pc_06 02 1992LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 2,1992
12:30 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the April 21,1992 meeting were approved
as mailed.(Kathleen Oleson abstained from the vote on the
minute record.)
III.Members Present:John McDaniel
Ramsay Ball
Diane Chachere
Jerilyn Nicholson
Kathleen OlesonBillPutnam
Jim VonTungeln
Ronald Woods
Joe Selz (arrived after roll call)
Brad Walker (arrived after roll call)
Emmett Willis,Jr.(arrived afterrollcall
Members Absent:None
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
JUNE 2,1992
REZONING ITEMS:
1.Z-4423-A Chenal Parkway and R-2,MF-12 and
Bowman Road MF-18 to C-3
2.Z-5563 4808 Baseline Road R-2 to C-1
3.Z-5567 Chenal Parkway and R-2,0-2 and
Kanis Road C-3 to C-4
4.Z-5569 4816 Stagecoach Road C-3 to C-4
OTHER MATTER:
5.Bowman Road Plan Amendment
June 2,1992
ITEM NO.:1 Z-4423-A
Owner:Various Owners
Applicant:Jim Moses/AMR Real Estate
Location:Southwest Corner of Chenal
Parkway and Bowman Road
Request:Rezone from R-2,MF-12,and
MF-18 to C-3
Purpose:Commercial Development
Size:42.43 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Vacant and Commercial,zoned C-3
South —Vacant,zoned R-2 and PCDEast—Vacant and Single-Family,zoned R-2
West —Single-Family,zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The property in question,42 acres,is located at southwestcornerofChenalParkwayandBowmanRoad.The request is torezonethelandtoC-3 for future commercial development.
The site is currently zoned R-2,MF-12 and MF-18,with a
50 foot OS strip along a portion of the west property line.
The acreage is heavy wooded and the majority of it is
vacant;there are two single family residences that front on
Bowman Road.The site also has some significant gradedifferencesandincreasesinelevationfromsouthtonorth.
Zoning in the area covers the full spectrum and includesR-2,0-3,C-3,I-2 and PCD.The most recent reclassifi-cation in the immediate vicinity was to 0-3 and located at
the northeast corner of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway.
Land use is a combination of residential,commercial,and an
AP&L facility,an industrial use.Throughout the area,there are a number of vacant tracts,including several C-2
and C-3 parcels down along the parkway.
The site being considered for the rezoning has a long and
involved zoning history,dating hack to the 1970's when aportionofthesitewasrezonedtoMF-12 as part of the
original Rock Creek Plan.In 1985,some of the land,
1
June 2,1992
ITEM NO 1 Z-4423-A Cont
approximately 22 acres,was rezoned to MF-12 and MF-18.Atthattime,the 50 foot OS strip was established along the
west side of the property.A C-3 request for 5 acres at the
northeast corner of the property was filed for in 1986.The
proposed commercial reclassification was endorsed by the
Planning Commission,but denied by the Board of Directors.
There was strong neighborhood opposition to the requested
rezoning.Another C-3 application was made in 1988 for the
same 5 acres,however,it was withdrawn prior to any review
by the Planning Commission.Staff's position on both
requests was denial of the commercial rezoning.
The I-430 District Plan shows 994 of the site for
multifamily use;the remaining 1%,a small triangular piece,is identified for commercial use.Over the years,the
various land use plans have always shown the commercial
lands to be north of the Chenal Parkway.Therefore,the
adopted plan is consistent with other planning efforts doneforthearea.At this time,the plan recommends a large
commercial area between the Chenal Parkway and West Markham
and a commercial node at Bowman Road and Kanis Road.Other
recommended land uses for the Chenal/Bowman Intersection
include office and single family.
Staff has never supported any commercial zoning south of the
parkway in this immediate vicinity,and the current requestisnoexception.The adopted land use plan should be
maintained and a commercial reclassification of the site
should not be endorsed through this application.ApprovalofaC-3 rezoning will significantly alter the direction of
the plan and could establish a precedent for the remaining
noncommercial corners.
Opening up 42 acres to C-3 could have a significant impact
on the adjoining residential neighborhood,and tends to be
in conflict with the concept of an attractive parkway
environment.(The most recent commercial reclassifications
along the parkway were to PCD.)A commercial rezoning
without benefit of additional review,such as a site plan,
could duplicate the development found on the northwest
corner,which should be avoided.Another major issue or
concern is the site itself and the topography which is
unique and must given careful consideration when deciding
the appropriate land use.A C-3 rezoning does not provide
the necessary scrutiny to determine whether a commercial
development can be done in harmony with the land and withlittledisruptiontothearea.Traffic and access are other
important factors that must be studied before making adecisiononacommercialreclassification,and the lack of
the site plan does not permit this necessary review.From
2
June 2,1992
ITEM NO :1 Z-4423-A Cont
the preceding analysis,it is obvious that the site does notlenditselftoaC-3 rezoning,and any proposed reclassifi-cation must be accomplished through a very detail reviewprocess,such as a PUD.
Through a letter,the applicant has stated that the
development will agree to various restrictions and theyinclude:
Site Plan Review by the Planning staff
Integrated Development
Limited Curb Cuts
Internal Vehicular Circulation
Limited Outparcels
Lighting to Face Away from Neighbors to West and South
50 Foot OS Open Space Strip on West Side
25 Foot OS Open Space Strip on South Side
25 Foot Landscape Strip on South and West Abutting
OS Strip
Staff's position is that the above list needs to be madepartofaPCD/Site Plan Review to have any real value.
Also,the proposed restrictions are not enough to protect
the uniqueness of the site and the integrity of the
neighborhood.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Bowman Road requires a right-of-way of 100 feet from thecenterlinebecauseofaproposedmajorredesignoftheintersectionwiththeChenalParkway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 2,1992)
(Items No.1 and 5 were discussed together;the propose plan
amendment,Item No.5,was addressed first.)
Jim Moses,the applicant was present.There were approxi-
mately thirty individuals in attendance and one was opposedtotheproposedrezoning.
3
June 2,1992
ITEM NO.:1 Z-4423-A Cont.
Jim Lawson,Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,
addressed the effort that went into the plan amendment.
Mr.Lawson said that the staff decided to study the
Bowman/Chenal Parkway intersection based on new information
and projected traffic counts for the area.
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,discussed the land use plan
and said the plan amendment covers an area along Bowman
from Kanis Road to north of the Chenal Parkway.Mr.Newman
explained the proposed changes in detail,starting at
Kanis and moving northward.He indicated that staff was
recommending mixed office and commercial for the
Chenal/Bowman intersection.Mr.Newman then answered some
questions.
Jim Lawson reviewed an aerial photo of the area and then
proceeded to discuss the C-3 request (Item No.l).
Mr.Lawson said that staff now supported the rezoning
because the applicant has agreed to a number of conditions
which makes the application similar to a PUD.Mr.Lawson
then reviewed the conditions as outlined in his May 29,1992lettertoJimMoses.Some of the conditions included:
50 foot OS strip on the west side
25 foot landscape area adjacent the OS
A total of 5 outparcels
5 curbcuts
Right-of-Way dedication —20 feet on Bowman Road and
some at the intersection of Bowman and Chenal Parkway
Landscaping areas along Chenal Parkway and Bowman
No site work until the building permits were issued.
Mr.Lawson said that all of the conditions would be made
part of the C-3 Rezoning Ordinance.He stated that the
request was very close to a PUD.However,there was no
design or site plan.Mr.Lawson said that the homes to the
west would not be impacted because they were 20 feet higher
than the site.
There was a long discussion about various issues and several
questions were asked of Mr.Lawson.
Jim Moses said that the developers would deliver a quality
product,and things were being done the right way.
Mr.Moses went on to say that the location was very
important and there were very few sites that work in West
4
June 2,1992
ITEM NO.:1 -44 -Cont
Little Rock.He also indicated the site before the
Commission was the only good one.Mr.Moses said theintersectionwasanaturalcommercialnodebecauseof thetrafficandthenproceededtodescribethesurroundingarea.Mr.Moses told the Commission that they worked with thestaffandthedevelopmentcouldlivewiththeconditions asdescribedbyMr.Lawson.He also said that meetings wereheldwiththeneighborhoodstotheeastandwest.Mr.Mosessaidtheprojectwouldbeaqualitydevelopmentandwouldfitintothearea.He then stated that C-3 was needed to beinplacebecauseaPUDorC-2 would prolong the process.Mr.Moses told the Commission that the restrictions weresimilartoaPCD.He then requested a variance reducingthelandscapestripalongtheChenalParkwayfrom60feetto40feet.Mr.Moses concluded by answering some questions
and said the site would be lowered from 510 feet to 490 feet
by relocating dirt on the property.Mr.Moses also addedthatalargeuserusuallyhasafloortoceilingheightof
20 to 25 feet.
Bob Brown,City's Plan Specialist,responded to the variancerequestontheChenalParkwayandsaidhewascomfortablewithreducingthebufferto40feet.
Mr.Lawson answered some questions about the landscapestrip.
Jim Moses agreed to dedicating the necessary right-of-way
and adding a full lane on the Chenal Parkway.Mr.Mosesthenrespondedtoseveralquestions.He said that theproposedbuildingwouldbeapproximately200to300feet
from the edge of the property,so there would be a largeareaforstagingtrashpickup.Mr.Moses also said that he
was unsure of the exact location for the mechanical
equipment.However,they are sensitive to the issue and itwouldbedoneinatastefulway.
Mary Laurie,a resident on Pilgrim Road,submitted apetitioninsupportofthelandusechangeandrezoning.Ms.Laurie provided some background on the previouscommercialrezoningattemptin1986,and said there wasstrongoppositionbecausetheareahadnotbeenimpacted bytheparkway.She told the Commission that a lot has changed
and she was living by one of the busiest intersections inthecity.Ms.Laurie then asked the Commission to modifytheplanandrezonetheproperty.
Tim Irby expressed some opposition to the proposed rezoning
and said that he was concerned with traffic.Mr.Irby saidtheChenalParkwaywasagreatroadandtherewasaneedtomaintainoneeast-west quarter that would not slow downtrafficmovement.
5
June 2,1992
ITEM 0 :1 Z-4423-Cont.
Jim Fram,representing the Chamber of Commerce,read aresolutionfromthechamber's Board of Directors in strong
support of the rezoning.
Jim Charles supported the C-3 request and discussed the
widening of Bowman Road.Mr.Charles asked the Commissiontochangetheplanfortheentireintersection.
John Brooks said he built his house on Bowman in 1958 and
many things have changed over the last year.Mr.Brooks
described the area and said traffic was a problem.He said
the area was no longer desirable for residential use and
supports the C-3.
Bill Vancuren,a resident to the west,said he prefers
commercial to other uses and favors the C-3.
Bill Gunn spoke in support of the plan change and the
rezoning.
Richard Stephens,a resident at the northeast corner of the
Chenal Parkway and Bowman,said traffic was bad and supportstheplanchangeinrezoning.
Charles Lord and Charles Dunlap filled out cards,but did
not speak.
There was a long discussion about a number of the issues.
Jim Lawson responded to comments and said the rezoning
should only have a minimal impact on the parkway and otherarterials.Mr.Lawson told the Commission that
circumstances do change in an area,and when reviewing the
plan,the staff looked at the entire intersection.
Jim Moses spoke again and said that he favored the languagethatsaysifthereeverwasavariationintheplan,theissuewouldhavetogobacktotheCommission.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney's Office,said the conditions
would be in the reclassification ordinance.
A motion was made to recommend approval of land use plan
amendment.The vote was 9 ayes,1 nay,0 absent and
1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).
A second motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3
rezoning with the conditions in the May 29,1992 letter from
Jim Lawson to Jim Moses be made a part of the rezoning
ordinance.The motion passed by a vote of 10 eyes,0 nays,
0 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).
(A copy of the May 29,1992 letter is attached.)
6
City of Little Rock
Deparlment ot Neighborhoods and PlannlnI Jim Lawson
Director
723 West Markham
Little Rock,Arkansas 72201-1334
(501)371-4730
FAX (501)371-6663
May 29,1992
Jim Moses
AMR
201 East Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
Dear Jim:
We have reviewed your rezoning case,Z-4423-A,for the property at ChenaVBowman and
the items you agreed to include in your application as outlined in your letter dated
May 21,1992.I do have a few modifications in your hst and for clarity,I will list all
of the items which we feel are appropriate.
~50'OSn Open Space strip on west side of property
~25'andscape strip next to nOSn strip
~6'ence located back of nOSn strip
~8'andscape strip on south side of property with 6 foot fence along R-2 property
~A maximum of five outparcels on Bowman
~A maximum of five curb-cuts (three for customer access,two for service drives)
~Interior lighting -30'aximum poles,directional to east and north and down
to parking lot
~0'o 10'ight-of-Way dedication on Chenal as required by Public Works
~20'ight-of-Way dedication on Bowman
~Widen Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway
~Internal circulation design
~Underground utilities
~Ground mounted signs to be either:
(1)One project monument identification sign along Chenal to be 10 feet in
height and 100 square feet maximum and one (1)28 feet high sign along
Bowman (450 square feet maximum).
Page Two
(2)One project identification sign as in Item 1,and five (5)pound mounted
signs along the outparcels on Bowman,each outparcel sign not exceeding
10 feet in height and 90 square feet.The signs can be mounted on the berm.
(3)A combination of Items 1 and 2 ol'which a maximum of 450 square feet
cannot be exceeded along Bowman Road.
~20 foot landscaping strip along Bowman from back of curb with a berm as
required by the landscaping ordinance.
~40 foot landscaping strip along Chenal with berm beginning at back of curb.
~Low level lightning (not to exceed 4 feet in height)behind the rear of the buildings
along the west property line.
~All landscaped areas to be irrigated.
~No dirtwork or tree removal can be done on this site until building permits are
issued and the approved plan is implemented.
~All of the above restrictions offered by the developer will be made a part of the
rezoning C-3 ordinance adopted by the City.
No development (building permits issued)will occur contrary to these restrictions.
If a new development is proposed,the property must be rezoned for that
development.
With the developer volunteering to the above restrictions,I feel staff can support the
rezoning of this property.It represents a good development plan and not merely a "C-3"
zoning.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
S'erely,
Jim Lawson,Director
Dept.of Neighborhoods and Planning
JL:aa
June 2,1992
ITEM 0 2 —3
Owner:Margaret Hughey
Applicant:Margaret Hughey
Location:4808 Baseline Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-1
Purpose:Single-Family and Barber Shop
Size:0.25 acres
Existing Use:Single-Family
S 0 DING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Commercial,zoned R-2
South —Single-Family,zoned R-2
East —Commercial,zoned R-2
West —Vacant,zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
4808 Baseline Road is zoned R-2 and the request is to rezonethepropertytoC-1.The proposal is to utilize the siteforasinglefamilyresidenceandabarbershop.Currently,there is one residential structure on the property and the
plan is to convert a small area on the west side of the
house for the barber shop.The lot has 70 feet of frontage
on Baseline and a depth of 153 feet.There is a substantialfrontyardsetback,so providing the necessary parking does
not appear to be a problem.(The parking requirement is one
space per 200 feet of floor area.)
Zoning found in the general vicinity is R-2,0-3 and C-3.
There are existing C-3 parcels to the east and west ofthesiteandacrossBaselineRoad.Land use is made upofsinglefamily,several mobile home parks,a church,
commercial,office and a private school.The commercialusesincluderetail,auto service,an eating place andmini-storage units.A number of the uses are still
nonconforming because the area was annexed to the city,andthereareveryfewundevelopedparcels.
The Geyer Springs East Plan identifies both sides ofBaselineRoadforcommercialuse.Therefore, the requestedC-1 reclassification conforms the adopted land use and staff
supports the rezoning.C-1 allows the barber shop andsinglefamilyresidence,so a nonconformity will not be
1
June 2,1992
ITEM NO 2 Z-5563 Cont
created by the zoning action.The use and C-1 are
compatible with the development pattern established alongBaselineRoadovertheyears.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Baseline Road requires a right-of-way of 45 feet from thecenterline.If the existing right-of-way is deficient,
dedication of additional right-of-way is needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-1 rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 2,1992)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the
item was placed on the Consent Agenda.The vote was 8 ayes,
0 nays and 3 absent to recommend approval of a C-1 as
requested.
2
June 2,1992
ITEM NO.:3 Z-5567
Owner:J.W.Shackleford
Applicant:R.Wingfield Martin
Location:Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road
Request:Rezone from R-2,0-2 and
C-3 to C-4
Purpose:Commercial (with outside
display)and Bus Company
Size:20.98 acres
Existing Use:Various Uses
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Vacant,zoned MF-12
South —Vacant,zoned R-2
East —Vacant and Church,zoned 0-2 and PCD
West —Vacant and Single-Family,zoned R-2 and C-3
STAFF ANALYSIS
The issue before the Commission is rezoning 20 acres on
both sides of the Chenal Parkway from R-2,0-2 and C-3 toC-4.The acreage is situated between Kirk Road and Kanis
Road.Land on the south side of the parkway is outside thecityandwasreclassifiedtoR-2 through the Area II zoningaction.The existing 0-2 and C-3 areas on the north side
were rezoned as part of the Chenal zoning effort approvedin1987.Uses found on the land include single familyresidences,several barns,cabinet shop,a landscaping
business (with greenhouses),a bus company and outsidestorage.There are also two billboards and the majority of
the south side is undeveloped.It is anticipated that therewillbenoimmediatechangestotheusesiftherezoningis
granted.The primary reason for filing the request is to do
away with the nonconforming status.
Other zoning found in the area is MF-12,0-3 and PCD.The
property in question abuts R-2,MF-12,0-2 and C-3 lands.
In addition to the uses mentioned earlier,a church and a
construction company are also found in the area.A high
percentage of the surrounding land is vacant at this time.
The area under consideration is part of the Chenal District
Plan (Rock Creek Valley/Ellis Mountain in the past)and the
land use plan identifies the property for multiple uses.
For the north side,the plan recommends neighborhood,
1
June 2,1992
ITEM NO.:3 Z-5567 Cont.
commercial and office.Both C-3 and 0-2,the existing
zoning,are the appropriate districts for the adopted land
use pattern.On the south side,the plan shows the acreageformixedofficeandwarehouse.
In the C-4 district,an office and office warehouse are
permitted by right;warehousing is a conditional use.
However,the plan's intent is not to endorse C-4 for theofficeandwarehousearea,but rather to recognize that
a type of development could be allowed under certain
circumstances and through a carefully reviewed plan.There
are a number of C-4 uses that are not compatible with the
parkway,and C-4 is not the direction the City wants the
Chenal Parkway to go.A C-4 reclassification does not
maintain the plan's land use concept and could have an
adverse impact on the parkway corridor.And finally,thereisnoC-4 along the entire Chenal Parkway,and the staff has
never supported a C-4 rezoning for the area.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
1.A portion of the Chenal Parkway does not have the
necessary right-of-way of 120 feet.Dedication of
additional right-of-way is needed to meet the standard.
(Any featured development will require improvement to
the parkway.)
2.Both Kanis and Kirk Roads need 5 feet of additional
right-of-way.
3.Dedication of right-of-way for a future collector
(60 feet total)shown on the Master Street Plan.The
proposed location of the collector is approximately
400 feet east of Kirk Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the C-4 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 2,1992)
The applicant,Wingfield Martin,was present.There were noobjectors.Mr.Martin said he was representing the
Shacklefords,who own a total of 375 acres.Mr.Martin then
proceeded to discuss the Improvement District and the Chenal
Parkway.He told the Commission that the Shacklefords had
operated a dairy on the land for many years.He then gave
some history on the planning efforts in the area and for
the property.Mr.Martin then described the existing
2
June 2,1992
ITEM NO .3 Z-5 67 Cont
zoning and uses.He said that a majority of the uses were
nonconforming and that could be a potential problem in
the future.
There was a long discussion about various issues and
comments were offered by several individuals.
Wingfield Martin said he was willing to work with thestaffonacompromiseandaskedforadeferralofat least
30 days.
The motion was made to defer the request for at least
30 days.The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes,
0 nays and 0 absent.
3
Zune 2,1992
ITEN NO 'Z-5569
Owner:Farmers'ssociation
Applicant:Danny Naegle
Location:4816 Stagecoach Road
Request:Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Purpose:Commercial with outside
storage/display
Size:3.1 acres
Existing Use:Commercial with outside
storage
SURROUNDING D USE AND ZONING
North —Single-Family,Church and Commercial,
zoned R-3 and C-3
South —Single-Family and Commercial,zoned R-2
East —Single-Family and Commercial,zoned R-2 and C-3
West —Single-Family,zoned R-2
STAFF ANALY IS
This C-4 request was filed as the result of an enforcementactionbytheCity.The owner,Farmers'ssociation,fencedinanareaadjacenttoStagecoachRoad(Highway No.5)foroutsidestorageanddisplay,which is not permitted in C-3.Farmers'ssociation was then instructed to either removetheviolationortrytorezonetotheirappropriatedistrict.
The site is utilized for the retail sales of farming
equipment and other related merchandise.There are severalstructuresonthesite,which has frontage on Colonel Glenn
and Stagecoach Road.The property's location is just westofwhereStagecoachsplitsfromAsherAvenueandColonel
Glenn Road.Outside storage has been ongoing for years,prior to the City annexing this part of Stagecoach.By
adding the new outside storage area,expansion of the
nonconforming use has occurred.
Zoning in the general vicinity includes R-2,R-3,0-3,C-3
and C-4.The commercial properties that front Stagecoach
and Asher are zoned C-3 or C-4.Land use is made up of
1
June 2,1992
IT NO.:4 Z-5569 Cont.
single family,office,commercial,several churches and aschool.Some of the land in the surrounding neighborhoodisundeveloped.
C-4 is designed for heavily traveled arterials such as
Stagecoach Road and Asher Avenue.Therefore,staff feelsthattheproposedreclassificationisreasonableand
supports the request.The I-430 District Plan shows thesiteaspartofaneighborhood commercial area,and the
type of zoning usually associated with neighborhood
commercial is C-1 or C-3.Due to the property's location,staff feels a C-4 reclassification will not significantlyaltertheplan's overall land use direction and is
appropriate.Also,the C-4 rezoning should not have any
impact on the surrounding properties,including theresidentiallotstothewestbecauseofathickplantingofvegetation.
(NOTE:In the C-4 district,there shall be no open displayofanykindwhatsoeverinthefirst20feetoftherequiredfrontyardsetback.)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Colonel Glenn Road has the right-of-way standard of 55 feet
from the centerline.The existing right-of-way is deficient
and dedication of additional right-of-way is required.
STAFF RECO ENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-4 rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 2,1992)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors and the
request was placed on the Consent Agenda.The C-4 rezoning
was recommended for approval by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and
3 absent.
2
June 2,1992
EM NO.:5
Title:Land Use Plan Amendment to the
Rock Creek and 1-430 District
Plans
Source:Request of Owners and Zoning
Actions
Request:To change residential andofficeareastohigheruses.
Location:Either side of Bowman from
Birchwood to Cherry Laurel
STAFF REPORT:
There are several different requests and actions in the area
south of Kanis to north of Chenal Parkway,along Bowman,
which have been combined into one review and suggested
amendment.Beginning in the south,in the Point West and
Cherry Creek Subdivisions areas of "LMF"(Low Density
Multifamily and Multifamily)have and are being developed as
Single Family.Therefore,change No.1 is from LMF and MF,
in the subdivision mentioned above.
Change No.2 is also south of Kanis Road,a recent
mini-warehouse was approved in this location.The density(far)met Transition Zone (TZ)requirements;therefore,the
MF and Neighborhood Commercial (NC)southwest of the Bowman
and Kanis Intersection is proposed to change to TZ.(This
use was believed to be needed in the area and at this
density should not prove to be a negative on the street
system or surrounding uses.)Note an Open Space (OS)stripisproposedbetweenthemini-warehouse development (TZ)an
adjacent single family.
Change No.3 is between Kanis and Chenal,west of Bowman
Road.The current plan shows Commercial (C)at Kanis
(undeveloped (or zoned)or PCD)with MF north to Chenal
Parkway.The City has tried to hold the area south of
Chenal for residential uses partially to break up the usepattern—prevent strip commercial along the Parkway,andpartially,due to the large amount of commercial and office
zoning already in the general area.
It is important not to create another Birchwood scenario
with the Point West Phase I Subdivision.Therefore,careful
review of developments around the existing single family is
important.If the area is not to develop low densityresidential,site plan review and preferably planned unit
1
June 2,1992
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.
development review should be required to protect theexistingsubdivisions.In addition,Chenal Parkway is an
P Y/P 'P t t ','t ~tocars,not provide access to adjacent land —adjacent must be
limited or prevented.Note,if development continues to the
West,traffic volumes on Chenal Parkway (in this area)will
be higher than Cantrell or University,up to 40,000 a day
and grade separations have been discussed.Staff is
recommending a change to Mixed Office Commercial (MOC).Itisimportantthatitnotbestripcommercialorstripcenter
development,along the Parkway for the above reasons.
However,due to the development pattern to the east and
north,some office and limited commercial uses appearreasonable.
Change No.4 is the southeast corner of Bowman and the
Parkway from Mixed Residential to MOC.This is due in parttoarequestfromsomeoftheownersforahigheruse.Itisrecommendedthattheareasaccesscontinuetobefrom
Pilgrim,Hermitage and Bowman,not the Parkway.Therefore,
small office development would seem appropriate,with some
limited support commercial.
The fourth change is the northeast corner of the Parkway
with Bowman.The area is currently shown for Office (0).
As a result of the development west of Bowman,some of the
property owners have requested the "MOC"classification.Staff still favors office development due to concerns about
Birchwood and traffic.However,a larger mixed development
could provide better controls on access and impacts of
surrounding areas.Staff could not support commercial onthissinglefamilyplattedlotsduetoconcernsaboutstrip
development impacts on the roads and surrounding
development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 2,1992)
(Items No.1 and 5 were discussed together;the propose plan
amendment,Item No.5,was addressed first.)
Jim Moses,the applicant was present.There were approxi-
mately thirty individuals in attendance and one was opposedtotheproposedrezoning.
2
June 2,1992
ITEM NO 5 Cont.
Jim Lawson,Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,addressed the effort that went into the plan amendment.
Mr.Lawson said that the staff decided to study the
Bowman/Chenal Parkway intersection based on new information
and projected traffic counts for the area.
Ron Newman,Planning Manager,discussed the land use plan
and said the plan amendment covers an area along Bowman
from Kanis Road to north of the Chenal Parkway.Mr.Newman
explained the proposed changes in detail,starting at
Kanis and moving northward.He indicated that staff was
recommending mixed office and commercial for the
Chenal/Bowman intersection.Mr.Newman then answered somequestions.
Jim Lawson reviewed an aerial photo of the area and then
proceeded to discuss the C-3 request (Item No.1).
Mr.Lawson said that staff now supported the rezoning
because the applicant has agreed to a number of conditions
which makes the application similar to a PUD.Mr.Lawson
then reviewed the conditions as outlined in his May 29,1992lettertoJimMoses.Some of the conditions included:
50 foot OS strip on the west side
25 foot landscape area adjacent the OS
A total of 5 outparcels
5 curbcuts
Right-of-Way dedication —20 feet on Bowman Road and
some at the intersection of Bowman and Chenal Parkway
Landscaping areas along Chenal Parkway and Bowman
No site work until the building permits are issued.
Mr.Lawson said that all of the conditions would be madepartoftheC-3 Rezoning Ordinance.He stated that therequestwasveryclosetoaPUD.However,there was no
design or site plan.Mr.Lawson said that the homes to the
west would not be impacted because they were 20 feet higher
than the site.
There was a long discussion about various issues and several
questions were asked of Mr.Lawson.
Jim Moses said that the developers would deliver a quality
product,and things were being done the right way.
Mr.Moses went on to say that the location was very
important and there were very few sites that work in West
3
June 2,1992
ITEN NO ~.Cont.
Little Rock.He also indicated the site before the
Commission was the only good one.Mr.Moses said theintersectionwasanaturalcommercialnodebecauseof thetrafficandthenproceededtodescribethesurroundingarea.
Mr.Moses told the Commission that they worked with thestaffandthedevelopmentcouldlivewiththeconditions as
described by Mr.Lawson.He also said that meetings were
held with the neighborhoods to the east and west.Mr.Moses
said the project would be a quality development and wouldfitintothearea.He then stated that C-3 was needed to be
in place because a PUD or C-2 would prolong the process.
Mr.Moses told the Commission that the restrictions weresimilartoaPCD.He then requested a variance reducing
the landscape strip along the Chenal Parkway from 60 feetto40feet.Mr.Moses concluded by answering some questions
and said the site would be lowered from 510 feet to 490 feet
by relocating dirt on the property.Mr.Moses also addedthatalargeuserusuallyhasafloortoceilingheightof
20 to 25 feet.
Bob Brown,City's Plan Specialist,responded to the variance
request on the Chenal Parkway and said he was comfortable
with reducing the buffer to 40 feet.
Mr.Lawson answered some questions about the landscapestrip.
Jim Moses agreed to dedicating the necessary right-of-way
and adding a full lane on the Chenal Parkway.Mr.Moses
then responded to several questions.He said that the
proposed building would be approximately 200 to 300 feet
from the edge of the property,so there would be a largeareaforstagingtrashpickup.Mr.Moses also said that he
was unsure of the exact location for the mechanical
equipment.However,they are sensitive to the issue and it
would be done in a tasteful way.
Mary Laurie,a resident on Pilgrim Road,submitted apetitioninsupportofthelandusechangeandrezoning.
Ms.Laurie provided some background on the previous
commercial rezoning attempt in 1986,and said there was
strong opposition because the area had not been impacted bytheparkway.She told the Commission that a lot has changed
and she was living by one of the busiest intersections in
the city.Ms.Laurie then asked the Commission to modify
the plan and rezone the property.
Tim Irby expressed some opposition to the proposed rezoning
and said that he was concerned with traffic.Mr.Irby said
the Chenal Parkway was a great road and there was a need to
maintain one east-west quarter that would not slow downtrafficmovement.
4
June 2,1992
0 5 Cot
Jim Fram,representing the Chamber of Commerce,read a
resolution from the chamber's Board of Directors in strong
support of the rezoning.
Jim Charles supported the C-3 request and discussed the
widening of Bowman Road.Mr.Charles asked the Commissiontochangetheplanfortheentireintersection.
John Brooks said he built his house on Bowman in 1958 and
many things have changed over the last year.Mr.Brooks
described the area and said traffic was a problem.He said
the area was no longer desirable for residential use and
supports the C-3.
Bill Vancuren,a resident to the west,said he prefers
commercial to other uses and favors the C-3.
Bill Gunn spoke in support of the plan change and the
rezoning.
Richard Stephens,a resident at the northeast corner of the
Chenal Parkway and Bowman,said traffic was bad and supports
the plan change in rezoning.
Charles Lord and Charles Dunlap filled out cards,but did
not speak.
There was a long discussion about a number of the issues.
Jim Lawson responded to comments and said the rezoning
should only have a minimal impact on the parkway and otherarterials.Mr.Lawson told the Commission that
circumstances do change in an area,and when reviewing the
plan,the staff looked at the entire intersection.
Jim Moses spoke again and said that he favored the language
that says if there ever was a variation in the plan,the
issue would have to go back to the Commission.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney's Office,said the conditions
would be in the reclassification ordinance.
A motion was made to recommend approval of land use plan
amendment.The vote was 9 ayes,1 nay,0 absent and
1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).
A second motion was made to recommend approval of the C-3
rezoning with the conditions in the May 29,1992 letter from
Jim Lawson to Jim Moses be made a part of the rezoning
ordinance.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays,
0 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).
(A copy of the May 29,1992 letter is attached.)
5
City of Little Rock
Department of Neighborhoods end Pfennlng Jim Lewson
Director
723 West Merkham
Little Rosk,Arkansas 72201-1334
(501)371%790
FAX (501)371-6663
May 29,1992
Jim Moses
AMR
201 East Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201
Dear Jim:
We have reviewed your rezoning case,Z-4423-A,for the property at Chenal/Bowman and
the items you agreed to include in your application as outlined in your letter dated
May 21,1992.I do have a few modifications in your list and for clarity,I wiH list all
of the items which we feel are appropriate.
~50'OSa Open Space strip on west side of property
~25'andscape strip next to aOSn strip
~6'ence located back of nOSn strip
~8'andscape strip on south side of property with 6 foot fence along R-2 property
~A maximum of five outparcels on Bowman
~A maximum ol'ive curb-cuts (three for customer access,two for service drives)
~Interior lighting -30'aximum poles,directional to east and north and down
to parking lot
~0'o 10'ight-of-Way dedication on Chenal as required by Public Works
~20'ight-of-Way dedication on Bowman
~Widen Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway
~Internal circulation design
~Underground utilities
~Ground mounted signs to be either:
(1)One project monument identification sign along Chenal to be 10 feet in
height and 100 square feet maximum and one (1)28 feet high sign along
Bowman (450 square feet maximum).
Page Two
(2)One project identiTication sign as in Item 1,and five (5)ground mounted
signs along the outparcels on Bowman,each outparcel sign not exceeding
10 feet in height and 90 square feet.The signs can be mounted on the berm.
(3)A combination of Items 1 and 2 of which a maximum of 450 square feet
cannot be exceeded along Bowman Road.
~20 foot landscaping strip along Bowman from back of curb with a berm as
required by the landscaping ordinance.
~40 foot landscaping strip along Chenal with berm beginning at back of curb.
~Low level lightning (not to exceed 4 feet in height)behind the rear of the buildings
along the west property line.
~All landscaped areas to be irrigated.
~No dirtwork or tree removal can be done on this site until building permits are
issued and the approved plan is implemented.
~All of the above restrictions offered by the developer will be made a part of the
rezoning C-3 ordinance adopted by the City.
~No development (building permits issued)will occur contrary to these restrictions.
If a new development is proposed,the property must be rezoned for that
development.
With the developer volunteering to the above restrictions,I feel staff can support the
rezoning of this property.It represents a good development plan and not merely a "C-3"
zoning.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
S cerely,
Jim Lawson,Director
Dept.of Neighborhoods and Planning
JL:aa
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE i7UNE rI9 ~CONSENT AC~ErJ~~~f26'6V~R WC-rEhlDM v~o+
3OWO%S
MEMBER z 4-1 3 5
BALL,RAMSEY
y'HACHERE,DIANE v v v
WILLIS,EMMETI A
MCDANIEL,JOHN v
NICHOLSON,JERILYN v v k.v
OLESON,KATHLEEN "v ~A+
VONTUNGELN,JIM v.rv v
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD V v v'
SELZ,JOE H.A A pr A
WALKER,BRAD 4 A v.A
TIME IN AND TIME OUT
BALL,RAMSEY IZ:3Zr
CHACHERE,DIANE IZ;3o
WILLIS,EMMETT v q eL la oIP If:58 k'arr e de da hc ~Iro4 &3j
MCDANIEL,JOHN Iz:50
NICHOLSON,JERILYN )2:3d
OLESON,KATHLEEN IZ:jo
VONTUNGELN,JIM Ie.'Jo
PUTNAM,BILL IZ;go
WOODS,RONALD IZ:go
SELZ,JOE H.*re nr ri y a I,'I w rrsp r+re,r
WALKER,BRAD rtr n af /2:S,a ky d'or errH ~or Z re
&AYE ~NAYE ~ABSENT 45 ABSTAIN
June 2,1992
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Date I
e etar Ch an