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