Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 05 1995LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 9:00 A.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being six (6) in number. II. Approval of the July 25, 1995 meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Brad Walker Ramsay Ball Doyle Daniel Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam Joe Selz Ron Woods (arrived 9:30 a.m.) Mizan Rahman Pam Adcock Diane Chachere City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Removal of MIDTOWN EXPRESSWAY B. Land Use Plan Amendment -- Otter Creek and Geyer Springs West Districts II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Addition of Bike Plan Element 2. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Removal of Collectors (Cherry Creek and Point West) 3. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Removal of Collectors (Aldersgate /Kensington Area) September 5, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A NAME: LOCATION: REQUEST: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: Amend the City Master Street Plan Arkansas River to I -30 along MoPac rail line Remove from Midtown from the Plan Owner 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 September 5, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A (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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, reviewed the request to remove MIDTOWN. There was discussion about a bridge over the Arkansas River and Fourche Bottoms. These make the road a regional road. The revised 2020 plan for the region will not include the MIDTOWN. Since there is not a regional need, the City Staff cannot justify the road. Chairman Walker indicated a desire to keep a downgraded roadway south of Cantrell passed Interstate I -630. Because only 6 members were present and Chairman Walker expressed concerns the issue was deferred by unanimous vote 6 -0 to October 17th. 2 September 5, 1995 ITEM NO.: B NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment - Otter Creek and Geyer Springs West Districts LOCATION: West of Heinke Road and South of I -30 REQUEST: Change Various Classifications SOURCE: Staff STAFF REPORT: 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 11I -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 11I -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 "I -3" owners were asked about reclassification to 11I -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) September 5, 1995 .Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: B 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 September 5, 1995 ,Planning Hearing ITEM NO.• B 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. V September 5, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: B (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. STAFF UPDATE: In the northern Mabelvale area, the adopted plan has not been reviewed since the realignment of Mabelvale west /Mabelvale Pike. The new alignment changes the location of the major intersection. The land use plan, generally still assumes the original alignment. It is appropriate to allow for an intensification in the area. Either higher density residential or office uses can be reasonably considered. Taking the existing zoning, use and proposed pattern encourages the concentration of office uses to the west of Mabelvale Main. Thus, the area north of Mabelvale West should be shown for office use. South of Mabelvale Pike and Mabelvale West is shown on the plan for Neighborhood Commercial and Single Family. The area was originally platted for residential lots. Though some commercial zoning is in place, most of the area is still single family. Because of the existing zoning pattern and addition of a major road (new alignment of Mabelvale West - Mabelvale Pike), the area is likely to transition to a mixed use area. The most appropriate designation is Mixed Office Commercial. Conversion of the parcels should be reviewed carefully to insure a quality 4 September 5, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: B Cont. transition. As a clean up, the existing church (NE corner Nash and Mabelvale West) would be shown for public use and the Multifamily area north of Mabelvale Pike would be continued to Mabelvale Pike (to the south). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 22, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, briefed the Commission on the proposed land use plan. The process was started by a single family rezoning on Alexander Road. Staff has tried to work with a large owner between Alexander Road and the railroad tracks. However, the owner has been unwilling to work with staff to change the zoning. This area will have to remain light industrial. Mr. Malone reviewed the other proposed changes. Commissioner Selz asked if all owners had been notified. Mr. Malone stated the owners had not been notified, however the neighborhood association has seen the changes and agrees with the changes proposed. All areas where changes are proposed, except one, are either increased in intensity or the intensity is equivalent. There was general discussion about notice: signs; cable channel; mail to everyone; newspaper ads; neighborhood contacts. The Commission asked staff to propose a better method of notification and deferred the item to September 5, 1995. (Unanimous vote) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) Staff reviewed the item and then briefed the Commission on the issue of notification to property owners. Staff discussed a September 5, 1995 memorandum (copy attached) and suggested two methods of providing notice of proposed plan amendments. Staff stated that utilizing the City's cable television channel and written notice to neighborhood associations were the most feasible. There was some discussion about posting signs in the area and staff indicated that signs could be used if the costs were not prohibitive. Because of the notice issue, staff recommended that the land use plan amendment be deferred. A motion was made to defer the item to the October 17, 1995 hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 5 City of Little Rock Department of Neighborhoods and Planning Planning Zoning and 723 West Markham Subdivision Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -1334 (501) 371 -4790 MEMORANDUM TO: Little Rock Planning Commission VIA: Jim Lawson, Director Neighborhoods and Planning FROM Tony Bozynski, Planning Manager& SUBJECT: Plan Amendments DATE: September 5, 1995 At the August 22, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the issue of plan amendments and notification was discussed at length. Concerns were raised about the lack of adequate notice to property owners and other interested parties about possible changes to a land use plan or the Master Street Plan. Because of recent comments made by the Mayor and Board of Directors about the role of land use plans in the review process, commissioners indicated that the public needs to be better informed about proposed plan modifications. During the discussion, several ways of notifying of the public were identified and they included: -Letters (certified) to property owners -Having a plan map published in the daily newspaper -Showing a brief "preview" on the city's cable TV channel before the Planning Commission and Board of Directors meetings -Holding community meetings in the area -Contacting neighborhood associations by written notice Staff has reviewed the suggested notification methods and has determined that, at this time, utilizing the city's cable channel and notifying neighborhood associations are the most feasible. The other ones are either cost prohibitive (certified letters) or do not really get the word out. It should be noted that giving notice of plan amendments could cause delays of some reclassification matters. When staff determines that a plan amendment is required, it will be prepared and presented to the Commission at the same time as the rezoning or PUD issue. Because of the notification, a group or individual could attend the hearing and request a deferral to allow for a more thorough review of the plan change. (Every effort will be made to meet with interested neighborhoods prior to the public hearing.) Staff would also ask for additional time to complete the study of the area. September 5, 1995 ,Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 TITLE: Little Rock Bicycle Plan REQUEST: Develop and Revise Bike Plan for Little Rock SOURCE: Staff STAFF REPORT: Several years ago the Junior Chamber proposed to do a Bikeway Plan for the City of Little Rock. This effort was started based on the assumption the City had no bicycle plan. During the development process, the group discovered there was an adopted plan. This plan had not been implemented nor were the staffs of Public Works or Neighborhoods and Planning aware of the plan. Since the plan was only a "paper" plan, the group decided to continue with its plan development. Preliminary work was done for a map and text, with drafts presented to staff for review and comment. After several months of work, the group lost its drive and the drafts were left for several more months. In June of 1993, Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, instructed the Planning staff to "pick -up" the draft and complete the plan. With assistance from Traffic Engineering and Parks Design, a revised draft was prepared and the idea of placing the Bike Plan in the Master Street Plan was advanced. Drafts of the plan were mailed to the realtor /developer contact list and a half dozen representatives of the biking community in late summer 1993. Some comments were received; however, in order to generate further comment, staff set up two "information" meetings. These meetings were held in the fall of 1993 and were conducted as information meetings held by the State Highway Department. Additional comment was received from both bicyclists and realtor /developers and some minor changes were discussed. The Planning Commission was fully briefed on January 25, 1994 on the progress to date. Copies of the Plan text and map were distributed to the Commission. Staff asked that a commissioner work with staff on further revisions to the draft plan. Commissioner Walker agreed to work with Staff. Over the winter and early spring, Staff together with Commissioner Walker met to discuss the Plan and comments received to date. September 5, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued Two additional information meetings were held in the spring of 1994. The same group of contacts were notified, as well as anyone who had made comment to that point in the process approximately 80 letters. The mailing included a draft text and invited any interested party to meetings in late May and early June. Staff received three comments and no one attended either meeting at the Adult Center. At the request of the State Highway Department, Staff agreed to hold the plan. The Department formed a statewide bicycle task force (internal) to discuss standards, etc. In December of 1994, City Staff received written comments from the State Highway Department. In early 1995, Staff together with Commissioner Walker met to discuss the issues. It appeared that the text portion of the plan was acceptable, but a short term implementation plan was needed. After several meetings between Public Works, Parks and Planning Staff, a Plan Map and a short term (5 year) map was agreed to. Notices were mailed to approximately 120 individuals and organizations to inform them of this meeting and invite their comment. These are individuals or groups who have been involved since 1993 and /or are contacted for any ordinance amendment package. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the Plans PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, presented the current bike plan map, short term map and new long term map. Mr. Malone reviewed the process used to date and indicated no comments had been received to date from the most recent mailout. There was general discussion about the level of involvement - four information meetings and today's public hearing. There was a question about right -of -way and Mr. Malone indicated there would be a need for 10 feet of right -of -way for Class I routes. There being no further discussion and no cards, the issue was called. By unanimous vote (6 -1, Chairman Walker indicated he would abstain on the issue). 2 September 5, 1995 .Planning Hearing TITLE: LOCATION: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: Master Street Plan Amendment - Removal of Collectors South of Kanis and west of Bowman Property Owners The City received a request to eliminate portions of two collectors in the Cherry Creek Subdivision including Gilbert Road. The changes are the request of two property owners. First Winrock, subdivider of Cherry Creek, wishes to not encourage cut - through traffic. That is to stop Gamble Road from becoming an alternative to Kanis /Bowman for those heading south and east. By stopping Gamble at Misty Drive the western sections of Point West and Cherry Creek will use the road to go north to Kanis and no longer will be able to continue southeast to Bowman. However one should note that Winrock has platted their subdivision so that there will be various options to get to Bowman Road. The second collector change is to drop the Point West connection to Bowman using Gilbert Road. This collector had already been broken at Cherry Laurel to discourage cut - through traffic. Therefore, the effective change would be to drop Brookford Drive and Gilbert Road. As noted in the paragraph above, there will be multiple alternatives for Cherry Creek residents to get to Bowman thanks to the way Winrock platted the subdivision. By platting multiple entrances to the subdivision, in addition to any required by the Master Street Plan, makes loss of a connection less critical. Public Works and Planning Staffs believe the residents of Cherry Creek and Point West will not be unnecessarily inconvenient by these changes and the area can adequately be served with the remaining collectors and other neighborhood streets. (NOTE: Staff believes it may be desirable to show Cherry Laurel as a collector. This road has been built to local street standard, however, staff believes it currently functions as a collector and is likely to continue to function as a collector.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval September 5, 1995 ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, reviewed the request to remove Gamble Road south and east of Misty and the Collector south of Cherry Laurel. The property owner involved as well as the major developer, Winrock, agree to the amendment. By unanimous vote (7 -0) the amendment was approved. 2 September 5, 1995 Planning Hearin ITEM NO.: 3 TITLE: LOCATION: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: Master Street Plan Amendment - Remove Collectors East of Shackleford and south of Aldersgate Property Owner City Staff received a request to remove the collector connection between Aldersgate Road and Shackleford Road. The owner of the property has a large, high and mid -rise elderly housing development at the southern end of Aldersgate Road. The owner wishes to expand the retirement community to the south and west. Because of the nature of the development, the owners do not wish to string the development along a collector (Aldersgate Road) or have it bisected by a collector (Kensington). They wish for the development to be a destination. The owners have acquired the remaining land to the west, south of Camp Aldersgate (except for a few outparcels). It is their desire that any development of the property to the west take sole access from Shackleford. Public Works and Planning Departments have reviewed the request and have several concerns. The current zoning and land use pattern was part of a tri -party agreement. It is likely the road (continuation of Aldersgate) was also part of the agreement; therefore, Camp Aldersgate must give approval of any change. Second, it appears a part of the proposed right -of -way has already been dedicated. Third, if the roads are not built, Aldersgate Road would be a cul -de- sac which is too long by ordinance. Staff believes the low density multifamily development desired for a portion of the site is a positive change and would be welcomed by the nearby home owners. The removal of Kensington is possible after the review by Kensington Area Residents. However, the removal of Aldersgate Road is a problem. Staff believes there is a desirability and need to provide more than one access to this development. Staff is willing to consider alternatives to continuing Aldersgate Road, however this will involve other ownerships. Staff cannot recommend to the Planning Commission that Aldersgate be removed without an alternative placed on the Plan to replace the continuation. September 5, 1995 ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the Plans with removal of Kensington and denial with removal of Aldersgate Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, reviewed the request to remove Kensington and Aldersgate Roads. A letter for the Kensington Association supports the removal of Kensington. The owner's representative, Mr. Hathaway, had expressed to Staff a desire to drop the request to remove Aldersgate Road. This change brings all parties into agreement. Mr. Hathaway indicated he had nothing further to add. The issue was called and by unanimous vote (7 -0) the amendment (as revised) was approved. 2 D O U w w h-- O z O GO O c� z H z J Q w ¢ p A Z 0 O 11� � O w P Z: Z_ w W CC= J m w z p Q U W� w vi J z N _ CC ¢ U N_ Q i 0¢C w __j p w w Z c a U< 0� Q J J m ¢ aa- p z Ir D O � w cw 'Z ¢ m w J w z Z N Z N J p Z w C/) p w� 2 - p< - ¢ —J J � � oc¢ww cr = z � a- Yg Cn W O= CO woC =C =¢wU¢��w 0 O M LLJ J¢- U= Z F � w m U 0¢C Q � A Z 0 O 9 M, -o aD F-7 0 c a� �� ¢ F— CO m z LL) U) m �I w ¢ z w O w P Z: Z_ w W CC= J m w z p Q U W� w vi J z N _ CC ¢ U N_ Q i 0¢C w __j p w w Z c a U< 0� Q J J m ¢ aa- p z Ir D O � w cw 'Z ¢ m w J 9 M, -o aD F-7 0 c a� �� ¢ F— CO m z LL) U) m �I w ¢ z w September 5, 1995 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 a.m. Date 117. Iq Chair an