HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes denialMay 14, 1998
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont. FILE NO.: LU98-11-01
February 7, 1995, a change from Office to Mixed Office and
Commercial south of Chenal Parkway and west of Hermitage
Road
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Both Kanis and Bowman are shown as Minor Arterials on the
plan. Both streets are currently two lane roads with open
ditches.
BACKGROUND:
1) There are available sites for commercial development in
the area either already zoned such or shown on the Land Use
Plan. 2) In the options developed by the Kanis Road
Corridor Study, there was no support to change the Land Use
on this site. 3) It is reasonable with the existing zoning
pattern to have an office or mixed development, as shown on
the plan, for this site. 4) This is a developing area of
Little Rock. Over the last several years, parcels along
Chenal Parkway have changed from office and multi -family to
commercial. Traffic congestion continues to build in this
area. No reason has been given to show need to change the
plan.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations: Birchwood, Sandpiper, Gibraltar Heights,
Point West and the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan
committee. We have two comments stating opposition to the
change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 14, 1998)
Walter Malone, Planning Manager, introduced the item.
Mr. Malone reviewed the Plan and use pattern in the area.
The City has been trying to keep the area more office
oriented. Mr. Malone reviewed the existing commercial zoned
areas in the vicinity. In addition the Kanis Corridor Task
Force did not recommend any changes for this area. Staff
prefers not to show Commercial along Kanis Road, so that we
will not get the same development pattern as seen along
Chenal Parkway and Markham.
2
May 14, 1998
ITEM NO.: _5 (Cont. _ FILE NO.: LU98-11-01
Brooks McRae, represented development group asking
Commercial rather than Mixed Office Commercial. The
developers intend to use the Planned Development Process
which will give the opportunity to review the planned
development. The surrounding property uses were reviewed,
this change would be consistent with the existing uses. Mr.
McRae noted the high cost of the road improvements and the
City's intimate traffic signal work. The surrounding
neighborhood associations were more concerned about the
quality of development, landscape, etc. not specific use
(Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial). we believe there
are no objectors. In response to a question about use Mr.
McRae stated it would not be an auto dealership.
Pat McGetrick, engineer for the applicant reviewed the
surrounding property use and zoning. Mr. McGetrick agreed
that the use pattern should not be totally commercial;
however, he gave several examples of noncommercial
development along the corridor. Next Mr. McGetrick reviewed
the street improvements both proposed and those required on
this property.
Commissioner Earnest asked why cannot use Mixed Office
Commercial (MOC) to achieve desire of Staff and Mr.
McGetrick. Mr. McGetrick stated they were ready to develop
now with Commercial not with Mixed Office Commercial.
Commissioner Putnam asked that Mr. Jones state this would
not be an auto dealership. Mr. Jones stated he would not
put a dealership on the site. Mr. McGetrick agreed that the
owner would use a "PCD" to zone the property. There was
discussion about "Commercial", "Commercial - PCD" and "Mixed
Office Commercial."
Commissioner Hawn moved that the item be approved as amended
by applicant (Commercial - PUD required). By a vote of
2 for and 7 against the change was denied.
3