Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutesDecember 2, 1999 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District Location: 15500 Chenal Parkway Request: Office to Commercial Source: Dave Parker, Saturn West, LLC PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Office to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities very in type and scale, depending on the trade area they serve. This application to amend the Land Use Plan has been filed concurrently with a PCD for an automobile dealership. Typically, a major Land Use Plan amendment, which this one would be classified as, would be filed on the Planning and Rezoning agenda and would not be heard at the same time as the rezoning. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned 0-3 General Office and is approximately 4.3 + acres in size. A mini -storage warehouse sits in a Planned Office Development northwest of the applicant's property. A vacant tract of land is located in a C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zone north of the applicant's property. A radio station sits in an 0-1 Quiet Office zone northeast of the property in question. The vacant property, east of the applicant's property is in a MF -18 Multi -Family zone. Southeast of the applicant's property are single family dwelling units located in R-2 Single Family zoning. Directly south of the property in question is a vacant Planned Commercial Development. Southwest of the property is a vacant C-3 General Commercial zone. Highland Valley United Methodist Church is located in an 0-2 Office and Institutional zone with a Conditional Use Permit on the neighboring property to the west. November 11, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On April 20, 1999, a change was made from Office to Commercial with a Planned Zoning District required east of Kirk Road on Chenal Parkway. On December 15, 1998, a change was made from Single Family to Public Institutional at 715 Wellington Village Road approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the applicant's property. On December 15, 1998, a change was made from Single Family to Public Institutional at #1 Covenant Drive 2100 feet to the east of the area under review on the south side of Chenal Parkway. On May 6, 1997 changes were made form Single Family, Public Institutional, Multi -Family, Neighborhood Commercial, and Park/Open Space to Single Family, Low Density Residential, Public Institutional, Office, Neighborhood Commercial, and Commercial at various locations west of (and including) the applicants property. The applicant's property is shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan. The Future Land Use plan shows Neighborhood Commercial and Office north of the property in question. South of the property, Park/Open Space and Commercial are shown on the Future Land Use Plan. Commercial and Park/Open Space are shown east of the site in question. Directly to the west of the applicant's property, Public Institutional is shown. MASTER STREET PLAN: Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Class I Bikeway is proposed along Chenal Parkway from Bowman Road to State Highway 10. Kanis Road is shown as a minor arterial. Wellington Village Drive is shown on the Master Street Plan, as a proposed minor arterial and will connect Kanis Road to Rahling Road. PARKS: The median of the Chenal Parkway along Rock Creek is shown as open space on the Master Parks Plan. 2 November 11, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Office and Commercial Development goal listed three objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is promotion of commercial development to meet the needs of neighborhood residents. The second objective is maintaining as much as possible the existing topography, trees, and green space. The third objective is enhancing the primarily residential character of the community. ANALYSIS: Much of the property along Chenal Parkway between the Parkway Place subdivision and the proposed intersection of Rahling Road and Kanis Road is shown on the land use plan as Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial. The same area is also zoned a variety of C-3, C2, 02, 03 and PCD's. The most recent change in the area was a change from Office to Commercial with a Planned Zoning Development required for a automobile dealership west of the Highland Valley United Methodist Church. This site was the subject of a Land Use Plan Amendment on June 28, 1988. This was in conjunction with a rezoning request that was originally scheduled for the December 1, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. There were several deferrals initiated both by Staff and by the applicant so that traffic studies could be made concerning the then arterial, which is now known, as Wellington Village Drive. Wellington Village Drive is currently shown as a Minor Arterial and built to those standards. At that time, Commercial was shown on both sides of Wellington Village Drive (to the east and the west) with frontage along Chenal Parkway. The applicant at that time was Jim Hathaway. It was his opinion that there needed to be more commercial to the east of the intersection to adequately house a commercial development. A rather lengthy discussion ensued concerning zoning of the site. As a result of that meeting, the zoning was changed to C-2 for 15.4 acres and 0- 3 for 3.88 acres. In addition, the Land Use Plan was changed to reflect those changes. Those changes are still 3 November 11, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 the configuration that we have today. During those Planning Commission meetings, Mr. Hathaway stated on three occasions that the owners would not request for a zoning change on the area zoned 0-3. Wellington Village Drive is the major entry into a large area of single family homes located to the north and east. An area of Office could provide a better transition from the copmercial areas along Chenal Parkway through Office and Suburban Office to the Single Family areas to the north. Although it is recognized that this site is at the intersection of two arterials, Staff feels that the Land Use classification of Office is suitable. There are areas of Commercial on the Land Use Plan that have not been developed. For example, the 15 acres of C-2 to the immediate east is vacant. The area to the west of the Highland Park Methodist Church is largely undeveloped with the exception of the recent PZD of September 21, 1999 for an Acura auto dealership. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Gibraltar/Pt. West/Timber Ridge N.A., Parkway Place Property Owners Association, Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association, Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, Carriage Creek Property Owners Association, Cedar Hill Terrace Property Owners Association, Eagle Pointe Property Owners Association, Glen Eagles Property Owners Association, Hillsborough Property Owners Association, Hunters Cove Property Owners Association, Hunters Green Property Owners Association, Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, and St. Charles Property Owners Association. Staff has received no comments from area residents. 4 November 11, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time and will result in an over -abundance of land available for commercial land uses at the expense of land available for office. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 11, 1999) Commissioner Bob Lowery stated that he would recuse on item 6 and item 6.1. Brian Minyard, of Staff, presented the item to the Commission. Chairman Earnest noted that this was the first time a major Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning had been filed simultaneously. Commissioner Earnest requested that staff explain this simultaneous filing. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that he explained the process to the applicant and recommended to the applicant that the major Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning change should not be filed at the same time. The applicant told Mr. Lawson that they wanted to file simultaneous applications in order to save time and money by streaming lining the process. Mr. Lawson recommended to the applicant that the major Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning change should be filed according to standard procedure. Mr. Wes Lowder, President of the Mehlburger Firm, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lowder explained the nature of the car dealership proposed by the applicant. A comparison of trip generation was made between the proposed dealership and most retail and office establishments. Next, Mr. Lowder described some of the architectural and landscape design features proposed. Finally, an argument was made that the proposed business was a new addition to the City of Little Rock. Chairman Earnest delayed questions from the Commissioners in order to proceed to the comment cards submitted by the November 11, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 audience: Mr. Hathaway spoke in opposition to the application as the managing partner for the Chenal Commercial Partnership. Mr. Hathaway stated that he was not opposed to the proposed car dealership, land use change, or zoning change. However, Mr. Hathaway stated his opposition to the process of hearing a Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning applications at the same meeting. Mr. Hathaway was also concerned about the Land Use and Zoning of property owned by the Chenal Commercial Partnership located north of the applicant. An argument was presented that a Land Use Plan Amendment should examine the land use for a larger area than just one piece of property. Mr. Herrn Northcutt spoke in support of the amendment on behalf of the Highland Valley United Methodist Church. Mr. Northcutt stated that the church supported the Land Use Plan amendment. Chairman Earnest stated that all the comment cards submitted by the audience had been addressed. Mr. Rick Parker, the applicant, described the proposed dealership and how it would blend in with the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Parker also mentioned some of the economic contributions the dealership would make to the city. Commissioner Herb Hawn asked the applicant if there was a compelling reason the Land Use Plan should be changed for the specific piece of property described in the application. Mr. Lowder stated that the decision to submit simultaneous applications for a Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning change was based on the timing involved in an option to purchase the property in question. Commissioner Hawn stated that he was considering how a Land Use Plan amendment would effect the whole area and not the specifics of the proposed car dealership. Commissioner Richard Downing stated that neighbors want to know what applicants propose for a piece of property in order to make a decision on whether or not to support an application. Commissioner Downing stated that he often CF7 November 11, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 received -criticism for plan changes and asked why the Commission was examining such a small area for a land use change. Commissioner Downing stated that he would vote against the amendment. Commissioner Bill Rector stated that he wanted to look at Land Use, Zoning, and the specified use on an application because he stated that some applications would not be approved unless based on the specified use. Commissioner Judith Faust stated that Mr. Lowder described a project that was lower in intensity than most commercial projects and added that the performance of a use should be considered in making decisions concerning Land Use and Zoning. Mr. Lawson stated the PZD's examined performance and is similar to what Commissioner Faust described. Mr. Lawson also mentioned that Land Use is changing and that one commercial use was not the same as another commercial use. Commissioner Faust asked why the Commission was hearing a Land Use Plan amendment was being heard on the same agenda as a Zone change. Mr. Lawson stated that the applicant was told that they should not file for a Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning change on the same agenda. The applicant felt that they had good reasons to file for both changes at the same time. Mr. Lawson stated that this was the first time an applicant insisted on filing for both changes at the same time. Mr. Lawson felt that he did not have the authority to prevent the applicant from file for both changes at the same time. Vice Chair, Pam Adcock called on Jimmy Moses to speak before the Commission. Mr. Jimmy Moses spoke on behalf of the owner of the property in question. Mr. Moses stated that the owner would not have proceeded with the application if they were told not to proceed with the application. Mr. Moses stated that the changing nature of Chenal Parkway to a commercial corridor since 1988 served as a compelling reason to support the Land use Plan amendment. Chairman Earnest stated that if the city was going to use performance-based zoning, then performance based zoning should be used. However, Commissioner Earnest stated that the reason the City of Little Rock adopted the Land Use Plan was to be able to predict Future Land Uses in the area. Land Use changes were to be made after a comprehensive 7 November 11, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 review of an area. Commissioner Earnest stated that Smart Growth was a process to help the City of Little Rock guide changes in Land Use. Commissioner Downing asked what reasons would be compelling for a Land Use Plan change. Mr. Moses stated that the PZD process gives the city control over commercial development and stated that the term "commercial" was too broad. Commissioner Mizan Rahman liked the idea of looking at Land Use and Zoning at the same time but did not like the idea of changing the Land Use for such a small area. Commissioner Rahman recommended that staff should look at the Land Use for the entire area. Mr. Lawson stated that he recommended that the applicant apply for MOC. Mr. Lawson stated that if the Land Use was changed to MOC, the applicant could then apply for a PUD. Mr. Stephen Giles, of the city attorney's office, stated that the ordinance did not allow Mr. Lawson to refuse an applicant an audience with the Planning Commission. A discussion followed between the Planning Commission and Staff with Staff explaining that the application was a change from O to C. Mr. Lawson stated that a change to MOC would allow a wider range of developments in the area and that different levels of commercial development exist. Commissioner Faust asked if staff knew that the area in question would be the intersection of two arterials when the original Land Use Plan was made. Mr. Lawson stated that staff knew. Mr. Hathaway asked if a Land Use Plan amendment would need to be filed before a PCD could be submitted in an area shown as MOC. Mr. Lawson stated that a Land Use Plan change would not be needed in order to file for a PCD in an area shown as MOC. Mr. Hathaway stated that his partnership would support a change to MOC but added that he as an applicant never challenged the process of submitting applications for separate agendas for a Land Use Plan amendment or Zone change. 8 November 11, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 Commissioner Hawn suggested that the Commission either defer the amendment to allow staff to study a change to MOC, or hold a vote on the application as filed. Discussion took place between commissioners and staff about the merits of deferring the applications. Mr. Lowder Stated that he wanted a vote on the application as filed. Chairman Earnest asked Mr. Lowder why the applicant did not allow enough time for the normal application process involved in changing the Land Use and Zoning. Mr. Lowder stated that it was his understanding that a mechanism existed for simultaneous applications for changes similar to this case. Mr. Lowder though that this was a minor Land Use amendment. Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve the Land Use amendment and Commissioner Downing seconded the motion. Commissioner Rahman Mizan stated that he did not oppose the car dealership, but that he had problems supporting a Land Use Plan amendment for such a small area. Commissioner Faust asked if staff considered an MOC. Mr. Lawson stated that staff wanted to comply with the Rock Creek Neighbor -hood Action Plan in its recommendations. A motion was made to approve the item as presented and was not approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 5 noes, 1 absent, 1 recuse. STAFF UPDATE: Upon the request of the Planning Commission, Staff is reviewing the application with a change to MOC. Mixed Office Commercial provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur. Acceptable uses are office or mixed office and commercial. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is mixed office and commercial. Upon this instruction, Staff expanded the application to include the area west of Wellington Village Road which would include the two lots owned by Jim Hathaway. The expanded area is all December 2, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 vacant wooded land and is zoned 0-3, General Office District. As stated before, Wellington Village Drive is the primary entry into a large area of single family homes located to the north and east which includes Wellington Woods and St. Charles. An area of Mixed Office Commercial could provide a transition from the commercial areas along Chenal Parkway .through Neighborhood Commercial and Suburban Office to the Single Family areas to the north. Previously, the definition of Mixed Office Commercial included wholly commercial development. However, concerns arose that MOC was used as Commercial with a PZD required. Since then, the definition has changed to include purely office developments or commercial developments with some office areas with a PZD. This assures that there is an office component in the MOC. While staff still supports Office at this location, under certain conditions commercial could be supported in Mixed Office Commercial. Not all commercial developments have the same impacts on a site, i.e., some are lower traffic generators than others. Each application should be evaluated under it's own merits in regards to the impacts,it would have on the surrounding area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes that the change to MOC is appropriate at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 1999) Commissioner Bob Lowry was in recuse on this item. Brian Minyard, of Staff, presented the item to the Commission. Mr. Minyard reviewed the definition of Mixed Office Commercial (MOC) and explained that MOC does not support 100% commercial development. Mr. Wes Lowder spoke on behalf of the applicant and mentioned that he was there to answer questions. 10 December 2, 1999 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU99-19-02 Mr. Alan -Van Biervliet spoke in opposition to the application on behalf of the homeowners in the area. Mr. Van Biervliet mentioned that the Village of Wellington was a new neighborhood and the residents were not notified of the applicant's request. Due to the age of the neighborhood, a neighborhood association has not yet developed. Mr. Van Biervliet stated that residents of the neighborhood signed a petition stating their concerns about the presence of a car dealership in their area. The neighborhood was concerned about increased traffic and test driving of new automobiles. Mr. Lowder summed up the opinions of those in support of the application. He also added that the new intersection at this location is projected to have one of the highest traffic counts in the city in the future. Mr. Lowder stated that the proposed car dealership would not generate a large amount of traffic. A motion was made to approve the item as presented and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noes, 0 absent, and 1 recuse. 11