
that the Glenn Johnson ranch property will be dealt with
without the completion of the discussed land use plan for
the four areas, but that the staff would proceed in the
development of that plan.
Several Planning Commissioners offered concerns and some
confusion about taking action on a significant land area for
rezoning prior to the adoption of a plan amendment.
Commissioner Schlereth said that most plans are general in
nature and in many cases are not the primary or determining
agent in a decision on rezoning.
Director Weeks offered that Planning Commissioners would
have over a period of years the opportunity to recommend
changes in adopted plans as needed.
The discussion of the issue was dropped at this point with
the understanding that the Planning Commission would proceed
in the usual fashion to hold the public hearing on the Glenn
Johnson ranch rezoning issue. It was further understood
that they would forward their recommendation to the City
Board at the next appropriate public hearing. It was also
understood that the Planning staff would proceed with a plan
amendment for the four areas identified giving direction for
an extended period in ten year increments.
Item No. 3 - Public Hearing and Ordinance - A proposed
amendment to Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Little Rock includes deletion of bus station,
racetracks and drive-in theaters as uses by right and to
provide for their inclusion as conditional uses only within
the "C-4" District.
City Manager Susan Fleming provided the history on the issue
and included comments that drive-in theaters and racetracks
are being added to the ordinance provided the Commission and
the Board inasmuch as they are like kinds of uses requiring
the same consideration.
Jim Lawson of the staff discussed the proposed ordinance and
the history of the "C-4" District. He pointed out the nine
issues attendant to the location of these types of land
uses.
Mayor Benafield made comments concerning the change and
asked for clarification.
The issue was discussed briefly by all parties to assure
that all understood the proposed amendments.
Chairman Schlereth determined that it was appropriate to
have a motion on the ordinance amendment as proposed.
A motion was made to recommend to the City Board the
ordinance as drafted, including all three use changes.
A vote on the motion was as follows: 11 ayes, 0 noes,
0 absent. Recommendation for approval passes.
Mayor Benafield then asked the City Clerk for a first
reading of the ordinance for the Board of Directors' public
hearing.
This accomplished, the Board proceeded to hear second and
third readings. There being no comments on the matter, the
City Clerk was asked to poll the Board.
The vote by the Board was 7 ayes, 0 noes. The ordinance
passed as proposed.
Mayor Benafield offered to the Planning Commission Chairman
and members words of commendation of the Commission for its
efforts in dealing with the many problems with which they
are presented.
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
D e: Vinn, /9
&0
Secretary C a rman
Planning Commission P nning Commission
ATTEST: jz*v-� ayc�
CityCTgrk
APPROVED:G--�/100- — ` PASSED: December 12, 1984
Mayor