pc_05 15 1984subi � l
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MAY 15, 1984
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 10 in number
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members present:
Members absent:
City Attorney:
John Schlereth
David Jones
Richard Massie
Betty Sipes
Ida Boles
William Ketcher
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector
Jim Summerlin
Dorothy Arnett
John Clayton
Hugh Brown
0
TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
MAY 15, 1984
Deferred Items:
A. Jones Site Plan Review
B. First American Site Plan
C. Northwest Territory Revised Preliminary
Preliminary Plats:
1. Pinedale Cove Addition
2. Nob Hill Heights Preliminary
3. Otter Creek Preliminary, Phase IVC
4. Homestead Estates
Preliminary /Site Plan Review:
5. West Side Commercial
"Revised" Preliminary /Site Plan Review
6. Base Line and Lew Drive Revised Site Plan (Tract 4B,
Sparks Acres)
7. Rock Creek Courts
7A. Hillvale Addition Street Closure
8. Pleasant Valley Town Homes
Planned Unit Development:
9. Plantation House Short Form PRD (Z -4229)
10. Walnut Square Short Form PRD (Z -4206)
11. Candlewood Long Form PRD (Z -4226)
Conditional Use:
12. North Shackleford (Z- 3419A)
13. Hampton Inn (Z -4224)
14. Battery Street (Z -4225)
15. Medical Plaza Hotel (Z -4228)
16. Super Shops (Z -4231)
Building Line Waiver:
17. #2 Meadowcliff Drive
Right -of -Way Abandonment
18. 12th Street Closure
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
NAME: Jones Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Approx. 1000' East of
Intersection of Mabelvale
Cutoff and Chicot
T)PX7VT.r)DG'13
Edco Constr. Co. G.A. Denham
6420 Mabelvale Cutoff 718 West Markham
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR
Phone: 568 -1197
AREA: .5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
A request for rezoning on this site was heard before
the Commission within the last year.
B. Proposal
1. The construction of the proposed building with
1800 square feet on a site of .5 acres for use as
a masonry storage space behind the existing
office.
2. No parking information submitted.
C. Engineering Considerations
Dedicate right -of -way and improve Mabelvale Cutoff to
minor arterial standards. In -lieu contribution may be
requested due to only 66' frontage on Mabelvale Cutoff.
Submit site plan to show driveways and parking.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff was inhibited in its review of the plan due to
its failure to indicate plans for access and parking.
Before the Planning Commission Committee meeting, a
proper site plan with the required setbacks, drives and
parking should be submitted. If approved, a one lot
final plat is required since right -of -way dedication is
requested.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comment until submission of plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. A motion for a 30 -day
deferral was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application and identified the
issues:
(1) An existing open storage area that is not allowed in a
"C -3" zone; and
(2) The appropriateness of "I -2" use in a "C -3" area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Staff reported that a zoning
ordinance amendment disallowing a heating and air
conditioning use in a "C -3" area would be considered by the
Board on the night of the 15th. A motion was made and
passed for approval, provided that the applicant get a
building permit within 30 days. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent, 1 abstention (abstention - Betty Sipes).
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
First American Site Plan Review
(Z- 3638 -B)
LOCATION: NW Corner of the Intersection of
Shackleford Road and Financial
Centre Parkway
OWNER /APPLICANT: Multiple Owners /Gary Dean
PROPOSAL:
To rezone the property from "C -3" to "0-2" and to construct
a six to nine -story office building not to exceed 120 feet
in height; and to construct a two -story parking deck all on
4.59 acres of land.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has proposed 449 parking spaces and
landscaping which meet City ordinances. The proposed
structural coverage is about 7.8 percent of the site, while
paved area coverage is approximately 58.7 percent.
The staff has some question as to the exact location of the
proposed parking deck. A revised site plan should be
submitted delineating the parking deck and its relationship
to the building setback lines. The City Engineer has also
requested that an internal drainage plan be submitted, and
that the applicant agrees to meet with the City Engineer to
discuss the following concerns: traffic circulation;
location of the access drive on Shackleford Road; alignment
of the driveways on Financial Centre Parkway; and a possible
access to Hardin Road from the site. And finally, the
proposed siting of the building meets Ordinance requirements
for a structure up to 120 feet in height.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval provided that the applicant agrees
to: (1) submit a revised site plan delineating the proposed
parking deck; (2) submit an internal drainage plan; and
(3) meet with the City Engineer to discuss traffic
circulation, location of access drive on Shackleford Road,
the alignment of two drives on Financial Centre Parkway and
possible access to Hardin Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The proposed rezoning of
this site has been deferred until the April 24 Planning
Commission meeting. The site plan review will be deferred
until the May 15, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
May_ 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent to defer this item to the May 15, 1984,
Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The applicant requested via
the staff to defer this item to the June 12, 1984, Planning
Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to defer
this item until the June 12, 1984, Planning Commission
meeting.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
T +- om AT- f
NAME: Northwest Territory (Revised)
LOCATION: NE Corner of Highway 10 and
Highway 300
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Kelton Brown, Jr. Edward G. Smith and Associates
12015 Hinson Road 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 225 -0627 Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 49.6 acres NO. OF LOTS: 24 FT. OF NEW ST.: 4,100
ZONING: Outside City
PROPOSED USES: Residential
A. Site History
A previous request for preliminary plat approval on
this site was passed by the Commission on September 15,
1981. The plan requested that 41.8 acres be developed
into 10 lots ranging from 2.5 acres. The motion for
approval was conditioned on certification from the
State Health Department that the land is suitable for
septic tanks.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located outside the City in an area that
is rural in character. The topography appears to be
steep in areas with elevation ranging from 320' to
560'.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to develop a tract of 49.6
acres into 24 lots for single family development. The
amount of new street proposed is 41001. Access will be
from two curb cuts on Highway 10 and Highway 300. Two
internal streets are proposed. Tracts A and B are
designated for future development.
D. Engineering Considerations
1. Improve Shinnal Mountain Drive to minor arterial
standards.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
2. Discuss details for the intersection of Shinnal
Mountain Drive and Highway 300 with City
Engineers. AHTD must approve access onto
Highways 10 and 300.
3. Improve Highways 10 and 300 to arterial standards;
dedicate right -of -way along both routes as
required by the Master Street Plan.
4. Request future plan for the extension of Northwest
Court.
E. Analysis
Staff is favorable to the development concept; however,
the applicant must explain the plans to extend
Northwest Court.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Water Works reported that they
could not serve above elevation 4401. Staff mentioned that
there was a question relative to the availability of sewer
service on the previous proposal. Mr. Joe White, Project
Engineer, informed the Committee that the project would not
require water or sewer service from the City of Little Rock.
He explained that Northwest Court would be a cul -de -sac in a
future phase, access to both state highways have been
approved by A.H.T.D., and that even though rural standards
are currently proposed, Shinnal Mountain Drive will be
constructed to minor arterial standards upon development of
Tract A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Joe White represented the applicant. A request for a
30 -day deferral was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBIDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Joe White of Edward G. Smith & Associates represented
the applicant. He requested that they be granted a 60 -day
deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a
vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
Pinedale Cove Addition
LOCATION: SW Intersection of Sibley
Hole Rd. and Mabelvale Pike
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Mr. Robert Morse Forrest C. Marlar
#4 Riverview Point Marlar Engineering Co., Inc.
Little Rock, AR 5318 JFK Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 753 -1987
AREA: 28.47 acres NO. OF LOTS: 93 FT. OF NEW ST.:
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
The area can generally be described as rural in
character and consisting mostly of single family
dwellings. The land involved is flat and mostly
covered with mature vegetation. The property is
bordered by Sibley Hole Road on the west and Mabelvale
Pike on the northwest. Both of these streets do not
have curb /gutter and sidewalks. A portion of the
property lies within the 100 -Year Floodplain.
C. Development Proposal
This is a plan to develop 28.47 acres into 93 lots for
single family use, one of which is a tract in the
floodplain that will be used as a park for the
residents. 3400' of new street will be built. Two
phases are planned. Phase 1 will consist of Lots 1 -90
(single family) and Lot 91 (park). Phase II will
consist of Lot 92 to be developed at a later date. The
typical lot size is 65" x 1101. The applicant is
requesting waivers to permit a 75' centerline radius
for four curbs on the street. Justification is based
on a proposal of Pinedale Circle as a closed street,
which more than likely will be subjected to reduced
speeds.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Mabelvale Pike
to minor arterial standards.
(2) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Sibley Hole Road
to residential street standards.
(3) Street radii only meets minor residential street
standards.
(4) Some lots subject to Floodplain Ordinance. Place
floor elevation requirements on final plat.
E. Analysis
Staff is favorable to this type of development in the
area. The applicant, however, is cautioned that staff
will not support anything other than single family
development on the future tract, especially since the
plan for that area has recently been amended to omit
commercial development. This plat commits only single
family. Some specifications relative to whether or not
the park will be held in common by all of the property
owners should be made. We do not feel that the waivers
present a problem, except as indicated by the City
Engineers in one instance. They are requesting that
one radius be improved. Pipe stem lots are noted in
two instances; however, they meet the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He reported that the park, which
is currently identified as a lot, would be taken care of by
the Property Owners' Association. The Committee decided to
pass this to the Commission, subject to:
(1) Dedication of right -of -way and improvements of
Mabelvale Pike to minor arterial standards.
(2) Amendment of Master Street Plan so that Sibley Hole
Road could be built as a collector.
(3) A meeting with Engineering to work out improvement of
the first radius on Pinedale Circle.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
(4) Removal of building on future tract and understanding
that this plat commits a future tract only to single
family development.
(5) Indication of floor elevations on final plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant and his engineer were present. There were no
objectors. A revised plan was submitted, which improved the
curb nearest to the entrance as agreed by the City
Engineers, and showed additional dedication for development
of Sibley Hole as a collector street. There was some
discussion on the appropriateness of approving Phase 2 as
proposed. Staff requested that the building line on Lot 92
be removed, and that it be dealt with when the use is
determined; also, that a note be placed on the plat stating
that the City recognizes no commitment to any use other than
Single Family. A motion was made for approval, subject to
understanding that there is a commitment to none other than
Single Family use. The motion passed by a vote of:
10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
i
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
T 4- e- AT- 7
NAME: Nob Hill Heights Preliminary
LOCATION: Markham at Markwood
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Donald Kirk Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road 1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
AREA: 5.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. OF NEW ST.:
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
This site was previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission for multifamily development. The
neighborhood raised significant objections.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in a residential area. Both
single and multifamily uses abut the property. The
land is wooded with elevations ranging from 350' to
440'.
C. Development Proposal
This is a plan to develop 5.9 acres into 9 lots for
residential use. Eight lots will be constructed as
single family and one will possibly be constructed for
multifamily, the specifics of which will be addressed
in a separate application.
The minimum lot size is 17,000 square feet, which all
of the lots are equal to or in excess of. A request
for two culs -de -sac has been made. The applicant is
requesting that the third street to the north be
allowed to remain a dead -end street.
D. Engineering Comments
None.
F]
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
E. Analysis
No major problems have been found. Building lines need
to be reflected on the plat.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the
application and passed it to the Commission, subject to the
reflection of building lines on the plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant's engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, was present.
A motion was made and passed for approval by a vote of:
10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
El
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
(1) This property is subject to the Floodway
Ordinance.
(2) Place floor elevations for Lots 745 through 749;
discuss with Mike Batie in the City Engineer's
Office.
(3) Island should be maintenance free to the City.
(4) Locate driveway at school; Engineering Division
prefers only one driveway at the site.
E. Analysis
No significant problems have been found, providing that
the applicant adheres to Engineering comments and the
floodplain data as indicated. Staff has no opposition
to the continuation of the pedestrian walkway.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant questioned the request for relocation of the
driveway. It was explained that this was to prevent a
direct cross flow from the school across the street. He
agreed to indicate the school's driveway on the plat. He
stated that the island would be a part of the Property
Owners' Association. The Committee passed this to the
Commission, provided that floodplain details were worked out
with Engineering and placed on the final plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Chris McGetrick, Engineer, represented the developer.
Mr. Tom Boyd, resident of Otter Creek, was present. He
reported that the Home Owners' Association did not want to
accept maintenance of the island. He requested that in
future proposals in Otter Creek, the Commission consider
requiring the drainage channels to be lined with concrete,
so as to prohibit further maintenance expense by the
property owners. The Commission questioned whether or not
the AP &L easement was shown correctly on the plat. The
applicant agreed to remove the island from the plat and work
with staff to either indicate the easement as a separate
tract or extend the lot lines to the property line boundary.
0
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Otter Creek, Phase IVC
LOCATION: West Side of Otter Creek
Parkway, immediately north of
intersection of Calleghan Creek
and Otter Creek Parkway
1,000' south of intersection
of Otter Creek Parkway and
Wimbledon Loop
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Rock Venture The Hodges Firm
200 Louisiana 209 1/2 West 2nd Street
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375 -4404 Phone: 375 -4404
AREA: 3.61 acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. OF NEW ST.: 175
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Request continuation of existing internal pedestrian
circulation system in lieu of sidewalks.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This is basically a triangular, flat piece of ground,
which currently consists of a variety of mature
vegetation. It is bordered on the east by a collector
street, on the south by a 150' drainage easement for
Calleghan Branch Creek, and single family zoning on the
north. The northern portion of the property is in the
form of a 100' AP &L easement that currently has power
lines and poles. A portion of the property on the
south lies within the floodplain.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat a tract of 3.6 acres into
7 lots for single family use. The applicant is
requesting that the existing internal pedestrian system
be continued in lieu of sidewalks.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Martin Dorman
1717 Rebsamen Park Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 554 -0003
AREA: 8.6 acres
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Homestead Estates
NW Corner of Highway 10 and
Taylor Loop Road
ENGINEER:
Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
NO. OF LOTS: 18
Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Request private street system.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
FT. OF NEW ST.: 1,010
The land involved is located in what can generally be
described as a rural area of mixed uses, the
predominant of which is single family residential. The
land is flat and consists of grass, underbrush and
scattered trees. Improvements are needed on
Highway 10. Floodplain elevation on the property is
266.0.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal by the applicant to plat
approximately 18.6 acres into 18 estate -size lots for
single family use to be developed in two phases. Water
will be supplied by the Little Rock Water Works. Sewer
will be temporarily supplied by septic tanks. The
sewer main will be constructed which will later be
connected to District 222. A 27' private street is
proposed. It is also requested that in -lieu
contributions for improvements to Highway 10 be made,
since the applicant feels that improvements at this
particular time will be fragmented and not in the
public interest. A request for a cul -de -sac waiver has
been made.
I
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Highway 10 to
arterial standards.
(2) Request that detail plan of entrance be submitted
to Traffic Engineers.
E. Analysis
No major problems have been found. The applicant
should clarify width of Heritage Trail. Letter of
submission indicates it will be 24' and plat says 271.
Staff is not opposed to a private street system if it
meets requirements for public streets. The cul -de -sac
waiver is acceptable; however, in -lieu contributions to
the improvement of Highway 10 are not.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant reported that Heritage Trail would be
developed as a 27' street. The main issue discussed was
whether or not in -lieu contributions should be submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the applicant. No one
objected. There was discussion on the provision of in -lieu
contributions by the developer versus the building of the
required improvements. Engineering stated their usual
policy as requiring a developer to build improvements if
there are no technical problems. A motion was made and
passed for approval, subject to in -lieu contributions. The
vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: West Side Commercial
Revised Preliminary /Site Plan
Review - Replat, Conditional
Use, and Street Closing
LOCATION:
ENGINEER:
NW Corner of Barrow and Kanis
APPLICANT:
Summerlin and Associates Chris Barrier
1619 Broadway Mitchell, Williams, Selig,
Little Rock, AR Jackson and Turner
Phone: 376 -1323 1000 Savers Federal Bldg.
LR, AR 72201
Phone: 376 -3151
A. Site History
The Commission approved a preliminary on this site on
September 13, 1983, which proposed commercial office
use. Since then a final plat has been signed by the
staff for Lot 11R and West Side Drive.
B. Development Proposal
(1) The applicant is now proposing to develop a site
of 7.63 acres with an mini - office /warehouse
project on 4.8 acres and to change the nature of
West Side Drive which provides access from Barrow
Road by proposing a hammerhead instead of the
previously approved drive that connected to
Lile Drive.
This application represents a five -part review
which involves:
(a) New site plan for Tract A.
(b) Revised preliminary of Tract A to dedicate
additional right -of -way; relocate the access
drive to plat Lots 2, 9 and 10.
(c) Replat of Lot 11R (which has been final
platted with through street) to relocate and
modify drive; provide new right -of -way
dedication on the west and to relocate new
lot line to the north.
(d) Street closure to abandon that portion of
right -of -way left when hammerhead is
relocated.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
(e) Conditional use for office /warehouse in "C -3"
area.
(2) Site Plan Specifications
(a) Bldg.
Size
Use
A
30,000
Office /Warehouse
B
16,500
Office /Warehouse
C
13,200
Office /Warehouse
11
9,900
Mini /Lease Office
D
9,150
Mini
E
15,750
Manager's Apt.
Total 94,500 Sq. Ft.
(b) Land Area ..............233,555 Sq. Ft.
(c) Coverage ...............40.4%
(d) Total by Use
O /S ...............16,500 Sq. Ft.
O/W ...............43,200 Sq. Ft.
Mini ..............33,000 Sq. Ft.
Apt. /Office....... 1,800 Sq. Ft.
(3) Special Requests:
(a) Waiver to allow paving in the buffer in the
northwest quadrant.
(b) Waiver for spacing of curbs in the southeast
quadrant, since the curbs on Barrow will be
only 142 feet apart.
(c) The applicant requests that the previously
approved preliminary not be vacated until the
actual transfer of property from the previous
owners to his clients takes place.
The previous owners would also prefer to have
the revised preliminary approved
conditionally, meaning that if new platting
is not effected prior to November 1, 1984,
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
the Commission'a approval would be deemed to
have lapsed, whereupon the original
preliminary plat would be reinstated.
C. Analysis
Staff has no objection to the ba
submittal. The applicant should
the Baptist Hospital agreeing to
the Lile connection, be aware of
to a 40' buffer on the north and
parking spaces to be provided.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
sic intent of the
provide a letter from
the elimination of
a previous commitment
indicate the number of
The Commission reviewed the item. There was some discussion
on whether or not the previously approved buffer on the
north impacted this subdivision. The applicant was advised
to get the letter from the Baptist Hospital and complete
submission requirements for a conditional use application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Chris Barrier represented the developer. Staff reported
that the waiver to allow paving in the buffer area was not
needed; also, the revised plat included the reduction of
what was six platted lots to one. Mr. Barrier revised his
application, and asked that the request for a conditional
approval be eliminated. A motion to approve the request for
a site plan, conditional use, replat, revised preliminary
and a street closure was passed, subject to the applicant
submitting a specific landscaping plan. The motion passed
by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention
(Summerlin abstained).
• 1
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
Base Line and Lew Drive
(Revised Site Plan)
LOCATION: SW Corner of Base Line and
Lew Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Ampersand, Inc. Canino, Maune, and McQueen
#2 Van Circle #2 Van Circle
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR
Phone: 554 -1000 Phone: 664 -1000
AREA: 3.0 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
A. Staff Report
The Commission approved a multiple building review on
this site for the construction of mini - warehouses
during the later part of 1983. Since that time, plans
for development have changed in Tract B, and the rear
of the property will be developed by a different owner
than Tract 4 -A. An application for a lot -split has
been submitted to the staff.
This request is for revision of the site plan review
for Tract B, which previously included six buildings on
this portion of the site. The buildings totaled 56,720
square feet. Revisions include:
(1) An increase from six to eight buildings.
(2) Increase in square footage to 61,000 square feet.
(3) Change in phasing so that south area is Phase I
and north portion is Phase II.
i
Play l -i, i -, u',
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
B. Proposal
Size
Ares
_ _
No. Units
--
Total
-
Area
5' x 8'
40
Sq.
Ft.
32
1,280
3,187.5
Sq. Ft.'
Sq. Ft
8' x 8.5'
42.5
Sq. Ft.
75
48
2,880
Sq. Ft.
7.5' x 8'
60
Sq.
Ft.
96
7,630
Sq. Ft.
10' x 8'
80
Sq.
Ft.
2`
22,000
Sq. Ft.
12.5' x 8'
100
Sq.
Ft.
96 6
11,520
Sq. Ft.
15' x 8'
120
Sq.
Ft.
48
6,720
Sq. Ft.
17.5' x 8'
140
Sq.
Ft•
32
5,720
Sq. Ft.
20' x 8'
160
Sq.
Ft.
1
612.5
Sq. Ft.
Apt.
612.5
Sq. Ft.
647
61,000
Sq. Ft.
Total
C. Staff_ Recommendation
Staff does not object to the revision, provided that
the plan still conforms to the landscaping and buffer
requirements.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Improve Base Line to arterial standards, five lane
intersection may be required; dedicate
right -of -way for arterial street.
(2) Plan appears to construct buildings over drainage
structure. Submit internal drainage plan.
(3) Complete curb /gutter on Lew Drive in the vicinity
of Base Line Road.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The main issue discussed
involved the time frame for the construction of Base Line
improvements. The applicant referred to a previous
commitment that Base Line would be built when Phase II is
built. Engineering requested that the internal drainage
plan be submitted before the 15th.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Mike McQueen represented the developer. A revised plan
was submitted which reflected internal drainage plans. A
motion was made and passed for approval, subject to the
completion of engineering comments. The vote: 9 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
TLS- 11. ^1
NAME: Rock Creek Court Site Plan
Review
LOCATION: North Side of Rock Creek
Parkway approx. 1,000'
east of Parkway Place Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Sexton Company Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates
20 East 91st Street 201 S. Izard Street
Indianapolis, IN 46240 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (317) 846 -4444 Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 31.624 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "MF -18"
PROPOSED USES: Multifamily
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
None.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of a 394 unit apartment complex
on 31.624 acres.
1 Clubhouse
Total Floor Area
1,750
307,860
Total
Unit
Unit
Unit
Square
No.
Type
Size
Footage
16
1- Bdrm /1 -Bath
640
sq.
ft.
10,320
56
1- Bdrm /1 -Bath
540
sq.
ft.
35,840
32
1- Bdrm /1 -Bath
555
sq.
ft.
17,760
32
1- Bdrm /1 -Bath
580
sq.
ft.
18,560
40
1- Bdrm /1 -Bath
500
sq.
ft.
20,000
40
1- Bdrm /1 -Bath
515
sq.
ft.
20,600
2
1- Bdrm /1 -Bath
615
sq.
ft.
1,230
24
2- Bdrm /1 -Bath
865
sq.
ft.
20,760
24
2- Bdrm /1 -Bath
920
sq.
ft.
22,080
48
2- Bdrm /1 -1/2 Bath
1,015
sq.
ft.
64,960
16
2- Bdrm /1 -1/2 Bath
1,070
sq.
ft.
17,120
48
2- Bdrm /1 -1/2 Bath
1,085
sq.
ft.
56,880
1 Clubhouse
Total Floor Area
1,750
307,860
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
(3) Parking
- Open Parking ..................564 spaces
- Carports ...................... 74 spaces
Total 638 spaces
1.62 spaces per dwelling unit
(4) Landscaping Plan
A landscaping plan has been submitted. It
indicates a 40' buffer and 6' fence adjacent to
the area zoned for PRD on the west, and the same
for the area on the north that is zoned for single
family. No fence is shown for the area on the
north zoned for multifamily. Landscaping should
meet the requirements of the City's Ordinance.
C. Engineering Comments
Request channelization of traffic at the entrance to
preclude left turns from entrance. Indicate whether
detention will be used in this project.
D. Analysis
Technically the site plan appears to conform to
requirements, except that the 40' building setback area
adjacent to the PRD in the single family area should be
revised to read "40' buffer area." The property
boundary with respect to the City right -of -way should
be delineated more clearly. The applicant is
requesting to identify the agreement he has with the
City for use of City property for a driveway. A water
line is also shown in that area. Driveway intrusions
are indicated in the buffer areas. The applicant is
reminded that in these instances a minimum of 15'
should be retained in its natural state.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that AP &L objected to the plat until
overhangs into their easements are eliminated. The
applicant agreed to make a formal application to the Board
for use of City right -of -way and indicate the buffered area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Robert Brown represented the developer. He submitted a,
revised plan and letter to the City Board which resolved the
remained issues. Staff reported that AP &L had called and
said there are no remaining issues. A motion for approval
was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7A
NAME:
Hillvale Addition
Street Closure
LOCATION: All of that right -of -way
running north to south,
located 500' east of Parkway
Place Drive, right -of -way is
north of Rock Creek Parkway
and abuts west boundary of
Hillvale Addition
APPLICANT:
Robert Brown
Mehlburger, Tanner,
Renshaw & Assoc.
Little Rock, AR 72207
OWNER:
Sexton Company
20 East 91st Street
Indianapolis, IN
STAFF REPORT:
This is a petition for abandonment of the above described
right -of -way. The title to the property will be transferred
to the adjacent property owners. Currently, the property is
vacant, since the right -of -way has never been opened. It
will be used as a part of a multifamily development after
closure. No adverse comments have been received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME: Pleasant Valley Town Homes
LOCATION: North Side of Rainwood,
approx. 660' south of Hinson
Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Universal Properties Canino, Maune, McQueen
926 Savers Bldg. #2 Van Circle
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 374 -8585 Phone: 664 -1000
AREA: 9.75 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "MF -12"
PROPOSED USES: Condominium
A. Site History
This site was previously approved as the Pleasant Wood
Condominium Development, Phase II.
B. Proposal
(1) Construction according to the following:
Unit Unit
Type No. Area /Unit Subtotals
A 64 1,700 108,800
B 10 2,000 20,000
C 6 1,700 10,200
Clubhouse 2,140
Totals 80 141,150
(2) Parking .....................183 spaces
C. Engineering Considerations
Dedicate right -of -way and improve Rainwood Road to
collector standards, including sidewalks.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
D. Analysis
There is no question as to appropriateness of use since
there is an existing approved plan for condominiums on
the property. The plan certainly does not exceed the
allowed density of 12 units per acre, since it is only
developed at 8.3 units per acre. Access to the
property from Hinson Road is proposed as a 24'
permanent access easement through the health facility's
property. Staff requests the permanence of the
easement be established by its inclusion on the final
plat. There is a possibility that there is a previous
commitment to a 40' undisturbed buffer on the west side
of the property. Staff will report on this at the
meeting. City landscaping requirements must be met.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The issue regarding the previous
buffer commitment on the west side was resolved, since the
proposed buffering on this plan was considered to be an
improvement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. "A revised plan showing a 6 -foot
screening fence on the north and west was submitted. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Z -4229
NAME: Plantation House PRD Short
Form
LOCATION: Markham at Plantation House
Apartments
T1Ti'UPT_/)T3V1D z+ *Tn T *TL+L+n
Donald Kirk Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Rd. 1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 2.3 acres
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: PRD
Phone: 664 -0003
NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
A. Site History
This site was previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission for multifamily development. The
neighborhood raised significant objections.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of 40 rental units on a 2.3 acre
site at a density of 17.4 units per acre.
(2) Unit size will be approximately 1,000 square feet
in living area.
(3) Parking will 63 parking spaces.
(4) Unit Breakdown:
Unit Type Unit No. Unit Size
A 10 31' x 160'
B 12 31' x 192'
C 8 31' x 125'
D 10 31' x 160'
C. Engineering Considerations
Submit plans for ditch design; turns will need to
be protected.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff is not opposed to this development. Our comments
relate to the proposed density and provision of
alternate access if desired. We request that the
applicant revise the plan by eliminating Building C;
and if an issue, provide an alternate access point at
the southwest corner of the site. This would entail
further revision of the plan.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff explained its position as:
(1) Support of a reduction to 31 units obtained by
eliminating Building C.
(2) Revisions to the plat - shifting of the principal drive
75 feet to the west, provision of an alternate access
point on the south and the reduction of the southern
building by one unit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. Approximately
20 persons from the surrounding neighborhoods were present
in opposition. They were represented by Attorney Susan
Martin. Major opposing points included:
(1) Lack of 40' buffer between the two areas.
(2) Possible aggravation of existing drainage, sewer and
traffic problems.
(3) Density in excess of "MF -12 ", which was previously
rejected by the court.
(4) Lack of notice to one property owner.
Attorney Martin requested that the eastern drive be removed
and left as open space and that the neighborhood be allowed
time to meet with the developer. Mr. Richardson presented
an alternate plan, shifting the northern portion of the
drive away from the eastern boundary and eliminating
Building C. He was instructed by the Commission to examine
the possibility of taking principal access from another
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
point on the west, and shifting not only Building C, but
Building B to the east so that the adverse effects of
northern lights from the drive would be minimized. A motion
for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Z -4206
NAME:
LOCATION:
r%VT 7c r nnz n
Maury Mitchell, Agent
1717 Rebsamen Park Rd.
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
Walnut Square PRD Short Form
SE Corner of "A" and Walnut
OWNER:
Gerald Horton
212 Center Street, Suite 400
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 664 -3431
AREA: .13 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -4"
PROPOSED USES: Fourplex
A. Site History
None.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of a fourplex on .13 acres.
(2) Unit Breakdown:
1 existing unit at 675 square feet
2 -story at 784 square feet
1 -story at 768 square feet
(3) Parking:
6 Cars
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Improve "A" Street to residential street standard;
dedicate right -of -way as required to provide
one -half of 50'.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
(2) Construct 4' sidewalks on Walnut.
(3) Parking arrangement is not satisfactory; please
contact Traffic at 371 -4858.
D. Analysis
Staff is not supportive of the proposal, mainly because
of its density. We do not feel that the site is
adequate to support the parking and density. The
applicant is attempting to utilize for four units what
was designed for one. There is no problem with the use
in the neighborhood.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The issues were identified as
involving density, location and siting of the parking, and
improvements to Walnut and A Streets.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Maury Mitchell represented the developer. There were no
objectors present. A revised plan was submitted which
proposed a 2- story, 3 -unit townhouse development, with
784 square feet each, a total of 2,352 square feet, and
6 parking spaces. Staff gave its support to the revision.
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 Z -4226
NAME: Candlewood Long Form PRD
LOCATION: Approx. 250 acres, located
west of Rivercrest Drive, east
of Pinnacle Valley Road and
north of Highway 10
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Char -Beck Trust Robert D. Holloway & Assoc.
P.O. Box 2317 1350 Woodland Drive
Batesville, AR 72503 Maumelle, AR 851 -3366
Phone: 793 -9813
AREA: 251 acres + NO. OF LOTS: 279 FT. OF NEW ST.:
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Commercial /Residential
A. Site History
None.
B. Development Concept
This represents an attempt by the applicant to develop
a very high quality condominium development to be
situated on the major ridgeline that extends west from
Little Rock along the Arkansas River. The forested
park -like land consists of a main east -west ridge and
smaller finger ridges with moderate to steep hillsides
sloping down to the Little Maumelle River on the north
and Highway 10 on the south. Most of the hillsides are
over 20 percent slope. The main ridge and finger
ridges are flat, gently sloping and will make ideal
development sites, with "spectacular views" of the
Arkansas River to the north, Pinnacle Mountain to the
northwest and the forested hills of west Little Rock to
the south.
C. Development Proposal
The proposal incorporates several unit types and seeks
to mix some conventional products that have been
successful in west Little Rock with new residential
products that are in demand, yet have not been made
available to the local market. A description of units
provided includes:
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
(1) Estate Lots - Large single family lots, larger
than five acres each, with frontage on Pinnacle
Valley Road (not included in parcels over five
acres).
(2) Cluster Houses - Attached single family patio
homes set in the woods along the main ridge.
These will be built in separate enclaves or
clusters of 6 to 10 units. Size would vary from
1,800 to 2,400 square feet and price would be
above $165,000.
(3) Hillside Attached - Similar to the cluster houses,
but town houses with river or forest views. These
will appeal to similar buyers, but will be built
at higher densities, with smaller floor plans,
11400 and 2,400 square feet and be priced lower,
probably from $130,000 to $225,000.
(4) Hillside Villages - Each village will be a mix of
flats and town houses in a "club" community
organized around tennis, a pool and sited out on
one of the forested finger ridges overlooking the
river. These will be one and two - bedroom units
(1,000/1,600 square feet) marketed as condominiums
to single buyers, first time buyers, or two or
more singles buying together. Prices could range
from $90,000 to $140,000.
The density per acre of total property is 1.1 units per
acre, not including the large estate lots on Pinnacle
Valley. The density for the parcels within themselves
is a net density of 225 units per acre. The cluster
houses will contain an average of three units per
building and require about 20 buildings. The hillside
attached homes will be the same as cluster houses and
will require 25 to 29 buildings. (See Table 1 for
further information.)
D. Engineering Considerations
(1) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Pinnacle Valley
Road to minor arterial standards.
(2) Residential street curvatures require 150' radius
curves. Request intersection be discussed with
Traffic at 371 -4858.
(3) Clarify phasing.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
E. Analysis
The applicant has worked closely with the staff and is
to be commended for being very thorough in his
submission of materials. He has not, however, totally
complied with our wishes relative to the specifics of
Phase I. Our agreement was that he would submit a
generalized application for the total development
scheme with specific unit data to be submitted on Phase
I only. He would then come back to the Commission for
approval on each subsequent phase.
Staff is very favorable to the development of this
project and feels that it is a good one. The applicant
is proposing to dedicate much common open space to the
City. We are asking that he specify or delineate how
much open space is to be allocated to each of the five
phases. He should also start annexation proceedings
immediately on that portion of the project not
currently in the City.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He was informed by the staff
that the Parks Department had requested easements across
some portions of the property in order to link areas
proposed for dedication; and that whatever boundary streets
were created, he would be required to build both sides. He
agreed to do both, plus provide more specifics regarding the
percentage of open space dedication with each phase. It was
agreed that this application would be reviewed as the
generalized development scheme with specifics to Phase I to
be provided next month.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Holloway, the engineer, and Mr. Richard Thomas, the
applicant, were present. Numerous persons from the
neighborhood were present. Several concerns /issues were
identified:
(1) Lack of proper notification since the applicant had
failed to comply with the notice requirement in the
ordinance. The neighborhood asked for a 60 -day
deferral.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
(2) Aggravation of existing sewer problem.
(3) Location of Phase I, a "market place shaping element"
of the proposal. -- If the market does not support
development of further phases of the project, then the
residents will be stuck with the traffic problem caused
by only one access to the site through Walton Heights.
Neighbors felt that construction should begin at the
other end or that the developer should consider
constructing an alternate access route in the first
phase.
(4) The feeling that the developer was attempting to
capitalize on the neighborhood at their expense by
developing the part that was cheaper for him due to the
availability of immediate access and sewer, but most
disastrous to the neighborhood.
Spokespersons from the neighborhood included
Mr. Robert Gunter of #1 Northwest Court; Mr. Hershaw, a
retired engineer, certified in seven states; and
Ms. Jannett Straub, a member of the Walton Heights Board of
Directors. Ms. Bobbie Gunter, a realtor residing in the
neighborhood, presented a very lengthy computer printout to
the Commission indicating the amount of condominiums in the
City that are currently on the market. Her point was that
none of those listed were selling for $100 a square foot,
and to propose that these would sell for $100,000 was
unrealistic. She expressed fear that the project would
eventually turn into a much lower class condominium
development than proposed, or even an apartment complex.
Commissioner Jones questioned the method of reviewing this
item as a general developmental concept with the specifics
to be worked out later. He likened this approach to that of
a regular and long -term rezoning case. Mr. Holloway
responded by stating that this was not an opened
application, since he was already committed to a number of
units per area and had already worked up quite a bit of
specifications.
Since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the Chairman decided that no action would be
taken on the proposal. The applicant, however, was
requested to work out and submit to staff details of Phase I
and look into the possibility of building Candlewood Drive
to Highway 10; consider meeting with the property owners;
comply with notice requirements; and go back through
Subdivision Committee. Staff was asked to get a
clarification on comments from Wastewater Utilities and
provide commissioners with the phasing plan.
V-$E ACRES
Hillside
Village
C 2.901
D 5.555
E 2.479
F 3.829
G 5.096
H 21.626
K 4.628
Ridge
CI-%tor
H( L ng
L 19.94
Hillside
Attatched
Housing
I 7.02
J 9.936
i
N 11.230
M 7.0
Conven.
Shop
A 1.341
Quiet
Business
:'B 2.204
Total 104.69
1LL 279 UNITS
NO.
OF
UNITS
9
16
6
12
15
63
14
58
.27,600 116
17
40,800
TABLE I
24
52,800
TABULATED DATA FOR
27
CANDLEWOOD
PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
32,400
12.7
7
USABLE
10,000
17.3
PRIVATE
COMMON
FLOOR
BLDG.%
OPEN
OPEN
SPACE(SF)
COVERAGE
SPACE SF)
SPACE
10,800
8.8
600 SF
Over 754 of
per unit
lots will b
19,200
8.0
common open
space
7,200
6.6
14,400
8.7
18,000
8.1
75,600
8.0
16,800
8.4
.27,600 116
17
40,800
10.26
24
52,800
9.4
27
59,400
9.3
18
32,400
12.7
7
1
10,000
17.3
� I
,
2 130,000
31.2
282
WILL SHAiE THE 127.4 AICRES t OF NA
Entry ways
Entry ways
•
None 804 lot
None 654 lot
AREAIDEDICATED TO I
NON -USABI
OPEN
SPACE
There is no
"Non - Usable
Open Space"
There is no
"Non - Usable
Open Space"
There is no
"Non - Usable
Open Space"
There is no
"Non - Usable
Open Space"
There is no
"Non- Usable
Open Space"
!HE LITTLE ROCK[
PARKING
SPACES
2 /unit
2 in garage
2 in drive
2 in garage.
2 in drive
Same as Cit-
requirement.
SYSTEM.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOgAT.
North Shackleford
Conditional Use (Z- 3419 -A)
(302 North Shackleford)
The NW Corner of the
Intersection of Beverly Hills
Drive and Shackleford Road
David Wood /Delbert Spears
To convert an office use to a beauty shop on land that is
zoned "0-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
This property is located at the intersection of a
collector and an arterial road.
Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed conversion from an office use to a beauty
shop is compatible with the surrounding area.
On -site Drives and Parking
Two drives located on Shackleford Road serves as access
to the site. There are 13 paved parking spaces
on site.
Screening and Buffers
A wood fence currently serves as a buffer on the west
property line.
Analysis
The staff sees no unresolved issues regarding this
application. Screening, drives and paved parking are
in compliance with ordinance requirements. This
conversion will be allowed pending the approval of the
Zoning Ordinance amendment which will permit a barber
or beauty shop as a conditional use in an 110-3"
district.
Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the passage of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance amendment which allows this proposal as a
conditional use in an "0-3" district.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Ms. Brown of the Beverly Hill's
Property Owners Association was present and expressed
concern about possible parking on the remainder of the
property that is currently vacant. The staff stated that
the parking could only be as shown on the current site plan.
Ms. Brown then said that she had no objections. The
Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to approve
this application as recommended by staff.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Hampton Inn
Conditional Use (Z -4224)
NE of the Intersection of
Frenchman's Lane and Mitchell
Drive (6100 Mitchell Drive)
Eagle Properties /Steve Bonds
(Hathaway Moore)
To construct a four -story (44') motel (123 rooms) and 148
parking spaces on 2.4767 acres of land that is zoned "I -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is vacant and relatively flat and is adjacent
to the I -30 freeway to the north and Mitchell Road to
the south.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in an area of commercial and
office uses. The proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -site Drives and Parking
This proposal contains two access drives on Mitchell
Road and 138 paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to retain as many trees
on -site as possible in addition to the proposed
landscaping.
5. Analysis
This proposal meets City ordinance requirements and is
compatible with the surrounding area. The applicant
does, however, need to submit plans to the City
Engineer for ditch design and relocation, and to
construct a sidewalk for the length of frontage on
Mitchell Road.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
6. S -taf f Recommendation
The staff recommends approval provided the applicant
agrees to: (1) submit plans for a ditch design and
relocation; and (2) to construct a sidewalk along
Mitchell Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed with staff
recommendations. The Committee requested that the City
Engineer be present at the Planning Commission meeting to
discuss traffic considerations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The City Engineer made a
presentation on current and proposed street and drainage
work in the general vicinity of this project. The City
Engineer stated that this project will have little impact on
current drainage and traffic problems in the area, but that
there was certain work that could be done on -site. A
lengthy discussion ensued. The Commission then voted
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to approve this application
provided that the applicant work with the City Engineer on
drainage, and that the applicant agree that upon development
of the property adjacent to the west access would be given
this project which would ultimately allow access to the I -30
service road.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Battery Street
Conditional Use (Z -4225)
LOCATION: SW of the Intersection of
29th Street and South Battery
(2908 South Battery)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Lorene Ward
PROPOSAL:
To obtain the conditional use for a duplex on a house that
is currently used as a duplex and is zoned "R -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site contains a house that is situated on a
relatively flat lot that is bordered by an alley on the
west and Battery Street on the east.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in an area that contains a mixture
of duplexes and single family uses. This proposal is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -site Drives and Parking
This site presently contains one
parking space on Battery Street.
proposing a concrete drive and t,
parking spaces in the rear yard.
yard will be taken from an alley
29th Street.
4. Screening and Buffers
concrete drive and one
The applicant is
wo additional paved
Access to the rear
that runs south from
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and
shrubs.
5. Analysis
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area. The applicant has also proposed construction of
two additional paved parking spaces which meet
ordinance requirements.
6. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval as filed.
J
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Commissioner Arnett commented
that access to the rear parking area was questionable due to
the poor condition of the alley. The alley issue was
discussed at length. The Commission then voted 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent to approve this application provided the
applicant lay a gravel base on the alley beginning at
29th Street and ending at the access point of the paved
parking area on this property.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: Medical Plaza Hotel
Conditional Use (Z -4228)
LOCATION: NW Corner of the Intersection of
Kanis Road and Medical Center
Drive
OWNER /APPLICANT: Baptist Medical Center /Gary
Wimberly (Hodges Firm)
PROPOSAL:
To construct a three - story, 82 room hotel on approximately
1.75 acres of land that is zoned "0 -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
1. Site Location
This site is flat, clear and vacant. It is located
adjacent to Kanis Road to the south (minor arterial),
Medical Center Drive to the east (collector), and
Lile Drive to the north (proposed).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located adjacent to a high intensity
institutional and office area. Property to the west
and north is not as yet developed. A mixture of single
family and commercial exist to the south of this site.
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -site Drives and Parking
This proposal contains 82 parking spaces and one access
drive which is located on Medical Center Drive.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to meet all Landscape
Ordinance requirements.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff anticipates no adverse impact of the
surrounding area as a result of this proposal. There
are, however, some issues that need to be addressed.
An "0 -2" zoning district requires a minimum lot area of
two acres. This site appears to be less than two areas.
The ordinance requires 90 parking spaces. This
proposal contains only 82 spaces. The maximum height
of the building has not been submitted. Ordinance
requires 45' or less. The applicants need to state
their intentions on the construction of the proposed
Lile Drive. The applicant also needs to submit a final
plat dedicating the necessary right -of -way on Kanis
Road to minor arterial standards and to construct Kanis
Road (to include a left turn lane onto Medical Center
Drive). And finally, the applicant needs to construct
a sidewalk on Kanis Road for this site as well as
adjacent to the existing Medical Center and parking
lots.
6. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval subject to: (1) the site
being a minimum of two acres; (2) the building being a
maximum of 45' in height; (3) the site plan being
revised to include 90 parking spaces; (4) the
applicants stating their intentions on Lile Drive;
(5) the applicant agreeing to file a final plat
dedicating the necessary right -of -way on Kanis Road and
constructing Kanis Road to said specifications; and (6)
the applicant agreeing to construct a sidewalk in said
areas.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Staff stated that the
application meets ordinance height requirements. The
applicant stated that this site was 2.12 acres and that the
site plan would be revised to include the required 90
parking spaces. The applicant also stated that Lile Drive
would not be a part of this application. The staff
instructed the applicant to remove Lile Drive from the site
plan and the final plat. The applicant agreed to said
removal. Finally, the applicant agreed to file a final plat
dedicating right -of -way on Kanis Road and to construct said
right -of -way as well as the sidewalk from this site
eastward, along the frontage of the Baptist Medical Center
campus.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
applicant had met and /or agreed to all conditions of
approval. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent to approve this application as recommended by
staff.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME: Super Shops
Conditional Use (Z -4231)
LOCATION: Approximately 300 feet south of
the Intersection of Carlyle Dr.
and Geyer Springs Rd.
(8517 Geyer Springs Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Kinney Shoe Corporation /Keith
Hubbs (Super Shops, Inc.)
PROPOSAL:
To convert a shoe store into an auto parts store (with
installation of tires, wheels and shocks) on land that is
zoned "C -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site abuts a principal arterial (Geyer Springs
Road) and is fully developed.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is currently used as a commercial
activity. It is surrounded by office and commercial
uses except for single family to the east. This
proposal simply substitutes one retail activity for
another. This proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area.
3. On -site Drives and Parking
This project has two access drives on Geyer Springs
Road and 18 paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
A 6 -foot board fence currently exists on the east
property line.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
5. Analysis
This proposal is simply a conversion of one retail use
to another. The only proposed changes are the addition
of two interior service bays on the north side of the
building, and the paving of the necessary maneuvering
area. This application is contingent upon the proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendment package being approved by
the Little Rock Board of Directors. It is not an
allowable conditional use until the Zoning Ordinance is
amended. The staff has two areas of concern. The
first is that the buffer (board fence) between the
single family and this commercial use be properly
maintained and repaired. The second issue is parking.
The current parking area (18 spaces) is five spaces shy
of meeting ordinance requirements (strictly
interpreted). The question of parking involves the
issues of whether this proposal is more of a retail
outlet or an automotive services use, which is the
reason for the Zoning Ordinance amendment, and the fact
that the necessary area required for five additional
parking spaces does not appear to be available.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval subject to: (1) the
applicant agreeing to repair the 6 -foot board fence;
(2) the approval by the Board of Directors of the
Zoning Ordinance amendment package; and (3) comments
regarding required parking.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There was some discussion
concerning parking, maintenance of the fence, and trash
disposal. The applicant stated that he would work to meet
all criteria.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The City Engineer spoke about
traffic problems and recommended that the northern drive be
closed thereby allowing additional parking spaces as well as
improving the traffic conditions. The applicant agreed to
all conditions. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes
and 2 absent to approve this application as recommended by
staff.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME:
APPLICANT /OWNERS:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Meadowcliff Building Line
Steven and O'Rita Mann
#2 South Meadowcliff Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
To extend an existing 2' roof encroachment, 5 additional
feet in a 25' platted setback area.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area consisting of single
family homes. It is bounded on the south and west by
other residences, on the north by Greenway Drive and on
the east by Meadowcliff Drive. The existing structure
is constructed as a one -story frame residence with a
flat, gravel roof. All improvements are in place.
C. Development Proposal
,=This is a request to add 5' to an existing 2'
encroachment into a 25' building setback area. The
applicant would like to be granted a variance so that
he can extend the roofline of his home over an existing
parking pad. His request is based on a desire to
reroof the structure with a 5 1/2 pitch, gable roof.
The encroachment is necessary to continue the current
roofline in order to ensure structural soundness. If
the existing parking pad in the rear is extended with
another 8 yards of concrete to avoid the encroachment,
support beams will be needed in the middle of a two -car
carport and the roofline will be broken twice.
D. Engineering Considerations
None.
E. Analysis
Site investigation indicates no adverse impact. Staff
views justification based on ensuring structural
y_ May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
soundness of the structure as adequate. The usual
final replat and Bill and Assurance amendments will
apply.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to a one lot final replat and
amendment of the Sill of Assurance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Staff suggested a 16' building
line on the Greenway Drive side. The applicant was advised
that a final replat would be needed. She showed the
Commission a petition indicating the required amount of
signatures for amending the Bill of Assurance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval, subject to the submission of a 1 -lot
final plat and amended Bill of Assurance was made and passed
by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME:
12th Street Closure
LOCATION: All of that right -of -way
running east to west and
adjacent to Blocks 16,
17, 32, 33, and 48
Roosevelt Park Addition,
approx. 500' west of
intersection of Kanis and
Shackleford
APPLICANT: Mike Watson
Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw
and Associates
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 375 -5331
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request by the applicant to close the described
right -of -way. The title to the right -of -way will transfer
to adjacent property owners. The present use of the
property is vacate since the road has never been open.
After closure, it will be used as open space and buffer zone
to a church site. No adverse comments have been received
from the utilities. Engineering requests additional
right -of -way dedication along Kanis Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Stephens School Neighborhood Plan
The Stephens School Neighborhood Plan has been worked on by
the staff for over three years. It has been reviewed by the
Plans Committee.
The final review by the Committee of the Stephens Plan was
on July 14, 1983. The Plans Committee discussed the plan in
detail in two different meetings. The only area of concern
of the plan was the northeastern corner of the plan. This
area is located around Woodruff, between 9th and 12th
Street. It was determined that the best approach for this
area was a combination of low density multifamily and light
industrial /warehousing. The Committee felt that the
remainder of the plan followed the current zoning and was
appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jim Lawson gave a brief description of the Stephens School
Plan. He pointed that the plan had been reviewed by the
Plans Committee and all the issues had been resolved. There
was no discussion by the Commission on the plan. The
Commission approved the Stephens Neighborhood Plan by a
unanimous vote.
May 15, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - "Buffers"
The "buffer" question has been studied in detail since the
City Board of Directors made their request for further
review.
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission send a
memorandum to the Board of Directors recommending several
strategies to handle the "buffer" question. If the Board of
Directors agrees with these recommendations, the appropriate
ordinance amendments could then be drafted.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. Redefine "buffer" into two categories; a natural area
and a planted area. A natural area would be an
undisturbed green area with underbrush planting allowed
when a screening fence was used. In no cases would
trees with a diameter greater than or equal to two
inches be allowed to be cut.
A planted area would be an area designed by the
developer in terms of the type and amount of
plantings.
2. Both the natural area and planted areas would be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant
would submit drawings illustrating the type, amounts
and size of the vegetation. Detailed drawings by a
landscape architect would not be required. Simple
schematics illustrating the vegetation would be
adequate.
3. Restore the full 40 -foot "buffer" requirement. No
intrusion of parking and /or drives would be allowed in
this 40 -foot restricted area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Jim Lawson gave a brief description of the several
categories that were recommended by the staff for the
buffers. He explained that these recommendations will be
forwarded to the Board of Directors and if the Board wanted
to pursue Ordinance amendments then that would be
accomplished. The Planning Commission recommended that
these proposals be forwarded to the Board of Directors.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
DATE MA)( X984- VOTE RECORD
ITEM NUMBERS
SiiRDTVTRTnm
MEMBER
AF-�►
8�
G�
2
3
4
5
l0
7
g
9
iO
13
14
i5
I&
I—i
I /g
Iq
J. -Summerlin
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓�
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
&000,
✓
✓
✓
J. Schlereth
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓i/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
t R. Massie
�/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓�/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
�/
✓
✓
B. Sipes
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓�
✓
,�
,�
✓
�✓
,,
✓
✓
,�
✓
�/
�/
J. Nicholson
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
v
✓
'�✓
'�
✓
✓
✓
✓
�/
!✓
✓
✓
✓
!✓
�/
i W. Rector
ir
�✓
✓
/�
✓
!✓
✓
✓
✓�/
✓
�/
�/
�✓
✓
�/
✓
✓
/✓
V✓
✓
V
W. Ketcher
✓
✓
/
✓
✓
too-
v-,0,
1.
,/
.00e
✓
Joe
!�
✓
✓
✓
D. Arnett
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓✓
✓
✓
,✓I
✓
!/
✓
✓
✓
✓
f�
U. J. Jones
✓
✓
0000,
✓
P,00,
r.,,
✓
✓
✓
`�
p/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
f I. Boles
✓
A
�d►
A
v
�t
i✓
/—�►
A
A
J. Clayton
A
A
V AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
20
✓
4
A
e
SUBDIVISION
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 5 p.m.
ate
hairman
Se ret