pc_01 10 1984sub1
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 10, 1984
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 11 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were not approved at this meeting.
III. Members present: John Schlereth
Jerilyn Nicholson
Richard Massie
William Ketcher
Dorothy Arnett
Betty Sipes
John Clayton
David Jones
James Summerlin
Ida Boles
Bill Rector
IV. City attorney present: Jim Sloan
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Kerr Commercial
Conditional Use (Z -4121)
SW Corner of Intersection of
Baseline Road and Daily Drive
United Partnerships
Daily Drive & Baseline Road
Groups /Bob Richardson
To rezone this property from "R -2" To "C -3" and to obtain a
conditional use permit which would allow construction of
five 55' x 270' mini - warehouse buildings and a 10,400 square
foot retail building.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Site Location
The site is located at the intersection of a minor
arterial and a residential street. The property is
relatively low in elevation and is generally flat.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
The immediate neighborhood is residential in character.
The site itself is used as residential property.
Vacant land is also adjacent to this site on both the
east and west side. A commercial use, such as retail
and mini - warehouse would not appear to be compatible
with the existing neighborhood.
On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing three points of access and
35 parking spaces. One access is proposed for Baseline
Road and two for Daily Drive.
Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing landscaping on the east
adjacent to Daily Drive. The applicant also proposes
to construct a 6 -foot opaque fence on the south
property 1 ine.
' r 7
t �
i t
U
January 10, 1984
1
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
5. Analysis
This proposal meets ordinance requirements for a "C -3"
District. It also meets parking requirements. The
applicant would, however, be required to dedicate and
construct Baseline Road to minor arterial standards.
Daily Drive would also need to be built to residential
street standards.
The staff does feel that this proposal is suspect in
terms of the proposed land use. The Suburban
Development Plan shows office in this area. In
addition, the property has yet to be rezoned
commercial.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff withholds recommendation on this item due to
the conflict with the Suburban Development Plan and the
impending rezoning action.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The applicant agreed with the
staff assessment on Baseline Road and Daily Drive. The
Committee felt that this issue should be reviewed after the
impending zoning action is complete.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and had apparently failed to give
the adjacent property owners sufficient required notice of
10 days. The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to
defer this item to the December 13, 1983, Planning
Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no new issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to defer this
item 30 days as the applicant will resubmit this proposal as
a PUD in an 110-3" zoning district.
n
7
t
' r
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the
application. Staff reported that the applicant had not
technically applied for a PUD, which means that the item had
not been legally advertised as such. Staff was instructed
to investigate whether or not the applicant could pursue
legal advertising on his own before the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 10 -84)
The Commission decided to defer this item so that legal
advertisement could be made. The vote was: 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
t~
January �0, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
NAME: Process One PCD (Z -4123)
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Rodney
Parham and Old Forge
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Process One Richardson Engineers
Ft. Smith, AR 1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 0.57 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: "C -3"
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Allow building to be within the 25' setback from the
floodway.
2. Minimum acreage requirement.
A. History of the Site
None.
B. Development Objectives
1. To provide the area with pickup and delivery
photographic service.
2. The use of a PUD process as a more acceptable
vehicle for development in the neighborhood than
the usually required "C -3" zoning.
C. Development Proposal
1. Building Area ...............910 sq. ft.
2. Parking ......................20 spaces
3. Waivers Requested:
(a) Construction of building within the 25 -foot
setback area from the floodway.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the applicant. A revised
plan indicated as "Plan C" was presented. It served to
reduce parking and remove the building out of the floodway
setback. The Commission determined that the main issue to
be resolved involved use as land for a park (if acquired),
for office (as proposed), or as residential (as zoned),
since technical Ordinance requirements were met.
Objectors, however, felt that just technical compliance in
this instance was not enough. Spokespersons from the
neighborhood included Mr. Chris Jackson, an attorney
experienced in flooding matters and a resident to the
immediate west, Mr. Al Gantz, a resident of 15 to 20 years,
and Mr. Fred Arnold, a retired architect and resident of the
area for 35 years. They contended that there was currently
a flooding problem resulting in previous damages to their
property, and expressed a fear of further damages if the
property is developed. Mr. Jackson also stated that at the
time he rezoned his present office site, he was advised
against commercial zoning in the area. Finally, a motion
was made and passed for a 30 -day deferral so that a more
detailed study could be done to determine the natural flow
of the water and weather damage would result to the abutting
area if the property is developed. A motion passed by a
vote of: 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12- 29 -83)
Mr. Bob Richardson, project engineer, stated that he is
still awaiting the results of the hydraulic analysis being
done by Garver and Garver Engineers. The City Engineer is
requested to review the study before the meeting on the
10th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. Objectors
from the neighborhood were in attendance. Mr. Richardson
reported that the results of the HEC -2 Computer Program,
based on data last updated in 1980, showed that this
proposal caused no increase in flood levels.
r
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
(b) Minimum acreage requirement.
D. Engineering Considerations
(a) Floodway and elevation information is represented
correctly.
(b) Recent Ordinance requires 25' setback from
floodway line.
(c) Chain link fence should not be placed in the
floodway.
E. Analysis
The applicant has requested two waivers. Adequate
justification is needed in order to grant a variance
from the recently approved Floodplain Ordinance. The
burden is on the applicant to provide this. Since this
is a short -form PUD, there is no minimum acreage
requirement. Staff felt that the proposed parking is a
little excessive for the intended use.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat but further justification for the
waiver is needed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported a change from their original recommendation
to that of denial. The main objection is against the use of
the property as commercial at this location. Staff's past
policy reflects approvals of office on rezonings of this
nature in the Rodney Parham area. Engineering also modified
their position on the waiver, stating that they would accept
the building line which designates the buildable area.
Additional information received reflected the strong desire
from the Parks Department for a park on this site.
January 1,0, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
Attorney Cliff Jackson challenged this position by stating
that there was obviously a difference in the theoretical
data and what was observed; and that the results of the
study were not accurate because it was based on an erroneous
outdated data base, as proved by neighborhood accounts of
existing flooding problems. He stressed the danger of
voting merely on theoretical assumption rather than relying
on direct eyewitness account. It was pointed out that the
City has already been legally challenged on two accounts in
which it used this approach. An additional objection
expressed was to "a junky commercial building adjacent to
his house." Other speakers from the neighborhood included:
(1) Mr. Al Janssen of 45 Warwick who showed pictures of
flooding with a normal rainfall.
(2) Mr. Fred Arnold who spoke against the outdated
engineering data used in computation.
(3) Mr. C.S. Ferrell of 55 Warwick submitted a petition
with 26 signatures of persons who have a flooding
problem when it rains.
(4) Mr. Grant, who used to work as an architectural
engineer, stated that the floodway and floodplain maps
used for data weren't correct. Due to previous work
experience, he knew that they were based on aerial
photos. He reiterated previous comments concerning an
existing flooding problem.
(5) Mr. Bill Clendenen, a new property owner, objected to
the proposed use of the property as commercial.
A motion was made to approve the project. It was denied by
a vote of 3 ayes, 7 noes and 1 abstention.*
*Commissioner Rector abstained.
January 10, 1984
Item No. C - Z- 2729 -C
Owner: Barbara Jean W. Caldwell,
Minnie Hocott Shive and
Doug Toney
Applicant: Bill Clark and E. Harley Cox, Jr.
Location: Leander Street at Calden Avenue
SE Corner
Request: Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
and "PRD" Planned Residential
Development to "MF -24"
Multifamily
Purpose: Multifamily Development
Size: 9.0 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" and "R -2"
South - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Commercial and Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "MF -24" and "R -6"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop the property for multifamily
use. In another location, the property could
accommodate the proposed use without much difficulty,
but the area of this application presents some concerns
and problems. The primary ones being access to the
site and circulation. The property has only one direct
access point and that is Kanis and Leander which is an
unsafe intersection especially for heavy traffic flow.
Traffic needing to go south would have to rely on a
substandard street network and go through Boyle Park.
It would be undesirable to allow the roads of Boyle
Park to become primary routes to the development at
this location. The existing street network cannot
handle the heavier traffic loads created by high
density residential development. (The property to the
west is zoned "R -6" and "MF -24.11) Another general
concern is the potential runoff into Rock Creek and its
effects on existing development downstream. If all the
land in this area is developed as zoned, the runoff
would increase substantially and possibly have adverse
impacts downstream.
t
t
January 10, 1984
Item No. C - Continued
2. The site is vacant and heavily wooded. The high point
is at the northwest corner and slopes down to the east.
The majority of the property has slopes between 15
percent and 30 percent with some in excess of 30
percent.
3. There are no Master Street Plan requirements associated
with this request. Leander Street and Calden Avenue
are deficient in existing right -of -way widths so some
dedication is necessary.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5. There are no legal issues associated with this
application.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position on this
property. The site was rezoned to "MF -24" in the early
1970's, and then the "PRD" was approved in 1981. The
initial "MF -24" reclassification was part of a larger
rezoning that included the properties to the west. The
"PRD" was never developed.
7. Staff feels that the location is suitable for some type
of multifamily development but is of the opinion that
the "PRD" process should be utilized because of the
various concerns associated with the site. A "PRD"
will provide the needed review to address all the
issues and to determine a realistic density for the
property. Overbuilding of the site could create some
potentially adverse impacts. The developers must agree
to upgrade Leander Street to proper standards before
any viable project can be undertaken. Without adequate
circulation, higher densities will not work in the area
and will compound the existing problems.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recomends denial of the "MF -24" request and that a
"PRD" process be used for all the properties under the same
ownership.
January 10, 1984
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 13, 1983)
The applicant, Bill Clark, was present. The Commission
discussed the request at length. Discussions centered
around the appropriateness of using the "PRD" process for
the property. Mr. Clark stated that the "MF -24" zoning
would better suit his development plans and offered a
possible compromise which would down zone some "R -6"
property to the west to "MF -24." Staff felt that the
applicant was not offering anything with this compromise.
The Commission was also informed that the applicant plans to
develop approximately 16 acres to the west than is being
requested for in the rezoning. Bob Holloway, Engineer,
addressed the Commission about development potential and the
circulation issue. The Commission expressed to Mr. Clark
that a "PRD" would be a better approach for developing on
the property. The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral to
file a "PRD." A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed
by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 10, 1984)
The applicant, Bill Clark and Bob Holloway, engineer, were
present. Both offered comments in support of the "MF -24"
application and Mr. Clark informed the Commission that he
was unable to secure Mr. Joe Hocott's property for his
project. They presented conceptual designs of a proposed
layout for the entire site. There were two objectors
present, Mrs. Bonnie Burk and Mr. Ernest Floyd. Mrs. Burk
expressed her concerns over impacts of a multifamily
development on traffic, property values and neighborhood
safety. Mr. Floyd reinforced Mrs. Burks comments. Both
were strongly opposed to any multifamily project at this
location. The Commission discussed the case at length.
Mr. Clark described his plans for approximately 21 acres
with an "MF -24" density, thus causing reduction in the
number of possible units because of the existing zoning to
the west. Staff voiced concern over the total number of
units that would be permitted under the 'IMF-24" zoning and
recommended an "MF -18" density as being more appropriate for
the location. Mr. Clark amended his application to request
an "MF -18" reclassification. He also agreed to down zoning
approximately 12 acres directly to the west to "MF -18" and
doing a replat for the entire site. A motion was made to
approve the application as amended. The motion passed by a
vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 10, 1984
Item No. D - Z -4136
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
B.E. Hocott's Estate
Joe Hocott
Leander Street at Rock Creek
Rezone from "R -2" Single Family
to "MF -24" Multifamily
Multifamily Development
2.3 acres +
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2," and "PRD"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "I -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposal is to develop multifamily units on land
that is unsuitable for the proposed use. The property
has some very steep slopes and does not provide
adequate land area for a higher density development.
Only the southern portion of the tract could
realistically be built on.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The site is heavily wooded and a majority of it has
slopes in excess of 30 percent. The western end drops
straight off from Leander Street to Rock Creek.
There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with
this request. Leander Street is deficient in
right -of -way.
There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
There are no legal issues.
There is no documented neighborhood position on the
site.
January 10, 1984
Item No. D - Continued
7. The request is in conflict with the adopted Boyle Park
and Master Parks Plans. The Boyle Park Plan shows the
site as part of an open corridor through the area. The
Park Plan has identified Rock Creek as a Priority One
stream for floodway, open space acquisition. The plan
recommends a minimum acquisition width of 350 feet
which would encroach substantially into the property in
question. Staff feels the site should be left as "R -2"
and acquired by the City for open space and flood
control.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 13, 1983)
The applicant, Joe Hocott, was present. Bill Clark also
spoke on this matter. A 30 -day deferral was suggested to
Mr. Hocott to determine the feasibility of incorporating his
property with the land to the south and submitting a PRD for
all the properties. Mr. Hocott agreed to requesting the
30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 10, 1984)
The applicant was not present. Ben McMinn, representing
Mr. Joe Hocott, submitted a letter requesting a 30 -day
deferral. This was the applicant's second request for a
deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days passed by
a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Bailey Corporation
St. Charles Revised Preliminary
St. Charles Boulevard (west
side of plat)
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 65.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 139 FT. OF NEW ST.: 6,150
ZONING: "R -2" - "MF -12"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family - Multifamily
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Three pipe -stem flag lots.
A. Site History
This plat has been revised to accommodate recent
rezonings of an extra portion of the property from
"MF -12" to "R -2" and from "R -2" to "MF -12." Staff
advised the applicant at that time that both of the
areas would have to be accommodated on a revised plat
to restructure the changes.
B. Staff Report
The applicant has failed to include the areas of
changed zoning within the boundaries of this
submission. He has also differed from the approved
preliminary by not showing Carbonnet as a stubbed out
street. We have received communication from property
owners to the east, who request adherence to the
previous plan since it will provide them with access to
their property and better potential for safety, service
and protection by fire, police, postal, etc. Staff
agrees with their request since the connecting street
is required every 1/4 mile and our records show this on
approved plan.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
C. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of Master Street Plan
issue and submission of preliminary encompassing areas
of change.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the request. Two letters requesting
access were presented. The developer's engineer,
Mr. Joe White, suggested that they get together with the
parties involved and work out two access points, then report
the results of the meeting to the Commission on December 13.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
By request of the applicant, a motion was made and passed to
defer the item for 30 days. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
(12- 28 -83)
The applicant was present. A revised proposal was presented
to the Commission, which connected Carbonnet Court to the
property on the northeast, and Carondelet Court for property
on the west, and provided a divided median on the south
which is to be worked out with Traffic Engineers. The
applicant requested that staff present them with a letter
signed by the Planning Director stating acceptance of this
agreement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 10 -84)
Mr. Joe White represented the developer. There were no
objectors. A motion was made and passed to approve the plan
as revised. The vote was: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F
NAME:
LOCATION:
MOV7VT r%7 Mi
Bailey Corporation
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 2.24 acres
ZONING: "R -2"
St. Charles Plat (Replat of
Tracts B Through F)
SW Corner of Napa Valley and
St. Charles Blvd.
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
A. SITE HISTORY
The site was originally platted as five lots in the
St. Charles Subdivision.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This site is on the eastern edge of an existing single
family subdivision. It is wooded and consist of gentle
slopes. Improvements are in place along St. Charles
Boulevard.
C. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This is a proposal to replat five tracts into eight
lots for single family use. Access is to be provided
by an 18 -foot private drive.
D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
None.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
E. ANALYSIS
Staff has no major reservations relative to the request
for replatting; provided that the applicant acquires
the required amount of property- owners' signatures for
an amendment to the Bill of Assurance. It is felt that
the private drive should be increased from 18' to 20'
and a 30 -foot easement provided.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Joe White and Attorney Chris Barrier represented the
developer. They stated that the Bill of Assurance required
signatures of 51 percent of the landowners. Since the
developer still owns 50 percent of the land, only 1 percent
of the residents' participation would be needed in order to
modify the Bill of Assurance. The applicant agreed to
provide a 20' private drive and 30' easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 15 -83)
Mr. Chris Barrier represented the developer. Mr. Jerry
Webster, president of the Property Owners Association, spoke
in behalf of the neighborhood. He stated that 95 percent of
the residents were opposed to the replat because they felt:
(a) it was not compatible with the character of the
subdivision because of an average lot width of 60' versus
the existing average of 124.51; (b) it represented a breach
of faith due to statements in a developer's brochure and
made by the developer's representative in the Arkansas
Democrat that describe the subdivision as an exclusive area
wit— h lot sizes of about 2200 square foot a house. The
residents also felt that their Bill of Assurance offered
them no protection since the developer was still the
majority landowner. A motion was made and passed for
deferral so that the two parties could reach a compromise.
The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12 -1 -83)
The applicant reported that the developer was still
attempting to resolve the issue with the property- owners.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. F - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Chris Barrier represented the developer. He reported
that they had failed to reach a compromise with the home
owners in St. Charles. A plan revised to seven lots was
submitted. Mr. Jerry Rhodes, an attorney and resident,
represented St. Charles Property Owners Association. He
stated that the residents desired that the replat consist of
only six lots. The basic objections to the proposal were
against what they perceived to be a misrepresentation by the
developer of the living environment to be expected in the
subdivision, and an existing Bill of Assurance which offers
them a minimum of protection. The Chairman called for a
vote. A motion was made for approval of the revised plat.
The motion was denied. The vote: 1 aye, 9 noes and
1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12- 29 -83)
The applicant reported that he had worked out an agreement
with the property owners and requested that the plat be
acted on by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 10 -84)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made and passed to approve the plan as revised
according to the agreement. The motion passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - File No. 472
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Birchbrook Inc.
By: James Hall
Phone Company
Little Rock, AR
Colonel Glenn /Interstate 430
Subdivision
Northwest Corner of Colonel
Glenn at Interstate 430
ENGINEER:
Garver & Garver Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box C -50
Little Rock, AR
Phone No. 376 -3633
AREA: 26.74 acres NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. OF NEW ST.: 750
ZONING: "C 72" Shopping Center District
PROPOSED USES: Office and Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Lots less than five acres in area and individual site
plan review on these lots and final plan one at a time.
A. Existing Conditions
Property in question involves land with some steep
slopes on the N 1/2 ranging from 360' to a high of
430'. The area of the proposal is rural in nature with
little or no development nearby. The abutting streets
are identified as arterials on the Master Street Plan.
B. Development Proposal
The owner proposes to sell 2.07 acres of land from this
"C -2" zoned site. The Zoning Ordinance sets minimum
lot sizes of five acres, except when platting lots
within a commercial subdivision with Planning
Commission review of the total scheme. The building
proposed is a one story office building with 9,799
square feet under the roof. There are 82 total parking
spaces provided. A landscape plan has not been
provided although areas for landscaping are shown on
the plan. The owner states that he is requesting that
this property be subdivided into eight lots ranging in
size from 0.7 acres to 13 acres. He also request that
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
the site plan review process apply to the individual
lots as they are sold. He proposes to widen the north
half of Colonel Glenn Road to one -half of a 60 -foot
street in two phases. Phase I would be from the end of
Highway Department right -of -way to the western side of
the proposed cul -de -sac. Phase I would be constructed
upon the sale of Lot 2 or when one of Lots 3 through 6
are sold. Phase II would be from the proposed
cul -de -sac to Bowman Road. Phase II of Colonel Glenn
Road and widening of Bowman Road to one -half of a
48 -foot street would be constructed in conjunction with
the I -430 shoppers mall on Lot 8. The cul -de -sac would
be constructed when one of Lots 3 through 6 are sold.
We also request that one lot final plats be allowed.
C. Legal Considerations
None reported at this writing.
D. Engineering Considerations
1. Dedicate right -of -way on Bowman Road and Colonel
Glenn Road to minor arterial standards.
2. Improve Bowman Road to include widening to
one -half of 60 -foot pavement section, curb and
gutter and underground drainage as required.
3. Improve Colonel Glenn Road to include widening to
one -half of a 60 -foot pavement section, curb and
gutter and underground drainage.
4. Construct 10 -foot right turn lane of 120' length
and a 125' taper.
5. The interior street as noted on the plat will be
constructed to commercial street standards. That
is, a 60 -foot right -of -way with 36' of pavement.
E. Analysis
This approach is not the usual for commercial
platting. However, the eminent sale of the two acre
lot requires a site plan review be approved in order to
obtain a building permit. The applicant desires to
establish final plat approvals much like those in
several previous commercial plats. That is, one lot at
a time with platting to be controlled by the sale
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
interval. Staff views this as an acceptable approach
since site plan review will follow on subsequent lots
prior to issuance of building permits. We feel we can
handle Phases I and II for all basics at this time. It
deals with approvals of access, circulation and
distribution of land uses. We feel that the only issue
of significance to Planning is the provision of a
record plan to guide the total project toward a
properly functioning neighborhood. Staff can support
the design of the mall site as it embodies good overall
design and parking access and building placement.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the site plan for development of Lot 1 as
filed and approval of the preliminary plat and the mall
site plan with modifications noted in the Engineering
analysis and staff comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the
proposal and passed it to the Commission, subject to
comments made.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Ronnie Hall represented the developer. No one objected.
A motion was made and passed for approval subject to
engineering comments. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent
and 1 abstention.*
*Commissioner Rector abstained.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - File No. 477
NAME: Ash Place Planned Residential
District
LO_CAT_ION: North End of North Ash Street
One Block North of "I" Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
H. Elvin Shuffield Jr. Finley William Engineers
Suite 1021 210 Victory
Pyramid Place Little Rock, AR
Little Rock, AR
AREA: .537 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2" Requesting change to "PRD"
PROPOSED USES: Multifamily in a condominium format with
6 units per acre
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
Terrain involved is somewhat difficult due to a change
in elevation of almost 40' from the northeast corner to
the southwest corner. The surrounding land on the
north is a part of Alsopp Park and has a heavy
vegetation with little public use in this area. The
existing street accessing the site is improved, but
does not have a turnaround device at the end. Adjacent
driveways to residences are now utilized for this
purpose.
B. Development Proposal
The owner states he is desirous of developing a
condominium project at the north dead end of Ash Street
in the City of Little Rock utilizing one unit as my
personal residence and causing the remaining units to
be sold on the open market as single family residences.
This will be a high budget, high quality project with
the following information outlining my proposed
development as to structural and legal composition.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
C.
D.
1. Size of tract - 23,400 sq. ft.
2. Net density per acre - 6
3. Number of buildings and units - 1 building with
3 units
4. Ratio of parking to units - 2 to 1
5. Ratio of building to land - 2,600 sq. ft. of
building to 23,400 sq. ft. of land
6. Number of access points - 1
7. Perimeter treatment - a buffer zone will be
maintained around the entire perimeter of the
project with the natural grade and growth being
retained
8. Unit composition - each unit will have 3 bedrooms
and a two car covered garage
9. Perimeter setback - 8' on the north and south
sides, 25' on both east and west sides with
privacy fence along the south property line
Legal Considerations
The only question in this area is titled to the street
right -of -way along the north side of this project.
However, this does not appear to be an impediment to
the plan proposed.
Engineering Considerations
Request details on entrance
cross - section and location
properties.
E. Analysis
drive to include driveway
of driveways to adjacent
The neighborhood surrounding these lots is
predominantly zoned "R -5" multifamily, except for the
two blocks on each side of Ash Street. There are
several existing multifamily structures nearby, but
most of the structures are large older homes that
appear to be well cared for. The mix of use in the
neighborhood and the low density proposed on these lots
suggest compatibility. The project is listed on the
quantitative list as being six units per acre net.
This represents on two lots less than duplex density.
A project of this type located adjacent to a large
permanent open space and providing good access to
nearby arterial streets we feel entirely appropriate.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
Attorney Engstrum pleaded that the PUD process should not be
permitted to cause overfill, instead of the infill
development that it was designed to stimulate. Other
speakers from the neighborhood included:
(1) Mr. John Toney, an abutting property owner for whom the
proposal presented a precarious situation due to an
encroachment of right -of -way on his property. He
requested engineering data that would give some
indication as to the potential for crashes.
(2) Mr. Bill Rath of 816 North Ash, a property owner to the
west, who stated reasons for opposition based on safety
factors since Ash is currently 21' wide and there were
existing traffic problems caused by persons having to
turn around in yards.
(3) Ms. Dorothy Webb of 814 North Ash who owns a home
occupied by her elderly parents. She cited an incident
last year when an emergency vehicle was called for her
father and had to park in Mr. Rath's yard.
(4) Ms. Shirley Koonce of 422 "I" Street who spoke against
the project and its encroachment on the parks since no
setback was left after elimination of the 30'.
(5) Mr. Robert Saunders, whose mother lives in the
neighborhood, had a question concerning the property's
boundaries.
Attorney Kemp explained his reason for not locating the deed
was because of improper indexing. It was pointed out that
the petition presented to the Commission requesting that the
area be kept single family included the names of apartment
dwellers and commercial establishments. He also pointed out
that Ms. Barber was not present to defend her sworn
affidavit.
Some commissioners expressed that they were more concerned
about the potentially hazardous situation created by the
relationship of the proposed drive to Mr. Toney's driveway
than with the proposed use of the property. A motion was
made for approval. The motion failed to pass by a vote of
0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent.
f
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
We've viewed this project as having very few negative
issues associated. The only comment we would put
forward as a requirement would be that this owner work
with the Parks Department in this development to assure
that no conflicts arise.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the project subject to comments made in the
analysis.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He was instructed to work with
his neighbors to the south on the buffer to be provided and
with the City Engineers on design of access to the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Twenty persons from the
neighborhood were present in opposition. Staff reported
that both fire and engineering's approval had been obtained,
and that the applicant had amended his application by
eliminating the north 30' of the property, reducing the site
to 18,000 square feet. As a result, staff modified its
position to approval of the site plan, provided that the
decks did not encroach into this strip. The applicant
agreed to this.
Attorney Hal Kemp spoke in favor of the application.
Attorney Steve Engstrum represented the neighborhood. A
petition with over 100 signatures of persons in opposition
to the change in zoning was presented. The opposers claimed
that: (1) the lots were obtained under false pretenses
since a sworn statement signed by Mrs. Barber, the previous
owner, was submitted as evidence; (2) the applicant was
trying to appropriate part of the City park since it took
Attorney Engstrum only 30 minutes to find a deed that
Attorney Kemp had stated was misplaced; (3) the proposal was
even less appealing with its present size of approximately
18,000 square feet which is a result of eliminating the 30';
(4) there was no buffer totally surrounding the plan and
(5) this type of development is not consistent with the
Heights /Hillcrest Plan.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - File No. 473
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Cleve Addie Jr.
6101 Geyer Springs Road
Little Rock, AR
Addie Site Plan Review
6101 Geyer Springs Road at the
Missouri Pacific Railroad Tracks
ENGINEER:
Finley William Engineers
210 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone No. 376 -3505
AREA: 2.52 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C -3" General Commercial
PROPOSED USES:
Building addition to existing structure to
provide for additional storage and sales
area.
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
The subject site is generally flat with a railroad main
line lying along the south property. line and an
arterial street on the west. The site contains several
structures which are aligned with the owners service
and sales operation as well as his residence. The
history of the use goes back a number of years to a
period when the owner initiated a retail sales and
service operation for Coleman Recreational Equipment.
The site was rezoned for this applicant for that
business activity.
B. Development Proposal
The owner proposes to add a storage facility for
Coleman Canoes and Parts. Also, a 20' x 24' building
for Coleman Equipment Repair. Several of the buildings
will remain as personal storage for his residential
use.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
C. Legal Considerations
None evidenced at this writing.
D. Engineering Considerations
The requirement for an increase in right -of -way
dedication to minor arterial standards and an increase
approximately 80' or one -half of an 80 -foot section
adjacent to Geyer Springs Road.
E. Analysis
The proposal at hand represents the continued expansion
of a small business on an incremental basis and this
review will serve as guidance through creation of a
plan. There are only two areas of public interest
attached. These are: (1) the right -of -way issue noted
by Engineering and (2) the paving of off - street
parking. The right -of -way dedication, we feel, is
necessary, however, usual requirement for street
improvements shoud not apply since the proposed
building is a minor improvement. We do feel that some
paved parking off - street is necessary especially since
the business is growing and the customer use area
should be improved to all weather standards. We feel
four or five stalls should be provided.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval subject to comments made above. We would not
that as a site plan review this matter should be
reviewed by the Subdivision Committee for determination
of notice to adjoining owners.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee. It was decided that
notice to adjacent property owners was not needed. The
applicant was requested to submit three copies of a revised
plan showing paved parking for the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion was made and passed for approval of the plan as
revised. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
� F �
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - File No. 54 -F
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Point West Joint Venture
212 Center Street
Little Rock, AR
AREA:
Point West Second Addition
South Side of Kanis Road
1/4 Mile West of Bowman Road at
Timber Ridge Road Intersection
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Co.
5318 J.F.K. Blvd.
North Little Rock, AR
Phone No.: 753 -1987
43.87 acres NO. OF LOTS: 114 FT. OF NEW ST.: 4,530
ZONING: "R -2," "MF -18," "MF -24" and "0 -3"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial, "MF" and Single Family
Residential
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Request reduction of West Glenn Drive from a collector to a
residential standard.
A.
Existing Conditions
The land involved is generally rolling terrain with
some significant drainageways. The total plat of Rain
Forest Addition which was the former preliminary
contains in excess of 100 acres and continues south
beyond this plat boundary over a quarter of a mile.
The plat contained in its original form several parcels
which were zoned "MF -18" or "MF -24" plus several "0 -3"
sites along Kanis Road. The only structure on the
entire plat is a two story office building formerly
occupied by Rainey Realty and not shown to be included
in the plat at issue.
B. Development Proposal
To restruture the southernmost lots to accommodate
changes in lots, dimensions and change in street
classification on the east /west collector. Some
adjustment of the lots is necessary to accommodate a
new property line along the south when severing this 43
acres from the balance of the ownership. In all, this
plat and its predecessor are very similar.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
C. Legal Considerations
None evidenced at this writing.
D. Engineering Considerations
1. Dedicate right -of -way on Kanis Road for a minor
arterial.
2. Improve Kanis Road to minor arterial standards at
the time of development.
3. Recommend West Glenn be retained as a collector
street.
E. Analysis
The staff has very little comment on this plat
amendment, except in the area of the collector street.
We feel strongly about retention of this neighborhood
collector as a continuation of City policy (unwritten
to locate a residential collector every one - quarter
mile or so). We feel that this collector should be
added to the Master Street Plan and have requested that
Advance Planning prepare a review of collectors in this
area with that in mind. The other comment we have
concerns the out lot of the former office along
Kanis Road. If that is not included here and
eventually this new development is proposed, an illegal
lot circumstance will create problems for the then
owner.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat amendment subject to resolution of
the two items noted.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The main issues involved the out
parcel abutting Kanis Road and the construction of
West Glenn. The applicant was asked to obtain the
cooperation of the owner in this plat. If cooperation is
not obtained, the Committee suggested that the City
Attorney's advice should be sought so as to determine who is
responsible for improvements to Kanis Road. Some plans for
phasing was mentioned. As for the collector street, the
applicant stated that he had no plans to do anything with
either side of street. The applicant was to get with
Engineering before the meeting and determine phasing and
improvements to Kanis Road. f ,
A
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant requested that the item be deferred until the
February 14 public hearing. A motion to this effect was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - File No. 474
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Lo Key Properties
1800 Bering Drive
Suite 200
Houston, TX
Pleasant Wood Apartments
Site Plan Review
+ 800' from State Highway 10 at
Pleasant Ridge Drive
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith & Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 18 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "MF -12" Multifamily District
PROPOSED USES: Multifamily at 12.2 units per acre =
220 total units
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
The subject property is hilly terrain bordered by an
arterial street, Highway 10 on the north, a collector
street, Pleasant Ridge Drive on the south, and Piedmont
Single Family Subdivision on the west.
B. Development Proposal
This owner desires
parking spaces in
feet in efficiency
larger units. All
Drive, a collector
Cantrell Road.
to construct 200 units with 375
a mix of unit types from 450 square
units to 1,010 square feet in the
access is by way of Pleasant Ridge
street taking direct access to
C. Legal Considerations
None evidenced at this writing.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
D. Engineering Considerations
Request that in lieu toward improvement of Highway 10
adjacent to this development be provided.
E. Analysis
The staff has only two reservations concerning this
project. The density exceeds the 12 per acre max for
"MF -12" by approximately four units. Certification by
the Wastewater utility of availability of connecting
sewer line to serve the site. There are two additional
items we feel should be required dealt with by the
developer prior to the January 10 meeting. (1)
Discussion with the Little Rock Fire Department for
purposes of gaining their review and approval of the
layout for fire protection, and (2) contact with the
City Engineer's Office for purposes of discussing the
structuring of the in lieu contribution to Cantrell
Road.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the subject development petitioned on the
comments made in the analysis, plus the proposal is a
site plan review. This requires a determination by the
Subdivision Committee as to whether it is appropriate
to notify adjacent property owners.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He questioned Engineering's
request for in -lieu contributions at this stage (site plan
review), when it was waived during the preliminary plat
process. Staff was asked to review the old minutes. The
applicant was instructed to submit a revised plan which did
not exceed the required density and to notify adjacent
property owners.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. No one objected. He reported
that the proposal consisted of 18.3 acres so there was no
density problem. Staff reported that the in -lieu
contribution had been waived on the plat. A motion was made
and passed to approve the site plan without the in -lieu
contribution. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Commissioner Jones requested that staff research whether or
not private developers should make in -lieu contributions to
the City since government funds have been set aside for the
improvement of Highway 10.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - File No. 475
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
K Mart Site Plan Review
Southwest Corner of Asher Avenue
at University Avenue
ENGINEER:
Flake and Company Finley Williams
401 West Capitol Avenue 210 Victory
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR
Phone No.: 376 -3505
AREA: 21.01 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C -3" General Commercial
PROPOSED USES:
Retail food sales. Three new building
locations
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
The K Mart Center involved is a built up except for the
frontage area involved in this request. With the
exception of the subject area, the site is almost 100
percent paved or built upon. Development of this
property occurred during an era when landscaping and
good interior parking lot design was not required.
Free movement of vehicles in all directions is
permitted. The base you, being a K Mart retail outlet,
was developed in 1966 with over 95,000 square feet of
floor face. The addition of a 20,000 square foot
retail strip center on the west and an auto service
center of 8,300 square feet spaced out the initial
development. There have been several other uses in
detached buildings on separate lots developed out of
the original property holdings. The Asher Avenue
frontage was not improved along most of its length of
some 8001. South University Avenue is developed at a
State Highway Department standard.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
The applicant proposes to develop three new
freestanding commercial buildings oriented to South
University and mostly accessed internally. The lot
areas proposed meet standards for commercial lots, but
are not proposed for platting or sale. The interior
traffic flow has been discussed with the City Engineer
and prospective tenants and appears to be acceptable to
all except as noted later in traffic comment by the
Engineering Division.
C. Legal Considerations
None evidenced at this writing.
D. Engineering Considerations
1. One -way entrance from University Avenue is
acceptable to the City Engineer. Request detail
plans be submitted to the City and the Arkansas
State Highway Department.
2. Request in -lieu contribution for improvements on
Asher Avenue adjacent to this property and
dedication of additional right -of -way for Arkansas
Highway and Transportation Project 6965.
2. Request channelization and landscaping
improvements throughout the parking area of the
total shopping center. That the project engineer
discuss this topic with the City Engineer's
Office.
E. Analysis
The proposal as drafted represents a significant change
for one of Little Rock's older shopping centers. We
feel utmost attention should be given to functional use
environment that will serve both the owners and
operators and the public. Staff concerns are much the
same as those expressed by the Engineer staff and
support the completely the idea of redesign and
reconstruction of all uncontrolled parking area. We
also support the requirement of in lieu funds for
Asher Avenue. This project has an intensification of
the use around a heavily impacted major intersection
and all possible steps should be taken to soften the
impact of further development.
January,10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plan subject to resolution of of
commitment to establishing the changes in the above
analysis. This is a site plan review and the
Subdivision Committee is required to make a
determination as to the need for notice to adjacent
property owners.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the
application and determined that they needed more information
regarding the in -lieu contribution and right -of -way
dedication on Asher. There was some discussion as to
whether or not landscaping should be required throughout the
site. Some Committee members felt that this proposal makes
a significant impact on the total site, so the applicant
should consider complying with staff's wishes. Notification
to adjacent property owners is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. George Wells represented the application. No one
objected. The issues were identified as involving
dedication of right -of -way, curb improvements and landscape
requirements. There was some discussion as to whether or
not there was authority to acquire the applicant to do such
improvements throughout the site. Staff clarified the issue
as being that of magnitude rather than legality of review
since this was a multiple building site plan review, which
in a broad sense grants authority.
This proposal was viewed as creating a new entrance off
University in addition to the other entrances, and as
creating three intensive traffic generators. Engineering
reported that circulation needed to be defined. Mr. Wells
and Mr. Finley Williams, his engineer, reported that this
could be accomplished by striping and arrows instead of
curbs. Some Commission members felt that striping would be
adequate only if it could be enforced. A motion was made to
approve the site plan, subject to the applicant working out
the required right -of -way dedication and striping for
traffic arrangement with the Engineering department. The
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - File No. 476
NAME:
Hardwood Acres
LOCATION: 660' North of Stagecoach Road
on the West Side of Crystal
Valley Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
M.H.B. Company Finley Williams
8023 Chicot Road 210 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR
Phone No.: 376 -3505
AREA: 19.91 acres NO. OF LOTS: 82 FT. OF NEW ST.: 2,600
ZONING: "R -2" Single Family
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Boundary street improvements on the north and east.
2. Double front lots on Numbers 70 through 80 with no
access allowable to Crystal Valley Road.
A. Existing Conditions
The tract involved has no grade problems. The land is
covered by natural growth of mixed type timber. Master
Street Plan elements abut the subdivision with a
requirement for collector street standards on the north
and arterial street standards on the east. The street
of this site involves a four month period earlier this
year when the purchaser of the land proposed the Mooney
Mobile Home Subdivision. That plat and zoning effort
were rejected by the Planning Commission.
Circumstances with respect to notice requirements
changed with the filing of this plat. Previous
involvement with a mobile home subdivision required
substantial notice of abutting property owners. This
plat requires only the notice of the abutting acreage
owner to the south.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
B. Development Proposal
To develop this 19.9 acres as a conventional
subdivision meeting all design criteria for 82 new
single family lots.
C. Legal Considerations
None evidenced at this writing.
D. Engineering Considerations
1. Dedicate right -of -way on Crystal Valley Road, the
north leg, for a minor arterial street. Dedicate
right -of -way on Crystal Valley Road, the east /west
leg, for a collector standard.
2. Improve Crystal Valley Road, the north leg, to
arterial standards. Improve Crystal Valley Road,
the east /west leg, to collector standards. Confer
with City Engineer concerning the intersection of
Crystal Valley Road.
3. Request clarification of silver and gold leaf
drives. Are they public or private streets? If
public, what information is available relative to
curb data?
4. Request drainage plan to include how flows from
the north of Crystal Valley Road will be handled
on this site.
E. Analysis
The Planning staff views this proposal as being
appropriate for single family development. It appeared
during the course of the proceedings on Mooney
Subdivision that the neighborhood and all other
opposition desired maintenance of single family use on
this property. The only points we would make
concerning the design of this project would be that the
access to all boundary streets be controlled by a
vehicle access prohibition easement along the boundary
streets and that all boundary street improvements be
required.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval conditioned on comments in analysis.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application. The applicant
agreed to comply with staff's recommendation. It was
decided that notification of adjacent property owners was
needed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Quite a few members of The
Crystal Valley Home Owners Association were in attendance.
Mr. Tom Brock expressed a concern about the proposed 18"
drainage pipe, which seemingly funneled water onto his
property. The developer's engineer, Mr. Finley Williams,
and City Engineer Bob Lane assured him that drainage plans
would be corrected and /or finalized to meet the City
standards for construction. A motion was made and passed
for approval, subject to Engineering's comments. The vote:
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
d
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - File No. 120 -A
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Wally Green
Amber Oaks Planned Residential
District Short Form
West Side of Monroe Street at
"B" Street
RMnTMVVV-
Robert J. Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 1.06 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2" Single Family
PROPOSED USES: Request change to "PRD" Condominiums
12 units at 12 per acre
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
The 1.06 acres in this request are at present developed
as a five lot single family subdivision with a
cul -de -sac serving the lots off Monroe Street. Lots
are buildable as is for single family. The access to
this property at "B" Street is not the best, but the
only available and should not present serious problems
for the density proposed. The lot slopes down grade to
the north and west about 25' to a creek running across
the northwest corner. This creek drains a large area
into Coleman Creek. The adjacent neighborhood is all
zoned Single Family with 16 residences backing onto
this site. All utilities and public services are
available.
B. Development Proposal
1. To reclassify the site "PRD" for construction of
12 condominiums.
2. To develop the units in a Williamsburg
architecture.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
C.
D.
3. Provide 20,168 square feet of living space in four
duplexes and one four unit building.
4. Provide 24 off - street parking spaces.
5. Provide 6 -foot opaque perimeter fence.
6. The site will be landscaped to City Ordinance
requirements.
7. Closure of the West 165 feet of the access street.
8. The project is proposed for construction beginning
March 1984 for Phase I which contains the three
buildings at the west end of the site. The
remaining units constructed later in Phase II.
Legal Considerations
None evidenced at this writing.
Engineering Considerations
Entrance street is closed.
easement be established.
E. Analysis
Request that public access
The project proposed is somewhat similar to the
previous proposal on this site titled Avance Square.
That project was unsuccessful at all levels of review
except the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission approved the plan by a six vote majority.
Both the Subdivision Committee and staff recommended
approval of that plan with certain modifications. The
Board of Directors review resulted in denial on
June 17, 1980. That plan as proposed offered two town
house structures with six units east, four units
east /west with a total of 18 parking spaces. The plan
presented here is, in our estimation, an improvement
over the concept of Avance Square and should reduce
many of the objections offered prior. However, there
are several points in addition to the Engineer comment
we would like to offer.
(1) All rear yard area should be thoroughly
landscaped.
(2) The four unit building should be reduced to
thereby providing a total of 10 units on the site.
(3) All landscaping or development in the street
should be reviewed for franchise if retained as
public thoroughfare.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
(4) All drainage work effected by this project be
reviewed by the City Engineer
(5) Upon entering final plan and plat stage, provide
all details of elevations sectioned through the
site and landscape plans.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the comments made in the analysis.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the
application. The applicant stated his feelings that this
project was an improvement over the previous one since it
involved some detached structures. He was advised to
prepare elevations and typicals for presentation at the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were approximately 17
persons present in opposition. Mr. George Wimberly,
spokesperson for the group, submitted a petition with 56
signatures opposing the development. The opposers claimed
that the proposal was too dense, did not include adequate
setbacks and buffering, was detrimental to the single family
neighborhood and was suspect since a court order pertaining
to the previous proposal described the property as
inadequate for PUD development. The Commission's general
reaction was that the project was too dense and that staff
should request a legal opinion from the City Attorney that
would determine if there are any restrictions against
considering this proposal, due to the previous court order.
A motion was made and passed to defer the item until
January 31 based on obtaining the legal opinion. The motion
passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
MEMORANDUM
;ITY OF LITTLE ROCK -
January 13, 1984
D
TO: Jack Magruder, City Attorney
FROM: Nathaniel Griffin,= Comprehensive Planning
SUBJECT: Legal Opinion - Amber Oak Planned Unit Development
As the Planning Commission mentioned in their January 12, 1984
meeting, they wish a legal opinion concerning the Amber Oak
PUD.
The request consists of two questions. The first question is
whether the short form PRD can be less than two acres (1.19)
and the second question is whether the Planning Commission
should be hearing the multifamily case because of the court
order on Avance Square.
Article 9, Section 9 -101, C -3 of the Zoning Ordinance deals
with a minimum size for a short form PUD. We have always
interpreted the short form as having no minimum size
requirement. Because there is some confusion on this issue, I
will have a Zoning Ordinance amendment before the Planning
Commission on January 31, 1984, specifying no minimum size for
the short form PUD.
The Amber_ Oak Development has a different design scheme than
the court reviewed, Avance Square and, therefore, we feel that
the court order does not necessarily apply to the Amber Oak
Development. ='he Avance Square development was of a row house
design, whereas Amber Oaks has several. detached multifamily
units.
Please advise us as to your opinion on these two questions.
Thank you.
JL:nh7
cc: Jim Sloan
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: English Village Apartments
Site Plan Modification
LOCATION: State Highway No. 10
(Cantrell Road at Bryant Street
on the North Side of Cantrell)
APPLICANT: Robert Wilson
By: Samuel Davis
REQUEST:
Amend the approved site plan to allow alternate access to
Cantrell Road in lieu of the Kentucky Avenue and Bryant
Street alignment.
STAFF REPORT
This request is offered in hopes of providing a better and
safer access to the English Village Complex now in place as
well as the new buildings under construction. Earlier this
year, the owner of the development attempted to change the
site plan to allow additional units in a significantly
different design utilizing the access to English Village
Apartments. That access consists of a single concrete drive
with a steep grade intersecting Cantrell Road. After much
discussion and a strong objection by the neighborhood, the
owner opted to use the plan of record which required the
construction of a narrow segment of Kentucky Avenue and
connecting that with Bryant Street within the project. The
site is now being developed under that plans provision,
including a commitment to open those streets. The Planning
staff had problems with that plan, but could not support a
single access through English Village due to the visibility
problems entering Cantrell. The Engineering Division
reports that the new plan appears feasible. The site
distance along Cantrell Road from the proposed exit is
considerably better than from the existing exit or from the
Kentucky Street exit in front of the Sports Mart. The
Engineer Division request that details on the new access
should include centerline profile.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval conditioned on the following:
(1) A final plat be filed for purposes of dedication of a
properly designed and located 45 -foot access easement
centered over the new access drive.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
(2) A commitment to a new site plan for the commercial
portion of this ownership inasmuch as this access plan
renders the prior plan unusable. That plan would be
unusable and difficult to develop inasmuch as a small
portion has been severed by this proposal and would be
unbuildable.
(3) A petition be filed for abandonment of the north /south
segment of Bryant Street which is the now approved
access.
(4) Filing of written assurance of acceptance of the new
access scheme from the owners of the present English
Village project if it is held under other ownership.
Inasmuch as the neighborhood was involved in this plan
at all prior hearings, it would be appropriate to
require notice be given.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application. It was decided that
notice should be given to adjacent property owners. Staff
asked that future use of the island area be clarified.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant requested that this item be deferred for 30
days. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
Jan6ary'10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
L.D. Capell
LOCATION: 5524 Western Hills Avenue
APPLICANT: L.D. Capell
REQUEST:
Variance from the platted side yard on Western Hills Avenue
to permit a 5 -foot setback and construction of a carport.
STAFF REPORT
The requested variance is prompted by desire of the owner to
provide weather protection from vehicles after closed in the
former garage. The extension of the carport encroaches upon
the platted building line area which requires a replat of
the lot in order to move the line. If this type of building
line variance is varied and it sets no pattern, there is
little guidance offered by past activities or ordinance in
dealing with these issues. Therefore, the only guidance we
can offer is that which the Board of Adjustment receives
from ordinance which is to grant exception when a hardship
is present. Our inspection of the site indicates the owner
has an alternative which is to build a carport adjacent to
the house on the north side. There are design constraints
in this area of the lot except that the driveway would need
to be located. It was pointed out by Engineering staff that
the driveway grade would require an unusual roofline on the
street side of the structure. Also, that the Traffic
Engineer may need to look at the proposal to determine if a
blind corner would be created. Although at this time the
corner is not a true corner, but is an "L" turn.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, the Committee did not
review this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. A motion for approval was
made. The motion failed by a vote of: 0 ayes, 9 noes and
2 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Kanis Road Conditional Use
(Z- 4139 -A)
Northeast Corner of Kanis Road
and I -430
Little Rock Water Works/
Dale Russom
To construct an elevated water storage tank which will
provide backup water service above 500' in elevation. The
site is zoned "C -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
The site is located on a heavily forested hilltop
adjacent to I -430.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The site is compatible with the surrounding area. The
area is primarily vacant with some office and
commercial uses.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
A 20 -foot access easement adjacent to the I -430
right -of -way will serve this property. Parking is not
required.
4. Screening and Buffers
The Water Works has an agreement with the seller to
plant grass, shrubs and place a chain link fence around
the property. The color of the tank is to be approved
by the Baptist Medical Center.
5. Analysis
The application meets City Ordinance standards. The
applicant received a height variance for the water
tower from the Little Rock Board of Adjustment on
December 19, 1983.
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
Y
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
STIRnTVTSTOM C'OMMTrllrPP +' DF77TG'T.7.
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PT.AMMTMr- rnMMTCCTnr7 ROMTnM.
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent to approve the application as
recommended by staff.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Rock Creek Day -Care
Conditional Use (Z -4148)
13200 Rock Creek Parkway
(Within Ginny's Vineyard
Apartment Complex)
E.R. Properties /Robert Brown
To construct a 3,120 square foot day -care center which will
have a capacity of 75 children and a staff of four. The
site is zoned "R -5."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
The site is located adjacent to Rock Creek Parkway on
wooded land that slopes to the north.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located within a proposed multifamily
development. The remainder of the adjacent sites are
vacant. Rock Creek Parkway is the only use in the
immediate area. This proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
Access will be taken from a one -way drop -off loop,
which in turn takes it access from a drive off Rock
Creek Parkway. The applicant is proposing to designate
five parking spaces for the day -care center.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant proposes to meet all City Landscape
Ordinance requirements.
5. Analysis
The applicant has met City parking requirements.
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval as filed.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PT.ANNTMr- rr)MMTCCTnX7 rrmTnM.
The applicant was present. The Commission voted 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent to approve the application as
recommended by staff.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: East Seventh Street and
Nichols Avenue Right -of -Way
Abandonment
LOCATION: The area of East 6th Street and
East 7th Street lying East of
Fletcher
APPLICANT: Conestoga Wood Specialties, Inc.
By: W. Christopher Barrier
REQUEST:
Abandon + 415' and join with the abutting property.
STAFF REPORT
This proposal is part of a reconstruction and reorganization
of the former Wrape properties. A proposal has been
submitted in preliminary form for Board of Adjustment
variance review dealing with the location of a parking lot
on most of the abutting properties to these closures. The
street right -of -way involved is used only as interval part
of the drives and parking for Conestoga. The right -of -way
on both streets has not been used by the general public and
in the conventional request would be reason enough for
closure. We feel that given the many discussions we have
held with this owner about redevelopment and negotiations
with Mr. Hill in Human Resources concerning land swaps that
an overview of this development is in order. We believe
that this owner should submit to the Planning Commission an
overall scheme for review and approval in order to provide
some guidance for all future actions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Deferral for at least 60 days.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that several unresolved problems involving
Board of Adjustment issues, to acquisition of railroad
spurs, replatting and a desire by Human Resources for land
acquisition, have prompted the recommendation for deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made to defer this item for 60 days. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
Hill Street and Battle Street
Abandonments
LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of Rodney
Parham Road at Interstate 430 on
the north side of Barksdale Road
APPLICANT: Bill McClard
REQUEST:
Abandon 411 lineal feet of street and join with abutting
property.
STAFF REPORT
The rights -of -way involved here are not now in use and have
been paper streets since platting. There have been no
adverse comments received from reviewing agencies. The
retention of utility easement rights is suggested until such
time as a development plan restructures the use on these
ownerships. There are no deficient street rights -of -way
abutting these properties receiving the abandoned
right -of -way except for Barksdale Road on the south. It is
quite possible that future development of this land area
will require an improvement of Barksdale. In that event,
additional dedication will be needed. Official
investigation by this office indicates only 30' of
right -of -way in place. It would be appropriate to ask for
the additional dedication from this owner in conjunction
with the abandonment. Work width for this purpose would be
25' from the present centerline of right -of -way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
This item was passed to the Commission, subject to comments
made.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed to approve, subject to utility
` requirements. The vote was: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Malekin Street Closure
LOCATION: Lying between Timber Ridge and
Gamble Road approximately 400'
South of West Markham Street in
the Gilbraltar Heights
Subdivision Area
APPLICANT: Virgil Young, Attorney
REQUEST:
Abandon 620 lineal feet of street, 40' in width and join to
adjacent ownerships.
STAFF REPORT
The rights -of -way involved are not improved street and serve
no public purpose at this time. The street plan adopted by
the City for the Gilbraltar Heights Subdivision indicates
that this right -of -way is not intended to be retained for
circulation. The utility easement rights are required for
ordinance inclusion. The property adjacent is generally
undeveloped, zoning potential, which is generally
nonresidential.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
This item was passed to the Commission subject to comments
made.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed to approve, subject to utility
requirements. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
St. Charles Property Owners
Association Bill of Assurance
Amendments
LOCATION: St. Charles Community
APPLICANT: Jerry Webster, Representative
of the Committee
REQUEST:
Planning Commission approval of an amendment to the Bill of
Assurance to permit restructuring of the amendment
provisions to place control in the hands of owners in the
subdivision for purposes of carports and replatting.
STAFF REPORT
This request is a product of the Bill of Assurance
controversy involved in the St. Charles replatting issue.
By this Bill of Assurance amendment are:
1. That the land involved shall only be used for one
single family detached residence each to contain at
least a two car carport or garage.
2. That all platting actions involving lots within the
subdivision shall not be approved unless consent of 75
percent of the owners of St. Charles time such an
amendment.
Staff feels that these provisions are not beyond the
permitted covenants of a Bill of Assurance and restricted
only by controlling factors embodied within the original
Bill of Assurance as to amendment procedure. At this
writing, we have not been provided with a copy of the
original instrument. Therefore, we cannot make a judgment
on the proposal. However, the issues at hand are not
ordinance requirements of the City of Little Rock and
normally are included at the discretion of a developer or
property owners association.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the proposal unless information develops prior
to the public hearing suggesting an alternate position.
4
e
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 — Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Jerry Webster represented the Property Owners'
Association. He requested that the item be withdrawn from
the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed to withdraw this item from the
agenda. The vote was: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
� r
DATE
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
7, ONTNC, gTTPnTX7TQTnTT
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
MEMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
J- S
✓
�'
A
i°
✓
J. Schlereth
✓
1�
f%
1�
V�
✓
g,�
✓
Y
f�
t/`
R. Massie`
�
v
V
.A
'
A
A
j
A
A
AAA
A
A
�
A
A
A
A
A
B . Sipes
Xl
Ve
Der
(%
Y
v
✓/a
1�'
V,
PIX
�%
v
J. Nichol-son
Woe-
W. Rector
A
W. K e t c h e r
�`
/
10001,
D. Arnett
D. J. Jones
1
i
✓
''�
`'
�/
P-1
I, Boles
R
L
v
zv,
,v
41
J: Clayton
A
,✓
A
V AYE ® NAYE /A ABSENT `ABSTAIN
January 10, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business before the Commission, the
minute was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
C rman
Secre ary
Date