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