Loading...
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