pc_01 11 1983subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SUBDIVISION HEARINGS
JANUARY 11,1983
1 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A quorum was present being eight in number.
II.Reading of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed out.
III.Members Present:John Schlereth,Chairperson
Betty Sipes
Dorothy Arnett
Jim Summerlin
John ClaytonBillRector
William Ketcher
Richard Massie
IV.Members Absent:Jerilyn Nicholson,Vice-Chairperson
Calvin Scribner
City Attorney
Present:Hugh Brown
I
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —File No.291
NAME:Castle Valley Subdivision
LOCATION:1 I/4 Mile South of Baseline,
West of Chicot Road
DEVELOPER ENGINEER:
Dr.a Mrs.E.A.McCracken J.M.Shields
509 S.Main 307 W.52nd Street
Stuttgart,AR North Little Rock,AR
Phone:767-6112 Phone:753-8298
AREA:11.48 acres NO.OF LOTS:52 FT.OF NEW ST.:1,950+
ZONING:"R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS
This site is located in Southwest Little Rock at the
southwest corner of Bunch and Chicot Roads,and north
of the C.R.I.a P.Railroad.The terrain is mostlyflatandtreecovered.The tract is currently served
by an existing 20'sphalt street on the southern
boundary.The remainder of the applicant's ownership is
being used as a golf course.There is a strip of
property between Bunch Road and this tract that is not
within the applicant's ownership.
B.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This is a proposal to plat 11.48 acres into 52 lots of
single family use with the minimum lot size of 7,000
square feet.Feet of new street to be constructed is
approximately 1,950'inear street.The applicant has
stated that a horseshoe shaped street is planned
because he does not own the property to the north.The
plan encompasses the idea that there is a need for this
affordable type housing at the present time.A strip
on the eastern portion of the property has been
reserved for light commercial.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
C.CONFORMANCE TO RDINANCE
No variances have been requested.
D.LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
None.
E.ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Improve Castle Valley Drive to 27'esidential street;
Chicot Road improvements to be tied to development of
frontage property.
F.ANALYSIS
Staff has not found any major problems with the
proposal;however,there is some question as to the
source of dedication on Castle Valley Road.
G.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
A motion was made and passed for approval,subject to:
(1)Improving Castle Valley Drive on both sides since a
boundary street is created;
(2)Improvements to extend to Chicot;
(3)Chicot Road improvements tied to development of
frontage property;and
(4)Understanding that approval of the plat for commercial
or other use does not endorse rezoning.
The vote:5 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(11-9-82)
The applicant and the engineer of record were both present.
There were no objectors.A question arose as to whether or
not the commercial area should be approved as a part of this
plat,since:
(1)It may give the appearance of an endorsement by the
Commission;
(2)It may cause problems due to objections from property
owners who have bought in the single family portion
when it's resubmitted for rezoning;
(3)And the depth of the tract is insufficient for
commercial development.
The applicant was asked to revise the plat by adding 100'o
the tract so that it will have a depth of 300',which would
give it better commercial development potential;or
eliminate the tract altogether by extending the single
family development to Chicot Road.
A motion was made and passed to defer the item until
December 14th so that the applicant could file for rezoning
and submit a revised plat.The vote —8 ayes,1 nay,
1 absent,1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:(12-2-82)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested to defer
this matter to the January 11th Public Hearing.A motion to
this effect was made and passed by a vote of 3 ayes,0 noes,
2 positions open.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (12-14-82)
The Planning Commission deferred action on this item until
January 11,1983,at the request of the applicant.The
vote:10 ayes,0 nays and 1 open position.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:(12-30-82)
The Committee restated its previous recommendation and
added:
(5)Endorsing the concept plan as presented.
The vote:4 ayes,0 noes.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.1 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr.John Castin represented the developer.There were no
objectors.A motion was made to approve the plat accordingtotheSubdivisionCommittee's recommendation.The motion
passed by a vote of:7 ayes,0 noes,2 absent,1 open
position and 1 abstention (abstaining Richard Massie).
January 11,1983
Item No.2 —Z-3931-A
Owner:E.A.McCracken
Applicant:E.A.McCracken
Location:Northwest Corner,Chicot and
Castle Valley Roads
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family
to "C-3"General Commercial and
"MF-18"Multifamily
Purpose:Commercial and Multifamily
Development
Size:10 acres +
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Residential,Zoned "R-2"
South —Railroad Right-of-Way,Out of City
East —Residential,Zoned "R-2"
West —Vacant,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
The Wastewater Utility has said that this Sewer Improvement
District will only support developments with an overall
residential density of three units per acre.The applicant
has submitted plans which conceptually call for a density of3.11 units per acre;however,two of the tracts (C and H)
are shown as potential church sites.If these two parcels
were developed with churches instead of multifamily,the
overall density of this project would be reduced to 2.7
units per acre.
The major factor keeping the density low is that this
project includes a 62-acre golf course,representing about
37 percent of the total land area.Staff believes that one
important step in this development process would be to zone
the golf course "OS"Open Space for the purpose of assuringitscontinuationassuch.The tracts being shown
conceptually for multifamily development are contained in
later phases of the project except for Tract H,a 2.74 acresiteproposedfor"MF-18"in this application.
There is no point in zoning Tract H "MF-18"unless it is to
be developed for apartments.A church would be required to
obtain a conditional use permit whether the property is
January 11,1983
Item No.2 —Continued
zoned "R-2"or "MF-18."In addition,unless the golf course
zoning to "OS"is included in this action,the density of
the proposal before the Planning Commission at this time
will be just under 10 units per acre.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral until some of the above issues can
be resolved.Staff does support the conceptual plan for
this project within the context of the above considerations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that the applicant had requested deferral of
the consideration of the "MF-18"portion of this request
involving Tract 8 and that only the "C-3"portion of the
request concerning Tract A would be considered.The
Planning Commission moved to defer the "MF-18"portion for
60 days.The motion passed:7 ayes,0 noes,2 absent,
1 abstention (Richard Massie abstained).
Staff reported that relative to the "C-3"portion of the
application that the recommendation was for approval and the
Planning Commission,after a brief discussion,moved to
approve the application for Tract A from "R-2"Single Family
to "C-3"General Commercial.The motion passed:7 ayes,
0 noes,2 absent,1 abtention (Richard Massie abstained).
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —File No.292
NAME:Huff-Site Plan Review
LOCATION:10612 Alexander Road
APPLICANT:Louis Huff
7104 W.Wakefield DriveLittleRock,AR 72209
Phone:565-1737
REQUEST:Site Plan Review of
Multiple Building Site
STAFF REQUEST:
This is a request by the applicant to construct a one-story
metal building (40'50')at the northeastern corner of the
property for use as a heating and air conditioningcontractor's storage yard.It was prompted by an
application to rezone the site from "R-2"to "I-2."Since
there is an existing single family residence on the
property,the addition of the proposed building created a
multiple building site for which site plan review is
necessary.
Staff has no objections to the proposal.The single family
structure will be nonconforming in an "I-2"District,but itisacceptablesincenoadverseeffectsareexpected.The
applicant is asked,however,to dedicate 40'f right-of-way
on Alexander Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant was present.He indicated that he may want to
add on to the existing single family structure if approved.
A motion for approval,subject to the applicant presenting a
drawing to the Commission on the 14th indicating the
parimeter of the future addition.The motion passed by a
vote of 3 ayes,0 noes,2 positions open.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.3 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(12-14-82)
The applicant was not present,nor was he represented.
There were no objectors.The Commission determined that
inasmuch as the applicant was not in attendance,that the
matter be deferred to the meeting on January 11,1983.The
vote:9 ayes,0 nay,1 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(1-11-83)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors.As
requested by the Subdivision Committee,a revised site plan
was submitted.A motion for approval was made and passed by
a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 open position.
January 11,1983
Item No .4 —Z-3936
Owner:Nildred Curtis and Lois Whitmore
Applicant:Louis Huff
Location:10,612 Alexander Road
Request:Rezone from "R-2"Single Family
to "I-2"Light Industrial
Purpose:Heating and Air Conditioning
Contractor
Size:1.5 acres +
Existing Use:Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North —Vacant,Zoned "I-3"
South —Residential,Zoned "R-2"
East —Residential,Zoned "R-2"
West —Residential,Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency concerning this request.The applicant is purchasingtheexistingresidentialpropertyandplanstolivethereas
well as to operate his heating contracting business on site.Industrial use of the property and the zoning requested is
compatible with the Suburban Development Plan.
When the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company zoned the
property immediately north and west of this site,the
frontage along Alexander Road was zoned "I-1"Industrial
Park District.This property meets the requirements for the
same zoning,and the applicant has before the Planning
Commission at this time a site plan review because of the
multiple building site aspects of his proposal.Therefore,staff feels that "I-1"zoning is more appropriate for thisrequest.
STAFF CONNENT:
The applicant has not paid a filing fee nor given anyindicationthatheintendstocontinuewiththis
application.Staff recommends it be withdrawn from the
agenda.
January 11,1983
Item No.4 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(12-14-82)
The applicant did not appear,and the Commission moved to
defer the item until the January 25 meeting.The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,1 vacancy.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(1-12-83)
The applicant was present,and there were no objectors.
Since the applicant had not paid the filing fee nor had he
sent the notices,the Commission moved to defer the matter
to the February 15 Planning Commission meeting.The motion
passed:8 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —File No.293
NAME:Shadow Mountain Preliminary
Subdivision and Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Between Green Mountain Drive and
Shackleford Road,north of Mara
Lynn Road
DEVELOPER ENGINEER:
Henderson Real Investors Allen Curry
Oklahoma City,Oklahoma P.O.Box 897
Stuttgart,AR North Little Rock,AR
AREA:13.4 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"R-6""R-5""MF-12"and "R-2"
PROPOSED USES:Multifamily
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Waiver of subdivisions on Shackleford Road.
STAFF REPORT:
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site under consideration is a constant slope
falling downgrade from west to east.The grade is not
severe,but may offer design difficulties for access to
Green Mountain Drive at the north corner.The
elevation change of some 60'rom Shackleford Road
access to Green Mountain provides drainage problems to
existing residential properties at the access point.
The tract has a single large body of land with the
predominant frontage along Green Mountain Drive with a
secondary access point to Shackleford Road,which islittlemorethantheareaofasingleresidentiallot.
The site is well covered by timber and natural
vegetation.
The neighborhood adjacent is all residential,with
single family on the north and east and condominium
town houses to the south and west.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
B.EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
All public utilities are in place,and the site is
served by two collector streets.These streets are
somewhat impacted by the existing circumstances in that
as a collector pair they function as an arterial with
excessive flow at certain peak times.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND CHARACTERISTICS
The plan proposed consists of 20 buildings,with a
total of 256 units with 26 handicapped.Ninety percent
of the units will be brick veneer.There will be two
service buildings and pool areas.A breakdown of unitsisasfollows:
64 units with 1 bedroom each,128 units with 2
bedrooms each,64 units of efficiency.
A total of 166,336 square feet of floor area.
D.CONFORMANCE WITH ORDINANCE STANDARDS
1.Variances:Variances are requested for sidewalks
along both shackleford and Green Mountain Drive.
The Shackleford frontage is very narrow,andlittlewouldbeaccomplishedwithasidewalk,
inasmuch as a driveway fills most of the curbline.
There is a better prospect of usage of sidewalk
along Green Mountain,since there are over two
blocks of frontage.
2.~zonin :The owner has taken steps to downzone
the various high density parcels to a district
compatible with this proposal.
E.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATION
The Engineering Department recommends construction of
sidewalk along Green Mountain Drive the entire length
of this frontage.This development will generate
approximately 2,000 trips per day.This department
recommends that the main traffic access points be on
Green Mountain,and that the access to Shackleford Road
be limited to a small portion of the development or for
emergency services only.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
F.ANALYSIS
The first comment the staff would offer here would be
to suggest that the Planning Commission should be made
aware of the access issue onto Shackleford Road from
this site.The parcel proposed has been held for
several years for this purpose and is zoned Single
Family.The existing zoning prohibits access to
Shackleford Road to serve other than single family
usage on this property.The staff's view is that a
very minor traffic access,if at all,should be taken
to Shackleford;perhaps only an emergency access as
suggested by the Engineering Department.Green
Mountain Drive is presently a collector street carrying
below its capacity and should be able to accommodate
these properties.As to the proposal,the staff's viewisthatitisappropriatetothesite,with some
modification.All of the usual concerns have been
dealt with or will be.These concerns are the
40'ufferrequirementadjacenttoexistingsinglefamily,
screening fences and dumpster sites.There is an
unresolved question concerning the retention of a
15'ufferwithinthe40'equirement.The existing
proposal indicates a driveway occupying up to 25'f
the 40'imension along the perimeter.This presents a
problem,inasmuch as the utility easement requested
occupies the same space as the 15'emainder.If this
conflict cannot be resolved,then a redesign of thetotalprojectwouldberequiredinordertomovethe
driveways from the perimeter.While the proposal
contains minimum parking spaces,this should not be a
problem inasmuch as one half of the units are one
bedroom or efficiency.The Fire Department suggests
that the Shackleford access be a minimum of 20'ide
pavement area if access is permitted.
G.STAFF RECONNENDATION
The staff recommendation will begin by suggesting thatthisapplicantberequiredtogivenoticetothe
neighborhood,inasmuch as the proposal will have asignificanteffectontrafficandaccesstothearea.Staff would recommend approval of the application with
modifications in line with comments made in our
analysis and in the engineering considerations.Wefeelthatatmost,if access is permitted to this site
from Shackleford,it should not exceed 15 percent of
the total units proposed.This would be in line with
the numbers of cars that could utilize this point,
should the property be developed for single family.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
I 5 N*.5 —C
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the plan and plat in concept
recognizing that Mr.Curry will resolve the 15'asement/
buffer conflict and staff will prepare a report on the
history of the access on Shackleford.That history to be
added by the agenda date.Applicant required to notify all
abutting single family lot owners on Ethan Allen and
Shackleford Road.The vote —4 ayes,0 noes.
PLANNING COMMI SION ACT ON:(1-11-83)
Mr.Brooks Jackson and Mr.Allen Curry represented the
developers.Some 30 to 40 persons from the neighborhood
were present and in opposition.Staff clarified the
remaining issue to be resolved by stating its concern with
the question of whether or not access should be provided
from Shackleford Road to this development through a tract of
land zoned single family;since the Ordinance specifically
prohibits such access to a multifamily parcel.Staff
reported that the applicant had amended his application so
that his proposal included dedicating this Single Familytractasapublicstreet.
A lengthy discussion ensued;during which several
spokespersons evolved from the group of opposers.They
were:
(1)Mr.Dale Leggett,representing 450 single family home
owners from the adjacent Walnut Valley Subdivision;
(2)Mr.Mike Robynet of North Shackleford Road;
(3)Dr.T.A.McDaniel of 1113 N.Shackleford Road;
(4)Ms.Patricia Merit of Shackleford Road;
(5)Mr.Fred Junkin of 1408 Green Mountain Drive;
(6)Mr.John Mitchell of 612 Nan Circle;
(7)Sally Leggett of Shackleford Road;
(8)Mr.Scott Terry of 820 N.Shackleford;
(9)Mr.Bob Walton —11417 Ethan Allen Drive;
(10)Mr.Dick Crow of 809 Kings Mountain Drive;
(11)Mr.Brian Herman of 808 North Shackleford;and
(12)Mr.Al Conrad of 11411 Ethan Allen.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.5 —Continued
Nr.Leggett first raised objections relative to the
development of a multifamily project in a single family area
because of the perpetuation of an existing traffic problem
in the area;devaluation of homes and property,and the
possibility of introducing a transient-type population into
the neighborhood.The latter assumption was based on the
developer's plans to provide approximately one-half
efficiency units.At this point,the Commission clarified
the issue as being,not one of rezoning,but of access to
Shackleford from this development.Nr.Leggett was
specifically asked whether or not the Walnut Valley Property
Owners'ssociation was opposed to the proposed access.He
replied that they were.
Objections raised by others concerned possible drainage
problems,noise,lack of safety,increase in traffic on
Ethan Allen,Shackleford and Green Nountain,loss of privacy
to those homes abutting the development on the north and
location of the northernmost drive on Ethan Allen.Mr.
John Nitchell requested that there be a minimum of a
100'ufferonthenorth.Nr.Bob Walton requested that the
northernmost drive off Green Mountain be placed a full
40'ackfromthepropertylineinsteadofjust15's allowed
by Ordinance;and that the swimming pool in the complex be
moved from its northern position so as to minimize potential
disturbance of those residences abutting the property.
After much discussion,a motion was made to deny access from
Shackleford,but defer approval of the site plan for two
weeks so that the developer could redesign the northern
portion of the plan to reflect the internalization of the
drive and the relocation of the swimming pool.The motion
passed by a vote of:7 ayes,1 no,2 absent and 1 open
position (no vote —Commission John Clayton).
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE
SHADOW MOUNTAIN APARTMENT PROJECT AREA
JANUARY 3,1983
Item No.1
The records of the Zoning Office reflect that the first
action on this property occurred in June of 1967,and
covered approximately the south two-thirds of this 40 acre
area.The plan as presented calls for 499 multifamily units
on approximately 35 acres.
The zoning action provided for a large "E"apartment ("R-6")
zone and a large "D"apartment ("R-5")zone.There was nositeplansubmittedinconjunctionwiththeapplication.
However,a covenent was accepted by the Planning Commission
and Board of Directors providing for a plan to be submitted
prior to the development.The plan would cover the entire
ownership.There was no discussion of access issues in
conjunction with this application.The area now identified
as Walnut Valley Subdivision and Shackleford Road did notexist.However,a plat of preliminary nature suggested a
possible layout on a general grid pattern with a dedicated
street shown running between Green Mountain and Shackleford,
providing access along the northern line of the now
development.No final action on that plat occurred.
Item No.2
In January 1969 a preliminary plat of the Walnut Valley
Subdivision Phase 2 indicated that Shackleford Road within
that plat would provide for approximately 200'f frontage
for the 35 acres of apartment development.That plat also
aligned Ethan Allen Drive along what is the north boundaryofthenowproposedproject,with a secondary street in the
area of the now proposed access running west to Green
Mountain.
Item No.3
The next action reflected by the zoning cases on this
property reflects a rezoning action in September 1969,which
added additional "D"apartment ("R-5")zoning and provided"C"two family ("R-4")along the north boundary to coincide
with a preliminary plat.The plat of Walnut Valley
indicated at that time a buffer alignment with duplex and
lower density residential between the high-rise site and
single family.The area of the present application was to
be served by a dedicated street running between Shackleford
Road and Green Mountain Drive.The Planning Commission and
Board of Directors both approved the plan and zoning.There
was no specific commentary as to the desirability of the
connecting street.
Item No.4
The next action occurred in March 1971.The subdivisionfilereflectsthatthepreliminaryplatofWalnutValley
Subdivision was modified to show the access lot now
proposed.There was no objection to that action indicated
from any source.The lot was identified as Tract "L".In
addition to that modification,Ethan Allen was moved one
half block north to provide a row of lots backing to the
multifamily.
Item No.5
In December 1971,the last development plan was filed,which
directly affected the area now proposed as Shadow Mountain.
This plan modified the "E"apartment ("R-6")and added
"MF-12"(the request was for "MF-24").The "MF-12"replaced
almost all of the "C"two family ("R-4")zoning,leaving two
small parcels within the Walnut Valley plat area.The
request included removal of all prior commitments and plans
and accepts the new overall plan.There is no conversation
in the minute record concerning access to Shackleford Road.
However,the plan shows a private drive provided over what
was noted previously as Tract "L",Walnut Valley preliminary
Plat.The rezoning action did not include this Tract "L".
Item No.6
In September 1972,a final plat was approved and recorded
with the deletion of Tract "L"from the plat boundary,but
adding a notation on the plat as to the suggested use of thesite.The bill of assurance on this final plat provided a
paragraph dealing with Tract "L",even though lying outside
the plat boundary.This provision from the bill of
assurance reads as follows:
1A.A tract of land between Lots 249 and 358 marked on
the plat "proposed access to apartment
development"is shown for information purposes.
Allotters have granted the right of ingress and
egress to and from Shackleford Road so that this
tract can be used for such purposes.The property,
which abuts the rear lot lines of Lots 245 to 247
inclusive and 343 to 358 inclusive,is known as
Green Mountain Apartments and is zoned for
apartment development.
Conclusions:
The staff concludes,from our review of the record,several
points:
(1)That access to Shackleford Road has in fact been
intended since early on in rezoning of this Shadow
Mountain area.
(2)It is apparent from the record that little or no
conversation of consequence occurred both in
public hearings or in private conversations that
would affect the establishment of this access.
(3)The status of the property titled Tract "L"at
this time appears to be questionable.It could be
identified as a part of the total holding of this
property for platting purposes,even though
included in a previous preliminary for Walnut
Valley.
(4)To respond to a question of the Subdivision
Committee relative to the numbering of the lots
abutting,the record reflects that the number
alignment was changed when Ethan Allen Drive was
moved on the preliminary plat some 200'o the
north to its present location.
(5)We would point out that on at least two occasions
involving platting and site plan review,the
access to Shackleford Road was dealt with as a
dedicated street of some 27'n width.A third
occurred whereby the developer in the most recent
site plan review proposed a private drive access.
Our conclusion from this is that there was little
or no concern expressed by Staff or Commission in
dealing with the matter of access.
Our final thoughts on the matter are as follows:
(1)The issues surrounding this access point have
materially changed in recent years with respect to traffic
flow,neighborhood development and zoning.These changes
are:
a)Shackleford Road has become a functional
arterial which carries nearly twice the capacity of a
collector as it was constructed.
(b)The neighborhood has almost completely
developed with a web of streets radiating in all directions.
This offers many options on access to subject site.
(c)The zoning district applicable to Tract "L"
has changed in the past year by an ordinance amendment which
precludes access to a developing site across more
restrictive zoned land.The Board of Directors has set this
in the ordinance as law and policy.
(2)A broad review of access options would reveal
perhaps that some trip length would be shortened by the
Tract "L"access for residents traveling to the Rodney
Parham commercial district.However,it is hard to measure
the differences in time and distance.We do not feel that
the access is worth the cost to abutting owners.
(3)As pointed out in the Engineering comments,Green
Mountain Drive is presently operating below capacity and can
easily accommodate all of the 2000 +trips proposed.
(4)We do not feel that livability or marketability of
this project will suffer by refusal of access to Shackleford
Road.
(5)Tract "L"is of the proper size to plot as a
single family lot.
(6)The neighborhood along Shackleford Road is already
working with the City Engineer and City Board of Directors
to restrict the use of Shackleford as an arterial street.
To permit the Tract "L"access would only fuel the fires
already set.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —File No.294
NAME:Brookwood Office Addition
Site Plan Review and Building
Line Waiver
LOCATION:On Brookwood Drive,
approximately 1,000'orth of
Cedar Hill Road.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Birch-Brook,Inc.Edward G.Smith a Associates
P.O.Box 7300 401 Victory Street
Little Rock,AR Little Rock,AR
AGENT:
Gene Lewis
Rector,Phillips,Morse
Little Rock,AR
AREA:3,736 square feet NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"I-2"Industrial
PROPOSED USES:Office
STAFF REPORT:
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS
This site contains seven buildings,which are mostly
storage structures of the mini-warehouse type.The
area abutting is generally undeveloped to the south and
east,with a large office building across Brookwood
Drive at the corner of Cedar Hill Road.The terrain is
flat and platted as an office,commercial,residential
subdivision.There are no problems apparent on thesite.
B.EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
These items appear to be in place by virtue of the
prior platting and development in the area.
C.DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The owner proposes to erect a single new building on
this tract,with 14 parking spaces.The building will
contain approximately 3700 square feet of usable floor
space.This structure would be all masonry and as
suggested to Staff would be a speculative building in
nature.It is designed for a single tenant and not
more than two.The owner suggests that the design
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
that is offered is the only method for locating a
building of suitable size on this property.He
suggests this is due to a mortgage arrangement internal
to the existing development.
D.CONFORMANCE TO ORDINANCE STANDARDS
The only design element out of conformance is the
setback on the north.At the time of platting this
development,the ordinance required a 30'latted
setback.This has now been reduced in the Zoning
Ordinance to 15'or "I-2"zoning areas.The proposed
building will be 10'rom the side property line on the
north,thereby requiring a variance of the building
line.There is some question in this area of site plan
review concerning the ability of the Planning
Commission to vary a bulk or area requirement.In this
instance,the applicant has taken steps to deal with
this issue as a Board of Adjustment matter also.
E.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
No comments.
F.ANALYSIS
The plan and variance presented do not in themselves
present serious question or controversy.The issue
that is of importance is whether this variance is a
trend setter for "I-2"properties with mixed uses.We
feel that,inasmuch as the site is not developed as
industrial totally,that the effect on the neighborhood
is lessened somewhat.However,in this instance it is
obvious that a building of speculative nature has more
capacity for modification than a structure that is
committed to a use.We would point out that if this
office were in the "0-3"District,it would be required
a 10'ide yard.In this instance,however,it is in
an "I-2"zone,whereby the existing office building on
the north was apparently required to provide 30'f
setback.Although it is quite obvious that the area is
developing as office use rather than industrial,we
feel that a 10'ide yard standard at this point would
be inappropriate.We do feel that the building
proposed could provide the required parking and drive
areas within the confines of the existing development
utilizing a 15'etback.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.6 —Continued
G.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the application for a
variance to a 10'ide yard be denied,and that a
15'lattedbuildinglinebeplacedonthereplatinlieu
of the existing 30'uilding line.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Approved as filed,but in the area of the new structure only
and 125'est of the northeast corner.The vote —3 ayes,
0 noes,1 abstaining (Bill Rector).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr.Gene Lewis represented the applicant.There were no
objectors.A motion in agreement with the Subdivision
Committee's recommendation of approval was made and passed
by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,2 absent,1 abstention*and
1 open position.
*Abstaining Commissioner Rector.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —File No.295
NAME:Burnett Swimming Pool
LOCATION:Northwest Corner of High Street
at West Roosevelt Road
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Johnny Burnett William H.Albright
1500 West.Roosevelt 115 Gilbert Drive
Little Rock,AR 72206 Little Rock,AR
AREA:.3 acres NO.OF LOTS:1 FT.OF NEW ST.:0
ZONING:"C-4"Commercial
PROPOSED USES:Commercial and Office
REQUEST:
Site plan review of multiple building site to permit
erection of a new building as a sales office.
STAFF REPORT:
A.EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site has no significant grade or site problems,
except for street access which was developed as a
service station the time when little or no control was
exercised.There is a minor issue along the north
property line adjacent to the alley where a short,
steep slope could provide problems for a building with
the 3'etback proposed.The neighborhood is mixed use
of commercial,office and residential.The properties
to the north presently are occupied by an abandoned
Safeway Store and large parking lot.
B.DEVELOPNENT PROPOSAL
The owner proposes to erect a new building on this
site,which will contain 800 square feet,plus or
minus,of floor space.The use will be office and
sales space for the operation of a pool and spa
company.There exists on the south end of the property
a building used as a liquor store,which is a converted
service station.The owner intends that the parking
spaces now marked on-site be used for both activities,
and that no new stalls be provided.There is a
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —Continued
requirement in the Zoning Ordinance of three spaces for
the new office and four spaces for the existing liquorstore.The site now contains sufficient area for sevenstalls.The existing parking area is in a poor
maintenance state.
C.ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
The Engineering Department requests that a driveway and
parking plan to support the new building as well as the
existing building,be prepared.The Engineering
Department also suggests that the Planning Commission
attach a requirement for construction of standard
driveways and safety islands on the High Street side ofthisdevelopment;also,the repair of damaged curb
radius and catch basin at the corner of Roosevelt and
High Streets.
D,ANALYSIS
The plan presented does not present significant publicissue.The only exception that Staff would take is
setback from property lines.We feel this should be atleast25'rom the High Street side and 10'n the
north line adjacent to the alley.We do not believe
such a change will adversely affect the use proposed,
nor the building.We do feel that the parking lot
should be upgraded and properly marked for parking,
perhaps reorienting the three stalls along High Streettothepropertylineandawayfromthedrive-up window.
E.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval,subject to above Staff and Engineering
comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
Approval,subject to 5'n the north,20'n High Street,a
redesign of parking on permits review and provide street
improvements as suggested by Engineering.The vote
4 ayes,0 noes.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.7 —Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not in attendance;however,the CommissiondecidednottodelayactiononthemattersincealltheissueshadbeenresolvedattheSubdivisionCommittee
meeting.A motion for approval subject to the Commission's
recommendation was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes,2 absent and 1 open position.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.8 —Other Matters
The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission in an
ongoing program of ordinance review has proposed three
amendments.These amendments have been discussed at length
by staff,the Committee and Planning Commission in
retreat.
The Ordinance modification proposed by each will provide for
expansion of or termination of existing provisions as
follows:
1.The "0-3"amendment will delete freestanding
restaurants within General Office Districts,but will
not prohibit an accessory food service in an office
complex.
2.The conversion adjustment amendment simply removes the
language from the text inasmuch as the right expired on
December 31,1982.
3.The short form P.U.D.Amendment will permit and,in
fact,encourage the small scale P.U.D.(under five
acres)without the significant cost in time and money
required by the standard form.
This item is presented as a public hearing for purposes of
receiving comment from the public on three Zoning Ordinance
amendments.These amendments are as follows:
l."0-3"District Conditional Use Amendment
(Article IV,Section 4,102)
2.Zoning Ordinance Conversion Adjustment Amdendment
(Article I,Section 1-106.1)
3.Planned Unit Development Short Form (Article IX,
Section 9-101)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(1-11-83)
There were no objectors present.The Planning Commission
accepted the Staff Report.A motion to recommend approval
was made and modified to ask staff to hold the package for
the Board meeting,March Ig 1983.
The vote —8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent,1 open position.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —Public Hearing and Ado tion of the Downtown
Plan
This item was deferred from 12-14-82.The Downtown Plan was
introduced by Nr.Griffin of the Planning Staff.Present
to support the presentation were Nr.Tom Hodges and Chris
NcGetrick of the Hodges Firm.Nr.Griffin outlined the
planning process involved as follows:
The study participants included the Hodges Firm,the
Planning Staff and a joint Planning Commission and Board of
Directors Committee.The purpose of this public hearing is
to solicit input from the public,gain Planning Commission
endorsement and proceed to the Board of Directors for formal
adoption.
Nr.Griffin turned the meeting over to Mr.Hodges,who made
a presentation of the key issues involved in formulation of
the planned components.Nr.Hodges briefly outlined the
various areas involved within the plan by title and by
boundary,discussing generally the uses of the areas and the
potential for each area for the future.Mr.Griffin then
presented comments pertaining to the key issues and how they
were addressed.
The first issue offered is the arena,which was identified
as the main physical improvement to be generated by the
plan.The principal question yet to be resolved appeared to
be site location;that is,South Broadway vs.East Narkham
Street.Nr.Griffin stated that a feasibility study should
be accomplished to pinpoint location plusses and minuses.
The second issue is downtown retailing,which was identified
as being tied to a need to deal with historic preservation
focus,infill of appropriate areas with residential use and
investment in new business activity.
The third issue is parking,which demands a more aggressive
posture.The construction of two parking decks and
additional surface parking were identified as critical in
serving both public and private needs in the core area of
downtown.The responsibility for such development was
identified as public.Traffic circulation was identified as
the fourth issue.This was shown to be a noncritical item,
although several thoroughfares will require a circulation
study.However,the downtown area does not suffer from
significant congestion.
January 11,19B3
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —Continued
The fifth issue is major development.This issue deals with
the first significant move after adoption of the plan.This
would be a move toward selecting a developer and initiating
design and construction of one of the parking decks.This
could and should be a cooperative effort between the City,
County and the private sector.The thrust of this effort
would be to protect public investment in the Convention
Center.
The sixth issue is cultural facilities.This issue was
explained as being in a state of flux,with little or no
cohesiveness in the organizational structure in the cultural
community.Many opportunities exist for the various
activities,but above all,focus of the cultural activities
should be directed to MacArthur Park.
The seventh and last issue identified deals with image.
This appears to be of specific concern to the Planning
Commission and is of utmost importance in the promotion of
downtown.A new section has been added to the plan dealing
with this area.This section deals with steps to be taken
to promote the image of downtown through improved lighting
and security.
Mr.Griffin stated that several modifications had been made
to the plan,and that he recommends that any action of the
Commission incorporate that addendum in the body of the
report as printed.Mr.Hodges then offered conclusions
concerning implementation and identifying participants,the
restructuring of existing organizations to provide for
better management of the plan and its various elements.
The meeting was then opened to public comment.The first
speaker was Mr.Bill Worthen,representing the Territorial
Restoration.He expressed several concerns about traffic
flow changes,the arena site and confusion over siting of
the arena.The second speaker was Mr.Ralph Magna,
representing the Quapaw Quarter Association.He expressed
feelings about the inclusion of a study component to assess
the value of existing buildings in the downtown area and,
perhaps,establish a means of identifying historic
buildings.He felt that the various groups interested in
historic preservation could utilize the results of such an
assessment,and this could lead to the promotion of more
structures on the historic structures list.The third
speaker was Mr.Sterling Cockrill,representing Little Rock
Unlimited Progress and the Metrocenter Improvement District.
He expressed concerns about the organizational structure of
I
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.9 —Continued
the various organizations,and stated that he felt it
imperative that they all understand their role and work
toward common goals.He stated that he felt that the
downtown partnership was a great idea for all involved.He
recommended adoption of the plan.
The Chairman then closed the public hearing and asked for
questions from the Commission.A lengthy discussion was
held,involving all participants and covering thoroughly
most of the points previously outlined.Hr.Hodges
explained several of the issues in depth in order to assure
understanding of their content.The Commission then
discussed the form of a resolution to be forwarded to the
City Board.The consensus was that the resolution in hand
was appropriate,but that a third section was needed to
express the thought that the Planning Commission does not
endorse the old town location for the arena as a preferredsite.The Planning staff then offered the thought that
perhaps it would be best to hold this item for a period of
thirty days in order to permit staff and a consultant to
interview the various owners and persons involved in the old
town area and have discussions directed toward obtaining a
position from that group.
The Commission then voted unanimously to pass a motion to
defer the final action on the resolution and the plan until
January 11,1983.
PLANNING COHHISSION ACTION:(1-11-83)
Hr.Griffin explained the two resolutions offered dealing
with inclusion of the arena site.After a brief discussion,
the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of
the plan with Section 3 added in the resolution to provide
Commission thought relative to the arena site on East
Harkham.The vote —8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent,1 open
position.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.10 —Amendment to Suburban Develo ment Plan
The Suburban Development Plan shows the southeastern area of
Bunch Road and Chicot as Neighborhood Commercial with single
development in the surrounding areas.
At the time the Neighborhood Commercial was established on
the plan,it was recognized as an "area"in location based
on future development of Bunch Road and future residential
development.
The staff recommends that the Suburban Development Plan be
further defined to specify the Neighborhood Commercial to be
located on the southwestern corner of Bunch and Chicot
Roads.The commercial designation would entail
approximately eight acres.
The staff further recommends that Multifamily (approximately
three acres)be designed on the plan north of Castle Valley
Road and west of Chicot.These recommendations are based
upon an applicant's request for platting and rezoning in
this area which the staff has recommended in favor of.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(1-11-83)
The staff reported that additional time is required to deal
with the amendment and that an indefinite period of deferral
should be set.The staff would report back to the Planning
Commission at the appropriate time to initiate further
action.The Commission voted unanimously to defer the issue
indefinitely.The vote —8 ayes,0 noes,2 abaent,1 open
position.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 —Continued
(3)The two remaining north-south streets could become
local traffic carriers.
In order to develop a plan,the Planning Commission should
review information submitted by City departments,owners in
the area,utilities and other interested parties.
The Planning staff does not offer specific requirements at
this time but should be in a position by the next Planning
Commission meeting to provide definitive direction.This
would include but not be limited to,streets to be closed
and street construction standards.The owner or developer
on an undeveloped residential street shall provide designs
by a professional engineer as required by current
ordinances,and shall construct full street improvements as
a part of his development.The owner or developer of an
undeveloped collector street shall prepare designs for fullstreetimprovementsandconstructonehalfstreet
improvements plus the additional street width necessary to
provide two-way traffic.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO THE COMMISSION:
The Engineering Department concurs with the Office of
Comprehensive Planning recommendation for the closure of
several streets in the Gibralter Heights area.The
Engineering Department recommends that a modified street
standard be established for the undeveloped right-of-way ofthisplatandforsimilarsituations.The street standards
would generally follow the concept outlined in Ordinance
No.13,995,which covers the dedication of private streets
to the public.The general engineering requirements for the
modified standards would be as follows:
a.The pavement surface for undeveloped residentialstreetsshallbeaminimumof20'ide,with
adequate shoulders.The pavement surface for
undeveloped collector streets shall be a minimum
of 24'ide,with 6'houlders.The shoulders
shall have a minimum of a single asphaltic surface
treatment.The pavement in both cases must be of
asphaltic concrete or Portland concrete
construction.The pavement thickness shall be as
required in current City ordinances.
January 11,1983
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No.11 —Continued
b.The street shall have sufficient crown to permit
normal drainage from the pavement surface.
c.Street side drainage ditches shall be permitted,
except in those cases where the Planning
Commission determines that curb and gutter and/or
underground drainage is the only feasible method
to handle the drainage.
d.The street centerline elevation shall be set lower
than the elevation at the property line on the
high side of the proposed street to permit proper
drainage in the event that a curb is installed in
the future.
e.The street horizontal and vertical curves,grades
and other geometric conditions shall meet current
City ordinances.The new street centerline will
normally be placed in the center of the existing
right-of-way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(12-14-82)
The issue was presented by the Planning Staff and
Mr.Bob Lane of the Engineering Department.The Planning
Staff report requested that the Commission adopt a
resolution at its next meeting which would set forth the
Commission's policy,as well as the specifics of the
improvements to be provided.The policy would determine
which streets are to be closed,which are to be opened and
to what standards.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue and the reports
of planning and engineering at length and determined that
the staff should proceed with the formulation of the
resolution and plan elements for approval at the January 11,
1983 Commission meeting.The Commission confirmed this
action by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent and 1 open
position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(1-11-83)
The staff presented the final draft of the Resolution
including the elements discussed.
A brief discussion was held,followed by a motion to approve
the Resolution and forward it to the Board of Directors.
The votes —8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent,1 open position.
i ~-~
j
0
M M T
0tel
F
cn a I
M Es~~%41%~04
o
QK X CjI
Z S M ~Q 3 g $Q Q Q g O Q f M
h h4h Kq&~'G&
~W
CL Q Q
~g
M &Q $Q Q Q Q G
5 cC ~'5 ~Qg&i ~
U 0 el
U0QlMiD00 Ci o
Q M U)Ql A W 0 Ql0ClClW0 ra
D
January 11,1983
OTHER BUSINESS:
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was
adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
xrperson
Seer tar
2./w EQ
Da te
RESOLUTION NO.32
A RFSOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION ENDORSING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF CITY STAFF RELATIVE TO
THE GIBRALTER HEIGHTS STREET DEVELOPMENT
ISSUE AND RECOMMENDING SAME 70 THE BOARD
OF'IRECTORS.
WHFREAS,the staffs of the Engineering Department and
the Office of Comprehensive Planning have received requests
for opening of paper plat streets;and
WHFREAS,the City of Little Rock does not now have a
specific policy dealing with improvement of such streets;
and
WHFREAS,there are instances of.paper plats with
potential for development;and
WHFREAS,the recommended policy would aid in the
pursuit of affordable housing;and
WHEREAS,the existing policv applies an undue burden
upon small scale development.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS:
That the following stated policy and/or plan for
opening existing platted streets is of oublic -importance and
that the Board of.Directors is requested to review the plan
and adopt same as policy for.future requests.
The plan and/or policy as recommended is as follows:
A.In all instances,the review for opening of any
existing platted street right-of-way shall only be
accomplished after a formal request by the owner or owners
of record abut.ting the street.
B.In all instances,not less than one full block as
platted shall be opened and only in those instances where
the said block fully ties to existing public maintained
thoroughfare.
C.In all cases,the street segment to be opened
shall be reflected on the plan as appropr.iate.
In all instances where a plan is approved in
accordance with this policy,all streets indicated for
abandonment shall be vacated by action of the Board of
Directors.This action shall only occur as required by
specifics of the plan.
B.The criteria for filing a request to open a
right-of.-way shall be as follows:
(1)Plans in proper form for all physical improvements
preoared by a registered civil engineer.
(2)A cover letter from the owner or agent stating the
development proposal.This should include,but
not be limited to,identifying all ownerships
affected,the lot format as to dimension and
conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and a
development schedule.
(3)All material shall be filed with the Department of
Public Works.
F.The criteria for installation of improvements
within the open right-of-way shall be as follows:
(1)The owner or developer on an undeveloped
residential street shall provide designs by a
professional engineer as required by current
ordinances,and shall construct full street
improvements as a part of his development.The
owner or developer on an undeveloped collector
street shall prepare designs for full street
improvements and construct one-half street
improvements plus the additional street width
necessary to provide two way traffic.
(2)The pavement surface for undeveloped residential
streets sha1.)b:a minim m of ."0 eet wide with
adequate shoulders.The pavement surface for
undeveloped collector streets shall be a minimum
of 24 feet wide with 6 foot shoulders.The
shoulders shall have a minimum of a single
asphaltic surface treatment.The pavement in both
cases must be of asphaltic concrete or portland
concrete construction.The navement thickness
shall be as required in current City ordinances.
(3)The street shall have sufficient crown to permit
normal drainage from the pavement surface.
(4)street side drainage ditches shall be Permitted
except in those cases where the Planning
Commission determines that curb and gutter and/or
underground drainage is the only feasible method
to handle the drainage.
(5)The street centerline elevation shall be set lower
than the elevation at the property line,on the
high side of the proposed street,to permit proper
drainage in the event a curb is installed in the
future.
(C&)The street horizontal and vertical curves,grades,
and other geometric conditions shall meet current
City ordinances.The new street centerline wi11
normally be placed in the center of the existing
right-of.-way.
That the above plan and/or policy be instituted at the
earliest possible date.
//I 1ADOPTED:'Qody~Q~iI'//i'C)O
Date
APPEAR:;//~~X-APPROVED:
n Sch ereth,Chairman
/
/--/
/Na hani el tv).r if fin,Seer t ry