pc_05 14 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MAY 14, 1985
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 11 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and
approved.
III. Members Present: Jim Summerlin
John Schelerth
Richard Massie
Betty Sipes
�- Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector, Jr.
Bill Ketcher
Dorothy Arnett
D.J. Jones
Ida Boles
John Clayton
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES
May 14, 1985
Deferred Items:
A. Hilltop Subdivision of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition
of the City of Little Rock
B. Landscape Material and Design (Revised) "PCD"
(Z- 4188 -A)
C. Cantrell Place West Discussion
Preliminary Plats /Replats
1. Pine Ridge Subdivision Preliminary
2. Cloie Subdivision Preliminary
3. Towne Oak Apartments Replat
Planned Unit Development:
4. Gary Flynn "PRD" (Z -4400)
5. Marcella "PRD" (Z- 44401)
6. Troy's "PRD" (Z -4402)
7. Aldersgate /Kanis Apartments "PRD" (Z -4403)
8. P. & L. Investment Company "PCD" (Z- 4016 -C)
Conditional Use Permit:
9. Antioch Missionary Baptist Church (Z -4440)
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - File No. 374 -A
NAME:
LOCATION:
n VXIF T.nD FD .
Joe De Palo
#4 River Mountain Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
Hilltop Subdivision Preliminary
of Plot 2, Country Homes
Addition
North side of River Mountain,
Rodney Parham & Highway 10
ENGINEER:
Mehlburger, Tanner &
Associates
P.O. Box 3837
Little Rock, AR 72203
375 -5331
AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: 11R -2"
PROPOSED USES:
Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
19 FT. NEW STREET: 690
The site was before the Commission on
December 18, 1984, for PRD approval of a condominium
project. The application was denied.
B. Existinq Conditions
The land involved currently has one single family frame
residence on the site. Elevations range from 525' to
570'. Scattered trees and other vegetation are
apparent. The area consists of large lots, single
family, except for a church to the south of the site.
"OS" strip serves as a buffer area between the church
and the property.
C. Development Proposal
This is a proposal to develop 5.013 acres into 19 lots
for single family development, with 690 feet of new
streets. The average lot size is approximately
11,486 square feet and the minimum is 7,350 square
feet.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
1. Improve River Mountain Road to minor arterial
standards. River Mountain Road and the
right -of -way is controlled by A.H.T.D.; discuss
street and drainage plans with them.
2. Submit internal drainage and detention plan;
discuss plan with Mike Batie, 371 -4861.
E. Analysis
Technically, the proposal meets the ordinance
requirements. Staff does not oppose the use of the
land.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant discussed the proposal with the Committee. He
explained that the Bill of Assurance restrictions expired in
1964; the homes would be 1,800 to 2,000 square feet, and the
plan remained open for the Commission's input as to how to
develop the property or what restrictions to place in the
Bill of Assurance.
Staff gave its support of the plat, but stated that both the
Suburban Plan and the recent Corridor Study designates this
area for large lot single family.
The Committee then discussed whether or not this plan
constituted large lot single family. One Committee member
felt that this plan was not in keeping with the character of
the surrounding area. Other Committee members requested
that an alternate plan with a mid -rise overlooking the
River be submitted. They felt that such a plan reviewed
under the PUD process would maintain the existing frontage
and visual quality of the area.
The applicant was advised that t
responsibility was to assess the
proposal to the entire area, not
that whatever development occurs
precedent and have a significant
hillside will be developed.
he Commission's
overall impact of the
only the site. They felt
on this site would set a
impact on how the entire
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2- 12 -85)
The applicant, Mr. Joe DePalo, was present. He was
accompanied by Mr. Joe Kemp, his attorney, and Mr. Don
Chambers, the architech. An alternative plan showing a
mid -rise was presented, as was requested by the Subdivision
Committee. Mr. Chambers explained that his client was
attempting to use his property to its highest and best use.
They felt that the highest and best use was once large lot
residential, but since development of the church, it is now
a dense residential use. He also explained that the
property could contain 25 lots, but he only proposed 19. If
the mid -rise were to be considered as a PUD, it was
requested that the single family plat be continued until the
PUD was approved or denied.
Mr. Chambers further explained that the proposed plan
included homes of 1800 to 2000 square feet at a cost of
$150,000 to $200,000; and that his client's general feeling
was that the total environment of the property would change
due to the intrusion of the church, which was a
nonresidential use. He stated this proposal only
represented an attempt to buffer the office use by a higher
residential use.
Mr. DePalo then explained his position. He had acquired the
property in 1981 and was advised that the corridor was
subject to be changed, but that "R -2" would be the
prevailing use. At the time, he was unaware that a church
could be built in the area. When the church was considered
by the Commission, he asked his neighbors to join him
opposing it; but they didn't. He then proceeded to pass
pictures around illustrating the damaging effects of the
church. He stated that he was a landowner within the law
who had the right to develop his property. He assured the
Commission that he intended to reside on the land and that
his approach was not that of vengeance. He mentioned that
Mr. Darragh had made what he considered to be a "hollow
gesture" to purchase his property.
Mr. Herb Rule represented the property owners to the east.
He felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the
neighborhood and that his clients had tried unsuccessfully
to work with DePalo. He stated that there was a sign up for
8 to 10 years on the church property before Mr. DePalo
bought the church property advertising the construction of a
church and that during Commission review, the church was
required to leave two acres and green space as a protective
buffer for Mr. DePalo.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
Mr. Darragh agreed that he was asked by Mr. DePalo to oppose
the church. He explained that he couldn't since the
residents to the east knew that a church would be built and
preferred this to a commercial or office use. He assured
the Commission that if he bought DePalo's property, it would
remain large lot single family.
Mr. DePalo spoke again. He questioned whether or not his
neighbors to the east should have been knowledgeable about
the "R -2" zoning, just as he was expected to be
knowledgeable about the church in an "R -2" zone.
Mr. Rule stated that the property should be zoned "R -1,'
instead of "R -2." He felt that "R -2" was an insult to the
property.
The Commission discussed the item. Several Commissioners
had mixed feelings about the development since it was
realized that Mr. DePalo had the right to develop his
property. On the other hand, a proposal of 19 or 20 lots
would be a drastic departure from what was existing, and the
neighbors also had the right not to have their entire
environment totally uprooted. It was explained that the
Commission's duty was to consider not only this site but
what was fair on both sides and what was beneficial for the
community at- large. The Commission felt that what happened
on this property determined how the entire hillside would be
developed. Mr. DePalo was asked to defer the item for 30
days and work out a solution with abutting property owners.
Mr. DePalo stated that he resented the fact that he was
within the law and still had to compromise on a right that
he is entitled to enjoy. He felt that there must be some
question that right existed. Finally, he agreed to defer
for 30 days and work out a solution with his neighbors. A
motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
(2- 28 -85)
There was no review of this item.
Water Works - An 8 inch watermain extension will be
require-d.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3- 12 -85)
A motion for a 30 -day deferral, as requested by the
applicant, was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
There was no further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff reported that a letter was received by the applicant
that requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion for approval was
made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW; (4- 25 -85)
There was no further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 14 -84)
The applicant requested withdrawal of the item. A motion
for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - File No. 555 -A
NAME:
Landscape Material and Design
"Revised" PCD - (Z- 4188 -A)
LOCATION: One - fourth mile south of
Stagecoach on the west side of
Sibley Hole Road
APPT.TrANT
Allen Smith, Jr.
Landscape Material and
Design, Inc.
Environmental Contractors
7901 Stagecoach Road
Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 455 -2962
REQUEST:
Revision of an approved "PCD" project for a landscaping
business.
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to revise an approved PUD project. The
changes consist of:
(1) Moving the tool /storage /workshop from the west to the
east side of the property, and expanding it from a
24' x 48' accessory building to one of 80' x 201. This
building will be built up off the ground 6' with
9" x 7" piers.
(2) Expanding the "greenhouse /lathe house" from 20' x 60'
to 100' x 140'. This would be expanded over a period
of time. The structure is a shade cloth (nylon mesh)
stretched over a frame of 2" x 6" lumber supported by
5" x 5" posts. It is to be used for protection of
shade and semi -shade loving landscape plants. The
floor will be of gravel with no solid walls.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
(A) Those facilities proposed in the floodplain must be
constructed with their minimum floor elevation 1' above
the 100 -year flood elevation.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
(B) Only plant materials will be allowed in the floodway
area; no fences, construction materials, pallets, etc.,
will be permitted.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff does not feel that the revision sought by the
applicant will be detrimental to the project itself or the
surrounding areas. There is a requirement, however, that
all structures must set back 25' from the floodway. Staff
supports the intrusion into the required setback area only
if it was approved on the previous plans; otherwise, the
applicant is asked to comply with the requirement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
It was decided that the proximity of the buildings to the
floodway should not be an issue since it involved a
greenhouse and a building raised 6' from the ground,
provided there would be no enclosure of the raised building
in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant reported that he had failed to get his notices
out on time. He then requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion
to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (4- 25 -85)
There was no further review of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 14 -85)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff
reported that the notice receipts were submitted. A motion
for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Other Matters /Appeal
NAME:
Robert J. Richardson, Agent
for the Owner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission
staff denial of a lot split
plat titled "Cantrell Place
West Addition, Lot 2 Replat"
LOCATION: Approximately 150 feet south
of the intersection of
Cantrell Road at Misty Lane
on the east side of the street
REQUEST: This request is for a "yes" or
"no" response to the subject
appeal, the question
basically being, does the
Planning Commission support
the staff's rejection of the
plat?
STAFF REPORT:
This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of
the staff rejecting a second lot split within the boundary
of the first split. The sequence of events leading to the
rejection are as follows:
Mr. Richardson filed a preliminary plat on the subject
property in August of 1984, after having withdrawn a
controversial condominium project on the site. The plat
consisted of four residential lots, three in a conventional
fashion and one as a pipe stem. The plat was submitted to
the Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee for
review. The Commission's public hearing was held on
September 11, 1984, at which time the plat was denied by a
vote of: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 3 abstaining. (See attached
minutes of the September meeting.)
In December of 1984, Mr. Richardson filed with the Planning
staff a subdivision plat entitled "Cantrell Place West, Lots
1 and 2" as a lot split. The staff review indicated that
the proposed lot split was in technical compliance with the
subdivision ordinance; however, the staff determined that
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
contact should be made with the Planning Commission Chairman
and the City Attorney for instruction as to our options.
After several discussions of the matter, we were instructed
to permit the lot split inasmuch as the ordinance was quite
clear and no denial mechanism indicated. The plat was
signed on December 11, 1984, and recorded, thereby creating
two lots, one on Cantrell Road in a conventional corner lot
relationship and one lot fronting only on Misty Lane.
The next event was a filing by Mr. Richardson of a two -lot
split of Lot 2 of the first plat, Lot 2 being the lot
fronting on Misty Lane. This action occurred during March
and April when staff had several conversations and written
communication with Mr. Richardson whereby we rejected his
platting effort. (See staff letter April 5, 1985). The
formal filing occurred April 9, and a second response by the
staff followed April 10, 1985. (See attached staff letter
dated April 10, 1985.)
In our letter of April 5, 1985, it was stated that we
understood the appeals process included the Planning
Commission as the next step, although not specifically
indicated in the ordinance. The request before the
Commission at this time is that a simple "yes" or "no"
answer be given Mr. Richardson in order that he might take
the appropriate follow -up actions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4- 30 -85)
The applicant was present. There were no other interested
parties in attendance. The Planning staff made a
presentation of the issues and additional background. A
lengthy discussion was held during which Mr. Richardson
offered comments. A motion was made to request a legal
opinion from the City Attorney's Office inasmuch as a
written opinion has not been presented. Several members
stated support toward the request for the opinion. A vote
on the motion resulted in its passage by a vote of:
8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth).
A second motion then followed for purposes of deferring the
request to the May 14th Subdivision Public Hearing. This
motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 14 -85)
The applicant was present. There were several interested
parties in attendance. The Planning Commission requested
from the City Attorney, Mark Stodola, an opinion as to
whether the Planning Commission should hear this appeal or
take any action in light of the current litigation.
Mr. Stodola's response generally was that the Planning
Commission should make that decision. He stated that the
appeal matter certainly could be dealt with at this time.
He further stated that the issue before the Commission is a
valid request by Mr. Richardson.
A general discussion then followed with various
commissioners commenting on their feelings as to a proper
approach to resolution of this matter. A motion was offered
which proposed the deferral of the appeal until such time as
the lawsuit was completed. Prior to the vote, the Planning
Commission determined that it would be appropriate to hear
comments from both sides of the matter as to their feelings
on deferral.
The applicant, Mr. Robert Richardson, addressed the Planning
Commission on his concerns and stated that he felt the item
should be heard and not continued. Mr. Don Hamilton, an
attorney representing neighborhood residents, addressed his
concerns. He offered a mixed response to deferral which
generally was supportive of deferral if the Commission's
inclination was to approve the appeal.
The motion for a deferral was passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (John Clayton).
Mr. Hamilton had also requested by letter that the
Commission nullify the first lot split approved by staff. A
question was then raised as to whether the Planning
Commission could rescind or undue administrative action. The
City Attorney addressed the point by stating that he felt
the ordinance did not deal with the subject, nor did it deal
with the appeal process. The Planning Commission requested
that Mr. Stodola perform a review of this subject and
provide a written response for the Planning Commission
giving direction as to their authority to modify or overturn
actions of the staff.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
Mr. Stodola stated for the record that Mr. Hamilton's
request of the Commission was appropriate and should be
dealt with by the Planning Commission after litigation of
the matter is resolved if in fact further action will be
required.
A motion was then made to disallow the hearing of additional
items associated with this project at this time or until the
litigation was resolved. This motion was passed by a vote
of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention (John Clayton).
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - File No. 379
NAME:
Pine Ridge Subdivision
Preliminary
LOCATION: North side of West 22nd Street,
between Potter and Gilman
Streets
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Odes Perry J.E. Gardner
302 Southeast 10th Street 600 S. McKinley St., Suite 402
England, AR 72046 Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 375 -8511, 225 -5255 Phone: 666 -1454
AREA: 4.41 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 611
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Single Family Residential
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Minor residential street classification.
2. Waiver of improvements on 20th Street.
A. Site History
None.
B. Existinq Conditions
This site is located in a residential area. It is
boarded by multifamily on the west and single family on
the east. Elevations range from 350 feet to 409.1
feet.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to subdivide 4.41 acres
into 19 lots for single family development. New street
construction will consist of 611 feet. He is also
asking for a waiver of improvements to 20th Street and
minor street residential classifications.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
1. Improve 22nd Street to residential street
standards.
2. Submit internal drainage and detention plans.
3. Clarify situation with West 20th Street; should it
be closed?
4. Turn - around should be provided on Pine Ridge
Drive.
E. Analysis
Staff has found no major problems with the proposal.
The applicant should provide notices to abutting
property owners within 2.5 acres or greater.
Engineering will give comments at the meeting relative
to the waiver request.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant amended the plan to request a waiver of
sidewalks. It was determined that Pine Ridge Drive
qualified for a minor residential street classification,
that 20th Street should be closed and that cul -de -sac should
be placed at the end of Pine Ridge Circle. The applicant
was in agreement with the issues discussed. A phasing plan
was also requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
revised plan was submitted. A motion for approval of the
plan and requested waivers was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - File No. 378
NAME:
Cloie Subdivision
Preliminary /Final
LOCATION: South side of West 24th Street,
between Potter and Gilman
Streets
nRVRT.nPF.R - RMnTNRRR
Odes Perry J.E. Gardner
302 Southeast 10th Street 600 S. McKinley St., Suite 402
England, AR 72046 Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 375 -8511, 225 -5255 Phone: 666 -1454
AREA: 2.30 acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 214
ZONING:
PROPOSED USES: Single Family Residential
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1. Minor residential street classification.
2. Simultaneous approval of preliminary and final plats.
A. Site History
Several streets relating to this site were closed last
month by the Commission.
B. Existinq Conditions
This property is located in an area that consist mainly
of residential uses. Elevations range from 333 feet to
362 feet.
C. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to subdivide this parcel of
2.30 acres into nine lots for single family use. The
applicant is also requesting minor residential street
classification and simultaneous approval of the
preliminary and final plats.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
1. Improve West 24th Street to residential street
standards.
2. Submit internal drainage and detention plans.
E. Analysis
Staff has found no major problems with the development.
The applicant is reminded to provide proof of notice to
persons abutting within 2.5 acres or greater. During
the street closure hearings, the neighborhood concerns
were about drainage. Staff is requesting that those
street closures are to be noted on the plat with their
ordinance numbers. The right -of -way obtained is to be
noted as utility easements.
The proposal does not meet the requirements for a
combined preliminary /final submission. Staff does not
oppose the granting of a waiver for this requirement.
Engineering will give comments at the meeting about the
request for minor residential street classifications.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant requested that the application be amended to
provide for a waiver of sidewalks. Engineering reported
that the proposed street met the requirements for a minor
residential street.
Water Works - Pro -rata charge applies.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval of the plan and requested waiver was
made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - File No. 144 -E
NAME:
Towne Oaks Addition,
Lots 23 and 24 -R
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Towne Oaks
Drive and Treasure Hill Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Dr. Newman McGee Sam L. Davis
8624 Highway I -30 5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72204
Phone: 664 -0324
AREA: 5.926 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USES: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
STAFF REPORT
This submission represents a request to replat two lots in
the Towne Oaks Addition and to plat an unplatted tract. The
request was prompted by the applicant's desire to buy half
of Lot 24 plus the unplatted tract, so that a building could
be constructed. Staff has no problems with the replat.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Will be provided at the meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant's engineer was present. The proposal was
discussed, and Engineering requested: (1) dedication of
right -of -way on Reservoir Road to minor arterial standards;
(2) provision of in -lieu contribution for street
improvements on Reservoir Road and Towne Oaks Road. The
applicant also agreed to involve other property owners in
the plat.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
Water Works_ - Acreage charge applies and frontage charge
applies on Reservoir Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of:
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - File No. 382)
NAME: Gary Flynn "PRD" (Z -4400)
LOCATION: 100 Feet north of Lee on the
west side of Oak Street
DEVELOPER: SURVEYOR:
Oliver and Gary Flynn Chester B. Phillips
17 Nob View Circle
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 224 -0226
AREA: 116 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -3" to "PRD"
PROPOSED USES: Tri -Plex
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site History
This item was recently by the Commission as a rezoning
request. It was decided that a PUD approach would
provide a better means of review.
B. Development Objectives
1. To add on to an existing triplex, so that
additional space will be provided for the
applicant's family.
C. Proposal
1. To add two rooms (26 1/2 x 14 1/2) to an existing
triplex.
2. Parking will be available for four cars.
3. Construction will begin as soon as approval is
received and should be completed by the end of the
summer.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Engineering Comments
None.
E. Analysis
The PUD approach was recommended for this project since
the Commission was reluctant to allow a rezoning in
this area. Staff has received several calls from
property owners in the area that are concerned about
parking. Staff supports providing parking in the rear.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He agreed to meet with staff
regarding technical requirements for the plan and to provide
three parking spaces in the back.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Staff reported that a letter in
opposition to the parking pad in the front yard was received
from a Mrs. Young. However, the concrete was in place
before the application was filed. A revised plan was
submitted showing room for three parking spaces in the rear.
A motion for approval of the revised plan was made and
passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - File No. 381
NAME: Marcella "PRD" (Z -4401)
LOCATION: 7115 and 7117 North Chicot -
NE corner of North Chicot and
M abelvale Pike
David Henry
Phone: 375 -3022
DEVELOPER:
Sam Davis
5301 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 664 -0324
Melvin and Gordon Young
7438 Mabelvale Pike
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 568 -4768
AREA: 2.517 acres NO. OF LOTS:
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Apartments
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Screening requirements.
A. Site History
None.
1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
B. Proposal
1. To provide a development of 45 multifamily /two
family units on 2.517 acres at a density of 17.88
units per acre.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
2.
Project data:
(a) Phase I
Existing
# Units
Size
2 story apt. bldg.
7
5,158 SF
2 story apt. bldg.
4
1,716.5 SF
.Proposed
# Units
Size
Office /laundry
--
825 SF
2 story apt. bldg.
8
7,360 SF
2 story apt. bldg.
8
7,360 SF
2 story apt. bldg.
8
7,360 SF
(b) Phase II
Proposed
# Units
Size
2 story apt. bldg.
8
7,860 SF
(c) Phase III
Proposed
# Units
Size
Duplex
2
TOTAL SQUARE
FEET
37,139.5
3.
Total parking: 74.
4.
Landscaping /screening: No
privacy fence
along the
boundaries. Parking and
drive areas
are to be
landscaped per the City's
ordinance.
C. Engineering
Comments
(a)
Improve North Chicot Road
to residential
standards; dedicate right
-of -way to
residential
standards.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
(b) Dedicate right -of -way and improve Mabelvale Pike
to collector standards.
(c) Submit internal drainage and preliminary
detention plans.
D. Analysis
This project represents an addition to an existing
multifamily project. The applicant proposes to move
several buildings from the site and remodel an existing
residential home into a duplex.
The applicant is also requesting that the
landscaping /screening requirements be waived since the
abutting neighbor to the east does not desire to be
screened. Staff request documentation of any agreement
between the two owners, but landscaping and screening
of any other abutting single family area will be
required. Also, the submission of the water and fire
protection plan is requested. Staff request the
removal of all existing structures before the building
permit or Phase I is received.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The major issues discussed
related to the 20 -foot buffer requested adjacent to the
single family area and his request for no fence along a
portion of the boundary. It was decided that a 20 -foot
landscape buffer between single and multifamily was
acceptable if no patios or structural involvement intruded
into the area; however, a 6 -foot opaque fence should be
built on all sides of the property except the southernmost
leg of the east line as requested by the applicant. Staff
asked that the site plan be revised to give more specifics
regarding the development and to state that no structural
involvement would be allowed in the setback area.
Water Works - On -site fire line and hydrants will be
required; acreage charge applies.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was represented by his attorney,
Mr. David Henry. A revised plan was submitted. No one
objected. A motion was made to approve the plan, subject to
the submission of documentation from the abutting property
owner on the east, that is in agreement with the applicant's
request for exemption from the screening requirements on the
southernmost portion of that side. A motion for approval
subject to comments made was made and passed by a vote of:
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - File 380
NAME:
LOCATION:
n V117 T nnc n .
Troy and Kitty Braswell
Troy's "PRD" (Z -4402)
Three blocks east of Chicot
on Mabelvale Cut -Off
ENGINEER:
Robert Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
AREA: 12.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 35 FT. NEW STREET: 1800
ZONING: "R -2" to "PRD"
PROPOSED USES: Mixed Office /Duplex /Four -Plex /Roller Rink
A. Site History
None.
B. Development Objectives
1. To promote a mixed use project of two family and
multifamily units with future development of
office uses.
2. To allow for reasonable development of this land
while not committing the City to the roller rink
area (nonconforming) in Tract C to a commercial
use past the useful life of the rink.
C. Proposal
1. The platting of 12.53 acres into 32 lots for the
provision of 96 duplex /fourplex units, two tracts
as quiet office use and to allow continued use of
a portion of the site as a roller rink for the
continued life of the use.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
2. Project data:
Parcel
Tract A
Tract B
Tract C
Lots 1 -16
Lots 17 -32
Use
Quiet Office
Quiet Office
Skating Rink
Size
1.14 acres
1.1 acres
1.7 acres
Duplex 1,080 to 2,160 SF ea.
Fourplex 5,672 to 11,352 SF ea.
3. The proposed density is 11.2 units per acre.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Improve Mabelvale Cutoff to minor arterial
standards.
2. Submit internal drainage and detention plans.
E. Analysis
This project is bounded by single family on the north
and west sides and multifamily on the east. The
Suburban Plan recommends residential use for the area.
Staff has several major concerns with the project.
First of all, we are not willing to endorse the roller
rink and office use as a PRD. The applicant has
requested that this should be called just a PUD. Staff
prefers that Tract C be extracted from this proposal
and that Tracts A and B be used for residential use as
recommended by the plan.
Secondly, staff is not pleased with the physical design
of the project. The system of access involves a lot of
pavement and creates double frontage lots, and the
layout provides lots with only 104 feet of depth for
four units /parking. It is requested that the applicant
redesign the project in a manner that is suitable for
the requested density. This should involve larger lots
for the multifamily units, elimination of Lot 16 and
pipe stem access and consider making Lots 10 through 16
larger with the access redesigned.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
The applicant is also reminded that this is a long -form
PRD, and he should follow the submission requirements
in the ordinance. The PUD process requires specifics
as to what will be required. His plan indicates that
he may provide one or two story structures. Exactly
what will be constructed? Also, landscaping plans will
show the building area /open space and a time table for
development should be submitted.
F. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comments until the plan is redesigned.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The Committee discussed the application. Staff gave further
suggestions for the redesign of the project. They included
moving the parking to the rear, extracting Tracts A and B
from this application, and location of the dumpsters. The
applicant agreed to meet with staff before the 14th for
further suggestions.
Water Works - Pro -rata charge applies on Mabelvale Cutoff.
Water main extension would be required to lot line of Lots
10 through 16.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Bob Richardson represented the applicant. A revised
plan and several alternates were presented shortly before
the meeting. Staff's recommendation was for deferral due to
an inadequate amount of time for review of the revised
plans.
Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present and in
opposition. Ms. Carla Bruton who resides on the corner of
Elmore and Warren objected based on the proposed rental use
and a fear of adverse effects on their property values.
They submitted a petition with 238 signatures opposing the
project. In addition to similar concerns expressed by
Ms. Bruton, Ms. Bessie Yount complained about the existing
skating rink, drainage problems, existing congestion on
roads and in the schools and problems with the existing
apartment project in the area. Ms. Jean Lowe added that
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
there was already a crime problem due to the existing
apartments in the area. Mr. Arthur Hengel of 6720 Mabelvale
Cutoff objected to office use, complained of drainage and
noise from the existing skating rink and the
unresponsiveness of the owner to the neighbors' concerns.
One Commissioner pointed out that there appeared to be a bad
community relations problem.
The Commission requested additional information as to how
the property had been recently divided and requested that
the applicant try to explain the proposal to the
neighborhood before the next meeting.
A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - File No. 377
NAME: Kanis at Aldersgate Apartments
"PRD" (Z -4403)
LOCATION: Kanis and Aldersgate Road
at I -430
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Robertson Homes Robert J. Richardson
Stockton, CA 1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
AREA: 17.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "MF -24," 110 -3" to "PRD"
PROPOSED USES: Multi- Family "PUD"
A. Site Histor
This site has been previously considered for
multifamily development.
B. Development Objectives
1. To provide a quality
multifamily
development
in
one phase.
C. Proposal
1. The construction of
350 apartment
units on
approximately 17.3 acres.
2. Project data:
(a)
Units No.
Type
Total Sq. Ft.
A 168
1 Bdrm /1 bath
118,872
SF
B 52
2 Bdrm /1 bath
45,500
SF
C 114
2 Bdrm /2 bath
112,404
SF
D 16
3 Bdrm /2 bath
20,000
SF
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
(b) Land use
Total area .................... 17.3 acres
Open area ..............0..... 9.8 acres
Density ..................... 20.2 units
per acre
Bldg. area (footprint) ......149,449 sq.ft.
Bldg. area (Total) ..........296,196 sq.ft.
3. Parking will consist of 565 spaces, 350 of which
will be covered and 215 uncovered guest parking.
4. Landscaping plans have been submitted; however,
they must comply with the Landscaping Ordinance as
administered by Kenny Scott's office.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Dedicate right -of -way and improve Aldersgate Road
to collector standards to include sidewalk.
2. In view of previous agreements with Aldersgate
Camp to limit erosion from this site, an erosion
control plan is requested. Erosion control
measures should be in place prior to the start of
construction.
3. Submit internal drainage and detention plans.
4. Due to sight distance problems at the intersection
of Aldersgate and Kanis Roads, prepare topographic
survey of the intersection and meet with the City
Engineer to discuss possible solutions.
5. Improve Kanis Road to minor arterial standards and
include a turning lane.
E. Analysis
Staff has met with the applicant regarding this project
in a preliminary conference. The plan as submitted
presents no problems of significance and staff agrees
with the general concept presented. It represents good
utilization of a uniquely shaped piece of property. As
requested, the fire hydrants have been located on -site
and the submission package is adequate. The applicant,
however, has failed to address the issue staff raised
concerning revising the plan so that parking spaces can
be located in closer proximity to the clubhouse /pool.
Specify also whether the carports will provide storage
areas.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. Staff requested that the
recreation area be moved closer to the uncovered parking
stalls. The applicant preferred that the pool /clubhouse be
located in a central area; however, he agreed to explore
ways to address staff's concerns about parking before the
14th.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors.
However, an abutting property owner was present. His
concerns were alleviated when engineering reaffirmed its
commitments to a previous agreement regarding erosion
control. Staff gave support to the revised parking
arrangement. A motion for approval was made and passed by a
vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - File No. 383
NAME:
P & L Investment Company
"PCD" (Z- 4016 -C)
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Wanda Lane
at I -30 Access Road
DEVELOPER: BUILDER /ARCHITECT:
Perry Gravitt Tim Hopper
714 Ringo
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -8284
AREA: 2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "C- 3 " / "R -2" to "PCD"
PROPOSED USES: Office /Retail /Wholesale
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Site Histor
On March 26, the Commission reviewed a request to
rezone this site from "R -2" Single Family to "0 -3"
Office use. Due to intense neighborhood opposition
demonstrated by the submission of a petition with over
100 signatures, the Commission felt that the PUD
process would provide a better vehicle for review. On
previous attempts in 1983 and 1984 to rezone to
commercial, the applications were denied and in 1984 an
opposing petition from the neighborhood was also
submitted. The reasons for opposition were stated as a
fear of undesirable commercial uses. Staff favored
office development on the site due to its proximity to
the residential area.
B. Development Objectives
1. To develop the area as multi use, office, retail
and wholesale projects on two acres.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
C. Proposal
1. A mixed use development including:
Mark Use Size Unit No.
A Office /Wholesale 7,405 SF 1
B Retail 2,928 SF 3
C Office 7,800 SF 8
TOTAL 18,123 SF 12
2. Construction will be prefabricated steel
frame /roof masonry block walls on reinforced
footing, and concrete expansion type flooring.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Driveway near intersection of Wanda and access
road should be eliminated because it is too close
to the intersection.
2. Four -foot planting strip between sidewalk and
parking area. Parking on southern portion of
Wanda Lane doesn't conform. Landscape strip also
required along frontage road.
3. A 3 -foot landscape strip required along fence on
the west property line if there is an access road
along the west property line.
E. Analysis
The applicant should submit additional information as
required by the PUD process. Plans for
landscaping /screening are required plus some indication
of time involved in the development of the property.
This plan shows a 4 -foot privacy fence. A 6 -foot fence
is required along with a 40 -foot buffer on the
adjoining residential areas. The service drive on the
western boundary of the property is only 15 feet wide.
Will this afford fire trucks and service vehicles
adequate room? The applicant is asked to define the
wholesale use proposed.
F. Staff Recommendation
Staff reserves comment until further information is
received.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. He was asked to submit a list of
specific uses for the project and square footage so that
parking requirements could be determined, talked to Water
Works about a possible conflict between an easement and
required landscaping, and clarified site plan by indicating
a 6 -foot fence and buffer adjacent to residential area,
showing landscaping and drive areas.
Water Works - Require a 10 -foot easement adjacent to the
north right -of -way of the access road. Acreage and frontage
charges will apply. If a larger than 2" connection is
required, a tie -in between 6" and 8" mains in Wanda Lane
will be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. There
was discussion relative to the necessity of Water Works'
requirement of a 10 -foot easement that conflicted with
required landscaping. Mr. Dale Russom from Water Works
presented an explanation. After a question from the staff,
the applicant stated a commitment to "C -3" type uses on
Tracts A and B, and office unit on Tract C. A motion for
approval was made subject to a commitment to the uses stated
by the applicant and the 10 -foot easement. The motion
passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME: Antioch Missionary Baptist
Church - Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4440)
LOCATION: Intersection of Seminary Drive
and Stagecoach Road
(920 Stagecoach Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Antioch Missionary Baptist Church
Trustees /Darrel Odom
PPOP09A T.
To construct an addition (10,000 square feet) to the
existing combination sanctuary and educational building
which will include an expanded administration area, a media
center, a new chapel (for the deaf) (capacity 40 +]) and
three new classrooms on 4.85 acres of land that �i-S zoned
°R -2.°
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This property is adjacent to an arterial (Stagecoach
Road) (east) and Rockwood Road ( ?) on the north.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is located in an area that is relatively
undeveloped. The property is well maintained and is an
asset to the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This site has 130 existing parking spaces adjacent to
the proposed addition. Access to the site is taken
from Rockwood Road. Two ingresses and egresses
currently exist on Rockwood Road.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan.
May 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff foresees no adverse effect as a result of
this development. The staff does, however, have some
questions as to the status of Rockwood Road. The
applicant needs to clarify the status of Rockwood
Road. Additionally, the applicant needs to inform the
staff of their intentions with regard to the
southernmost access drive (currently closed).
City Engineering Comments: (1) Dedicate right -of -way
and improve Stagecoach Road to arterial standards; and
(2) Submit an internal drainage plan to include
detention considerations.
6. Staff Recommendation:
The staff recommends approval, provided the applicant
agrees to: (1) Clarify the status of Rockwood Road;
(2) Clarify their intentions on the southernmost access
drive (to Stagecoach Road); and (3) Comply with City
Engineering comments numbered 1 and 2.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations. The applicant stated that the southernmost
drive had been closed by the State Highway Department and
that the church had no intention of reopening it. The staff
also requested that the applicant show the fire hydrants on
the site plan. The applicant agreed to comply.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The
staff stated that Rockwood Road is dedicated but that the
street name conflicts with another existing Rockwood Road.
Staff requested that the name be changed (Seminary Road).
Staff also stated that the applicant needed to submit a
revised site plan and a dedication deed for State Highway
No. 5. The applicant agreed to comply. The Engineering
staff also stated that an in -lieu contribution would be
required for State Highway No. 5. A lengthy discussion
ensued. The applicant agreed to comply with the City's
in -lieu requirements. The Commission then voted 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent to approve this application as
recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicant.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
ZONING SUBDIVISION
V 0 T E R E C O R D
ITEM NUMBERS
MEMBER
J. Schlert-th
0
11APS
2
OFF
210101FAINAMPAd
R. Massie
N
pr
PAA
WOMAN
IF
NOMURA
PMENEEMENEEN
i --J. Nicholson
W. Rector
W. Ke-tcher
NY
D. Arnett
Mom
N
D. J. Jones
011
lope
Fold]
MJI-,
ENEEMENEEN
J. Clayton
AYE 0 NAYE A ABSENT ABSTAIN
May 14, 1985
— There being no further business before the Commission, the Chairperson
adjourned the meeting at 4:00 P.M.
C � > F"-
{
Ch r erson
Secretary
Date: 4 — « - VS