pc_07 09 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
JULY 9, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was determined to be present being 8 in
number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as
mailed by a unanimous vote.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent;
William Ketcher
John Schlereth
Bill Rector
Dorothy Arnett
Richard Massie
John Clayton
David Jones
Ida Boles
Betty Sipes
James Summerlin
Jerilyn Nicholson
IV. City Attorney: Pat Benton
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
July 9, 1985
Deferred Items:
A. Whitbeck's "PCD"
B. Bernard and Marzella Ray, Illegal Subdivision Request
C. Rezoning from "R -2" to "C -3"
D. Rezoning from unclassified to "MF -18" and "0 -3" Rock
Creek Parkway, 1/4 mile east of Kanis
Preliminary /Replats:
1. Cheek's Addition
2. Riverfront Addition
3. Robert's Replat
4. Ray Morrison Addition
5. River Park Apartments, Phase II
6. Corporate Hill (Z- 3689 -A)
Planned Unit Development:
7. Fields "Short -Form PCD"
(Z -4475)
8. Kavanaugh Place "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4473)
9. Pleasant Valley Park Retirement Center "Long -Form
PRD" (Z -4482)
10. Jenkins "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4480)
11. Country Club Corporation "Short -Form PCD" Z -4479)
12. Brentwood Apartments "PRD" (Z -4453)
13. Asher Business and Commercial Center "PCD" (Z -4452)
I
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES - CONTINUED
July 9, 1985
Conditional Use:
14. Commerce Street (Z- 4419 -A)
15. South University (Z- 4466 -A)
16. Unitarian Universalist Church (Z -4474)
17. Gum Springs Day -Care (Z -4476)
18. Oak Street Duplex (Z -4477)
19. Arkla Radio Tower (Z -4478)
20. Barton Street (Z -4481)
Building Line Waiver:
21. Broadview Terrace - Lot 9
Other Matters:
22. Security Storage Request
23. West 20th Street Abandonment
24. Rockwood Road Street Name Change
25. Kanis /Aldersgate Final Plan Approval
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME: Whitbeck - Short Form "PCD"
(Z -4449)
LOCATION: SE Corner of Walnut and "A"
AGENT: Kim Taylor Keller - 372 -5525
DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT:
Frank L. Whitbeck Ross McCain
Savers Federal Bldg. Phone: 372 -5961
#1134
Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER:
} Phone: 372 -5512
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: .13 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Existing - "R -3"
Proposed - "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Office
A. Site History
A plan for a two- story, three -unit town house
} development on this site was approved on May 15, 1984.
B. Proposal
1. The use of a 695 square foot structure on .13 acre
as quiet office.
2. The provision of three off - street parking spaces.
C. Engineering Comments
Improve "A" Street to minor residential standards.
D. Analysis
The applicant proposes to use the structure as office
space for one tenant; therefore, he believes that there
will be no increase in traffic on Walnut Street (or "A"
Street). The natural features of the property are to
be retained. Due to the numerous commercial and office
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
uses in the immediate vicinity, the current "R -3"
zoning is no longer feasible, and feels that the
proposed use is quieter than "R -3" and it is the
highest and best use of the property.
Staff's position is not favorable to the proposal due
to its intrusion into the single family area. The
Heights /Hillcrest Plan designates up to 200' from
Markham as for nonresidential use. Due to the
abundance of office zoning along Markham, staff sees no
need to extend this type of use any further northward.
The applicant is asked to clarify where the four spaces
are to be provided as shown on the site plan or three
to be provided as mentioned in this letter.
)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff reported that the applicant had requested deferment of
the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made for a 30 -day deferral as requested by the
applicant. It was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (6- 27 -85)
Since the applicant was not present, the item was not
reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -9 -85)
The applicant requested a withdrawal of this item from
further consideration. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to accept the withdrawal request. The vote:
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
Bernard and Marzella Ray
Illegal Lot Transfer Review
LOCATION: 1802 S. Elm
Little Rock, AR
REQUEST: Planning Commission guidance on illegal lot
transfer /ownership.
STAFF REPORT:
The applicants are requesting Planning Commission guidance
as to their current predicament. Recently, they bought the
j one -story frame home shown on the sketch from Mr. Calvin
Muldrow. They hired a surveyor who split the lots into two
parcels so that Mr. Muldrow's home would be on the lot
facing South Elm and theirs would face 18th Street. They
have now found out that the house has been condemned and
electricity can't be provided. Furthermore, both lots have
been made nonconforming with widths and depths of 35' and
75'.
Due to the inadequate lot sizes, staff refused to sign off
on the lot split. Upon site investigation, it was
discovered that 18th Street is a gravel road and both homes
are located approximately 3' from each other. The applicant
has asked to find out how long the house on West 18th has
been on the site since it does not appear to be that old.
The Commission is asked to provide guidance as to the
situation or to direct the City Attorney to pursue the
matter.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicants were not present, there was no review
of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicants were not present. The Commission voted to
defer the item for 30 days to allow the applicants time to
contact the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (6- 27 -85)
Since the applicants were not in attendance, there was no
further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -9 -85)
The applicant was not in attendance. The Planning
Commission chose not to discuss the request inasmuch as this
is the third meeting in which the applicant was absent. A
motion was made to withdraw the request from further
consideration. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0
noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
Item No. C - Z -4462
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
O.F. and Verbal Alexander
L.J. Carter
13,015 Stacy Drive
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -3"
Retail
0.68 acres +
Existing Use: Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family & Office, Zoned "R -2" & 110-3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
East - Industrial, Zoned "0 -3"
West - Multifamily, Zoned "MF -18"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone the property from "R -2" to
"C -3" to permit a medical appliance sales and retail
business. The site is located on a block south of nest
Markham Street in the Rock Creek Parkway area. Both
land use and zoning patterns are very mixed in the
area. The zoning includes "R -2," "MF -18," "0 -3" and
"C -3." The land use is similar, but a majority of the
"C -3" land is vacant, and there is a nonconforming
industrial use to the east. Because of the high
percentage of land zoned "C -3" in the area, the need
for rezoning additional properties to "C -3" can be
questioned. The site appears to be better suited for
continued residential use.
2. The site is flat and occupied by a single family
residence.
3. Gamble Road, east of the property, is identified as a
collector on the Master Street Plan, so dedication of
additional right -of -way may be required. There are no
Master Street Plan issues associated with Stacy Drive.
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
July 9, 1985
Item No. C - Continued
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on the site.
7. Staff's position is that the location is inappropriate
for a "C -3" rezoning and opposes the request. This
opposition to the reclassification is supported by the
Suburban Development Plan, which shows the area for
single family development. The majority of the
property zoned "C -3" in the immediate area is north of
West Markham and that appears to be a logical division
between residential and nonresidential zoning. Some of
the office and commercial zoning that was granted south
of West Markham was done over the objections of the
staff and in conflict with the Rock Creek Plan. The
existing "C -3" zoning to the east was approved to
accommodate a nonconforming use and now is being used
for industrial purposes as is a majority of the "0 -3"
property south of Stacy if it was extended east of
Gamble Road. Recently, the Planning Commission denied
a "C -3" request for the "O -3" property to the east. No
action was ever taken by the Board of Directors. There
was significant neighborhood opposition to that
request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -3" request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION: (6- 25 -85)
The -applicant was represented by Sam Davis, an engineer.
There were no objectors present. Mr. Davis spoke about the
request and said that the area was no longer desirable for
residential use. Tate Roberts, a contractor, discussed the
proposal. There was a long discussion about the request and
the proposed use. The motion was made to defer the item for
two weeks to the July 9 meeting to allow the applicant to
meet with staff to clarify various issues. The motion was
approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -9 -85)
The applicant was represented by Sam Davis, engineer. There
were no objectors present. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff
spoke and discussed some possible plan amendments for the
area. He said that the staff had developed four options
July 9, 1985
Item No. C - Continued
which showed various land use mixes of multifamily,
commercial and office. Mr. Lawson said that staff
recommended the plan option which showed commercial
development to be kept north of West Markham. Because of
this, he said that staff could only support an office
reclassification for the property in question. Mr. Davis
then spoke. He questioned the Planning Commission and the
staff as to whether the applicant's proposed use could fit
into an office classification. There was a long discussion
about the use and the appropriate zoning district.
Mr. Davis then asked whether a "PCD" would be possible.
After some additional comments, Mr. Davis requested deferral
to the July 30, 1985, meeting. A motion was made to defer
the item as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
Item No. D - Z -4470
Owner: CCMN Joint Venture II
Applicant: J.E. Hathaway, Jr.
Location: Rock Creek Parkway, 1/4 Mile East
of Kanis
Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "MF -18"
and "0-3"
Purpose: Multifamily and Office Development
Size: 40.28 acres +
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Vacant, Unclassified
South
- Vacant, Office /Industrial, Unclassified
East
- Multifamily, Zoned "PRD"
West
- Church, Unclassified
STAFF REPORT:
The request is to rezone a 40 -acre tract at the west end of
the Rock Creek Parkway to "MF -18" and "0-3." The acreage
breakdown is as follows: "0-3," 11.96 acres and "MF -18,"
28.32 acres. No specific plans or development concepts have
been provided. The property is currently unclassified
because of being outside the City limits.
This property is part of the Suburban Development Plan which
currently recognizes the land for single family use only.
Based on the current plan, staff cannot support the rezoning
as proposed. The plan shows multifamily for the land to the
east, classified "PRD," and further to the west, there is an
area shown for commercial and some low to medium density
residential development. This location would be the
intersection of Kanis and the proposed Outer Belt ;Nest
arterial. If the property is annexed into the City, it
appears that a "PUD" would be more appropriate for the site
because of its location and the existing "PRD" to the east.
As has been stated earlier, the property is outside the City
limits. An issue that will have to be resolved prior to the
July 9, 1985
Item No. D - Continued
rezoning being accomplished is whether the City limits will
be extended beyond the current line. This line was
established as the "official annexation boundary line" by a
Board of Directors resolution.
One final item is that this area will be included in the new
planning effort that the City will undertake for west
Little Rock. Both land use and future City limits will be
addressed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "0 -3" and "MF -18" as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 25 -85)
Jim Hathaway, the applicant was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. Hathaway spoke and presented
an aerial photo of the area which he described in detail.
There was a long discussion about land use and the street
system. Mr. Hathaway said the "MF -18" density for the
property was chosen because of various physical constraints
such as utility easements. He indicated that no formal
study or plan had been prepared for the site. Jim Lawson of
the Planning staff then spoke. He discussed current plans
for the area. He said that a "PUD" was more appropriate for
the site because of the location. He also made reference to
the City limits line and the Board of Directors' resolution
regarding future City boundaries. Mr. Hathaway said that
"MF -18" was a good density and that there would probably be
office development in the future. Mike Batie of City
Engineering said the proposed collector through the property
was good. Mr. Lawson described the proposed "west belt"
intersection with Kanis and said that "MF -12" and "0 -2"
would be another possible zoning configuration for the land.
There were additional comments made about development in the
area and annexation of the property. The Planning
Commission voted on the request as filed. The vote -
4 ayes, 0 noes, 5 absent and 2 abstentions (Jerilyn
Nicholson and Jim Summerlin). The item was deferred due to
the lack of six affirmative or negative votes. The Planning
Commission then voted to defer the request to the July 9,
1985, meeting. The votes 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent.
July 9, 1985
Item No. D - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7 -9 -85)
Staff informed the Planning Commission that the applicant
had agreed to another deferral. A motion was made to defer
the request to the July 30, 1985, meeting. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME: Cheek's Addition
LOCATION: 11102 Sardis Road
nVc7VT nl -IV" . nw7n _r Al T, Can .
Frank E. Cheek Edw. G. Smith & Assoc.
c/o Edw. G. Smith & Assoc. 401 Victory
401 Victory Little Rock, AR
Little Rock, AR Phone: 374 -1666
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 2.07 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Improvements on Sardis Road
J A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located in a rural area consisting of
mainly single family homes. An existing two -story rock
} and frame residence is located on the northeastern
portion of the site and another one family structure is
on the northwest.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.07 acres
into four lots. A waiver of improvements to Sardis
Road is requested.
D. Engineering Comments
(1) Dedicate right -of -way on Sardis Road to minor
arterial standards.
(2) Improve Sardis Road to minor arterial standards.
(3) Driveway access plans to be approved by the
Traffic Engineer.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
E. Analysis
Staff has reviewed the proposal. No problems have been
found. The applicant has asked for a waiver for
improvements to Sardis, but Engineering has requested
improvements which is the usual policy.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the plat but denial of the waiver.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
It was decided that the applicant would: (1) provide an
in -lieu contribution for improvements; (2) dedicate the
required right -of -way; and (3) provide access plans to the
City Engineer.
Water Works - Acreage charge applies.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Joe White of Edward G. Smith & Associates was present
representing the owner. There were no objectors in
attendance. Mr. White stated for the record that the owner
would provide an in -lieu contribution for the street
improvements and otherwise comply with the ordinance. A
motion was made to approve the plat. The motion passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
}
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME: Riverfront Addition
Tracts A -1 and A -2
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Jessie
Road and Riverfront Dr.
ENGINEER:
Garver & Garver Engrs.
P.O. Box C -50
Little Rock, AR 72203 -0050
Phone: 376 -3633
AREA: 3.69 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I -3"
PROPOSED USE: Light Industrial
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Allow platting of lot into two lots
} with existing 30° access easement in lieu of public street
right -of -way.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area composed mainly of
office and industrial uses. The site is currently
vacant.
C. Development Proposal
This proposal represents a lot split of the remainder
of Tract A of Riverfront Addition. The request is for
Tract A -2 to be platted to receive public access from
an existing 30' access easement instead of a dedicated
public street right -of -way.
D. Engineering Comments
Clarify access plans to Cottondale.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
E. Analysis
Staff is supportive of the request and the waiver. For
information, the applicant was asked to explain the
area at the southwest end of Cottondale Lane.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the item. Staff reported that the
proposed access easement is platted and known as Jessie
Road, so they had no objections to the applicant's request.
Water Works - A warehouse is under construction in this area
that does not have water service and is 300 feet from a
water main.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
unanimously to approve the request. The vote: 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
Birch Brooks, Inc.
c/o 1609 Broadway
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 1.2 acres
ZONING: "1 -2"
Robert's Replat
Located at SE Corner of a
Service Easement Running South
off 12th Street between
Westpark and Leisure Place
111 wTn -r *T 111 .
Summerlin and Associates
1609 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72206
Phone: 376 -1323
NO. OF LOTS: 1
FT. NEW ST.: 0
PROPOSED USE: Industrial
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Reduction of
building
lines on
the
south and east sides.
A.
Site History
None.
B.
Existing Conditions
This site is located in an area
generally
composed of
office and industrial uses.
C.
Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to
replat
an existing lot
to modify the setback line on
the east
side from 30' to
25' and on the south side to 15'.
The
lot will be
utilized for industrial activity.
The
waivers are
requested due to difficulty in
siting
and the proposed
building.
D.
Engineering Comments
1. Submit access and parking
plan to
the Traffic
Engineer.
2. Submit internal drainage
and detention
plan.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
E. Analysis
Staff is favorable to the request. A one lot final
replat needs to be filed with Van McClendon of the
Planning staff.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to final plat submission.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the waiver was necessary due to
the addition of a loading dock. No adverse comments were
raised.
Water Works - Acreage charge applies.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
j The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
unanimously to approve the request. The vote: 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Ray Morrison Addition
Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: 11513 Sardis Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Ray Morrison Richardson Engineers
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
This site is in a rural area composed of single family
houses.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to split .3 acres into two
lots for single family development. Twenty feet of
right -of -way is offered for dedication.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Dedicate right -of -way on Sardis Road to minor
arterial standards.
2 Contribute in -lieu contributions for street
improvements on Sardis Road.
E. Analysis
The proposal has been reviewed. The applicant is
reminded that a 25' setback is not sufficient if Sardis
Road is a collector or arterial at this point.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Staff informed the applicant that a 35 -foot building line
would be required since Sardis was an arterial at this
location.
Water Works - Acreage charge applies.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The owner was represented by Mr. Robert Richardson.
Mr. Richardson stated for the record that he and his client
understood that mobile homes would not be permitted uses on
the lots. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
unanimously to approve the plat. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes
and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
�ncrnr nnrnn
River Park Apartments
(Phase II)
Northwest Corner of Rebsamen
Park Road and Riverfront Dr.
Riversedge Apt. John Kooistra
Joint Venture
945 Savers Federal ENGINEER:
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -4125 Robinson, Wassell and Savage
8500 West Markham
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 227 -5665
AREA: 4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "MF -18"
PROPOSED USE: Apartments
A. Site History
The first phase of this development approved by the
Commission was entitled " Riversedge Apartments." It
consisted of 38 units of apartments.
B. Proposal
1. The construction of 70 apartments units on
approximately 4 acres.
2. Unit Summary
Unit
Unit
Mark
Description
Area
No.
A -1
1- Bedroom,
1 Bath
618
12
A -2
1- Bedroom,
1 Bath
618
12
B -1
2- Bedroom,
2 Bath
1,049
4
B -2
2- Bedroom,
2 Bath
1,049
4
B -3
2- Bedroom,
2 Bath
1,049
14
B -4
2- Bedroom,
2 Bath
1,049
10
B -5
2- Bedroom,
2 Bath
1,049
14
Total
6,481
70
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
3. Building Summary
Bldg. No. of
No. Units
1 16
2 16
3 14
4 10
5 14
Total 70
Total Unit Area
11,612
11,612
14,686
10,490
14,686
1::
4. Parking Analysis
Required ................... 105
Covered -
Uncovered .................. 126
Total Parking .............. 126
Living Area for Parking .... 476 sq. ft.
Parking Per Unit ........... 1.8 spaces
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
During the review of Phase I, the applicant requested
that he be allowed to file a "PUD" on Phase II at a
later date. The second phase, as submitted at this
time, does not need "PUD" review. Staff has found no
problems with the submission.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
this application.
Water Works - On -site fire lines and fire hydrants will be
required.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to approve the site plan
subject to location of fire hydrants and on -site water
mains. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME: Corporate hill - Site Plan
Review (Z- 3689 -B)
LOCATION: South of the Intersection of
Corporate Bill Drive and
West Markham Street
( #18 Corporate Bill Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Corpex /Townley, Williams,
Blair, Architects
PROPOSAL:
To construct a two -story office building (28,000 square
feet) and 130 parking spaces on 2.03+ acres of land that is
zoned "0 -2."
ANAT.VRTR
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. This site
plan is a part of an office park development and is
compatible with the surrounding area. This application
meets all City ordinance requirements.
CITY ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS:
The applicant needs to submit drainage and detention plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to the City Engineering
comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to approve the site plan as
recommended by staff. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and
3 absent.
July 9, 1985
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME:
Fields "Short -Form PCD"
(Z -4475)
LOCATION: 13,830 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Leon T. Fields Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc.
7324 Rockwood Road 2nd at Izard Streets
Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR
Phone: 663 -5314 Phone: 375 -5331
AREA: 1.73 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Commercial /Restaurant
A. Site History
This site is located in an older subdivision to the
west of the City entitled Pankey Addition. Recently,
the owner was mistakenly issued a remodeling permit for
$5,000 for the abandoned building on the site, which
was used for commercial at one time. The land is
currently zoned for "R -2" Single Family.
The existing building was constructed in the early
1930's and was always used as some type of commercial
structure. Past uses include a doctor's office, beer
joint, barbecue and beer, drug store and medical
laboratory. The building was condemned in 1982. The
current owner bought the structure in 1984.
B. Proposal
1. The use of an existing, one -story rock and frame
structure of approximately 1,650 square feet for a
barbecue restaurant.
2. The provision of 16 parking spaces.
C. Engineering Comments
1. Dedicate right -of -way on Highway 10 to arterial
standards; 50' of right -of -way is required.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
2. Clarify encroachment into right -of -way of
Highway 10 and parking encroachment into street
right -of -way.
3. Roadway improvements to be discussed at Committee
meeting.
4. Parking plan to be approved by the Traffic
Engineer.
D. Analysis
From a land use point of view, staff has no choice but
to recommend denial of the plan due to its conflict
with the Suburban Plan, which recommends single family
zoning in this area; however, staff defers
consideration of the usual policy on hardship cases to
the Planning Commission or City Board. This may
possibly be considered a hardship since the applicant
received a $5,000 remodeling permit by the City.
) Staff has other concerns /requests, which include:
(1) Removal of the porch from the right -of -way.
(2) Expansion of parking lot into City right -of -way
and 5' over into neighboring property owner's
land.
(3) In -lieu contribution in front of site.
(4) Closing of Wells Street.
(5) Replatting of various lots and ownerships.
(6) Indication of additional area designed for
restaurant on site plan.
(7) Withhold requirements to plat Josephine and Arnold
until further development occurs.
E. Staff Recommendation
(1) Denial of land use based on Surburban Plan;
(2) Deferral of hardship policy to Planning Commission
or Board.
I
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant and his attorney were present. The applicant
agreed to remove the porch from the right -of -way, provide
in -lieu contribution for the area in front of the site and
to close Wells Street if the abutting property owner agrees.
He explained that his tenants mistakenly expanded the
parking lot over into the City's right -of -way and he would
try to clear the issue up.
Some discussion concerned whether or not to replat the
entire ownership or just a portion with the restaurant.
Some committee members expressed concern over allowing
commercial on all the property. Others felt that the PUD
process required specifics on all the property. A
suggestion was made to phase the application. Nothing was
resolved.
Some members felt that the site plan couldn't be approved
without the closing of the streets, others felt that it
could be a condition of the approval. It was pointed out
that if they weren't closed, the streets would have to be
improved.
Engineering indicated that the encroachment of the building
into the right -of -way could possibly be granted
nonconforming status. The applicant was asked to provide a
revised plan showing the addition to the building and the
removal of the parking spaces and porch in the right -of -way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Prior to the discussion of this matter, a general discussion
was held between Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields,
the Planning Commission members, staff and the City
Attorney. This discussion centered on the merits of hearing
the case simply on the basis of a land use issue or on
hearing all of the details of the history of the case. This
discussion resulted in a decision to hear all of the
information which could be offered. Mr. Roy Beard of the
Public Works Department made a presentation at the request
of the Commission offering the full details of the building
permit history. He also discussed the involvement of
various staff members in the review process.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
A determination was then made by polling the audience as to
the number of persons present in support of Mr. Fields'
application. There were 10 persons identified in support.
In addition, three persons identified themselves as being
opposed to the issue.
Mr. Fields then offered a survey of Highway 10 businesses
for a substantial length of Highway 10 in support of his
proposal. Mr. Walker, his attorney, offered four pages of
signatures of support and offered objection to the land use
plan approaches to establishment of zoning lines.
Mr. Jim Threet, an abutting owner representative, stated his
support of Mr. Fields' application. Mr. Harold Flowers, an
attorney and minister and resident of the area, stated his
objections to the use and conversion, especially with
respect to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
Ms. Saugey, an owner and business operator in the area,
spoke on the issue of spot and strip zoning of Highway 10
and the need for maintaining the land use plan. She opposed
the application. Bob Lane of the Public Works Department
offered, at the request of the Commission, an update on the
Highway 10 widening project especially with respect to the
subject site. Mr. Lloyd Vaught, an owner and President of
the Highway 10 Association, commented on the application
from the view of his Association. He offered a description
of the premises before Mr. Fields purchased the lots and the
improvements which have been made.
Mr. Jeffries, a nearby neighbor, offered objection to the
sale of beer on the premises and traffic concerns within the
area. Mr. Orange Brady, representing the Sims Brothers, the
prospective operators of the restaurant, spoke on the
position of the Sims.
Ms. Saugey then offered rebuttal to information that had
been offered relative to the permits issued. She stated
that additional work had been accomplished since the City
Attorney's notice to Mr. Fields. Barbara Dutton, a resident
of the area, opposed commercialization of the Pankey area.
Cramon Storay, a resident of the adjacent community present
in support of commercialization of the site.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
Mark Stodola, the City Attorney, then offered comments
concerning his involvement and contacts with Mr. Fields with
respect to the nonconforming status of the property and
activities which have occurred on these premises in the
past.
Mr. Brad Walker, attorney for Mr. Fields, then presented the
application offering arguments in support of Mr. Fields'
position on hardships. Mr. Walker responded to questions
from the Planning Commission on the status of the property
as a nonconforming use. Mr. Fields then offered comments
concerning his approach to obtaining the permit. He also
gave a site history indicating names and dates as well as
d products sold. He discussed the removal of prior commercial
product contents from the building shortly before he
purchased the land. He offered comments concerning his
discussions with the various inspectors about repairs to the
building. He stated that he had on no occasion requested a
privilege license from Mr. Scott's office. When asked by a
commissioner, Mr. Fields stated that he did not check the
zoning of this property prior to his purchase. He thought
that it was zoned commercial.
A general discussion then followed involving issues attached
to the permit records, the various permits that were
allegedly issued and the ability of the Commission to
determine whether the nonconformity was revived through the
actions of the City by issuance of permits. Mr. Roy Beard
responded to this by stating that only one building permit
was issued beyond the initial permit and this was for a
bathroom containing eight fixtures and a water heater.
Brad Walker presented further comments about the history of
the Pankey community and the nonconforming status of many
uses along this section of Highway 10.
Jim Lawson of the Planning staff offered a response to
several questions concerning the area land use plan and
relationships of that plan to the Pankey community. A
general discussion was held concerning relationships of the
subject site and existing zoned commercial within the area
as well as the potential for rezoning existing
nonconformities scattered along Highway 10.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
Brad Walker, the attorney for Mr. Fields, offered a rebuttal
statement to those comments offered by neighbors and
opponents of the project. A procedural motion was then made
to vote on calling the issue for a vote. The Commission
voted 5 ayes, 3 noes, 3 absent to reject the call. The
matter remained on the floor for action due to absence of an
affirmative vote.
Additional discussion occurred during which the Commission
requested that they provide additional information on plan
detail included in the staff write -up.
Staff members of Planning and Public Works updated the
matter for the Commission giving specifics on right -of -way,
in -lieu street contribution, platting and street
abandonment.
A general discussion of these requirements followed. A
question was then raised as to the vote on the procedural
matter placed before the Commission.
The City Attorney clarified the bylaws on the procedure to
indicate that the motion had indeed passed by a simple
majority of those present.
The Chairman stated that the motion had been called and
asked if additional discussion was needed. None being
evidenced, the motion was voted upon to approve the PUD as
placed before the Planning Commission on the revised plan.
The application failed to receive an affirmative 6 votes;
therefore, the bylaw rule for automatic deferral applies.
The issue will be reheard August 13, 1985. The issue will
be listed first on that agenda.
City of Little Rock Engineering Division
Department of 701 West Markham
Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371 -4800
E
MEMORANDUM_
July 5, 1985
TO: Gary Greeson, Director, Comprehensive Planning
FROM: Roy Beard, Cheif, Central Codes A"
SUBJECT: Leon Fields Property, 13830 Cantrell Road
I am forwarding herewith a memo detailing the events pertaining to the Leon
Fields case, as requested. The following major conclusions may be drawn based
upon this information:
1. Construction related permits for the remodeling work were obtained in
accordance with our standard procedure in April, 1984.
2. The renovations were essentially complete prior to identification of
zoning problems in May, 1985.
3. My decision on May 30, 1985 that rezoning of the property was not
necessary was based on limited and incorrect basic information.
4. Corrected and complete data indicate no commercial use of the property
existed on the date of annexation of the property to the City or
thereafter. Therefore, no right to re- establish a commercial use exists
except by means of the standard rezoning procedure .
RB /nw
cc: Susan Fleming
Mark Stodola
Bob Lane
Don McChesney
City of Little Rock Englineering Division
Department of 701 West Markham
l ublic Works little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371 -4800
M E M O R A N D U M
July 3, 1985
TO: File
FROM: Roy Beard, Central Codes Chief k�6
SUBJECT: Leon Fields Property, 13830 Cantrell Road
April 29, 1985: Mr. Leon Fields visited Environmental Codes Office and
made inquiry regarding issuance of a privilege license for operation of a business
at 13830 Cantrell Road. Mr. Fields' initial contact was made with Dana
Carney, a Zoning and Sign Enforcement officer employed in Environmental Codes.
Mr. Carney, in processing Mr. Fields' request for privilege license, developed
information indicating the subject property had been vacant slightly over a year
and the proposed use was not appropriate for the R -2 zoning classification of the
property.
Mr. Carney explained the possible forfeiture of non - conforming status of the
property and referred Mr. Fields to Jim Hathcock, Environmental Codes Chief,
for further discussion.
j
Mr. Hathcock was aware of housing inspection activity in the vicinity of Mr.
Fields' property and checked the housing case files for that specific address. Mr.
Hathcock found an inactive case file on the 13830 Cantrell Road address. The
file indicated an initial inspection of the property was conducted in 1982 and that
the building was vacant at time of inspection. The building was condemned and
the usual requests for disconnection of utilities were forwarded to the utility
companies. The building was certified in compliance with housing code in
December 1984.
This information appeared to confirm the loss of the non - conforming status of
the property. Mr. Hathcock explained to Mr. Fields that it would be necessary to
rezone the property before it could be used for business purposes. Mr. Fields was
referred to Mr. Richard Wood in Comprehensive Planning to initiate rezoning of
the property. Mr. Fields visited with Mr. Wood and obtained information
regarding the re- zoning process, however, he did not pursue filing an application
at that time.
May 3, 1985: Kenny Scott, Zoning and Sign Enforcement Chief, intercepted
Roy Beard, Central Codes Chief, on the codes office parking lot and told Mr.
Beard that an elderly gentleman had been waiting to see him for over two hours.
Mr. Scott stated that the man was highly irritated because he had spent $25,000
remodeling a building for business use but had lost his non - conforming status by
two months because the building had not been used for business purposes for 14
months. Mr. Scott, who was not aware of Mr. Fields' previous contact with the
zoning office, informed Mr. Fields he would have to have the property rezoned
to use commercially.
j Mr. Beard went to his office and met with Mr. Fields. Mr. Beard was not aware
of any previous contact of Mr. Fields with the zoning office other than Mr.
Scott's contact and his statement that Mr. Fields property had not been used for
business purposes for 14 months.- Mr. Fields gave no indication of his April 29th
visit to the zoning office or our previous explanation that there was much more
time than fourteen months since the property had been used for commercial
purposes.
Mr. Beard questioned Mr. Fields regarding details of his purchase of the property
and subsequent remodeling. Mr. Fields stated that:
... He purchased the property April 16, 1984.
... That he had difficulty in evicting an occupant from the building.
... As soon as the building was vacated (within a few days), he proceeded to
clear vines, bushes and overgrowth which had taken place around the
building.
... He obtained a building permit June 1, 1984 for $5,000 declared value of
remodeling work and sub - contractors obtained plumbing and electrical
permits. ** (See Attachment A. Note that the permit was issued based upon
information provided by Mr. Fields, including land use, and that he affirmed
by his signature that the data was correct).
... Proceeded to remodel building and secure proper inspections during progress
of job.
... As remodeling was being completed he advertised the building for lease; was
selective with regard to tenants, turning down taverns, pool hall, etc.
... He had already signed a lease with Sim's Bar -B -Que on April 6, 1985 and
Sim's shortly thereafter purchased supplies and restaurant equipment.
... He had no idea he had a zoning problem until he came in this date to obtain
a driveway permit for construction in Cantrell Road right- of -way to serve
an old existing parking lot which he wanted to resurface (pave). The parking
lot was 45' x 75.
... He had been working on the building more or less continuously, doing much
of the work himself.
Based on information obtained in this meeting, Mr. Beard made a determination
that the non - conforming use should not be considered abandoned or forfeited
because of the six weeks over the zoning code provision of a one year allowance
and in view of the fact that Mr. Fields had apparently complied with our system
and had pursued rehabilitation of the building on a continuous basis. Work on
the structure was complete at that time.
* Actually one year and 17 days.
** I reviewed Mr. Fields' tax forms on July 3, 1985 which showed actual costs
to be $6,000. Additional costs on this propety were incurred by lessee
involving additional restroom facilities, equipment and decorating.
2.
Mr. Beard informed Mr. Fields that he would be required to comply with
City landscaping regulations and that he would not be permitted to make any
structural alterations or additions until property was properly rezoned. He also
advised that he might want to pursue rezoning to take care of the possibliity that
the structure could not be rebuilt if destroyed 50% or more by fire or other
disaster. Mr. Beard assured Mr. Fields he could otherwise continue with plans to
use the building as he proposed.
May 8, 1985: Check with utility companies indicated utility meters were
removed in 1978 because of "non- activity ". This was new information with
regard to the length of time the building has been without commercial use.
May 14, 1985: Mr. Beard was asked by Bill Davies to represent him in a
meeting with the City Manager, May 15, 1985. The meeting was for the purpose
of discussing the Fields case.
May 15, 1985: Mr. Beard attended a meeting with the City Manager for the
purpose of discussing details of the Fields case and deciding on a course of
action. Mark Stodola, City Attorney, and Gary Greeson, Director of
Comprehensive Planning, were also in attendance.
Information regarding the background and details of the case were related by Mr.
Beard. Discussion of the problems ensued. It was generally agreed that in view
of the fact that utility meters to the building were removed because of
"non- activity" in 1978, no commercial activity was being conducted in the
building at the time of the annexation to the City in 1979. Therefore, the
building did not have a non - conforming status at all with regard to occupancy.
The general feeling was that Mr. Fields should be required to go through the
rezoning process with recognition of the Hardship involved in this after - the -fact
situation. Ms Fleming directed Mark Stodola to write a letter to Mr. Fields
informing him that he must apply for rezoning of the property.
May 20, 1985: Mark Stodola prepared letter to Mr. Fields regarding
rezoning. (See Attachment B).
May 21, 1985: Mr. Orange Brady, employee of Sim's Bar -B -Q went to Mr.
Beard's office and inquired as to why he could not construct an addition to the
building to have a barbeque pit. Mr. Beard related the details of the case to Mr.
Brady and denied permission to proceed with the proposed addition.
May 22, 1985: Mr. Russell Settler, owner of Sim's Bar -B -Q, went to Mr.
Beard's office and made inquiry as to why he could not proceed to occupy the
building he had leased. Mr. Beard related the details of the case to Mr. Settler.
Mr. Settler stated that he had had equipment on order for a number of days and
was obligated to accept. He said an extreme hardship was being inflicted upon
him and he could not understand it.
3.
Brief Chronology:_ In summary, the most significant events associated with the
land use of this property are as follows:
1978 All utility meters removed from property.
1979 Area annexed to City of Little Rock.
4 -6 -85 Building leased to Sim's Bar -B -Q.
4 -29 -85 Zoning problem first identified, when Mr. Fields applied for
driveway permit.
5 -3 -85 Based upon limited and incorrect data, Roy Beard advised
Mr. Fields that no loss of non - conforming use had occurred.
5 -15 -85 Decision made that since property did not ever have
non - conforming status, rezoning would be required for
commercial use.
4.
ATTACH4IENT A
ADDRESS:
LEGAL
nESCRIPTION: LOT:
BLit: ADDITION:
APPLIC TI FOR CONSTRUCTION PERM IT DATE: -'- -
DEPARTMEN OFF PUBLIC WORKS L1 ROCS(, ARKA "45
APPL CANTZ • E % _ �-�./ ADDRESS:
BUEE I--LDER: Ji _ADDRESS:
.VNER: !� ADDRESS: —�—
DESIGNER:— ADDRESS:
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL: NEW REPAIR_ OT iER
DESCRIPTION OF WORK:
hereby certify that the data submitted on or with this application is true and
correct, that d am the owner of the property at this address or, that for th obtainin is a Val I am acting
as the agent in owner's behalf: 1--
is
' Mark Stodola
City Attorney
May 20, 1985
Mr. Leon P. Fields
7324 Rockwood Road
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
Re: Rezoning of 13830 Cantrell Road,
Little Rock, Arkansas
City Nall
Markham at Broadway
Little Flock, Arkansas 72201
501/371-4527
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dear Mr. Fields:
I have been requested to formally advise you that the Office of
Comprehensive Planning has received information which indicates
that no valid non - conforming use has ever existed on your
property located at 13830 Cantrell Road, Little Rock, Arkansas.
If you have any additional information about the previous uses of
this property contrary to the above conclusion, please contact
Gary Greeson, Director of Comprehensive Planning, within the next
five (5) days.
If in fact, there is no valid non - conforming use flowing with
this property, it will be necessary for you to formally file a
rezoning application before the Planning Commission before the
property can be'used for its intended commercial.use. Should
this become necessary, the City's planning staff stands ready to
assist you in preparing the.appropriate applications to be used
in the rezoning process.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to' contact
this office at your convenience.
MS: lm
cc: Susan Fleming, City Manager..
Gary Greeson, Director, Comprehensive Planning
bec: Roy Beard, Department of Public Works
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME:
LOCATION:
n LIT 7VT nr]VD .
McClelland Dev. Corp.
2207 Hidden Valley Dr.
Suite 204
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: 225 -5569
Kavanaugh Place
"Short -Form PCD" (Z -4473)
Southwest Corner of Kavanaugh
Boulevard and Ash Street
ENGINEER:
Lewis Engineering
367 I -30
Alexander, AR 72202
Phone: 847 -4630
AREA: .4863 acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW ST.: None
ZONING: "C -4" (Lots 1 and 2
"R -2" (Lot 3)
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Office and Retail
A. Development Objectives
(1) To provide a development in which location,
character and tenant mix will provide the
Hillcrest area with desirable retail and office
space, while contributing to the visual aesthetics
of the community and function of the commercial
district.
(2) To repeat established patterns in the
Heights / Hillcrest area, such as:
(a) The crescent shape of the building, which
relates to the old trolley turn around the
station;
(b) The street front pedestrian shopping pattern
that is prominent in the area;
(c) The similar architectural character (clay
tile awning) of the building occupied by The
Afterthought will be carried through on the
corner building.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
B. Proposal
(1) To provide a mixed used office /retail development
on .4 acres and to replat three lots into a single
site.
(2) Project Information
(a) Building Blueprint ........... 9,530 sq. ft.
Building /Land Ratio .......... 45 percent
Buildings
Corner Bldg. ....... 1st Floor .... 578
2nd Floor .... 540
Main Bldg. ....... 1st Floor .... 7,789
2nd Floor .... 8,109
Total 7,016 net
leasable
10 Leasable Units Proposed
(b) Parking: 22 cars on -site - 1 car per 773 sq. ft.
(c) Site Improvements Include:
i. Landscaping strip along south property line
to visually separate parking from the
adjacent residential area.
ii. Trees along the east sidewalk to enhance the
project and lessen the impact of the
Hillcrest Cleaners.
iii. Sidewalks will be concrete with brick paver
accents.
(3) Developmental Time Frame:
August 6, 1985 - "PUD11 Granted
Sept. 6, 1985 - Break Ground for Construction
Feb. 6, 1986 - Construction Completed
C. Engineering Comments
(1) A landscaped strip is required adjacent to parking
on Ash Street.
July 9, 1985
I
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
(2) There is sufficient parking area on the south of
the projects for head -in parking if desired.
(3) Clarify building at the corner of Kavanaugh and
Ash Street - blind corner problem may exist.
(4) Recommend dumpster be located at an angle to the
alley.
D. Analysis
The applicant has submitted a project that he
describes as being "strategically located at a 'bend in
the road' on Kavanaugh," and is by its physical layout,
at the visual terminus of the entire commercial
district to the west. Therefore, the building creates
a visual backdrop for shoppers in the area drawing them
through the shopping district, to "Kavanaugh Place" and
beyond. He points out also that the area is located in
the Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization Area of the
i Heights /Hillcrest District Plan of 1981. He has also
designed the project to open up to the corner, to
maximize visibility for retail and drive -up parking.
Staff recognizes and appreciates the applicant's desire
to revitalize this area. Parking, however, is a
definite problem. Only 22 spaces are provided. The
applicant offers an estimate of approximately 50
addtional off -site spots available within one block,
considering the local restaurant and business hours
each project will operate. He is asked to clarify this
statement.
Staff has other concerns. First of all, the applicant
should identify each building on his site plan. He is
asked to clarify what appears to be the corner
building, it may create a problem for traffic. Also,
the 4' screen proposed is insufficient; it should be at
least 6'.
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff defers recommendation until above issues are
resolved.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Ms. Cynthia Alderman represented the developer. A revised
plan was submitted which reduced the square footage to
12,894, provided 39 parking spaces and a 6 -foot fence.
The main issue discussed was the corner building and a
possible blind corner. The applicant was asked to meet with
Engineering staff before the public hearing to resolve the
issue.
Water Works - An 8 -inch water main extension from Woodlawn
will be required if the building is to have fire service.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Ms. Cynthia Alderman, the applicant, was present
representing the proposal. There were several persons
present objecting to the conversion of the existing service
station and to specific design elements of the plan.
Mr. Richard Delay, the manager of the cleaners immediately
across Ash Street, offered comments concerning the traffic
flows at that intersection and the need for one -way traffic
flow between Ash and Kavanaugh on the corner parking area.
He requested that the plan, if approved, carry such a
requirement.
The City Engineer's staff then offered comments as to
resolution of several concerns about a potential blind
corner. An agreed upon plan was offered for modification of
the small building on the corner so as to eliminate the
blind corner issue. The applicant voiced agreement with the
proposed change.
Mr. Vidas Baret, an owner to the west across the alley,
offered objections to the project on the basis of poor
drainage within this block. It was determined during the
course of his presentation that the Planning Commission
could condition the approval of this PUD upon submittal of
drainage and a retention plan. A discussion then followed
resulting in a motion to recommend approval of the request
to the Board of Directors subject to the suggested changes
which were: (1) submittal of a drainage and retention plan
prior to the issuance of a building permit; and (2)
conformance with the traffic engineer's agreed upon design
modifications. The Commission then voted on the motion
which passed by a vote of: 6 ayes, 8 noes and 5 absent.
i
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Pleasant Valley Park
Retirement Center "Long -Form
PCD" (Z -4482)
LOCATION: 10 acre tract on Hinson Loop/
Rainwood Road and 2.5 acre
tract north of 10 acre tract,
approx. 300' east of Napa Valley
Drive
DEVELOPER:
Ewing Health Systems, Inc. Manes, Castin, Massie
12115 Hinson Road and McGetrick, Inc.
Little Rock, AR 72212 2501 Willow Street
Phone: 224 -0207 North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: 758 -1350
AREA: 12.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Existing - "MF -12" (10 acres)
"0-2" (2.5 acres)
Proposed - "PRD"
PROPOSED USE: Retirement Village (residential cottages,
apartments and convalescent center)
A. Development Rationale
1. To provide a comprehensive continuing care
retirement community serving the residential
health care needs of the elderly.
2. To develop the southern portion of the site as
multifamily detached dwelling units.
B. Proposal
1. Quantitative Data:
Parcel Growth Area ......... 12.435 Acres
Street Right -of -Way ........ .455 Acres
Setbacks ................... 1.156 Acres
Retirement Housing Area .... 3.462 Acres
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
2. Development Schedule
(a) Phase I
(Multifamily
Detached Dwelling Units)
84 Units
Located in
21 Detached
Structures
Each Structure
Contains
4 Dwelling
Units
Bldg.
Bldg.
Use
Qty.
Sq. Ft.
Coverage
1 -BR Units at
12
91000
91000
750 sq. ft.
2 BR Units at
72
68,400
68,400
750 sq. ft.
Carports at
84
18,060
18,060
215 sq. ft.
All Single Family
(b) Phase II
Bldg.
Bldg.
Use
Qty.
Sq. Ft.
Coverage
(i)
Common Facilities
1
6,800
6,800
Food Preparation
Dining
Single Story
(ii)
Health Care Center
1
51,500
12,750
Total of 120 beds
of nursing care.
(These are divided
into 96 two
-bed units
and 24 private
bed units.)
Support Services
4- Stories
(iii)
1
60,000
10,000
Apt. Towers
53 Units with
39 1 -BR Units and
14 2 -BR Units
Support Services
4- Stories
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
(c) Phase III
Bldg. Bldg.
Use Qty. Sq. Ft. Coverage
(i) 1 57,950 7,950
Apt. Towers
(Total of 53 apartments with 39 one - bedroom units and
14 two- bedroom units.)
Support Services
6- Stories
(ii) 4 3,000 3,000
Multifamily
Detached
1 -BR Units at
750 sq. ft.
2 -BR Units at 12 11,400 11,400
a 950 sq. ft.
Carports at 16 3.440 3.440
215 sq. ft.
Total 289,059 150,800
3. Landscaping /Open Space - Includes greenbelt
pedestrian path along both sides of collector
street. Interior atriums in each unit for private
use. Public open space has been maintained around
each multifamily detached dwelling unit and
combined into a major open space centrally located
landsape pedestrian path.
Open Space
Private Space ................... .195 Acres
Common Space ....................8,973 Acres
Total 9.168 Acres
4. Development Schedule
Phase I - Construction begins Christmas of 1985.
Units constructed at market absorption rate.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
Phase II - Construction begins in summer of 1986,
completed in late 1987.
Phase III - Construction begins in late fall 1987,
units constructed at market absorption rate.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Rainwood Road to
collector standards.
(2) Submit internal drainage and detention plan.
D. Analysis
Staff was very much prohibited in its review of the
item due the applicant's failure to comply with the
site plan submission requirements as stated in the
Zoning Ordinance. The site plan needs to be properly
detailed. Staff is also concerned that the plan
appears to be quite dense.
1
E. Staff Recommendation
Staff defers recommendation until further information
is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee reviewed the item. The applicant submitted a
more detailed site plan. The issues were identified as
involving: (1) the proposed access /turning lane to
Hinson Road; (2) a 6 -foot fence and landscaped buffer on the
west adjacent to the abutting residential; and (3)
development on the various portions of the plan and how each
relates to the density allowed in "MF -12" and "0-2."
Water Works - The easement should be designated to be also
for utilities. On -site fire line and hydrants will be
required. Pro -rata charge applies.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Nooner, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. The staff offered a specific
recommendation on the application as follows: (1) that the
10 acre "MF -12" site be limited to that density with no
multistory buildings, (2) that the "02" site be limited to
one multistory apartment building, 52 units total and the
nursing home /restaurant annex, (3) that the basic design
concept be retained. However, Mr. Bob Wickard, a nearby
owner and developer, offered concerns about the project and
his brief notice of the proposal. Mr. Nooner made a brief
presentation and responded to the staff density analysis and
j recommendations. A general discussion followed resulting in
a motion to defer the request to August 13, 1985. The
motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
July 9, 1985
.SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME:
DEVELOPER:
Paul Jenkins
Phone: 225 -2625
Jenkins "Short -Form PCD"
(Z -4480)
Hinson Road at Greenbrier
AGENT:
Linkous
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 224 -1234
AREA: .46 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST._: 0
ZONING: "R -2" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Office
The applicant requested that this item be deferred for 30
days.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission responded to this owner's request by
deferring the matter to August 13, 1985. The motion to
defer was passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME:
Country Club Corporate Center
"Short -Form PCD" (Z -4479)
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
The Linkous Co. Edward G. Smith & Associates
12115 Hinson Road 401 S. Victory
Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 224 -1234 Phone: 374 -1666
} AREA: 4.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW ST.: 330
ZONING: "R -2" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Office
The applicant requested that this item be deferred for 30
days.
} PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission responded to this owner's request by
deferring the matter to August 13, 1985. The motion to
defer was passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
E
July 9, 1985
! SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER:
Coldwell Banker
AGENT:
Ann Terry
Brentwood Apts.
"Long -Form PRD" (Z -4453)
5300 Base Line
DEVELOPER:
Rector - Phillips -Morse
P.O. Box 7300
Little Rock, AR 72217
Phone: 664 -7807
FNGTNFRR:
Ed Smith and Associates
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 12.88 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: 11R -2" to "PRD"
PROPOSED AND EXISTING USE: Apartments
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request for "PRD" approval for the above named
project. Due to the recent annexations into the City
a limits, this property is now zoned "R -2" Single Family, as
is every annexed parcel. The applicant is requesting a
zoning change to allow the continuation of the project as it
now exists. Also, because the property has been sold,
lending institutions won't make a loan as long as the
property is nonconforming.
The complex consists of 16 apartment buildings and
supporting buildings on 12.76 acres and is developed at a
density of 18.81 units per acre. Three hundred and
forty -five parking spaces provide 1.44 parking spaces per
unit. The units number 240, which includes: (1) 96
one - bedrooms at 656 sq. ft. each, (2) 104 two - bedrooms at
869 sq. ft. each, (3) 42 three - bedrooms at 906 sq. ft.
each.
Staff nor Engineering has any problem with the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was revised and passed to the Commission. No
issues for discussion were raised.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
on a motion to recommend approval to the Board of Directors.
The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent
and 1 abstention (Bill Rector).
}
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME:
Asher Business and Commercial
Center "Short -Form PCD"
(Z -4452)
LOCATION: 4100 Asher
DEVELOPER /APPLICANT:
Dick Toll
12,900 Ridgehaven Road
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 225 -2563
1 AREA: 3.38 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: Existing - "C -3"
Proposed - "PCD"
PROPOSED USE: Retail Center
A. Site History
This property consists of a paved area of 3.38 acres
and an abandoned Safeway Food Store building and Holly
Farms Restaurant building. The store structure was
constructed in 1965, the restaurant in 1975. Safeway
occupied the building until 1978, Food - for -Less from
1979 until 1981, then several other businesses until
1981. The Holly Farms Restaurant closed in 1981.
Since then, both buildings have been vacant, boarded up
and for sale.
B. Development Objectives
1. To upgrade a blighted area by rehabilitating
deteriorating vacant structures.
2. To attract commercial type businesses that do not
depend upon the local neighborhood economic
support.
3. To help strengthen the economic base of the
neighborhood by attracting businesses which will
result in employment of local neighborhood
persons.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
4. To stimulate reinvestment, improvement and higher
use of surrounding properties.
C. Proposal
1. A mixed use retail center on 3.38 acres.
2. Request a minimum amount of landscaping so as to
(1) keep the cost down so the developer may offer
prospective clients competitive pricing to induce
them to come into this location which is less
desirable than many others for their use;
t (2) jackhammering of the existing pavement would
be needed to plant anything; (3) possibility of
theft and vandalism to shrubs and trees.
3. The determination of the future use of this large
land area on the southeast quarter of the property
will be warranted by successful use of the
existing buildings. When further development
occurs on this portion, all the required
landscaping could be done.
4. Project Statistics
(a) gain Bldg . .................. 25,500 sq. ft.
35% on 8,825 sq. ft. ........ "C -3 Use
40% or 12,200 sq. ft. ....... "C -4" Use
(interest in machinery, sales and service
plumbing, electrical and air conditioning
shop)
25% or 6,375 sq. ft. ........ "I -1"
(interest in light fabrication and assembly
process and warehousing and wholesaling)
(b) Restaurant Bldg. ........... 1800 sq. ft.
5. A 6' board fence is planned for the north end of
the side.
D. Engineering Comments
None.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
E. Analysis
Staff is very supportive of the applicant's desire to
upgrade the area and provide a retail and business
center. He has asked for a reasonable amount of
flexibility regarding the review of the proposal and
landscaping. We are favorable to his request to tie
specific landscaping requirements to further
development of the site. The site plan should be
marked accordingly.
Even though there appears to be ample parking, the
applicant is reminded that approximately 64 spaces are
needed for the proposed commercial, 18 for the
restaurant. For the wholesaling and manufacturing, one
per 600 square feet will be required; and for warehouse
and storage, five spaces plus one space per 2,000
square feet of gross floor area up to 50,000 square
feet will be required.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the full Commission.
Water Works - There is an existing fire service to this
property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission determined that there were no issues for
resolution. After a brief discussion, the Commission
voted on a motion to recommend approval to the City Board of
Directors. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes
and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
Commerce Street
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4419 -A)
LOCATION: The NW Corner of the
Intersection of Commerce St.
and the I -30 Service Road
(2812 Commerce Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Dwight Jackson
P RnPnSA T, -
} To remove the existing structures and to construct a
430 square foot bakery /sandwich shop and four parking spaces
on one lot that is zoned "C -1."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site abuts Commerce Street (one -way running from
north to south).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded on three sides by single
family uses. Interstate I -30 lies to the east. The
applicant apparently has neighborhood support. The
staff and the Planning Commission have supported "C -1"
zoning.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant has proposed one ingress from Commerce
Street and two points of egress onto an alley to the
west. The proposal calls for four paved parking
spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has submitted a landscape proposal which
shows a privacy fence on the north and south property
lines.
2- 4419 -A - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff supports this proposal. The staff feels that
the privacy fences should be six feet in height due to
the small lot and the adjacent single family
structures.
City Engineering Comments:
(1) Clarify traffic circulation;
(2) Improve the alley; will traffic in the alley be
two -way; and
(3) Submit internal drainage and detention plan.
6. Staff Recommendation:
The staff recommends approval provided the applicant
agrees to:
(1) Construct six -foot privacy fences; and
(2) Comply with City Engineering comments numbered
1 -3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that egresses would be
one -way onto the alley and that he would pave the alley from
his south property line northward to E. 28th Street. The
applicant also stated he intended for the privacy fences to
} be 6 feet in height. The City Engineer stated he was
satisfied with applicant's intentions and that the applicant
would not be required to submit an internal drainage and
detention plan. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to approve
this application as reviewed by the Subdivision Committee
and recommended by staff.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PPnPngAT.
South University
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4466 -A)
The East Side of Unversity
Avenue North of 53rd Street
(5001 S. University)
Roy May /Maury Mitchell
To downzone the property from "I -2" to "C -3" and to obtain a
conditional use permit in order to construct a 4,085 square
foot building and 18 parking spaces which would be used for
a muffler shop.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site fronts on a major arterial (University
Avenue). This site is also adjacent to the Fourche
Creek floodplain.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property has a commercial use located to the south
with vacant land adjacent to the north and east.
University Avenue is located to the west. The proposed
use is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parki
This proposal contains one 30 -foot access drive to
University Avenue and 21 paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed landscaping on the south
property line.
5. Analysis
The staff has no objection to this proposal. The
applicant will be required to meet City landscape
requirements.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
Citv Engineering Comments
(1) The proposal will need to comply with the
floodplain regulations;
(2) The applicant needs to submit internal drainage
and detention plans; and
(3) The driveway will need approval by the Arkansas
State Highway Department.
b. Staff Recommendation
} Staff recommends approval subject to the applicant
agreeing to comply with City Engineering comments
numbered 1 -3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all
staff recommendations. The staff and applicant also stated
that a final plat would be submitted for staff review. The
Little Rock Water Works stated that a 12 -inch main extension
would be required. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to approve
this application as reviewed by the Subdivision Committee
1 and recommended by staff.
July 9, 1985
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
1
NAME:
LOCATMN:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Unitarian Universalist Church
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4474) (1818 Reservoir Rd.)
The West Side of Reservoir
Road North of Rodney Parham
Road
Unitarian Universalist Church/
Yandell Johnson and Raymond
Branton, Architect
To construct a 500 square foot addition to an existing 1,380
square foot sanctuary (160 capacity), a 672 square foot
foyer, a new 2,880 square foot fellowship hall which
includes a new 936 square foot administrative area,
miscellaneous 936 square feet and to renovate an existing
3,564 square foot educational building on 4.28+ acres of
land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is adjacent to an arterial street (Reservoir
Road). The property slopes from its mid point gently
downward towards Reservoir and more steeply towards the
west property line.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is currently used as a church and is
surrounded by multifamily development on three sides.
The property to the west is vacant. The proposed use
is compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing to use one existing drive
located on Reservoir Road. There are currently 61
parking spaces for church use (not paved).
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff supports the church use on this property.
Staff does feel that a revised site plan is necessary.
The site plan should show dimensions of the drives,
structures, etc. The applicant also needs to define
and illustrate more clearly on the site plan the
proposed chapel located on the northwest property. It
is situated too close to the property line.
City Engineering Requirements:
(1) Dedicate right -of -way on Reservoir Road (80 feet
t total) and improve Reservoir to minor arterial
standards;
(2) Submit internal drainage and detention plan; and
(3) Construct parking area to meet City standards.
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the applicant agreeing to:
(1) submit a revised site plan better defining the
proposed chapel area and containing structural and
drive dimensions; and (2) comply with City Engineering
comments numbered 1 -3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
} The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all
staff recommendations. There were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commission voted: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to approve
this application as reviewed by the Subdivision Committee
and recommended by staff.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
TxTAMP..
T.nCATMN e
OWNER /APPLICANT:
DW)DnC LT.
Gum Springs Day -Care
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4476)
The South Side of Gum Springs
Road Just West of Larch Road
(4707 Gum Springs Road)
Dana M. and Don E. Stuart
To convert an existing single family structure to a day -care
center (capacity 39 children) by constructing a
36.3' x 12.3' addition and an entranceway as well as seven
paved parking spaces on a lot (12,500 square feet) that is
zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is adjacent to a collector street (Gum
Springs Road) and is relatively flat.
2. Compatiblity with Neighborhood
This site is surrounded by single family uses but is
j separated from a single family use (north) by Gum
Springs Road. The staff feels that a well designed
day -care use adjacent to a collector street is
compatible. The staff feels that this particular
proposal may be too intense for the site.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing one paved entrance (from Gum
Springs Road) and seven paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has proposed a wood privacy fence
adjacent (east) to the proposed parking area.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff is supportive of the proposed use but has
reservations about the intensity of the development.
The staff feels that the capacity of the day -care
should be reduced (to possibly 25 students) which in
turn would reduce the required parking area. A
reduction in parking area would help to facilitate the
design of a drop off site for the children.
City Engineering Comments
(1) Seven parking spaces cannot be approved as shown;
the vehicles could not get out;
(2) A landscaping strip is required on the east side
of the parking are; and
(3) How will the children be dropped off and picked
up?
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) reduce
the day -care capacity; and (2) comply with the City
Engineering comments numbered 1 -3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. A discussion ensued over the
1 proposed capacity in a drop off area. The staff stated that
a capacity of 30 would require six parking spaces. The
applicant apparently agreed to submit a revised parking
plan, access plan and landscape plan. The issue of the
proposed capacity of the day -care center was not resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were six objectors
present. The objectors presented petitions and letters that
totally opposed the proposed day -care center. The applicant
stated that she might lower the proposed capacity and that
she would build a 6 -foot privacy fence around the entire
property. The applicant also stated that she would provide
a semicircular drop off area for the children. A short
discussion ensued. The Commission then voted 0 ayes,
6 noes, 5 absent to disapprove this proposal.
July 9, 1985
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME:
Oak Street Duplex
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4477)
LOCATION: The West Side of Oak Street
Just North of Plateau Street
(132 S. Oak Street)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Jean S. Watts
DDnT3nC T T..
3 To convert an existing single family residence to a duplex
by constructing a small addition on the front and the rear
of the building and using the existing driveway for parking
on a lot that is zoned "R -3."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This property has little slope and lies adjacent to a
residential street (South Oak).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed use appears to be compatible with the
surrounding area except that the parking proposal is
inadequate. This proposal does not exactly meet the
Woodruff Neighborhood Plan; however, duplex uses do
exist on both sides of Oak Street just north of this
particular proposal. The staff feels that this
proposal can be compatible subject to any comments from
the Woodruff Neighborhood Committee.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing to use the existing paved
drive as access and parking.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
5. Analysis
Staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area subject to any comments by the
Woodruff Neighborhood Committee. The proposal does
lack adequate parking. Three paved parking spaces are
required. Staff feels that the parking area could be
constructed and landscaped to the rear of the structure
with access provided by the existing drive. The
applicant also needs to submit a landscape plan.
City_Engineering Comments:
Specify parking plan.
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant submit the revised
site plan with the required parking area and
landscaping.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that an area existed in
the rear yard (adjacent to the alley) that she would pave.
The area is 18' x 25' and be large enough to accommodate at
least two cars while the drive could accommodate two or
three cars. The applicant agreed to submit a revised site
plan which would show the additional parking area. There
were no unresolved issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were also three objectors
present. Staff stated that they had received a petition
(including 8 signatures) of opposition. The applicant
stated that she did not want to make the neighbors made. A
short discussion ensued. The Commission then voted 0 ayes,
6 noes and 5 absent to disapprove this application.
July 9, 1985
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
n1Jn1'1n0 T T .
Arkla Radio Tower
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4478)
1/4 Mile West of the End of
Morrison Road
City of Little Rock Water
Works /Benny R. Martin,
Arkla Gas Company
To construct a 130 -foot radio tower (with the necessary
zoning variance) on 1.51 acres of land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located about 1/4 of a mile west of the
end of Morrison Road on a gravel road. The nearest
development is about 1/4 of a mile east of this site.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property contains an adjacent water tank and is
surrounded by vacant land. This proposal is compatible
with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This site is served by a gravel access road. No
parking area is proposed.
4. Screening and Buffers
This site is naturally screened by the existing terrain
and vegetation.
5. Analysis
This site is well suited for the proposed use.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
City Engineering Comments:
No comment.
6. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to the Board of Adjustment granting
the requested 95 -foot height variance.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and there were no unresolved
issues.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. One objector was also present.
Mr. Nat Griffin of Flake and Company represented property
owners that owned land adjacent to this site to the west.
Mr. Griffin stated that he was working on an agreement with
Arkla gas. Mr. Griffin stated that his client did not
oppose the construction of the radio tower, if the tower was
of a temporary nature or if the future single family
homeowners did not object to its presence. A lengthy
discussion ensued. A motion was made to approve the
application to construct a radio tower with the tower
approval being on a temporary basis. The motion stated that
the tower could remain on this site until a new water tank
facility could be located to the west of this area was
constructed. The applicant and Mr. Griffin accepted this
proposal. The Commission then voted 6 ayes, 0 noes and
5 absent to approve this application as outlined in the
motion.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20
NAME:
Barton Street
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4481)
LOCATION: The NE Corner of the
Intersection of Barton Street
and the Missouri Pacific RR
OWNER /APPLICANT: Brent Baber
PROPOSAL
To construct three duplexes (1,632 square feet each
building) on three separate lots and 12 paved parking spaces
on land that is zoned °R -3.°
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located at the end of a residential street
(Barton Street). It slopes substantially downward from
Barton Street toward the railroad tracks.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This proposal has the potential to be compatible with
the surrounding area. This site is adjacent to the
Missouri Pacific Railroad on the south and east.
Single family uses lie to the north and west. The
Woodruff Neighborhood Plan allows for duplex
development on in -fill or vacant lots. The Woodruff
Neighborhood Committee has some reservations about
two -story structures such as those located at the
northeast corner of Valentine and 7th Street.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The applicant is proposing one 12.5 -foot access drive
to Barton Street with 12 paved parking spaces to be
located in the rear of the structures.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
5. Analysis
1..1
The staff is generally supportive of this proposal.
The staff's support is subject to any concerns the
Woodruff Neighborhood Committee may have to the
duplexes being two - story.
The Fire Department has expressed concern over the
width of the proposed access drive. The department
needs at least one 20 -foot access drive and preferably
two 20 -foot access drives. The Fire Department can
accept one 20 -foot access drive provided there is an
area (50 feet in radius) for an adequate turnaround.
The staff feels that the parking should be arranged
such that the parking stalls or spaces do not overlap
the lot lines. The applicant also needs to submit a
landscape plan. The staff would like a revised site
plan that incorporates corrective action for the Fire
Department requirements.
Citv Enqineerinq Requirements:
Submit an internal drainage and detention plan.
Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a landscape Plan; (2) submit a revised site plan that
addresses the Fire Department's needs as well as the
staff's concerns; and (3) an internal drainage and
detention plan.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant stated that he would make an
effort to revise the site plan to incorporate the Fire
Department's concerns.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A number of objectors were also
present. The applicant requested that deferral to the
August 13 Planning Commission meeting and stated that he had
not been able to complete a revised site plan. The
neighbors objected to the entire proposal and asked that the
Commission deny the proposal and also stated that the
applicant had not been cooperative. The Commission voted
3 ayes, 3 noes and 5 absent to defer this proposal. The
motion failed due to a lack of a majority vote. A new
motion to defer this application to the August 13 Planning
Commission meeting was made so that the applicant could meet
with the neighbors and submit the necessary site plans. The
Commission then voted 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent to defer
this item to the August 13, 1985, Planning Commission
meeting.
1
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21
NAME:
Broadview Terrace
Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Broadview
Drive and Broadview Terrace Ct.
APPLICANT /ARCHITECT: OWNERS:
Charles Witsell, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Tyndall Dickinson
Witsell, Evans and Rasco #6 West Palisades
1302 S. Cumberland Little Rock, AR 72207
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 374 -5300
REQUEST:
(1) 5' encroachment into 25' setback area on Broadview
Drive for construction of a garage.
(2) 5' encroachment into 25' setback area on Broadview
Terrace Court for construction of a porch or bay
window.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existing Conditions
The land involved is located in an area composed
entirely of single family homes.
C. Proposal
This is a request to modify two platted building lines.
A 5' front yard encroachment is requested to allow
construction of a driveway between large maple trees.
If the house is placed directly on the building line,
the driveway will overlap the north maple tree.
The second waiver requested is on the east. Since the
lot is not rectangular, the front of the lot is 100'
wide and the lot gradually narrows on the east side to
form a rear line of 91.5 feet. This narrowing causes
the building line to barely cross one corner of the
proposed garage. The 5' waiver will allow a garage at
standard depth and utility.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None.
E. Analysis
Staff has no problems with the request. A one lot
final and amended Bill of Assurance is required.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission without
adverse comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
on a motion to approve the request. The motion passed by a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Security Storage Request
NAME: Security Storage Partnership
Mini - Warehouses
LOCATION: NW Corner of Chicot and I -30
DEVELOPER: AGENT:
Security Storage Partnership Chuck Rusgus and
2515 Military Richard S. Bondurant
Benton, AR 72015 Phone No. 565 -7900
STAFF REPORT:
On December 13, 1983, the Commission approved a
mini - warehouse project on this site, which is now zoned
"C -4." At that time, 1.58 acres was designated as Phase II
and left for further development. A self- storage facility
is now being operated on the property.
As an extension of the self- storage business, the applicant
has placed rental trucks, displayed building samples and
stored RV's and boats on the site. This portion of the
property is covered with SB -2 and contains a concrete slab.
Zoning enforcement has indicated that the above is in
violation of "C -4" requirements. The request is for
approval of the process which will allow the above for a
temporary period of time. Within 24 months, the applicant
expects to initiate Phase II of the expansion and will
request permanent site location at that time.
STAFF COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee requested that the applicant present his case
before the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. A brief discussion was held resulting in a
motion to approve the revisions to allow the temporary use
within the time limit offered in the staff report. The
motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 - Other Matters - Street Right -of -Way
Abandonment
NAM E:
West 20th Street
LOCATION: Lying between Gilman and
Potter Streets
OWNER /APPLICANT: Odes Perry
By: Jerry Gardner
REQUEST: To abandon the existing
7,540 square feet of
right -of -way and join with
the adjacent property for
} purposes of a single family
plat.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
There is none evidenced by the records of this office
or our mailout contacts.
2. Master Street Plan
Not applicable in this case.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None evidenced by our review.
4. Characteristics of the Right- of -Wav Terrain
Tree covered and rolling ground.
5. Development Potential
The right -of -way has been included within a preliminary
plat as portions of two residential lots.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
There should be no adverse effect from this abandonment
inasmuch as this street has not been in use and no
physical improvements have been constructed.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 - Continued
7. Neighborhood Position
It has been brought to our attention that there is
possibly one neighborhood objector.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
At this writing, only one request has been filed for
easement retention, that is the Wastewater Utility.
9. Reversionary Rights
This is yet to be determined. The normal reversion of
right -of -way after abandonment by the City is an equal
distribution to the abutting owners except in those
cases where the entire right -of -way source is one side.
In this instance, it appears the applicant would
receive all of the right -of -way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends approval of the abandonment
petition inasmuch as this request fulfills a plat
requirement by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission voted
to recommend to the City Board of Directors the abandonment
of the right -of -way. The vote: 8 ayes, 0 noes and
3 absent.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 - Other Matters - Street Right -of -Wa
Abandonment
NAME:
Rockwood Road
LOCATION: West off Stagecoach Road
and south of Pecan Lake Addition
PETITIONER: Antioch Missionary Baptist
Church, Missionary Baptist
Seminary and Anderson
Engineering and Testing Co.
REQUEST: To change the current name of
Rockwood Road to Seminary
Drive its entire east /west
length.
ABUTTING USES AND OWNERSHIPS:
A church on the south side of the street, a seminary on the
north side of the street and the engineering company at the
west end of the right -of -way.
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT:
There are only three uses abutting this street right -of -way
each of which should be benefited by the name change. There
is an existing conflicting street name within the Kingwood
Addition in the north central part of the City.
NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION:
It is our understanding that one abutting and participating
owner, Anderson Engineering, may offer some objection. The
grounds of this objection have been suggested as being the
cost of change to abutting owners and the time frame for
doing so.
EFFECT ON PUBLIC SERVICES:
This change will lessen the possibility of emergency
services being dispatched to a wrong address. Postal
services, as well as delivery services, should be improved.
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 24 - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff has encouraged this change over the past
several years in line with policy of the City which
discourages conflicting street names. We recommend this
change be made if all of the abutting owners can agree upon
the name and the effective date of the ordinance. The date
is especially important for advertisers in the yellow page
telephone book supplement, inasmuch as early fall is the
cutoff point for publication.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and made a brief comment.
Mr. Anderson, an owner of adjacent property occupied by
Anderson Engineering Company, stated his total opposition to
the request. He offered a number of reasons for objection.
However, his primary concern centered on the excessive cost
and his firm's identity with this street name. The staff
offered a thought that the Board of Directors past policy
and actions would dictate leaving the name as is. In past
actions, staff has observed that the Board was not receptive
to approving a street name where there were objectors.
After a brief discussion, the Commission voted to reject the
petition by a unanimous vote.
July 9, 1985
}
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 25 - Other Matters_- Street Improvements Assurance
Issue: The Planning Commission's discussion of subdivision
improvements assurance and enforcement.
Request: The Planning staff requests a discussion with the
Planning Commission subject to the enforcement of tri -party
and other subdivision performance agreements. In recent
months, the staff has experienced some degree of difficulty
in enforcing the current standards. This enforcement
problem hinges primarily upon the inability to assess a
penalty for noncompliance or for lateness in compliance.
The staff would be prepared to offer suggestions as to
remedy and would encourage the Planning Commission to offer
such proposals as they think appropriate.
The Planning Commission lost a quorum prior to discussion of
this matter. Therefore, no action was taken.
-
DATE 1 u\y q, 1985
--�� -�"'-
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 1111BltlJ)l l IZl3lt.f-i5l lo 171 B Jq l /DI ll I 12-I rstl±LJ51 J�I 17
J.
J.Schlereth
R.Massie
B.Sipes
J.Nicholson
w.Rector
W.Ketcher
D.Arnett
0� J. Jones
I.Boles
J� Clayton
VAYE -NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
-"-,....__.,-
DATE :Tulv 9, 1985
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
·· ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER Ji a Z-1 zz
J.SummPrl .; n rr
J.Schlereth � ./ V /
R.Massie ,/ v ·v �
B.Sipes /1
J.Nicholson 11 f I
w.Rector ./ I./ V .i/
w.Ketcher ,/ 1,/ V V
D.Arnett / � V V
D� J. Jones A A ti �
I.Boles ,/ ii V ·�
J; Clayton 13 /} V V
ITEM NUMBERS
Z3 Zl/
V V
,/ A
_ ...
/ I / ./ ..-� ,/
� �A V I
� fl
'VAYE -NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN
July 9, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned
at 5:05 p.m.
lgrs-
Date
S cyc reta
Chairman W