Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutesDecember 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: LU03-20-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Pinnacle Planning District Location: Both sides of Chenal Parkway north of Cantrell Rd. Request: Area 1: Single Family to Commercial; Area 2: Single Family to Office; Area 3 Office and Single Family to Commercial; Area 4: Single Family and Office to Multifamily; Area 7: Office to Multifamily; Area 5: Office & Multifamily to Commercial; and Area 6: Single Family & Multifamily to Office. Source: Larkin Gieringer, White - Daters & Associates PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family, Multifamily, and Office to Multifamily, Office, and Commercial. The Multifamily category accommodates residential development of ten (10) to thirty-six (36) dwelling units per acre. The Office category represents services provided directly to consumers (e.g., legal, financial, medical) as well as general offices, which support more basic economic activities. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant wishes to develop the property for multifamily, office and commercial uses. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include an area shown as Office along Chenal Parkway, adding it to Area 3 to provide street frontage to the amendment area for a change to Commercial. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: Area 1 (SF to C): is zoned R-2 Single Family and consists of vacant land totaling about 3.23 acres t in size. Area 2 (SF to O): is zoned R-2 and consists of vacant land totaling about 7.23 acres t in size. Area 3 (O & SF to C): the applicant's property is zoned R-2 and 0-3 General Office and consists of about 23.16 acres t of vacant land. December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-20-01 Area 4 (SF & O to MF): is vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and consists of vacant land totaling about 84.17 acres t in size. Area 5 (O & MF to C): is zoned 0-2 Office and Institutional and MF -18 and consists of vacant land totaling 10.2 acres t in size. Area 6 (SF & MF to O): is zoned MF -18 Multifamily and consists of vacant land zoned MF -18 totaling 9.04 acres t in size. The south side of Cantrell Road proceeding from east to west is vacant land zoned R-2 and C-3 at Chenal, OS Open Space, R-2 and C-1 for a business located at Highway 300. The north side of Cantrell Road proceeding from east to west is land zoned R-2 for houses built on large lots, R-2 for a power substation east of Chenal Parkway, vacant C-3 at the northeast corner of Chenal, Planned Commercial - Development for a gas station / convenience store at the northwest corner of Chenal, C-3, 0-2, and R-2 at Highway 300. The east side of Chenal Parkway proceeding from Cantrell Road to Highway 300 is vacant land zoned C-3 at Cantrell, a mini -warehouse zoned C-3 north of Cantrell, vacant land zoned 0-2, and vacant land zoned R-2 at Highway 300. The west side of Chenal Parkway proceeding from Cantrell Road to Highway 300 is zoned Planned Commercial Development for the gas station, vacant land zoned C-3 and MF -18, and vacant R-2 land at Highway 300. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On January 2, 2002 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office, Commercial, and Park / Open Space on the east side of Chenal Parkway on the south side of Cantrell Road across the street to the south of the study area to accommodate proposed development. On March 6, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Commercial in the 19,900 block of Cantrell Road across the street southwest of the study area to accommodate proposed development. On June 20, 2000 a change was made from Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial in the 17,800 - 17,900 block of Cantrell Road about 1 mile east of the study area to accommodate proposed development. On November 16, 1999 a change was made from Single Family to Office at 6400 Patrick Country Road about 1 mile east of the study area to accommodate proposed development. On October 5, 1999 a change was made from Office to Mixed Office Commercial at the northeast corner of Patrick Country Road and Cantrell Road about 1 mile east of the study area to accommodate proposed development. Areas 1 and 2 are shown as Single Family, Areas 3 and 4 are shown as Single Family with Office fronting Chenal Parkway, Area 6 is shown as Office along Cantrell Road and Multifamily along Chenal Parkway, and Area 6 is shown as Single Family and Multifamily with both categories fronting Chenal Parkway and only Single Family shown along Highway 300. 2 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-20-01 The south side of Cantrell Road proceeding from east to west is shown as Single Family, Commercial and Park / Open Space at Chenal, more Single Family west of Chenal, Pubic Institutional, and Neighborhood Commercial at Highway 300. The North side of Cantrell Road proceeding from east to west is shown as Single Family, Park / Open Space and Commercial at Chenal, Office, and Public Institutional at the northeast corner of Cantrell and Highway 300. The east side of Chenal Parkway proceeding from Cantrell Road to Highway 300 is shown as Park / Open Space and Commercial at Cantrell, Office, Multifamily, and Office at Highway 300. The west side of Chenal Parkway proceeding from Cantrell Road to Highway 300 is shown as Park / Open Space and Commercial at Cantrell, Multifamily, Single Family, and Office at Highway 300. The property west of Area 1 and south of Areas 2 and 3 is the subject of another item on this agenda for a change from Single Family to Commercial. MASTER STREET PLAN: Cantrell Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is built as a four -lane highway with an additional center turn lane. A Class II Bikeway is shown along Cantrell Road from Ferndale Cutoff Road to Chenonceau Boulevard. A Class II Bikeway does not require any additional paving or Right-of-way. Chenal Parkway is shown as a Minor Arterial from Cantrell Road to State Highway 300 and is built as a rural two-lane road. A Class I Bikeway is shown for Chenal Parkway from Cantrell Road to Highway 300. A Class I Bikeway requires an additional 10 feet of Right-of-way along the roadway and 9 feet of additional paving, with 4 feet provided for pedestrians. The exact route and location of the bikeways will need to be determined to establish the nature of the applicant's responsibility for half street improvements. Cantrell Road is a State Highway, little or no direct access should be permitted to this Principal Arterial. If a curb must be done along a state highway, it would need to be done in a manner that would protect the flow of traffic. Development of the applicant's property would need to be done in a manner that would not disrupt the flow of traffic on the state highway. Shared drives to limit curb cuts along Cantrell are an option to provide access to the applicant's property and to minimize interruptions to traffic flow. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the study area is located inside a Service Deficit Area. Since adequate Park and Open Space amenities are needed in the area, such facilities will need to be developed 3 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-20-01 within an eight -block walking distance. Development of Park and Open Space facilities will need to be done to conform to the Plan's Eight -Block strategy of providing park facilities within eight -blocks of all residents of the City of Little Rock. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: Area 1 (SF to C): This portion of the applicant's property fronts a State Highway. At this time the primary access to this property is from Cantrell Road (State Highway 10) and would by necessity require a curb cut to provide access to the property, and possibly to also provide access to the properties located in Areas 2 - 4. For further analysis see paragraphs regarding the net loses and net gains concerning this area. Area 2 (SF to O): This portion of the applicant's property is a relatively isolated piece of land, which would require some sort of access to the street network. Although a small portion of this property would border Single Family uses to the east, a change to Office would provide a transition between uses fronting Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway from any type of residential uses to the north and east. This change would also add about 7.23 + acres of land shown as Office, which could help offset any acreage lost for Office uses in Areas 3, 4 and 5. For further analysis see paragraphs regarding the net loses and net gains concerning this area. Area 3 (O & SF to C): This expanded area includes property fronting Chenal Parkway containing an existing Commercial use. By itself the applicant's property is an isolated area that does not have street frontage. The expansion of this area both recognizes an existing use and would provide more undeveloped land with frontage along Chenal Parkway. The frontage along Chenal Parkway could also be used to provide alternative access to any development in Area 2. For further analysis see paragraphs regarding the net loses and net gains concerning this area. Area 4 (SF & O to MF): This amendment area is the largest of the six, with most of the acreage shown as Single Family isolated from street frontage with a small 4 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont FILE NO.: LU03-20-01 exception along Highway 300. All of the land shown as Office in Area 4 fronts Highway 300. Development of Area 4 would require the development of a street (or access easement) network, and utilities. The development of water and sewer infrastructure would also have the added difficulty of hillside development. Development of Area 4 would need to be done in a manner that would minimize alterations of the natural environment and hydrology of the neighborhood. A change to Multifamily in Area 4 would result in the expansion of the area currently shown as Multifamily along the east side of Chenal Parkway. For further analysis see paragraphs regarding the net loses and net gains concerning this area. Area 5 (O & MF to C): The property located in Area 5 benefits from double frontage along Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway. As in Area 1, the southern portion of Area 5 fronts a state highway and curb cuts along the state highway would need to be done in a manner that would protect the flow of traffic. Unlike Area 1, the double frontage of Area 5 would ease pressure to add curb cuts along Cantrell Road, and the north half of Area 5 would not have to be accessed from Cantrell Road. A change to Commercial in Area 5 introduces the possibility of placing an incompatible development next to the church located on the northeast corner of Cantrell Road and State Highway 300. The change proposed for Area 5 would also result in the expansion of the area shown as Commercial near the northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway. For further analysis see paragraphs regarding the net loses and net gains concerning this area. Area 6 (SF & MF to O): The change to Office in Area 6 would expand the small area shown as Office located at the intersection of State Highway 300 and Chenal Parkway. This change along with a change to Commercial in Area 5 would eliminate all of the residential uses shown in the triangle of land formed by Cantrell Road, Chenal Parkway, and State Highway 300. A change to Office would add about 9.04 ± acres of land shown as Office, which could help offset the loss of land shown as Office in Areas 3, 4, and 5. In summary, all of the acreage shown in the defined study area as Single Family would be lost. The land shown as Multifamily would have a net increase from about 27.02 ± acres to approximately 129.49 ±, or an increase of about 79%. Land shown as Office would have a net loss from approximately 44.21± acres to 23.87 ± acres, or a net decrease of about 46%. The area shown as Commercial would increase from about 10.23 ± acres to 42.71 ± acres, or a net increase of about 76%. The amount of land shown as Public Institutional and Park / Open Space would not change. The current percentages of land use categories shown for the applicant's property and effected neighboring properties along the north side of Cantrell 5 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (C LE NO.: LU03-20-01 Road at Chenal, both sides of Chenal Parkway from Cantrell Road to Highway 300, and the east side of Highway 300, are as follows: 57% Single Family, 12% Office, 20% Multifamily, 5% Commercial, 5% Public Institutional, and 1 % Park/ Open Space. The change in percentages of land use categories shown for the applicant's property and effected neighboring properties along the north side of Cantrell Road at Chenal, both sides of Chenal Parkway from Cantrell Road to Highway 300, and the east side of Highway 300, are as follows: 0% Single Family (includes a possible change from Single Family to Commercial next to Areas 1, 2, and 3), 11 % Office, 62% Multifamily, 20% Commercial, 5% Public Institutional, and 1 % Park / Open Space. Areas 1 and 5 are subject to the requirement of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Any development within Areas 1 and 5 would need to conform to the design standards of the Highway 10 DOD. The purpose of the Highway 10 DOD is to preserve scenic value of the Highway 10 DOD through the requirement of PZD's. Utilities and infrastructure would need to be developed for any new developments locating in the application areas covered by this amendment. Area 4 would require the most development of infrastructure and utilities that would be needed. Since much of Area 4 and all of Area 2 are relatively isolated from existing utilities and infrastructure, the changes in Areas 1 and 3 would be effected to provide access to Areas 2 and 4. The change in Area 5 might result in the development of uses incompatible with the existing Public Institutional use shown at Cantrell Road and Highway 300. The change to Office for Area 6 would combine with a change to Commercial in Area 5 to eliminate residential uses shown between Cantrell Road, Chenal Parkway and Highway 300. These proposed changes along with the proposed change to Commercial at 19420 Cantrell Road would greatly expand the amount of land available in the area for Commercial uses. If the changes to Commercial and Office occur and the change at 19420 is not approved, the remaining area shown as Single Family would be surrounded by incompatible uses. If the opposite action occurs, with this proposed changed to Commercial at 19420 Cantrell Road is approved and the changes proposed in this amendment for the northeast corner of Cantrell and Chenal are not approved, the resulting area shown as Commercial that would be more centered on the northeast corner of Cantrell and Chenal. The proposed change to Multifamily for Area 4 would increase the housing options available for the neighborhood but would require a substantial investment in infrastructure to accommodate the increased densities of development in an area shown as Multifamily. The changes in Area 5 to Commercial would expand the area already shown as Commercial at the northwest corner of Cantrell and December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-20-01 Chenal and introduce the possibility of incompatible developments shown as Commercial next to the church located on the northeast corner of Highway 300 and Cantrell Road. The new office developments that have occurred at Cantrell Road and Ranch Boulevard filled in most of the land shown as Mixed Office Commercial that would otherwise be available for Commercial uses through the PZD process. These changes would provide land for straight commercial and office uses with the commercial uses located at the Cantrell / Chenal intersection and reinforce the concentration of commercial nodes at major intersections along Cantrell Road west of 1-430. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, Du Quesne Place P.O.A., and Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association. At this time, staff has not received comments from area residents or Neighborhood Associations. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the following changes are appropriate: Staff believes the change in Area 1 is compatible with the neighboring land use and zoning to the south. The change in Area 2 is suitable to provide a transition of intensity between residential and non-residential uses. The change in Area 3 recognizes existing uses and zoning. The change in Area 6 is compatible with the existing use in the area shown as Public Institutional at the northeast corner of Cantrell and Highway 300. Staff believes the following changes are more appropriate: A change to Multifamily in Area 4 is more appropriate with less acreage. A change to Office is more appropriate in Area 5 since a change to Office would be more compatible with the existing use in the area shown as Public Institutional at the northeast corner of Cantrell/ and Highway 300. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2003) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission with the changes to the application and the new recommendation. The Single Family and Office to Multi Family (area #4) is to be reduced by removing the Office area from the application. The Office and Multi -Family to Commercial (area #5) is 7 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-20-01 changed to add a strip of Park/Open Space along the western edge. Staff supports all of the Land Use Plan amendment with these changes. Tim Daters, representing the applicant, stated that this property was not suited for single family development, it was not efficient or dense enough given the large lots it would require for single family developments. Alicia Finch, from Roland, is opposed to the Multi -Family. She commented on the high traffic volumes of the area and infrastructure. She did not want Highway 10 to become another Rodney Parham. Mary Dornhoffer, of 6916 Westridge, commented on a potential drop in real estate values, the community becoming unstable, and a decrease in the quality of living in the area. She opposes the multi -family zoning but is in support of the Commercial. Mark Davis, a pastor at Fellowship Baptist Church, equated the situation to the movie "Finding Nemo". He is opposed to the Multi Family stating that it will lower the quality of life. Robert Mahen stated that he was opposed to the multi -family and referred to an article in the New York Times about an apartment glut nationwide. He made comments on property taxes not being made by apartment dwellers. He comments that Arkansas is supposed to be "The Natural State" and that the drive to the state park should be protected. Don Thompson is opposed to the multifamily. He stated that it is not typical to have multi -family on the edge of the city and that multi -family is premature at this time. He is not opposed to the Commercial. Gene Pfeifer, the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that in the past he had donated land for bike trails and his share of the money for the light at Cantrell and Chenal. He stated that in the past, the Board of Directors had asked him to provide a variety of housing types in the area. He spoke of other areas in the city with multiple apartment complexes. He continued to speak that more vegetation would be left with multi -family developments than with single-family developments. He continued that the five -acre tracts in the area promote sprawl. Mr. Pfeifer continued that according to the census data, one-quarter of all Americans are apartment dwellers and continued with statistics about the difference between apartment dwellers and single-family homes. Commissioner Norm Floyd commented on sewer issues and the number of units. N December 18, 2003 NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-20-01 Commissioner Mizan Rahman asked about traffic issues. Mike Hood of Public Works stated that the initial review had about 8000 trips daily for the multi family, but with the reduced number of units, the trips daily would be about 6100. Commissioner Floyd asked how this application would pay for the sewer plant. Tim Daters, of White Daters Engineers, stated that there were increased fees for multi -family in this basin only. Joe White, of White Daters Engineers, stated that everything would go to the pump station and that the developer was surcharged for that. A motion was made to approve the item as amended by the applicant. The item was approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes, and 1 absent. N1