Loading...
pc_12 18 1984subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD SUBDIVISION AND ZONING HEARINGS DECEMBER 18, 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 Last Meeting The minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved. III. Members Present: IV. City Attorney Present: John Schlereth Jerilyn Nicholson Richard Massie William Ketcher Dorothy Arnett Betty Sipes John Clayton Bill Rector Jim Summerlin David Jones Carolyn Witherspoon *One open Planning Commission position. s :- PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Now Items 9. Country Homes Condominium "Short -form" PRD (Z-4374) 16. Z -3484 -CNE Come�rham at Reservoir. 10. University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Z-4377) 17. Z-3931-0 Chicot 6 Bunch Rds. SITE PLAN REVIEW 11. Hidden Valley Apts. "Revised" Site Plan 12. Gospel Assembly Church 13. Shackleford Road (Z -3632-A) 14. Sugar N111 R -7A Site Plan (Z -3931-E) CONDITIONAL USE 15. Valentine Street CUP (Z-4368) 18. PLATS/REPLATS DEFERRED ITEMS I. West Markham Parking Addition (2 blocks) 2. Parkway Ridge Preliminary A. Pecan Lake I Parkway West Preliminary S. Westchester Estates 4. Briscoe Subdivision C. Forest Hill S. Otter Creek Commercial Subdivision Preliminary D. Lanehart Apts. 6. Fairfield Plaza E. Z-4325 7. Green Tree Village Preliminary F. Z-4343 8. Pleasant View Subdivision G. Z-4348 24. Z-4373 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Now Items 9. Country Homes Condominium "Short -form" PRD (Z-4374) 16. Z -3484 -CNE Come�rham at Reservoir. 10. University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Z-4377) 17. Z-3931-0 Chicot 6 Bunch Rds. SITE PLAN REVIEW 11. Hidden Valley Apts. "Revised" Site Plan 12. Gospel Assembly Church 13. Shackleford Road (Z -3632-A) 14. Sugar N111 R -7A Site Plan (Z -3931-E) CONDITIONAL USE 15. Valentine Street CUP (Z-4368) 18. Z-4366 Walker at W. 26th (2 blocks) 19. Z-4367 406 N. Van Buren 20. Z-4369 2822 W. 13th 21. Z-4370 10923 W. Markham 22. Z-4371 Roosevelt -Rd.. W. of Spring St. 23. Z-4372 Nabelvale West 8 Otter Creek East Blvd. 24. Z-4373 1520 Wright Ave, 25. Z-4375 5900 South University 26. Z-4376 Area of Cantrell a Rebsamen Park Rd. Scecial Use Permit 27. Z-4358 2601 So. Johnson Street Closure 28. McLean St. between 4th a 5th SUWARY OF SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ACTIVITY DECEMBER 18, 1984 SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ACTIVITY December 18, 1984 Deferred Items A. Pecan Lane Subdivision B. West Chester Estates Preliminary C. Forest Hill D. Lanehart Apartments E. Z-4325 F. Z-4343 G. Z-4348 Plats/Replats 1. West Markham Parkway Addition 2. Parkway Ridge Preliminary 3. Parkway West Preliminary 4. Briscoe Subdivision 5. Otter Creek Commercial Subdivision Preliminary 6. Fairfield Plaza 7. Green Tree Village Preliminary 8. Pleasant View Subdivision Planned Unit Development 9. Country Homes Condominium "Short -Form" PRD (Z-4374) 10. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Apartments PRD (Z-4377) Site Plan Review 11. Hidden Valley Apartments "Revised" Site Plan 12. Gospel Assembly Church Site Plan 13. Shackleford Road (Z -3632-A) 14. Sugar Mill "R -7A" Site Plan (Z -3931-E) Conditional Use 15. Valentine Street CUP (Z-4368) Zoning 16. Z -3484-C "R-6" to "C-3" 17. Z -3931-E "OS," "R-2," "MF -6 & 12" and "C-12 18. Z-4366 "R-2" to "R-4" 19. Z-4367 "R-3" to "R-4" 20. Z-4369 "R-3" to "C-3" 21. Z-4370 "R-2" to "C-3" 22. Z-4371 "R-4" to "O-1" 23. Z-4372 "R-2" to 110-2" 24. Z-4373 "R-4" to "C-1" 25. Z-4375 "C-3" to "C-4" 26. Z-4376 "I-2" to "0-2" and "0-3" Special Use Permit 27. Z-4358 To "C-3" and "R -7A" Right -of -Way Abandonment 28. McLean Street Closure (between 4th and 5th Streets) Other Matters 29. Z -4081-A - Request for rehearing of property at 9215 Asher. 30. Otter Creek District Plan 31. Highway 10 Study Committee Plan/Report s s' December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: First Federal Service Corporation Little Rock, AR Pecan Lake East, Phase I East End of Tall Timber Blvd., South Side RMCTNRRR Manes/Castin/Massey 2501 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72115 758-1360 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. B. Site History At the time of this writing, an application for the rezoning of a 30.18 acre site that includes this parcel has been filed. The request is to rezone the property from "R-2" to "R-3." Existing Conditions This property is located in an area that has been developed primarily as single family residential. The site is currently wooded with mature vegetation and trees. The 100 -year floodplain is apparent on the northern end. Elevations range from 270' to 3301. C. Development Proposal This is a plan by First Service Corporation to subdivide 5.54 acres into 22 lots for single family use according to the "R-3" zoning district. Access will be provided by 800' of 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. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued D. E. F. Engineering Comments (1) Request that floor elevation requirements for those lots in the floodplain be placed on the final plat. (2) Construct a guardrail type barricade at the end of Tall Timber Boulevard. Analysis The applicant has requested to develop this lot as single family, but according to "R-3," which requires lots to be 50' x 1001. Staff questions the width of some lots. The applicant should make sure that all lots are 50' wide at the building line. It is necessary for the applicant to submit a preliminary plat on all the ownership as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed street layout of the total area must be reviewed. 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. 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 the extent of ownership and change conflicting street names. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-13-84) Planning Commission was advised by staff that it would be appropriate to defer this matter to the December 18, 1984, meeting at which time the rezoning matter on the site will be presented. The applicant indicated he accepted the deferral. The Commission voted to defer the matter to December 18, 1984. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He submitted a revised plan, which was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Jack Castin represented the developer. Several persons were present in objection. Staff reported their recommendation as approval of the plan, subject to the dedication of all the lots north of the north property line of the lots running on Tall Timber to the City, since portions of the site are in the Master Parks Plan. The applicant disagreed with staff's recommendation, since he felt that it was not consistent with what he felt was an agreement with the Parks Department for dedication of 20' off the centerline of Brodie Creek. Mr. James McCloud, President of the Pecan Lake Property Owners' Association, expressed a fear that the proposal would serve as a means of devaluing the existing neighborhood, since the proposal included small lots, and that the name of the subdivision would also be disadvantageous. He expressed further concern that duplexes were allowd in "R-3" as conditional use; therefore, the applicant was asked to commit to no duplexes in Phase I. Mr. Castin agreed. A motion was made to approve the plat, subject to the applicant's agreement to comply with the wishes of Mr. Julius Breckling and the Parks Department regarding dedication. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, 1 abstention and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B 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: Ridgelea Development Corporation 106 White Oak Lane Little Rock, AR AREA: 46.50 acres ZONING: PROPOSED USES: ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Bob Lowe Civil Design, Inc. 1001 Fair Park Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72204 NO. OF LOTS: 48 FT. NEW STREET: 2,500 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 pond on-site and portions of the property are in the floodplain. A 150' drainage easement occupies much of the western tract. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 46.50 acres into 48 lots for use as single family. Approximately 2500' of new street is planned. Only Phase I, which consists of 13 lots will be developed initially. There are 35 lots remaining and a large tract that is marked "RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT." Plans include the abandonment of the pond. November 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued D. E. 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 Road to arterial standards. Meet with City Engineer to discuss the alignment of Taylor Loop Road. (3) Indicate phases on the plat; indicate on the final plat, the required floor elevation for those lots in the floodplain. (4) Area for future development contains much floodway area; 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 contribution for the major drainage structure on Taylor Loop Road. Analysis This submission poses several concerns. Plans for the area described as for "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 on the boundary of the property. The engineer is asked to show this on the plat and work with the City's engineers to establish the centerline of Hinson and Taylor Loop. 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 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. The main issue for discussion was identified as the alignment of the street. The applicant presented two plans that would offer solutions to staff's comment regarding the lots abutting arterials and Engineering's comments. He stated that it would be difficult not to locate the lots with access off Taylor Loop Road. 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 up with an acceptable proposal. Water Works - Service lines and future main crossings should be installed across Taylor Loop Road before improvements are made. 6" and 8" main extensions are required (in Improvement District No. 102). Main relocations or provision of easements will be required if Taylor Loop Road is relocated. Wastewater Utility - Also existing sewer is available on the west side edge of Taylor Loop Road, not all of the proposed development could be drained in that direction. Alternate sewer proposals for the remainder of the development involve both gravelly main extensions and pump station and force main. These proposals depend upon the acceptability of drainage improvements which would limit the floodplain contour to coincide with the drainage easement to the south. Additional Information - This site is designated as a proposed park on the Master Parks Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-13-84) A written request was filed requesting that the application be deferred to December 18th in order that the involved parties might have additional time to resolve the parks plan matter with the Little Rock Parks Department. The Commission voted to defer the matter, as requested. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (11-29-84) The applicant was not present; however, staff reported that an agreement was being negotiated with the developer and the Parks Department. November 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff stated their position for approval, subject to acquisition of all of the shaded area on the sketch that did not involve lots. A motion for approval, as requested by staff, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C NAME: LOCATION: T EIT7"r ^1 - _ Gentry Partnership AREA: 12 acres ZONING: "R-2" DDrNDrNC!VTI TlOnC Forest Hill North End of Foxcroft Road - 3800 Block ENGINEER: Richardson Engineer 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003 NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 1,400 "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. Development Proposal 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' of new street. D. Engineering Comments (1) Request Foxcroft Road be extended as a collector street. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - 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' or 27' street width. Water Works requires a 15' easement adjacent to the west and south lines of Lot 8 and an access and utility easement for services to Lots 8 and 9. Added Information - Parts of this plat are shown on the Master Parks Plan as open space. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - 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 the staff and City Engineer Division, therefore, having no agenda status. There were approximately 30 persons present objecting to -&Ais development proposal. Speaking for the neighborhood were: Ted Skorkus, Claude Carpenter, Tim Bowen, Burton Moore. The gentlemen offered concerns which were generally as follows: s December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued 1. 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' discussion 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. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant's representative, Mr. Bob Richardson, presented his revised plan which proposed access through Robinwood to the Committee for review. The proposal was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission. + T December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued 1. 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' discussion 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. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant's representative, Mr. Bob Richardson, presented his revised plan which proposed access through Robinwood to the Committee for review. The proposal was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present in opposition. They were represented by Attorney Don Hamilton. Initially, Mr. Richardson, the Project Engineer, requested that the application be deferred. A vote for deferral was made, but failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The reason being, its failure to comply with the 5 -day written notice for deferral requirement. Mr. Richardson then proceeded with the presentation of his proposal, which included an exhibit and the submission of 2 letters to the Commission. The letters were from: (1) the Bailey Corporation, stating no further intent to develop the 4 t December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item C - Continued subdivision; and (2) Robinwood Development Company, stating ownership of Lot 54 and all unplatted acreage adjoining and continues to that same lot. During his presentation, Mr. Richardson explained that: (1) 15 lots would not create a traffic problem in the area; (2) there was no Bill of Assurance violation, and (3) Section 37.4(e) of the subdivision ordinance encourages the use of double frontage lots where lot lines front freeways, arterials and to help comply with the hillside regulations. Attorney Hamilton submitted a petition with 200 signatures of persons in Robinwood who oppose extension of Glenridge Road through Lot 54, since their Bill of Assurance restricts each lot to a 1 -family residence, that is itself subject to certain restrictions; also, because they feared adverse effects to their property values. Attorney W.P. Hamilton, of 51 Robinwood, explained that he had prepared the original Bill of Assurance for the subdivision and felt that one of its purposes was to limit the boundaries of the subdivision, so as to provide for an internal street system; therefore, this proposal was in violation of this intent of the Robinwood Bill of Assurance. Other spokespersons from the neighborhood included a Mr. Moore, who resides on Glenridge, and a Mr. Skokus. Their added comments concerned the violation of a quiet neighborhood, the possibility of Lot 53 becoming a triple frontage lot and the charge that the applicant only wanted to double his money by capitalizing on the identity of the existing neighborhood. Mr. Richardson felt that a precedent had been set for a proposal of this sort by Planning Commission approval of Cameron Heights off of Shea Drive. The Commission felt that the developer had the right to develop the property. They still felt, however, that the plat should not be approved because: (1) Foxcroft provides a better means of access than Glenridge; (2) the developer was creating double frontage lots out of existing lots; and (3) the proposal served to open what is currently a cul-de-sac, which adds more traffic onto Glenridge, a right-of-way with existing problems. A motion to deny the plat, based on the above reasons, was made and passed by a vote of: 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 abstention and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item C - Continued A legal opinion prepared by the City Attorney was submitted at the hearing, which stated that if a preliminary plat that meets the technical regulations of the ordinance is denied, the Planning Commission must outline reasons for denial; and when corrected, may be resubmitted. Staff was instructed to draft a letter and notify the applicant within 5 days of the reasons for denial. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Edco Construction 6420 Mabelvale Cutoff Little Rock, AR 72209 568-1197 Lanehart Apartments NE Corner of Honeysuckle and Lanehart, East of Stagecoach APPLICANT: Barry Young 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 square 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." 0 December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - 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. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - 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 objectors 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. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Due to the applicant's absence, the item was not reviewed by the Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-18-84) A motion for withdrawal, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open. December 18, 1984 Item No. E - 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" & "MF -18" Multifamily, "0-2" Office & Institutional, "C-2" Shopping Center and "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Size: Mixed Uses 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 an area that is part of the Otter Creek Plan. The request involves 50.4 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 rezoning activity and development. This is due in part to the Otter Creek community to the south and the new construction that is occurring at I-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 and I-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 are adjacent to a large floodway that creates the eastern boundary for the proposed "MF -18" and "C-3" parcels. December 18, 1984 Item No. E - 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 principal arterial on the Master Street Plan, and Base Line Road is shown as a minor arterial. The existing rights-of-way are deficient so dedication of additional right-of-way will be required for both streets to meet arterial standards. 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 that occurred in 1979. 7. Some of the proposed rezonings are in conformance with the Suburban Development Plan, but because the sites are within the Otter Creek Plan area, 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 and State Highway No. 5 are shown on the Suburban Development Plan, but because of the amount of land involved and some other considerations, staff feels that it would be inappropriate to act on the request at this time. 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 more current overview. 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 I-430 to the south just north of Otter Creek Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a two-month deferral. December 18, 1984 Item No. E - 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' Association, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12/18/84) The applicant, Joe White, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. White had submitted a modified zoning plan to the staff prior to the public hearing which staff indicated support for with the exception of an 110-2" parcel on the east side of Stagecoach Road (Highway No. 5). Mr. White described the new plan and disagreed with the staff's position on the "0-2" tract. He said that a church which abuts the property in question on the south and a small office complex were compatible land uses and that there was a need for "0-2" land in the area. Mr. White also stated that the Otter Creek Property Owners Association had reviewed the amended plan and that they were in favor of it. The Planning Commission then voted on the amended application as presented. The vote was: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to support the request. December 18, 1984 Item No. F - Z-4341 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Johnson Ranch Partnership Thomas L. Hodges/Greenbelt Properties Highway 10 West of North Katillus Road Rezone from Unclassified to "MF -12 and 18," "0-2" and "C-2" Multifamily Office and Shopping Center 147.9 acres + ("MF -12" - 19.1 acres, "MF -18" - 7.8 acres, "0-2" - 57.7 acres, and "C-2" - 63.2 acres) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Unclassified South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassfied East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Unclassified STAFF POSITION: Staff is recommending that this item be deferred for at least two months to allow the Board of Directors to address various policy questions associated with the requested rezonings. The principal issue is that the property is outside the city limits and beyond the "official annexation boundary lines" as adopted by the Board of Directors Resolution No. 6351 and amended by Resolution No. 6761. Resolution No. 6351 establishes "an official annexation boundary line encompassing those areas to be brought into the City until the year 1990." The property in question does abut the city limits on the east side which is also the annexation line. 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. December 18, 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 objectors 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 forwarding it on to the Board of Directors. 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. He said that there was a total of 604 acres in the ownership 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 multifamily areas, 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 the largest piece of land under single ownership close in, 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 the location was a logical commercial mode because of the future street network, 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 December 18, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12/18/84) The applicant was present and represented by Tom Hodges. There were no objectors in attendance. Jim Lawson of the Planning Office described the staff's position and the issues that needed to be resolved. Mr. Hodges then spoke and addressed four specific items. He indicated that the owners had agreed to: (1) a 50 -foot "OS" strip, (2) submitting a preliminary plat with a 100 -foot building line, (3) working with the City on the dedication of land for a public facility or use, and (4) filing the new annexation petition for the entire ownership to the railroad tracks. Mr. Hodges then informed the Planning Commission that all interested parties have signed the protective covenants. At this time, there was a discussion about a 100 -foot right-of-way for Highway 10. Bob Lane of the Engineering staff discussed the issue, and after additional comments, Mr. Hodges agreed to dedicating 10' of right-of-way for Highway 10. Jack Brown, a property owner, spoke in favor of the proposal and said it was good for the area. The Planning Commission then voted on the application with the 50 -foot "OS" strip and that a preliminary plat with a 100 -foot building line be filed, 10' of additional right-of-way be dedicated and that a letter of intent be submitted for the public facility area. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. December 18, 1984 Item No. G - Z-4348 Owner: First Federal Service Corporation Applicant: John A. Castin Location: East End of Tall Timber Blvd. Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-3" Single Family Purpose: Single Family Size: 30.18 acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified East - Hindman Park, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone approximately 30 acres to "R-3" which is the City's small lot single family district. In the "R-3" district, the minimum lot area is 5,000 square feet vs. 7,000 square feet in the "R-2." The minimum lot depth of 100 feet is the same in both "R-2" and "R-3," but the minimum lot width is 60' in "R-2" and 50' in "R-3." In addition to those differences, two family residences are permitted as a conditional use in the "R-3" district, but the minimum lot size is 7,000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance states that the "R-3" district is "established an order to provide for an appropriate district for the existing developed areas occupied by smaller scale single family housing, and it is intended that this district be utilized for new construction only within the existing urban area and especially for infill development." It can be questioned as to whether the land being considered for rezoning is within the existing developed urban area. From the staff's viewpoint, this does not appear to be a major issue, but needed to be mentioned. Normally, the existing "R-3" areas are found to the east of University. To the north of this area, much of what is considered the John Barrow neighborhood, is zoned "R-3." The 30 acre tract is adjacent to a partially developed subdivision so it can December 18, 1984 Item No. G - Continued be argued that the location is not totally removed from the existing developing urban area. The "R-3" district could also be viewed as one method for providing affordable housing because of the small lot provision, and this is something that the City has been trying to encourage recently. 2. The entire site is vacant and wooded with some slope to it. The land increases in elevation from north to south. The property on the north side of what would be the extension of Tall Timber Blvd. has some floodway and floodplain involvement. 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 as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Based on the calls that staff has received from the residents in the existing Pecan Lake Subdivision, there is significant neighborhood opposition to the proposed "R-3" rezoning. There is no documented history on the site. 7. Staff does not feel that an "R-3" rezoning for this type of an area is inappropriate and supports the request. It does not appear that the rezoning will significantly impact the "R-2" subdivision to the west because of a similar platting arrangement and the proposed lots are larger than the "R-3" minimum. There are some issues that should be resolved prior to final action being taken on the rezoning request. The most significant one is the status of the property north of the extension of Tall Timber Blvd. The Master Parks Plan identifies that area as proposed park land. The City's Park Department will provide additional information on this issue at a later date. Staff's position is that the area included on the Parks Plan should be left unplatted and made part of the City's parks system through whatever mechanism is feasible. Also, the floodway/floodplain is involved with this tract north of the Tall Timber Blvd. extension. A preliminary plat has been filed for the west 5.5 acres only and not the entire 30 acres as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance states that a preliminary plat be filed for all land December 18, 1984 Item No. G - Continued under one ownership. This allows a more thorough review of the proposal including circulation and general design considerations. A possible option to consider at this time is to only rezone the 5.5 acres for which a plat has been filed or request that some type of plat be presented for all 30 acres. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the resolutions of the issues identified in staff analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jack Castin, was present and representing the owner, First Federal Service Corporation. There were a number of persons in attendance opposing the requested rezoning. Mr. Castin spoke and stated that the plans were to only have single family homes. He then presented a map and discussed the preliminary plat for 5.5 acres which is to be the first phase. Mr. Castin stated that none of the property was in the floodway and that they would consider deleting the area in the floodplain from the "R-3" request. This land north of Tall Timber Boulevard extension could possibly be made available to the City for use as a park Mr. Castin indicated. He then went on to say if the "R-3" zoning was accomplished, lots would be approximately 20 percent less than lots in an "R-2" subdivision. Sarah Bradshaw of the adjoining Pecan Lake development requested the Planning Commission to postpone action on the request until the Property Owners' Association had more time to review the proposal. She went on to say that there was a petition with 250+ signatures opposed to the request, and her concerns were lower property values, smaller lots than in the existing subdivision, duplexes were permitted as a conditional use in "R-3" and increased traffic. Mr. James McLeod, president of the Property Owners' Association spoke against the rezoning and presented the petition to the Planning Commission. Mr. Harley stated that he was opposed to anything less than "R-2" zoning. Ed Billings was concerned with an orderly development, the quality of life and property values in the existing subdivision. He also expressed a number of uncertainties with the proposal. Ernie Matkin of Superior Federal was concerned with possible duplexes and voiced some objection to the "R-3" proposal because of that possibility. Mr. Castin spoke again and indicated that Tall Timber Boulevard was a collector on December 18, 1984 Item No. G - Continued the Master Street Plan. He said in the first phase, 5.5 acres, 21 lots were platted with an average lot size of 6,000 square feet. He also indicated that there would be approximately 160 lots in the entire development. Mr. Castin said that he could not make any assurances that there would not be any duplexes in the remaining 25 acres. There was a lengthy discussion about the total number of units that could be developed in an "R-2" project versus an "R-3" development. Mr. Castin said that the owners could accept the rezoning to "R-3" on only the first phase and suggested that additional time for further study of certain issues might be beneficial. After more comments, a motion was made to defer the item to the December 18, 1984, meeting. Mr. Castin agreed to the deferral. The motion, passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12/18/84) The applicant, Jack Castin, was present. There was one objector present. Mr. Castin spoke and discussed the preliminary plat and the proposed rezoning plat. He also indicated that the Parks Department's proposal for park land was 150' from the centerline of Brodie Creek. James McCleod, president of the Pecan Lake Property Owners Association, addressed the Commission and said that they were still totally opposed to the rezoning. Mr. McCleod again described the objections that were mentioned at the previous hearing such as impact on property values and duplexes being a conditional use in the "R-3" district. After additional comments, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request subject to the Parks Department approval. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). r December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: West Markham Parkway Addition LOCATION: Between West Markham and Rock Creek Parkway - Immediately West of Parkway divided lane DEVELOPER! RN(_TN7PPV . Parkway Properties Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates Limited Partnership 201 South Izard Street Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 212 Center Street 375-5331 Little Rock, AR 72201 374-2231 AREA: 4.41 acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 480 ZONING: 11 0-3" PROPOSED USES: Office Lots PLANNING DISTRICT: I-430 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions This site is located in an area of the City that is rapidly being developed with a mixture of uses. The land is presently vacant and slopes toward the west. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat 4.41 acres into five lots for an office subdivision which will include a new street consisting of 480' total. The average lot size is .82 acre and the minimum is .62 acre. Old Town Road is proposed as a 27' street. D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve West Markham Street to collector standards. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 2. Improve Old Town Road to commercial collector standards. 3. Request drainage plan for ditch at eastern edge of the property. 4. Request no access from Lots 1 and 2 onto the Parkway. E. Analysis Staff's major concern with this proposal is the applicant's failure to provide a commercial street of 601/36' as required by Ordinance. The street indicated does not comply to the minor commercial street (501/271) since it is not a cul-de-sac of less than 300' in length. The proposal is in compliance with the Suburban Development Plan which proposes an office park. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. He requested a variance for the street width to be 26' instead of the required 361. Justification offered was based on the fact that the plat would only be four lots and be one way. The Planning staff felt that this cross-over would serve quite a bit of traffic for a 27' street; however, the City Engineers felt that a 27' street would suffice if it had wider turning lanes on both ends. The applicant was asked to work with Engineering on this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A motion for approval of the revised plan was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER Winrock Development Company, Inc. c/o Edward G. Smith & Associates Little Rock, AR 72201 945-9400 Parkway Ridge Off West Markham, south end of Parkway Place Drive RNnTWRRR Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 AREA: 35.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 125 FT. NEW STREET: 5,650 ZONING: "R-2" - Outside the City PROPOSED USES: Single Family Development PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 A. Site History None. Rock Creek Valley (17) B. Existing Conditions This property is located in a suburban area at the western edge of the City that is currently developed in most instances, as single family. Portions of this plan are outside of the City. The land is wooded and and consists of elevations with ranges from 500' to 560'. Parkway Place, Phase I abuts on the northwest. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 35.5 acres into 125 lots for single family development. New streets will consist of 5,6201. No variances have been requested. The plan provides for the extension of Parkway Place Drive. The applicant is requesting a 15' building line on Lots 16-18 and 25-26. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Parkway Place Drive to be constructed as a collector street. 2. Clarify the location of Black Gum Drive in relation to 12th Street (Gibralter Heights). 3. Request signs be placed on those streets to be extended in the future; signs to indicate that the streets are to be extended. E. Analysis Staff views this proposal as an extension of the single family developments in the area. No major problems have been found; however, before the waiver is supported, design justification indicating why dwelling units cannot be built in conformance with the 25' building line requirement should be submitted. Pin Oaks Drive is a duplicate street name that should be changed. F. Staff Recommendation Approval of the plat, subject to comments made. G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant, Mr. Ron Tyne, was present. He requested an amendment of his application to include a waiver of sidewalks on Parkway, since they were not previously provided. Both staff and Engineering objected because of the establishment of a policy, after the approval of the original Parkway Place, discouraging sidewalk waivers. The applicant's Engineer, Mr. Joe White, stated that the grades on the property justify 15' building lines as stated in the ordinance, so he was only identifying the issue and not requesting a variance. He also agreed to change the name of Pin Oak Drive and to annex that portion of the plat currently outside of the City. Water Works - Applicant will have to pay for some existing 8" water mains. Area outside of Improvement District No. 325 will be charged $300 per acre. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. He requested a waiver of sidewalk, since the existing development did not have any. The Commission felt that they should be provided according to regulations, since the existing development was completed before current sidewalk policy was established. Staff reported that a letter had been received from a concerned resident of the area, who was present at the hearing. Mr. Donald McMillan expressed concerns that the lot sizes appeared smaller and that Asbury would be affected by the draining of traffic from Pin Oak and Hackberry onto Asbury. He felt that this would create intolerable conditions due to the current unpaved condition of Asbury. Also, he feared a drainage problem. Mr. Ron Workman, also a resident on Asbury, expressed agreement with Mr. McMillan. He asked that the plan be changed to provide internal circular access with no exit on Asbury. The residents were advised by the responsibility of looking the community, and to prevent would only provide a temporary inevitably will occur anyway. the Commission that theirs was out for the overall future of traffic on Asbury at this time solution to a situation which A motion to approve the plat was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. r December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: Parkway West Preliminary LOCATION: West of intersection of Huckleberry Drive and Pride Valley Road, south and west of Parkway Church and north of Kanis Road DEVELOPER Winrock Development Company, Inc. c/o Edward G. Smith & Associates Little Rock, AR 72201 945-9400 ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 AREA: 33.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 103 FT. NEW STREET: 5,300 ZONING: "R-2" - Outside the City PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: A. Site History None. B. C. D. Existing Conditions This property is located in a suburban area at the western edge of the City that is mainly developed as residential. Portions of the plat are outside of the City. The land is currently undeveloped and consists of elevations ranging from 450' to 5401. The floodway is apparent on the western portion of the property. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop a tract of 33.27 acres into 103 lots of single family use. The new street proposed consists of 5,3001. No variances have been requested. Engineering Comments 1. Pride Valley Road to be improved as a collector. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 2. Those streets with half street improvements must be constructed to carry two-way traffic safely. 3. Curve radius on Pride Valley Road in the vicinity of Pride Valley Court does not meet collector standards. E. Analysis No major problems of design were found. The major issue involves the floodway and location of portions of the plat in the Master Parks Plan. The floodplain and the established centerline of the floodway should be identified and the dedication of a 350' corridor centered on the floodway should be dedicated to the Parks Department. The applicant should comply with the Ordinance requirement for the construction of both sides of boundary streets when they are created. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. Staff pointed out that the portion of the project was outside of the City's Urbanization Line. The Committee felt that this should not be an issue in this instance. The applicant agreed to: (1) file for annexation of portions outside of the City; (2) provide boundary street improvements as needed on Huckleberry and Pride Valley and/or provide documentation as to what the neighboring church has committed to provide; and (3) provide parkland to be dedicated. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval, subject to comments made, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. I r December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Gladys Marie Briscoe 9410 Mabelvale Pike Little Rock, AR 565-2532 Briscoe Subdivision Mabelvale Pike south of I-30 at Davmar RNaTNRRR Laha Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 9251 Little Rock, AR 72219 565-7384 AREA: 2.97 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 1,020 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: VARIANCES REQUESTED: A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions This site currently consists of several existing structures. The area can generally be described as industrial. Improvements are needed. C. Development Proposal The applicant is requesting to develop 2.97 acres into four lots. The existing structures will remain on Lots 1, 2 and 3. The structure on Lot 2 will extend over the proposed lot line of Lot 3. A brick fire wall will be on the lot line. The applicant is proposing to submit a letter of credit to the City to construct improvements at the time the adjacent property to the south is developed. D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way to arterial standards on Mabelvale Pike. 2. Construct one-half of industrial streets on Davmar. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued 3. Contribute in -lieu contributions funds for improvement of Mabelvale Pike to arterial standards. E. Analysis The main issue involves street improvements. Staff does not approve of a letter of credit for improvements. Improvements should be as requested by Engineering. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. Staff reported that they did not approve of a lot size waiver for Lot 3. The Committee advised the applicant that it would probably be better to combine Lots 2 and 3 and work out some V kind of legal ownership arrangement that would accommodate the existing conditions (office building on Lot 2, with apartments in the rear on Lot 3). It was agreed that the applicant would improve Davmar to industrial standards (one-half of 28' wide, 6" shoulders), since the property to the south is industrial; an in -lieu contribution would be provided on Mabelvale Pike. The applicant mentioned that other owners in the subdivision promised to help improve Davmar, but the Committee pointed out that it was up to her to make sure that the street was improved. It was suggested that Mr. George C. Martin, the owner to the south, be advised by letter that he would be required to build the other side of the street. Water Works - Acreage charge applies. An 8" water main extension is required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval, subject to the understanding that the applicant must make improvements or file some assurance of improvements with the final plat, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: Otter Creek Commercial Subdivision Preliminary (Revised) LOCATION: NW Corner of Otter Creek Parkway and Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER: RNaTNRRP Rock Venture The Hodges Firm Little Rock, AR 209 1/2 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 375-4404 AREA: 14.07 acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 300 ZONING: PROPOSED USES: "C-2" PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 CENSUS TRACT: 41.04 A. Site History This site is part of the total development scheme of mixed uses submitted previously by the applicant. A commercial subdivision on the property was approved by the Commission on February 14, 1984. B. Existing Conditions The site is located at an intersection on the eastern end of the Otter Creek Subdivision. The land is basically flat with portions located both in the floodplain and floodway. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 14.07 acres into nine lots for commercial use. New feet of street involves 300'. D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve Highway 5 to arterial standards. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 2. Clarify relationship of Otter Creek Court to median cuts on Otter Creek Parkway. Clarify access points from Lots 1, 6, 7 and 8 onto Otter Creek Parkway. E. Analysis Actually, this submission represents a replat of property that was approved previously. The new submission consists of nine lots. The prior approval involves six lots and a concern that the lot lines be extended into the floodway. The latter has been addressed with this proposal. There has been no change in the amount of acreage involved. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to: (1) Dedication of right-of-way and improvements of Highway 5 to arterial standards. (2) Clarification of Otter Creek Court to median cuts on parkway/access points on Lots 1, 6, 7 and 8 onto the parkway. G. Subdivision Committee Review The plan was reviewed by the Committee. It was pointed out that the project is zoned "C-2," which requires site plan review. Site plans have been approved on Lots 8 and 9. Before the proposal is final platted, all site plans should have been submitted for review. Water Works - 15' easement adjacent west right-of-way Highway 5. A 16" water main extension will be required to serve Lot 9. On-site fire lines may be required for development of the rear portions of Lots 3, 4 and 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Fairfield Plaza LOCATION: NE Corner of Rebsamen Park and Cantrell Roads DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Flake and Company Edward G. Smith & Associates Little Rock, AR 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 AREA: 9.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights/Hillcrest CENSUS TRACT: 15 A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions This project is located at the intersection of a collector and major arterial. The area consists of major commercial establishments and other high traffic generators. A portion of the site is developed as office. C. Development Proposal This is a plan to replat 9.3 acres into five lots for office use. A private street system is proposed. D. Engineering Comments 1. Request status of new roadway on the north of the property. Is there an access easement for the street? 2. Provide drainage plans for structure under private road. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued 3. Modify drainage easements to reflect current drainage. 4. Additional right-of-way and street improvements may be required on Cantrell at the southeast corner of this plat. Meet with City engineers regarding this. E. Analysis As Engineering has indicated, clarification should be provided as to the authorization of the private street in the drive. All building lines need to be as required for appropriate zoning districts. Lots 1 and 2 should be as required for "0-2" and Lots 3-5, as required for "0-3." F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. G. Subdivision Committee Review The main issue for discussion involved the location of the private drive across and abutting ownership. The applicant stated that there was a committement to an easement across the property. Staff requested that this be reflected on the plat. Water Works - 16" steel water main crossing this property and a 50' easement. This will have to be relocated or buildings will have to be relocated. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. No one objected. A motion for approval, subject to the reflection of an easement across an abutting ownership on the plat, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: M.H.B. Company #5 Oxford Circle Little Rock, AR 372-7700 Green Tree Village Preliminary East of Alexander Road, South End of Savannah Lane ENGINEER: Mr. F. Williams 210 South Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 29.23 acres NO. OF LOTS: 147 + 1 tract FT. NEW STREET: 5,050 PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 CENSUS TRACT: 41.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul-de-sac length on street "B." A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions This site is located in an area that can be described as rural with single family development. It is abutted directly on the north by the Southern Hills Subdivision and various individual landowners on the west and south and by property owned by the big development company on the east. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat a tract of 39.23 acres into 147 lots and one reserved tract for single family use. Access will be provided by 5,050' of new street. A variance is requested for the cul-de-sac length on Street "B." D. Engineering Comments 1. Provide status of Tract A and plans for access. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued 2. Submit plans for extending Street "A" and Savannah Street. E. Analysis Staff approves of the applicant's request for a waiver of the cul-de-sac length. The major question concerns Tract A. What are the applicant's plans for present/future development of this tract? Please be aware that the tract cannot be landlocked with this approval. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant explained that Tract A could not be serviced by the Water Department. Staff was concerned about some possibility for future development, so suggested that a 20' to 30' easement for potential access to the site be platted. Water Works - Will have to pay for some existing 8" water main. Tract A has too high an elevation for water. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff gave support for approval of the cul-de-sac length waiver. The applicant requested modification of his application by a waiver of sidewalks on Streets B, C and D. His reasons were that this was an attempt to provide low-cost housing, and the cost of sidewalks would push up the price. One Commissioner pointed out that children of low-cost home owners should not be subjected to any greater risk than those in other subdivisions, thus sidewalks should be provided. The applicant was asked to put sidewalks in and guarantee with a bond, so that they could be constructed after the housing is built. Engineering was instructed to work with the applicant in carrying out this directive. A motion for approval, subject to the above, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Don and Sharon Stark 88 E1 Dorado Little Rock, AR 227-9453 AREA: .76 acres ZONING: 11R-2" Pleasant View Subdivision Lots 189A, 189B and 189C West of Intersection of Pleasant Forest Drive and Rodney Parham - South end of Garnet Court SURVEYOR! James L. Butler 222 Louise North Little Rock, AR mo- nF T.nTG PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Access lot by 20 -foot rear drive off platted access easement. A. Site History This site was originally platted as two lots (189 and 190) in the Pleasant View Subdivision, Phase V. B. Existing Conditions The land in question is located in what is exclusively an area developed as single family homes. Platted access to the property is provided by Garnett Court, a cul-de-sac in Pleasant View; however, due to the severe grade, physical access from this point appears difficult. The property is abutted on the south by a private drive platted as part of Pleasant Valley (Lots 2-22, Block 9). C. Development Proposal This plan indicates the applicant's desire to replat two lots into three from single family development. Access to the lots will be provided by a private drive extending off a platted access easement from Eldorado Drive. The applicant has stated justification of the request as relating to the difficult topography/access, December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued unique shape, and location of the property. The applicant feels that the proposed plan provides a satisfactory means of developing a problem piece of property. The three lots will consist of 7,330 square feet, 6,192 square feet and 9,121 square feet respectively. D. Engineering Comments None. E. Analysis Staff's major concern with this project is its failure to conform to the lot width requirement for "R-2." The Ordinance states that lots on culs-de-sac should be a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line. This plan is deficient in this area, which is a very basic one in the consideration of any proposal. Past practice has indicated a reluctance on the part of the staff for support on proposals that do not meet this criteria. F. Staff Recommendation Denial based on the above analysis. G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicants were present. They explained to the Committee that their proposal was prompted by an effort to eliminate an existing drainage problem. The Committee suggested that they submit their plans for drainage to Engineering. Staff pointed out that the plan did not conform to the width requirement at the building line. The Committee felt that this situation warranted a waiver of this requirement. Staff cautioned that this approval would not include the placement of houses on the lots, since there may be setback problems later on. The Committee felt that the main issue involved the use of the private drive off E1 Dorado, which was platted for access to specific lots in Pleasant Valley. The applicants were advised to get approval of the owners or document their ownership of the drive. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicants were present. No one objected. Staff expressed concern that access for these lots was provided by a private drive that ran off of a platted access easement in another subdivision (Pleasant Valley). The question presented to the applicant was whether or not he had authority to access from this easement. He stated that he did, since he owns everything from E1 Dorado up to his property. No documentation of this was presented. Engineering approved of his drainage approach. A motion was made to approve this plat, subject to satisfying staff of ownership. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Country Homes Condominiums PRD (Z-4374) LOCATION: Rodney Parham at Highway 10 (#4 River Mountain Road) DEVELOPER: RNaTNRRP Joe N. Depalo Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates #4 River Mountain Road 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72212 P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Existing "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily A. Site History The site is currently occupied by a single family residence that overlooks the Arkansas River Valley. B. Development Objectives 1. To develop the property with a mixture of residential building types, consisting of (a) a mid -rise not to exceed 65' in height, (b) town house, not to exceed 35' in height, and (c) a flat, not to exceed 18' in height. 2. To incorporate the excellent view of the Arkansas Valley into the design of the project. 3. To remove the existing residence and outbuildings. C. Proposal 1. The construction of a mixed condominium development on 5.013 acres at a density of 8.8 units per acre. 2. The Building/Unit Breakdown (a) 4 flats at 2,400 sq. ft. each - attached garage at 400 sq. ft. (b) 10 town houses at 2,400 square feet each - 1,500 sq. ft., ground floor - 400 sq. ft., 2nd floor - 400 sq. ft., garage December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued (c) 30 apt. units at 2,400 sq. ft. each - 6 units per floor in a 5 -story mid -rise building - 1 underground parking garage under the apartment building - attached atrium, covered entry, balcony index Total Units ....... 44 (d) Additional buildings and improvements on the site may include: gazebo, cabana, pool and hot tub. 3. Parking - Surface = 59 - Garage = 70 - Total = 129 Parking Ratio = 2.9 spaces per dwelling unit 4. Land Coverage Building Ground Coverage .... 50,500 sq. ft. - floor area ....... 161,600 sq. ft. - site area ........ 218.366 sq. ft. - ground coverage .. 23.2% - floor area ratio 74% 5. Other Features (a) Access limited to one entrance from River Mountain Road with a privacy gate. (b) Enclosure by a 6' privacy/security fence and evergreen shrubs. (c) All open space will be held in common by the Country Homes Property Owners' Association. (d) No other auxiliary uses will be permitted besides the development of an exclusive luxury residential property. (e) Two main features of the site include: A breathtaking view from the hilltop. The mid -rise structure is located to maximize December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued persons enjoying this view. The pine trees surrounding the building are over 80' tall, thus will shield views of the structure from adjacent properties. - Extensive, existing landscaping. Every effort has been made to preserve as much of the landscaping as possible by clustering the development in three areas. 6. Development Timetable (a) Design, approvals, financing ... 6 to 9 mos. (b) Construction of mid -rise bldg. ... 6 to 9 MOS. (c) Construction of flats/town houses ... 9 to 12 MOS. D. Engineering Comments 1. River Mountain Road is an arterial on the Master Street Plan; discuss improvements with the City engineers. 2. Clarify access to property on the east of this development. Will an access easement be provided? 3. Internal roadway should be a minimum of 20' wide. E. Analysis The Fire Department has commented that the interior streets need to be a minimum of 20' wide. The three main issues for resolution include: (1) improvements on River Mountain Road, (2) Master Street Plan issue - relating to a collector along the eastern boundary, and (3) amendment of Highway 10 Plan which designates single family. F. Staff Recommendation Deferral, until the stated issues are resolved. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. The Committee felt that more information was needed on the proposal, so the applicant was asked to submit this as a long -form PUD with all of the required data and any other information that will present a clearer indication of what is proposed. Staff was asked to present a land use analysis of the area. Water Works - 6" or 8" on-site fire line and hydrants will be required. Elevations need to be evaluated to determine the availability of water service. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, who was not in attendance, was represented by his architect, Mr. Don Chambers. Mr. Chambers requested a deferral since his applicant was out of town and had not had a chance to discuss the alignment of Southridge Road with all the property owners involved. Since the request for the deferral was not in compliance with the required time frame of five days for notice, the Commission passed a motion to deny the request by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent, 1 open. Mr. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff gave a presentation on land use in the area. It was felt that the church to the south of this project did not have a detrimental affect on the surrounding neighborhood. The rezoning of the site to allow multifamily uses, however, would be detrimental to the existing large lot single family developments. It was felt that the area should remain as large lot single family. Mr. Lawson also mentioned that there were requests from the Walton Heights Property Owners' Association for deferral of this project and to place an eastward alignment of Southridge Road to connect with Rodney Parham on the agenda for a public hearing. Staff felt that if the Commission agreed to this request, the proposed alignment would have a significant impact on this applicant. If the Commission agreed to hear the alignment proposal, staff's recommendation would be deferral, if not, the position would be that of denial. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued Mr. Herb Rule represented the neighbors to the east who were opposed to the application. He claimed that the street issue was not related to the proposal, and the property owners did not want to give property for the street. Finally, a motion was made and passed to suspend discussion of the "PUD" proposal and discuss the street alignment. Mr. J.D. Crockett, president of the Walton Heights Property Owners Association, requested deferral of the plan so that all property owners could meet and discuss placing realignment of Southridge to connect with Rodney Parham on the Master Street Plan. He stated that the residents felt that this was the preferred place for the alignment. The alternative entrance/exit point to Walton Heights was severely needed due to current difficulties during icy weather and rush hour traffic. The cost of this alignment would be approximately $65,000, and the cost would be borne by all property owners. Mr. Crockett spoke out against an alternative plan to align the street further to the west with Pleasantridge Road. He felt that this location would encourage more commercial activity in the area. The Commissioners offered several comments relating to this request. Mr. Crockett was told that to comply with his request would mean impacting other property owners to solve a problem that existed and that the Walton Heights property owners were well aware of it when they bought their homes. Commissioner Richard Massie strongly stated his objection to the request. He felt that a newsletter distributed by persons in the subdivision was very unfair and sought to downgrade the efforts of the study committee. He stated that they had worked diligently with persons who said they represented Walton Heights to gain their input. He also said that a lot of effort had been put into obtaining an agreement from private developers to build the western alignment of Southridge at their expense. He stated his reasons for opposition to the eastern alignment and the rezoning as being because of the detriment to the adjacent landowners. A question was raised as to whether or not the Commission should place the issue of the realignment on the agenda. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent, 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued Discussion of the proposal for rezoning was then resumed. Mr. Herb Rule introduced several spokespersons. Mr. Tripp of Trinity Assembly Church explained what the church tried to do to appease Mr. DePalo during its review for development. The approval was conditioned on there being no day-care center and a commitment to three acres as open space. He stated that this apartment plan didn't surface until they started building plans, and he felt it interferred with their hillside view. Other speakers, owning property to the east were: (1) Mrs. Joyce Peck, who wanted the application denied and the area to remain single family; (2) Mr. Harvey - property owner for three years, who presented his plan for an elaborate home on Lot 10; and (3) Mr. Fred Darragh - (who bought 17 abutting acres when there was a prior multifamily application) who feared losing privacy and expressed a fear that this would begin a deterioration of the area. He stated that he was willing to commit his undeveloped acreage to none other than single family development. In closing, Mr. Rule stated that the approval of this application by Mr. DePalo would to be creating the same type of clustered development that Mr. DePalo mentioned he was trying to escape from when he left Chicago. A motion was finally made for approval of the application. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9-A Master Street Plan Amendment - Realignment of Southridge Drive A written request has been made by the Walton Heights/Candlewood Homeowners' Association for the Planning Commission to consider a realignment of Southridge Drive. The realignment will connect Southridge to Rodney Parham Road. The Planning Commission had considered this request at their September 11, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. The neighborhood representatives were not at the meeting. No one spoke in favor of the Master Street Plan amendment. The staff was later informed by the neighborhood representatives that a letter had been written asking for a deferral of the item. The staff never received such letter. The neighborhood wishes that the Master Street Plan amendment item be reheard since it has not had the opportunity to address the Planning Commission on the street plan change. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Apartments PRD (Z-4377) LOCATION: SE Corner of Fair Park and Lucie, North of Asher and West of Anna DEVELOPER/ARCHITECT: James Alessi 1600 Maumelle Blvd. No. Little Rock, AR 72118 225-7362 and 753-7335 AREA: 5.93 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: "C-311/11MF-24" PROPOSED USES: Apartments A. Site History 0 On September 11, 1984, the Commission approved requests for the closure of (1) the entire alley in Block 26, Brack's Addition, which is bounded by Lucie on the north and Brack on the south; (2) closure of a portion of Brack Street, described as extending for one block in an easterly direction from Anna to Mary Street. A request for the closure of a portion of Anna extending one block south from Luc/ to Brack was deferred until site development plans were submitted. No requests for closure have been approved the City Board at the time of writing. B. Development Objectives 1. To fulfill a dire need for apartments and close proximity to the University. 2. To combine two land ownerships and provide a combined project for multifamily use. C. Proposal 1. The construction of 180 units of apartments on 5.93 acres. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued D. E. 2. The Project Quantitative Data (a) Parcel Size .... 5.93 acres (b) Project Floor Areas: 2 -Bedroom Apts. .. 72 at 816 sq. ft. = 58,752 sq. ft. 1 -Bedroom Apts. ...108 at 608 sq. ft. = 65,664 sq. ft. Breezeways ........ 18 at 256 sq. ft. = 4,608 sq. ft. Community Bldg. .. 1 at 2,400 sq. ft. = 2,400 sq. ft. Total Project Floor Area ............. 131,424 sq. ft. (c) Project Building Coverage ... 51% (d) Common Space Parking .... 252 spaces .... 1.93 acres Useable .................... .98 acres (e) Parking Ratio 2 -Bedroom Apts. ... 2 spaces ea. = 144 spaces 1 -Bedroom Apts. ... 1 space ea. = 108 spaces Total Parking Spaces ............. 252 spaces (1.4 spaces per unit) Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve Fair Park Boulevard to minor arterial standards. 2. Dedicate right-of-way and improve Anna and Mary Streets to residential standards. 3. Dedicate right-of-way and improve Lucie to residential standards; provide turning lanes at the intersection of Lucie and Fair Park. Analysis The applicant should submit added technical information as required to the "PUD" submission requirements in the r December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued Zoning Ordinance. This is a long -form PUD, and all information has not been received. The plan is deficient when it comes to parking since 270 spaces are needed and only 252 are provided. The applicant should provide an explanation for the proposal of Anna with no improvements and as a 20' right-of-way also. F. Staff Recommendation Approval of the concept, subject to comments made. G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. The staff's analysis was discussed with him. He requested deferment of the item for 30 days, due to his discovery of several problems relating to easements and design. Water Works - 6" or 8" on-site fire line and hydrants will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for a 30 -day deferral, as requested by the applicant, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: Hidden Valley Apartment Revised Site Plan LOCATION: 225 Keightly Drive DEVELOPER/ARCHITECT: Ralph Bozeman 570 Prospect Building Little Rock, AR 72207 664-2405 AREA: 140,699 sq.ft. NO. OF LOTS: 0 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PROPOSED USES: On-site Storage Facility VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History This site was approved as and subsequently developed for an apartment complex of 55 units. B. Proposal The applicant is requesting to revise the approved site plan by constructing two buildings at the east end of the site that will be storage units to be used by the tenants of the apartments. A breakdown of new and proposed construction is as follows: Site area .. 140,699 sq. ft. .. 100% of site Existing Bldgs. & Walk Area .. 21,840 sq. ft. .. 15.5% Existing Paved Area .. 30,260 sq. ft. .. 21.5% New Bldg. Area .. 1,952 sq. ft. .. 1.4% New Paved Area .. 2,581 sq. ft. .. 1.8% of site Landscaped Riprapped or Ground Area .. 84,066 sq. ft. .. 59.8% of site C. Engineering Comments Clarify access from King's Row Drive; request standard 27' street as access street to this development. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued D. Analysis Upon staff review of the plan, there were questions relative to the King's Row access. The applicant should provide clarification. Support is given to this plan, provided approval is conditioned upon the storage uses being purely an accessory use to the apartment of which there can be no advertisement, renting or selling to the public. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to restriction of use to tenants only. F. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. He was advised to submit a revised plan showing access easements from Keightly and through the Danver site. Engineering withdrew its comments for a 27' street. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Gospel Assembly Church 8101 Asher Avenue Little Rock, AR 72204 565-0796 AREA: ZONING: Gospel Assembly Church Site Plan Review 8101 Asher PMnTMPPP McGrew Engineers James K. McGrew Little Rock, AR 225-3514 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Church Gymnasium A. Site History A building permit for the construction of a 120' x 70' church which was obtained by the applicant previously, provided that a site plan would be submitted with further development. B. Proposal The applicant is proposing to construct a gymnasium of 8,000 square feet. Parking will consist of 90 spaces. C. Engineering Comments 1. Improve Asher Avenue to arterial standards when gym is constructed. 2. Provide access plan to parking lot to City engineers at 371-4858. D. Analysis Upon site investigation, staff observed that the new church has been constructed, but does not appear to be in use and that the parking lot consists of gravel. The applicant should agree to paving the parking lot. Several existing buildings, the parsonage, school and storage building should be removed. t December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. F. Subdivision Committee Review The application was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. He requested that he be allowed to maintain the parsonage on the site. A motion was made for approval, subject to applicant and staff working out the details of the site plan. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Shackleford Site Plan Review (Z -3632-A) Northeast corner of Shackleford Road and I-430 (1701 South Shackleford Road) Harvey Industries, Inc./ Gene Lewis (Rector -Phillips Morris) To revise an approved site plan which would allow for the construction of two additional buildings (152,800 total square feet) (one building currently exists 8,640 square feet and 24 parking spaces), and 418 additional parking spaces on 8.9 acres of land that is zoned "0-2." ANALYSIS: This proposal is a revision of a previously approved site plan (Dace Plaza). The previously approved plan contained 5 buildings (including the 10 -story, 100,000 -square foot structure). The current proposal is basically the same as was originally approved. The major difference is the parking layout and the substitution of Building 3 (4 -story) in lieu of 3 small office buildings. The current proposal meets City ordinance requirements with the exception of the setback (or lack of) along the I-430 right-of-way. The staff would like to see the site plan revised to allow at least a 30 -foot undisturbed landscape area parallel with the I-430 property line. All improvements are currently in place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the applicant agrees to submit a revised site plan that includes a minimum 30 -foot undisturbed landscape area parallel with the I-430 property line. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and stated that the 25 -foot landscaping requirement would be difficult to meet. The Commissioners discussed the requirement and then asked the staff to determine whether the Commission could waive the 25 -foot landscape requirement, and if the I-430 off ramp was a boundary street. The applicant agreed to review his proposal to determine whether or not a greater setback from the I-430 property line could be achieved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that the Little Rock Board of Adjustment made an interpretation on December 17, 1984, which was that an interstate right-of-way should not be construed as a boundary street, which automatically deletes the 25 -foot landscape requirement. The staff then recommended that the application be approved subject to the applicant moving the parking away from the I-430 property line as much as is practical for the developer. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, I abstention, Z absent to approve this application as recommended by staff. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 NAME: Sugar Mill "R -7A" Site Plan Review (Z -3931-E) LOCATION: Southwest corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads OWNER/APPLICANT: Royal Star Construction Company/ Ronnie Hall (Garver and Garver, Inc.) PROPOSAL: To construct a planned manufactured home community which will consist of 720 lots (for sale), a 9 -hole golf course, a club house, tennis courts and parking on 154.3 acres of "R -7A" (5.7 acres of "C-3") in approximately 10 construction phases (12,000 feet of new street). ANALYSIS: The land use surrounding this site is mostly undeveloped and - single family. The Suburban Development Plan calls for future single family attached, 6-12 units per acre. The staff feels that this proposal would be a compatible land use and generally supports this proposal. There are, however, a number of issues that need to be clarified and resolved. The 722 proposed lots are to be developed on 140.4 net sellable acres which constitutes a density of 5.14 units per acre. 33.4 acres of land has been set aside for parks and open space. 32.8 acres will be used for street right-of-way. This proposal is well within ordinance density standards (12 units per net sellable acre). The following items need to be resolved. They are: (1) closure and abandonment of any existing dedicated streets not used in this plan; (2) the annexation of the former C.R.I. and P. Railroad right-of-way; (3) revision of the. site plan to include specific dimensions of building lines and setbacks of the typical cul-de-sac layout; (4) the dedication and improvement of Chicot Road to minor arterial standards, including turning lanes into and out of the main entrance; (5) the dedication and improvement of Bunch Road to residential street standards; (6) the improvement of Coulter Lake Road to residential street standards; (7) the December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Continued construction of all other internal streets to City standards; (8) the submission of a detention plan in conjunction with the existing lake; and (9) a phasing plan for the subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) close and abandon any existing streets not used in this plan; (2) annex the former C.R.I. and P. Railroad right-of-way; (3) revise the site plan to include specific dimensions on the typical cul-de-sac layout; (4) dedicate and improve Chicot Road to minor arterial standards, including turning lanes into and out of the main entrance; (5) dedicate and construct Bunch Road to residential street standards; (6) improve Coulter Lake Road to residential street standards; (7) construct all other internal streets to City standards; (8) submit a detention plan of the existing lake; and (9) submit a phasing plan for the subdivision. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A lengthy discussion ensued over the Bunch Road street improvement requirement. The basic issue was whether or not the applicant could be required to construct a boundary street that did not adjoin his property. The City Engineer stated that the detention plan for the lakes was recommended and not required. The staff further stated that the landscape or perimeter treatment of this site was left to the Commission's discretion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present as were approximately 25 objectors who were represented by Attorney Darrell Brown. There was a lengthy discussion about the site plan and the type of units to be constructed. The staff also stated that the Little Rock Wastewater Utility had commented that a sewer limit of 3.3 units per acre was in effect in this area. The applicant and Darrell Brown both agreed to a 30 -day deferral (January 29, 1985, Planning Commission meeting) to allow a discussion on the proposal between the property owners and the applicant. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention, 1 absent to defer this item until the January 29, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. r December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 NAME: Valentine Street Conditional Use Permit (Z-4368) LOCATION: The west side of Valentine Street just south of the intersection of Valentine Street and Capitol Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: K.B. Company/R.C. Killingsworth PROPOSAL: To construct a 2,304 square foot 2 -story duplex and three paved parking spaces on one vacant lot that is zoned "R-3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located at the intersection of two residential streets (Valentine and 6th Streets). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This lot is currently vacant, and it is located adjacent to a substandard residential street. The Woodruff Plan calls for single family in -fill development. The plan does, however, state that duplex in -fill projects are acceptable, provided they have minimum impact upon the neighborhood. This project can be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, provided this structure is built within the existing character of the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This proposal contains one access (6th Street) and three paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has submitted landscape plans. ANALYSIS: The staff feels that this project can be an attractive addition to the existing neighborhood, provided that the December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued proposed structure is built within character of the neighborhood. This proposal meets City ordinance. The applicant will be required to improve 6th Street to residential street standards (1/2, 27 -foot street). No additional right-of-way will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) build a structure that maintains the character of the existing neighborhood; and (2) improves 6th Street to residential street standards (1/2, 27 -foot pavement). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and stated that he would bring a drawing of and write a letter outling his commitment to a specific type of structure. The City Engineer stated that the construction of one-half of 27 -foot pavement would be required on 6th Street. The applicant agreed to construct the pavement, but stated that he would prefer not to construct curb and gutter. The City Engineer stated that they would consider the applicant's request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The pastor of St. Peters Baptist Church presented the petition containing signatures of the church membership stating opposition to this proposal. The staff recommended approval subject to the applicant and City Engineer agreeing on 6th Street improvements. The City Engineer stated that they had reached an agreement in which the applicant would build curb and gutter from Valentine Street to the proposed driveway entrance on this site. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent to approve this application as recommended by staff and the City Engineer. December 18, 1984 Item No. 16 - Z -3484-C Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Wengroup Companies W. Christopher Barrier Reservoir at Rodney Parham NE Corner Rezone from "R-6" High -Rise Apartment to "C-3" General Commercial Commercial Center 8.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant (some minor office use) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "0-3" and "C-3" South - Multifamily and Office, Zoned "R-5" and "0-3" East - Elderly Housing and Office, Zoned "0-3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "C-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This item was initially filed for the September Planning Commission meeting, but at the request of the owner, it was deferred without being formally placed on the agenda. At that time, the proposed use was a commercial center with some office warehouses which are a conditional use in "C-3." A conditional use permit was also filed for the September meeting, but no action was taken on that request either. The requested rezoning is still for "C-3," but no conditional use permit request has been filed, so specific use for the property is unknown at this time. The site is located at the intersection of two arterials which does lend itself to being in a commercial location. The property has commercial zoning, "C-3" and "C-4" on the north and west sides, with "0-3" and "R-5" on the east and south sides. 2. The site is unique because the southern portion of the property is a large depression dropping approximately 20' from the Rodney Parham and Reservoir Road sides. This at one time was a body of water. The land then increases in elevation from 360' to approximately 470' south to north. The property is vacant and wooded. December 18, 1984 Item No. 16 - Continued 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 as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the property. The zoning history began in 1980 when the property was rezoned from "R-2" to "C-3." Then in 1983, the site was rezoned from "C-3" to "R-6" for a multifamily high-rise development. Also in 1983, a height variance was granted for the proposed project. 7. Because of the site's location and the property being previously zoned 11C-3," staff supports the request as filed. When determining a use for the property, some consideration should be given to the development to the east which is an elderly/retirement village. Potential impact should be kept at a minimum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Chris Barrier, was present. There were two individuals in attendance who expressed interest in the request. Mr. Barrier spoke briefly. A member of the Grace Prebysterian Church voiced their opposition to the "C-3" request. A representative of Prebysterian Village also spoke. He indicated that they were not objecting to the rezoning, but wanted to make the City aware of the severe drainage problem and submitted a letter for the record addressing the issue. The Planning Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to recommend approval of the request as filed. December 18, 1984 Item No. 17 - Z -3931-D Owner: Royal Star Construction Co. Applicant: Ronnie Hall Location: Chicot and Bunch Roads SW Corner Request: Rezone from "OS," "R-2," "MF -6," "MF -12" and "C-2" to "C-3" and "R -7A" Purpose: Mobile Home Subdivision and Commercial Uses Size: 6.5 acres - "C-3" 173.5 acres - "R -7A" Existing Use: Vacant and golf course SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified East - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R-2" -- West - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 173.5 acres to "R -7A" Mobile Home Subdivision and 6.5 acres to "C-3." Both of the proposed "R -7A" and "C-3" areas include land that is currently zoned "OS," 11R-2," "MF -6," "MF -12" and "C-2." The proposed site plan for the "R -7A" development has 720 lots which is approximately four units per gross acre or approximately five units per net sellable acre. The density limit for the "R -7A" district shall not be greater than 12 units per acre of net sellable land area. Currently, there is a golf course with two lakes zoned "OS" on the property which is part of the "R -7A" request, but the area is shown to be reserved for community recreation facilities. Leaving that area undeveloped does bring the density down to a more reasonable level. The property is located at the city limits in an area that is not heavily developed, and the primary use is residential on large tracts with some minor nonresidential uses. Because of the existing land use and the development pattern, a project of this size, 720 lots and its compatability with the surrounding area, may be questioned. The "R -7A" district requires that a site plan be submitted and reviewed which also has been filed for the December 18, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued December 18 meeting. The site plan review should. address the issues of compability and lot arrangement and size. 2. The site is wooded and primarily vacant. The golf course area includes a recreation building, parking areas and tennis courts. A portion of the property also includes an abandoned railroad right-of-way along the southern boundary which is currently outside the city limits. 3. As of this writing, it is unknown whether there are any right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. If additional right-of-way is needed, the plat will provide the right-of-way for both Chicot and Bunch Roads. Chicot is classified as a minor arterial and Bunch is a residential street. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. Engineering has noted that any change in the railroad embankment may allow floodplain encroachment. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed in 1979 and came into the City as "R-2." In 1982, the first rezoning application was filed for "C-3" but it was withdrawn. Then in February 1983, approximately eight acres were rezoned to "C-2" and in March of 1983, two tracts were rezoned to "MF -6" and "MF -12" and one large parcel to "OS." The multifamily rezoning did receive some opposition from nearby residents. Again in 1984, another application was filed to rezone 8.6 acres to "MF -24," but it was withdrawn at the request of the owner. This proposal was for land zoned "R-2," "MF -12" and "C-2." It is the staff's understanding that there is some area opposition to the "R -7A" request. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the general area for single family development. "R -7A" zone is a single family district, but for manufactured housing. With the previous rezoning, the plan was amended to show the commercial and multifamily area. The property is located in the area that was primarily developed prior to being annexed and somewhat removed from what is considered the urbanized portion of Little Rock. December 18, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued This does raise the question of compability because of the proposed lot sizes and the residential tracts in the immediate vicinity which are, for the most part, much larger. There has been some concern expressed over a number of units being proposed for the "R -7A" land, but with the "R-2" subdivision, the number of lots would also be significant. Staff supports the "R -7A" and "C-3" request because we believe the proposal is a reasonable use of the land. The City made an effort to encourage affordable housing by adopting the "R -7A" mobile home subdivision district and has approved some "R -7A" projects in locations with similar characteristics. The "R -7A" district is not a mobile home park but rather a district that "provides for mobile home ownership of structure and lot for those mobile homes approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development." In addition, all mobile homes must be converted to a permanent structure by placement upon paired footings and piers or foundations to be completely enclosed and the removal of all transport elements. The plan is proposing to provide an adequate amount of open space in community areas which represents an effort to make the project appealing and livable. These open areas should remain as such and not be considered for development in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of both the "R -7A" and "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were approximately 30 persons in attendance objecting to the request. It was pointed out that petitions were submitted prior to the public hearing. Mr. Hall spoke and indicated that the project would be phased over a period of 10 years, approximately 100 lots per year being constructed. He also stated that the lots would be for sale and the units would be 14' x 75' and placed on a slab with a carport. Darrell Brown, an attorney representing the property owners, then addressed the Commission and presented additional petitions opposed to the request. Mr. Brown said that the residents were very concerned with the proposed lot size because the existing development in the area was on at least one acre tracts and they were opposed to the "R -7A" rezoning. He went on to discuss other issues such as December 18, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued schools, inadequate police and fire protection, roads and effect on property values. Basil Butler, a property owner, described the sewer problem and discussed other issues. Ronnie Hall then stated that the proposed developers would be willing to work on the site plan because there was some flexibility with the types of unit and lot size. Darrell Brown spoke and said that he felt there was room for compromise and discussion. Bill Rudkin, another property owner, discussed property values and other issues of concern. Mr. Hall then requested that the site plan be deferred, but not the zoning action. After additional comments, a motion was made to defer both the rezoning and site plan for 30 days to the January 29, 1985, meeting. Mr. Hall agreed to the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). December 18, 1984 Item No. 18 - Z-4366 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Ray Vandiver Eugene Blaylock Walker at West 26th Street Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-4" Two Family Two Family Residences 3.6 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONTNn! North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone two blocks of approximately 3.6 acres to "R-4" for duplexes. In addition to this land area, there is some potential for right-of-way abandonment which would increase the area available for development. The property is located in an area that is made up of primarily single family subdivisions and some vacant land. The site in question has an established subdivision to the south and east with vacant land to the north and west. The proposed "R-4" rezoning appears to be compatible with the area because it maintains the low density character of the neighborhood and there is some "R-4" zoning in place one block north of this property. This particular "R-4" parcel is currently vacant, but at West 22nd Street and Walker there is some developed "R-4" land. In addition, there are "R-4" locations to the northwest and northeast of the site. The property under consideration is relatively flat and does lend itself to some low density residential development. 2. The site is vacant and wooded. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. December 18, 1984 Item No. 18 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. Staff has received some informational calls regarding this request. 7. The property in question is part of the Boyle Park Plan area which calls for single family use in the immediate vicinity. The site has been vacant for years and appears that single family development is not the most feasible development option for these two tracts. Staff feels that the requested rezoning is a reasonable alternative for the property because of the existing "R-4" zoning in place and the low density residential character would be maintained. It appears that other duplex projects in the vicinity have had a minimal impact on the neighborhood and with this project, it would be possible to develop the property utilizing a site plan that would reduce any potential adverse effects on the area. Considering all the circumstances, staff supports the request and believes that it is a good land use for the property without causing a great amount of disruption to the neighborhood. The plat will have to be filed prior to any development occurring. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Eugene Blaylock, was present. There were two objectors present, Charles Pattison and Nancy Patton. Mr. Pattison spoke and presented a petition with 131 signatures opposed to the "R-4" request. He said that the residents had many concerns, including problems with the existing "R-4" locations and maintaining the quality of life in the "R-2" areas. He asked that the request be denied. Ms. Patton spoke about the streets in the neighborhood. She said that a petition had been submitted to the Board of Directors requesting improvements for West 28th and that the area could not accommodate additional low density development because the traffic and circulation problems. Mr. Blaylock indicated that he did not realize that there would be such strong opposition to the rezoning and that he would be willing to work with the neighborhood. A motion was made to defer the request for 30 days to the January 29, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. A i, December 18, 1984 Item No. 19 - Z-4367 Owner: Fred Johnson and C.R. Sawrie Applicant: Fred Johnson Location: 406 North Van Buren Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "R-4" Two Family Purpose: Duplex Size: 5,985 square feet Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Multifamily, Zoned "R-4" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the lot for a two family residence. The use appears to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood because at the intersection of "C" Street and Van Buren there is a triplex on the northeast corner and a duplex on a lot directly south of the property at the southeast corner. The lots are zoned "R-4" at this intersection on the east side of Van Buren. The site has adequate land area to provide the needed parking and yard areas. In the "R-3" district, a two family residence is permitted as a conditional use. The owner requested the "R-4" option because of some uncertainty with how the property will be developed. A conditional use permit requires a site plan be submitted for review and because the owner is unsure as to whether a new building will be constructed or the existing structure remodeled, he felt a rezoning was the more suitable approach at this time. An "R-4" request does not require a site plan or restrict him to a specific development concept. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a single structure on it. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues attendant to this request. December 18, 1984 Item No. 19 - Continued 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 history on the site. As of this writing, there is no neighborhood position on this particular lot but the residents feelings concerning rezoning changes along Van Buren are well known. 7. Staff supports the proposed use, but not a rezoning change to accomplish it. Because it being only one lot and a duplex being permitted as a conditional use in "R-3," staff suggests the conditional use process be utilized in this instance. This would allow the owner his desired use of the property without having to rezone and create a single lot classification along Van Buren. The Heights/Hillcrest Plan does not show a higher land use classification other than single family so that also adds to the argument for a conditional use permit. (The owner's agent was made aware of all the options at the time of filing the "R-4" application.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a conditional use permit as more appropriate and not "R-4" as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Stanley Rauls. There were no objectors. Mr. Rauls spoke about filing an "R-4" rezoning and not utilizing a conditional use permit. After a long discussion, the Planning Commission voted on the "R-4" request as filed. The vote was: 2 ayes, 7 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. A % December 18, 1984 Item No. 20 - Z-4369 Owner: Betty M. Garner Applicant: R. Michael Sylvester Location: 2822 West 13th Street Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Car Wash Size: 6,600 square feet Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South - Commercial, Zoned "I-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is for a "C-3" reclassification to permit a car wash. The property is located in an area that has a mixed land use pattern with similar zoning that includes "R-3," "R-4, 110-3," "C-3" and "I-2." The site is adjacent to a "C-3" parcel to the north and across the street from an "I-2" lot and some "C-3" zoning at the southwest corner of Woodrow and West 13th. Both Woodrow and West 13th are heavily traveled streets, so it appears that the intersection is a logical commercial location. 2. The site is a flat, vacant residential lot. 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 as of this writing. (The traffic engineer will have to approve traffic circulation and curb cuts.) 5. There are no legal issues. December 18, 1984 Item No. 20 - Continued 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on the site. 7. The lot in question is located in the Stephens School area whose plan was adopted earlier this year. The site is indentified in the plan for mixed use which also includes properties in the immediate area to the east and south. This approach was taken because of the existing zoning and land use. The intersection of Woodrow and West 13th is envisioned to be a mix of commercial and office uses with some residential and "C-3" is an appropriate reclassification for this type of development pattern. Staff supports the request to "C-3," but does question the desirability of locating a car wash at this location. Normally, that type of use is associated with an arterial such as West 12th and not this type of a commercial area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-3" application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" request. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 18, 1984 Item No. 21 - Z-4370 Owner: Mrs. William W. Leigh Applicant: Charles Germer Location: 10923 West Markham (West of Shackleford) Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Purpose: Eating Place Size: 4.5 acres + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "C-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Nursing Home, Zoned "R-2" West - Utility Facility, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone to "C-3" to permit an eating establishment. The property is located on the south side of West Markham just west of Shackleford in an area that has been heavily impacted by previous zoning actions and existing land use. The site in question abuts residentially zoned land on three sides, but to the east and west the uses are nonresidential. On the east side, there is a nursing home and to the west there is a major utility installation. Across West Markham to the north, the land is zoned "C-3." Because of these factors and the property's close proximity to Shackleford Road, a commercial reclassification of the site is appropriate. A majority of the land along West Markham west of Shackleford to the Rock Creek area is zoned something other than "R-2" and it is anticipated that the "R-2" pieces will be considered for rezoning in the near future. 2. The site is a long narrow tract with a single residential structure on it. Approximately the southern one-third of the property has floodplain and floodway involvement. December 18, 1984 Item No. 21 - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan requirements associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. Staff has received some informational calls concerning this request. 7. The I-430 District Plan identifies the location for nonresidential use, research and business. Staff feels that "C-3" is an appropriate reclassification for this type of land use and supports the rezoning, but not for the entire tract. Because of the floodplain and the floodway involvement, staff recommends only that portion of the property outside the floodplain be rezoned to 11C-3" and land in the floodway be dedicated to the City. This will provide a good buffer between the Birchwood neighborhood to the south and the nonresidential uses to the north. The Master Parks Plan does recommend the floodway in this general area be part of the City's priority one open space network. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a "C-3" reclassification for that portion of property outside of the floodplain and the floodway be dedicated to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There was one objector in attendance. Jim Mallott, representing the Fountainbleau Nursing Home, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that the nursing home was having problems with the existing commercial development in the area, and the approval of this request would only add to those problems. Mr. Mallott felt that the nursing home would be severely impacted by having commercial zoning on two sides. An attorney representing the owner said that they would dedicate the floodway but had problems with excluding the floodplain area from the request. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-3" request for property outside the floodplain and that the floodway be dedicated to the City. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 18, 1984 Item No. 22 - Z-4371 Owner: Mt. Sinai Baptist Church Applicant: Same By: John Miles Location: Roosevelt Road West of Spring Street Request: Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to "O-1" Quiet Office Purpose: Church Size: 15,750 square feet Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South - Single Family and Duplex, Zoned "R-4" East - Vacant, Zoned "O-1" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-5" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The requested rezoning is to "O-1" to permit the property be utilized by a church for parking. The church is proposing to construct the main facilities on the existing 110-1" tract to the east and provide the necessary parking on the lots in question. The site is located along a section of Roosevelt Road that has a wide range of zoning classifications including "R-4," "R-5," "O-3" and "C-3" with a comparable land use mix. The property in questions abuts "R-4," "R-5" and "O-1" with a large "C-3" area across Roosevelt Road to the north. Based on the existing conditions in the area, both the proposed use and requested rezoning are compatible with the neighborhood. The "O-1" rezoning should create very few adverse impacts for the area and permit a desirable use along Roosevelt Road. 2. The site is flat and vacant. There are no unique physical characteristics found on the property. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with the request. December 18, 1984 Item No. 22 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no neighborhood position or documented history on the site. 7. The requested 110-1" rezoning is appropriate for the location and staff supports the request. The proposed use is the most desirable for this location on Roosevelt and should not detract from the neighborhood. There are no outstanding issues to be resolved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission discussed the item briefly and then voted to recommend approval of the request. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 18, 1984 Item No. 23 - Z-4372 Owner: St. Louis - Little Rock Hospitals, Inc. Applicant: Same (Riverview Hospital) Location: Mabelvale West and Otter Creek East Blvd. Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "0-2" Office and Institutional Purpose: Hospital and Medical Office Complex Size: 32.114 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Interstate, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Industrial, Zoned "I-2" East - Vacant and Church, Zoned "R-2" West - Public and Commercial, Zoned "C-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The site in question is a proposed new location for the Riverview Hospital which is currently located on Cantrell Road. The property is in the vicinity of the I -30/I-430 interchange which has been going through major changes over the last few years. Directly to the west, there is a significant commercial development with a motel and related activities. Further to the west across I-30, a major regional mall is proposed with other commercial projects. On the south side of Mabelvale West, the area is developing into a mix of commercial and light industrial uses. Based on the existing development trends and what is anticipated for their future, a hospital is a highly desirable use for the site. In addition to the hospital, a medical office complex is also being proposed for the property which should provide some needed facilities for the area. December 18, 1984 Item No. 23 - Continued 2. The site is primarily vacant and relatively flat with some wooded areas. Along the Mabelvale west frontage, there are some residential structures, and to the north of these residences, there are two large ponds. 3. Mabelvale west is classified as a minor arterial which requires a right-of-way with a minimum of 80 feet. The existing right-of-way is deficient, so additional dedication will be necessary. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed in 1979 as part of the large I-30 annexation. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. 7. The proposed Otter Creek Plan identifies the property in question for public and institutional use such as a hospital or school. Staff is of the opinion that the location is very appropriate for the proposed use and supports the request. The area is in need of such a facility and it appears that it will be easily accessible to a majority of the population in the vicinity. Accessibility is an important factor when locating a medical complex. The "0-2" district will require a site plan review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Riverview Hospital, was present and represented by Dr. Robert Wright. There were no objectors present. Dr. Wright discussed many issues including the cost incurred by Riverview. Those costs included $150,000 to get the site approved by the State and another $50,000 on a site plan and other designs. Dr. Wright said the hospital would be greatly damaged if they were required to locate another site. Sanford Wilburn, engineer for Otter Creek Development Company, described a 1980 traffic study for the area that did not identify the need for the I-430 extension. He also indicated that there was an alternative to the I-430 proposal. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff addressed the various issues and asked Don McChesney, City Engineering, to December 18, 1984 Item No. 23 - Continued discuss the I-430 extension. Mr. McChesney indicated that the proposal had been under consideration for 1 1/2 years by PATS and that it was a Master Street Plan issue. Mr. Wilburn spoke again and said that the I-430 proposal was after the fact planning and there was no design compromise. He again expressed that there was an alternative. Gary Ault, Riverview Hospital, said that the hospital's planning had been underway for 1 1/2 years and that they could begin construction the first of May. Mr. McChesney indicated that traffic studies for the area were not completed, but they did indicate an existing demand for a south loop. He said southwest Little Rock was cutoff and needed additional transportation systems. Lou Quinn described the plans of the Otter Creek Development Company and said he had no knowledge of the I-430 extension until this past fall. He also discussed the PATS process and said that another feasible option was the extension of Otter Creek East Blvd. Dr. Wright said there was a need for a hospital in the area and urged the Planning Commission to approve the "0-2" request. Gene Solomon, representing the church to the east, voiced his support for the hospital. At this point, there was a lengthy discussion about the various issues. Dr. Wright asked the Commission to vote on the request because a deferral would hurt the hospital. Bob Smith also requested a decision because of the process involved in locating another site. The Planning Commission then voted on the "0-2" request as filed. The vote: 5 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 3 abstentions (Richard Massie, Betty Sipes and Jim Summerlin). The requested rezoning failed because six affirmative votes are needed. A motion was made to forward the request to the Board of Directors without a recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 18, 1984 Item No. 24 - Z-4373 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Jesse Smith Same 1520 Wright Avenue Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial Beauty Shop and Retail 5,700 square feet Existing Use: Vacant residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-6" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" West - Duplex, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal for 1520 Wright Avenue is to convert an existing two story residential structure into a beauty shop with some limited retail. This lot is one of seven lots on the north side of Wright between High and Summit that are still zoned for low density residential use. The remainder of the five block strip from High to Summit is zoned "C-3." In addition, a majority of the south side of Wright along the five block stretch is zoned "C-3" except for the "0-3" and "R-6" lots on the block directly to the south of the property in question. The zoning pattern along Wright is fairly consistent with the "C-3" but the land use is more mixed. There is some residential use in the "C-3" area and the commercial uses vary, but for the most part, they are neighborhood oriented. Because of the existing zoning and development found along Wright, the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood. It appears that the long-term desirability of residential use for lots on Wright in this strip is questionable. With the heavy traffic flow and the development trends, the existing residential uses will be probably be phased out over the coming years. L T December 18, 1984 Item No. 24 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a two story structure. 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 as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no neighborhood position or documented history on the site. 7. With "C-3" being the predominant zoning classification in the immediate area and continued residential use becoming less desirable along Wright Avenue, staff supports the rezoning. The proposed use, a beauty shop, is more neighborhood oriented and should have very little impact on the surrounding properties. In addition, the "C-1" zone is the neighborhood commercial district so that makes it more appropriate for the location being at the corner of a minor arterial right and a residential street. It is anticipated that the remaining residential lots in the immediate area will be considered for rezoning changes in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "C-1" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jesse Smith, was present. There were four objectors also present. Staff indicated that a petition opposing the request had been submitted prior to the public hearing. James Ison spoke and objected to the request because of a number of problems in the area including traffic and parking. Mr. Smith said parking would be provided on-site. Another resident voiced his opposition and said that the corner could not accommodate the proposed use. Jo Martin, a property owner, said she had problems with the use and expressed other concerns because of the elderly and children in the neighborhood. Jesse Smith spoke again. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the "C-1" request. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. J 4 December 18, 1984 Item No. 25 - Z-4375 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Dynamic Enterprises, Inc. Barbara P. Bonds 5900 South University Rezone from "C-3" General Commercial to "C-4" Open Display Used Car Sales Lot 1.5 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" East - Commercial, Zoned "I-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposed use for the property is a used car sales lot. The site is vacant now, but had been previously used for mobile home sales which is also a "C-4" use. With the site being completely vacant and no indication what type of use had occupied it, a rezoning to "C-4" was requested because of this and to avoid any problems. The use is compatible with this section of University Avenue because there are similar uses in the immediate vicinity. The zoning pattern includes "C-3" which this property abuts, "R-2" to the west and "I-2" to the south, north and east. The portion of University Avenue south of Mabelvale Pike to I-30 is normally associated with uses that require a mix of "C-3," "C-4" and "I-2" districts. Because of this, it is not uncommon to find all three classifications along a short segment of the street. 2. The site is flat with a wooded view area along the west side. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. December 18, 1984 Item No. 25 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received some informational calls regarding the proposed rezoning. There is no documented history on the site. 7. Staff feels that both the rezoning and proposed use are compatible with University Avenue and supports the request. There are no outstanding issues. STAFF RECOMMENT)ATTON! Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Planning Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to recommend approval of the request as filed. r December 18, 1984 Item No. 26 - Z-4376 Owner: Fairfield Communities, Inc. Applicant: Nat Griffin Location: Cantrell and Rebsamen Park Roads Request: Rezone from "I-2" Light Industrial to "0-2" Office and Institutional and "0-3" General Office Purpose: Office Development Size: 9.29 acres + ("0-2" - 5.04 acres and "0-3" - 4.25 acres) Existing Use: Vacant Commercial Buildings and Radio Towers SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "I-2" South - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "I-2" --- East - Railroad Tracts and Commercial, Zoned "C-3" West - Commercial, Zoned "C-3" and "I-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone the property to "0-2" and "0-3" for an office park development. A preliminary plat has been submitted that subdivides the land into five lots. The "0-2" reclassification is requested for two lots with Cantrell Road frontage and three lots north of a private street are to be "0-3." The office park will contain four buildable sites and the existing office building will be sold or leased. A major office development at this location is a desirable use and is more compatible with what is taking place in the area than industrial uses. A portion of the property is currently being used for an office, the Fairfield Communities Building. The site abuts a commercial center to the east with commercial uses to the south and a mix of commercial and office uses to the west and north. Industrial zoning and uses are no longer feasible between the railroad tracks and Rebsamen Park Road and appear to be phasing out. December 18, 1984 Item No. 26 - Continued 2. The site encompasses a total of approximately 9.3 acres with frontage on both Cantrell and Rebsamen Park Roads. The property is occupied by an office building, abandoned commercial buildings and radio towers. Some of the site is lower than Cantrell Road. 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 as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history or neighborhood position on this site. 7. The Heights/Hillcrest Plan identifies the general area for office use and with this type of land use recommendation, staff supports the request. An office park development of the type being proposed is more desirable and will create an attractive entrance into the Rebsamen Park Road area. Because of the recent development to the east of the site, the character of the area is changing and a mix of office and commercial uses appears to be the trend. A preliminary plat will provide additional review and the "0-2" district will require a site plan review prior to development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 110-2" and the "0-3" request. 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. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 18, 1984 Item No. 27 - Z-4358 (Special Use Permit) Owner: Carl Daugherty Applicant: Verlean Freeman Location: 2601 South Johnson Request: Special Use Permit Purpose: Day -Care for 10 children or less Size: 7,000 square feet Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is for a special use permit to allow a day-care family home for not more than 10 children, including the care giver's own children. A special use permit must be obtained and meet licensing requirements established by the State of Arkansas prior to operating. (It is the staff's understanding that this particular request is the result of enforcement action because the day-care is currently in operation.) The Zoning Ordinance does not provide any specific criteria for reviewing a special use permit, but does state "a method of control over certain types of land uses that require some review procedure which allows for determination of their appropriateness within the neighborhood for which they are proposed and for public comment." In reviewing this request, the staff looked at several issues to provide some guidance in making a decision. These included: (1) meeting State requirements for licensing, (2) adequate yard area, (3) impact upon surrounding neighbors, (4) an adequate drop-off area, and (5) impact on traffic circulation. December 18, 1984 Item No. 27 - Continued The applicant has received the necessary license from the State and appears to be providing adequate yard area because that is part of the State's review. Being on a corner lot and abutting alley, the day-care should have a minimal impact on the immediate neighbors. The lot has a good drop-off area on the West 26th Street side that allows the cars to stop without interrupting the flow of traffic, and because of only keeping a maximum of 10 children, there should be no impact on the streets. Based on these factors, staff supports a special use permit for 2601 South Johnson. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Planning Commission discussed the item briefly and then voted to recommend approval of a special use permit. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 18, 1984 Item No. 28 - Street Abandonment NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: REQUEST: McLean Street (north 181.7 feet thereof). Lying between East 4th Street and East 5th Street Graybar Electric Company/ Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. To abandon the present 60' by 181.75' right-of-way. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way At this writing, none has been expressed by the agencies contacted. 2. Master Street Plan There are no Master Street Plan elements associated with this abandonment. 3. Need for Right-of-Wav on Adiacent Streets 4. 5. All of the adjacent streets are to City standard relative to right-of-way and improvement. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The street right-of-way is generally flat with railroad involvement over the northeasterly quadrant. The area is fenced and does not give the appearance of ever having been utilized as a public street. Development Potential The right-of-way as now used serves and will continue to serve as a yard area for the Graybar Electric Company as well as a short segment of spur track for the Missouri Pacific Railroad. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The adjacent land uses and zoning are industrial. These users have utilized unopened streets in the immediate area for truck parking, open storage and railroad spurs. The activity on this right-of-way will have little or no effect on the neighborhood. December 18, 1984 Item No. 28 - Continued 7. Neighborhood Position None expressed at this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities None reported at this writing. However, it is assumed that the utility companies will require the entirety of the right-of-way be retained as a utility easement. 9. Revisionary Rights An equal division of the right-of-way between the Graybar Electric Company and the Missouri Pacific Railroad is expected. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A review of this proposal indicates that the abandonment will not adversely effect any owner or public agency. This abandonment is attached to an expansion of the building occupied by Graybar Electric Company and will allow additional yard space for the ownership. The only reservation we have concerns utilities and public emergency access which should be retained in the Ordinance. We recommend approval of the abandonment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Sam Davis, was present. There were no objectors present. A brief discussion was held by the Commission. It was determined that the item should be forwarded to the City Board conditioned upon the applicant completing the signature certification for the petition. A motion was made to recommend approval of the item. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. City of Little Rock Office of City Hall Comprehensive Markham at Broadway Planning Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4790 January 11, 1985 Ms. Vera Perser 4300 Bowman Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Re: Apparent Violation of Little Rock Subdivision Regulations on Property at the Southwest Corner of Gilbert Drive and Bowman Road Dear Ms. Perser: My office has made an investigation of the apparent violation of the Little Rock Subdivision Ordinance relative to the placement of several mobile homes on a single tract on the south side of Gilbert Drive. The City of Little Rock exercises an extraterritorial jurisdiction for purposes of creation of new land developments for lots for residential development. The creation of a new mobile home park or building sites requires approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission. In order to correct the apparent violation, it will be necessary for you to contact this office or have your Civil Engineer contact this office for purposes of determining the regulations concerning the placement of mobile homes. The procedure involved in gaining Planning Commission approval normally occupies 45 days from the filing deadline. There will, of course, be some cost involved in the creation of an appropriate plat and plan. These costs will be borne by the property owner and as directed by the ordinance. If you require clarification of any of the information above or wish to set an appointment to discuss this matter, please call my office. Ds'perely, Richard Wood Chief of Current Planning RW:nf3 cc: Jim Lawson City Attorney's Office County Planning Commission Bernadette Bettard File December 18, 1984 Item No. 29 - Other Matters - Request for a Rehearing for Property Located at 9215 Asher Avenue By: Jeffrey H. Jenkins (Z -4081-A) This request, Z -4081-A, was withdrawn from the August 1984 agenda by the Planning Commission because Mr. Jenkins had failed to appear at two public hearings. The application was initially filed for the July 18 meeting but deferred to August because the owner/applicant was not present. Mr. Jenkins is now requesting a rehearing because he feels he was improperly notified of the deferral to the August meeting. Mr. Jenkins attorney stated that his client was merely advised that the matter was deferred and no time and date was given (see accompanying letter). Additional information will be provided at the December 18 public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jeffrey Jenkins was present and answered questions from the Planning Commission. Robert Cortinez, Mr. Jenkins attorney, was also in attendance and spoke briefly. A motion was made to place the request on the January 29, 1985, meeting as a deferred item. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 30 - Public Hearing on Otter Creek District Plan This plan concerns an area in Southwest Little Rock that was covered by the Suburban Development Plan adopted on September 24, 1980. The Otter Creek District Plan, which was developed by the staff and a committee of landowners, recommends specific land uses for specific areas and will be used in the future as a guide for development and rezoning. The Otter Creek Committee had a final review of the Land Use Plan on December 3, 1984. They wanted to incorporate some minor land use changes but did agree to recommend adoption of the plan to the Planning Commission. The Committee, in addition, does recommend that the Master Street Plan element of the plan be studied further. The Master Plan, the Committee agreed, should be amended in the plan area but no consensus could be reached as to what street should be upgraded. Staff told the Committee that they were discussing with Metroplan and the State Highway Department several possible arterial connections with I-30. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made to defer this issue to the January 22 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 31 Highway 10 Study Committee Plan/Report At the instruction of the Board of Directors, Resolution No. 7159 of April 3, 1984, the Highway 10 Study Committee was formed to study the current conditions along Highway 10 between I-430 and Pankey. At this time, the Committee is presenting its recommendations, including: a realignment of Southridge, a "PUD" overlay zone, allocation of office uses north of Highway 10, and a total of 12 acres of commercial uses on the south side of Highway 10 at Pleasant Ridge Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were several persons in attendance concerning this matter. Five of them addressed the Commission. Tom Wilkes, chairperson of the Highway 10 Study Committee, discussed the proposed plan and the entire planning process undertaken by the committee. Chris Barrier spoke briefly about the plan options. J.D. Crockett of the Walton Heights Property Owners Association indicated that his group did agree with the recommendations presented in the plan. Don Hamilton and Robert Gunner both spoke against more commercial development along Highway 10. After some additional comments, a motion was made to defer the plan/report to the Plans Committee. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. P L A N N I N G C O M N I S S I O N DATE ' es a rti,1 1 984 20NTivP. - CffAf%TVTQTAM V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS /•0f'2 MEMBER Al B: 13 EIF C= I IZ 3 4 5 ev 3 14-115 J. Summarlin foe we J. Schlereth ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ or ✓ ✓ &/ R. Massie or ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ JAX of ✓ r r A �/ �/ r/ • �/ ✓ �/ ✓ ✓ B. -Sipes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ of ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • ✓ i/ ,✓ oe J. Nicholson ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ r ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Poe r W. Rector ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ �/ �/ I/ ✓ r ve • ✓ ✓ ✓ / ,/ W. Ketcher D. Arnett ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ r ✓ A A see ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ A A ✓ ✓ A ✓ A ✓ A A A ✓ A ✓ • ✓ A v A ✓ ✓ A ✓ A ✓ 4 v. J. Jones se I ✓ 0,00 ✓ r r r r ✓ ✓ ✓ r r ✓ ,� • r r 00 ✓ ✓ I. Boles P(-- t ION P K E TO 45 EN E ORD. 2E J/ E T A.0, J. Clayton / A L I 00 o0e a L-j v AYE ®NAYE H ABSENT `ABSTAIN P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N DATE Ue!Cernher 1,51984- ZONING — 9t7AnTVT9TnN V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS 242 ��mmm��mOm�^mm0�m�m ��N MEN I J. Schlereth 00000�0000000000� ■ ■� ■� GEIGODGOGOG��GOG����� ■� ��oo�oo�0000000000 ■� ■ ■ ■■ ��oo�o�c�000000000 ■��� ■■ ��00000�0000000000� ■�� ■■ !�oo�oo�ooee000000�� ■� ■■ �oo�ov�ooe0000000� ■���■ �o��o����00000000� ■ ■� ■■ SOON 0 MEN Is bma.. -pomp sommon EWE 0 16 ape J. Clayton VAYE 0 NAYS A ABSENT ABSTAIN It 1►w' - ► ► December 18, 1984 There being no further business before the Commission, the chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Cha m n Se retary Lai Q IM Da 4-