Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 17 1995LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 17, 1995 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 September 5, 1995 meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Brad Walker Pam Adcock Ramsay Ball Sissi Brandon Diane Chachere Doyle Daniel Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam Joe Selz Mizan Rahman (arrived after roll call) Ron Woods (arrived after roll call) Members Absent: None City Attorney: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA OCTOBER 17, 1995 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Master Street Plan Amendment -- MIDTOWN B. City Land Use Plan Amendment -- Otter Creek and Geyer Springs West Districts II. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. State Highway Logo Signing Program 2. Bylaws Amendment III. OTHER Staff Briefing October 17, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A 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 October 17, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 17, 1995) Staff reviewed the item and reported that contact had been made with the developers of the land to the south of Dillard's headquarters about incorporating a downgraded Midtown into the development plans. The partnership developing the property indicated that the proposal would be too costly and the project was too far along to permit a major change. Therefore, they were not interested in making any significant modifications. John Schlereth, representing Baird, Inc., spoke in support of removing the Midtown Expressway from the Master Street Plan. Mr. Schlereth described how the Expressway would impact a parcel of land because the Expressway right -of -way would take a majority of the property. Mr. Schlereth said that leaving the Midtown on the plan burdens the property and cause problems for the owner, Baird, Inc. There were other comments made and Commissioner Walker asked the staff to look at other options for the Midtown. IN October 17, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: A Cont. The Commission then voted to recommend removing the Midtown Expressway from the Master Street Plan. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (B. Walker) to remove the Expressway. 3 October 17, 1995 D_ s • 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 "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 "I -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) October 17, 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 October 17, 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 -3 ", 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. 01 October 17, 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 October 17, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 17, 1995) Staff reviewed the proposed plan amendment and informed the Commission that the Pinedale Neighborhood Association was provided written notice and a preview of the agenda was shown on 5 October 17, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: B Cont. the government access channel. Staff indicated that the owner of the property at the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge and Alexander had called about the proposed change for the site. Staff said the corner was identified as a proposed park site on the Master Parks Plan and the plan amendment was only reinforcing the Parks Plan. Staff went on to say that the land was zoned I -3 and the Parks Plan would need to be changed because it was more enforceable than the land use plan. Kerwin Kolinek, representing the owner of the northeast corner of Vimy Ridge and Alexander, addressed the Commission. Mr. Kolinek expressed some concerns about the park designation and said he did not have a complete understanding of the process. The land use plan amendment was explained and Mr. Kolinek was told that a formal request would be needed to change the Parks Plan. It was suggested that Mr. Kolinek meet with the staff and he indicated that he would do so. There was some limited discussion by the Commission. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendments to the Otter Creek and Geyer Springs West District plans. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. N October 17, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 NAME: State Highway Logo Signing Program APPLICANT: Staff PROPOSAL: A request has been made by the Public for the City of Little Rock to participate in the State Highway Logo Signing Program. If approved by the City, the program would allow the installation of logo signs at interstate interchanges inside the city limits where outdoor off premise advertising is prohibited. PROGRAM PROCESS, AND DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Process, The program is designed so that the City of Little Rock may formally request from the State Highway Commission permission to be included. The Staff is offering the proposal to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation to the Board of Directors. If the Board approves a resolution, the State Highway Commission will review it and in all probability include Little Rock in the Program. The Highway Commission has two primary criteria to review. The criteria are: (1) a formal request from the City asking for the logo program; and (2) a municipal prohibition of outdoor off premise advertising along the interstates where the program is requested. 2. Proposed Locations The logo signs would be located along all interstate highways inside the city limits where outdoor off premise advertising is prohibited. The interstate highways that meet the above criteria are: (1) I -430; (2) I -440; and (3) I -630. 3. Design Standards The Logo Sign Program consists of main lane sign panels and ramp sign panels. The main lane panels will be erected about one mile in advance of an exit with one sign placed in each traffic direction (approximately 10' X 16' in area and between 20' and 25' in height). The logos themselves will October 17, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. be 3' X 4' and 3' X 5' with up to six (6) logos per panel. The ramp sign panels will be one half the size of the main lane panels (6' X 8' in area and 14' to 16' in height) and will be placed on or near the exit ramp with one sign facing in each traffic direction. 4. Analysis, The Staff has received a request from a business owner with property located on a scenic corridor. Since the city prohibits outdoor off premise advertising on scenic corridors, the business owner thought the City might avail itself of the State Highway Department's program. The Staff has also received comments from the public stating that the Logo Program on the interstate highways is an aid to the motoring public. The staff would tend to agree with the aforementioned comments and likes the idea of a uniform signage system which informs the public as it travels through the city on its interstate highways. 5. Staff Recommendation The Staff recommends approval of the adoption of the State Highway Logo Sign Program. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 17, 1995) The Staff gave a brief background on the item and how it had come to be on the Planning Commission agenda. The Staff also stated that it had received additional information which had led it to reconsider its recommendation. The Staff said that it had changed its recommendation to denial of the sign logo program due to: (1) the fact that the number of signs could be much greater than it had originally believed; (2) a loss of regulatory control by the City once the state began the program; and (3) reservations about a state government program that would usurp the private sectors role in the market place. A lengthy discussion ensued. Commissioner Brandon stated that she felt a limited approach would be beneficial to both the public and businesses located near the interstate. The Staff concurred but stated they were uncomfortable with the loss of regulatory control of the program. Mr. Terry Pack, of the River City Energy Company, stated that he had personally found the logo signs useful. He also stated that his company operated a chain of convenience stores located along the interstates in Central Arkansas and that his company had received positive feed back from the public as a result of the logos being recently installed in Conway. Chairman Walker asked Mr. Pack whether a generic "gas" or "food" sign would be helpful. K October 17, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. Mr. Pack stated that they would but a brand logo would be more beneficial to a traveler looking for a particular gas station or hotel. Ms. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, stated that she had benefited from the logo signs in her travels and in general thought they were a good idea. She further stated that after hearing the staff's concerns, she felt uncertain about the program if it were to undue what had been accomplished by the Sign Ordinance in the "scenic" corridors. Finally, she stated that additional study of the issue may be warranted. Commissioner Putnam concurred. Mr. John Schlereth, of Baird, Inc., asked to read a letter of opposition to the Sign Logo Program. He stated that the State Highway Department should not be allowed to institute a program the private sector had been prevented from doing. Mr. David Reed, General Manager of the Donrey Outdoor Advertising Company, spoke in opposition to the logo program. He said his opposition was based on the following reasons. The reasons are: (1) The State Logo Program was intended for rural areas (defined as areas of 5,000 in population or less) and that Little Rock did not meet the definition; (2) The State Program discriminates against local unknown businesses versus well -known national companies in both recognition and location in that companies nearest the interstate are favored over those further away from it as the national companies can better afford to be nearest to the interstate; (3) The logo signs are a form of outdoor advertising which is prohibited to private enterprise; (4) The smaller signs are a traffic hazard in that they are placed in right -of -way areas; and (5) The City would lose regulatory control over the number, size and spacing of the signs. Mr. Reed then stated he would like to submit nineteen (19) letters of opposition to the Sign Logo Program from local businesses. He also read a letter from Mr. Bob Wimberly, State Director of the National Federation of independent businesses, which Mr. Reed said represented over 800 businesses in the Little Rock area. The letter requested the state legislative council to stop the expansion of the Sign Logo Program into urban areas because it was intruding into the domain of private enterprise. Mr. Reed further stated that Donrey would like to sit down with the City and create a private logo sign program that the City could control with regard to the design, size, number and location of the signs. Finally, Mr. Reed produced graphics and photos to illustrate what the logo program would entail. He also stated that they had done a survey of the City which showed that there was twenty (20) affected exits. The twenty exits would allow a potential of 16 signs per exit (8 main lane and 8 ramp signs) or a total of 320 signs or one full acre of sign space. 3 October 17, 1995 Planning Hearina ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. A lengthy discussion ensued. A motion was made and seconded to appoint a committee to study issues such as: (1) The legal implications of authority on the interstate rights -of -way; (2) what information would be beneficial (on signs); and (3) what procedures would be necessary to approve the program. The motion also was to defer the item until the first planning meeting in January 1996, and to include on the Committee Commissioners Ball and Daniel as well as Ms. Bell and Mr. Reed. The motion was approved 10 ayes, 1 absent. 4 October 17, 1995 Planning Hearincr ITEM NO.: 2 NAME: Bylaws Amendment SOURCE: Planning Commission PROPOSAL: To amend the Commission Bylaws relating to commissioner involvement with items before them. (SEE ATTACHMENT) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 17, 1995) Commissioner Brad Walker introduced the item and briefly discussed the issue. He then read a letter from the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods supporting the resolution. He also read a memorandum from Mayor Jim Dailey requesting the Commission to delay action on the bylaw amendment. (Copies of the letter and memorandum are attached.) Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, addressed the Commission and expressed some concerns with the resolution. Mr. Lawson said that individuals with development background were needed and discussed reasons for having diversity on a planning commission. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's Office, then read Section 23 -27 from the Code of Ordinances, which describes the Plan Commission membership. Comments were then offered by various commissioners. Commissioner Pam Adcock stated that she never said that developers /realtors should not be on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Adcock responded to the Mayor's memorandum and said she respected the Mayor's wishes to postpone action on the amendment. Commissioner Adcock made some additional comments about the resolution. After some discussion, Commissioner Adcock requested a deferral of the bylaw amendment. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission and said Section 3a of the resolution presented some problems. Mr. Pfeifer said that disclosure was very important. Discussion then focused on the Commission and the problem question. Commissioner Adcock said one issue was the perception that the Planning Commission presents. Commissioner Bill Putnam expressed his feelings and thoughts on the matter. October 17, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2 Cont. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the issue and offered some comments. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's Office, spoke and discussed several concerns with various parts of the resolution. The Planning Commission voted to defer the issue until after the Board of Directors completes its review of the code of ethics issue. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE POLICY OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING ETHICAL CONDUCT AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS .. PROPOSED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. WHEREAS, it is the principal and foremost duty of persons serving as Commissioners of the Little Rock Planning Commission to balance the public interest with respect to real estate development decisions; and WHEREAS, it is paramount that the Commission employ an orderly planning process and implementation of City plans which have the full confidence, respect and support of residents of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission as a public regulatory body must be continually mindful to�avoid conflicts of interest, whether they may be actual or have the public perception as an actual conflict of interest. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. POLICY OF THE COMMISSION. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Planning Commission that all sitting Commissioners shall adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct with respect to their respective service on the Commission. Commissioners shall avoid conflicts of interest and the perception of conflicts of interest. SECTION 2. SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP. No Commissioner shall vote or participate in the discussion of any matter before the Commission if the party presenting the matter, or any person who will receive a direct or indirect financial benefit from the matter, has a special relationship with the Commissioner. A special relationship includes, but is not limited to! a close personal or family relationship; a business relationship in other unrelated ventures; a professional relationship that involves any fiduciary duty; an agency relationship including agent for service of process. ZO'd S00'ON 9b:6 S6 b0 X30 S�9G -TZS: 731 SJJlld h1I0 ' �' � 1 2 3 4 5 6 SECTION 3. NO REAL ESTATE MATTERS TO BE PROPOSED (a) No Commissioner shall propose to the Planning commission during his or her term on the Commission any matter pertaining to the development of real estate. (-b) .Nothing in this section, however, shall be construed to prohibit a Commissioner from proposing and voting on general areawide or citywide plans or amendment to plans pertaining to the development of real estate, provided that the Commissioner shall have complied with all provisions of Section 2 of this resolution. SECTION 4. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY. The Secretary of the Commission (Director of Neighborhoods and Planning) as may be necessary from time to time in the conduct of business of the Commission, shall have the affirmative duty to advise Commissioners of their duty and obligations in order to conform with the policy of this resolution. DATE: ADOPTED: rmiucw ATTEST: Rl0(W ;4V.`; SZ9V -TZi: �3l SJlJlld JlI� ?J' i0'd S00'ON Zb:6 S6 b0 400 _ BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION TO: LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MAYOR JIM DAILE RE: RESOLUTION ONE ICAL CONDUCT DATE: OCTOBER 16, 199 As you are well aware, a joint committee of the Little Rock Board of Directors/Planning Commission is currently reviewing the goals and mission of the Planning Commission. In this light, I appreciate any efforts that enhance the viability of the Commission. However, considering the current Code of Ethics discussions by the Board of Directors (including a workshop on October 24), I respectfully request that the ethical conduct resolution before the Planning Commission be delayed until we have had an opportunity to fully examine this issue. I am particularly concerned with the practicality and even the reasoning for Section 3 of the Resolution. A revised Code of Ethics will definitely have provisions for full disclosure, thus making Section 3 a moot issue. I continue to be very supportive of the Planning Commission's efforts to ensure that the-business of the Commission is done in a proper manner. However, with the current discussions regarding ethical conduct, I feel it would be premature to proceed at this time. Please advise if additional information is needed. D:bm cc: Little Rock Board of Directors Charles Nickerson CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS coalition of Little 40 ►n Advocate of .Quality City Neighborhoods Box 165451, Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 October 16, 1995 Members of the Little Rock Planning Commission: At its most recent monthly meeting, the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods, considered the proposed resolution offered by Commissioner Pam Adcock to assure conflicts -of- interest were avoided by Planning Commissioners. We believe it important that matters coming before the Commission not be sponsored by Commissioners during their active term of office. The Coalition supports the resolution offered by Commissioner Adcock and urges your adopting it as policy for the Commission. We believe such a measure will increase the public's confidence and stature that it places in the work of the Commission. Yours truly, P .rises Barbara Douglas / .. Coalition President O Brvadmoor (1954) p Leawood (1966) p QPapaw Quarter (1969) p ACORN (1970) O Otter Creek (1974) 0 Walnut Valley (1975) p North university Park (1975) O Pankey (1979) O Central High ( 1980) O Downtown (1984) O Birchwood (1984) O HUlcrest (1986) p Forest Hills (1990) O South End (1991) O Capitol View- Stifft Station (1991) p Heights (1991) O Wright Avenue (1991) O War Memorial (1992) O Fine to Woodrow (1992) O Oak Forest (1994) O PennbrooVC.lovcrhill (1995) 0 Evergreen (1995) O O Q U W C W O Z O J O p, C� _Z Z Z a J CL W F- L5` w U- F o -1 N d v� O O Q U W C W O Z O J O p, C� _Z Z Z a J CL W F- a 'O c 0 a� c a> 2 F— z LL) cn m w z W } I N I I m- W �� crW mU W Q U o U N¢ Z z Nj =�awm cr ¢ Z>- <-10< g < W J 0 � w < a� O <C3:( Z C) J z �^ O OW2 ',W ¢ J cY 3: a 'O c 0 a� c a> 2 F— z LL) cn m w z W } I I I O 2 Z2c Zcr- W a � Z J Z ¢ U ¢ Ivi 'NZZr A <( W z ¢ =��CLEncrwmm Q USZUF— e = ¢ z J j w O U O Q Q Z E.��J z Q O b= z N � W Y a 'O c 0 a� c a> 2 F— z LL) cn m w z W } October 17, 1995 PLANNING HEARING There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. -C6 nar_p- Chairman