Loading...
pc_02 12 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 12, 1985 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A quorum was present being 10 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved. III. Members Present: IV. Members Absent: David Jones John Schelereth Bill Rector, Jr. William Ketcher Jerilyn Nicholson Jim Summerlin Richard Massie Ida Boles John Clayton Betty Sipes Dorothy Arnett V. City Attorney Present: Victra Fewell TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES February 12, 1985 Deferred Items A. "Forest Hills" Revised Preliminary B. Royal Star Construction Co. (Z- 3931 -D) C. Sugar Mill Site Plan Review (Z- 3931 -E) Preliminary Plats 1. Pecan Lake East 2. Kay Mobile Home Park 2A. "R -7" Rezoning Request 3. Hilltop Subdivision of Plat 2, Country Homes 4. Fellowship Bible and Asbury Church Preliminary 5. Capital Properties Plat 6. Brittany Point Addition 7. Whisperwood Addition Planned Unit Development 8. Ray Robinson Addition (Short Form PRD) (Z -4399) 9. The Bluffs Short Form PRD (Z -4396) Site Plan Review 10. Supersaver Store (Z- 3371 -C) Conditional Use Permit 11. North Van Buren (Z -4392) 12. Church of God (Z -4397) 13. Geyer Springs Methodist Church (Z -4398) Other Matters 14. Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment 15. Summerhill Fence Request Street and Alley Closures 16. 25th Street Closure ,_­1 February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Forest Hills Revised Preliminary LOCATION: North End of Foxcroft Road - 3800 Block APPLICANT /ENGINEER: Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 664 -0003 STAFF REPORT This submission represents the third revision of plans for the site in the last two months. The previous submission, which proposed access through Robinwood, was denied by the Commission last month. This plan consists of 15 single family lots, which take access off of a cul -de -sac leading from Foxcroft Road. As before, staff has no problems with the development of the property as single family, since it is a compatible use. The only problems related to design. Lots 7 and 8 are pipe stem lots, but with other lots also taking access from the stem. Staff feels that the plan should be redesigned, so that each lot has its own stem or there is a common drive. Also, staff feels that the applicant should consider redesigning Lot 4. Staff recognizes that if the street is extended to the plat boundry, double frontage lots would be created in the abutting Subdivision to the west; however, it is still felt that the applicant should try to resolve the issue. If the cul -de -sac is in excess of 7501, a waiver will be needed. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (1) Request Foxcroft Road be extended as a collector. (2) Request preliminary information on the grade of cul -de -sac. (3) Construct guardrail type barricade at the end of Foxcroft Road or a cul -de -sac turnaround. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: �" Approval, subject to comments made. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff's main concern related to the design of some lots with pipe stem access. Staff felt that the ownership of the easement should be more clearly delineated. Also, the Commitee expressed concern about the proposed street's proximity to houses in Robinwood. The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan changing the location of the street. The applicant felt that the proposed street represented a better alignment. However, the Committee felt that neighborhood objection would be likely and could be prevented if the plan was revised. The applicant requested to amend the application and request a waiver of sidewalks. Engineering felt that sidewalks would not serve any meaningful purpose on this street because of the minimal length. The applicant agreed to extend Foxcroft as a collector and notify Lot 53 in Robinwood of the proposal. Water Works - A 15' easement is required adjacent to the west and south lines of Lot 8. Provide access and utility easements to all lots that do not have frontage on a street right -of -way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The developer and his engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, were present. Mr. Richardson submitted a revised plan that addressed most of the issues identified by the Subdivision Committee. The remaining issue to be discussed at the public hearing was the location of the cul -de -sac in close proximity to Robinwood. Mr. Richardson still contended that such a revision would result in a bad layout. He felt that physically this represented the best location since it would be located below the foundation of the Robinwood homes and would place at least 100 to 135 feet of distance between houses in this subdivision and Robinwood, which is much more than an abutting subdivision would. If the cul -de -sac was moved to the east, Mr. Richardson felt that parcel B (a land locked tract, south of Lot 50 and west of Lot 7) would be abutted by two lots that would increase its likelihood for access. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Several persons from the neighborhood were present. Their main concern was the location of the cul -de -sac so close to Robinwood. Mr. Tim Bolen felt that double frontage lots would be created and requested that this plan should be designed so that it took the brunt of the traffic instead of Robinwood. He offered to support the plan if the street was shifted eastward. Ms. Marilyn Schultz, the owner of Lots 50 and 51, was concerned about a possible erosion problem. Since it appeared that she will be most directly impacted by traffic, she also requested that the street be moved. Mr. Richardson felt that if he shortened the cul -de -sac, he might need to lengthen the access drives. The question then arose as to the feasibility of developing this parcel. If it was developed, how many lots could it support? One commissioner felt that the real question was if land is developed to its highest and best use, do you develop it to the detriment of your neighbors, or do you contain this detriment within the proposed subdivision? '^ Finally, a motion for approval was made, but failed to pass for lack of an affirmative vote: 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 abstention (noes: Ketcher, Summerlin, Massie, Sipes and Rector). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Several alternate plans were discussed with the Commission. The issue remained the proposed location of the cul -de -sac. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff explained that the issue remained the location of the cul -de -sac in proximity to Robinwood. The applicant's representative, Mr. Bob Richardson, explained that his preference was to locate the cul -de -sac 50 feet from Robinwood, but he had been unable to reach an agreement with the abutting property owners. Mr. Lloyd McCain of Robinwood Development Company, the predecessors of the original developers of Robinwood Addition, spoke in behalf of the applicant. He explained that it was not economically advantageous 25 years ago to develop the entire ownership; thus, portions including �. Parcel B were excluded at the time of development. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Recently, he has discovered that this parcel will be landlocked. He had also made an offer to sell the parcel to abutting property owners in Robinwood at a discounted price, on the restriction that it will be maintained as a greenbelt, and conditioned upon the property owners that currently object to this project working out an agreement with the applicant. Numerous persons from the Foxcroft and Robinwood neighbods were present. Spokespersons included: (1) Ms. Lila Black, president of the Foxcroft Garden Club, who submitted a petition expressing concern over the extension of Foxcroft as a collector down to the river; (2) Mr. Michael Bryant who requested a comprehensive plan of the area; (3) Mr. Russell Drawn who agreed with Mr. Bryant and questioned the outcome of plans for extending Foxcroft to access other lands to the north; and (4) Mr. Tim Bollen from Robinwood who also requested a total picture of what was to happen in the area. The Commission discussed the proposal. Questions arose as .t^ to whether or not the Commission was responsible for providing access to a person that by his own sale of property, denied it to himself and whether or not the applicant should be required to submit /and include 40 acres of additional acreage in a preliminary sketch in order to examine the full impact of the Foxcroft extension and other related issues. Finally, a motion was made for a 30 -day deferral, conditioned upon: (1) Submittal of a pre - preliminary on other lands owned by the developer under option and that shows the relationship to Robinwood. (2) Legal opinion from the City Attorney on Section 37.20 (subparagraph g) as it relates to this property in Tract D. (3) Engineering formulating an opinion on whether Foxcroft should be downgraded from 36' to 27' street. The motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. (The no votes: Rector, Ketcher, Schlereth) February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 102 -B NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: First Service Corp. Pecan Lake East (Revised) East end of Tall Timber, west end of Hindman Park ENGINEER: Manes, Castin, Massie & McGetrick P.O. Box 1035 2501 Willow N. Little Rock, AR 72115 758 -1360 AREA: 34.177 acres NO. OF LOTS: 97 FT. NEW STREET: 3,500 ZONING: "R- 211/ "R -3" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Cul -de -sac link on Tall Timber (1,300 feet) 2. Tall Timber Court (850 feet) A. Site History Proposals incorporating 21 of these lots for a preliminary plat approval and a rezoning request from 11R -2" to "R -3" was approved on this property in the last few months. B. Existing Conditions This property is located in an area that has been developed primarily as single family residential. The site is currently wooded with mature vegetation and trees. The 100 -year floodplain is apparent on the northern end. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to subdivide 34.177 acres into 97 lots for single family development. Twenty -one of r, these lots were previously approved. 3,500 feet of new street will be provided. Waivers are requested for February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 102 -B - Continued cul -de -sac lengths on Tall Timber Boulevard and Tall Timber Court, due to the physical constraints on the site. D. Engineering Comments 1. Reduce size of intersection of Tall Timber Boulevard and Tall Timber Court; make a "T" intersection. 2. Request clarifiction of curb radius on Tall Timber Boulevard at Lot 84. 3. For those lots that are in the floodplain, place minimum floor elevations on the plat. E. Analysis Staff has no objections to the proposal, provided the applicant transfer title to Lots A, B and C to the City before the preliminary is signed. He should also coordinate the street names with David Hathcock at 371 -4808. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: It was decided that the applicant should get with Engineering and work toward resolution of the curve radius issue and that the applicant would transfer title to the City for Tracts A, B and C before the final is signed. Water Works - a 15' easement is required adjacent to the west and south lines of Lot 8. Utility easements will be required for service to any lot that does not have frontage on the right -of -way. Water Works - 15' easements, 7.5' either side of the lot lines, will be required between Lots 29 and 30 and between Lots 64 and 65. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 102 -B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Chris McGetrick represented the applicant. A neighbor to the southeast of the site expressed the need for a stub -out street. Mr. Claude Conley, another abutting property owner, was concerned about the effect this development with smaller lots would have on the property value of homes in Pecan Lake. He was also particularly concerned about the possibility of a mobile home development. He was assured that the lots had a minimum of 50' width, but also ranged up to 80' in width, and that no mobile homes would be placed on the property. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. r` February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 361 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: W.A. Jones #9 Don Drive Little Rock, AR 455 -3316 455 -3480 Kay Mobile Home Subdivision Approximately 800 feet east of Alexander Road, south side of Highway 5 RMnTNFPP Bickerstaff, Inc. 1809 West 35th Street N. Little Rock, AR 72118 AREA: 20.35 acres NO. OF LOTS: 97 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: 11C -4" PROPOSED USES: Mobile Homes VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions This property is located in a rural -like area near the County Line. The land is flat and has scattered trees. An existing mobile home park is located to the west of the property. C. Development Proposal The applicant would like to develop a mobile home prak according to "R -7" requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the mobile home subdivision requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. He plans to provide 97 spaces with 10' x 30' concrete patios. Each space will have concrete curbs and double concrete parking spaces. A private street system is requested. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 361 - Continued D. Engineering Comments (1) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Highway 5 to arterial standards. Plans to be approved by the City and the Highway Department. (2) Submit internal drainage plans to include detention. Plans to be discussed with Mike Batie, 371 -4861, prior to submittal. (3) If internal streets are to be public, discuss turning radius with the City Engineer's Office. E. Analysis The application is deficient. The applicant should fulfill the requirements dated in both ordinances. The applicant should make sure that: (1) All mobile home sites have been a minimum of 4,000 square feet and maximum density of 8 units per acre. (2) 25' side and rear yard shall be provided around the park. (3) Minimum width of a space at the platted setback line shall be 40' and minimum depth 1001. Corner spaces should be 601. (4) Minimum separation between homes shall be 20'. (5) Minimum setback from any service easement should be 20'. (6) Open unenclosed awnings and carports may occupy only 45 percent of required minimum spacing between mobiile homes. (7) Each space shall have at least two 9' x 20' paved parking spaces. (8) No mobile home having double frontage shall take access on a dedicated public street. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 361 - Continued (9) A paved storage area shall be provided at a central location at the rate of 50 square feet per mobile home for outdoor storage of boats, campers, etc. (10) Common recreation space shall be provided at the rate of 500 square feet per mobile home. (11) A site plan should be submitted, along with the plat, incorporating the above and all other specirfied requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral until application complies with regulations. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A revised plan increasing the amount of lots and adding a second entrance was presented. He requested to be allowed to waive the required amount of storage area for boats and campers, since he would provide longer lots with a concrete pad that would accomplish the same thing. His playground area, also, was noted as being insufficient. Engineering gave support for the private street system. It was agreed that the applicant would: (1) Shorten the length of the lots around the recreation space to increase the amount of recreation space. (2) Have no access to Highway 5 from the lots. (3) Get with Water Works to work out location of fire hydrants, etc. (4) Shorten the 50' right -of -way on the west by lengthening Lot 22. (5) Improve Highway 5. (6) Provide an easement to the playground. (7) Provide internal drainage plan. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 361 - Continued Water Works - 6" or 8" on -site water mains will be required. A 15' easement will be required adjacent to the east side of the development and between two lots on the east side to allow access for water service. A private street should be designated as access for water service. A private street should be designated as access in utility easements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted. An abutting property owner, Mrs. Jones, requested a fence on the east side of the property. The applicant agreed. A motion for approval of the plan, subject to a 6' opaque fence on the entire east side of the property, was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2A - Z- 3780 -A NAME: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PURPOSE: SIZE: W.A. Jones Same By: Mike Jones Stagecoach Road east of County Line Rezone from "I -2" and "C -4" to "R -7" (Mobile Home Park) Mobile Home Park 20 acres + EXISTING USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant South - Vacant East - Single "C -4" West - Mobile and "C STAFF ANALYSIS: and Industrial, Zoned "R -2" and "I -2" and Commercial, Zoned "R -7" and "C -4" Family and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and Home Park and Commercial, Zoned 11R -7" -391 The proposal is to rezone 20 acres + to 11R -7" for a mobile home park. The "R -7" district "is created for the specific purpose of establishing reasonable sites and providing for the development of mobile home parks or courts at appropriate locations. It is the intent of this ordinance that this district be located so as to not adversely effect the established residential development patterns and densities of the City." The property in question is located along Highway No. 5 close to the county line with an existing line mobile home park to the west and abutting vacant land or nonresidential uses on all four sides. This location appears to meet the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The project should have very little impact on the surrounding area because of the existing development pattern. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2A - Continued This area is part of the Otter Creek Plan which is still in the preliminary draft, but the plan does identify the location for mobile or manufactured housing. Because of this, the staff supports the requested rezoning. The proposed density for the park is approximately six units per acre which is less than the allowable density of eight units per acre. In addition, the preliminary plat appears to meet all other zoning Ordinance requirements for this type of development. With frontage on Highway No. 5 (Stagecoach Road) which is classified as a principal arterial, dedication of additional right -of -way will be required. One final item is the long -range use of the property. The owner's plan is to use the land a maximum of eight to ten years for a mobile home park and then develop or sell the area for commercial uses. This would include the existing mobile home park to the west and create a large sellable commercial tract. The site does have some commercial potential because to the southeast a new outlet mall is currently under construction and its general location with good access to the interstate and visibility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R -7" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Mike Jones, was present. There was an adjoining property owner in attendance. Mr. Jones spoke briefly and discussed the proposal. Jennie Jones, a property owner to the east, was not objecting to the "R -7" rezoning, but was concerned about the fencing requirements. Staff advised the Commission and Ms. Jones that the preliminary plat showed a 6 -foot opaque fence. The Commission then voted to approve the request as filed. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Joe De Palo #4 River Mountain Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Hilltop Subdivision Preliminary of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition North side of River Mountain, Rodney Parham & Highway 10 ENCINEER! Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375 -5331 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 690 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Site History The site was before the Commission on December 18, 1984, for PRD approval of a condominium project. The application was denied. B. Exsiting Conditions The land involved currently has one single family frame residence on the site. Elevations range from 525 to 570'. Scattered trees and other vegetation are apparent. The area consists of large lots, single family, except for a church to the south of the site. "OS" strip serves as a buffer area between the church and the property. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 5.013 acres into 19 lots for single family development, with 690 feet of new streets. The average lot size is approximately 11,486 square feet and the minimum is 7,350 square feet. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Improve River Mountain Road to minor arterial standards. River Mountain Road and the right -of -way is controlled by A.H.T.D.; discuss street and drainage plans with them. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plan; discuss plan with Mike Batie, 371 -4861. E. Analysis Technically, the proposal meets the ordinance requirements. Staff does not oppose the use of the land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW The applicant discussed the proposal with the Committee. He explained that the Bill of Assurance restrictions expired in 1964; the homes would be 1800 -2000 sq. ft. and the plan remained open for the Commission's input as to how to develop the property or what restrictions to place in the Bill of Assurance. Staff gave its support of the plat, but stated that both the Suburban Plan and the recent corridor study designates this area for large -lot single family. The Committee then discussed whether or not this plan constituted large -lot single family. One Committee member felt that this plan was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Other Committee members requested that an alternate plan with a mid -rise overlooking the river, be submitted. They felt that such a plan reviewed under the PUD process would maintain the existing frontage and visual quality of the area. The applicant was advised that t responsibility was to assess the �- proposal to the entire area, not that whatever development occurs precedent and have a significant hillside will be developed. he Commission's overall impact of the only the site. They felt on this site, would set a impact on how the entire February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Joe DePalo, was present. He was accompanied by Mr. Joe Kemp, his attorney, and Mr. Don Chambers, the architect. An alternative plan showing a mid -rise was presented, as was requested by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Chambers explained that his client was attempting to use his property to its highest and best use. They felt that the highest and best use was once large lot residential, but since development of the church, it is now a denser residential use. He also explained that the property could contain 25 lots, but he only proposed 19. If the mid -rise were to be considered as a PUD, it was requested that the single family plat be continued until the PUD was approved or denied. Mr. Chambers further explained that the proposed plan included homes of 1800 to 2000 square feet at a cost of $150,000 to $200,000; and that his client's general feeling was that the total environment of the property would change due to the intrusion of the church, which was a nonresidential use. He stated this proposal only represented an attempt to buffer the office use by a higher residential use. Mr. DePalo then explained his position. He had acquired the property in 1981 and was advised that the corridor was subject to be changed, but that "R -2" would be the prevailing use. At the time, he was unaware that a church could be built in the area. When the church was considered by the Commission, he asked his neighbors to join him opposing it; but they didn't. He then proceeded to pass pictures around illustrating the damaging effects of the church. He stated that he was a landowner within the law who had the right to develop his property. He assured the Commission that he intended to reside on the land and that his approach was not that of vengeance. He mentioned that Mr. Darragh had made what he considered to be a "hollow gesture" to purchase his property. Mr. Herb Rule represented the property owners to the east. He felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the neighborhood and that his clients had tried unsuccessfully to work with DePalo. He stated that there was a sign up for 8 to 10 years on the church property before Mr. DePalo bought the church property advertising the construction of a �'. church and that during Commission review, the church was required to leave two acres and green space as a protective buffer for Mr. DePalo. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued Mr. Darragh agreed that he was asked by Mr. DePalo to oppose the church. He explained that he couldn't since the residents to the east knew that a church would be built and preferred this to a commercial or office use. He assured the Commission that if he bought DePalo's property, it would remain large lot single family. Mr. DePalo spoke again. He questioned whether or not his neighbors to the east should have been knowledgeable about the "R -2" zoning, just as he was expected to be knowledgeable about the church in an "R -2" zone. Mr. Rule stated that the property should be zoned "R -1,' instead of "R -2." He felt that "R -2" was an insult to the property. The Commission discussed the item. Several Commissioners had mixed feelings about the development since it was realized that Mr. DePalo had the right to develop his property. On the other hand, a proposal of 19 or 20 lots would be a drastic departure from what was existing, and the ✓�. neighbors also had the right not to have their entire environment totally uprooted. It was explained that the Commission's duty was to consider not only this site but what was fair on both sides and what was beneficial for the community at- large. The Commission felt that what happened on this property determined how the entire hillside would be developed. Mr. DePalo was asked to defer the item for 30 days and work out a solution with abutting property owners. Mr. DePalo stated that he resented the fact that he was within the law and still had to compromise on a right that he is entitled to enjoy. He felt that there must be some question that right existed. Finally, he agreed to defer for 30 days and work out a solution with his neighbors. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. r� February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - File No. 403 -A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Fellowship Bible Church and Asbury United Methodist Church Fellowship Bible and Asbury Church Preliminary On Napa Valley between Hinson and Rainwood ENGINEER: Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664 -0003 AREA: 14.0 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 350 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Church Site VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. STAFF REPORT: This is a proposal to replat 14.0 acres into two lots. The plat was due to one church's playground encroaching on the other's property. This represents a land swap to clear up the property line dispute. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Dedicate right -of -way to minor arterial standards. 2. Improve Napa Valley Road to minor arterial standards with the next building permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to Engineering comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission, subject to Engineering's requirements. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - File No. 362 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Capital Savings & Loan Association Capital Properties Preliminary West side of Thibault Road, approximately 1,600 feet south of Frazier Pike VMnTMPPD- Garver & Garver P.O. Box C -50 Little Rock, AR 72203 -0050 376 -3633 AREA: 35.0 acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 1,450 ZONING: 1'I -2" PROPOSED USES: Industrial A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions This property is located in the Little Rock Industrial Port Area. The land involved is flat and grass covered. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat 35 acres into 10 lots for industrial use and 1,050' of new street. No waivers have been requested. D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right -of -way and improve Thibault Road to industrial standards. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plan; discuss plan with Mike Batie at 371 -4861. 3. Make cul -de -sac bulbs with a 130' right -of -way and 100' pavement. v February 12, 1985 rte- SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - File No. 362 E. Analysis The submitted industrial plat does not indicate the required 50' front building lines. Lots 3, 9 and 10 have a minimal amount of frontage on a public street. This is acceptable since culs -de -sac are involved. Lot widths are usually measured at the building line, except in the case of culs -de -sac, where the average width of the lot shall be used. The applicant should submit a revised plan. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to submit the revised plat reflecting building lines. Water Works - A 15' easement will be required, 7.5' either side of the lot line between Lots 4 and 5. An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Doug Toney, property owner to the west, requested access through this development to his property. Mr. Ronnie Hall of Garver and Garver proposed a 60' strip for access that would be included in the Bill of Assurance. Staff did point out that you could not have primary access to one property through another development. It was decided that the applicant should indicate it as a separate tract labeled, "Tract A." A motion for approval, based on the above comments, was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. ,__*_1 February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 359 NAME: Brittany Point Addition LOCATION: Approximately 1,200 feet east of Arch Street, north side of Dixon Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Jack Files Robert D. Holloway, Inc. 800 Dixon Road 200 Casey Drive Little Rock, AR 72206 Maumelle, AR 72118 851 -3366 AREA:118.134 acres NO. OF LOTS: 22 FT. NEW STREET: 5,300 ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Elimination of Baseline extension through the property (from the Master Street Plan). A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions The land involved is located in a rural -like area consisting or large acreage tracts. The site involved is currently covered with mature vegetation. The Suburban Plan identifies the area as for mining resources. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat a tract of 118.134 acres into 22 lots for single family development and 5,300 feet of new street. The applicant envisions that the land will be developed as 5 -acre estate size tracts. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the lots to front on a private cul -de -sac, which is of excessive length (over 750 feet); and that February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 359 - Continued the Master Street Plan extension of Baseline, going through the property, be eliminated. He feels that it is "inconceivable that construction is imminent, not really needed and economical for the City to undertake because ": (1) The cost of the 5,300' of roadway would be $600,000. (2) Adequate right -of -way and thoroughfare exist, namely, Arch Street (S.H. 367) and Dixon Road (S.H. 338). (3) Construction of this alignment would not diminish need for future widenings of the above State highways. (4) Inconceivable that anyone would construct the facilities described in order to save only 4,000 feet of length. (5) The experience obtained in England Acres Subdivision proves the cost to be incurred will be expensive because of the amount of Granite in the area. (6) Slopes just east of Baseline are 13.5 percent in excess of that type of street. (7) Character of the area is rural estate -type residential /mining; and the immediate surrounding area is wooded or consists of metal lands, all of which compliments the intended use. (8) Construction of the Baseline extension would completely change the character of the existing area and cause development similar to that adjacent to U.S. Highway 65. The applicant further requests that the Planning Commission: (1) Grant approval of the subdivision or part of the subdivision, with the owner and City Engineering working on a more suitable and defined alignment of the proposed extension; or February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 359 - Continued The Suburban Plan shows this as a mineral resources area; however, due to the large lot type of development, staff does not feel the proposed is out of character with the area. The applicant is asked to please submit a revised preliminary with the required building lines. The sewer system will have to be approved by the State Health Department. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves recommendation until the Master Street Plan is discussed with the City Engineers. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Bob Lane, of the City's Engineering Department, reported that he had met with a representative of the State, and it was determined that the proposed alignment would be needed. The issue was complicated further by the fact that the terrain placed limits on proposing the connection around the property; however, he did mention that the alignment was not fixed and there could possibly be some modifications. The applicant agreed to: (1) meet with the City and State Engineering staffs to resolve the issue; (2) get an approval letter from the State Health Department for septic tanks; (3) submit a revised plan with a 100' building line for the lots; and (4) build the private street to public street standards. Engineering agreed to accept rule standards as approved by County Planning. Water Works - An 8" main extension will be required. Monthly Improvement District charges will be assessed for Lots 1, 2, 3, 21 and 22 (all lots with Improvement District No. 16). There will also be a charge of $100 per acre assessed for all property within this proposed subdivision. Private streets should be designated as access and utility easements. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 359 - Continued The Suburban Plan shows this as a mineral resources area; however, due to the large lot type of development, staff does not feel the proposed is out of character with the area. The applicant is asked to please submit a revised preliminary with the required building lines. The sewer system will have to be approved by the State Health Department. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves recommendation until the Master Street Plan is discussed with the City Engineers. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Bob Lane, of the City's Engineering Department, reported that he had met with a representative of the State, and it was determined that the proposed alignment would be needed. The issue was complicated further by the fact that the terrain placed limits on proposing the connection around the property; however, he did mention that the alignment was not fixed and there could possibly be some modifications. The applicant agreed to: (1) meet with the City and State Engineering staffs to resolve the issue; (2) get an approval letter from the State Health Department for septic tanks; (3) submit a revised plan with a 100' building line for the lots; and (4) build the private street to public street standards. Engineering agreed to accept rule standards as approved by County Planning. Water Works - An 8" main extension will be required. Monthly Improvement District charges will be assessed for Lots 1, 2, 3, 21 and 22 (all lots with Improvement District No. 16). There will also be a charge of $100 per acre assessed for all property within this proposed subdivision. Private streets should be designated as access and utility easements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral so that he could revise the plat and comply with the notice requirements. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - File No. 355 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Whisperwood Apartments P.O. Box 7463 Pine Bluff, AR Whisperwood Addition Baseline Road and Victoria Drive ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72203 -3837 375 -5331 AREA: 4.125 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -5" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily A. Site History This site was considered for an "R -5" rezoning to accommodate the existing apartment use on October 30, 1984. The Commission approved the rezoning. B. Existing Conditions The site in question is flat and currently has six buildings on it that house 94 apartments. C. Development Proposal The applicant is requesting Planing Commission review of this proposal, so that an approved subdivision may be obtained, which would eliminate any problems in rebuilding in the event of a casualty. The applicant proposes to replat the property to consolidate eight lots into two lots and to revise the existing building lines. Formal approval of the following variances will be needed: (1) 25' front setback in Lot 1 along Baseline Road and Victoria Drive. (2) 5' side yard along west line of Lot 1. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - File No. 355 - Continued (3) 25' rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 2. (4) Detach building separation between buildings. (5) Half street improvements to Baseline Road. The setbacks will be varied to comply with the dimensions, as shown on the plat. D. Engineering Comments None. E. Analysis This project was originally built in the 1960's and outside of the City, thus explains its failure to adhere to current regulations. The applicant has worked closely with the staff to develop a resolution to the problem. In effect, a new building line is being created around the perimeter of these buildings. In the case of casualty, the applicant will be allowed to rebuild only in the approved areas. Staff has only one question regarding the failure of the buildings on the west to meet the required 10' separation. The applicant should indicate whether or not the face of the northern building is oriented toward the south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was advised to meet with the Fire Department and Water Works. Water Works - A 6" or 8" on -site fire line is required. An acreage charge of $150 per acre will also apply. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 356 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Ray Robinson Ray Robinson Addition "Short Form PRD" (Z -4399) Pinnacle Valley west of Little Rock Yacht Club PWCTNFRP Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664 -0003 AREA: 4.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 300 ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Residential A. Site History None. B. Proposal 1. The development of a 0 lot line, paired single family subdivision of 11 lots and 1 tract of 4.78 acres. 2. Sewer will be by package plan upon approval by the State Health Department. 3. Water will be from the City of Little Rock. C. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right -of -way and improve Pinnacle Valley Road to minor arterial standards for both property sections that front on the roadway. 2. Right -of -way will be required for the western turnout at the intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road. 3. Submit internal drainage and detention plan; discuss this plan with Mike Batie - 371 -4861. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 356 - Continued D. Analysis Staff has a number of immediate concerns with the plan as submitted. The applicant should address /do the following: (1) The consistency between acreage submitted on plat and in cover letter. (2) Explain need for zero lot line development proposed, since the plan conists of large lots. (3) Provide appropriate dimensioning, development objectives, etc. In other words, comply with PUD submission, site plan requirements. (4) Indicate when out - parcel to south was severed. If after 1958, then it has to be a part of this plat. %1 (5) Explain relationship of Tract A to the other tract. All of applicant's ownership must be included in the plat, which would possibly make this a long -form PUD. Staff considers this a premature application that is deficient as it relates to the submission requirements and information provided. E. Staff Recommendation Deferral until further information is received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff's comments were discussed with the applicant. He described the project as being "single family attached" housing, similar to that developed in the Woodland Hills PRD. He stated that he did not want to do a long form PUD, but would provide a preliminary with the ownership shown and inclusive of all the required details. The possibility of common drives was discussed. The applicant felt that if driveways were shared, then a question of responsibility arose. The applicant was advised to work out the details and possible legal problems associated with this type housing and the Bill of Assurance. Water Works - All lots must have at least 15' frontage on the right-of-way for service. Tract A will not have service. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 356 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were numerous persons present from the neighborhood. The applicant requested that he be allowed to modify the application from a "PUD" to a preliminary plat for single family development. This request was prompted by a meeting he had with the neighborhood. A motion to amend the application and defer for 30 days was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - File No. 360 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Cromwell /Crain, Owners AGENT: Nat Griffin Flake & Company P.O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72203 376 -8005 The Bluffs "Short Form" PRD (Z -4396) Northwest corner of North Gaines and Garland ENGINEER: Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker & Woodsmall, Inc. #1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR AREA: 1.63 acres NO. OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD (Proposed) PROPOSED USES: Residential /Office A. Site History None. B. Development Objectives 1. To provide infill development that is consistent with official City planning policy (downtown plan); which "proposes that the south bank be redeveloped as an 'Urban Village' or high density residential community." 2. To optimize a unique and highly accessible location and maximize on the attractive views over the Arkansas River. 3. The removal of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site. C. Proposal 1. The development of a high density apartment complex and two three -story buildings on two separate tracts, consisting of 1.63 acres. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - File No. 360 - Continued 2. Building data Unit No. 8 44 12 Unit Type 2- bedroom 1- bedroom efficiency 3. 97 parking spaces /1.52 spaces per unit. 4. Development schedule - ground breaking will be in early 1985, with the completion date the latter part of the year. 5. Building coverage, 25 percent of the site. 6. Street closure - Closure of Gaines Street, north of Garland. AP &L owns property east of Gaines. They have indicated a willingness to transfer ownership of that portion of Gaines Street they will obtain through the closure to the development in exchange for easement rights across the site. D. Engineering Comments The City has a drainage project planned that will use North Gaines Street. An easement will be required along the east side of the street for the full length of Gaines Street. The drainage structure would be placed under one and possibly two of the proposed units. Request a discussion with the City Engineer to resolve this conflict. E. Analysis Staff does not oppose the concept of the development. The applicant, however, should provide a fully dimensioned site plan indicating the setbacks, distances from property lines and provide a landscaping plan. Due to Engineering's comments, several of the eastern most units may be lost. This should not pose too much of a problem since the density is about 39 units per acre. If it does, the applicant should feel free to devise an alternate route for the drainage. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - File No. 360 - Continued A separate application for the street abandonment should be filed. Since it is a part of The Original City Subdivision, the City will have to quit -claim deed it to the applicant. A plat should be filed to incorporate the street abandonment and to reflect the needed easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He agreed to get the approval of the Fire Department and work out the location of the easement with the City's Engineering staff. Water Works - 6' or 8" on -site fire line and hydrant will be required. 15' easements should be retained, 7.5' either side of existing water main in Gaines Street. 11� PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made and passed for a 30 -day deferral as requested by the applicant. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: LOCATION: Super Saver Store Site Plan Review (Z- 3371 -C) NW of the Intersection of Talley Road and Colonel Glenn Road OWNER /APPLICANT: Folmar and Associates /Garver and Garver, Ronnie Hall PROPOSAL: To construct a 99,000 square foot retail outlet and approximately 608 parking spaces on 10.94 acres of land that is zoned "C -2." ANALYSIS: The staff generally supports this proposal. This proposal meets ordinance parking requirements. The applicant will, however, need to submit a landscape plan that meets ordinance requirements. In addition, the application needs to show the required 40 foot landscape front yard setback (no parking allowed within this front yard setback). The City Engineer's comments are as follows: (1) improve Colonel Glenn Road to arterial standards, including the dedication of right -of -way and the widening to a 5 -lane section. The street placement is to be approved by the City and the State Highway Department; (2) discuss the proposed detention plan with Mike Batie; (3) discuss the future collector on the east property line, with regard to a possible offset from Talley Road, that the time that the collector street is to be constructed, and to discuss by whom the collector is to be constructed; (4) request minor changes to the parking islands at the western driveway entrance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a landscape plan; (2) submit a revised site plan, including the 40 -foot front yard landscape setback; and (3) comply with Engineering comments No. 1 through No. 4. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The applicant agreed to comply with staff recommendations and meet with the City Engineer to work out the collector street and easternmost drive issue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The staff stated that all issues had been resolved. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Commissioner Rector) to approve this application as recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicant. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: North Van Buren Conditional Use Permit (Z -4392) LOCATION: One Block South of Lee Avenue on North Van Buren (406 N. Van Buren Street) OWNER /APPLICANT: C.R. Sawrie and Fred Johnson PROPOSAL: To convert an existing single family structure (846 square feet) to a duplex by adding approximately 720 square feet to the structure as well as four parking spaces on land that is zoned "R -3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: Site Location This site fronts on a collector street (North Van Buren). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property fronts on a collector street and is surrounded by a single family on three sides with a triplex located on the east. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing four parking spaces located to the rear of the property with one access to be taken from North Van Buren Street on an alley located to the north of the property. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant is proposing to landscape on the east, north and south of the property. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued 5. Analysis Staff feels that this proposal will not adversely effect the surrounding properties. This proposal also meets ordinance requirements. Engineering comments will be made at the meeting. 6. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to Engineering comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The City Engineer stated that their comments about the possible improvements to the alley would be made at the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant agreed to comply with staff recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Mr. Ernie Peck objected to a parking problem that sometimes existed in the alley. The Commission informed him that he could call the City to remove vehicles that block public access. The City Engineer stated that the alley should be paved for the length of the lot. The applicant agreed to all Planning Commission requirements. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Church of God Conditional Use Permit (Z -4397) North Side of West 65th Street just east of Windsor Drive (6920 West 65th Street) Church of God /Howard Wright To construct an asphalt drive on the west property line, a parking lot approximately 25 spaces, a 4,000 square foot educational building and a canopy on the rear of the existing building on land that is zoned "R -2." This site fronts on an arterial street (West 65th Street). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This church use is existing and is surrounded on all four sides by a single family. The single family lots on the east and west are quite large. Staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This site has one paved access (east side) to West 65th Street and 24 paved parking spaces. The proposal contains 1 additional paved drive (west side) and 25 paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. --' February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that this proposal will not adversely effect the surrounding area. The proposal does not meet ordinance parking requirements. Sixty paved parking spaces are required. The applicant will also have to meet City landscape requirements. Engineering comments are as follows: (1) the applicant needs to provide an in -lieu contribution for improvement to West 65th Street; and (2) the applicant will also need to dedicate the right -of -way to minor arterial standards (or prove that dedication has already been made). 6. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan to include 60 paved parking spaces; (2) submit a landscape plan; and ( 3 ) comply with Engineering comments No. 1 and No. 2. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He agreed to comply with staff's recommendations. The applicant did have some reservations about an in -lieu contribution on West 65th Street. The staff informed the applicant that the in -lieu contribution would not be required until an application was made for a building permit. The staff also informed the applicant that the Fire Department had requested a 20 -foot wide access drive on the west property line (the proposed drive). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The staff stated that a letter objecting to the poor drainage of the parking lot had been received. The applicant stated that he didn't feel his church could afford an in -lieu contribution for the West 65th Street improvements. The City Engineer stated that the in -lieu contribution would be $4,800 and would be required at the time of the issuance of the church building permit. The Commission explained that the in -lieu requirement is a matter of policy and standard operating procedure. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: Geyer Springs Methodist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z -4398) LOCATION: Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Geyer Springs Road and Mabelvale Pike ( 5500 Geyer Springs Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Board of Trustees Geyer Springs Methodist Church/ Norris Sparks PROPOSAL: To construct a service drive from Mabelvale Pike, and a 7,334 square feet (approx.) addition on 2.05+ acres of land that is zoned "R -2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This property fronts (and sides) on two minor arterials (Geyer Springs Road on the east and Mabelvale Pike on the West). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property lies in a mixed use area. Commercial uses exist on the north, east and west. A single family use exists adjacent to the south. This proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This property currently contains 36 paved parking spaces and 3 access drives. Two access drives are located on Geyer Springs Road and 1 drive is located on Mabelvale Pike. The proposal will eliminate the access drive on Mabelvale Pike and part of the existing parking. 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff supports the existing use and does not feel that the proposal will adversely affect the surrounding area. Staff does have some concern about parking. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan to include 60 paved parking spaces as per ordinance requirement. The applicant also needs to submit a landscape plan. The proposed sideyard on Mabelvale Pike has two intrusions, but the overall average setback is acceptable. The Engineering comments are as follows: (1) dedicate right -of -way and improve Geyer Springs Road to minor arterial standards. Dedicate and improve the intersection of Mabelvale Pike and Geyer Springs Road; (2) request that the Project Engineer meet with the City Engineer to discuss the right-of-way and street improvements to Geyer Springs Road and Mabelvale Pike, and the internal drainage and detention plan (371- 4861); (3) Mabelvale Pike is currently a minor arterial street. Engineering will propose a downgrade to a collector standard in the future. Construction on Mabelvale pike should be deferred until a later permit. 6. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan, which includes a minimum of 60 paved parking spaces; (2) submit a landscape plan; and (3) comply with Engineering Comments No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The applicant agreed to comply with all of staff's recommendations except the recommendation regarding parking. The applicant stated that the church population would not be increased by this approval and that they had met City standards when they had first constructed the building. The applicant stated that he would work to increase existing parking by restriping, and would add a strip of north /south parking for the width of the proposed future parking area as suggested by the Subdivision Committee. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and had Bill Spivey, an attorney, speak in behalf of the church. The City Engineer stated that they had dropped the construction requirement that they had requested for the intersection of Mabelvale Pike and Geyer Springs Road. The City Engineer further stated that the dedication of right -of -way at the aforementioned intersection would still be required. Mr. Spivey stated that the church appreciated the City's not requiring the construction of Mabelvale Pike, but the church did not feel that they should be required to dedicate the intersection, construct Geyer Springs Road or build the additional parking. A lengthy discussion ensued. The Commission stated that the church was being treated equitably and that the City was simply requiring what it always had. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent to approve the application, subject to the applicant agreeing to comply with the following conditions: (1) submission of a revised site plan showing the parking as agreed to by the applicant in the Subdivision Committee meeting; (2) dedication of the necessary right -of -way at the intersection of Mabelvale Pike and Geyer Springs Road; and (3) dedication and construction of Geyer Springs Road to minor arterial standards for the length of the property's eastern boundry. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment The staff has performed additional review of the bylaw requirements concerning the forwarding of matters to the City Board of Directors. In discussions with Richard Massie, the staff has developed a revised page covering all aspects of this procedure as well as those matters which are not forwarded to the Board. Copies of that material are attached to this agenda. Additional supporting documentation will be provided at the meeting as developed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission determined that due to a loss of quorum that this item should be placed on the March 12th Planning Commission agenda to be dealt with at that time. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - File No. 393 -A NAME: Summerhill Fence Request LOCATION: North end of Bob White Drive ADD T.TrAWIM. Comley Construction, Inc. 3500 -A North College Fayetteville, AR 72701 (501) 521 -9696 REQUEST: To request acceptance of a 6' chain link fence with privacy slats along the western boundary of Summerhill Apartments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Street Right -of -Way Abandonment NAME: West 25th Street lying between Gillman and Potter Sts. Gillman Street lying between West 24th and West 25th Sts. Potter Street lying between West 24th and West 25th Sts. OWNER /APPLICANT: Odes Perry by Jerry Gardner REQUEST: Abandon 912 lineal feet of street right -of -way approximately .88 acres in area. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -Of -Way These street rights -of -way have not been opened since the original platting. Should they be opened, they would not serve in proper fashion any of the adjacent properties. 2. Master Street Plan There are no Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 3. Need for Right -Of -Way on Adjacent Streets All remaining rights -of -way abutting affected owners is proper in width for residential street standards. 4. Characteristics of Right -Of -Way Terrain This land area is gently rolling with natural ground cover and trees. 5. Development Potential The use as portions of single family lots is proposed by the petitioner. A small single family plat should be filed with the Planning Commission in the near future. February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The only effect will be on the three adjacent vacant lots. They will not be adversely affected and may be enhanced by gaining additional land area. 7. Neighborhood Position None expressed at this writing. However, all affected parties must sign the petition for abandonment/ 8. Effect on Public Service or Utilities None has been reported at this time. However, the ordinance will provide the usual easement protection clause. 9. Reversionary Rights The rights -of -way will be divided equally on the south and west closures. The Potter Street segment running north and south was dedicated from the Pine Hill Addition and probably will be returned entirely to this petitioner. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff's view of this proposed abandonment is that it is entirely appropriate. These rights -of -way have been in existence for a long number of years and not utilized by the public in any respect. We would recommend their closure and incorporation within the proposed single family plat. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: The applicant was present at the meeting. There were no objectors present. The Planning Commission discussed the matter briefly. This was followed by a motion to recommend approval to the City Board of Directors. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. I—, February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS z . - - #_ 07FO W LOCATION: SE Corner of Green Mountain & Rainwood APPLICANT: Bob East ARCHITECT: Allison- Moses - Redden 225 E. Markham Suite 400 Heritage East Little Rock, AR 72201 375 -0378 STAFF REPORT This is a request by the applicant for site plan review of a multiple building site of 1.911 acres for use as a com- mercial shopping center. Three (3) buildings are planned. The easternmost building will consist of 10,710 sq. ft., the southern structure will have 81740 sq. ft. and the building on the north, which is for future development will have 3,400 sq. ft. Parking spaces will number 80. Since this item was added at Agenda Session, Engineering comments were not available. Staff has no problems with the development. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approval, subject to Engineering's comments. 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 DATE FCz • 12-1, ! i8 5 ITEM NUMBERS 9nw1TlLlvn -si- Or? nr%T[1T QTlVQ e L N AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN ��0@9� 00A��m�Rl�� ■N 00c����GO���oo0�0�0 ■ ■■ �ooeooe0000000000000� ■■ �o:�oo�000r0000000000 ■ ■ ■� ��e0000e0000000000�o�� ■■ �000000000000000voo� ■�■ �a000doo�aoo�oeomoo� ■ ■� �000coco�o�00000000�� ■■ D. Arnett �oom����o�0000000000 ■ ■O �eo�000�00000mevooem ■�■ J. o�■omod0000000000mommm- N AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN February 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS There being no further business before the Board, the chairperson adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Ch i pers Secretary WAI'd / 7, / s Date