Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_07 25 1995LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JULY 25, 1995 9:00 A.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. II. Approval of the May 2, 1995 meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Pam Adcock Ramsay Ball Diane Chachere Doyle Daniel Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam (Acting Chairman) Joe Selz Mizan Rahman Brad Walker Emmett Willis, Jr. Ron Woods City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA JULY 25, 1995 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Land Use Plan Amendment -- Otter Creek and Geyer Springs West Districts B. Z- 3545 -A and NW of Alexander Road I -3 to I -1 Z- 3504 -A and Sardis Road and I -2 II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 1. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Removal of MIDTOWN EXPRESSWAY III. OTHER MATTERS: 2. River Project Briefing 3. Report on Board of Directors' Planning Workshop July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A NAME: LOCATION: REQUEST: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: City Land Use Plan Amendment - Otter Creek and Geyer Springs West Districts West of Heinke Road and South of I -30 Change Various Classifications Staff The Planning Commission changed the zoning pattern north of Alexander Road about 6 months ago. Before that time all the land north of Alexander was shown for industrial on the plan and was zoned I -3 "Heavy Industrial" or I -1 "Park Industrial." However after the Commission and Board's actions, single family zoning was introduced on the north side of Alexander Road. Staff indicated this was a major violation of the Plan and as a result, staff would begin a review of the area. Reviews of existing conditions, zoning, etc. were completed, and major property owners, of undeveloped tracts, were contacted. Because of the existing zoning pattern and unwillingness of owners to change the zoning, Staff was limited on what could be changed. Concern was raised about the amount of "I -3" zoned property in the area close to schools and single family. Later in the process, the Quail Run Property Owners Association asked that the review area be expanded and that Mixed Residential designation be removed from their subdivision. Staff review of the larger area proceeded and further discussions with three "I -3" property owners began. A proposed land use plan amendment package was shown to the executive committee of the Quail Run Association on Wednesday, January 4, 1995. At that time, those presented indicated basic support for the changes. At the same time, the three 11I -3" owners were asked about reclassification to "I -2" or "I -1." Again in the first week of January, it appeared that there was agreement from at least two of the owners. Therefore, Staff now brings the following plan changes for the Commission's consideration: Public Institutional to Park Open Space Morehart Park - Mabelvale Cutoff Road Proposed Park - NE corner Alexander Road /Vimy Ridge Road (site on adopted Master Parks Plan) July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A Cont. Single Family to Park Open Space South of Hall Lane, either side of Otter Creek - City owned Light Industrial to Public Institutional AP &L substation south of Otter Creek Church west of Vimy Ridge, North of Alexander Road Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily to Single Family NE of County Line Road /Vimy Ridge - existing Single Family Mixed Residential to Single Family West of Hall Lane south of Village Terrace - Single Family and Vacant West of Vimy Ridge either side of Pleasant Hill Road - Vacant and Single Family Light Industrial to Single Family South of Crooked Creek and north of Alexander Road - Vacant Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily to Low Density Multifamily NE of County Line and Vimy Ridge - Vacant and zoned MF -6 Mixed Residential to Low Density Multifamily either side of Pleasant Hill Road at Vimy Ridge - Vacant and zoned MF -6 and R -2 Light Industrial to Suburban Office West of Blake - Mix of uses and zoned I -2 and R -2 Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Office and Commercial NW corner Alexander and Sardis - Vacant and zoned 0-3 and C -3 Mixed Residential to Mixed Office and Commercial South of Alexander either side Vimy Ridge Road - mix of uses zoned R -2 Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial NW corner Alexander at Vimy Ridge - existing commercial Light Industrial to Mixed Office and Industrial North of Alexander and west of Sardis to Otter Creek - Vacant zoned I -1 and I -3 (rezoning of I -3 to I -1 attached) South of Alexander east of Otter Creek - Light Industrial uses and I -1 zone Light Industrial to Industrial South of I -30, Otter Creek to Crooked Creek - existing industrial zoned I -3 and R -2 2 July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A Cont. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995) Staff informed the Commission that a major property owner wished to further discuss the issue. Therefore, the item should be deferred to May 2, 1995. By unanimous vote the item was deferred. STAFF UPDATE: The Conservation Fund, a major industrial property owner, wrote to staff and asked for a meeting in late February or March. The Conservation Fund representative did not come to Little Rock and meet with Staff as indicated by correspondence. Since the Conservation Fund is on record asking for the property not to be rezoned, no reclassification is possible. During the entire process the Conservation Fund has not been forthcoming with information or assistance. Because of their lack of assistance, staff cannot recommend further deferral of this issue. Staff would recommend that all the changes proposed in the write - up above be approved except as follows. The Light Industrial to Mixed Office and Industrial change should be dropped from consideration. Since the area is "I -311, the plan should be changed to Industrial north of Alexander between Otter Creek and Sardis Road. The first 800 feet north of Alexander Road and 1,800 feet west of Sardis Road should remain Light Industrial. This land use pattern more accurately reflects existing zoning and therefore further development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve as amended. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 2, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, reviewed the request and informed the Commission that the Conservation Fund representative met with Staff last week. In order to allow the Conservation Fund time to make their request Staff recommends a 6 week deferral. Mr. Malone assured the Commission deferral would not adversely impact any other parties involved in the plan changes. 3 July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A Cont. By unanimous vote (7 -0) the Commission approved a 6 week deferral. STAFF UPDATE: Due to the Commission meeting cancellation, it has been 12 weeks since the last hearing. As of this date (last week in June), Staff has not heard further from the Conservation Fund. Therefore, Staff recommends the Commission proceed as outlined in the previous update. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 25, 1995) There was a brief discussion and staff recommended that the item be deferred. A deferral was suggested because of the need to review the land use plan for the Mabelvale area (Geyer Springs West) and a possible plan amendment. A motion was made to defer the item to August 22, 1995 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. 4 July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO. B: FILE NOS.: Z- 3545 -A and Z- 3504 -A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Conservation Fund and Arkansas Power and Light City of Little Rock North of Alexander Road, Sardis to Otter Creek Rezone I -3 to I -1 and I -2 Warehouse /Office Warehouse 201 acres (I -1) and 32.7 acres (I -2) Vacant North - Otter Creek Industrial and School, zoned I -2 and R -2 South - Residential, zoned R -2 East - Residential, zoned R -2 West - Vacant and Industrial, zoned I -3 STAFF REPORT: As a result of a rezoning along Alexander Road to R -2 Single Family, staff began a review of the land use and zoning pattern. After discussion with the major owner, the Conservation Fund, staff suggested the "I -3" area be classified. The Conservation Fund basically agreed but could not decide what the new zoning should be. Staff recommended "I -1" to keep the industrial option open. Once staff realized that the zoning would not change significantly but would reduce in intensity, the other two "I -3A1 owners were contacted. These two users were more industrial in nature and staff suggest an "I -2" classification for each. The area involved is vacant currently. There is an existing industrial distribution center to the north, with industrial usings to the northwest. A railroad line forms the northern boundary and residential uses are located to the east and south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NOS.: Z- 3545 -A and Z- 3504 -A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 7, 1995) By unanimous vote the Commission deferred the item to May 2, 1995 meeting. STAFF UPDATE: The Conservation Fund Representative did not contact the City Staff as promised. Based on the letter received, the owner does not give permission to rezone the property for "I -3." If the Conservation Fund property is not reclassified, area in sketch for Z- 3545 -A, then there is no purpose serviced to reclassify AP &L's property. Because of a lack of cooperation from the Conservation Fund throughout the process, Staff cannot recommend continuing the effort. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Withdrawal PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 2, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, informed the Commission this was a related item to Item A and should be deferred. By unanimous vote (7 -0) the Commission approved the deferral. STAFF UPDATE: Due to the Commission meeting cancellation, it has been 12 weeks since the last hearing. As of this date (last week in June), Staff has not heard further from the Conservation Fund. Therefore, Staff recommends the Commission proceed and approve the withdrawal of this item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 25, 1995) Staff reported to the Commission that the item needed to be withdrawn. A motion was made to withdraw the proposed reclassifications (without prejudice). The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. K July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO. 1: NAME: Amend the City Master Street Plan LOCATION: Arkansas River to I -30 along MoPac rail line REQUEST: Remove from Midtown from the Plan SOURCE: Owner STAFF REPORT: A property owner on the south side of Cantrell Road, whose property would be needed to construct the proposed MIDTOWN has asked that the road be removed. The Public Works and Planning Departments met to discuss the request. The regional plan, draft, for 2020 does not show MIDTOWN and the executive summary states "the proposed MIDTOWN Expressway connecting I -40 from the Levy exit to I -30 at the Scott Hamilton exit has been dropped from the plan. It appears that the proposal has become obsolete." The MPO staff and Highway Department staff confirm that the MIDTOWN is not on the Plan and will not recommend that the City keep the proposed road on the Master Street Plan. One should note that the regional plan is a 25 -year plan constrained to available public dollars, while the local plan is unconstrained and has no target date. However since MIDTOWN has always been a regional road to meet regional needs - not necessary Little Rock needs, and since the regional planning agencies will not recommend the retention of MIDTOWN, City Staff cannot recommend leaving the road on the local plan. Removal of MIDTOWN has additional affects on Scott Hamilton Road and Woodrow. Scott Hamilton north of I -30 should be changed from an expressway to a minor arterial (65th to I -30) and collector (north of 65th Street). Woodrow from I -630 to Wright Avenue should be changed back to a minor arterial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the amendment July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 25, 1995) Staff reviewed the issue and presented some background on the Midtown. Staff reported that there was no regional or local need for the Midtown Expressway and the draft 2020 Plan does not show the Midtown. After some additional discussion, a motion was made to approve the Master Street Plan amendment to remove the Midtown Expressway and reclassify several other streets. The vote was 5 ayes, 2 nays and 4 absent. Because the motion failed to receive 6 votes, the item was deferred to the September 5, 1995 hearing. 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MASTER STREET PLAN, REMOVING MIDTOWN EXPRESSWAY AND RECLASSIFYING SCOTT HAMILTON ROAD AND WOODROW AND FOR OTHER MATTERS. WHEREAS, the MIDTOWN is a "regional" need road and the regional planning agencies (METROPLAN AND AHTD) no longer recommend the roadway; and, WHEREAS, the City Staff cannot recommend keeping the roadway to meet local needs; and, WHEREAS, the Little Rock Planning Commission after review of the amendment recommends the Plan change. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The Master Street Plan map is changed to remove the MIDTOWN EXPRESSWAY from the Arkansas River to I -30, and the proposed interchange at I -630 and the proposed MIDTOWN Expressway. SECTION 2. The Master Street Plan map is changed to show Scott Hamilton Road as a collector north of 65th Street and a minor arterial from 65th Street to I -30. SECTION 3. The Master Street Plan map is changed to upgrade Woodrow from I -630 to Wright Avenue, from a collector to a minor arterial. SECTION 4. The Master Street Plan text in the Chapter entitled "Functional Classification of Street System, Expressways" section is amended as follows: REMOVE Description Midtown SECTION 5. repealed. From To Arkansas River I -30 Interchange Ordinance 15,968 of November 20, 1990 is SECTION 6. The Master Street Plan text in the Chapter entitled "Functional Classification of Street System, Arterial- Minor" section is amended as follows: REMOVE Description Scott Hamilton ADD From To I -30 Interchange Baseline Road Description From To Scott Hamilton 65th Street Baseline Road Woodrow I -630 Interchange Wright Avenue SECTION 7. That the Master Street Plan text in the Chapter entitled "Functional Classification of Street System, Arterial- Minor" section is amended to add the following wording: TO Woodrow I -630 to Wright Avenue Right -of -way 70 feet with a 4 lane section, 5 lanes at major intersections with additional right -of -way (80 feet). SECTION S. The Master Street Plan text in the Chapter entitled "Functional Classification of Street System, Collectors" section is amended as follows: REMOVE Description From Woodrow Markham ADD Description From Woodrow Markham Scott Hamilton North Terminus PASSED: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor To Wright Avenue To I -630 Interchange 65th Street July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing NAME: The River Project Briefing SOURCE: Planning Commission STAFF REPORT: At the request of the Commission, Staff contacted a representative of the River Project and East Markham Projects to brief the Commission on these projects. A representative will attend the Commission hearing to provide information and answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 25, 1995) George Wittenberg, Donaghey Project for Urban Studies and Design, discussed the River Project with the Commission. Mr. Wittenberg reviewed the history of the project, the East Markham area and the riverfront. He then described the groups and the efforts that have been involved in the overall planning process. Throughout the presentation, Mr. Wittenberg utilized a number of graphics and drawings. There was some discussion by the, Commission and questions were asked. Since this was just a briefing, no formal action was taken by the Commission. July 25, 1995 Planning Hearing NAME: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: Board of Directors - Planning Workshop Staff On May 30 Jim Lawson, the Director of Neighborhoods and Planning met with the Board of Directors to discuss planning related issues. The role of the Planning Commission as well as direction and priorities on planning efforts were outlined. Today, Staff will review the "Notes" (as produced by the City Manager's Office) with the Commission. Please find a copy of the "Notes" attached. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 25, 1995) Mayor Jim Dailey spoke and discussed some of the issues that were raised at the May 30, 1995 Board of Directors planning workshop. Mayor Dailey reviewed some of the "follow -up actions" and asked the Commission to form a subcommittee to address the "follow -up actions." Additional comments were offered by Mayor Dailey and there was a brief discussion by the Commission. No formal action was taken by the Commission. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LAND USE AND PLANNING WORKSHOP FOLLOW -UP ACTIONS - May 30, 1995 During this workshop, a number of specific Board requests and policy directives will require follow -up action by City staff. The points outlined below are the specific actions which City staff is to pursue as directed by the Board. 1. A Balanced Growth Policy Statement is to be developed which will give equal attention to appropriate annexation growth and revitalization of existing neighborhoods. 2. Annexation Strategy - Staff is to evaluate annexation needs. including industrial development in the Port of Little Rock area, and present recommendations to the Board. 3. Growth and Development Balance - The staff will develop three growth and development policies - 1) a policy related to redevelopment of the City within corporate limits; 2) a policy related to growth through annexation; 3) a statement related to regional growth focused on the needs of the entire central Arkansas area. 4. Staff will develop a Planning Commission mission statement and vision aimed at bringing the Commission more into the long -term planning process. 5. Community Facility Plan - Staff team will develop a community facility plan to set forth long -term needs for parks, alert centers, infrastructure, citizen service facilities and other community facilities. 6. Synopsis of Planning Commission Actions - Staff will prepare a summary of Planning Commission actions by ward and city -wide after each Commission meeting. 7. Individual District Plans - Staff is to develop a strategy and timeline to develop individual planning district plans throughout the City. The plans will address diversity in housing, mixed -use neighborhoods, central city revitalization and the "city within the city" approach. 8. Follow -up with Charlotte, NC - This city has developed the "city within the city" approach. Staff is to determine their success and how Little Rock could benefit. 9. Capital Improvements Plan - The City will establish a long-term capital improvement plan along with the community facility plans. Both will set forth long -term objectives and support the overall communiV vision of the Board. 10. Plan Updates - The Board will receive updates on city -wide plans and the 26 district plans. Staff will develop the strategy to deliver update information, including when changes in the plan will be warranted. 11. Planning Commission Briefings - The Planning Commission will receive regular briefings on kev development and planning issues such as East Markham and Chenal Task Force work. Staff will develop a strategy to move the Planning Commission toward a more participating role in key development issues. 12. Planning District Plans To Be Comprehensive - Each planning district will have an updated plan driven by the vision of bringing people.together and looking at future community concerns and other issues and with a particular focus on housing. The development of all plans will include good citizen participation. The 15 point article in the U.S. News and World Report will also guide plan development. 13. Downtown Redevelopment Plan - Staff is to evaluate the expanded boundaries of the downtown area including all central neighborhoods and related parts of downtown. This plan will include key vision for the future and help connect all downtown projects including mixed -use housing. 14. Central City /Suburban Development Concept - Staff will research cities such as San Antonio and others to determine what type of new "in -city suburban" approaches could be developed within the existing older areas. 15. Barriers To Downtown Development - Staff will identify specific concerns like lead - based paint and identify other issues that are of concern to the downtown neighborhoods which might be barriers; draft a strategy to overcome those barriers. 16. City Growth and Redevelopment - The City will examine local government's role in redevelopment and set forth a policy statement announcing the City role. Consideration will be given to assembling parcels of land, clearing sites and other infrastructure work. The City will adopt a redevelopment policy and an aggressive role for downtown redevelopment. 17. Board Support of Development Mission - The Board is to formally adopt the plan, redevelopment mission, the vision and strategy and establish an active role in promoting the plan, identifying partners to leverage City funds and take other steps necessary to promote the vision. 18. North Little Rock Redevelopment Plan - Staff is to examine the process used by North Little Rock in developing their downtown plan to determine applicability to the City of Little Rock. 19. Information Superhighway - The Board desires that City government be linked to the information superhighway and connected to fiber optics. Staff will research opportunities and make recommendations. 20. Revitalization of Older Neighborhoods - This effort will be a high priority in the community. The Neighborhood Connection group is to be a key link in redevelopment activities. 21. Redevelopment Project Goals and Objectives - The Board directs that redevelopment projects should have identifiable goals and objectives clearly set forth including appropriate timelines. 22. Public Information and Promotion of City Government - The Board desires a large graphics display in the Board room with clear citizen information about specific development plans and promotion ideas. The Board directs upgrading of City Cable 11 with more use of that channel to provide information to citizens. 23. Work With Other Arkansas Cities - The Board directs contact with other large cities in the state to identify common redevelopment needs, work with those cities and the Arkansas Municipal League and others to change state law, and take other actions to help the redevelopment process. 24. Speakers Bureau To Be Formed - The Board directs that the City organize and develop a Speakers' Bureau. These individuals will talk about a variety of City events, particularly redevelopment activities. 25. NUSA Conference Support - The Board directs that the NUSA Conference (the state -wide conference this year and the national conference next year) will be strongly supported by staff, providing necessary information and support to the participants in the planning effort. Meeting Summary Land Use and Planning Workshop Little Rock Board of Directors May 30, 199 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Mayor Jim Dailey. All Board members except Gloria Wilson were present. Other staff present were City Manager Charles Nickerson, Assistant City Managers Ed Badgett and Cy Carney, Neighborhoods & Planning Director Jim Lawson, Tim Polk, Bryan Day and Bruce Moore. Jim Lawson introduced the session by reviewing the workshop notebook provided by the Neighborhoods & Planning Department. He reviewed Little Rock's growth and development history. Topics on the written agenda were outlined. The City has pursued an aggressive growth policy in recent decades to annex new property into the City's corporate limits. This has helped sustain the tax base and has resulted in substantial population growth. The Board discussed the concept of balanced growth and agreed that balance was desirable, including continuing to pursue appropriate annexation, and of equal importance, to focus on revitalization and restoration of existing neighborhoods. Service boundaries, establishing a managed growth area and incentives for areas desiring to be annexed into the city were discussed. There was concern about where to draw growth boundary lines and the need for the Board to fully participate in annexation decisions. For example, the Port of Little Rock area and growth needs for industrial development continue to be identified; those should be pursued. The Board agreed on three levels of growth and directed staff to focus on all three starting with redevelopment in the corporate limits and in specific neighborhood areas. Second, citywide growth including appropriate annexation should be pursued. Finally, regienal growth to focus on needs of central Arkansas is also important. (Staff is to provide general planning maps to Board members.) Jim Lawson outlined the extraterritorial powers of the City, the three mile zoning limit and the positive response about zoning protection from those living in the three mile extraterritorial area. ja The Board discussed the role of the City, Planning Commission. It was agreed that the Commission should be more involved in looking at long term planning issues. The current mission of looking primarily at short term zoning issues should be modified to better balance both long and short term perspectives. The Board of Directors will give needed leadership and new policy direction to the Commission. There was discussion about the Community Facility Plan section of Arkansas Law and the desire of the Board for staff to develop such a plan. This would include long te= plans for parks, schools, alert centers, infrastructure and citizen service facilities. There was discussion about the relationship between the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. The Board desires to build the relationship with more positive direction to the commission. B.J. Wyrick will serve as the Board liaison and asked for assistance in developing the liaison role. The Board requests a synopsis of Commission actions by ward and citywide. The Board desires a more defined role for the Planning Commission. The Board desires to continue to have citizens actively involved in the planning process with appropriate notification related to zoning and related issues to neighborhood groups and citizens. Planning Districts and Master Plan, There was discussion about the City's Land Use Plan and individual plans for each of the City's planning districts. There was agreement that the City should seek economic diversity throughout the community. There should be more housing diversity in neighborhoods. There was discussion about the new approach to city redevelopment including central city revitalization. Charlotte, N.C. is successfully using the "city within a city" approach. This plan selects inner city areas and plans redevelopment with a diversity of uses and then treats these areas like an independent city. There was discussion about developing neighborhood plans. Plan development is an ongoing process, needs to be flexible and shift when appropriate redevelopment issues or other factors warrant change. New issues will come forward, such as changes in housing issues, crime problems and others. Plans should be actively monitored and updated. There is a need for constant monitoring. The staff should be proactive in developing the 28 district plans and coming forward with necessary changes to plans, rather than having changes driven by individual zoning issues and questions that demand immediate attention. Reference was made to the City of Portland and to other cities that are flexible in detailed planning, but have a clear long term vision and balanced view of development. These communities work actively and partner with the private sector and others to develop projects of opportunity consistent with the overall plan. It is desirable to have both capital improvements and public facilities plans which clearly set forth long term objectives and are also consistent with the overall community vision. Regular plan updates should be accomplished with City staff taking the lead and bringing changes and other supporting information to the Board for action. Changes to plans are appropriate when new trends, conditions or circumstances warrant. When market conditions or development needs change, these should be considered in developing plan modifications. The Board agreed that district and city -wide plans should be dynamic docurn -1-its and should be on the cutting edge of change. The plans should be proactive and involve citizen input. Plans should come to the Board for approval with policy direction set forth by the Board. The Board challenged the staff to bring forth proactive and dynamic plans and changes as appropriate. The Board also agreed that the role of the Planning Commission should focus more on planning issues and helping guide development and involve citizens in the process. It was noted that the Planning Commission did not receive a briefing on the East Markham redevelopment plans or on issues related to the Chenal Task Force. The Planning Commission must be a proactive body and involved in these issues. Developing Plans There was discussion about the role of the Board, staff, and Planning Commission related to land use issues which impact the entire planning area. Advance action on plans and not reaction to particular zoning cases is the desirable goal. The Board discussed various planning areas and the need for a proactive mixed use strategy. The policy direction is to have an updated plan for all planning districts with a vision of bringing people together and with a look to the future in terms of mixed use strategy. Issues of shopping, housing and all related uses should be considered. It was agreed that the Board and neighborhood associations should be involved and listen to all participants and stake holders as plans are developed. It was agreed that neighborhood associations must be realistic and balanced in their demands. Developers must also be balanced in their perspective, as well as the Board and Commission members to see all sides of the issue and to develop the best strategy for the good of the community. The Board desires that issues of alley closings, sidewalk waivers and other maters be considered for final action by the Planning Commission and not through the Board. Staff is to pursue alternatives to achieve the Board's goal. An example was given of a recent rezoning of an apartment in southwest Little Rock. The need for a single building rezoning into four apartment units received opposition by the neighborhood association. The Planning Director described the big picture issue and the need for multi - family units in the area. It was agreed that advance notice and the bigger picture perspective would have been helpful in considering this issue. Overall Policv Development Issues The Board reviewed the 15 point article in the recent U.S. News and 7-.orld Reporr (copy attached). The Board directed that those types of issues set forth in that a: icle represented a proactive development policy. The Board directed staff to develop an overall proactive policy document for City Board consideration. Downtown Redevelopment The Board discussed the development of the downtown area, including the East ?Markham District and other parts of downtown. It was agreed that the City cannot recreate downtown Little Rock to be identical to years ago, but downtown must have a new vitality and focus because of new circumstances. There is strong support for mixed housing types. There was discussion about the City of San Antonio and creating the new central city suburban area. In Little Rock. the Brodie Creek, Chenal and East Markham areas are similar to this new interactive suburban type of approach. There was discussion about the housing partnership group coming to Little Rock to evaluate how to put together mixed uses in housing development. There was discussion about the model block program and involving private investors in the process. There are specific concerns about downtown redevelopment. Staff is to follow -up on the concern about lead based paint as a detriment to the downtown area and identify additional issues of concern to downtown. What are other problems which are holding back downtown development? Staff is to review the concerns and report to the Board. There is agreement that investors, developers, finance institutions and others are needed to partner with the City development activity. It was agreed that one of the key City roles is to assemble parcels of the land for development, clear sites etc. The City should also be involved in the basic infrastructure work to attract new development. The City should take a leadership role in pulling together development opportunities and encouraging a variety of partnerships. The Board directed staff to draft a redevelopment policy. The policy should define an aggressive role for the City and define roles for developers and others. Focus should be on the need for a swong central core as a value to the entire City, in fact, the entire region. There shotild•be an aggressive policy that targets mixed use redevelopment and growth in the corridors. Board Role in Redevelopment Activities The Board agreed to take a leadership role in promoting both redevelopment and new development in the community. They directed staff to help draft a plan that could be adopted by the Board. The Board will proactively sell the plan, leverage local government funds. and partner with private developers, businesses, neighborhood groups and others. The Board will promote the plan as a ongoing, committed process rather than just a single activity. Staff is to examine the North Little Rock downtown redevelopment plan which was developed with a four day workshop to determine applicability to Little Rock. It was suggested that staff consider the overall downtown redevelopment plan including a broadly defined downtown, defining the boundaries as widely as possible. Central City Redevelopment There was agreement that the redevelopment model should not only include downtown. but other central neighborhoods as well. There should be a total redevelopment process with specific redevelopment goals for various neighborhoods. This is equally important to the downtown strategy. It was noted that there are special redevelopment needs that exist and are being addressed. It was pointed out that the Chenal Planning and Traffic Task Force is working to address those issues of growth, traffic congestion and redevelopment in west Little Rock and will have recommendations to the Board very soon. Other Issues There were a variety of other issues and policy concerns addressed by the Board. The Board agreed that the City should be linked to the information super highway and connected to fiber optics downtown to obtain a competitive edge. The Board desires a city wide focus on redevelopment activities and planning. All planning districts and neighborhoods should be included in the policy direction. The revitalization effort of old neighborhoods should have a high profile in the community through the Neighborhood Connection group as a key linkage to the revitalization and planning efforts. The Board desires to bring private sector and financial partners to participate in the redevelopment and development process. Help from the private sector is essential in these redevelopment efforts. The Board desires to look at the original area of the City adjacent to downtown. including all of the older neighborhoods with development of a central area redevelopment plan. The Board desires a policy to create growth and redevelopment opportunities in the inner city area and in all neighborhoods. The Board also desires that redevelopment projects and specific activities be stated clearly and are completed in a timely fashion. Prior obligation to citizens must be met. The Board desires a long term vision of redevelopment goals with a clearly defined plan to achieve those goals. The Board also desires a large graphics display on the Board room wall with promotion ideas including maximizing use of City Cable Channel 11. There was consensus to work with other cities in the state who are interested in the redevelopment process. This will help focus on needed changes in state statutes and other actions that would be helpful to all metropolitan areas. It is desired to have a community wide approach to redevelopment including a speakers bureau with Board and staff members to speak about redevelopment activities. It is a desire of the Board to share ownership of the overall vision and plan to define the role of citizens, businesses and others in the citizen participation process. The Board desires to fully participate in the state wide NUSA Conference August 11 -13, 1995 and the National Conference in September. Linda and Joan are taking the lead in this process which will include over 800 persons. It was noted that Little Rock is way ahead in many redevelopment issues and particularly praised for how well various actors, participants and stake holders work together in Little Rock and with great enthusiasm. The Retreat Session was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Q 0 z w N 7 O U W L W F-- O Q) O U) z a' co Ei Q O �C O —N J d — N E 7 f w H D I �I I 0 07 c a> ¢ I- cr� cn z w co m w ¢ z N w \¢f >I -- 1 t✓JL c�"►'nS ?/1� lAy/Vl �!1?l �3 N > > Q I Q ® • Q • Q ® ® ®Q � Q LU F-- Z w �¢ F- w J co z ¢ W = Q N w C Lij J — ® w z ¢ Nj Cn ? Q U= Uo¢C< Z N Q p J y C) w z U 0 <a��� — J co Q F- J z O 0p O _ = O J- — ¢ m W 9c vs. AAA Q: PS. r �d<7cly 17! :7 V!v w z Z Z N J p Z W C) w� N 0 J_ ir Q- m ui m CL W ¢ C,- w 2 w P Z-, ¢ -J Y U 2 ¢ C O a w m w¢ J j¢ JW J U U¢¢ 2 Z 0 U z I— O O N J Y J 2— Q ZD w¢ I �I I 0 07 c a> ¢ I- cr� cn z w co m w ¢ z N w \¢f >I -- 1 I LU F-- Z w �¢ F- w J co z ¢ W = Q N w C Lij J — ® w z ¢ Nj Cn ? Q U= Uo¢C< Z N Q p J y C) w z U 0 <a��� — J co Q F- J z O 0p O _ = O J- — ¢ m W I �I I 0 07 c a> ¢ I- cr� cn z w co m w ¢ z N w \¢f >I July 25, 1995 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Date: �Cr' `' , /�; , Z5-- cha i r�naan