Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5099-B Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -5099-B Owner: Pfeifer Development Company Applicant: White-Daters and Associates Location: Generally north, east and west of the Cantrell Road/Chenal Parkway intersection; located within and surrounding the Northwest Territory Subdivision Area: Approximately 137 acres Request: Rezone from R-2, MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3 to MF -6, MF -12, MF -18, 0-3 and C-3 Purpose: Future Development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North — Single family residences (northwest) and undeveloped property; zoned R-2 South — Single family residences and undeveloped property (across Cantrell Road); zoned R-2 and C-3 East — Private school and single family residences; zoned R-2 West — Church and single family residences; zoned R-2 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. The proposed multi -family uses to the north could ultimately produce over 8,000 vehicle trips per day. Show the proposed or conceptual street and access layout for the parcels. 2. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Minimum dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 3. The eastern -most edge of Area 7 appears to abut an unnamed Master Street Plan collector. This right-of-way should be shown on the plan. FILE NO.: Z -5099-B Cont. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Aberdeen Court and DuQuesne Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family, Multifamily, Office, and Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for C-3 General Commercial, 0-3 General Office, MF -6 Multifamily, MF -12, MF -18 zoning for retail, office, and apartment development. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial, Multifamily, and Office is a separate item on this agenda. Cily 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. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Pfeifer Development Company, owner of approximately 137 acres of property located within and surrounding the Northwest Territory Subdivision near the intersection of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway, is requesting to rezone the property from R-2, MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3 to MF -6, MF -12, MF -18, 0-3 and C-3. The rezoning is proposed for the future development of the property. In addressing an overall zoning plan for the property, the applicant has also filed a land use plan amendment. The property is undeveloped and mostly tree -covered. The property has varying degrees of slope. There is one (1) single family residence located at the southeast corner of the overall property (19400 Cantrell Road) which takes access from Cantrell Road. The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. There is a convenience store, mini -warehouse development, apartment complex and Easter Seals residential facility located along Chenal Parkway, within the Northwest Territory Subdivision. There are single family residences on 2 FILE NO.: Z-5099-B Cont. large tracts located to the northwest, with undeveloped R-2 zoned property located to the north. There are single family homes on large tracts and undeveloped C-3 zoned property to the south across Cantrell Road. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property and a private school located to the east along the north side of Cantrell Road. A church, single family residences and undeveloped R-2 zoned property are located to the west. The applicant is proposing to rezone the 137 acres from R-2, MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3 to MF -6, MF -12, MF -18, 0-3 and C-3. The list of the proposed rezoning is as follows, with the "Area" numbers referring to the attached sketch map. The acreage calculations include any future street rights-of- way. Area 1 Rezone from MF -18 and 0-2 to C-3 (10.2 Acres) Area 2 Rezone from MF -18 to 0-3 ( 9.04 Acres) Area 3 Rezone from R-2 to MF -18 (16.02 Acres) Area 4 Rezone from R-2 to MF -18 (18.7 Acres) Area 5 Rezone from R-2 to MF -6 (21.44 Acres) Area 6 Rezone from R-2 to MF -12 (24.14 Acres) Area 7 Rezone from R-2 to MF -12 (25.31 Acres) Area 8 Rezone from R-2 to C-3 ( 1.72 Acres) Area 9 Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 ( 7.23 Acres) Area 10 Rezone from R-2 to C-3 ( 3.23 Acres) The City's Future Land Use Plan designates the property as single family, multifamily, office and commercial. The applicant has filed a land use plan amendment for a change to multifamily, office and commercial. This issue is a separate item on this agenda (Item 8.). Although staff is supportive of a zoning plan for this acreage, staff does not support all of the zoning changes as proposed. Staff supports the rezoning of Areas 2, 8, 9 and 10 as described above. Staff could support 0-3 zoning for Area 1, rather than the requested C-3. Additionally, staff could possibly support an overall lower density multifamily zoning for Areas 3 through 7. However, staff would need additional information to consider this. The applicant would need to provide a proposed street and access plan for the area, and Little Rock Wastewater Utility and Central Arkansas Water would need to review the plan and assure that sewer and water services could be provided to the area. Staff feels that the requested rezoning for Areas 2, 8, 9 and 10 is reasonable and will have no adverse impact on the general area. 3 FILE NO.: Z -5099-B Cont. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning plan, as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2003) Eugene Pfeifer, Joe White, Tim Daters and Ed Willis were present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition. Staff explained that the applicant had revised the rezoning application as follows: 1. Area 1 — A zoned OS (Open Space) buffer will be provided along the west boundary of Area 1 and adjacent to Winfield United Methodist Church property. 2. Area 3 —10 acres of 0-3 zoned property within Area 3 will be removed from the application, leaving six (6) acres to be rezoned to MF -12 instead of MF -18. 3. Area 4 — Proposed rezoning to MF -12 instead of MF -18. Staff recommended approval of the application as revised. Items 8 and 8.1 were discussed simultaneously. Alicia Finch, president of the Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission in opposition. She expressed concern with cutting down mountainous areas for development. She noted concern that the proposed multifamily development would be government subsidized housing. She questioned what infrastructure improvements would need to be made for development. She stated that the property should be used for single family development. Mary Dornhoffer also spoke in opposition. She expressed concern with the proposed multifamily zoning, with respect to property values and the stability of her neighborhood. She questioned the need for more multifamily housing in the area. In response to a question from the Commission, she stated that she was only opposed to the proposed multifamily zoning. Mark Davis also addressed the Commission in opposition. He noted that he was opposed to the multifamily zoning. He expressed concerns that the proposed multifamily development would ruin his family's quality of life. Robert Mahon also spoke in opposition. He also opposed the multifamily zoning. He described his neighborhood and the surrounding area. He expressed 4 FILE NO.: Z -5099-B Cont. concern with infrastructure issues. He supported single family development of the property. Don Thompson also spoke in opposition. He was also opposed to the multifamily zoning. He expressed concerns with increased traffic. He stated that there was no community need for multifamily in the area. He noted that he was only opposed to the multifamily zoning. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in support of the application. He noted that when the property was annexed, the City zoned the property R-2. He stated that when the City annexed the property he was asked to provide a variety of housing types in the area. He compared the proposed multifamily development to existing developments on Pleasant Ridge Road and Napa Valley Road. He stated that single family development of the property would require clear -cutting, and multifamily development would allow more of the original vegetation to be retained. He explained that five acre developments represented urban sprawl. He expressed his support for multifamily developments, and noted that his property was an appropriate location for such development. Commissioner Adcock asked about required buffers between Area 3 and the single family property to the north. Staff explained that land use buffers between the properties will be required. Commissioner Rector noted that renters do not pay real estate taxes, but the multifamily development owners do. He also noted the low-income housing is not a zoning issue. Commissioner Floyd asked about utility comments for the proposed development. Staff explained that utility companies are not typically contacted regarding straight rezoning issues, but in this case staff did require that the applicant submit letters from Wastewater and Central Arkansas Water. Staff stated that the utilities had noted that the area could be served, but that additional facilities may need to be installed at the developer's expense. Commissioner Floyd noted opposition to the amount of proposed multifamily zoning and explained. Vice -Chairman Rahman asked about the amount of projected traffic the multifamily would generate. Mike Hood, of Public Works, noted that the revised multifamily zoning would generate approximately 6,100 vehicle trips per day. He explained that the collector street the applicant proposed to construct should be able to handle the future traffic. Commissioner Floyd asked how the developer would help pay for a sewer treatment plant. Tim Daters explained that multifamily developments were required to pay a cost of $400 per unit in addition to other development fees. Joe 5 FILE NO.: Z -5099-B Cont. White explained that all of the property proposed for rezoning will flow to existing sewer facilities. There was a motion to approve the Land Use Plan Amendment as revised and recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent. There was a second motion to approve the rezoning application as revised and recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications were approved. C.1 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8.1 FILE NO.: Z -5099-B Owner: Pfeifer Development Company Applicant: White-Daters and Associates Location: Generally north, east and west of the Cantrell Road/Chenal Parkway intersection; located within and surrounding the Northwest Territory Subdivision Area: Approximately 137 acres Request: Rezone from R-2, MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3 to MF -6, MF -12, MF -18, 0-3 and C-3 Purpose: Future Development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North — Single family residences (northwest) and undeveloped property; zoned R-2 South — Single family residences and undeveloped property (across Cantrell Road); zoned R-2 and C-3 East — Private school and single family residences; zoned R-2 West — Church and single family residences; zoned R-2 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. The proposed multi -family uses to the north could ultimately produce over 8,000 vehicle trips per day. Show the proposed or conceptual street and access layout for the parcels. 2. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Minimum dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 3. The eastern -most edge of Area 7 appears to abut an unnamed Master Street Plan collector. This right-of-way shfluld be shown on the plan. December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5099-B B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Aberdeen Court and DuQuesne Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family, Multifamily, Office, and Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for C-3 General Commercial, 0-3 General Office, MF -6 Multifamily, MF -12, MF -18 zoning for retail, office, and apartment development. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial, Multifamily, and Office is a separate item on this agenda. 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. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Pfeifer Development Company, owner of approximately 137 acres of property located within and surrounding the Northwest Territory Subdivision near the intersection of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway, is requesting to rezone the property from R-2, MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3 to MF -6, MF -12, MF -18, 0-3 and C-3. The rezoning is proposed for the future development of the property. In addressing an overall zoning plan for the property, the applicant has also filed a land use plan amendment. The property is undeveloped and mostly tree -covered. The property has varying degrees of slope. There is one (1) single family residence located at the southeast corner of the overall property (19400 Cantrell Road) which takes access from Cantrell Road. 1 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5099-B The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. There is a convenience store, mini -warehouse development, apartment complex and Easter Seals residential facility located along Chenal Parkway, within the Northwest Territory Subdivision. There are single family residences on large tracts located to the northwest, with undeveloped R-2 zoned property located to the north. There are single family homes on large tracts and undeveloped C-3 zoned property to the south across Cantrell Road. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property and a private school located to the east along the north side of Cantrell Road. A church, single family residences and undeveloped R-2 zoned property are located to the west. The applicant is proposing to rezone the 137 acres from R-2, MF -18, 0-2 and 0-3 to MF -6, MF -12, MF -18, 0-3 and C-3. The list of the proposed rezoning is as follows, with the "Area" numbers referring to the attached sketch map. The acreage calculations include any future street rights-of- way. Area 1 Rezone from MF -18 and 0-2 to C-3 (10.2 Acres) Area 2 Rezone from MF -18 to 0-3 ( 9.04 Acres) Area 3 Rezone from R-2 to MF -18 (16.02 Acres) Area 4 Rezone from R-2 to MF -18 (18.7 Acres) Area 5 Rezone from R-2 to MF -6 (21.44 Acres) Area 6 Rezone from R-2 to MF -12 (24.14 Acres) Area 7 Rezone from R-2 to MF -12 (25.31 Acres) Area 8 Rezone from R-2 to C-3 ( 1.72 Acres) Area 9 Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 ( 7.23 Acres) Area 10 Rezone from R-2 to C-3 ( 3.23 Acres) The City's Future Land Use Plan designates the property as single family, multifamily, office and commercial. The applicant has filed a land use plan amendment for a change to multifamily, office and commercial. This issue is a separate item on this agenda (Item 8.). Although staff is supportive of a zoning plan for this acreage, staff does not support all of the zoning changes as proposed. Staff supports the rezoning of Areas 2, 8, 9 and 10 as described above. Staff could support 0-3 zoning for Area 1, rather than the requested C-3. Additionally, staff could possibly support an overall lower density multifamily zoning for Areas 3 through 7. However, staff would need additional information to consider this. The applicant would need to provide a proposed street and 3 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5099-B access plan for the area, and Little Rock Wastewater Utility and Central Arkansas Water would need to review the plan and assure that sewer and water services could be provided to the area. Staff feels that the requested rezoning for Areas 2, 8; 9 and 10 is reasonable and will have no adverse impact on the general area. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning plan, as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2003) Eugene Pfeifer, Joe White, Tim Daters and Ed Willis were present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition. Staff explained that the applicant had revised the rezoning application as follows: 1. Area 1 — A zoned OS (Open Space) buffer will be provided along the west boundary of Area 1 and adjacent to Winfield United Methodist Church property. 2. Area 3 — 10 acres of 0-3 zoned property within Area 3 will be removed from the application, leaving six (6) acres to be rezoned to MF -12 instead of MF -18. 3. Area 4— Proposed rezoning to MF -12 instead of MF -18 - Staff recommended approval of the application as revised. Items 8 and 8.1 were discussed simultaneously. Alicia Finch, president of the Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission in opposition. She expressed concern with cutting down mountainous areas for development. She noted concern that the proposed multifamily development would be government subsidized housing. She questioned what infrastructure improvements would need to be made for development. She stated that the property should be used for single family development. Mary Dornhoffer also spoke in opposition. She expressed concern with the proposed multifamily zoning, with respect to property values and the stability of her neighborhood. She questioned the need for more multifamily housing in the area. In response to a question from the Commission, she stated that she was only opposed to the proposed multifamily zoning. 4 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5099-B Mark Davis also addressed the Commission in opposition. He noted that he was opposed to the multifamily zoning. He expressed concerns that the proposed multifamily development would ruin his family's quality of life. Robert Mahon also spoke in opposition. He also opposed the multifamily zoning. He described his neighborhood and the surrounding area. He expressed concern with infrastructure issues. He supported single family development of the property. Don Thompson also spoke in opposition. He was also opposed to the multifamily zoning. He expressed concerns with increased traffic. He stated that there was no community need for multifamily in the area. He noted that he was only opposed to the multifamily zoning. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in support of the application. He noted that when the property was annexed, the City zoned the property R-2. He stated that when the City annexed the property he was asked to provide a variety of housing types in the area. He compared the proposed multifamily development to existing developments on Pleasant Ridge Road and Napa Valley Road. He stated that single family development of the property would require clear -cutting, and multifamily development would allow more of the original vegetation to be retained. He explained that five acre developments represented urban sprawl. He expressed his support for multifamily developments, and noted that his property was an appropriate location for such development. Commissioner Adcock asked about required buffers between Area 3 and the single family property to the north. Staff explained that land use buffers between the properties will be required. Commissioner Rector noted that renters do not pay real estate taxes, but the multifamily development owners do. He also noted the low-income housing is not a zoning issue. Commissioner Floyd asked about utility comments for the proposed development. Staff explained that utility companies are not typically contacted regarding straight rezoning issues, but in this case staff did require that the applicant submit letters from Wastewater and Central Arkansas Water. Staff stated that the utilities had noted that the area could be served, but that additional facilities may need to be installed at the developer's expense. Commissioner Floyd noted opposition to the amount of proposed multifamily zoning and explained. 5 December 18, 2003 ITEM NO.: 8. Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5099-B Vice -Chairman Rahman asked about the amount of projected traffic the multifamily would generate. Mike Hood, of Public Works, noted that the revised multifamily zoning would generate approximately 6,100 vehicle trips per day. He explained that the collector street the applicant proposed to construct should be able to handle the future traffic. Commissioner Floyd asked how the developer would help pay for a sewer treatment plant. Tim Daters explained that multifamily developments were required to pay a cost of $400 per unit in addition to other development fees. Joe White explained that all of the property proposed for rezoning will flow to existing sewer facilities. There was a motion to approve the Land Use Plan Amendment as revised and recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent. There was a second motion to approve the rezoning application as revised and recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications were approved. D 12/17/2006 14:41 FAX 601 992 2491 CAW - ENGINEERING 101jul •x999 fxoz� 15 a . xsr� Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the Public Works C<)=Ont SupD1VIW1CYIt CG_`riN.S F _ CdPi6L.NTS : (JULY 29, 1999) joe White was present representing the application. Staff gave a. brief description of the proposal. There being no issvQs for discussion, the Cc =ittee accepted thea proposal and forwarded the item to the full Co=aission for final resolution. RAMI—NO CQMMiSSIQF`T ACTIQN- (AUGUST 19, 2.999) Marie Dugan, City Water Wcrks, was present r®presenting the application. There user@ no regiarmred objectors present. Staff preseuted the item with a zScymmaudation for approval subject Y.o compliance with Public Works CpMMsnts regarding utility cuts oranance aeequira "nts and locating the main outside of future divided arterial. road couatruction. chairman Earnest stated that as part of the Co=isiSion's responzibxlity for a comprohs Alive plan for the City which imcorporates looking at issues of annexation am F ofla eater they should look at tis© implications of the request main extension of this size. Be goals that the developer is asking for a line 4f this nice in anticipation of future requests rcbl:arding annexation of areas along Sighway 300. Chair Taznest stated he would like to sea mare explanation from Staff in situations like this as to the reality of what: ie exyeated to na[rur with respect to future lead use Qutsi.de the City,s immediate" boundary. kie also asked if this proposed extenoion would serve land in the Little Maumelle Tftter Basin, to which the answer was no. Ms. Dugan stented that a 12 inch main would be sufficient to serve the lots in gpsstion for this development, however it would not serve the hilltop to the northeast. That would take.a 16 inch =air. looped around the Fill and back. The City Water 2 12/17/2003 14:41 FAX 501 992 2491 C91V - E_NGINEERING ID002 Jr' -4'm NO 21 Kant. ) FXL% NO: G-40-15 Works would support serving that hilltop area if requested whether it was annexed into the City or not. Therefore, this extension will prepare for that capability when it is necassarir. T9.m paters from White-Daters Engineering stated that the developer had concerns regarding the ability of a 12 inch line to adequately serve his develowLent over the long range. Commiosioner Earnest emphasized that by putting in this size line now, it will,ramove any question in any future debate ove:: annexation as to the weed for water main expansion and that coat impact on the proposed future annexation. Commissioner Downing pointed out that the developer chose the size of line to beat serve his developmant with no pressure ftm any City agency to put in this size line to support future Cite growth. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff cam+bents and recommendations. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent.