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-