pc_01 22 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUM MARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 22, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being 11 in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the Last Meeting
The minutes of the last meeting were not approved.
III.Planning Commissioners present:
John SchlerethBill RectorJohn ClaytonBetty SipesJerilyn NicholsonJim Sum merlinDorothy ArnettIda BolesDavid JonesRichard MassieBill Ketcher
IV.City At torney present:Pat Benton
TENTATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
January 22, 1985
Deferred Items
1.U.A.L.R. Apartments "Long Form PRD" (Z-4377)
Preliminary Plats
2.Shenandoah Subdivision3.Forest Hills Preliminary (Revised)
Revised Preliminary
4.Hooper Bond Addition
Site Plan Review
5.Cr ockett Site Plan Review6.Independence Square
Zoning Site Plan
7.Fairfield Plaza (Z-4376-A)
Planned Unit Development
8.La Quinta PRO (Revised) -Fair Park Commercial OfficeBuilding (Z-3413-B)
Conditional Use Review
9.Circle "K" CUP (Z-4384)
Building Line Waiver
10.North Taylor Street Building Line Waiver (Lot 4,St. John's Wood Subdivision)
11.McAdams Building Line Waiver (Lots 84 and 85,Prospect Terrace Ad dition)
Other Matters
12.Darragh Commercial Subdivision Phasing Re quest
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 -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 pipe stem to those 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, Sum merlin, Massie, Sipes and Rector).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Several alternate plans were discussed with the Co mmission. The issue remained the proposed location of the cul-de-sac.
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Hooper Bond Fund 3 University Tower Bldg. Pe nthouse 12th and University Little Rock, AR 72204
Ho oper Bond Addition Revised Preliminary Plat
Northwest Co rner of Markham at Sh ackleford Road
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72204
AREA: 11.6 acres
ZONING: "C-3"
NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT . NEW STREET: 950
PROPOSED USES: Commercial Offices
STAFF REPORT:
This is a proposal by the applicant to revise an approved preliminary by changing the location of Sh ackleford Drive to make it a through street. The reason submitted is to facilitate the sale of the property.
The City En gineer has requested that an in-lieu contribution for street improvements on West Markham be required upon the final plat of the first of Lots 3-7; and that an internal drainage plan to include detention considerations be submitted. Engineering reports that plans for this extension have been approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the application and passed it to the Co mmission.
Water Works -Re quire a 10' easement north of and parallel to the existing 20" water main, a drainage ditch north of the easement to handle the north-south runoff and a reinforced concrete slab to protect the existing 39" water main.
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Fair field Plaza Site Plan Review (Z-4376-A)
North of the intersection of Rebsamen Park Road and Cantrell Road
Fairfield Commu nities, Inc./ Flake & Company, Nathaniel Griffin
To construct a 6-story office building (70,000 square feet) and 145 parking spaces on a 3.17 acre site that will be zoned "O-2."
ANALYSIS:
1.The staff supports the office concept but hasreservations about the specific proposal. The Ordinance requires a 25-foot building setback line on all sides of the building. The proposed structure meets the required 25-foot setback line but does not meet Ordinance height requirements. The structure is proposed to be 112' 6" in he ight (120 feet maximum allowable). The location of the building has three setback height deficiencies. The only side that meets Ordi nance height requirement s is the front of the building. It appears that a Board of Adjustment ac tion would be warranted. Additionally, the proposed 145 parking spaces is deficient by five space s.
City Engineer Comments
(1)Dedicate sufficient right-of-way alo ng Cantrell Roadfor an additional lane from the southeast corner of theproperty to the Pizza Hut property;
(2)Submit internal drai nage plan to include detentionconsiderations;
(3)The intersection with the access drive is wide open,traffic flow controls are needed. The driveway atRebsamen Park Road will have a site distance problemdue to vehicles parked on the south side of thedriveway.
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
DE VELOPER:
Edward H. Sullivan 4001 Rodney Parham Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 223-5316
North Taylor Street Building Line Waiver
2719 North Taylor
Encroachment of a Proposed Swimming Pool into a 25' Platted Setback Area
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:
Samuel L. Davis
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING:
PROPOSED USE:
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
The applicant requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent.
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
DEVELOPER:
Darragh Co mpany/ Investment Company 1401 East 6th St. Little Rock, AR 72202
ZONING: "I-3"
PROPOSED USE: Co mmercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 6
CENSUS TRACT: 3
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
STAFF REPORT:
Darragh Commercial Subdivision
South Side of East 6th Street, Northeast of Missouri Pacific Railraod
Ph asing of an Approved Subdivision
ENGINEER:
Garver & Garver Engineers P.O. Box C-50 Li ttle Rock, AR 72203-0050 376-3623
This is a request by the applicant to final plat a recently approved preliminary in two phases. The plan has not been altered in any other fashion. The reason relates to the need for construction of a required 8-5" service line, which would allow for a fire hydrant within 400' of every corner of existing warehouse on Lot 1. Water Works has agreed to allow postponement of this construction until a final is filed on Lot 1. Thus, the applicant is requesting that only Lot 2 be finaled at this time. He wants to postpone construction of the water line because: (1) an easement is required that would sever Lot 1, and the owner is uncertain as to the ultimate development plans for Lot l; (2) the design and construction of the water line would create an additional delay in selling Lot 2; and (3) the expense of $9,000 to $12,000 for design and construction is an expense that the owner would like to defer until further development of the property makes it economically feasible.
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 -Street Right-Of-Way Abandonment
NAME: South Monroe Street
LOCATION: The West 28.5 feet of South Monroe Street lying between Asher Avenue and Brack Avenue
OWNER:
REQUEST:
STAFF REVIEW:
Joe P. Kaufman
To abandon this narrow strip of street right-of-way for purposes of containing the existing buildings within owned property. The existing structures now enroach significantly onto the right-of-way.
1.Public Need for Right-Of-Way
The existing 80-foot street right-of-way issignificantly greater than the public need for thisneighborhood.
2.Master Street Plan
There are no requirements.
3.Need for Right-Of-Way on Adjacent Streets
None expressed at this writing. Our review does notproduce a deficient right-of-way.
4.Characteristics of Right-Of-Way Te rrain
This right-of-way is flat. There are no grade or significant drainage problems.
5.Development Potential
None, except the ownership involved in the petition.
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 -Continued
In the last several years, Mr. Kelton Brown has platted and developed the Longlea Estates Addition lying along Hinson Road. In the process, he has constructed the required arterial street improvements, one-half of a 48-foot pavement. During the development of his first phase, Mr. Brown requested of the Planning Commission that the escrowed monies be released to him for street con struction. The Planning Commission reviewed that request and determined that since the first phase did not complete the Hinson Road improvements to Pebble Beach Drive that the funds should not be released.
Mr. Brown, the developer of Longlea Estates, has not only completed the road work but has acquired an out parcel which was part of the original access issue to the north of Hickory Hills. This places Mr. Brown in the position of being one of the three agents for release of the es crowed funds.
The Planning st aff feels that the agreement has served its intended purpose. The str eet is in place and all parties appear to be satisfied that the es crow should be released. We recommend the release of the funds sub ject to receipt of a letter from the original participants authorizing su ch release.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning staff offered additional comments on the history of this matter and responded to questions from the Planning Commission. Staff offered, for the record, letters from Mr. Sheffield Nelson and Mr. Jim Garner, two of the three participants in the estab lishment of the agr eement. Mr. Bill Hastings of the Rector-Phillips-Morris firm was present and inquired as to the disposition of the funds, specifically as to whether or not there would be a pro rata disbursement of the funds or whether any ot her parties beyond Mr. Brown would receive part of the funds. The Planning staf f offered that from its perspective and research of the file that the intent of the agr eement had been met and that the intent was that Mr. Brown receive the monies. In addition, the two le tters from Mr. Nelson and Mr. Garner specifically state that Mr. Brown is to receive the funds from this escrow ac count. A brief discussion of the matter then followed. A motion was made to approve the request of Mr. Brown and release the $15,000 escrow account. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, O noes, 0 absent, 2 abstentions (David Jones, Bill Rector).
-
AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made and entered into by and between Sheffield
Nelson, hereinafter called, "Owner," Jim Garner, hereinafter called,
"North,", the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, hereinafter
called, "LRPC," and Pulaski Title Company, hereinafter called, "Escrow."
W-1-T-N-E-S-S-E-T-H:
WHEREAS, Owner either by himself or along with others owns the
following lands:
North 1/2, Northease l/4, Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 13 West. Containing 80 acres more or less
lying in Pulaski County, hereinafter referred to as, "Hickory
Hills," and
WHEREAS, Owner wishes to develop said lands into an exclusive
subdivision consisting of approximately 80 acres, more or less, which
subdivision shall have only one entrance and exit, and which sub
division shall have a private drive and a gate thereto, and said
subdivision shall be entirely enclosed with a fence at least six feet
high with barbed wire on top of said fence for a height of an
additional two feet, and
WHEREAS, North wishes to develop another subdivision immediately
north of Hickory Hills, and North has agreed to forego any right of
access to his property from Hickory Hills and to obtain all access
to his property from Hinson Road, and
WHEREAS, North agrees to give access through his property to
contiguous property owners that may need access and who might other
wise request access through Hickory Hills, and
WHEREAS, North would be required to contribute a substantial sum
toward the development of Hinson Road north of Pebble Beach Drive and
meet certain other requirements for the development of his subdivision,
some of which will be waived or alleviated as a result of a contribution
to be made by Owner, and
WHEREAS, Owner is willing to contribute a total of $30,000.00
� co be held by Escrow, which amount will be contributed as follows:
$15,000.00 within 30 days of the approval by LRPC of Hickory
Hills project as described herein, and
$15,000.00 upon the completion of Hinson Road norch of Pebble
Beach Drive, which money will be used toward the construccion of
Hinson Road, and
WHEREAS, LRPC has the power and authority to waive certain
rules and regulations promulgated by the City concerning the re
quirements for all subdivisions, and
WHEREAS, the LRPC is willing to waive certain street grade
requirements as well as any requirement for a public street through
Hickory Hills and access to Hickory Hills to any contiguous
property, and
WHEREAS, the LRPC is willing to allow an eight foot fence to
be placed entirely around Hickory Hills because the LRPC wants to
obtain orderly growth in western Little Rock and to be certain
that Hinson Road is constructed so that it will meet the require
ments of a city street, and
WHEREAS, the money that is to be contributed by Owner and held
by Escrow will be held by Escrow until Hinson Road north of Pebble
Beach Drive has been completed and until Jim Garner and/or his
authorized representative and Nathaniel Griffin of the LRPC or
his authorized representative shall advise Escrow to pay said sum
to whomever is ordered for the construction of Hinson Road north
of Pebble Beach Drive, and
....--..._ WHEREAS, it is agreed between the LRPC and all other parties
that although there is a requirement for sidewalks on one or both
sides of Hinson Road, it is agreed that said sidewalks would serve
no useful purpose, and the requirement for their construction will
be eliminated.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payment by Owner of
the $30,000.00 mentioned above and other good and valuable consideration
r---.. paid by Owner to North, to LRPC, and to Escrow, and the mutual
promises and covenants of all parties to each other, it is agreed
that:
-2 -
(1)Owner will pay $30,000.00 as set forth above.
(2)City of Little Rock through its Planning Commission will
approve plat for Hickory Hills, which plat provides for a private
street through Hickory Hills with no roads off said private drive
to other property with the exception of the entrance and exit, and
LRPC will approve the erection of a fence completely around Hickory
Hills, which fence shall not exceed eight feet in height.
(3)That North will not require or request access through
or from Hickory Hills, and North will give access through his
property to any contiguous owners that require access.
(4)That Escrow will hold the moneys to be paid by Owner
until Escrow is instructed to release same by Jim Garner and/or
his authorized representative of LRPC, and upon condition that
Hinson Road is completed north of Pebble Beach Drive.
r, WITNESS our hands and seals this __ day of _____ _
1977 in Little Rock, Arkansas.
-3 -
-
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 -Public Hearing on Otter Creek District Plan
This plan concerns an area in Southwest Little Rock that was covered by the Suburban Development Plan adopted on September 24, 1980. The Otter Creek District Plan, which was developed by the staff and a committee of landowners, recommends specific land uses for specific areas and will be used in the future as a guide for development and rezoning.
The Otter Creek Committee had a final review of the Land Use Plan on December 3, 1984. They wanted to incorporate some minor land use changes but did agree to recommend adoption of the plan to the Planning Commission.
The Committee, in addition, does recommend that the Master Street Plan element of the plan be studied further. The Master Plan, the Committee agreed, should be amended in the plan area but no consensus could be reached as to what street should be upgraded. Staff told the Committee that they were discussing with Metroplan and the State Highway Department several possible arterial connections with I-30.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made to defer this issue to the January 22 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-22-85)
Jim Lawson gave a brief presentation concerning the plan. He identified that a majority of the requests from property owners for changes to the plan have been made. He explained that a request had been made at Crystal Valley Drive for commercial rather than the single family shown on the existing plan. The staff looked at the request but felt that the commercial should be limited to the east side of Crystal Valley Road.
The Commission discussed the Plan and then recommended the adoption of the plan with one change. This change was to reflect the industrial zoned property east of Mabelvale Pike reflected by the current zoning with an additional strip of "MR."
January 22, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
Master Street Plan Amendment -Principal arterial I-430/I-30 Interchange to U.S. 65/167 and to downgrade County Line Road to minor arterial.
PATS has adopted a new principal arterial from the I-430/I-30 Interchange, east to the U.S. 65/167 Highway.This alignment will give Little Rock a south loop arterial.Studies completed by the State Highway Department andMetroplan indicate that there is a cu rrent demand for thistraffic movement and this demand will increase in thefuture.
The PATS plan also recommends that County Line Road be downgraded from a principal arterial to a minor arterial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Co mmission discussed the street plan change. Jim Lawson suggested that the item be deferred until the 29th meeting because some landowners had been incorrectly told that the public hearing was to be on the 29th instead of the 22nd. No one was present to discuss the change. The Commission voted to defer the item until the 29th of January (11 ayes, 0 noes).
).
DATE VAN 22i 1915
( )
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
J.�11mmo.-1 in
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.�icholson
w.Rector
w.Ketcher
D.Arnett
D.J. Jones
I.Boles
J.Clayton
' v
V
v
v v v
V
V
v' v
v
2..3v •
v v
v • v •
v y v •
V •
v v
y J/
v J/
V As
+5 '° 7 8
...,. v v' v v
v v' V v v'
v J/ V J/ y
v y // v J/
y' y y J/ //
v y y y y
// J/ y J/ y
y v v' // /
V V J/ y'r
J/ J/ J/ y r
y J/ y J/ j/
.,_/AYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
4' 10 " 11.13 1+
y V V v V v
y // v J/ v' v
-'13 J/ V V J/ ,/
v V J/ v J/ y
J/ J/ V J/ v y'
// v V J/ y' v
v Y· As y v y
J/ y v J/ v v
V y y V v' y
J/ J/ y V V v'
// y // t/ V y
)
15 ,. ,, r. ,. v V y
v y V
I/ // J/
y I/ t/
v J/ y
.AB //' //
// y j/'
J/ J/ t/-% y J/
J/ J/ t/
// t,/y
--
January 22, 1985
Subdivisions
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M.