pc_06 12 1984subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 12, 1984
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A quorum was present being 7 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Last Meeting
The minutes were approved.
III. Members present: John Schlereth
William Ketcher
Dorothy Arnett
Jim Summerlin
Ida Boles
Betty Sipes
Bill Rector
IV. Members absent: Richard Massey
David Jones
Jerilyn Nicholson
John Clayton
V. City Attorney present: Carolyn Witherspoon
CONSENT AGENDA
JUNE 12, 1984
REQUESTS FOR DEFERMENT
#B. First American Site Plan (1 month)
11. Kanis Road Animal Clinic (1 month)
6. Cantrell Place West (1 month)
WITHDRAWN
1. Pleasant Heights Subdivision
10. Woodall's Flea Market
15. Stoneleigh - Phasing Request
NO MAJOR ISSUES
2. Electric Addition (Revised Preliminary)
7. Landscape Material & Design V C V (Z -4188)
8. Calais Forest Apartments
9. Texaco at Asher /Bryant
13. Geyer Springs First Baptist Church (Z -4255)
14. Bell Building Line Waiver
TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
JUNE 12, 1984
Deferred Items:
A. Candlewood "PRD" (Z-4226)
B. First American Site Plan (Z-3638-B)
C. Plantation House "PRD" (Z4229)
Preliminary Plats:
1. Pleasant Heights Subdivision
2. Electric Addition (Revised Preliminary)
3. Block 4-R, Block 8, Pfeifer Addition
4. Quail Run Subdivision
Planned Unit Development:
5. St. Croix Apartments "PRD" (Z-4163 -A)
6. Cantrell Place West "PRD" (Z-4247)
7. Landscape Material & Design "PCD" (Z-4188)
Preliminary /Site Plan Review
8. Calais Forest Apartments
9. Texaco at Asher /Bryant
10. Woodall's Flea Market - Revised Site
Conditional Use:
11. Kanis Road Animal Clinic (Z-4245)
12. Pulaski Academy (Z-4246)
13. Geyer Springs First Baptist Church (Z-4255)
Building Line Waiver:
14. Bell Bulding Line Waiver
Other Matters:
15. Stoneleigh (Formerly High Bid PRD) - Phasing Request
16. Vimy Ridge Water Improvement District
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Z-4226
NAME: Candlewood Long Form PRD
LOCATION: Approx. 250 acres, located
west of Rivercrest Drive, east
of Pinnacle Valley Road and
north of Highway 10
DEVELOPER
Char -Beck Trust
P.O. Box 2317
Batesville, AR 72503
Phone: 793-9813
ENGINEER:
Robert D. Holloway & Assoc.
1350 Woodland Drive
Maumelle, AR 851-3366
AREA: 251 acres ± NO. OF LOTS: 279 FT. OF NEW ST.:
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Commercial /Residential
A. Site History
None.
B. Development Concept
This represents an attempt by the applicant to develop
a very high quality condominium development to be
situated on the major ridgeline that extends west from
Little Rock along the Arkansas River. The forested
park -like land consists of a main east -west ridge and
smaller finger ridges with moderate to steep hillsides
sloping down to the Little Maumelle River on the north
and Highway 10 on the south. Most of the hillsides are
over 20 percent slope. The main ridge and finger
ridges are flat, gently sloping and will make ideal
development sites, with "spectacular views" of the
Arkansas River to the north, Pinnacle Mountain to the
northwest and the forested hills of west Little Rock to
the south.
C. Development Proposal
The proposal incorporates several unit types and seeks
to mix some conventional products that have been
successful in west Little Rock with new residential
products that are in demand, yet have not been made
available to the local market. A description of units
provided includes:
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(1) Estate Lots - Large single family lots, larger
than five acres each, with frontage on Pinnacle
Valley Road (not included in parcels over five
acres).
(2) Cluster Houses - Attached single family patio
homes set in the woods along the main ridge.
These will be built in separate enclaves or
clusters of 6 to 10 units. Size would vary from
1,800 to 2,400 square feet and price would be
above $165,000.
(3) Hillside Attached - Similar to the cluster houses,
but town houses with river or forest views. These
will appeal to similar buyers, but will be built
at higher densities, with smaller floor plans,
1,400 and 2,400 square feet and be priced lower,
probably from $130,000 to $225,000.
(4) Hillside Villages - Each village will be a mix of
flats and town houses in a "club" community
organized around tennis, a pool and sited out on
one of the forested finger ridges overlooking the
river. These will be one and two-bedroom units
(1,000/1,600 square feet) marketed as condominiums
to single buyers, first time buyers, or two or
more singles buying together. Prices could range
from $90,000 to $140,000.
The density per acre of total property is 1.1 units per
acre, not including the large estate lots on Pinnacle
Valley. The density for the parcels within themselves
is a net density of 225 units per acre. The cluster
houses will contain an average of three units per
building and require about 20 buildings. The hillside
attached homes will be the same as cluster houses and
will require 25 to 29 buildings. (See Table 1 for
further information.)
D. Engineering Considerations
(1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve Pinnacle Valley
Road to minor arterial standards.
(2) Residential street curvatures require 150' radius
curves. Request intersection be discussed with
Traffic at 371-4858.
(3) Clarify phasing.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
E. Analysis
The applicant has worked closely with the staff and is
to be commended for being very thorough in his
submission of materials. He has not, however, totally
complied with our wishes relative to the specifics of
Phase I. Our agreement was that he would submit a
generalized application for the total development
scheme with specific unit data to be submitted on Phase
I only. He would then come back to the Commission for
approval on each subsequent phase.
Staff is very favorable to the development of this
project and feels that it is a good one. The applicant
is proposing to dedicate much common open space to the
City. We are asking that he specify or delineate how
much open space is to be allocated to each of the five
phases. He should also start annexation proceedings
immediately on that portion of the project not
currently in the City.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He was informed by the staff
that the Parks Department had requested easements across
some portions of the property in order to link areas
proposed for dedication; and that whatever boundary streets
were created, he would be required to build both sides. He
agreed to do both, plus provide more specifics regarding the
percentage of open space dedication with each phase. It was
agreed that this application would be reviewed as the
generalized development scheme with specifics to Phase I to
be provided next month.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Holloway, the engineer, and Mr. Richard Thomas, the
applicant, were present. Numerous persons from the
neighborhood were present. Several concerns /issues were
identified:
(1) Lack of proper notification since the applicant had
failed to comply with the notice requirement in the
ordinance. The neighborhood asked for a 60-day
deferral.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
(2) Aggravation of existing sewer problem.
(3) Location of Phase I, a "market place shaping element"
of the proposal. -- If the market does not support
development of further phases of the project, then the
residents will be stuck with the traffic problem caused
by only one access to the site through Walton Heights.
Neighbors felt that construction should begin at the
other end or that the developer should consider
constructing an alternate access route in the first
phase.
(4) The feeling that the developer was attempting to
capitalize on the neighborhood at their expense by
developing the part that was cheaper for him due to the
availability of immediate access and sewer, but most
disastrous to the neighborhood.
Spokespersons from the neighborhood included
Mr. Robert Gunter of #1 Northwest Court; Mr. Hershaw, a
retired engineer, certified in seven states; and
Ms. Jannett Straub, a member of the Walton Heights Board of
Directors. Ms. Bobbie Gunter, a realtor residing in the
neighborhood, presented a very lengthy computer printout to
the Commission indicating the amount of condominiums in the
City that are currently on the market. Her point was that
none of those listed were selling for $100 a square foot,
and to propose that these would sell for $100,000 was
unrealistic. She expressed fear that the project would
eventually turn into a much lower class condominium
development than proposed, or even an apartment complex.
Commissioner Jones questioned the method of reviewing this
item as a general developmental concept with the specifics
to be worked out later. He likened this approach to that of
a regular and long-term rezoning case. Mr. Holloway
responded by stating that this was not an opened
application, since he was already committed to a number of
units per area and had already worked up quite a bit of
specifications.
Since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the Chairman decided that no action would be
taken on the proposal. The applicant, however, was
requested to work out and submit to staff details of Phase I
and look into the possibility of building Candlewood Drive
to Highway 10; consider meeting with the property owners;
comply with notice requirements; and go back through
Subdivision Committee. Staff was asked to get a
clarification on comments from Wastewater Utilities and
provide commissioners with the phasing plan.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant and the engineer were present. They submitted
data for Phase I. The information included the following:
(1) Use .... hillside attached housing
(2) Acres .... 7.02
(3) No. of Units .... 18
(4) Floor space (single family) .... 36,744
(5) Building percent coverage .... 1.65/9.3 percent
(6) Private open space .... 600 square feet per unit
(7) Areas: road /parking .... 1.45/21 percent of area
(8) Parking spaces per unit inc. garage .... 6
(9) Unit 1 .... 1624 square feet (exc. garage)
(10) Unit 2 .... 2100 square feet (exc. garage)
(11) Unit 3 .... 2300 square feet (exc. garage)
A significant point of discussion proved to be the provision
of an ultimate access point to the site in the future. The
applicant agreed to provide another means of access when
Phase 2 is built. He was asked to provide the Commission
with: (1) letters from Sewer and Water describing the
potential problems of service provision, (2) letter from the
adjoining property owner relating to his participation in
building Candlewood Drive, and (3) phasing plan that
delineates park dedication.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-12-84)
The applicant was present. Staff reported that there was a
notice problem and that the applicant had submitted written
documentation from the Batesville Post Office describing an
error in the mail pickup. The Chairman asked Mr. Gunter,
the representative for the Walton Heights Property Owners
Association, whether or not he wanted to make an issue of
the notification problem since there were a large number of
residents already present. He replied that he did wish to
state an objection to the waiver of any formal notice
requirement, but wanted the item heard since postponement
would not serve any useful purpose.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Bob Holloway and Mr. Richard Thomas represented the
application. A general overview of the project and some
specifics pertaining to Phase I were explained by
Mr. Holloway. He stressed a minimal proposed density vs.
that allowed and extensive dedication to park lands; and an
understanding that he would have to provide improvements or
a contribution for improvements to obtain both water and
sewer service. He did not, however, have a letter of
commitment from Wastewater Utility. He also stated that he
had talked to an adjacent property owner, Mr. Shaheen, and
he had expressed a verbal interest in some type of
reimbursement for improvements to Candlewood Drive. The
Commission was informed that the developer had sent a letter
to the Property Owners Association offering to sell them the
portion to be developed as Phase I. They were given 30 days
in which to respond. There was some discussion on the
phasing plan which was handed out to all the commissioners.
Mr. Thomas requested the option of improving either
Candlewood Drive or Pinnacle Valley Road first. The
Commission questioned the phasing schemes since both streets
were shown in Phase II. It was suggested that the applicant
may need to divide Phase II into two parts. It was also
decided by the Commission to restrict further discussion of
the item to just Phase I and not the overall project. The
question of the appropriateness of multifamily use on
Phase I was raised.
Mr. Gunter's concerns related to adequate utility service in
light of the 18 additional units and the traffic impact on
the neighborhood. Mr. Holloway responded by saying the
development would require rebuilding or improvement of an
existing pump station serving a neighborhood, and the
density would only be about 1.1 units per acre or 18 units
on 37 acres.
The applicant decided that since only seven commissioners
were present, he would request a deferral for 30 days. A
motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of:
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME: First American Site Plan Review
(Z-3638-B)
LOCATION: NW Corner of the Intersection of
Shackleford Road and Financial
Centre Parkway
OWNER /APPLICANT: Multiple Owners /Gary Dean
PROPOSAL:
To rezone the property from "C-3" to "O-2" and to construct
a six to nine -story office building not to exceed 120 feet
in height; and to construct a two -story parking deck all on
4.59 acres of land.
ANALYSTS:
The applicant has proposed 449 parking spaces and
landscaping which meet City ordinances. The proposed
structural coverage is about 7.8 percent of the site, while
paved area coverage is approximately 58.7 percent.
The staff has some question as to the exact location of the
proposed parking deck. A revised site plan should be
submitted delineating the parking deck and its relationship
to the building setback lines. The City Engineer has also
requested that an internal drainage plan be submitted, and
that the applicant agrees to meet with the City Engineer to
discuss the following concerns: traffic circulation;
location of the access drive on Shackleford Road; alignment
of the driveways on Financial Centre Parkway; and a possible
access to Hardin Road from the site. And finally, the
proposed siting of the building meets Ordinance requirements
for a structure up to 120 feet in height.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval provided that the applicant agrees
to: (1) submit a revised site plan delineating the proposed
parking deck; (2) submit an internal drainage plan; and
(3) meet with the City Engineer to discuss traffic
circulation, location of access drive on Shackleford Road,
the alignment of two drives on Financial Centre Parkway and
possible access to Hardin Road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The proposed rezoning of
this site has been deferred until the April 24 Planning
Commission meeting. The site plan review will be deferred
until the May 15, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent to defer this item to the May 15, 1984,
Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. The applicant requested via
the staff to defer this item to the June 12, 1984, Planning
Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to defer
this item until the June 12, 1984, Planning Commission
meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The staff stated that the applicant had requested that this
item be withdrawn.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Z-4229
NAME: Plantation House PRD Short
Form
LOCATION: Markham at Plantation House
Apartments
DEVELOPER:
Donald Kirk
1717 Rebsamen Park Rd.
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664-0003
AREA: 2.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: PRD
A. Site History
This site was previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission for multifamily development. The
neighborhood raised significant objections.
B. Proposal
(1) The construction of 40 rental units on a 2.3 acre
site at a density of 17.4 units per acre.
(2) Unit size will be approximately 1,000 square feet
in living area.
(3) Parking will 63 parking spaces.
(4) Unit Breakdown:
Unit Tie Unit No. Unit Size
A 10 31' x 160'
B 12 31' x 192'
C 8 31' x 125'
D 10 31' x 160'
C. Engineering Considerations
Submit plans for ditch design; turns will need to
be protected.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
D. Analysis
Staff is not opposed to this development. Our comments
relate to the proposed density and provision of
alternate access if desired. We request that the
applicant revise the plan by eliminating Building C;
and if an issue, provide an alternate access point at
the southwest corner of the site. This would entail
further revision of the plan.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff explained its position as:
(1) Support of a reduction to 31 units obtained by
eliminating Building C.
(2) Revisions to the plat - shifting of the principal drive
75 feet to the west, provision of an alternate access
point on the south and the reduction of the southern
building by one unit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. Approximately
20 persons from the surrounding neighborhoods were present
in opposition. They were represented by Attorney Susan
Martin. Major opposing points included:
(1) Lack of 40' buffer between the two areas.
(2) Possible aggravation of existing drainage, sewer and
traffic problems.
(3) Density in excess of "MP-12 ", which was previously
rejected by the court.
(4) Lack of notice to one property owner.
Attorney Martin requested that the eastern drive be removed
and left as open space and that the neighborhood be allowed
time to meet with the developer. Mr. Richardson presented
an alternate plan, shifting the northern portion of the
drive away from the eastern boundary and eliminating
Building C. He was instructed by the Commission to examine
the possibility of taking principal access from another
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
point on the west, and shifting not only Building C, but
Building B to the east so that the adverse effects of
northern lights from the drive would be minimized. A motion
for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5- 31 -84)
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. Ms. Susan
Martin, attorney for the surrounding property owners were
also present. Mr. Richardson presented two alternative
plans relating to the Commission's request for another
access point on the west. Engineering reported that the
City's Traffic Department preferred two drives instead of
one. The applicant was instructed to get together with the
City Engineer and work out sewer and drive problems. Water
Works reported that easements were required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Richardson. He
presented a revised plan to the Commission, which reduced
the units from 40 to 28, and that reflected the conditions
of the signed statement which was agreed upon by both the
developer and the neighboring property owners. A motion for
approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - (Informational Item)
NAME: Pleasant Heights Subdivision
LOCATION: West end of Beckenham Drive and
Ridge Haven Road, north of
Parkway Place Drive and east of
the Shackleford Dairy property
DEVELOPER:
Melvyn Bell
1015 South Louisiana
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Mehlburger, Tanner & Renshaw
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203-3837
Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 395 acres NO. OF LOTS: 692 FT. OF NEW ST.: 38,320
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: No Filing Fee
REQUEST: For Pre-Preliminary Review
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant has submitted this proposal for
pre - preliminary review. Usually, this is done purely at a
staff level, but because of the magnitude of the project, he
is requesting Commission involvement and a variance of the
$2,000 filing fee at this time. Staff suggests that this be
reviewed as an informational item to the Commission with no
voting action at this time.
Points of discussion will include:
(1) Access to Ridge Haven Road.
(2) Relocation of the collector rising north of Rock Creek
Parkway through the Mooser tract.
(3) Prevention of north and south cross-flow (between
Beckenham and St. Charles).
(4) Master Street Plan amendment to tie a western collector
in with property to south.
(5) Utility service.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
Engineering Comments:
1. Request preliminary street grades be submitted for
review.
2. Discuss overall drainage plan with City
Engineers.... will detention concepts be used?
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Don Chambers of Mehlburger, Tanner and Renshaw and
Mr. Melvin Bell, owner of the property were present.
Mr. Chambers explained that he wanted the Commission to
review this project because of the significant impact that
it would have on the area, and due to previous controversial
issues which are related. The Committee reviewed the plan
and decided that this should not go on to the Commission
until the applicant is ready to file a preliminary plat. It
was decided that the applicant should: (1) examine previous
collector commitments on the St. Charles plat to the south
and their relationship to the plat, (2) work with the
adjacent developer on utilities, (3) work with Water Works
on location of the water tank, and (4) identify traffic
impact on surrounding neighborhoods since a significant
amount of lots will access onto Beckenham and the only
current public access to the property is via Ridge Haven
Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
None.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Electric Addition (Revised
Preliminary)
LOCATION: East End of 34th Street, South
Side of Asher
DEVELOPER:
Don Kirkpatrick
3300 South Polk Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER/APPLICANT:
Samuel L. Davis
5301 W. 8th
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 10.812 acres NO. OF LOTS: FT. OF NEW ST.:
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9
CENSUS TRACT: 20.2
A. Site History
A preliminary was approved on this site July 24, 1979.
Lot 2 has been previously final platted.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in what can generally be described
as a mixed commercial and industrial area. Street
improvements are needed on Asher. Considerable
grading, leveling and filling have been done on the
property.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to revise a preliminary by
recombining 10 lots to make one. Approximately 0.9
acre on the east side of the property was lost through
an adverse claim by an adjacent owner.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Proposed street turnaround is acceptable to
Engineering.
2. Dedicate right -of -way and improve Asher Avenue to
minor arterial standards.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
3. Recommend an access point on Asher Avenue to
reduce traffic on 34th Street.
E. Analysis
Staff has no comments provided that the cul -de -sac meet
City Engineering standards for termination of a street
with commercial and truck traffic.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Sam Davis represented the developer. He stated that the
use will be office /warehouse. The Committee passed this to
the Commission, subject to submission of a final for
right -of -way dedication and improvements to Asher.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant's representative was present. There were no
objectors present. A motion for approval, subject to
comments made, was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME: Pfeifer Addition, Lot 4-R,
Block 8, Replat and
Combination of Lots 6, 5, 4
and 3
LOCATION: 5000 West Markham
AGENT: Don Hamilton
DEVELOPER:
McDonald's Corporation
1500 Tower Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375-9151
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Edward G. Smith & Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW ST.:
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 20.1
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
(a) Site History
A zoning application has been filed requesting rezoning
of the northern lots from "R-3" Single Family to "C-3"
General Commercial to permit access to "A" Street. The
property is currently used as a parking lot allowed by
the Board of Adjustment in an "R-3" area, but with curb
cut prohibitions onto "A" Street. There has been
substantial neighborhood opposition against and legal
actions related to the previous rezoning activity. The
Board of Directors' position has been upheld by the
courts.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is occupied by McDonald's Restaurant on the
northwest corner of Markham and "A" Streets. The
northern two lots are zoned "R-3" and the southern two
are zoned Commercial. "A" and Jackson Streets are in
need of improvements.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
C. Development Proposal
This application represents a twofold request: (1) to
recombine Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 except for the west 8 feet
of Lot 3 into one lot, (2) the proposal of a one-way
left turn only outlet onto "A" Street.
D. Engineering Conditions
Engineering is in agreement with this proposal and
concept. Request specific driveway design be submitted
to the City Engineer for approval to improve "A" Street
to residential street standards.
E. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the plat, per se; however,
the legal issues and zoning request are overriding
concerns. If the zoning is approved, then approval is
recommended provided that both "A" and Jackson Streets
meet the City'a approval.
F. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comment at this time.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee did not review this item, since it was
withdrawn by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Quail Run Subdivision
LOCATION: Southeast intersection of
Pleasant Hills Cemetary Road and
Vimy Ridge Road
DEVELOPER:
James A. Rogers
13707 Pleasant Hill Road
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Mehlburger Tanner & Renshaw
P.O. Box 3037
Little Rock, AR 72203-3837
Phone: 375-5331
AREA: 24.457 acres NO. OF LOTS: 65 FT. OF NEW ST.: 3,000
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Residential Subdivision
A. Site History
None.
B. Existinq Conditions
This parcel is located in what can be generally
described as a rural single family area. It is bounded
by Pleasant Hills Cemetery Road on the east and by Vimy
Ridge Road on the west. On-site vegetation currently
consists of mature trees. A 100' power line bisects a
portion of the property.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to plat 69 lots with an average size
of 9,000 square feet. Internal access is to be
provided by residential streets with 50' of
right-of-way. The development will be phased. Special
requests include: (1) lot depth variances around
Kaylyn Court, (2) in-lieu contribution for construction
of Vimy Ridge Road due to limited site distance and the
out parcel along this road, and (3) waiver of half
street improvements on Pleasant Hills Cemetery Road.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Dedicate right-of-way on Vimy Ridge Road to minor
arterial standards. Improve Vimy Ridge to minor
arterial standards.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
2. Enlarge turning radii at the entrance and at the
intersection of Sheri and Sandra Drives and Kaylyn
Court.
3. Request status of Pleasant Hills Cemetery Road;
street improvements may be required.
E. Analysis
There is a possibility that there are subdivision and
street name conflicts with this proposal. Staff will
research this. If so, the applicant will be required
to change the names. Variances have been requested for
street improvements and lot depths. Staff recommends
that no waiver be granted unless some hardship is
established. A waiver of the minimum lot depth can be
granted only if the applicant makes the lots along
Kaylyn wider, so that they possess the minimum
requirement of 7,000 square feet. We do not want to
set a precedent for approving substandard lots. The
applicant is requested to provide justification for
Lots 29, 63, 64 and 65. What is the use proposed for
Lots 63-65 since they are larger than the remainder?
The legal status of the out parcel should be
identified. If it was severed from its ownership, then
the owner must be a participant in this plat.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed by the Committee. It was determined
that the applicant should:
(1) Rename Sandra and Kaylyn Street;
(2) Seek participation in the plat of the owner of the
out - parcel;
(3) Provide information as to the status of Pleasant Hills
Road; and
(4) Commit to none other than single family development on
this plat.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant and his representatives were present. There
were no objectors. Staff reported that Pleasant Hill
Cemetery Road was a private right-of-way that could possibly
be developed as a collector at a future date; so, 15 feet of
additional right -of -way dedication was requested. The
applicant agreed to this request. There was some discussion
on the out parcel. The applicant was instructed to find out
more information regarding when the property was sold. If
it was after 1957, and was sold illegally, the owner of that
parcel would have to participate in the plat. Staff
reiterated its commitment to none other than single family
with this approval. A motion for approval was made and
passed, subject to comments made. The vote: 7 ayes, 0 noes
and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME: St. Croix "PRD" (Z-4163-A)
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Rodney
Parham and West Capitol
DEVELOPER:
Greenleaf Management
& Development Company
2415 Magnum, Suite 105
Houston, TX 77092
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Edward G. Smith & Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
ARCHITECT:
William Worthen, Jr.
Houston, TX
AREA: 6.4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: PRD for 158 units
PROPOSED USES: Multifamily
A. Site History
The Yorktowne Apartments "PRD" proposal was very
recently approved for this site.
B. Developmental Concept
The applicant is proposing the development of a high
qualty project which has a high rent structure,
adequate parking, good landscaping, and is compatible
with the neighborhood. The units will be housed in 13
two-story buildings. There also is a community
building containing an office and large activity room.
A large swimming pool with spa and a sports court with
basketball and racketball courts round out the
recreation package.
The exterior of the buildings will be approximately 75%
brick with wood siding covering the remaining 25 %.
Fireplaces will be provided with each two-bedroom unit.
Washers, dryers, ice makers, dishwashers, disposals,
electric ranges and ovens will be standard in all
units. All units are to be fully carpeted, except for
kitchen and bath and will have 9' ceilings.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
C. Proposal
1. The construction of 154 units on a 6.4 acre site.
2. Unit Sq. Ft.
Type Number Unit Total
A 48 561 26,928
B 24 645 15,840
C 34 1,042 35,428
D 48 1,010 48,480
Total 154 126,316
Boiler, Laundry and Office........... 4,000
3. The provision of 231 parking spaces.
4. Schedule
of Areas Acres Percent
Site 6.44 100
Buildings 2.11 32.75%
Private Open Space Nil
Common Open Space 4.33
Non - Usable Open
Space Mill
5. Landspacing includes heavily planted buffer areas
and the construction of 6' fences on all property
lines, except right-of-way line.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Dedicate right -of -way and improve West Capitol to
residential street standards.
2. Submit internal drainage plan to City Engineer's
Office for approval; special emphasis will be
gvien to limiting water flow into the Sunnymeade
Subdivision.
3. Close driveways that will not be used on Rodney
Parham.
E. Analysis
Staff is supportive of this project; however, it does
not qualify as a short -form PUD as requested by the
applicant since it is in excess of five acres. It
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
must be reviewed according to the long-form process.
Staff feels that this project is superior to the
previous proposal relative to design and density. The
number of units proposed is four less than originally
proposed.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The plan was reviewed by the Commission. It was determined
that the layout was superior to the original plan; however,
it does not include as much buffer and the concrete wall as
was previously approved on the west side. Ms. Cindy Bowers,
landscape architect, presented a landscape plan utilizing an
inter - weaving concept, which she feels is more advantageous
than just a straight buffer. The applicant felt that this
landscaping proposal and the orientation of the size of the
buildings to the property line on the west side minimized
the impact on the neighborhood. The issues were identified
as: (1) the submission of an internal drainage plan;
(2) closing of driveways on Rodney Parham; (3) buffer issue;
(4) Fire Department approval; and (5) orientation of
lighting away from the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The developer, engineer and landscape architect for the
project were present. Members of the Sunnymeade
neighborhood were present. Their spokespersons were a
Mr. Smith, Mr. David Ables of 415 Sunnymeade, and a
gentleman from 307 Sunnymeade. The major concern expressed
regarded the absence of the concrete wall that was proposed
at the western property boundary on the previously approved
project on the site. It was felt that the wall was
necessary to prevent drainage problems, deter pedestrian
traffic, and prevent a litter problem. Mr. Smith expressed
a desire for security lighting, even though he still
preferred that the lights not be directed toward the
neighborhood. The developer felt that the concrete wall was
not necessary since the concrete swale on the western
property line inside the 6' fence would take care of most of
the drainage problems. The City Engineering staff agreed
with the developer. Mr. Ables tried to convince the
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
Commission that such a proposal would not contain the water
when it actually rained. He felt that the Commission would
be convinced also if they could actually see the results of
a rainfall. A motion was made for approval of the plan,
subject to staff comments. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Cantrell Place West - A
Condomiumium Development "PRD"
(Z-4247)
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Misty Lane
and Cantrell Road
AGENT /DESIGNER:
Paul Davenport
4213 Wait Street
Phone: 666-6186
DEVELOPER:
Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Constant
Unit C -1201 Raven
Hot Springs, AR 79193
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Thomas Engineering
3721 J.F.K. Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 753-4463
AREA: 1.78 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2" (PRD Proposed)
PROPOSED USES: 4 Condominium Detached Units
A. Site History
This was previously the site of one single family
house, which was destroyed by fire. The site is
currently vacant.
B. Proposal
1. The construction of four detached condominium
units on a tract of 1.78 acres at a density of two
units per acre.
2. Units will consist of 2600 square feet of living
space on a single level with a rear courtyard.
All units will be constructed with masonry veneer
and wood shake roofs. The design of development
will be consistent with the area.
3. Ratio of land to building - 67,953:10,400.
4. Access will be provided at three points. Two are
existing and off Cantrell.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
5. Landscaping will utilize as many existing trees as
possible and a 6' high fence will be built around
the building.
6. Financing and development will begin immediately
after approval and a completion date is set for
one year.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Request only one driveway be planned from Cantrell
Road.
2. Brick fence should be modified as needed to
provide proper site distance at the driveways and
at the corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road.
D. Analysis
Staff views this proposal as being very inappropriate
for the area. The land would be better used as two
large single family lots. Approving four units on one
lot may prove detrimental to an area that consists of
only single family homes. If approved by the
Commission, the drive leading to Cantrell should be
reduced to one.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application. The issues were
identified as: (1) elimination of one drive onto Cantrell;
(2) substantial change in established character of land use
in the area; and (3) Water Works easement (101).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. Staff reported that no
evidence of notification had been submitted and that the
applicant had requested deferral so that he may prepare a
more comprehensive plan. In light of the fact that there
were 27 persons present from the neighborhood, the Chairman
decided to listen to their concerns. He also informed the
neighborhood that the applicant could legally subdivide the
property into approximately four single family lots, the
same density as proposed condominium project, but without
the restrictions that could be placed on a PUD.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
Mr. Robert Schultz, President of the Echo Valley Property
Owners Association, represented the neighborhood. He
expresed objection to the multifamily use of the site due to
possible detrimental effects on existing houses, property
values, land use and character of the area, which consists
of large homes on lots two to six acres. He felt that the
PUD use of the property could be leverage for other
multifamily uses in the area, and if this was allowed, the
ultimate result would be a change in the character of the
neighborhood. He also felt that after meeting with
Mr. Davenport, the neighborhood was more concerned with the
practicality of his proposal than before. They now fear
that he would not be able to do what is proposed
financially, and that the ultimate development would be
short -term rental units. After being asked by the staff,
not one of the property owners present at the meeting
indicated that they received notification. A motion for
deferral was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: Landscape Material & Design
"PCD" (Z -4188)
LOCATION: 1/4 mile south of Stagecoach
Road on the west side of Sibley
Hope Road
DEVELOPER:
Landscape Material & Design
Company
7301 Yarberry Lane
Mabelvale, AR 72103
SURVEYOR /APPLICANT:
Ben Kitler, Jr.
28 Dena Drive
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 888-3960
AREA: 4.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Proposed "PCD"
PROPOSED USES: Greenhouse /Landscaping Workshop and Tool
Storage
A. Site History
None.
B. Development Objectives
1. To develop the property by utilizing the existing
one-story brick house as a residence and office
and constructing two additional buildings for use
in selling-storage and limited growing of plants,
trees and shrubs.
2. Construction
(a) Greenhouse with a tube aluminum dirt floor.
(b) 24' x 48' building used to repair and
maintain work vehicles and storage of work
tools.
3. Construction of both of the buildings with 24"
fill above the existing ground, because the
replacement value of the buildings is less than
the cost of hauling, placement and compaction of
6.9' of fill, also the appearance of a 24' x 48'
building on top of a 6.9' fill.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
1. This development must comply with all floodway
ordinances.
2. Recommend Board of Adjustment to determine if out
building must be elevated above 100-Year Flood
elevation.
3. Improve Sibley Hole Road to residential standards
with concrete headers.
D. Analysis
Staff feels that the plan is compatible to the area.
The site is appropriate for the proposed landscaping
related use because of the floodplain /floodway
involvement. No adverse impacts are expected.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application. A discussion
centered around the applicant's request to construct the
building without the required amount of fill. Engineering
reported that only the Board of Adjustment was authorized to
make variances from the floodway. Some Committee members
felt that construction of a floodproof building would
eliminate the potential hazard. Other issues discussed
related to the requirement/location of a Water Works
easement, improvement and dedication of Sibley Hole Road. A
one -lot final is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Engineering reported that the
greenhouse would be a flow-through building and the other
would be raised four feet; and that the applicant will go to
the Board of Adjustment for a waiver from the floodplain
ordinance. A motion for approval was made and passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
NAME: Calais Forest Apartments
LOCATION: West of the southwest
intersection of Napa Valley and
Mara Lynn Road
DEVELOPER:
Creative Realty Groups
Suite 125
7557 Rambler Road
Dallas, TX 75231
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Edward G. Smith & Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 20.1604 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "MF- 18 " /- MF-12" - "O-S"
PROPOSED USES: Multifamily
A. Site History
This site has a history of rezoning activity.
B. Proposal
1. The construction of a 300 unit apartment complex
on 20.16 acres.
2. Development according to the following:
Unit Type Number Sq. Ft. /Unit
A -1 1 Bdroom /l Bath 96 650
A -2 1 Bdroom /l Bath 72 700
A -3 1 Bdroom /Study/
1 Bath 60 815
B -1 2 Bdroom /2 Bath 40 900
B -2 2 Bdroom/2 Bath 32 945
Total 300
3. Parking will be 1.5 spaces per unit plus
ancillary.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Improve frontage street (on Napa Valley) to
residential street standards; dedicate
right-of-way as required for a residential street.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
2. Modify entrance to the club/office since it will
cause traffic circulation problems at the
entrance.
D. Analysis
Staff views the proposal as being compatible to the
developing trend of the area. No significant problems
with design have been found, except that noted in the
Engineering Comments. The architects asked to provide
more details on the site plan, relative to dimensioning
and parking space locations. A final plat will be
required for dedication of right-of-way, so will a
street closure for the abandoning of the old alignment
of Napa Valley and Mara Lynn Road.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Discussion centered around the closing of the abutting
street on the east side of the project, and connecting the
entrance to Mara Lynn (which would require an easement).
Water Works requested an easement. A one-lot final will be
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Joe White represented the applicant. There were no
objectors. He requested the option of connecting the
entrance street through the open space zone to Mara Lynn if
the owner of that parcel would agree to it, or improve the
street adjacent to the property. A motion for approval was
made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
NAME: Texaco at Asher & Bryant - Site
Plan Review
LOCATION: 6428 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Texaco (Ronnie Kindrick)
1405 North Pierce
Little Rock, AR 72207
Phone: 663-9456
ENGINEER /APPLICANT:
Marlar Engineering Co.
5318 J.F.K. Blvd.
North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: 753-1987
AREA: 25,375 sq ft NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Service Station, Existing and Car Wash,
Proposed
A. Site History
The site is currently occupied by a food mart /gas
facilities business.
B. Proposal
1. The construction of a car wash by Texaco (who
plans to sublease the parcel) on a lot 175' x
145'.
2. The construction of a 7' x 14' storage building.
3. The construction of a new 4' x 10' air valve
island.
4. The removal of the existing air and telephone
island.
5. Maintenance of the existing one-story metal/brick
food mart.
C. Engineering Considerations
None.
D. Analysis
No significant problems have been found with the
proposal, provided no street improvements are needed.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application and passed it to the
Commission, subject to comments made.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Woodall's Flea Market Revised
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: South University Avenue at
Fourche Creek
DEVELOPER:
Sidney Woodall
6907 W. 42nd
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 565-5691
ENGINEER/APPLICANT:
Edward G. Smith & Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 4.460 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-4"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
This plan was originally submitted for review by the
Commission on March 15, 1983, and denied because of the
location of the temporary structures and parking in the
floodway and the Parks Department's plan for acquisition.
Specifications of this plan are generally the same as
previously proposed (see attached).
Engineering reports that:
(1) The development is subject to floodway ordinances,
including setback from the floodway;
(2) Structures to be at elevation of 1' above 100-Year
Flood and to be secured to the ground;
(3) Parking will not be permitted in floodway unless
engineer's calculations are submitted to prove that the
parking area meets the October 1983, Floodway
Ordinance; and
(4) Request design of driveway be submitted to the City
Traffic Engineer and AHTD for approval.
Staff reserves comment on this item until further comments
are received relative to its status from the City Attorney.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the application. Discussion related
to the illegal expansion of the use on the site after it was
denied by the Planning Commission last year. Engineering
reported that the proposal does not meet the floodway
setback required by the new floodway ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant requested that the item be withdrawn. A
motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 - File No. 314
NAME: Woodall's Flea Market -
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: S. University Avenue at
Fourche Creek
DEVELOPER:
Sidney Woodall
6907 W. 42nd
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 565-5691
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374-1666
AREA: 4.460 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C-4"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
REQUEST:
Site plan review of a multiple building site.
PROPOSAL:
1. The construction of 49 buildings on 4.460 acres for use
as a flea market.
2. Development Scheme
(a) Number of Buildings - - - - - - - - 49
(b) Building Size - - - 12' x 20' - - - 240 sq. ft.
(c) Total Floor Area - - - - - - 11,760 sq. ft.
3. Dustproof parking area for 77 cars.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ( "C-4" Districts):
Required Provided
1. Front Yard - -- - - - 45' 45'
2. Side Yard - -- - 15' 15'
3. Rear Yard - - - - - - - 25' 651+
4. Lot Size -- - - - - - - 14,000' 4.46 acres
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 Continued
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(1) Show line of floodway limits.
(2) State on plat the required flood or flood proofed
elevation of 260.6 m.s.l.
ANALYSIS:
This proposal represents an attempt, by the applicant, to
make use of land that is not suitable for most purposes, due
to its existing condition. The plan dictates the
construction of 49 small buildings entirely in the
floodplain. Much of the remaining property is in the
floodway of Fourche Creek. The creek borders the property
from its northeastern to southwestern points.
As submitted, the site plan does not meet the usual
requirement of 10' between detached buildings. Due to the
unique nature of this proposal, 10' may not be needed.
Staff suggests that the applicant submit a plat of the area,
permanently setting the setbacks at the buildable area.
Also, unit typicals on sections indicating the building's
structural elevations should be submitted to give some idea
of physical appearance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
A motion was made for approval, subject to the submission of
a one -lot final plat showing the proper floodway information
requested by Engineering and a plan showing typicals of the
buildings. The motion passed by a vote of: 2 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff
reported that the applicant had submitted a one lot final
plat indicating the setbacks, floodway and buildable area,
but not unit typicals. The staff modified its
recommendation by requesting that the item be deferred until
the City Board established a policy on the acquisition of
area in the floodplain.
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10 - Continued
A lengthy discussion was held during which several arguments
against developing on this site were raised. Mainly, they
focused on the Parks Department's plan for acquiring
floodway lands so as to limit development on such sites and
maintain control of the floodway, and the potential danger
being created by the approval of temporary structures and
parking in the floodway. A motion was made and passed to
deny the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7
ayes, 1 no, 2 absent and 1 abstention.
(No vote - Commissioner Rector, abstaining - Commissioner
Massie)
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: Kanis Road Animal Clinic
Conditional Use (Z-4245)
LOCATION: NE Corner of the Intersection of
Michaels Street and Kanis Road
(8422 Kanis Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Dr. Darrell E. Wood /Bob Scott
PROPOSAL:
To remove the existing building and construct a new building
(animal clinic enclosed) and seven paved parking spaces on
land that is zoned "O-3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This lot fronts on a minor arterial ( Kanis Road) and is
adjacent to a residential street (Michaels) on the
west.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The current use is an office use. The property fronts
on a minor arterial and is adjacent to an office use to
the west. Residential uses are adjacent to the north
and the east. The proposed use is compatible provided
the property is developed in such a way as to minimize
the impact on adjacent residential uses.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing
parking. The proposal contains provisions for seven
paved parking spaces (six in front of the proposed
structure and one space in the rear) as well as two
drives which take access from Michaels Street.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape proposal has been submitted.
5. Analysis
Staff supports the applicant's decision to rebuild the
animal clinic. There are, however, a number of issues
involved. The applicant needs to construct a 6-foot
opaque fence along the north property line to minimize
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
the impact of the proposed new building on adjacent
residential structures. In addition, the applicant
needs to dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Kanis
Road (to minor arterial street standards) and also
Michaels Street (to residential street standards). The
applicant needs to provide the City with an in-lieu
contribution on Kanis Road and to construct Michaels
Street to residential street standards.
6. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees
to:
(1) Construct a 6-foot opaque fence along the north
property line;
(2) Dedicate the necessary right-of-way on Kanis Road
and Michaels Street; and
(3) Provide an in-lieu contribution on Kanis Road and
construct Michaels Street.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and discussed staff
recommendations. The applicant was nonconmittal about staff
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 12, 1984)
This applicant filed a request with the staff requesting
that the subject conditional use permit be deferred to the
July 10 public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to
approve the request as filed. The vote on the motion was
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME: Pulaski Academy Conditional Use
(Z-4246)
LOCATION: Approximately 600 feet West of
the intersection of Hinson Road
and Napa Valley Road
(12701 Hinson Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Pulaski Academy Inc./
Fred Perkins
PROPOSAL:
To expand the use of the school campus and to make
alterations and improvements to the existing facilities
located on 15 acres of land that is zoned "R-2." (Existing
enrollment is 900, proposed maximum enrollment is 1200
students.)
1. Site Location
This site fronts on Hinson Road (principal arterial) on
land that slopes gently from south to north.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in an area with an abundance of
vacant land. A church lies to the east. The heaviest
concentration of single family uses lies to the west
with some scattered single uses to the north and south.
This site is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On-Site Drives and Parking
Four existing drives serve as access from Hinson Road.
The applicant is proposing to add one drive on the west
property line and reduce the two easternmost drives to
one drive. A future access drive to Napa Valley Road
is also proposed. The site currently has 182 paved
parking spaces. The application contains 195 proposed
parking spaces.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
5. Analysis
This proposed Master Site Plan outlines the existing
88,000 square feet of building coverage for the current
enrollment of 900+ students. The existing use is
compatible with the surrounding area as the property
has over 900 feet of frontage on a principal arterial.
The property is also designated as single
family- attached and within the vicinity of a proposed
elementary school on the Suburban Development Plan.
The application meets parking and appears to meet
setback requirements. Hinson Road has also been
constructed to City standards. The City Engineer has
approved the proposed driveway layout and is
recommending that future access to Napa Valley Drive be
constructed as early in the expansion process as
possible. The staff has two areas of concern:
landscaping and lack of dimensions on the proposed
Master Plan.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval provided the applicant
submits a revised site plan which includes all
necessary dimensions and proposed landscaping.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 12, 1984)
The application was represented by Joe White of the
Edward G. Smith & Associates engineering firm. There was
one person present who stated concerns about certain
elements of the proposal, but did not specifically offer
objection to the conditional use permit. Mr. Dwight
Colinger, a resident on the adjacent street to the south,
stated that he would prefer the maximum amount of
undisturbed natural area be left between his residential
street and the nearest construction on Pulaski Academy
premises. A lengthy discussion of the proposal then
followed. A motion was made to approve the application as
filed subject to those comments offered by the staff and
that a minimum of 25 feet of natural undisturbed buffer
strip be retained along the south property line. Further,
that no excavation be permitted into the 25-foot buffer
strip, that the school grades for classes within the
southernmost building be limited to seventh grade through
12th grade and that the southernmost building to be limited
to one story in height. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: Geyer Springs First Baptist
Church Conditional Use (Z-4255)
LOCATION: At the Intersection of 57th
Street and Geyer Springs Road
(5615 Geyer Springs Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Geyer Springs First Baptist
Church /Darrel Odom
PROPOSAL:
To obtain a conditional use permit for an existing church
and related activities which will allow construction of a
two story (40,000 square feet) addition to the existing
educational building and 160 paved parking spaces on land
that is zoned "R-2."
1. Site Location
This site is fully developed and is located at the
intersection of a minor arterial (Geyer Springs Road)
and a collector (57th Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in an area of mixed uses. Three
sides (north, south and east) are single family while
property to the west is single family, commercial and
office. Considering the use pattern as well as
adjoining principal arterial and collector streets,
staff feels that this use is compatible.
3. On -Site Drives and Parki
This site contains nine access drives (three on Geyer
Springs, five on 57th Street, and one on 56th Street).
Current parking is 171 paved spaces while an additional
net of 139 spaces are proposed (103 off -site - south of
57th Street). (Total parking 310 spaces.)
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff has two primary concerns. The first is
landscaping. Staff feels that the children's play area
should be fenced (opaque) on the west and north to
minimize impact to the neighborhood. The applicant
also needs to show landscaping. The second concern is
parking. Staff feels that the proposed parking area
located south of 57th Street should be constructed
prior to the initiation of construction of the proposed
education building so as to minimize the impact of the
surrounding area.
The applicant has met with the City Engineer and the
recommendations are as follows: Dedicate and construct
Geyer Springs Road to minor arterial standards adjacent
to the parking area that lies south of 57th Street;
improve 57th Street to collector standards for the
length of the property.
6. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval provided that the
applicant agree to:
(1) Submit a landscape plan and construct an opaque
fence around the west and north sides of the
playground area;
(2) Construct the proposed parking prior to beginning
construction of the proposed education building;
(3) Dedicate and construct Geyer Springs Road
(adjacent to the parking area south of 57th
Street) to minor arterial standards; and
(4) Improve 57th Street to collector standards for the
full length of the property.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues.
There was discussion concerning landscaping requirements.
Staff felt that all landscaping should be brought up to
current City standards. The engineers were unsure what
dedication and construction were to be required on the south
side of 57th Street. They will report their findings at the
June 12, 1984, Planning Commission meeting.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 12, 1984)
The application was represented by Mr. Odom. The applicant
offered an overview of their proposal and comments relative
to the staff recommendation. The applicant stated that
there were two points within the staff recommendation that
they would like to discuss modification or a correction of.
These included the standard for construction on 57th Street
and the introduction of the issue of the previously approved
parking lot on the south side of 57th Street. Mr. Bob Lane
of the City Engineering staff offered an amendment to item
#4 of the staff recommendation which he stated was developed
at their office level with a view toward requiring a higher
standard for street improvements due to local circumstances.
Mr. Lane indicated that the City Engineer's requirements for
a collector standard would only be provided at the point of
intersection with Geyer Springs Road. A lengthy discussion
of the proposal then followed resulting in a motion for
approval of the conditional use permit subject to several
items. These were:
a. Improvements to West 57th Street are to be to collector
street standard only at the intersection with Geyer
Springs Road.
b. Improvements to West 57th Street from the designed
intersection at Geyer Springs are to be to a 27-foot
residential street standard.
C. Improvements required on the north side of West 57th
are to be phased as follows: (1) the segment adjacent
to the parking lot on the south side of 57th is to be
constructed with the south side project; (2) the
segment east of segment 1 running to a point being the
driveway immediately south of and in line with the east
side of the new education building to be constructed at
the time of construction of that building; and (3) the
balance of the street improvements running to the east
property line are to be constructed when that portion
of the site is developed.
d. That item 3 of the staff recommendation to be omitted
from the record as that requirement has been attached
to previous approval.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME: Bell Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: 87 West Windsor Drive
APPLICANT /OWNER: Mary Bell
REQUEST: To allow approximately 16'
encroachment into a plat at 25'
building line setback area for
the addition of a carport
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
The area is composed entirely of single family uses.
The specific site consists of a brick and frame home
bordered on the east and west by other single family
homes, and on the north by Windsor Drive.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to encroach approximately 15' into a
25' setback area. The request is for the garage
addition of a carport onto the house, so as to protect
the car from damaging weather. The applicant states
that she is handicapped and it is very difficult for
her to remove the snow and ice in the winter. A
petition with the 60% required signatures has been
submitted.
D. Engineering Considerations
E. Analysis
Staff's visit to the area reveals that no other homes
have such encroachments. The applicant, however, has
submitted adequate justification for the request and
obtained the required signatures. There does not
appear to be any alternative location for the garage
addition due to the proximity of the homes on both
sides.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the item
and passed it to the Commission with no adverse comment.
PLANNING COMMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. No one objected. A motion for
approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME:
Stoneleigh (Formerly High Bid
PUD) - Phasing Request
LOCATION: The northeast corner of
Mississippi and Indiana
REQUEST: To phase a recently approved
"PRD" project
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant requested withdrawal of this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Other Matters - Water District Formation
SUBJECT: Proposed Water District #139
Entitled Vimy Ridge Water
Improvement District.
LOCATION: A tract of land lying along the
south Pulaski County line
between Sardis Road on the
east, the town of Alexander on
the west and generally bounded
by the Missouri Pacific
main line track on the north.
SIZE: Contains approximately 1600
acres + or 2.5 square miles.
REQUEST: Planning Commission
recommendation of approval of
the formation of the district
to the Little Rock Board
of Directors.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The subject water district lies entirely within the
Little Rock City limits and is in the path of southwest
growth. At this writing, we are unaware of any problems
associated with this request. This district will work in
association with the existing districts in place as well as
sewer improvements districts within the immediate area. We
will provide follow -up information to the Commission if an
issue develops prior to the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends approval of the formation of
the district.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
DATE JutJE \'2.1 1984
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
SUBDIVISION
MEMBER A B C I 2.. 3 4 s '-7 8 , 10 II
J.S11mrnPrlin V' v ttl' ,/ ✓ ,/ ,/ v ttl' .,,,,.,,, 111' ,/ ,,,,
J.Schlereth ......... ,/ ,/ v ✓ ,/ ,/ ,,, ,,,,, v' ,,,, ,,, ,,,,,. v
R.Massie A
B.Sipes v" ,/ ,,, ,/ ,/ .,/ y ,/ II" y � ,,,, v ,,,
J.Nichol son A
w.Rector .,..... ,/ v v ,/ ,/ ,,, ✓ ,/ V ,,,,, 111" ,/ II"
W.Ketcher v ,/ y y ,/ y v' ,,,, Ill v ,, #11' ,/ y'
D.Arnett ✓y ,/ Ji' I/ I/ ,,, V V I, y v ,,,,,. y y
D.J. Jones A
I.Boles V ,/ y V V ,/ V V ,,,, v y' ,7 #11"� y
J � Clayton A
✓AYE NAYE A ABSENT ":e_ABSTAIN
r-•-
12.13 t4-I 1s ,�
✓V ,,,, t/ v
v ,,/ .,, V ✓A
✓,/✓ J/ �
A ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ✓ ,/
v y y' y V
v" ✓v" ✓vA
I/' I/' ✓ � V
A
r\ 1
June 12, 1984
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
7,10 1 - I
Date Secretary
Chairman