pc_11 13 1984subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARy AND MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 13,1984
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 of the previous meeting were approved
as mailed.
III.Members Present:John Schlereth
Betty Sipes
William Ketcher
Ida Boles
Dorothy Arnett
David Jones
James Summerlin
Jerilyn Nicholson
Richard Massie
John Clayton
IV.Members Absent:Bill Rector
V.City Attorney:Pat Benton
TENTATIVE SUMNARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
NOVENBER 13,1984
Deferred Items:
A.Pleasant Valley Professional SubdivisionB.Wirtz's Replat "PRD"(Z-4252)
Preliminar Plat/Re lats:
1.Riverclub Addition Preliminary2.Otter Creek,Phase V3.Pecan Lake East,Phase I4.West Chester Village Estates5.Forest Hills Preliminary6.Darragh Commercial Subdivision
Planned Unit Develo ment:
7."B"Street Short Form PRD (Z-3213-B)
Site Plan Review:
8.Sister's Chicken and Biscuit Site Plan Review9.Omega Tube and Conduit Corporation10.Lanehart Apartment Site Plan Review
Conditional Use Review:
11.Hinson Loop Day-Care "CUP"(Z-3262-B)12.Nabelvale Pike Day-Care Center "CUP"(Z-4164-A)13.Knights of Columbus "CUP"(Z-4352)14.Pulaski Heights Methodist Church "CUP"(Z-4356)15.Asher Avenue "CUP"(Z-4357)
Building Line Waiver:
16.Rodney Parham Exxon,Building Line Waiver
Other Items:
17.Brant Calloway —Discussion Item
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.A
NAME:Pleasant Valley Professional
Subdivision
LOCATION:On South side of Hinson Road
located approximately 1200 feet
west of intersection of
Hinson and Hinson Loop
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ampersand Properties Edward G.Smith and Associates
c/o Mike McQueen 401 Victory
12115 Hinson Road Little Rock,AR 72201
Little Rock,AR 72212 Phone:374-1666
Phone:664-1000
AREA:5.02 acres NO.OF LOTS:4 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"0-2"
PROPOSED USES:Office Building Sites
VARIANCES REQUESTED:27'rivate street without curb
A.~St H t*
None.
B.Existin Conditions
This site is located in what can generally be described
as a commercial/office area.The sole structure
on-site consists of an office building.
C.Develo ment Pro osal
This is a plan to develop 5.02 acres into four lots to
be developed for office use.The applicant is asking
that the existing drive be converted to a private
street by widening and improving and that no curb be
provided.
D.En ineerin Considerations
Dedicate right-of-way and improve Hinson Road to minor
arterial standards.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.A —Continued
A.~A1
Wastewater reports that a sanitary sewer main extensionwillberequired.This application represents anattemptbytheapplicanttosubdivideaparcelof 5.20acresintofourlotsonasitethatiszoned"0-2."AconflictwiththeZoningOrdinanceiscreatedsincethiszoningdistrictrequiresaminimumsiteareaoftwoacres.In addition,all sites must be developedunderaunifiedsiteplananda25'andscape stripparalleltoandabuttinganyboundarystreetshall beprovidedandmaintainedbytheowners.No parking isallowedinthestrip.Staff questions the purpose fornotindicatingimprovementsthefullextentoftheaccesseasement.The applicant should clarify.Sincethisisacommercial/office subdivision,the streetwhetherpublicorprivateisrequiredtobe36'ide.
F.Staff Recommendation
Staff will recommend approval provided the above issuesareresolved.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.The applicant requested a waiverofthe36'treet width requirement due to a desire tomaintaintheexistingcharacteroftheofficedevelopmentcurrentlyon-site.Discussion centered on the applicantsprovidinga26'treet inside the development with a turningradiusontoHinsonRoad.Because of the problem with the"0-2"zoning requirements,it was decided that he shouldwithdrawtheapplicationandconvertthistoa"PUD."
Water Works designates 50'n east side as utility andaccesseasement.Lot 2 is served off Hinson,so extensionwillbeneededforanewline.Prorated charge for Lot l.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
By request of the applicant,a motion for a 30-day deferralwasmadeandpassedbyavoteof:11 ayes,0 noes and0absent.
I
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.A —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:(10-9-84)
There was no further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(10-9-84)
A motion for a 30-day deferral,as requested by the
applicant,was made and passed by a vote of:6 ayes,0 noes
and 4 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:(10-25-84)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the
item be withdrawn from the agenda.
I
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.B
NAME:Wirtz's Replat Short Form
"PRD"(Z-4252)
LOCATION:Approximately 300 Feet South ofIntersectionofMabelvalePike
and Grace Street,East Side of
Mabelvale Pike
AGENT:ENGINEER:
Terry Southerall Phillips Engineering Co.664-2469 or 225-8127 806 North University
CMTW Company Little Rock,AR19LongleaLittleRock,AR 72212
(Boyd Montgomery 227-7675)
AREA:2.83 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"R-5"/"C-3"
PROPOSED USES:Apartments
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:20.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
II.~Ht H'
This item was reviewed by the Commission on
August 28,1984,as a request for rezoning from "R-5"
and "C-3"to "R-5"for the purpose of constructingmultifamilyunits.After a discussion,which includedfiveobjectorsfromtheneighborhood,it was decidedthattheitemshouldbedeferredtotheOctober9thPublicHearingandrefiledasashortform"PUD."
Due to the stability and attractiveness of theimmediatesinglefamilyneighborhood,staff felt thatitwouldnotbeappropritetodevelopas"R-5"andwithoutseeingaspecificSiteDevelopmentPlan.Itwasfeltthatdevelopmentshouldnotexceed"MF-12."
The applicant stated,however,that there was a salependingforthepropertywhichrequiredittobedevelopedasHMF-24";also,that his plans did notincludeover68units.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.B —Continued
B.~P*l
1.The construction of 72 multifamily units on 2.83acres.
2.Development schedule:
Unit No.~D't P Unit Size
36 2 bedroom 720 square feet
36 1 bedroom 576 square feet
3.Amenities/other to include:1 resident manager'unit,1 club room and 1 swimmng pool.
4.Landscaping will consist of earth mounds withshrubstoscreendevelopmentfromMabelvalePike,lighted islands and parking area.Several largetreesonthesitewillbeincorporatedintothedesign.
5.Parking —86 spaces.
C.En ineerin Comments
1.Dedicate right-of-way on Nabelvale Pike tocollectorstandards.
2.Improve Nablevale Pike to collector standards.
3.Provide a more detailed parking plan.
D.A~1
As stated previously,this site was originallysubmittedforreviewasrezoningandhasnow beenresubmittedasa"PUD"at the request of the PlanningCommission.Our major concern relates to the design oftheproject.The applicant must demonstrate that hecanprovidethe108parkingspacesandminimumof
20'nternaldrivesthatarerequired.His proposalindicatesplansforonly86spaces.This represents adeficitof22spaces.
The applicant is also requested to clarify the numberoffloorsandtheheightofthebuilding.To addresstheneedforabuffer/screening device to protect theneighboringsinglefamilyresidences,the usual 6'
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.B —Continued
fence and 40/25'uffer is required on the north and
south perimeters of the property.The fence should
stop a short distance from the west property line so as
to prevent a site distance problem.Contact
Environmental Codes about the nature and extent of
required landscaping.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to the comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present,there was no review of
the item.
Water Works Comments —An 8"on-site fire service is
require .Acreage charges will apply.A pro rata charge
will also apply if a new connection is needed for Lot 1 to
an existing 24"in University.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.Five persons from the
neighborhood were present in objection.Staff pointed out
that the proposed plan was short six parking spaces,and was
four units in excess of the previous density commitment.It
did not comply with the usual buffer requirements,but stafffeltthatthebufferareacouldbevariedinthisinstance,
provided the fence is constructed.
Ms.Fonda Lile of 6909 Mabelvale Pike represented herself
and her parents,who reside at 6907 Mabelvale Pike.
Ms.Joann Adcock,another resident,also voiced objections.
Opposition was based on a fear of added traffic and noise,
interruption of security of an established neighborhood
where only rental property is owned by persons in the area
and no absentee landlord situations are apparent.
Ms.Lile stated that several rezonings in the area were
opposed by residents previously,but were passed by the
Commission.She also stated that several previous
requirements for landscaping/screening on different
proposals in the area have not been adequately enforced.
The Commission felt that there should be no sympathy for
waivers on parking and density.The applicant asked to
delay the request for 30 days so that the plan can berevised.A motion for approval of the request for deferral
was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.B —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant submitted a revised plan with 60 units,93parkingspacesanda6'ence.There was some discussionregardingrevisingtheparkingontheeastside,reducingtheamountofpavementonthesouthside,and providing afencetapereddownto30"at the property line.
Water Works —An 8"on-site fire service is required.Acreage charges will apply.A pro rata charge will alsoapplyifanewconnectionisneededforLot1toanexisting24"main in University.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The applicant,Mr.Terry Southall,was present.He made apresentationofhisrevisedplanoutliningthechangesdirectedbytheSubdivisionCommittee.The Planning staffpointedouttherequirementforthe8-inch on-site fireservicewaterline.This line is to be indicated on theapprovedplan.
There were several objectors present.Two persons addressedtheirconcernstotheCommission.They were Fonda Lile andJoanAdcock.A petition of objection was offered with 30 +signatures.
A general discussion of the proposal followed,withadditionalchangessuggestedbyCommissionmembers,specifically,the movement of the swimming pool from itspresentlocationonMabelvalePiketotheareaadjacent totheeastpropertyline.A motion was made to approve theapplicationasreflectedontherevisedplan,plus movingthepoolareafromthefrontyardtotherearyard.Themotionpassedbyavoteof:9 ayes,1 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
Item No.C —Z-4324
Owner:James A.Culberson
Applicant:Same
Location:11,111 Stagecoach Road
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family
to "C-4"Open Display
Purpose:Commercial
Size:8.0 acres +
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,zoned "R-2"
South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
East -Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
West —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The requested rezoning change is to "C-4"to allow a
commercial development.No specific plans or the typeofusehavebeenprovidedatthetime.The property is
located along State Highway No.5 between Otter Creek
and the County Line Road where a majority of the landisstillvacant.Very little development activity has
occurred along this section of Highway No.5 except
for the immediate area around Otter Creek and County
Line Roads.This site is somewhat removed from what
appears to be the more desirable locations along
Highway No.5.Because of this,the property does not
seem to be best suited for a commercial rezoning.
2.The site is vacant and flat with some physical features
that restrict its potential for certain types of
development.The property is located in the 100-Year
Floodplain and approximately the southern one-fourth is
in the floodway.Also there are two easements,AP&L
and sanitary sewer,crossing the land at differentlocations.
3.State Highway No.5 (Stagecoach Road)is identified as
a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan.The
recommended right-of-way width for a principal arterialis100feet,so dedication of additional right-of-way
will be required because the existing right-of-way isdeficient.
November 13,1984
Item No.C —Continued
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6.There is documented neighborhood opposition on thesite.The property was annexed into the City in 1979.
7.The Suburban Development Plan identifies the property
as part of a large floodplain that is found in this
part of Little Rock.Because of the floodplain and the
floodway along with existing easements,the owner feelsthatthepropertyhasseverelimitationsforresidentialuse.Staff recognizes these constraints
but also questions the desirability of a "C-4"tract atthislocationhavingverylittlerelationshiptotheidentifiedcommercialsitesinthearea.In additiontothisconcern,the approval of this request wouldcreateasubstantial"C-4"spot zoning.Since thistractispartoftheplanbeingdevelopedfortheOtter
Creek area,staff recommends that the request be
deferred until a later date.The Otter Creek Plan may
determine that another use other than what is shown on
the Suburban Development Plan is more appropriate.
Until the Otter Creek Plan is beyond the preliminarydraftphase,it is premature for staff to make a
recommendation other than deferral for this vacanttract.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a two-month deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(9/25/84)
The applicant submitted a letter agreeing with the staff's
recommendation for deferral.A motion was made to defer therequesttotheNovember13,1984,meeting.The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11/13/84)
The applicant,Biscoe Bingham,was present.There were no
obj ectors in attendance.Mr.Bingham agreed to amend therequestto"I-2"and exclude the floodway,which is to bededicatedtotheCity.The Planning Commision voted to
recommend approval of the amended application.The vote:
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
Item No.D —Z-4325
Owner:Bill Terry
Applicant:Joe D.White
Location:State Highway No.5 south of
Base Line Road
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family
to "MF-12"a "MF-18"Multifamily,"0-2"Office &Institutional,"C-2"Shopping Center and"C-3"General Commercial
Purpose:Mixed Uses
Size:71.67 acres +
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant and Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
South —Single Family and Church,Zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,Single Family,and Commercial
Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The proposed rezoning is for a substantial amount of
land along State Highway No.5/Stagecoach Road in anareathatispartoftheOtterCreekPlan.The requestinvolves50.4 acres for multifamily,12.6 acres of
commercial zoning and 8.6 acres for office zoning.The
property is located in part of Little Rock that is
beginning to experience an increase in rezoningactivityanddevelopment.This is due in part to theOtterCreekcommunitytothesouthandthenewconstructionthatisoccurringatI-430 and I-30.
Also,this proposal is in close proximity to the
proposed Otter Creek Mall.Much of the area is still
zoned "R-2,"but there are large tracts zoned for
multifamily and commercial development at Otter Creek
and for commercial use in the vicinity of I-30 andI-430,the proposed mall site being zoned "C-2."
2.The sites involved are primarily flat and vacant.The
two tracts on the east side of State Highway No.5 areadjacenttoalargefloodwaythatcreatestheeastern
boundary for the proposed "MF-18"and "C-3"parcels.
November 13,1984
Item No.D —Continued
This physical feature is common along the east side of
Highway No.5.Also,there is some floodplain
involvement on the west side of Highway No.5.
3.State Highway No.5 is classified as a principalarterialontheMasterStreetPlan,and Base Line Roadisshownasaminorarterial.The existing
rights-of-way are deficient so dedication of additionalright-of-way will be required for both streets to meetarterialstandards.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5.There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6.The property was part of a large annexation thatoccurredin1979.
7.Some of the proposed rezonings are in conformance with
the Suburban Development Plan,but because the sitesarewithintheOtterCreekPlanarea,staff is
recommending that this request be deferred until the
new plan is closer to completion.The multifamily
areas and the commercial site at Base Line Road andStateHighwayNo.5 are shown on the Suburban
Development Plan,but because of the amount of land
involved and some other considerations,staff feelsthatitwouldbeinappropriatetoactontherequest atthistime.A rezoning of this size requires additional
review and analysis in the context of the new plan.
Many changes are occurring in this area which the Otter
Creek Plan is addressing and should provide a morecurrentoverview.One additional plan element that is
involved with this request is the Master Parks Plan.
That plan shows the area east of Highway No.5 for a
proposed lake and open space.This proposal
encompasses an area from Highway No.5 and 1-430 to thesouthjustnorthofOtterCreekRoad.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a two-month deferral.
November 13,1984
Item No.D —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(9/25/84)
The applicant had submitted a letter supporting the staff's
recommendation for a deferral.A motion was made to defer
the request to the November 13,1984,meeting.The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:11/13/84
The applicant,Joe White,was present.There were a number
of persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the
rezoning request.Mr.White spoke briefly and presented a
new zoning proposal for the property.Ron pierce,president
of the Otter Creek property Owners'ssociation,discussed
the floodplain and how the rezoning would affect existing
streets in Otter Creek and traffic patterns.He requested
the staff to look at these issues closely when studying the
new proposal.Tom Hodges spoke and expressed some concerns
with the existing streets and accesses.Robert Porbeck,an
Otter Creek resident,indicated that a petition had been
circulated in Otter Creek supporting the staff's initial
rezoning recommendation for the property in question.A
motion was made to defer the item to the December 18,1984,
meeting to allow interested parties and staff to review the
new plan as submitted by Mr.White.All in attendance
regarding this matter agreed to the deferral.The motion
passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
t
November 13,1984
Item No.E —Z-4327
Owner:James A.Rogers
Applicant:Robert N.Brown
Location:12,900 Vimy Ridge Road
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family
to C-3"General Commercial
Purpose:Commercial Development
Size:1.77 acres +
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
l.The proposal is to rezone a tract that is part of the
Quail Run preliminary plat for an unspecified
commercial use.The property is located along Vimy
Ridge Road between Alexander Road and County Line Road,
a location that does not appear to be appropriate for"C-3"zoning.The site is in an area where other
locations have been identified for commercial use that
are more compatible with the long-range developmenttrends.One consideration that should be raised inthispartofLittleRockishowmuchcommercialland is
needed to meet the future demands.Nany activities are
occurring in the area that are encouraging property
owners to try to place a higher value on their land.
With this in mind,rezoning actions must be carefully
analyzed to ensure the best land use pattern for the
area.
2.The site is vacant and increases in elevation from
north to south.There is a 100-foot APaL easement thatbisectsthenorthwestcorneroftheproperty.
3.Vimy Ridge Road is identified as a minor arterial which
requires 80 feet of right-of-way.The Quail Run platwillprovidethenecessaryright-of-way.During
discussions on the Otter Creek Plan,there has been
some mention made of classifying the street on the
north as a collector.If this is the case,the platwilldedicateanynecessaryright-of-way.
I
November 13,1984
Item No.E —Continued
4.There have no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.There are no legal issues attendant to this request.
6.The site was annexed to the City in 1975.Staff hasreceivedonecallobjectingtotherequestedrezoning .
7.The staff has many concerns about "C-3"rezoning atthislocation,but because of the status of the Otter
Creek Plan,staff is unprepared to address the requestinanydetail.Two issues that should be mentioned aretheSuburbanDevelopmentPlanandspotzoning.The
Suburban Development Plan identifies the propertyquestionforsinglefamilyuseonlyandanyreclassificationotherthan"R-2"would create asignificantspotzoningforthearea.Staff feels thatthisrequest,being part of the Otter Creek Plan area,
should be deferred until the plan is completed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a two-month deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:9/25/84
The applicant was not present but had submitted a letterrequestingadeferraloftheitem.A motion was made todefertheitemtotheNovember13,1984,meeting.Themotionpassedbyavoteof9ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:11/13/84
The applicant,Robert Brown,was present.There were no
obj ectors present .Mr.Brown had earlier submitted a letter
amending the request from "C-3"to "MF-24."Staff thenreviewedthepreliminarydraftoftheOtterCreekPlan and
recommended "MF-6."Mr.Brown agreed to the "MF-6"reclassification and amended the request to "MF-6."ThePlanningCommissionvotedtorecommendapprovaloftheapplicationasamended.The vote:10 ayes,0 noes and1absent.
November 13,1984
Item No.F —Z-4343
Owner:Johnson Ranch Partnership
Applicant:Thomas L.Hodges/Greenbelt
Properties
Location:Highway 10 West of North Katillus
Road
Request:Rezone from Unclassified to "MF-12
and 18,""0-2"and "C-2"
Purpose:Multifamily Office and Shopping
Center
Size:147.9 acres +("MF-12"—19.1 acres,"MF-18"—7.8 acres,"0-2"—57.7acres,and "C-2"—63.2 acres)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,Unclassified
South —Vacant and Single Family,UnclassfiedEast—Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,Unclassified
STAFF POSITION:
Staff is recommending that this item be deferred for atleasttwomonthstoallowtheBoardofDirectorstoaddress
various policy questions associated with the requestedrezonings.
The principal issue is that the property is outside the citylimitsandbeyondthe"official annexation boundary lines"as adopted by the Board of Directors Resolution No.6351 and
amended by Resolution No.6761.Resolution No.6351establishes"an official annexation boundary line
encompassing those areas to be brought into the City untiltheyear1990."The property in question does abut the citylimitsontheeastsidewhichisalsotheannexationline.
Until the Board of Directors determines the City policy on
annexing outside the annexation boundary,staff is not
prepared to address the rezoning or related land use issues.
It is staff's understanding that the applicant will request
some type of deferral also.
November 13,1984
Item No.F —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:10/30/84
The applicant had submitted a letter requesting deferral to
the November 13,1984,meeting.Staff felt that this was
not enough time to satisfactorily address the annexation
issue and recommended a deferral to at least the
December 18,1984,meeting.Seth Barnhard representing the
applicant addressed the staff's concern and understood the
situation but asked that the item be deferred to the
November 13th meeting.A motion was made to defer it to the
November 13th meeting.A motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:11/13/84
The applicant,Tom Hodges,was present.There were no
obj ectors present.Prior to any discussion on the rezoning,
the Planning Commission addressed a resolution requesting
the Board of Directors to provide direction to the
Commmission and staff regarding annexation of the property
in question.The Commission voted:10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent in favor of approving the resolution and forwardingitontotheBoardofDirectors.The Commission then
proceeded with the hearing on the rezoning request.Staff
reviewed the various issues and indicated to the Commission
that none of the planning studies for Highway 10 addressed
this section of the highway.The staff also stated they
could not support the request as currently filed.
Tom Hodges then spoke and discussed a number of items.Hesaidthattherewasatotalof604acresintheownership
and approximately one-half would not be developed because of
being in the floodplain.He stated that no development was
planned for years and that the proposed project would be
similar in scale to Pleasant Valley and Otter Creek
communities.Besides the office,commercial and multifamilyareas,there would be 240 single family lots.Mr.Hodges
then went on to discuss Highway 10 and the Johnson Ranch
property.He said that Highway 10 would be four lanes in the
future and not a suitable environment for normal single
family lots.Mr.Hodges described the Johnson Ranch as thelargestpieceoflandundersingleownershipclosein,
having a one-mile frontage along Highway 10 and the
property's topography being conducive to the type of
development being proposed.He also stated that thelocationwasalogicalcommercialmodebecauseofthe futurestreetnetwork,as shown on the Master Street Plan.Mr.
Hodges went on to say that some protective covenants had
been developed and agreed to by the other property owners in
November 13,1984
Item No .F —Continued
the area.The covenants included no development prior to
1990,except for a 20-acre tract;a greenbelt area along the
Highway 10 frontage,a 100-foot building line,restrict both
signage and lighting and building heights not to exceed the
permitted heights in "0-2"and "C-2."Ed Willis spoke and
discussed the covenants.He stated that the major property
owners in the area supported the proposal.Jack Brown,a
property owner west of the Johnson Ranch,spoke in favor of
the request and said that everybody was satisfied with the
proposal.A long discussion was held and then a motion was
made to defer the item to the December 18,1984,meeting.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,2 noes and 2 absent.
October 30,1984
Item No.G —Stormwater Mana ement and Drainage Ordinance
The Stormwater Management Ordinance has been reviewed by the
City for the past few months.
The few remaining unresolved issues were dealt with by the
Planning Commission at the October 12,1984,retreat.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance with the
modifications as suggested by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Don McChesney suggested that the staff has revised the
ordinance based upon the Planning Commissioners'etreat.
David Jones discussed his concern over redevelopment
projects which already have a 100 percent runoff.McChesney
said the 100 percent exemption requirement should cover new
and redevelopment proj ects.
The Commission discussed whether developers should have the
option of retention facility construction or in-lieu fee.
The Commission agreed that the developer should have the
option unless ..."existing flooding occurs downstream from
the development,or if the development will cause downstreamflooding."Don McChesney introduced several engineers to
speak on behalf of the ordinance.They were Sanford
Wilbourn of Garver and Garver,Conrad Batril of the Corps of
Engineers,Bob See of the Engineers'lub and Stuart Nolan
of ASPE.Sanford Wilbourn stressed his support for bothon-site and regional facilities.
The Commission instructed the staff to have the ordinance
and resolution for adoption finalized for the November 13th
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
There was no opposition present.The item was placed on theconsentagendaandapprovedby10ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1
NAME:River Club Addition
LOCATION:North of Pinnacle Valley Road,
South of Arkansas River
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Walker Rushing Limited Edward G.Smith a Associates
P.O.Box 7287 401 VictoryLittleRock,AR 72207 Little Rock,AR
664-3340 374-1666
AREA:38 acres NO.OF LOTS:37 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Condominiums
PLANNING DISTRICT:1
CENSUS TRACT:42.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:Private street systems consisting of
width of 20'nd 18'.
A.Site History
None.
B.Existing Conditions
This proposal is located outside of the City but in the
river zoning area.The river abuts on the north.The
land is primarily wooded with very rugged terrain.In
some areas,there are natural grades of up to 80
percent.
C.Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to develop 38 acres into 37
acres for development as condominiums.He is
requesting that private streets with widths of 18'nd20'e provided,instead of public streets.Because of
the hilly terrain,the owners desire to retain the
natural streetscape and provide very large lots with
the limiting of parking to off-street areas.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
D.Engineering Comments
Private streets should meet public standards of width
and pavement thickness,obviously,they cannot meet
street grade and site distances,
E.Analysis
Staff has major problems with the proposal.Due to the
lack of design information,it appears to be more of a
pre-preliminary submission,than a preliminary.The
applicant should:
(1)Clearly delineate the perameters of the plat since
there are slips located in the river.Does the
developer own the waterway?
(2)Clarify whether or not entrance road is dedicated
to point of entry.
(3)Locate floodway and floodplain on plat.
(4)Specify future uses of Tract E,since it appears
to be physically unbuildable.
(5)Provide private street system,but with a standard
street width from entry to Lot 40 to be at least
27';the balance of streets 24'ide with
exception of culs-de-sac.Staff reserves
judgments on cul-de-sac width until further design
information is submitted.
(6)Describe legal structure for road and utility
system.
(7)Submit hillside analysis.
(8)Provide proper building lines.
F.Staff Recommendation
Deferral until further info is received.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant and his engineer were present.They described
the proposed project as a single family type development
with one building on one lot,but with common control of the
entire community.It was agreed that the applicant would
submit hillside regulations,a revised plan clearly
delineating the ownership (which would result in the
excluding of floodway and floodplain within the boundaries).
It would also leave Tract E as open space,the width of
street pavements as 22'nd provide building lines with a
phasing plan.Information substantiating dedication of
the entrance road would also be submitted.
Water Works —An 8"off-site main (3300')to connect with
the existing 12"main at Beck and Pinnacle Valley Roads is
required.A 12'n-site main,a 200,000 gallon elevated
storage tank and suitable site as indicated must be
provided.previous correspondence on the site is enclosed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The application was represented by Joe White of Edward G.
Smith and Associates.Mr.White offered for the record a
letter and a revised plan bringing the proposal into
compliance with the staff and Subdivision Committee
recommendations.There were no obj ectors present.A brief
discussion followed.A motion to approve the application,
as modified,was made and passed by a vote of:10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2
NAME:Otter Creek,Phase V
LOCATION:West End of Wimbledon Loop,
North of Calleghan Branch Creek
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Rock Venture Pat McGetrick
200 Louisiana Street Manes,Castin,MasseyLittleRock,AR 2501 Willow
North Little Rock,AR 72115
758-1360
AREA:14.07 acres NO.OF LOTS:47 FT.NEW STREET:1,900
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT:16
CENSUS TRACT:41.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED:Sidewalk Waiver
A.Site History
This site is part of an approved Master Plan for the
Otter Creek Subdivision.
B.Existing Conditions
The site is located in an area that is developed
primarily as single family residential.A
150'asementforCallaghanBranchCreekabutson the
southwest and a 100'P&L easement abuts on the
southeast.Elevations range from 320'o 352'.
Portions of the property are in the floodplain.
C.Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to develop 14.07 acres into
47 lots for single family use.Access will be proviced
by 1900'f new street.The plan includes extending
Wimbledon Loop to the west.A waiver of the usual
sidewalk requirement is requested.The applicant
wishes to continue the pedestrian walkway system
approved on previous plans.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.2 —Continued
D.Engineerin Comments
Request that floor elevations required for those lots
in the floodplain be placed on the final plat.
E.Analysis
Staff has only a few concerns relating to this
submission.The applicant should provide clarification
as to the reason for proposing the rear of Lots 786-789
as they are.Staff would like to see where the joggingtrailsareplannedinthisarea.Clay Court,Center
Court,and Wilson Court are conflicting street names.
They must be changed.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee reviewed the item.The applicant agreedtosubmitasidewalkplanandchangethenamesofthestreetswithconflictingnames.He also agreed to
submit a revised plan straightening the curvature in
Lots 786-789.
Water Works —8"and 3"main extensions will be
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The application was represented by Pat McGetrick of the
Manes Planning Firm.There were no obj ectors.The
application was determined to be in compliance with thestaffandSubdivisionCommitteecomments.A motion was madeforapproval,as modified.The motion passed by a vote of:
9 ayes,1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie).
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3
NAME:Pecan Lake East,Phase I
LOCATION:East End of Tall Timber Blvd.,
South Side
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
First Federal Service Manes/Castin/Massey
Corporation 2501 WillowLittleRock,AR North Little Rock,AR 72115758-1360
AREA:5.54 acres NO.OF LOTS:22 FT.NEW STREET:800
ZONING:Currently "R-2"—Proposed "R-3"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:24.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
At the time of this writing,an application for therezoningofa30.18 acre site that includes this parcelhasbeenfiled.The request is to rezone the propertyfrom"R-2"to "R-3."
B.Existin Conditions
This property is located in an area that has been
developed primarily as single family residential.Thesiteiscurrentlywoodedwithmaturevegetationandtrees.The 100-year floodplain is apparent on the
northern end.Elevations range from 270'o 330'.
C.Development Pro osal
This is a plan by First Service Corporation to
subdivide 5.54 acres into 22 lots for single family useaccordingtothe"R-3"zoning district.Access will be
provided by 800'f new street.A cul-de-sac branching
from a proposed extension of Tall Timber Boulevard will
provide the primary access to the lot.No waivers have
been requested.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
D.En ineering Comments
(1)Request that floor elevation requirements for
those lots in the floodplain be placed on thefinalplat.
(2)Construct a guardrail type barricade at the end ofTallTimberBoulevard.
E.Analysis
The applicant has requested to develop this lot as
single family,but according to "R-3,"which requireslotstobe50'100'.Staff questions the width of
some lots.The applicant should make sure that alllotsare50'ide at the building line.
It is necessary for the applicant to submit a
preliminary plat on all the ownership as required bytheSubdivisionOrdinance.The proposed street layoutofthetotalareamustbereviewed.If the plat
involved any of the floodway,then this portion must be
dedicated to the City.Sidewalks should be provided on
one side of the street.On Tall Timber,they should be
matched with what is existing.
The name of the cul-de-sac,Pin Oak Court,should be
changed,since it poses a conflict with another street
name elsewhere in the City.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee reviewed the proposal.The applicant
reported that portions of the plan were in the
floodplain,not the floodway.He agreed to show theextentofownershipandchangeconflictingstreet
names.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
Planning Commission was advised by staff that it would beappropriatetodeferthismattertotheDecembe~18,1984,meeting at which time the rezoning matter on the site willbepresented.The applicant indicated he accepted thedeferral.The Commission voted to defer the matter toDecember18,1984.The vote:10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4
NAME:West Chester Village Estates
LOCATION:On Taylor Loop Road,1/4 Mile
South of Highway 10 at the
NE Corner of Grisham and
Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER/APPLICANT:
Ridgelea Development Bob Lowe
Corporation Civil Design,Inc.
106 White Oak Lane 1001 Pair Park Blvd.
Little Rock,AR Little Rock,AR 72204
AREA:46.50 acres NO.OF LOTS:48 FT.NEW STREET:2,500
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
PLANNING DISTRICT:1
CENSUS TRACT:42.03
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
None.
B.Existing Conditions
The project is located in an area with a rural
character that is occupied by single family homes.The
land is vacant and wooded.There is an existing pondon-site and portions of the property are in the
floodplain.A 150'rainage easement occupies much of
the western tract.
C.Develo ment Pro osal
This is a proposal to develop 46.50 acres into 48 lots
for use as single family.Approximately 2500'f newstreetisplanned.Only Phase I,which consists of 13lotswillbedevelopedinitially.There are 35 lots
remaining and a large tract that is marked "RESERVED
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT."Plans include the abandonment
of the pond.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4
D.Engineering Comments
(1)Request lots along the arterial section of Taylor
Loop Road have limited or no access onto Taylor
Loop.
(2)Dedicate right-of-way and improve Taylor Loop Roadtoarterialstandards.Meet with City Engineer todiscussthealignmentofTaylorLoopRoad.
(3)Indicate phases on the plat;indicate on the finalplat,the required floor elevation for those lotsinthefloodplain.
(4)Area for future development contains much floodwayarea;any proposed floodway changes must be
supported by Engineering calculations and must be
reviewed by the City Engineers.
(5)Street improvements in the area for future
development will require an in-lieu contributionforthemajordrainagestructureonTaylorLoop
Road.
E.Analysis
This submission poses several concerns.Plans for theareadescribedasfor"future development"have not
been specified.The applicant should realize that
approval of this plat does not commit to any land use,other than single family.
Hinson and Taylor Loop have a point of intersection ontheboundaryoftheproperty.The engineer is asked to
show this on the plat and work with the City'
engineers to establish the centerline of Hinson andTaylorLoop.
Lots 1-14 are proposed to abut an arterial street.This is prohibited by the subdivision Ordinance.The
plan should be reviewed to conform to the requirement.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.4
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present.The main issue for
discussion was identified as the alignment of thestreet.The applicant presented two plans that wouldoffersolutionstostaff's comment regarding the lots
abutting arterials and Engineering's comments.HestatedthatitwouldbedifficultnottolocatethelotswithaccessoffTaylorLoopRoad.It was
determined that the construction of the street was more
important than the relationship of the lots to it.He
was asked to meet with the City Engineer and come upwithanacceptableproposal.
Water Works -Service lines and future main crossings
should be installed across Taylor Loop Road before
improvements are made.6"and 8"main extensions arerequired(in Improvement District No.102).MainrelocationsorprovisionofeasementswillberequiredifTaylorLoopRoadisrelocated.
Wastewater Utilit —Also existing sewer is available
on the west side edge of Taylor Loop Road,not all oftheproposeddevelopmentcouldbedrainedinthatdirection.Alternate sewer proposals for the remainderofthedevelopmentinvolvebothgravellymainextensionsandpumpstationandforcemain.Theseproposalsdependupontheacceptabilityofdrainage
improvements which would limit the floodplain contourtocoincidewiththedrainageeasementtothesouth.
Additional Information —This site is designated as aproposeparkonteMasterParksPlan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
A written request was filed requesting that the applicationbedeferredtoDecember18thinorderthattheinvolvedpartiesmighthaveadditionaltimetoresolvetheparksplanmatterwiththeLittleRockParksDepartment.The
Commission voted to defer the matter,as requested.Thevote:10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5
NAME:Forest Hill
LOCATION:North End of Foxcroft Road
3800 Block
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Gentry Partnership Richardson Engineer
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock,AR 72202
664-0003
AREA:12 acres NO.OF LOTS:16 FT.NEW STREET:1,400
ZONING:"R-2N
PROPOSED USES:"R-2"
PLANNING DISTRICT:3
CENSUS TRACT:22.01
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
None.
B.Existing Conditions
This site is located in a single family area.The land
is currently vacant,wooded and can be described as
naturally hilly.It is abutted on the west by
Robinwood,Phase I and on the east by Foxcroft 5th
Addition.
C.Develo ment Pro osal
The applicant is proposing to develop 12.05 acres into
16 lots for single family development.No waivers have
been requested.Access will provided by 400'f newstreet.
D.Engieering Comments
(I)Request Foxcroft Road be extended as a collectorstreet.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
(2)Request preliminary info on the grade of Gentry
Court.
(3)Construct guardrail type barricade at the end of
Foxcroft Road or a cul-de-sac turnaround.
E.Analysis
Staff requests that the applicant submit a hillside
analysis,so that a further review of the lot sizes as
they relate to topography can be conducted.A revised
plan with numbers on the contour should be submitted
also.
The proposed cul-de-sac requires a waiver of the
horizontal street centerline radius.
A permanent termination device is needed at the end of
Foxcroft.The staff would like the applicant to
clarify whether or not this property is the last piece
of the Foxcroft plat ownership.If property to the
north is owned,it may provide justification for
terminating as proposed.In any event,staff would
like to see the layout.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee reviewed the application,which included
the submission of the hillside analysis.The
discussion involved the submission of a revised plan
indicating the correct contours.The engineer was
advised to get with the City engineers and determine
whether Foxcroft Road should be developed as 36'r
27'treetwidth.Water Works requires a 15'asement
adjacent to the west and south lines of Lot 8 and an
access and utility easement for services to Lots 8 and9.
Added Information —Parts of this plat are shown on the
Master Par s P an as open space.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The application was presented by Mr.Bob Richardson,the
engineer for the project.Mr.Richardson made a lengthy
presentation of his proposal.He offered two optional plans
for development of the property and stated that the item now
on the agenda is not being pursued,inasmuch as one of the
new options offers a better street alignment.
Mr.Richardson offered a history of the site and the lot in
the Robinwood Addition,which would offer access (Lot 54).
Mr.Richardson also indicated that the primary interest in
taking access through the Robinwood Addition was
identification with that neighborhood,plus the street
grades are better.
The two options discussed were identified as "B"and "C."
Option "B,"which the owner preferred,offered no street tie
with the Foxcroft Road area,but accessed by way of the
Glenridge Drive in Robinwood.This plan offered no
improvement of Foxcroft Road,but retained a right-of-way
for its future extension.It was pointed out by
Mr.Richardson that additional land to the north could be
developed and accessed by way of his new tie to Glenridge
Drive (plus of minus 30 acres).
Option "C,"which is an improved version of the original
Plan A on this agenda,provides for a better street
alignment for the terrain involved and is accessed by way of
Foxcroft Road.There would be no tie proposed to the
Robinwood neighborhood.There was no proposal offered that
would tie these two subdivisions for through traffic.
Mr.Richardson's plans,as offered,were identified as being
filed late and having received only cursory review by thestaffandCityEngineerDivision,therefore,having no
agenda status.
There were approximately 30 persons present objecting tothisdevelopmentproposal.Speaking for the neighborhood
were:Ted Skorkus,Claude Carpenter,Tim Bowen,Burton
Moore.The gentlemen offered concerns which were generally
as follows:
/November 13„1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
l.A late notification of the project and no advance
involvement by the neighborhood.
2.Opening the Robinwood neighborhood to through traffic.
3.Potential violation of bill of assurance covenants.
4.Additional traffic flows over streets which at present
have maintenance problems.
5.The creation of double frontage lots on some of the
existing Robinwood owners.
6.The provision of access to larger development areas to
the north.
7.Forcing of Robinwood owners into commitments to build
streets that would be costly and not in their interest.
This would be associated with the sale of Lot 54.
After hearing the involved parties'iscussion at length,
the Planning Commission determined that this plat should be
properly refiled for the next Planning Commission meeting on
December 18,1984.A motion to defer the plat was made and
passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6
NAME:Darragh Commercial Subd ivis ion
LOCATION:South Side of East 6th Street,
Northeast of Missouri-Pacific
Railroad
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Darragh Company/Garver &Garver Engineers
Investment Company P.O.Box C-50
1401 East 6th Street Little Rock,AR 72203-0050
Little Rock,AR 72202 376-3633
AREA:8.353 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"I-3"
PROPOSED USES:Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT:6
CENSUS TRACT:3
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
A.Site History
None.
B.Existing Conditions
This plat is located in an area zoned for industrial
use.The site is composed of seven buildings used for
warehouse and industrial use.
C.Development Proposal
This is a proposal to subdivide a tract of 9.95 acres
into lots,so that Lot 2 may be sold for industrial
use.The existing on-site buildings do not conform to
setback requirements,so a variance is needed.Also,a
waiver of improvements on Thomas Street is requested
since the street of marginal use for access.Revision
for maintenance of a joint access easement on the plat
that serves both Lots 1 and 2 will be made in the
Bill of Assurance.There is also an easement on the
east side of the property outside of the subdivision's
boundary that provides access to Lot 2 and to a cafe on
an abutting property.The easement is reflected in the
deed.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
D.Engineering Comments
None.
E.Analysis
Staff realizes that any review of this item must be
accommodating to the existing situation;therefore,
there is no objection to the request for setback
waivers.We are also favorable to the request for a
waiver of street improvements on Thomas.The applicant
should show the platted sanitary sewer easement on the
final plat.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to comments made.
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee discussed the submission.Water Works
requested a 6"or 8"fire service line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The applicant was represented.There were no objectors
present.A brief discussion was held.A motion was made to
approve the plat as recommended by staff,including
Subdivision Committee comment.The motion passed by a vote
of:10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7
NAME:"B"Street Short Form PRD
(Z-3213-B)
LOCATION:SW Corner of North Van Buren
and "B"
DEVELOPER/AGENT:ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:
Dian Asbury Ollen D.Wilson
221 Pyramid Place Bldg.212 South VictoryLittleRock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
374-8841 375-7222
ARCHITECT:
Gerald Rogers
372-3849
AREA:.27 acres NO.OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:"R-2"(Existing)
PCD (Proposed)
PROPOSED USES:Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
This site has been the object of one application for
rezoning to office that was denied by the Commission.
B.Proposal
(1)The construction of a 3,000 square foot one-story
brick office building on 11,758 square feet of
land.
(2)Use of the building will be by no more than two
office space uses.
(3)Ten parking spaces are provided.
(4)Building coverage consists of approximately 25
percent of the lot and approximately 55 percent is
reserved for landscaping.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —Continued
(5)Primary access is limited to "B"Street with
secondary acccess on the existing alley on thesite.
(6)Retaining the nine existing mature trees and a
4'ockwallonthewesternboundaryisplanned.
(7)The estimated time frame for development indicates
that construction will occur for 120 days after a
building permit is received (to be adjusted
according to winter weather).
C.Engineering Comments
None.
D.Analysis
This application requests "PCD"review on a site that
has been the object of several rezoning requests in the
past.
Staff is opposed to the approval of this project.Wefeelthatnonresidentialusesshouldberestrictedto
south of the alley.If this project is approved,the
parking should be removed from the front yard and
placed in the back.
E.Staff Recommendation
Denial.
F.Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present.Staff reported that theFireDepartmentrequestedatleast20'f right-of-way
on all entrances,exits and streets.This plan shows
rear access provided by a 15'lley.Staff identified
the main issue as the proposed use of the property.
Sewer Comments —Sewer is available approximately50'60'est of the property lines of Lot 7 and "B"
Street.A main extension east in "B"Street will
likely be necessary.Sewering from the alley between"A"and "B"Streets appears impractical.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The Planning Commission directed the staff to make apresentationonthereportattachedtothisagendaas Item7-A,inasmuch as that material provides background fordiscussionoftherezoningmatter.
Richard Wood of the staff offered a brief overview of thereportgraphicsandfindings.The area along Van BurenStreetwasdescribedasaneighborhoodbeingreclaimed fromadeterioratingstate.The history of the street wasdescribedashavingseveralinstancesofdenialofofficeandapartmentzoning.These actions were in conformancewithpriorzoninglinecommitments.
The lot relationships to Van Buren reflect a difficult saleanddevelopmentpotential,that is,generally facing sidestreets.The history of the land use commitment line wasdescribedashavingbeenmovedfromtheMarkhamalleyto "A"
Street in the 1960's and from "A"Street to the alleybetween"A"and "B"Streets in the mid-70's.
The staff recommended,as a result of the study,that thelandusecontrollineatthealleysouthofthesubjectsiteberetained.
The Chairman then directed the applicant to offer hisproposal.The applicant,Olan Asbury,made a lengthypresentationofhiscase.He offered a revised plan and amodelwhichhestatedhadbeenreviewedbytheneighborsandhadbeenaccepted.He offered a letter with 19 signaturesfromtheneighborhoodsupportingofficeusageofthissiteasheproposed.There were no obj ectors present.
A general discussion was held concerning the basic issues oftherequest,which were:
l.Orientation of the building.
2.The land use demarkation line for office.
3.The strip zoning of Van Buren.
4.The physical appearance of the building.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —Continued
5.Response to future applications as to the appearance of
loosening land use commitment along Van Buren Street.
As a result of the discussion,several attempts at a
motion were made.A final motion was offered that
recommended approval of the revised plan,plus the line on
the plan being moved to encompass this site if the motion
passed.The vote on the motion was:9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.The motion passed.
November 13,1984
Item No.7A
A STAFF REPORT ON THE LAND USE ISSUE ON NORTH VAN BUREN
STREET
Purpose:
This plan review and report was produced at the direction of
the Planning Commission in order that background information
and existing commitments are known.This plan request is
associated with the requested rezoning of two lots at the
southwest corner of "B"Street and Van Buren Street.
History of Site and Street:
The "B"Street corner at issue has little documentedhistory.The only previous request for rezoning was filedforaPlanningCommissionhearingonJune27,1978,at which
time the owner withdrew the request.The withdrawal
occurred prior to any action by the Commission.The staff
recommendation on that occasion was denial based on a planlineestablishedbythePlanningCommissioninFebruary1968.The plan line established at that time was thecenterlineof"A"Street.That plan also incorporated the
mixing of duplexes along Van Buren running north to
Kavanaugh Boulevard.
Earlier office zoning actions along Van Buren Street
include:
a.810 North Van Buren Street at the southwest corner of
Kavanaugh Boulevard.A request from "R-2"Single
Family to "0-3"General Office on June 6,1966.This
request was approved by the Planning Commission,
approved by the City Board.The staff recommendation
was denial.This site later developed to medium
density apartments.
b.317 and 321 North Van Buren Street at the southeast
corner of "C"Street.A request from "R-3"Single
Family to "0-3"General Office.On December 5,1968,
the Planning Commission denied the request for office
and recommended duplex zoning to the City Board.The
Board of Directors accepted the duplex recommendation.
The staff recommendation was denial of office and
approval of duplex.
c.317 and 321 North Van Buren Street,the southeast
corner at "C"Street.A request from "R-4"Duplex to"0-1"Quiet Office.On October 25,1983,the Planning
Commission denied the request.There was no action bytheBoardofDirectors.The staff recommendation wasfordenialofofficeuseandretentionoftheduplexuse.
November 13,1984
Item No.7A —Continued
d.400 North Van Buren Street at the northwest corner of"C"Street from "R-3"Single Family to "0-3"General
Office filed on February 3,1966.The Planning
Commission recommended denial.There was no appeal to
the City Board.The staff recommendation was denial.
e.205 North Van Buren Street at the northeast corner of"A"Street.A request from "R-3"Single Family to"0-3"General Office.On October 1,1970,the planning
Commission denied the request.There was no appeal to
the City Board of Directors.The staff recommended
denial based on the 1968 plan.
f.205 North Van Buren Street at the northeast corner of"A"Street.The request from "R-3"Single Family to"0-3"General Office on March 2,1972.The Planning
Commission approved the request thereby amending the
plan and zoning line from "A"Street to the alley
immediately north of the subject site.The City Board
approved the rezoning to general office.The staff
recommendation was denial.
Physical Limitations:
The lots platted along North Van Buren Street do not present
design constraints for conversion to office use.There areseveralsmalltractswhichareportionsfromtheoriginalplattedlotconfigurations.These small lots aresignificantlybelowthestandardfortheofficedistricts
and would require combination with adjacent lots to achievebuildablesites.
In no case would the Planning staff recommend rezoning less
than the district minimum square footage even though theordinancepermitsthataction.The ordinance standards atthistimeare7,000 square feet for "O-l"and 14,000 squarefeetfor"0-3."We feel that the "0-2"Office District isentirelyinappropriatefortheareaduetothelotsizelimitanddevelopmentcriteria.
Structures,Condition and Orientation:
The existing housing stock in this neighborhood is very goodinalmosteveryblockexceptwherethereisadjoiningnonresidentialusage.In those instances,we see somedeteriorationofthestructures.Although in one instance
on the south side of "A"Street,there is a residential userearinguponthethreeMarkhamStreetrestaurantsandquitewellmaintained.
November 13,1984
Item No.7A —Continued
The lots along Van Buren Street are well-mixed as to the
structure orientation between West Markham and Lee Streets.
A more consistent pattern of orientation exists in the area
between Lee Street and the Kavanaugh Boulevard intersection.
All of the blocks in this neighborhood were platted with a
north/south orientation on the lots;however,over time,
seven of the block corners have been recombined without
benefit of platting to provide for Van Buren frontage.The
net effect of this replatting is to create 19 lots from the
former 18 lots.In most instances,a wider frontage on Van
Buren is provided than that originally indicated on theplat.
Existing Heights/Hillcrest Plan Commitments:
The plan,adopted in 1981,provides for maintenance of the
low density character of Van Buren which is a mix of "R-2"
And "R-3"Single Family.The "R-3"permitting duplex as a
conditional use.The plan also provides for a medium
density residential as the northern anchor of the street.
There are at this time two multifamily uses in place at the
Kavanaugh intersection adjacent to the Kavanaugh
commercial.
The south end of Van Buren at West Markham Street is
proposed on the plan as follows:
a.The frontage properties along West Markham are
indicated as general commercial to the alley line.
b.The frontage lots along Van Buren from the alley to "A"
Street are indicated as office usage.
c.The frontage lots along "A"Street on the south side
are indicated as office usage.
This plan attaches to the 1968 plan line for office
intrusion into the area and does not reflect the fact that a
dental clinic was placed in the block between "A"And "B"
Streets.That zoning action was recognized by staff and
Commission as having moved the office zoning line to thealleynorthof"A"Street.
Conclusions:
The staff position on the issue at hand is that offered on
the prior six or seven occasions where office rezoning was
requested.We feel that the placement of office use above
the present alley location is a commitment to eventual strip
November 13,1984
Item No.7A —Continued
zoning of Van Buren.The length of street involved is short
enough that rezoning this corner is tantamount to a
commitment to strip zoning.We believe this is the case
because of the two nonconforming uses in place at "C"Street
and at "F"Street.Those nonconforming uses are spaced so
as to leave only two blocks of this eight block strip as
single family use only.
We feel that this neighborhood is a valuable housing
resource both owned and rental and should be protected
against further intrusion.Further,we believe that if the
City advances its zoning demarcation line one more time,
then there is no permanent stopping point.
PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission voted to defer this item to the
November 13,1984,meeting.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8
NAME:Sister's Chicken and Biscuit
Site Plan Review
LOCATION:SE Corner of Shackleford and
Rodney Parham
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Sister's International,Frawley Consulting EngineersInc.West Memphis,AR
167 South State Street
P.O.Box 111
Westerville,Ohio 43081
(614)891-9303
AREA:.398 acres (Sister's Site Only)NO.OF LOTS:1
FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:RC-35
PROPOSED USES:Fast Food Restaurant
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
None.
B.Proposal
(1)The construction of a Sisters Fast-Food Restaurant
on a site of .242 acres.
(2)The building will consist of approximately 2700
square feet and have 19 parking spaces.
(3)Other uses in the shopping center include a K-Mart
of 95,810 square feet,food store of 23,490 squarefeet,a liquor store of 4,550 square feet.
(4)The submitted site plan indicates 750 parking
spaces for the total site.
C.En ineering Comments
Specify whether or not parking stripes will be removed
from the ingress and egress easements (Parts A and B).
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8 —Continued
D.Analysis
Staff feels that the proposed use will have a great
impact on the shopping center in terms of traffic.The
applicant should submit to staff more info on the size
of The Show Biz pizza parlor since submitted materials
do not indicate it.This will enable an analysis of
the site in regards to uses and parking.Also needed
is data indicating how existing parking will be
afforded by construction of this building.
Staff feels that there should be some islands or
delineators to set off parking and drive areas.Also,
the main drive should be clearly delineated as a
driveway easement.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subj ect to comments made.
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The applicant was present.It was requested that
further information be submitted to the staff before
the public hearing,so that the relationships between
the parking and square footage of all the uses in the
site could be determined.
Water Works —A water main extension will be required.
The water main must be adjacent to the property being
served.A 10'tility easement,5'ither side of this
main is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The application was represented.There were no obj ectors
present.The staff identified for the record that the only
remaining matter to be resolved was a report from the
applicant on the status of off-street parking.A letter was
then offered by the applicant with a report on the ratios
and numbers.The staff accepted the numbers as
appropriate.A motion was then made to approve the
application as recommended by staff and Subdivision
Committee.The motion passed by a vote of:8 ayes,0 noes,
and 3 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9
NAME:Omega Tube &Conduit
Corporation
LOCATION:1/4 Nile East of Fourche Dam
Pike,South Side of Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Omega Tube 6 Conduit Nabholz Construction Company
Corporation 423 Hall Building
c/o James A.Buttry Little Rock,AR
2000 First Commercial 376-3752
Bldg.Little Rock,AR 72201
376-2011
AREA:19.37 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING ~I-3n
PROPOSED USES:Industrial
A.Site History
This plan has been submitted as a follow-up to an
Act IX bond issue reveiw for Omega Tube and Pipe.
B.Proposal
(1)The construction of two buildings on a site for
industrial use.
(2)The larger building proposed will consist of
approximately 142,500 square feet with a future
addition of 121,000 square feet planned.
(3)The smaller building will consist of 3200 square
feet.
C.Engineerin Comments
(1)Dedicate right-of-way on Frazier Pike to
industrial arterial standards.
(2)Improve Frazier Pike to industrial standards.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —Continued
D.~A1
The applicant should indicate areas of parking and
landscaping.The number of parking spaces should be
specified.Staff's calculations indicate that 444.5
are needed.The approval of this site plan also
includes endorsement of the future addition.
E.Staff Recommendation
Approval.
F.Subdivision Committee Review
Staff reported that additional information received
indicated that the uses on the site would consist of a
mixture of manufacturing,warehouse and office,so only
262 parking spaces would be required.No further
problems were found with the plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The application was represented.There were no objectors
present.After a brief discussion,the Commission voted to
approve the application.The vote:10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
I
November 13,19S4
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10
NAME:Lanehart Apartments
LOCATION:NE Corner of Honeysuckle and
Lanehart,East of Stagecoach
DEVELOPER:APPLICANT:
Edco Construction Barry Young
6420 Mabelvale CutoffLittleRock,AR 72209
568-1197
AREA:6.48 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:Outside City
PROPOSED USES:Apartments
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:24.02
VARIANCES REQUESTED:None
A.Site History
None.
B.Proposal
(1)The construction of 128 units of apartments on a
building site of 6.48 acres.
(2)Project Data
a.The project will consist of eight buildings
with 16 units in each.
b.Each unit will be 800 sguare feet flats
consisting of two-bedrooms and a bath.
c.The units will stack 8 on 8 and a staircase
landing for the upper ones will be provides.
d.Paved parking will be provided according to
Ordinance standards.
e.The applicant has stated that "adequate
landscaping will be provided."
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 —Continued
f.Ten percent of units adapted for handicap
use.
C.Engineering Comments
(1)A Master Street plan issue conflicts with this
plan.The 65th Street/Shackleford Road connection
crosses this property.
(2)The Engineering Division has a consultant under
contract to fix the alignment of the
65th/Shackleford Street;request that applicant
meet the City Engineer to discuss the situation.
D.Analysis
This project is currently located out of the City but
in the referendum area.This complicates the approval
procedure since if the item is approved it will have to
come back to the Commission for rezoning to a district
that allows apartments.If it is not built before the
annexation passes,then it may not get zoned.
Another major issue for discussion has been raised by
the City Engineers.It involves the location of a
proposed intersection of two arterials through this
property.This will need to be resolved.There may be
a problem with sewer service.At the time of writing,
no information had been received from Wastewater.
Technically,the submitted plan is deficient.It does
not indicate needed dimensions,adequate parking spaces
for the 128 units in its layout,and does not show the
on-site fire lines and water hydrants.A landscaping
plan should be submitted.Please submit three copies
of a revised plan to the staff before the Commission
meets.Fire Department approval must be obtained.
E.Staff Recommendation
Deferral until issues are resolved.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 —Continued
F.Subdivision Committee Review
The Committee reviewed the application and requested
that the applicant submit a revised plan conforming to
technical requirements and meet with City engineers to
resolve the Master Street Plan issue.The Committee
expressed dissatisfaction with the design of the
project.The applicant was asked to consider some
redesign.
PLANNING COMMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The applicant was not present.There were no obj ectors
present.Inasmuch as the applicant failed to attend the
meeting,and deferral had been recommended,a motion to
defer was offered.The motion passed by a vote of:8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11
NAHE:Hinson Loop Road Day-Care
Center Conditional Use Permit
(Z-3262-B)
LOCATION:Hinson Loop Road just north of
Rainwood Drive (1816 Hinson Loop
Road)
OWNER/APPLICANT:Lundy Colvert
PROPOSAL:
To enlarge (38 feet by 46 feet addition)an existing
day-care center on property that is zoned "NF-18"and
conditional use approved.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site fronts on a collector and slopes from west to
east.
2.Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by commercial and
multifamily uses.It is also zoned "NF-18."This use
is compatible with the surrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
The site plan shows 15 parking spaces and a
semicircular drive whose two access points are on
Hinson Loop Road.
4.Screenin and Buffers
The applicant proposes to use existing trees and
shrubs.
5.Analysis
The use of this property is not an issue.A
conditional use permit for a day-care center was
approved in July 1980.The only issue is the proposed
parking.The semicircular drive has been paved,but
the parking has never been paved.In addition,the
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 —Continued
15 spaces are not adequate to meet the proposed
capacity of 140 students.The applicant needs to pave
the parking and meet the City Landscape Ordinance.
6.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agreesto:(1)amend the site plan to include 23 paved
parking spaces;and (2)meet the City Landscape
Ordinance requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that the capacity of
the day-care would be 120 students and 9 employees.The
applicant was informed that the parking requirement would be
21 paved parking spaces.The applicant agreed to submit a
revised site plan that will contain 21 parking spaces and
meet City landscape requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.The staff stated that the
applicant had submitted a revised site plan that met staff
recommendations.The Commission voted 10 ayes,0 noes,
1 absent,to approve the application as recommended bystaff.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12
NAME:Mabelvale Pike Day-Care
Center Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4164-A)
LOCATION:North side of Mabelvale Pike
at the intersection of
McDaniel Drive (7912 Mabelvale
Pike)
OWNER/APPLICANT:Lundy Colvert
PROPOSAL:
To enlarge (26 feet by 30 feet addition)an existing
day-care center on property that is zoned "R-2"and
conditional use approved.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is located in a predominantly single family
area.There are,however,some vacant lands adjacent
to the site.
2.Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
This site has one paved access to Mabelvale Pike.The
site also has six existing paved parking spaces.The
applicant is proposing to pave a total of eight parking
spaces.
4.Screenin and Suffers
The applicant has proposed landscaping on the east and
west property lines adjacent to the parking area.
5.Analysis
This property is hampered by a very irregular shape.
The use,however,is compatible with the surrounding
area.The additional right-of-way necessary on
Mabelvale Pike was dedicated on the first conditional
use permit approval.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.12 —Continued
The only issue that concerns the staff is parking.The
applicant is proposing eight parking spaces while nine
are required.
The staff supports this proposal but would like to
reiterate opposition to any further development of this
site without better access.
6.Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agreesto:(1)revise the site plan to include a parking area
of nine spaces;(2)no further development of the
northern part of the property without providing better
access.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to meet staff
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.The staff stated that the
applicant had submitted a revised site plan as requested bystaff.The Commission then voted 10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,
to approve the application as recommended by staff.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13
NAME:Knights of Columbus Conditional
Use Permit (Z-4352)
LOCATION:South side of Mann Road just
east of West 3rd Street
(Mabelvale)
OWNER/APPLICANT:George C.Martin/Nike
Berkemeyer (Knights of
Columbus)
PROPOSAL:
To construct an 11,200 square foot meeting hall,a
600 square foot pavillion,214 paved parking spaces,and a
300 foot by 250 foot play area on 8.3 acres of land that is
zoned "R-2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site fronts on a minor arterial (Mann Road)and is
heavily wooded.
2.Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by vacant land except for
an industrial use located to the north.The Suburban
Development Plan calls for single family future 1-3 to
6 units per acre.This site is large,and the proposed
landscaping and existing vegetation is sufficient to
allow for this use to be compatible with the
surrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing one access drive from Mann
Road and 214 paved parking spaces (61 spaces in Phase 1
and 153 additional spaces in Phase II).
4.Screening and Buffers
This site is heavily wooded.The site plan allows for
a minimum of 100-foot buffer on the south,10 feet on
the east and west and a significant area adjacent to
Mann Road.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.13 —Continued
5.Analysis
The applicant has selected a good site for the proposeduse.This proposal meets both parking and landscaping
requirements.
Phase I of the project will contain 61 parking spaces,
a pavilion and a play area.Phase II will contain the
remaining 153 parking spaces and an 11,200 square foot
meeting hall.
Mann Road is a minor arterial.The applicant will be
required to dedicate the additional right-of-way andconstructMannRoadtominorarterialstandardswhenconstructionofPhaseIIbegins.
6.Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval provided the applicantagreesto:(1)dedicate the right-of-way of Mann Roadtominorarterialstandards;and (2)construct Mann
Road to minor arterial standards when construction of
Phase II begins.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.The City Engineer stated thepossibilityexiststhatMannRoadwouldbedowngradedto acollectorstreet.The Engineer also stated that the exactcenterlineofthestreetisunknownatthistime.TheapplicantagreedtomeetwiththeCityEngineertoresolvethisissuebytheNovember13PlanningCommissionmeeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.The City Engineer stated that
they felt that Mann Road should be constructed to minorarterialstandardsontheproperty40feetfromtheapparentcenterlinewhenabuildingisissuedforPhaseII.The
applicant agreed to the City Engineer's comments.The
Commission then voted 10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,to approvetheapplicationasrecommendedbystaffandagreedtobytheapplicant.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14
NAME:Pulaski Heights Methodist
Church Conditional Use Permit
(Z-4356)
LOCATION:Northeast corner of Lee Street
and Monroe Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Pulaski Heights Methodist
Church/Brooks Jackson
PROPOSAL:
To remove two houses at the northeast corner of Monroe and
Lee Streets and to construct a two-story Christian Life
Center (which will contain a recreational center,stage and
kitchen)on land that is zoned "R-4."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
This site is surrounded on three sides by residential
streets and by a collector street on the south (Lee
Avenue).
2.Compatibility with Neighborhood
This church is an existing use.It occupies a City
block (2.06 +acres).It is surrounded on all sides by
existing single family uses.This site is compatible
with the surrounding area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
This proposal contains 109 existing paved parking
spaces and proposes one ingress from Lee Avenue and
four means of egress onto Spruce Street.The proposal
also contains a drop-off and a service drive on Monroe
Street.
4.Screenin and Suffers
The site plan contains landscaping as per City
ordinance.
I
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.14 —Continued
5.Analysis
The staff is generally supportive of this proposal.
The staff would like to point out that the building
setback line on the new addition for Monroe Street does
not meet ordinary ordinance requirements.The rear
yard setback of 25 feet or side yard of 8 feet
(whichever the case)is not applicable as per Zoning
Ordinance Section 5-101 F 2f which states that where
development of lots comprises 40 percent or more of
frontage of the said block and the buildings do not
average a variation of more than 6 feet,the average
depth shall be considered standard.
The only question the staff has concerns the proposeddrop-off on Monroe Street.The City Engineer does not
recommend it.The staff requests that the applicant
meet with the City Traffic Engineer to discuss a
potential loading zone.
6.Staff Recommendation
Approval subject to the applicant agreeing to meet with
the City Traffic Engineer to discuss the drop-off area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present.The applicant agreed to delete
the proposed drop-off shown near the Monroe and Lee Street
intersection.The applicant was then told to meet with the
City Engineer to discuss the handicap drop-off area.The
applicant agreed to meet with the City Traffic Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.The City Engineer stated that
they would drop their objection to the loading or drop-off
zone (on Monroe Street),provided the applicant agreed to
move it further north on Monroe Street.The applicant
agreed to the City Engineer's proposal.The Commission then
voted 10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,to approve the application
as recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicant.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.15
NAME:Asher Avenue Conditional Use
Permit (Z-4357)
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Asher Avenue
and Mabelvale Pike (5325 Asher
Avenue)
OWNER/APPLICANT:Jitendra Patel/Willie Page
PROPOSAL:
To obtain a conditional use permit for an auto repair garage
on an existing facility on property that is zoned "C-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.Site Location
At the intersection of a principal arterial (Asher
Avenue)and a minor arterial (Mabelvale Pike).
2.Compatibilit with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by commercial activity.
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area.
3.On-Site Drives and Parking
This site has two access drives.One access drive is
located on Asher Avenue while the second access is
gained via a rear driveway which leads to Mabelvale
Pike.The entire front of the property is paved and
will accommodate approximately 10 cars.
4.Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing to use existing trees and
shrubs.
5.Analysis
The location of the proposed use is compatible.Staff
has no issue with this proposal,The staff does want
to point out that the endorsement of this proposal
should not be constituted as approval of any outside
display of merchandise.In addition,the applicant is
responsible for meeting City landscape requirements.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.15 —Continued
6.Staff Recommendation
Approval,subject to the above comments.
SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to meet City landscape
requirements.The applicant was also advised that the
storing of salvage automobiles was illegal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.Staff recommended approval as
reviewed by the Subdivision Committee.The Commission then
voted 10 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,to approve the application
as recommended by staff.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.16
NAME:Rod ney P ar ham E xxon 8u i ld in g
Line Waiver
LOCATION:I-430 and Rodney Parham
APPLICANT:
Exxon Company USA
6401 Popular Avenue
Suite 500
Memphis,TN 38119-4840
REQUEST:
To allow encroachment of a canopy and islands into an area
established by a 45-foot building line.
A.Site History
None.
B.Existin Conditions
The site is located in an area that is composed of
commercial uses.It is bordered by a heavily traveled
arterial street and on the southeast by I-430.
C.Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting a canopy and pump island be
allowed to encroach into a 45'etback area.Because
the building site is small and the rear of the site
slopes off sharply,it's not possible to move the pump
islands and canopy any further back.
D.Engineering Comments
None.
E.Analysis
The applicant has stated that the renovationof this
store is part of an extensive modernization program in
the Little Rock area that involves the reconstruction
of pre and post 1965 retail stores.The renovation
includes the relocation of pump islands to improvetrafficflowonthesiteandprovideforauniformed
look throughout the UPS.and overseas.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.16 —Continued
Staff does not feel that the approval of the waiver
will adversely effect the area.
F.Staff Recommendation
Approval of request as filed.
G.Subdivision Committee Review
The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to
the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The application was represented.There were no objectors
present.A motion was made to approve the application as
submitted.The motion passed by a vote of:10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.17
NAME:Brant Calloway Discussion Item
LOCATION:Southwest Corner of Hillsboro
and Chicot Road
APPLICANT:Nr.Brant Calloway
10307 Shannon Hills Drive
Nabelvale,AR
Phone:455-3918 or 562-7819
REQUEST:Waiver of Subdivision
Requirements
STAFF REPORT:
The applicant has requested that he be exempted from the
requirement to subdivide this property based on past events.
In 1946,the property was bought by Elmer and Rosie Yarberry
and at time consisted of 20 acres.All of the property was
disposed of prior to 1958,except Parcels A,B,C and D.
Parcel A has a house on it,Parcel B has a house trailer,
and these parcels are owned currently by Dennis and George
Yarberry,sons of Elmer and Rosie.Parcel C is still owned
by Elmer Yarberry,and Parcel D was recently deeded to
Kimberly Sue Venable,a granddaughter who is the daughter of
the applicant.The deeds to Parcels A and B were
acknowledged prior to annexation of 1979.
The applicant now wishes to build a home on Parcel D.Duetoextremehardshipsincurredbyhisfamilyoverthepast
year,he cannot afford to subdivide all of the property just
to build on one lot.Furthermore,the applicant was not
responsible for existing problems due to the way the lots
were divided without thought to access.A 60'riveway
easement on the south was granted so the abutting property
owners would not be landlocked.
SUBDIVISION CONNITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee listened to the applicant and advised him to
show up at the public hearing.
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.17 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-13-84)
The owner was present.There were no objectors present.
The staff outlined the issue for the Commission and offered
a recommendation of approval.The owner stated he had no
comments on the matter,but accepted the staff's
recommendation.A motion was made for approval of the
request.The motion passed by a vote of:8 ayes,0 noes
and 3 absent.
November 13,1984
Item No.18 —Z-4350
Owner:Various Owners
Applicant:Charleen H.Tipton
Location:Stagecoach and Base Line Road
SW Corner
Request:Rezone from "R-2"to "C-3"
Purpose:Commercial and Office Uses
Size:4.5 acres +
Existing Use:Mixed Uses
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant and Commercial,Zoned "R-2"
South —Vacant and Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
East —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
West —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The proposal is to utilize the property for a small
commercial center that will include both retail andofficeuses.Being located at the intersection of twoarterials,Base Line and Stagecoach Roads,suggests
something other than single family residential and the
proposed development scheme appears to be a reasonable
alternative.It is anticipated that all four corners
will be developed for nonresidential uses and provide
some needed services for the area which are presentlylimited.
2.The site is flat and occupied by a number of structures
and different types of uses.The primary use is
residential but there are some commercial uses at thecorner.Since this area was developed prior to coming
into the City,the development is very haphazard.In
addition,some of the structures are marginal.
3.Additional right-of-way dedication for Base Line and
Highway No.5 (Stagecoach Road)will be required
because both are identified as arterials on the MasterStreetPlan.
November 13,1984
Item No.18 —Continued
4.Engineering has reported that boundary street
improvements will be required for both Base Line and
Highway No.5.No other adverse comments have been
received from the reviewing agencies as of this
writing.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no neighborhood position on the site.The
property was annexed into the City in 1979 as part of
the large southwest annexation.
7.The proposed Otter Creek Plan identifies the location
for commercial development and staff supports the
commercial request.The existing development patternissomewhatquestionableand"C-3"would do very little
to change that and would allow the current uses to
continue.Because of that situation,staff recommends
that a "C-2"classification be utilized for the
property.The "C-2"district provides for site plan
review and for this location that would be beneficial.
Rezoning to "C-3"could possibly just clean up the
nonconforming status of some of the uses and allow some
of them to expand.Staff supports commercial use of
the site,but feels that a new development is a better
proposal than allowing the existing uses to continue.
The "C-2"site plan process gives the City the needed
review to ensure a quality project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends "C-2"and not "C-3"as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Gene Eberle.There were no
obj ectors present.Mr.Eberle said that the contract to
purchase was for "C-3"as requested and that he could not
amend the request to "C-2"as recommended by staff.He also
indicated that only one building was proposed for the
property.After a long discussion,a motion was made to
recommend either "C-3"and that a one-lot replat be
submitted prior to the rezoning request being forwarded to
the Board of Directors,or "C-2"without a replat.The
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
November 13,1984
Item No.19 —Z-4353
Owner:American Motors Realty Corporation
Applicant:Same
By:Phillip Carroll
Location:8114 New Benton Highway
(At McDaniel Drive)
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"C-4"Open Display
Purpose:Auto Dealership
Size:5.72 acres +
Existing Use:Auto Dealership
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
South —Interstate Right-of-Way,Zoned "R-2"
East —Industrial,Zoned "I-2"
West —Industrial,Zoned "OS"and "I-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The site being considered for rezoning is the formerlocationofanautodealershipandtheproposalistoutilizethepropertyforanautodealershipagain.The
previous dealership was American Motors Corporation,
who still owns the property,and it is the staff's
understanding that American Motors plans to reopen thefacility.The use is compatible with the area and the1-30 frontage which has a used car lot to the east and
a new car dealership to the west.The existing land
use and zoning patterns are similar with a mix of uses
and "R-2,""C-3,""C-4"and "I-2"zoning districts.
The property has been vacant for longer than one year.
2.The site is heavily paved with two structures on it.
There are no unique physical characteristics associated
with the property.
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues.
November 13,1984
Item No.19 —Continued
4.Because of the existing flooding in the McDaniel Drivearea,Engineering has recommended an internal drainage
plan and detention.No other adverse comments have
been received from the reviewing agencies as of thiswriting.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.The property was annexed into the City in 1979 and has
been used for a number of years as an auto dealership.
There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite.
7.The Suburban Development Plan identifies the locationforsomecommercialandlightindustrialuses.Withtheexistingdevelopmentpattern,an auto dealership iscompatiblewiththeareaandstaffsupportsthe"C-4"
request.A "C-4"reclassification appears to be the
most appropriate district for the property.There isoneissuethatshouldbeaddressedandthatistheBillofAssurance.A portion of the property beingconsideredforrezoningiscoveredbytheBill ofAssuranceforTownandCountryEstates.It restricts
two tracts with I-30 frontage for commercial purposes
and "all other lots shall be used for single familyresidentialpurposesonly."This rezoning requestincludesLot89,which is one of the residential lots
and should be excluded from the rezoning to "C-4."
There are no other significant issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C-4"request with theexceptionofLot89,Town and Country Estates.That parcelshouldbeleft"R-2."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Phillip Carroll,was present.There were noobjectors.Mr.Carroll stated that the American MotorsCorporationhadnoobjectionwitheliminatingLot89,Town
and Country Estates,from the application.He then amendedtherequesttoexcludeLot89.The Planning Commissionvotedtorecommendapprovaloftherezoningrequestasamended.The vote:10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
November 13,1984
Item No.20 —Z-4354
Owner:Ken and D.C.Harper
Applicant:Kenneth Harper
Location:7215,7217 and 7315 Mabelvale Cutoff
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"C-3"General Commercial
Purpose:Mixed Uses
Size:2.72 acres +
Existing Use:Mixed Uses
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family,Zoned "R-2"
South —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
East —Single Family and Commercial,Zoned "R-2"
West —Office,Zoned "C-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The tract of land being considered is made up of threeparcelswithnonconformingusesonallthree.The
proposal is to rezone the property to "C-3"and to do
away with the nonconforming status.The piece of
property adjacent to the existing "C-3"tract has a
minor involvement on it,so its conceivable that lotwillbeutilizedforsomethingotherthanwhatisthere.There could be new uses on all three tracts.
The site is approximately 800'ast of the intersectionofMabelvaleCutoffandChicotRoadwhichisamoredesirablelocationforcommercialzoningandactivity.
With other existing nonconforming uses in the immediatevicinity,a very undesirable zoning pattern could
develop if that becomes one of the primaryconsiderationsinreviewingzoningcases in this area.
In this particular incident,the existing uses should
not be used to justify the rezoning because of thepotentialforastripzoningpattern.
2.The site is flat with a 330-foot depth.There are atotaloffourstructuresonthepropertythatarebeing
used for various uses including a day-care center and a
wholesale optical outlet.
November 13,1984
Item No.20 —Continued
3.Additional right-of-way dedication will be required for
Nabelvale Cutoff which is identified as a minorarterialontheMasterStreetPlan.
4.Engineering has indicated that boundary street
improvements will be necessary for Nabelvale Cutoff.
5.There are no legal issues associated with this request.
6.There is no documented history or neighborhood positionrelativetothissite.
7.The request is not supported by the Suburban
Development Plan and the staff is opposed to the
rezoning.This position is consistent with the staff's
stand on the rezoning of the tract to the west to "C-3"
(Z-4056).That initial commercial request was
inappropriate and that is the staff's response to thecurrentproposal.The existing "C-3"created a spot
zoning and the current request would enlarge anunsuitablecommerciallocation.(The previous "C-3"
was denied by the Planning Commission and approved bytheBoardofDirectors.)The Suburban Development PlanidentifiestheintersectionofChicotandNabelvale
Cutoff for commercial uses in the area and shows thisgenerallocationformultifamilydevelopment.The
continued approval of commercial requests this far
removed from the intersection will create an unworkable
zoning pattern and could have an adverse impact on theexistingresidentialneighborhood.If this request isgranted,it will be difficult to deny future requests,
and it will establish an undesirable commercial area.
The stripping out of Nabelvale Cutoff then becomes arealpossibility.It should also be pointed out thatthisareawaswithintheSouthCentralIslandPlan
which both staff and the Planning Commission spent time
developing and determining a realistic land use pattern
which showed the commercial uses to be restricted totheintersectionofMabelvaleandChicotRoads.The
Suburban Development Plan was amended to reflect the
South Central Island Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
November 13,1984
Item No.20 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant,Ken Harper,was present.There were no
persons in attendance objecting to the request.Nr.Harper
spoke and presented his position.He explained that the
uses on the different tracts were in existence prior to
coming into the City and that they should be rezoned
accordingly to avoid any problems of being nonconforming
uses.Jim Lawson of the Planning staff discussed the
Suburban Development Plan and other related issues.A
lengthy discussion was held on the request.A vote was
taken to recommend approval of the "C-3"as filed.The vote
was:0 ayes,8 noes and 3 absent.The request was denied.
November 13,1984
Item No.21 —Z-4355
Owner:Annie Holland
Applicant:Dennis White
Location:10422 Chicot Road (Chicot and
Mabelvale Cutoff NW Corner)
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family to"C-3"General Commercial
Purpose:Eating Place
Size:1.18 acres +
Existing Use:Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Single Family and Commercial,Zoned "R-2"and
eC 3 II
South —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
East —Commercial,Zoned "C-3"
West —Commercial,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1.The proposal is to rezone the property for a fast foodeatingestablishment.Being located at theintersectionofthetwoarterials,the rezoning and
proposed use are appropriate for the location.The
northeast and the southwest corners of the intersection
are already zoned "C-3"and the west side of Chicot
north of this property for some distance is also zoned
Il C 3 II
2.The site is flat and occupied by two residential
structures and an accessory building.
3.There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
4.There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies at this time.
5.There are no legal issues.
6.There is no documented neighborhood position on thesite.The property was annexed into the City as partoftheSouthCentralIsland.
November 13,1984
Item No.21 —Continued
7.The Suburban Development Plan identifies the northwest
corner of Chicot and Mabelvale for commercial
development,and staff supports the "C-3"request.
Approval of this rezoning will leave a single "R-2"
tract on the west side of Chicot between Mabelvale and
Morris Drive to the north.It is anticipated that in
the future this probably will be considered for
rezoning.There are no outstanding issues or concerns
that have to be addressed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
After a brief discussion,the Commission voted to recommend
approval of the request as filed.The vote:10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
4%WW iW ~cfh4W
eWWX~w
a
+XX W aX
z c ~~g g Q Q Q Q Q Q 5
AWE'L ww
W ~4 ~
ui~~~
.AW WWw4
:VW WWWW
-'gib 4 W ~
K Q Gt00+N 0 0 OMMQ~4l Q Q ~Vt
M V V 41 L
Sefg
P L A N N I N G C 0 M M I S S I 0 N
VOTERECORD
DATE
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER 45 Fte&
v evO
Y V V'V'
v'.
Massie
J.Nicholson ™V
A
W.Ketcher I +4 ~
D.Arnett eh YA
U.J.Jones V'~
I.Boles
J.Clayton e''
&AYE NAYE A ABSENT ~ABSTAIN
November 13,1984
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
lQ
I98'ate
43Secetary
airperson