HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report_MinutesJanuary 9, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: LU03-01-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: Cantrell Road from Southridge Drive to Rummel Road
Request: Transition, Low Density Residential, Multi -family, and Commercial
to Office, Suburban Office, Low Density Residential, Single Family, Park/Open
Space, and Public Institutional.
Source: City Staff
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
#1. From Transition to Suburban Office, located on the north side of Cantrell
Road east of Rummel Road, consisting of land developed for offices and a few
vacant parcels of land.
#2. From Transition to Single Family, located on the south side of Cantrell at the
end of Westchester Court, consisting of houses located in the Westchester
Subdivision.
#3. From Transition to Suburban Office, on the south side of Cantrell north of
Westchester Court, characterized by low-density development of houses built on
large lots and a vets office.
#4. From Transition to Low Density Residential, on the north side of Cantrell at
Taylor Loop, also characterized by low-density development of houses built on
large lots.
#5. From Transition to Commercial, on the north side of Cantrell at Taylor Loop,
to recognize an existing PCD.
#6. From Transition to Suburban Office, on the west side of Taylor Loop north of
Westchester Court, consisting of residential lots and houses with half developed
as business uses.
#7. From Transition to Suburban Office, east side of Taylor Loop north of
Westchester Court, consisting of houses and one office use.
#8. From Transition to Single Family, on Jerry Drive south of Cantrell, containing
land platted for residential development in the Hoggard Subdivision.
#9. From Transition to Suburban Office, south side of Cantrell at Jerry Drive is
characterized by office development in the commercial node located at the
Cantrell/Taylor Loop intersection.
#10. From Transition to Suburban Office, on the north side of Cantrell west of
Pinnacle Valley Road, includes property developed with a restaurant and houses.
#11. From Transition to Single Family, on the west side of Pinnacle Valley Road
north of Cantrell, which is comprised of large lot residential and vacant land.
#12. From Transition to Single Family, along Pine Mountain Road, comprised of
the houses located on Pine Mountain Road and vacant land located on the east
side of Pinnacle Valley Road.
#13. From Transition to Single Family, on Cantrell at Westbury, consisting of
single-family houses in the built out Westbury Subdivision.
#14. From Transition to Park/Open Space, on Cantrell at Ison Creek, which
contains vacant land in the floodway of Ison Creek.
#15. From Transition to Suburban Office, on Cantrell next to Ison Creek,
consisting of two pieces of property developed with houses built on large lots.
#16. From Transition to Suburban Office, on the north side of Cantrell at
Candlewood Drive, is characterized with low-density development with houses
built on large lots.
#17. From Low Density Residential to Single Family, north of the end of Pine
Mountain Road, is vacant wooded land and has a newly platted five acres
subdivision on it.
#18. From Transition to Low Density Residential, on the south side of Cantrell
along Crockett Street, consisting of property developed with houses built in the
Pankey subdivision.
#19. From Transition to Suburban Office, on the south side of Cantrell west of
Sam Peck Road, containing tracts of undeveloped land.
#20. From Transition to Office, on the north side of Cantrell at Sam Peck,
consisting of land developed for offices with vacant land available for future
development.
#21. From Transition to Public Institutional, on the north side of Cantrell at Sam
Peck at the Grace Community Church, containing a campus for church facilities.
422. From Transition to Suburban Office, on the north side of Cantrell east of
Sam Peck, which may be characterized by a house, built on a large lot.
#23. From Transition to Office, on the south side of Cantrell east of Sam Peck,
containing land developed for office uses.
#24. From Transition to Single Family, on the south of Cantrell Road north of
Piedmont, includes land located in the Piedmont Addition.
#25. From Transition to Public Institutional, on the south side of Cantrell west of
the Pleasant Ridge apartments, for St. Michaels Episcopal Church property.
#26. From Multi -family to Single Family, on the north side of Cantrell across the
street from the Pleasant Ridge apartments, which consists of a vacant hillside.
#27. From Transition to Office, on the north side of Cantrell at Pleasant Ridge
Road, containing land occupied by a bank and other office uses.
#28. From Transition to Office, on the north side of Cantrell east of Southridge
Drive, consisting of land occupied by office uses.
#29. From Commercial to Suburban Office, on the east side of Fairview Road
south of Pleasant Ridge Road, developed with houses.
The Office category represents services provided directly to the consumers (e.g.
legal, financial, medical) as well as general offices, which support more basic
economic activities. The Suburban Office category provides for low intensity
development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density
residential areas to assure compatibility. A Planned Zoning District is required.
Low Density Residential accommodates a broad range of housing types
including single family attached, single family detached, duplex, town homes,
multi -family and patio or garden homes. Any combination of these and possibly
other housing types may fall in this category provided that the density is between
six (6) and ten (10) dwelling units per acre. Single Family provides for single-
family homes at densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units. per acre. Such
residential development is typically characterized by conventional single family
homes, but may also include patio or garden homes and cluster homes, provided
that the density remain less than 6 units per acre. Park/Open Space includes all
public parks, recreation facilities, greenbelts, flood plains, and other spaces
designated as open space and recreational land. Public Institutional represents
public and quasi -public facilities that provide a variety of services to the
community such as schools, libraries, fire stations, churches, utility substations,
and hospitals. These proposed changes are intended to reflect existing
conditions along the Cantrell Road corridor in the River Mountain Neighborhood
Action Plan study area. With these changes, most of the area shown as
Transition along Cantrell Road would be eliminated.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The areas under consideration may be combined into four groups:
The first group (areas #1, - #16.) starts at the Cantrell Road / Rummel Road
intersection and continues east to the Cantrell / Candlewood Drive intersection
and covers 75.5 + acres of land. The north side of Cantrell Road west of the
Taylor Loop intersection (areas #1, - #4.) is zoned Planned Development -Office,
Planned Office Development, and Planned Development -Commercial for an
assortment of offices and businesses while most of the residential land, both
developed and non-developed land, is zoned R-2 Single Family. Areas #6 and
#7 located on Taylor Loop Road south of the intersection with Cantrell is zoned
PDO and Planned Commercial Development for small business located in
houses, while the land zoned R-2 is used as residences. Area #8 is zoned R-2
for residences. Area #9, located on the east side of Jerry Drive is zone PCD and
POD for small business. Area #10 contains a PCD for a restaurant while area
#11 is vacant land zoned R-2. Area #12 on Pine Mountain Road is land zoned
R-2 for houses. Area #13, covering the houses located on Westbury Drive is
zoned R-2. Area #14 is vacant land zoned R-2 next to Ison Creek. Area #15 is
property located between Ison Creek and Cantrell Road zoned R-2 for houses
built on large lots. Area #16, zoned R-2 is composed of houses built on large
lots.
The first group of changes is adjacent to two commercial nodes. The first
commercial node is located at the intersection of Cantrell Road and the east leg
of Taylor Loop Road and has a variety of zoning classifications surrounding it. In
addition to the R-2 Single Family zoning, there is also the following non-
residential zoning: an area zoned PD -C (area # 10) for a business located at
Cantrell Road and Pinnacle Valley Road, C-3 General Commercial -for a
shopping center north of the Cantrell and Taylor Loop intersection (between
areas #5 and #10) and PDC for a small business to the east (area #10), while the
south side of Cantrell Road is zoned PCD and PDO for banks and businesses
east of the intersection while to the west of the intersection is a POD for a bank
and a PCD for a vacant grocery store (between areas #3 and #6). The second
commercial node is located at Cantrell Road and Candlewood Drive consists of a
shopping center anchored by a grocery store zoned C-3 and includes some out
parcels (situated on the east side of area #16). The opposite side of Cantrell
Road has two properties zoned PDC for small businesses, a large lot zoned C-3
for a mini -storage facility, and a lot zoned PCD for a small shopping center (east
of areas #14 and #15).
A second group (area #17) is actually a single isolated area of 24.6 + acres of
vacant land located east of Pinnacle Valley Road and north of the end of Pine
Mountain Drive and is zoned MF -12 Multi -family.
The third group (areas #18 - #26) is centered on the intersection of Cantrell and
Sam Peck Road. This group covers 54.6 + acres of land on the north and south
side of Cantrell Road from Crockett Street to the west boundary of the Pleasant
Ridge Subdivision and is zoned POD, PDO, 0-2, 0-3, MF -12, and R-2. The
POD, PDO, 0-2 Office and Institutional, and 0-3 General Office zoned areas
consists of offices and vacant land. The land zoned MF -12 is occupied by a
church. Most of the R-2 zoned area consists of large tracts of vacant land with a
few houses built on large lots. The third group also includes 11.2 + acres of
vacant land zoned R-2 located on Cantrell Road across from the Pleasant Ridge
apartments.
The fourth group (areas #27 - #29) is located at Southridge Drive and Pleasant
Ridge Road. Land there is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial and PCD for
businesses at the intersections. There is also land zoned C-2 Shopping Center,
POD, and PCD occupied by a shopping center and office buildings, with some
vacant land available to accommodate future development. The mostly vacant
land southeast of the corner of Pleasant Ridge and Fairview Roads (north of
Summit Road) is zoned R-2. 12.66 + acres of this area are covered by the
proposed changes.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On June 4, 2002 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office at
17005 Cantrell Road to reflect existing conditions about 1 mile west of the study
area.
On July 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Park/Open Space at
Panky Park located at Russ and Piggee Streets near the center of the study area
to recognize the park.
On October 5, 1999 a change was made from Office to Mixed Office Commercial
at Ranch Drive and Cantrell Road about 1 mile west of the study area to
accommodate proposed development.
On April 20, 1999 multiple changes were made from Single Family and Low
Density Residential to Park/Open Space, Multi -family, Office and Commercial at
Cantrell and Black Roads near the center of the study area to accommodate
proposed development.
The study area consists of three nodes shown as Commercial along Cantrell
Road located at the intersections of Cantrell Road with Taylor Loop Road,
Candlewood Drive, and Southridge Drive/Pleasant Ridge Road. Two areas are
shown as Multi -family located on Pleasant Ridge Road and west of Sam Peck
Road. Two small areas of Low Density Residential are shown on the south side
of Cantrell Road at the southeast corners of Russ and Black Streets. An isolated
area east of Pinnacle Valley Road north of the end of Pine Mountain Drive is
shown as Low Density Residential. Suburban Office is shown along Summit
Road southeast of the Rodney Parham/Cantrell intersection. Pankey is shown
primarily as Single Family on the Plan and the majority of the remainder of
properly fronting onto Cantrell is shown as Transition. The majority of the land
not shown as Transition on the Future Land Use plan in the surrounding areas is
shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is
built to a 5 -lane width with curb and gutter installed. Pinnacle Valley and Taylor
Loop Roads are shown on the Master Street Plan as Minor Arterials and built as
rural two-lane roads. Any developments on Pinnacle Valley and Taylor Loop
Roads would require half street improvements to improve these routes to Master
Street Plan standards. Southridge Drive, Pleasant Ridge Road, Sam Peck Road,
and Black Street are all shown on the Master Street Plan as Collector Streets.
Southridge Drive and Pleasant Ridge Road are built to the Master Street Plan
standards for Collector Streets. Sam Peck Road, and Black Street both require
improvements to conform to the Master Street Plan. The only Bikeway shown in
the study area is a Class III bikeway on Pinnacle Valley Road from State
Highway 300 to Cantrell Road. Any development on Pinnacle Valley Road would
need to accommodate the Class III bikeway.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows three parks
within the study area. River Mountain Park is located between Rivercrest and
Southridge Drive in the valley. River Mountain Park is shown as an undeveloped
Large Urban Park of 378.0 + acres of natural open space intended to serve a
large area of the city. Large Urban Parks generally consist of large open natural
spaces with minimal development in environmentally sensitive areas. Pankey
Park located at Russ and Piggee Streets is shown as a Neighborhood Park
consisting of 5.0+ acres developed to sere the needs of the surrounding
neighborhood. Neighborhood Parks usually consist of a large open area and
provide playground facilities. Taylor Loop Park is shown as an Undeveloped
Community Park of 35.0+ acres intended to sere the needs of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Community Parks provide a mixture of active and passive
recreational facilities. River Mountain Park and Taylor Loop Park would require
development to conform to their respective classifications within the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. Pankey Park does not require further development in
order to conform to the plan.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
These amendments are located in an area covered by the River Mountain
Neighborhood Action plan. This plan is currently under revision. These
amendments are the result of the recommended changes to that plan.
ANALYSIS:
The change for area #14, Transition to Park/Open Space, recognizes the existing
floodway of Ison Creek, would enhance the protection of the natural environment
of the area, and expand the buffer between the houses located on Westbury
Drive and property fronting Cantrell Road.
The change located on the north side of Cantrell just west of the Taylor Loop
intersection, area #5 Transition to Commercial, would recognize an existing PCD
(Walgreen's) and C-3 zoning located in the commercial node at Cantrell and
Taylor Loop.
Two changes are intended to reduce the density allowable for residential
development. The first area, #17, located north of the end of Pine Mountain
Road calling for a change from Low Density Residential to Single Family to
recognize a five -acre single family development. This would recognize existing
zoning and use. The next area #26, located on Cantrell Road across the street
from the Pleasant Ridge apartments, would result in a change from Muiti-family
to Single Family to recognize existing R-2 zoning. The land had been zoned
PRD but was revoked on July 7, 1998 due to the expiration of the time extension
for the development of the property.
The two changes for Transition to Low Density Residential, changes #4 and #18,
will expand the amount of land available for residential development at increased
density. Change #4, located on the north side of Cantrell at Taylor Loop, would
create a buffer between the area to the north shown as Single Family, and the
commercial node located at the intersection. Change # 18, located on the south
side of Cantrell along Crockett Street, will allow for more residential development
to take place at higher densities and increase the opportunity for a greater variety
of housing types in the neighborhood.
Area #21, located on the north side of Cantrell at Sam Peck, and area #25,
located on the south side of Cantrell west of the Pleasant Ridge apartments,
would recognize the churches at those locations by changing the land use
categories for these sites from Transition to Public Institutional. These changes
would recognize existing use and zoning.
The changes of Transition to Office for areas #20, #23, #27, and #28, would
recognize existing zonings and land uses. About half of the land area in area
#20, located next to the Grace Community Church, is already built out with an
office development. The change located in area #23 on the south side of
Cantrell east of Sam Peck, would recognize existing uses and zoning at this
location. Areas #27 and #28, located at the intersection of Cantrell and
Southridge Drive, is also largely built out with office developments. The change
in this area would recognize new developments at this location. The change
would also recognize existing use and zoning.
All of the land use changes of Transition to Single Family located in study areas
#2, #8, #13, and #24, recognize existing land uses and expand areas shown as
Single Family in platted subdivisions. Westchester Court is part of a platted
subdivision and is shown as area #2. These homes are fairly new, back up to
Cantrell Road, and there is no room for additional development along Cantrell to
the rear of these houses. This would recognize existing use and zoning. The
change for area #8 on Jerry Drive is inside a platted subdivision. This change
would recognize the existing pattern of residential lots that front Jerry Drive and
abuts the non-residential development on Cantrell Road. This would recognize
existing use and zoning. Westbury and Westchase Drive are part of a platted
subdivision and are shown as area #13 and would recognize existing
development patterns and zoning. The change to Single Family located at area
#24, south of Cantrell Road north of Piedmont Lane is platted property in a
subdivision and is accessed from Piedmont Lane and is physically separated
from Cantrell Road by the property to the north. This would recognize existing
use and zoning.
The changes of Transition to Single Family for areas #11 and #12 expand areas
shown as Single Family but contain large tracts of vacant land. The change at
area #11 covers a parcel of land that is physically separated from Pinnacle Valley
Road by Ison Creek and Cantrell Road from the developed properties to the
south. The change for area #12 would both recognize existing single family
development on Pine Mountain Road and buffer the existing development from
non-residential uses by expanding the area shown as Single Family. This would
recognize existing use and zoning for homes fronting on Pine Mountain Drive.
The changes located at areas #1 and #9 would result in a land use changes from
Transition to Suburban Office. The change at area #1 would recognize existing
conditions along the north side of Cantrell Road for most of the distance between
Rummel Road and the commercial node at the Taylor Loop intersection where
the property fronts Cantrell Road and further residential development is unlikely
to take place. The change at area #9 would recognize existing conditions
located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Cantrell Road and Jerry
Drive where new residential uses are unlikely to develop in the future.
The changes located at areas #3, #6, #7, #10, #15, #16, #19, and #22, would
result in a land use change from Transition to Suburban Office. The change for
area #3 covers property fronting Cantrell Road west of the Harvest Foods
location. This change would provide a buffer for Single Family development on
Westchester Court from the non-residential development to the northeast. The
change at area #6 on the west side of Taylor Loop Road would recognize
existing conditions. Half of the lots are zoned for non-residential uses, and the
other half are zoned R-2 Single Family. The change at area #7 on the east side
of Taylor Loop Road would provide for land for non-residential development to
take place in an area where the property fronts Taylor Loop Road and buffer the
residential uses to the east from the intense uses to the west. The change at
area #10 on the north side of Cantrell Road at the intersection of Jerry Drive
would recognize an existing business located on land that is part of the
Cantrell/Taylor Loop commercial node and is unlikely to be developed for
residential uses. Area #15 is a small piece of land located between Cantrell
Road and Ison Creek that fronts Cantrell Road is unlikely to be further developed
for residential uses in the future. The change at area #16 includes property that
fronts Cantrell Road between the Kroger development and Pine Mountain Drive.
The change for area #19 located along the south side of Cantrell from Crockett
Street to Sam Peck Road would allow the future development of this property to
a suburban office type of development on the west side of Sam Peck Road from
the Office development located across the street in the Grace Community
Church Addition. The change for area #22 on the north side of Cantrell east of
Sam Peck would expand the existing area fronting Cantrell Road at the Grace
Community Church available for non-residential. The change would reduce land
available for residential uses in the vicinity of the Cantrell/Sam Peck intersection.
All of the areas shown as Transition are characterized by low densities of
development with the majority of the land in these areas zoned either for office
uses through the Planned Zoning Development process or R-2. In the
amendment areas under review, the few areas zoned for commercial uses are
small businesses. The two areas zoned for multi -family uses consist of a church
at one location and vacant land at the other locations. The non-residential uses
were zoned using the Planned Zoning Development process, a requirement for
non-residential uses located in areas shown as Transition. Most of the PZD
zoned areas are uses compatible with the Suburban Office category. These
changes are intended to reflect existing conditions within the study area. Any
development within these areas would need to conform to the design standards
of the Highway 10 DOD. For most of the area, the category of Suburban Office
would protect the scenic value of the Highway 10 DOD through the requirement
of PZD's. The proposed changes to Low Density Residential, Single Family,
Park/Open Space and Public Institutional reflect existing conditions and provide
for less intense development in the Highway 10 corridor.
Area # 29 has been removed from the amendment. After checking the survey for
the PCD to the northeast, it was discovered that the amendment area was non-
existent. The original intent of the change was to amend the classification on
land south of the PCD to remove future Commercial along Fairview Road. The
PCD line is actually on the southern border of the amendment area, therefore the
amendment in this area is not necessary.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Pleasant Valley
Property Owners Association, River Valley Property Owners Association, Pankey
Community Improvement Association, Piedmont Neighborhood Association,
Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association, Secluded Hills Property Owners
Association, Walton Heights-Candlewood Neighborhood Association, Westbury
Neighborhood Association, and Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners
Association. Staff has received 34 comments from area residents. 14 are in
support, 4 are opposed to the change and 16 were neutral. Pleasant Forest
Neighborhood Association, which is south of areas #18 - #29, supports the
changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes some of the changes are appropriate and some are not.
Staff recommends the changes for areas #1, #2, #5, #8, #9, #11, #12, #13, #14,
#17, #18, #20, #21, #23, #24, #25, #27, #28, and #29. These changes would
recognize existing conditions and encourage new non-residential developments
to conform to the requirements of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Staff does not recommend the changes for areas #3, #4, #6, #7, #10, #15, #16,
#19, #22, and #26. Although the category of Suburban Office would allow non-
residential development in conformance to the requirements of the Highway 10
Design Overlay District, the possibility of future residential developments at
increased densities would be eliminated. The land shown as Transition in area
#4 already allows the property to be developed for residential uses at greater
densities as long as the development either conforms to the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District or is developed through the PZD process. The change to
Commercial for area #5 would allow non-residential development to take place
without the requirement for a PZD intended to protect the integrity of the Highway
10 Design Overlay District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: January 9, 2003
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission.
Planning Commission Chair Obray Nunnley recommended that the presentation
and discussion of this item be divided to give the Planning Commission the
opportunity to discuss the amendments separately so a separate vote could be
taken for each of the areas. It was agreed that the proposed changes to the
Future Land Use Plan supported by city staff and property owners would be
grouped together for one vote, while the controversial proposals would be voted
on separately.
Before proceeding further with the discussion, Commissioner Nunnley requested
that the individuals opposed to changes introduce themselves to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Tom Cole presented himself in opposition to the changes
recommended for Areas 4, 5, and 10. Mr. Keith Wingfield introduced himself in
opposition to the proposed changes for Areas 11, and 12. Mr. Harrigan
Wordsmith introduced himself to address the recommended change for Area 23.
Mr. Tom Cole, representing David J. Jones & Co., spoke in opposition to the
changes recommended for Areas 4, 5, and 10. Mr. Cole stated that he learned
about the proposed Land Use Plan amendment from Commissioner Rector. Mr.
Cole also found out about the review of the River Mountain Neighborhood Action
Plan from Commissioner Rector. Mr. Cole stated that property owners were not
notified of the plan review or the proposed plan amendments. Mr. Cole stated
that property owners as well as residents were stakeholders in the areas being
discussed for this item. Mr. Jim Lawson, Secretary to the Planning Commission,
stated that not everyone who was invited to participate in the review process
attended the meetings. Brian Minyard, City Staff, stated that staff relies on the
ownership records at the Pulaski County Tax Assessors Office to obtain the
names and addresses of property owners for notification purposes.
Commissioner Rector stated that he would recuse on Areas 4 and 5.
Commissioner Norm Floyd asked Mr. Cole if there was a better way to research
property ownership. Mr. Cole stated extra steps should be taken to notify
property owners without specifying what those steps were.
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Cole if he owned property in the areas under
discussion. Mr. Cole stated that he had an interest in some property located in
the areas under discussion.
Commissioner Bob Lowry asked if the Board of Directors determines the process
for notifying property owners. Stephen Giles, City Attorneys Office, stated that
the Board of Directors has the authority to make changes to the notification
process.
A motion was made to approve the changes as recommended by staff for Areas
1-9, 13, 15-22, 24-27, and 29. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0
noes, and 1 absent. Commissioner Rector recused on Areas 4 and 5.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation of the proposed change for
Area 10.
Commissioner Judith Faust stated that the staff report recommended against the
proposed change from Transition to Suburban Office. A motion was made to
deny the change as recommended by staff for Area 10. The motion passed with
a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation of the proposed change for
Area 11.
Planning Commission Chair, Obray Nunnley asked if there should be a buffer
between an area shown as Single Family and areas designated for non-
residential uses. Brian Minyard, City Staff, stated that in this case the residential
area would be accessed without driving through a non-residential area.
Mr. Keith Wingfield, representing the property owners in Areas 11 and 12, spoke
in opposition to the recommended changes. Mr. Wingfield stated that the current
Transition future land use category shown provides for an orderly change
between residential and non-residential uses. Mr. Wingfield was opposed to
designating areas as Single Family next to non-residential areas and added that
Single Family developments would not take place next to those areas. The
Transition category would allow higher density residential uses to develop and
serve as a buffer between Single Family and non-residential uses.
Commissioner Faust asked what was located on the side of the road opposite
from Area 11. Mr. Wingfield stated a house.
Commissioner Floyd asked if Areas 11 and 12 should remain classified as
Transition on the Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Wingfield replied in the affirmative
and then asked if a Planned Zoning Development was always required in an area
shown as transition. Mr. Lawson stated that a Planned Zoning District was
required unless an application conforms to Design Overlay Standards. In this
case, the areas shown as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan coincide with
the area covered by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
A motion was made to deny the change as recommended by staff for Area 11.
The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Mr. Mr. Wingfield spoke in opposition to the proposed change inland use from
Transition to Single Family in Area 12 along Pinnacle Valley Road. Mr. Wingfield
stated that the property in Area 12 was near a commercial node and that the
owners wanted the property to remain classified as Transition.
Planning Commission Chair, Obray Nunnley asked staff if Pinnacle Valley Road
was a minor arterial. Mike Hood, City Staff, stated that not only was Pinnacle
Valley Road classified as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan, but that the
Public Works Department wanted to widen the road and reduce the number of
curves.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
12. The motion failed with a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes, and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation on Area 14. Mr. Minyard
stated that the property in this area was isolated from neighboring properties.
Planning Commission Chair, Obray Nunnley noted that the opposition to the
proposed change to Park/Open Space in Area 14 was not present.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
14. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation on Area 23. Mr. Minyard
stated that the existing building on this property had an existing office
component.
Commissioner Norm Floyd asked why the land use category couldn't be changed
to Mixed Office Commercial instead of Suburban Office since the property in
question was zoned as a Planned Office Development. Brian Minyard, City Staff,
stated that this recommendation was based on suggestions made by the Review
Steering Committee for the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.
Mr. Harrigan Wortsmith spoke in opposition to the change proposed for Area 23
and stated that the Transition Future Land Use category worked well for this
property.
Commissioner Bill Rector stated that the change to Suburban Office would
merely eliminate the potential for residential uses on the property. Jim Lawson,
City Staff, stated that the Suburban Office category would limit future office
development to one-story office buildings.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
23. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation on Area 28. Mr. Minyard
stated a homeowner located in that area opposed the recommended change for
Area 28.
Planning Commission Chair, Obray Nunnley noted that the opposition to the
proposed change to Office in Area 28 was not present.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
28. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Vote summary:
A motion was made to accept the recommendations by staff for Areas 1-9, 13,
15-22, 24-27, and 29. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1
absent. Commissioner Rector recused on areas 4 and 5. This vote resulted in a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to change the Land Use
categories where Staff recommended approval and deny the change where Staff
recommended denial for Areas 1-9, 13, 15-22, 24-27, and 29. For the
description and location of those changes see the Proposal / Request section of
the Staff Report. For the list of recommendations see the Staff Recommendation
section of the Staff Report.
A motion was made to deny the change as recommended by staff for Area 10.
The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue for
Area 10 was a change from Transition to Suburban Office, on the north side of
Cantrell west of Pinnacle Valley Road, includes property developed with a
restaurant and houses. This vote resulted in a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to preserve Area 10 as Transition on the Future Land Use
Plan.
A motion was made to deny the change as recommended by staff for Area 11.
The motion passed with a vote of 10 yes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue for
Area 11 was a change from Transition to Single Family, on the west side of
Pinnacle Valley Road north of Cantrell, which is comprised of large lot residential
and vacant land. This vote resulted in a recommendation from the Planning
Commission to preserve Area 11 as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
12. The motion failed with a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes, and 1 absent. The issue for
Area 12 was a change from Transition to Single Family, along Pine Mountain
Road, comprised of the houses located on Pine Mountain Road and vacant land
located on the east side of Pinnacle Valley Road. This vote resulted in a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to preserve Area 12 as
Transition on the Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
14. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue
for Area 14 was a change from Transition to Park/Open Space, on Cantrell at
Ison Creek, which contains vacant land in the floodway of Ison Creek. This vote
resulted in a recommendation from the Planning Commission to change Area 14
to Park/Open Space on the Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
23. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue
for Area 23 was a change from Transition to Office, on the south side of Cantrell
east of Sam Peck, containing land developed for office uses. This vote resulted
in a recommendation from the Planning Commission to change Area 23 to Office
on the Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
28. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue
for Area 28 was a change from Transition to Office, on the north side of Cantrell
east of Southridge Drive, consisting of land occupied by office uses. This vote
resulted in a recommendation from the Planning Commission to change Area 28
to Office on the Future Land Use Plan.
January 9, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-01
Commercial for area #5 would allow non-residential development to take place
without the requirement for a PZD intended to protect the integrity of the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 9, 2003)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission.
Planning Commission Chair Obray Nunnley recommended that the presentation
and discussion of this item be divided to give the Planning Commission the
opportunity to discuss the amendments separately so a separate vote could be
taken for each of the areas. It was agreed that the proposed changes to the
Future Land Use Plan supported by city staff and property owners would be
grouped together for one vote, while the controversial proposals would be voted
on separately.
Before proceeding further with the discussion, Commissioner Nunnley requested
that the individuals opposed to changes introduce themselves to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Tom Cole presented himself in opposition to the changes
recommended for Areas 4, 5, and 10. Mr, Keith Wingfield introduced himself in
opposition to the proposed changes for Areas 11, and 12. Mr. Harrigan
Wordsmith introduced himself to address the recommended change for Area 23.
Mr. Tom Cole, representing David J. Jones & Co., spoke in opposition to the
changes recommended for Areas 4, 5, and 10. Mr. Cole stated that he learned
about the proposed Land Use Plan amendment from Commissioner Rector. Mr.
Cole also found out about the review of the River Mountain Neighborhood Action
Plan from Commissioner Rector. Mr. Cole stated that property owners were not
notified of the plan review or the proposed plan amendments. Mr. Cole stated
that property owners as well as residents were stakeholders in the areas being
discussed for this item. Mr. Jim Lawson, Secretary to the Planning Commission,
stated that not everyone who was invited to participate in the review process
attended the meetings. Brian Minyard, City Staff, stated that staff relies on the
ownership records at the Pulaski County Tax Assessors Office to obtain the
names and addresses of property owners for notification purposes.
Commissioner Rector stated that he would recuse on Areas 4 and 5.
Commissioner Norm Floyd asked Mr. Cole if there was a better way to research
property ownership. Mr. Cole stated extra steps should be taken to notify
property owners without specifying what those steps were.
11
January 9, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-01
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Cole if he owned property in the areas under
discussion. Mr. Cole stated that he had an interest in some property located in
the areas under discussion.
Commissioner Bob Lowry asked if the Board of Directors determines the process
for notifying property owners. Stephen Giles, City Attorneys Office, stated that
the Board of Directors has the authority to make changes to the notification
process.
A motion was made to approve the changes as recommended by staff for Areas
1-9, 13, 15-22, 24-27, and 29. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0
noes, and 1 absen ommissioner Rector recused on Areas 4 and 5.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation of the proposed change for
Area 10.
Commissioner Judith Faust stated that the staff report recommended against the
proposed change from Transition to Suburban Office. A motion was made to
deny the change as recommended by staff for Area 10. The motion passed with
a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation of the proposed change for
Area 11.
Planning Commission Chair, Obray Nunnley asked if there should be a buffer
between an area shown as Single Family and areas designated for non-
residential uses. Brian Minyard, City Staff, stated that in this case the residential
area would be accessed without driving through a non-residential area.
Mr. Keith Wingfield, representing the property owners in Areas 11 and 12; spoke
in opposition to the recommended changes. Mr. Wingfield stated that the
current Transition future land use category shown provides for an orderly change
between residential and non-residential uses. Mr. Wingfield was opposed to
designating areas as Single Family next to non-residential areas and added that
Single Family developments would not take place next to those areas. The
Transition category would allow higher density residential uses to develop and
serve as a buffer between Single Family and non-residential uses.
Commissioner Faust asked what was located on the side of the road opposite
from Area 11. Mr. Wingfield stated a house.
Commissioner Floyd asked if Areas 11 and 12 should remain classified as
Transition on the Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Wingfield replied in the affirmative
and then asked if a Planned Zoning Development was always required in an
12
January 9, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-01
area shown as transition. Mr. Lawson stated that a Planned Zoning District was
required unless an application conforms to Design Overlay Standards. In this
case, the areas shown as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan coincide with
the area covered by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
A motion was made to deny the change as recommended by staff for Area 11.
The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Mr. Mr. Wingfield spoke in opposition to the proposed change in land use from
Transition to Single Family in Area 12 along Pinnacle Valley Road. Mr. Wingfield
stated that the property in Area 12 was near a commercial node and that the
owners wanted the property to remain classified as Transition.
Planning Commission Chair, Obray Nunnley asked staff if Pinnacle Valley Road
was a minor arterial. Mike Hood, City Staff, stated that not only was Pinnacle
Valley Road classified as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan, but that the
Public Works Department wanted to widen the road and reduce the number of
curves.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
12. The motion failed with a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes, and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation on Area 14. Mr. Minyard
stated that the property in this area was isolated from neighboring properties.
Planning Commission Chair, Obray Nunnley noted that the opposition to the
proposed change to Park/Open Space in Area 14 was not present.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
14. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation on Area 23. Mr. Minyard
stated that the existing building on this property had an existing office
component.
Commissioner Norm Floyd asked why the land use category couldn't be changed
to Mixed Office Commercial instead of Suburban Office since the property in
question was zoned as a Planned Office Development. Brian Minyard, City
Staff, stated that this recommendation was based on suggestions made by the
Review Steering Committee for the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.
Mr. Harrigan Wortsmith spoke in opposition to the change proposed for Area 23
and stated that the Transition Future Land Use category worked well for this
property.
13
January 9, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-01
Commissioner Bill Rector stated that the change to Suburban Office would
merely eliminate the potential for residential uses on the property. Jim Lawson,
City Staff, stated that the Suburban Office category would limit future office
development to one-story office buildings.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
23. The motion -passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation on Area 28. Mr. Minyard
stated a homeowner located in that area opposed the recommended change for
Area 28.
Planning Commission Chair, Obray Nunnley noted that the opposition to the
proposed change to Office in Area 28 was not present.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
28. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
Vote Summar
A motion was made to accept the recommendations by staff for Areas 1-9, 13,
15-22, 24-27, and 29. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1
absent. Commissioner Rector recused on areas 4 and 5. This vote resulted in a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to change the Land Use
categories where Staff recommended approval and deny the change where Staff
recommended denial for Areas 1-9, 13, 15-22, 24-27, and 29. For the
description and location of those changes see the Proposal / Request section of
the Staff Report. For the list of recommendations see the Staff
Recommendation section of the Staff Report.
A motion was made to deny the change as recommended by staff for Area 10.
The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue for
Area 10 was a change from Transition to Suburban Office, on the north side of
Cantrell west of Pinnacle Valley Road, includes property developed with a
restaurant and houses. This vote resulted in a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to preserve Area 10 as Transition on the Future Land Use
Plan.
A motion was made to deny the change as recommended by staff for Area 11.
The motion passed with a vote of 10 yes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue for
Area 11 was a change from Transition to Single Family, on the west side of
14
January 9, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-01
Pinnacle Valley Road north of Cantrell, which is comprised of large lot residential
and vacant land. This vote resulted in a recommendation from the Planning
Commission to preserve Area 11 as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
12. The motion failed with a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes, and 1 absent. The issue for
Area 12 was a change from Transition to Single Family, along Pine Mountain
Road, comprised of the houses located on Pine Mountain Road and vacant land
located on the east side of Pinnacle Valley Road. This vote resulted in a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to preserve Area 12 as
Transition on the Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
14. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue
for Area 14 was a change from Transition to Park/Open Space, on Cantrell at
Ison Creek, which contains vacant land in the floodway of Ison Creek. This vote
resulted in a recommendation from the Planning Commission to change Area 14
to Park/Open Space on the Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
23. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue
for Area 23 was a change from Transition to Office, on the south side of Cantrell
east of Sam Peck, containing land developed for office uses. This vote resulted
in a recommendation from the Planning Commission to change Area 23 to Office
on the Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the change as recommended by staff for Area
28. The motion passed with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. The issue
for Area 28 was a change from Transition to Office, on the north side of Cantrell
east of Southridge Drive, consisting of land occupied by office uses. This vote
resulted in a recommendation from the Planning Commission to change Area 28
to Office on the Future Land Use Plan.
15
HPDR
R2
a
TtoSO R?
Im
�.
ift
FR ,?
PR
j iglu
1
I�iiIVI���IP p i �
Area. Zoning
Case # LU 03-01-01 N
Cantrell Road
T to SO, T to SF, T to PI, T to O
MF to SF, C to SO
z Cr: 42.05
TRS: T2NR13WI8 o zoo aoo Feet
PD: ]
vicin ry Map Ward: 5 Item # 14
Land Use
Case # LU 03 Ol-Ol N
Cantrell Road
T to SO, T to SF, LDRto SF
T to PKlOS
CT: 42.05
'IRS: T2NR13WI8
0 zoo aoo Fac
PD: I
Vicinity M ward: 5 Item # 14
F
F
PK/OS
SF
Land Use
MF to
MFme
T to Ff
MF
"4 Case # LU 03-Ol-Ol N
Cantrell Road
T to SO, T to SF, T to PI
T to LDR, W to SF
Cr. 42.05
TRS: 'I2NR13W18 0 200 400 Feet
PD 1
vicinity neap Ward: 5 Item # 14
A SF
SF
4 a ::
PK/OS
fo SO SF �� S
Z
1*4
12RF-PK/OS
MF
Land Use
m� , AN
i
A.
'a.
PI
Case # LU 03-01-01 N
Cantrell Road
� T to SO, T to SF, T to PI, T to O
MF to SF, C to SO
_ CT: 42.05
TRS: T2NR13W18 0 200 400 Feet
1
PD: 1
Vicinity Map Ward: 5 Item # 14
O
�J p,
SF
RSP
a MF
SF
MF o
SF4��
DRi
F
ASF .
SF • t►HOR
•
a
SF
2
_SF
A SF _
Land Use
m� , AN
i
A.
'a.
PI
Case # LU 03-01-01 N
Cantrell Road
� T to SO, T to SF, T to PI, T to O
MF to SF, C to SO
_ CT: 42.05
TRS: T2NR13W18 0 200 400 Feet
1
PD: 1
Vicinity Map Ward: 5 Item # 14