Loading...
pc_08 09 1994LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD AUGUST 9, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the June 28, 1994 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Chachere Ramsay Ball John McDaniel Kathleen Oleson Bill Putnam Joe Selz Brad Walker Emmett Willis B. J. Wyrick Ron Woods One Open Position City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA AUGUST 9, 1994 I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z -1791-B Candlewood Area B. G-23-215 Kimball Street Right -of -Way Abandonment C. Z-5805 McClard PID - 11820 Chicot Rd. D. S-1029 Backyard Burgers Site Plan Review - University Shopping Center II. REZONING ITEMS 1. Z-5822 2. Z-5850 3. Z-5854 4. Z-5855 Pinnacle Valley Rd. and County Farm Road 3318 Mary St. 9007 Kanis Rd. 1800, 2000 & 2006 Sanford Dr. R-2 and R-4 to MF -12 and Open Space R-2 to AF R-3 to I-2 R-2 to C-3 R-2 to R-5 III. OTHER MATTER 5. Pulaski Academy C.U.P. Time Extension (Z -4246-B) August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z -1791-B Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Char -Beck Trust R. Wingfield Martin Candlewood Area (North of the Kroger on Hwy. 10) Rezone from R-2, R-4 and R-5 to MF -24 and OS Multi -Family 131.82 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 and R-5 East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 West - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The area under consideration, 132 acres, is currently zoned R-2, R-4 and R-5. The request is to rezone the acreage to MF -24 and OS along a majority of the perimeter of the site. The land area is situated east of Pinnacle Valley Road, north of Hwy. 10 (directly north of the Kroger Center) and west of the Candlewood Subdivision (the end of Rivercrest Drive). The current zoning was approved in 1965 and 1966. In 1984 a PRD was filed for the land, but the plan was never finalized. The surrounding zoning is primarily R-2. Directly to the south, there are some R-5 and 0-2 tracts. There is some commercial zoning, C-3 and PCD, along Hwy. 10. Land use includes single family and commercial. As with the zoning, the commercial uses are found adjacent to Hwy. 10, including the Kroger development and a commercial center on the south side of Hwy. 10. At this time, the adopted land use plan identifies the entire site for single family use, and does not even recognized the existing R-5 zoning. Based on the previous zoning action and the property's location, it appears that increasing the amount of land for multi -family is reasonable. However, without seeing more specifics about a development concept and the land, it would be somewhat premature to establish an overall density of 24 units per August 9, 1994 ITEM NO • A Z -1791-B (Cont.) acre. A number of issues, such as topography and circulation, need to be looked at to determine the appropriate density for the site or if a MF -24 density is too high for the area. Another concern that needs to be reviewed is the land use plan and whether a plan amendment is justified. There are too many questions that need be answered before a rezoning of 132 acres to MF -24 can be considered. Staff's position is that the item needs to be deferred to give the city and the applicant more time to study the area and the site. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the River Mountain District. The recommended land use is single family. The proposed density is too high, while some multifamily may be appropriate, a blanket zoning is not. Due to the nature of the site, additional information should be required as to the location, arrangement and number of units. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Engineering is recommending that the dedication of any right-of-way occur through the plat or as part of a site plan review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request be deferred to allow the applicant to submit additional information and/or a plan for the development of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) At the beginning of the hearing, staff informed the Commission that the applicant agreed with deferring the item and requested a 60 day deferral. There were several interested individuals in attendance and they did not object to the deferral. The item was added to the Consent Agenda and deferred to the June 28, 1994 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The Planning Commission action also waived the bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral at least five working days prior to the hearing.) K August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z -1791-B (Cont.) UPDATE Representatives of the owner, Char -Beck Trust, and the staff met to discuss various issues associated with this rezoning request. During the meeting, it was suggested that MF -12 would be a more appropriate density for the area. The applicant has submitted a letter and is amending the application from MF -24 to MF -12 for the R-2 and R-4 areas. The existing R-5 will remain and an OS buffer will be established through rezoning action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred for at least 30 days. As part of the Consent Agenda, the issue was deferred to the August 9, 1994 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The Planning Commission also waived the bylaw provision requiring 5 day written notice for a deferral.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) The request was represented by Herb Rule. There were 6 objectors in attendance. Staff reminded the Commission that the application had been amended to MF -12 and OS for the R-2 and R-4 areas with a minimum 150 foot OS area and no zoning change for the two existing R-5 locations. Staff then indicated basic support for the MF -12 and OS proposal. Staff then recommended MF -12 for the R-5 site in the southeast corner of the property and increasing the OS to 200 feet adjacent to the lots on Rivercrest. Herb Rule spoke and discussed the property's ownership and gave some history. Mr. Rule told the Commission there was a pending offer and the impact would be minimal because of a reduction in the overall density. He continued by reviewing previous planning efforts for the property and described the site in detail. Mr. Rule also responded to a question about access and presented a graphic showing a conceptual street layout. He also offered some comments about the Master Street Plan. Rita Daniel, a 20 year resident of the area and past - president of the homeowners association, then addressed the Planning Commission. Ms. Daniel discussed the issue of the Highway 10 Plan and traffic impacts from a multifamily development. She told the Commission that the neighborhood had met with the applicant and representatives of the owner. 01 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z -1791-B (Cont. Ms. Daniel also made some comments about the proposed buffers and the existing R-5 areas. Ms. Daniel then informed the Commission that the neighborhood would like to continue to talk to the applicant, but they were opposed to the current request. Gary Hendershott spoke against the proposed rezoning and said it would cause problems for the area. Mr. Hendershott said the rezoning was inconsistent with the adopted plan and the surrounding neighborhoods. He said the property has potential for single family development and also described the scenic quality of Highway 10. Mr. Hendershott then reviewed and discussed some of the neighborhood's concerns and they included: • a drop in real estate values • noise pollution • environmental impact • quality control • crime He also said that the rezoning would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Donna Williams talked about the area and possible impacts on the environment. Ms. Williams went on to discuss problems with a multifamily development and said she was opposed to the requested MF -12 rezoning. Joseph Story read a letter into the record and said the neighborhood voted to oppose the rezoning. Jan Butenschoen, representing the River Valley Property Owners Association, spoke against the rezoning and said the residents were opposed to the multifamily rezoning. Gary Hendershott spoke again and said there were no details on the development concept. Mr. Hendershott said that having a plan to review would provide an increase level of comfort. There was a lengthy discussion about various issues associated with the request. Comments were offered by several commissioners and Commissioner Putnam said he was concerned with the lack of information. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, discussed the site and location of the buildable land. Herb Rule then introduced Mike Berg, a realtor. 4 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: A Z -1791-B (Cont.) Mike Berg then spoke and said that he was representing the potential developer and the proposal was for "high-end" apartments. Mr. Berg went on to say there would be one access point into the property and security was an issue. He then discussed traffic issues and said the development would be of the highest quality. Mr. Berg also presented a conceptual elevation of the project. There was some discussion about the PRD process. Herb Rule spoke again and made some comments about site plan review and utilizing a PRD. Mr. Rule also said that a multifamily development was the highest and best use of the land. Mr. Rule then suggested that a deferral would probably be appropriate. Mr. Rule also said that the owner would agree to rezoning the southern R-5 site to MF -12, as recommended by the staff. There was a long discussion about the site and the PRD process. Herb Rule then requested a deferral of at least 60 days. The Planning Commission voted to defer the item to the October 18, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 5 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: G-23-215 Name: Kimball Street Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: The south half of Kimball Street in the block between East 6th Street and East Capitol Avenue Owner/Applicant: St. John Missionary Baptist Church by Andrew Pace, Trustee Request: To abandon that portion of the Kimball Street right-of-way adjacent to Lot 7, Pollock's Subdivision of Block 21, Garland's Addition and Lot 14, Francis R. Mitchell's Subdivision of Block 22, Garland's Addition. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right-of-Wav Initial review from other departments indicates no public need for this right-of-way. The Fire Department voiced initial concern about maintaining access to the church and house which abuts this street. Both properties front on East 6th Street and the area of the abandoned right-of-way will remain physically open from East 6th Street and used as a parking lot and driveway for the church. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-way Terrain This portion of Kimball Street is a narrow, winding one -lane, asphalt street in a substandard 30 foot right-of- way. The street has no improvements such as curb, gutter or sidewalk. The portion of Kimball Street proposed for abandonment is used as a parking lot and driveway for the adjacent St. John Missionary Baptist Church. August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-215 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of the street will continue to be used as a parking lot by the church. The north end will be blocked off to eliminate thru traffic. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The surrounding neighborhood contains a variety of uses ranging from older single family homes to industrial development. Kimball Street, at this point, is a narrow substandard street which provides minimal access from East Capitol Avenue to East 6th Street. There is however some use of the street. Abandoning the right-of-way in the south half of the block will allow St. John Missionary Baptist Church to close access where the street intersects the east/west alley and thus eliminate thru traffic which the church sees as a danger. By eliminating Kimball Street as a thru street, traffic will be routed either one block east to Fletcher Street or two blocks west to Bender Street. Both of these streets are fully built to Master Street Plan standards. This block of Kimball is not heavily used other than as a parking lot for the church and staff feels that the abandonment of the right-of-way will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position This office has received two calls in opposition to the proposed abandonment, as of this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities There will be no effect on public services or utilities. All easements will remain and access to the property can be gained from East 6th Street. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights extend to St. John Missionary Baptist Church. 2 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-215 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues St. John Missionary Baptist Church owns both properties abutting this portion of Kimball Street. The church itself sits almost directly on the Kimball Street right-of-way. The right-of-way is used as a parking lot and driveway by the church and they are concerned about thru traffic at the times that people are coming in and out of the church buildings. Access will remain open from East 6th Street for the Fire Department and utility companies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to the area of the abandoned right-of-way being retained as a utility easement. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: The applicant was not present. (JULY 7, 1994) Staff presented the item. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994) The application was represented by Aldrew Pace, a Trustee. There were several objectors in attendance. Mr. Pace spoke and said the church is situated right on the street, which causes a safety concern. Mr. Pace stated that the church was not proposing any additional construction. Alberta Ewing, a resident at East 5th and Kimball, opposed the street closure. Ms. Ewing said the street is substandard, but the residents use it. She also said that it would be an inconvenience for the neighborhood if Kimble was closed. Robert Higgins, 2007 East 4th, spoke against the street closing. Mr. Higgins said that he owns property behind the church and he was opposed to the proposed Kimball closure. He said the closing of the street would create problems for the neighborhood and presented some photos of the area. Mr. Higgins continued to discuss his concerns and concluded by describing the area. At this point, there was a lengthy discussion and comments were offered by various individuals. Erma Hendrix, City Director, spoke and said she was not taking a position on the issue. K August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-215 Robert Hill, a neighborhood resident, described the street and said a large tree is blocking a portion of the street and creating some of the problems. Discussion continued on the item and the various issues. Because of some confusion, staff recommended that the request be deferred. A motion was then made to defer the Kimball Street item to the August 9, 1994 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) Rev. P. L. Austin, Pastor of St. John Missionary Baptist Church, was present representing the application. There were several persons present both in favor and in opposition to the proposal. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval. Rev. Austin addressed the Commission in favor of the proposed abandonment. He stated that the proximity of the entrances to the church to Kimball Street creates a danger to those individuals coming in and out of the building. Rev. Austin then presented a petition from members of a neighboring church, Miles Chapel, in favor of the closure. Juanita Carroll, of 5108 North Woodland Drive, North Little Rock, spoke in favor of the application. Alberta Ewing, of 1922 East Capitol Avenue, spoke at length in opposition to the abandonment. In response to a question from the Commission, Tim Polk, Acting Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, explained the basis for staff's recommendation of approval. Hattie White, facilitator of the East 6th Street Neighborhood Alert Center, stated that there had been many traffic accidents at the intersection of East 6th and Kimball Streets. Robert Higgins, of 2007 East 4th Street, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. In response to a statement by Mr. Higgins, Erma Hendrix, City Director, stated that there had been adequate notice of the public hearing. Mr. Carney informed the Commission that all required notification had been done, including notices to the listed neighborhood contacts. 4 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-215 Curtis Tate, of 605 Reichardt, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. Chairman Chachere asked if the church had considered using some temporary measure to barricade the street during services. Rev. Austin stated that the church was willing to accept a temporary measure. Ms. Ewing stated that she was opposed to any measure that would close the street. The question was called and a vote was taken on the application. The vote was 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. The application was denied. 5 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5805 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Ronnie Wells Bill McClard 11,820 Chicot Road Rezone from R-2 to I-2 Industrial 4.24 acres Vacant and Office Warehouse SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family and Vacant Building, zoned R-2 South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF UPDATE At the Planning Commission hearing of June 28, 1994, the application was amended to a request for PID rezoning of the east approximately 400 foot of the site, and to leave to the west 550 feet zoned residential. STAFF ANALYSIS 11,820 Chicot Road is currently zoned R-2, and the request is to rezone the site to I-2. The property, or at least a portion, has nonconforming status and is currently occupied by an office warehouse. There is one building on the site and a majority of it is undeveloped. The property has 85 feet of frontage on Chicot and a depth of approximately 755 feet. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-7 and C-3. The property in question is surrounded by R-2 zoning, and residentially zoned land accounts for 98% of the area. Land use is almost exclusively residential, either single family or a large mobile home park. There are two minor non-residential uses found along Chicot and both are nonconforming. One is an industrial operation and the other is a small commercial user. What is being proposed with this I-2 rezoning proposal is inappropriate for the location. The industrial reclassification is not supported by the adopted plan and an August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5805 (Cont.) undesirable zoning pattern would be created if the I-2 is granted. An I-2 rezoning of the four acres would be a spot zoning, a concept that the city always tries to discourage, and could have a very adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses. The direction of the land use plan will be reinforced by maintaining the R-2 zoning. Also, the residential character of the area will be strengthened by denying the requested industrial rezoning. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is recommended surrounding the plan to in the Geyer Springs West District. The land use is single family. With the existing use pattern, there is no justification to change industrial. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The right-of-way standard for Chicot Road is 45 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way is needed because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the I-2 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 5, 1994) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had verbally requested a deferral at the beginning of the hearing. There were no objectors present and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. The Planning Commission voted to defer the issue to the May 17, 1994 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw requirement for requesting a deferral at least five working days prior to the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 17, 1994) The applicant, Bill McClard, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. McClard spoke and requested a deferral because the owner had a death in the family and was unable to attend hearing. The interested property owner did not object to deferring the item. OA August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5805 (Cont.) A motion was made to defer the rezoning request to the June 20, 1994 hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. (The Commission also waived the bylaw provision for requesting a deferral.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 28, 1994) The application for rezoning was represented by Daryle Snellings. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Snellings discussed the history of the site and said it was annexed into the city. He then described the existing subdivision and said there was no opposition to the request. Mr. Snellings said that the prospective owner is currently occupying and using the site. Ronnie Wells, the prospective buyer, said that he operates an outdoor sign business. Mr. Wells made some comments about cleaning up the site and said he would like the I-2 rezoning to protect his interest in the property. There was some discussion about the area and the property's nonconforming status. Ronnie Wells spoke again and said that he would be willing to leave the back portion of the site zoned R-2. Additional comments were made about various issues, including the possibility of utilizing the PUD process for the property. Ronnie Wells addressed the Commission and amended his application to a PUD. A motion was made to accept the amended request to a PUD for 11,820 Chicot Road. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994) Ronnie Wells, the applicant, was present. Mr. Ben Kittler, the project engineer, was present. A revised site plan was presented showing the proposed buffer along the north property line; the existing drives; sidewalks, and landscape areas; and the buildings on abutting property to the northeast. The need for an access easement for proper access to the storage yard and parking was discussed. The requirement for buffering of the residential uses and zoning on all sizes, including the west, south and northeast, was discussed. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. 3 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: C Z-5805 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994) Neither the applicant nor the project engineer were present. Staff recommended that the item be deferred until the August 9, 1994, hearing to allow staff time to contact the applicant to determine if the applicant wished to pursue the requested PID rezoning. Staff explained that this would be the second deferral. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until August 9, and the motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) Staff recalled that the applicant had failed to appear a the July 26, 1994 Commission hearing to make a presentation on his amended application, and that, consequently, the Commission had deferred the hearing to allow staff to verify with the applicant that he still wished to proceed with the application. Staff related that, after the July 26, 1994 Commission hearing, the applicant had been sent a letter relaying the Commission's action, and asking that the applicant contact staff. Staff reported that the applicant had made no contact with staff during the intervening two weeks, and that there was, again, no one at the Commission hearing to represent the applicant's request. Staff recommended that the application be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion to withdraw the McClard PID request without prejudice was made and seconded, and the motion carried with the vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 0 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.• D FILE NO.• S-1029 NAME: BACKYARD BURGERS - UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On Asher Ave., approximately 300 feet east of University Ave., in the University Shopping Center parking lot. DEVELOPER• SYNERGISED PROPERTIES 6823 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72207 666-0776 AREA: N.A. NUMBER OF LOTS: ZONING• C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT: 21.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9900 1 PROPOSED USES• None FT. NEW STREET• 0 Drive-Thru Restaurant The applicant proposes the construction of a Backyard Burgers fast food drive-thru unit to be located on a lease parcel in the parking lot of the University Shopping Center. The unit is to be a typical Backyard Burgers outlet with drive-thru service and outside patio seating. The building has been sited to provide vehicle stacking of 7 or 8 cars for each of the two drive-thru lanes. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Site plan review is requested by the Planning Commission for construction of a new Backyard Burgers outlet to be located in the University Shopping Center parking lot. Drive-thru and outside patio seating service is proposed. A provision for vehicle stacking space for 7 or 8 cars per drive-thru lane has been designed before interference with traffic flow in the main east -west drive of the shopping center parking lot would occur.. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The shopping center site is zoned C-3, and is a 17 -acre tract with total building area of approximately 202,537 square feet consisting of a main shopping center building, a August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • S-1029 C. 10 service station at the northwest corner of the tract, and three free-standing buildings along the south, Asher Avenue, frontage of the tract. These three free-standing buildings consist of a Superior Federal branch bank at the southwest corner of the tract, a First Commercial branch bank approximately centered along the Asher Ave. frontage of the parking lot, and a video store located at the southeast corner of the parking lot. The shopping center currently provides approximately 843 parking spaces; 556 spaces are required by the regulations. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that the proposed traffic flow does not provide adequate stacking space for vehicles waiting for service at the order boards, and that there is a potential for stacked cars to block the shopping center main east -west drive. Little Rock Water Works reports that they will need to be contacted regarding meter size and location. They indicate that service to this part of the tract may present some problems. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is available, and there will be no adverse effect on the sewer system. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easement for service to the facility. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review comments that a 6 foot wide landscape strip is required at the lease lot line around the perimeter of the site, exclusive of ingress and egress drives. Also, a 3 foot wide landscape strip is required between the public parking and the building. An 8 foot high dumpster enclosure will be required on 3 sides of the dumpster. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-13 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires site plan review for developments "involving the construction of two (2) or more buildings". The site is a 17 -acre site containing the main shopping center building, a service station building, and three other free standing buildings. 2 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1029 The Backyard Burgers outlet would be the sixth building on the site. Site plan review pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations, then, is required. A provision for the required building and lease lot line landscaping needs to be addressed. The Backyard Burgers facility is located immediately to the east of the first entrance drive off Asher Ave. east of University Ave. This places it between this drive and the First Commercial branch bank facility. Traffic leaving the Backyard Burgers drive-thru would either: a) turn to the east and drive south of the First Commercial bank, sharing this space with customers leaving the bank drive-thru; or b) double back to the north towards the main shopping center east -west drive. There are no clear traffic routes, and practically no stacking space, for vehicles accessing the First Commercial drive-thru, and the addition of the Backyard Burgers traffic to this area compounds the problem. E. ANALYSIS• The traffic patterns in the area between the Backyard Burgers facility and the First Commercial location are confused and congested. There is inadequate space in this congested area for the traffic from these two uses to be able to maneuver safely. The site, even after reducing the parking by approximately 28 spaces to accommodate the new use, still meets the parking requirements. Parking for 556 vehicles is required; parking for 775 is provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the site plan as presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 7, 1994) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and reviewed with the Committee and Mr. McGetrick the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. There was discussion regarding the various deficiencies and the traffic engineer's analysis of the potential problem with inadequate stacking space for vehicles waiting for service. The Committee forwarded the plan to the Commission for final resolution. 3 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1029 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994) Staff reported that a letter had been received from Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, requesting that the hearing of the item be deferred until the August 9, 1994 Commission meeting. Mr. McGetrick had indicated that a redesign of the site was being considered in order to deal with the staff concerns concerning traffic flow around the proposed Backyard Burgers. The item was included on the consent agenda for deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had been in contact with staff during the previous two weeks to discuss the staff concerns regarding traffic circulation around the proposed Backyard Burgers. Staff related that the primary concerns had been the apparent inadequate vehicle stacking distance between the service windows and the shopping center's east -west drive, and the possible traffic flow conflicts with First Commercial Bank customers. Staff reported that staff had suggested that Backyard Burgers reverse the traffic route to provide additional vehicle stacking distance, and that the parking lot in front of the First Commercial Bank drive-thru facility be re -striped and have an island installed to separate the traffic of the two uses. Mr. Pat McGetrick was present to represent the applicant. Mr. McGetrick reported that the shopping center management and the Backyard Burgers representatives had studied the various options, and had agreed that the parking area to the north of the First Commercial Bank could be re -striped to provide better traffic flow, and, that a landscaping strip could be provided to separate the traffic generated by the two uses; however, Backyard Burgers had felt that if the traffic flow around the building were reversed, the rear of the building would be facing Asher Ave., and that would be unacceptable. Mr. McGetrick indicated that potential problems with vehicle stacking would be limited, primarily, to lunchtime when the shopping center traffic is minimal. He, therefore, asked the Commission to approve the site plan as revised, but without the requirement to reverse the traffic flow and, consequently, the building. A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan as presented; however, with the vote of 4 ayes, 4 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position, the motion failed to receive the required number of votes for approval, and was deferred until the September 6, 1994 Commission hearing. 4 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-5822 Owner: John Hundley, Dyer Family, Maggie Williams and Curtis Wilkins Applicant: James A. Finch Location: Pinnacle valley and County Farm Road Request: Rezone from R-2 to AF Purpose: Golf Course Size: 233.6 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 East - Vacant and Single -Family, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question, the northwest corner of Pinnacle valley and County Farm, is located outside the city limits, but within an area that the city has land use and zoning jurisdiction. The request before the Commission is to rezone 234 acres from R-2 to AF for a golf course. In the AF district the following is listed under permitted uses. Government or private recreation uses, limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, day camps and passive recreational open space. In addition to the 18 hole course, the proposed plan also includes a clubhouse, cart storage building, maintenance equipment building, a paved parking area (250 cars) and a lighted practice range. The clubhouse will have a golf shop and a small snack bar. The overall design of the facility will be sensitive to the site's uniqueness and have a minimal environmental impact. There are some wooded wetlands involved and they will be preserved through this project. Zoning in the immediate vicinity is primarily R-2. At the northeast corner of Pinnacle Valley and Beck Road, there is August 9, 1994 ITEM NO • 1 Z-5822 (Cont.) a C-1 parcel which is occupied by a small commercial establishment. The primary land use is "rural residential" which includes large lots or homesteads of 10 or 20 acres. A significant portion of the surrounding area is still undeveloped. The purpose and intent paragraph of the AF district (Section 36-338) states: The AF agriculture and forestry district is intended to provide a smooth transition between purely rural areas and newly urbanized areas, allowing flexibility adequate to permit reasonable absorption of land use types typically found in the urban fringe. Many areas newly annexed to the city will be already partially developed with a variety of nonurban land uses, while others will exhibit relatively little development of any kind. It is the purpose of the AF district to provide a usable district for certain uses which may be annexed to the city and which may be held from development as urban land uses. Based on the preceding statements, the AF district is designed for the site under consideration. Both the AF zoning and proposed land use are compatible with the existing uses in the area. It appears that every effort is being made to minimize any potential impacts on surrounding properties and protect the rural character of the area. The only issue of any concerns is the lighting of certain areas and the staff will work with the designers to ensure that the lighting is appropriate for the area. Obviously, there will be an increase in traffic, however, the existing streets should be able to handle the heavier traffic flow. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The requested site is located in the Pinnacle District. The plan recommends single family and park/open space for the site. In areas outside the city limits recommended for single family, AF (Agriculture and Forestry) is an appropriate classification. The request is therefore in conformance with the Plan. ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. Dedication of the established floodway. K August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-5822 (Cont.) 2. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Pinnacle Valley Road - 45 foot from the centerline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the AF rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) The applicant, Jim Finch, was present. There were several objectors in attendance. Mr. Finch spoke first and distributed some materials to the Planning Commission. Mr. Finch discussed the AF rezoning request and said the proposal would preserve the open, natural state of the property. He then provided some history of the area and the site. Mr. Finch indicated that the proposed golf course would enhance the property and presented a graphic of the course layout, a total of 233 acres. He told the Commission that a 10 acre site was being left out of the acreage because of two large homes on the land. Mr. Finch continued by saying the golf course would be a championship style 18 hole course and users would pay a daily fee. He said the course would be a quality development and a market study indicated that there was a demand for a good golf course. Mr. Finch went on to describe some of the preliminary planning and reviewed the conceptual site plan. He said the site would be left as natural as possible. He then told the Commission about a meeting with the property owners association and some of the issues that were raised. Mr. Finch talked about traffic and said the additional traffic should not be a significant issue. He then discussed the potential impacts from a R-2 development, the existing zoning. Mr. Finch also talked about drainage and said only 5% of the site would be paved or covered with rooftops. Mr. Finch concluded by saying that the AF rezoning proposal was the only issue before the Planning Commission. John McKay, agent for the property owner, spoke in support of the request and said the golf course was a good development proposal. Jan Butenschoen, representing the River Valley Property Owners Association, said the Association voted to support the proposed AF rezoning. Ms. Butenschoen said the AF was compatible with the surrounding area and a golf course would preserve the land. 3 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-5822 (Cont.) Natalie Norwood, a resident of the Pinnacle Valley area, spoke against the rezoning. Ms. Norwood described the area and the existing uses. Ms. Norwood also read a letter from Brenda Norwood objecting to the rezoning. Rose Bickerstaff opposed the AF rezoning. Ms. Bickerstaff addressed the need for a golf course and said the people in the area would not use it. She also questioned the positive impact from a golf course and whether it would be a beneficial use for the entire community. Ms. Bickerstaff asked the Commission to deny the AF rezoning. R. L. Norwood, a property owner, said she was against the rezoning. Ms. Norwood said the golf course was part of the AF rezoning before the Commission. Ms. Norwood also questioned the benefit to the total community and asked that the rezoning be denied. Sandra Love, 7314 Hidden Valley Road, spoke against the AF rezoning. Ms. Love said she has been a resident of the Pinnacle Valley area for 45 years and she was very concerned with the proposal. She discussed the wetlands and drainage in the area. Ms. Love then described the floodplain land and said there would be water problems from the proposed development. There was a discussion about the various issues. Jim Finch spoke again and discussed the floodplain and floodway issues. Mr. Finch said the wetlands would not be disturbed and the entire site, except for 10 acres, is in the floodplain. Mr. Finch also said that no development was proposed for the floodway. There were additional comments offered by various individuals. Sandra Love commented on the potential drainage problems and the contours of the land. Freddie Porter spoke and discussed the water problems in the area. Jim Finch responded to the water concerns and said flooding would not be a problem because only 5% of the 233 acres was proposed to be covered. The question was called on the R-2 to AF rezoning. The vote was 6 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position to recommend approval of the requested AF rezoning. 4 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5850 Owner: Clayton Braswell Applicant: James W. Braswell Location: 3318 Mary Street Request: Rezone from R-3 to I-2 Purpose: Industrial Size: 0.48 acres Existing Use: Single -Family (vacant) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Mixed, zoned I-2 South - Single -Family, zoned I-2 East - Industrial, zoned I-2 West - Single -Family, zoned R-3 STAFF ANALYSIS 3318 Mary Street is currently zoned R-3, and the request is to reclassify the site to I-2. At this time, there is no specific user for the property. The northwest corner of Mary Street and West 34th is situated two blocks south of Asher Avenue and three blocks east of Mabelvale Pike. The site is three 50 foot lots and is occupied by a vacant single family residence. There are also two accessory structures on the property. The frontage is 140 feet on Mary and 150 feet on West 34th. Zoning in the area is R-3, R-2, 0-1, C-1, C-3, C-4, I-2, I-3 and PRD. This combination of zoning districts is typical for the Asher Avenue corridor and properties one to two blocks from Asher. The property in question is adjacent to I-2 zoning on three sides and R-3 along the west property line. I-2 is the predominant zoning district found in the neighborhood. Land use is very similar to the existing zoning and includes single family, commercial and various types of industrial uses. The largest industrial user is Quality Foods which is located to the east and involves a significant amount of acres. The reclassification of 3318 Mary Street to I-2 is compatible with the neighborhood, and should not create any problems for the nearby properties. Long term, it appears that the remaining residential lots will be rezoned for some type of nonresidential use. The proposed industrial August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5850 (Cont.) rezoning conforms to the adopted plan and there are no outstanding land use or zoning issues. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The requested site is located in the I-630 District. The plan recommends light industrial for the site. There is no land use issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the I-2 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the I-2 rezoning. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 2 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5854 Owner: A. J. Fumer Applicant: Rett Tucker Location: 9007 Kanis (west of Barrow Road) Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose: Commercial Size: 0.94 acres Existing Use: Single -Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Office, zoned 0-3 South - Vacant, zoned C-3 East - Fire Station, zoned C-3 West - Commercial, zoned C-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The request for 9007 Kanis Road is to rezone the property from R-2 to C-3 for an unspecified commercial use. 9007 Kanis is located on the south side of Kanis and approximately two blocks west of John Barrow Road. At this time, the site is occupied by one single family residence. The lot has 137 feet of frontage on Kanis and an average depth of 342 feet. Zoning is R-2, R-5, MF -18, 0-3, C-3 and C-4. The property in question is last remaining R-2 parcel on the south side of Kanis from Barrow Road to a point about 1,300 feet west of Barrow Road. The surrounding zoning is C-3 and the land across Kanis is zoned 0-3. Land use is made-up of single family, multifamily, church, office, commercial, mini - storage units and a fire station. Also located in the area is the Baptist Hospital campus, a major institutional use. The adopted plan, I-430, shows the site under consideration for multifamily (low density) use. This area is west and south of the fire station, and includes properties zoned 0-3 and C-3. Because of the existing zoning and location, a commercial reclassification is a reasonable option for 9007 Kanis. Should the commission endorse the proposed C-3, a plan amendment will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for action. A nonresidential land use designation is more compatible with the development trends found in the area. August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 Z-5854 (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The requested site is located in the I-430 District. The plan recommends Low Density Multifamily (LMF). Most of the LMF designated area is zoned 110-3" General Office or "C-3" General Commercial. Mixed Office and Commercial would be a better designation based on the existing use and zoning pattern. A plan amendment will be prepared for the Board of Directors to accomplish this change. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Kanis Road is classified as minor arterial, and the right-of-way standard is 45 feet from centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the item was left on the Consent Agenda. As part of the Consent Agenda, the C-3 rezoning was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 2 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5855 C601 Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: P. E. and Melba Munnerlyn and R&R Properties, Inc. A. S. Rosen 1800, 2000 and 2006 Sanford Dr. Rezone from R-2 to R-5 Multifamily 0.74 acres Multifamily (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Multifamily, zoned R-2 South - Multifamily, zoned R-2 East - Multifamily, zoned R-2 and R-5 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The three lots in question, 1800, 2000 and 2006 Sanford Drive, are nonconforming multifamily uses, zoned R-2. Each property has four units on it and the request is to rezone the three sites to R-5. The owners would like to do away with nonconforming status and the potential problems associated with such a situation. (Sanford Drive was an "island" and the street was annexed to the city after the multifamily units were constructed.) There is one building on each lot and all three have off-street parking. Zoning in the area is R-2, R-5 and MF -24. The majority of the multifamily zoning is located along Reservoir Road and includes several large apartment developments. Along Sanford Drive, there are 33 multifamily lots, and a total of six are zoned R-5. The surrounding land use is either single family or multifamily. There is also one church in the immediate vicinity. Because of the existing land use pattern found on Sanford Drive, a R-5 reclassification of the three lots is appropriate. It appears that the rezoning will only change the nonconforming status of the properties and nothing else. There is no plan issue because several months ago the land use element was amended to show Sanford Drive as part of a multifamily area. And finally, some of the existing single family lots were platted and developed after Sanford Drive August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5855 (Cont.) was annexed. Therefore, the rezoning should not have an impact on the nearby neighborhoods. (In the R-5 district, there is a "lot area per family" requirement which limits the number of units permitted on a tract of land. For these lots, 10,000 to 11,000 square feet, the maximum is five units. The ordinance requires 2,000 square feet of land area for lots ranging from 10,000 square feet to one acre.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The requested site is located in the West Little Rock District. The plan recommends Multifamily in the requested area. There is no land use issue. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the R-5 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission recommended approval of the R-5 rezoning request. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 2 August 9, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z -4246-B NAME: LOCATION• Pulaski Academy Conditional Use Permit - Time Extension 12701 Hinson Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Pulaski Academy by Sally Bowen PROPOSAL: One year time extension of a previously approved conditional use permit which allowed for the use of three temporary classroom buildings. STAFF ANALYSIS• On June 30, 1992, Pulaski Academy received Planning Commission approval of an amendment to their C.U.P. Included in this amendment was a new 10 -year Master Plan and three temporary classroom buildings. The school previously imposed on itself a two year limit for these temporary buildings, which expires this summer, to force implementation of the new Master Plan. The school has completed relocation of the practice field, added additional parking, and is currently underway with the first building scheduled on the Master Plan. The new building is scheduled for completion around April 1, 1995. The school is requesting approval to continue use of the temporary buildings until this new building is completed and occupied. Staff feels that this request for one additional year's use of the temporary classroom buildings is reasonable and is supportive of the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to continue use of the temporary classroom buildings until August 1, 1995 or until the new building is completed and occupied, whichever comes first. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 9, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. CL EN Cl) 11 I 6XV, O Lij M Zco < Z w< LLJ 2 < M -j co LLJ z < F -)Lu LLI CZ Lij 0 LIJ I z (D Lij < C� :E :2 LU LU -i 1-- < z 0 Cf) Lij C) < - Z- I RL o -i < 2-' 0 ( 8) 0 ?,- L.Lj 0 rj j UD C) -::r_ CT- co cc LLI < z LLJ LLI >- w UD Em 0< � < Lid cr LLJ � III --j LLJ Y z m �:z Fn :E cr: Cf) ui C2 LIJ cr < C15 = 2 < 0 LL) CC < 0 0 LLJ —j W ME co 0 U J?=D 0 -J Lij U) < 3: � EN Cl) 11 I 6XV, O Lij M Zco < Z w< LLJ 2 < M -j co LLJ z < F -)Lu LLI CZ Lij 0 LIJ I z (D Lij < C� :E :2 LU LU -i 1-- < z 0 Cf) Lij C) < - Z- I RL o -i < 2-' 0 ( 8) 0 ?,- L.Lj 0 rj j UD C) -::r_ CT- co cc LLI < EN Cl) 11 I 6XV, August 9, 1994 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Date Secreta Chairman