pc_01 14 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 14, 1986
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 approved.
III. Members Present: John Schlereth
Richard Massie
Chairman William Ketcher
Jerilyn Nicholson
Fred Perkins
Bill Rector
Betty Sipes
Jim Summerlin
Ida Boles
Dorothy Arnett
David Jones
IV. City Attorney Present: Pat Benton
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
TENATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ITEMS
January 14, 1985
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Seamon "Short -Form" PRD
B. Mallard Building Line Waiver
C. Kingsrow Drive Right -of -Way Abandonment
,nnvT T.I TLT 7I PV TT 71 mn.
1. Marlowe Manor, Phase II
2. Oxford Valley Addition
3. Signature Subdivision
r%r TLTLTLiT rtia rm TLn[7L'lr r%r%hs L7LTm.
4. 520 Place Replat/ "Short -Form" PRD (Z -4589)
5. Hinson Loop Center PCD (Z -4591)
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
6. Security Storage Revised Plan
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
7. Ati Day Yisroel - C.U.P. (Z- 2840 -A)
8. Bill Fitts Auto Sales - C.U.P. (Z- 4538 -A)
9. Oxford Valley - C.U.P. (Z -4592)
OTHER MATTERS:
10. Rudy's Sausage - C.U.P. (Z -4413)
11. Alley in Block 81, John Barrow Addition
12. All Electric Building Line Waiver
13. High Street /Street Name Change
14. Tri -Party Agreement /Ordinance Amendment
15. Alley in Block 277, Original City of Little Rock
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - File No. 597
NAME:
Seamon "Short -Form PRD"
(Z -4522)
LOCATION: SW Corner of Farris and
Shadowlake
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Merlin Seamon Merlin Seamon
209 1/2 W. 2nd St. 209 1/2 W. 2nd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -6092 Phone: 372 -6092
AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: "R -2" to "PRD"
PROPOSED USE: 8 Triplexes
A. Site History
This property has been platted as Lots 1 -16, Block 4,
Gibralter Heights, less and except Lots 2 and 3, City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
B. Developmental Concept
1. The construction of rental units which will appeal
primarily to senior citizens and the handicapped;
however, tenants will not be limited to these
groups.
2. To develop the property at a density that would be
similar if developed as single family.
3. To design the units like single family residences
and the color as earth tones in order that they
blend into the wooded environment.
4. To preserve the natural beauty of the site.
C. Proposal
1. The construction of 22 units and 8 triplex
structures on three acres.
2. The replatting of 16 lots into one lot.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
3. Development Statistics
(a) Unit No. Unit Type
24
2
(b) Parking provided consists of 36 off - street
spaces.
D. Engineering Comments
1. Detention required.
2. One north /south street to be left open.
E. Analysis
The applicant needs to submit a site plan on a
certified survey and provide dimensions relating to the
structures, between the structures and between
structures and property lines.
There is an existing right -of -way through the property.
Streets are to be abandoned according to the Gibralter
Heights Plan. A one lot final replat will be required
because of the reduction in lots and right -of -way
abandoment. The applicant is asked to reconsider the
design of those stalls backing into the internal drive.
A 6' board fence and appropriate screening will be
required where adjacent to residential zoning.
F. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan with added
dimensions. He explained that the stalls were designed as
they were since the internal drive was not a public street.
Staff still felt that a safety factor was involved,
especially at the entrance to the project. The applicant
was asked to meet with the fire chief regarding their
request of a larger cul -de -sac radius.
Water Works - On -site fire lines and fire hydrants may be
required.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present but had sent a letter to the
staff requesting a 30 -day deferral. Staff reported that the
letter was sent within the required time period. Several
residents of the neighborhood were in attendance. They were
concerned about the applicant's proposal to close Farris
Street. Mr. Roy Jones stated that the street was physically
unopened but provided access to land that he owned.
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee
that Mr. Seamon had requested deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 15 -85)
A motion for deferral as requested by the applicant was made
and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Mr. Seamon reported that he was unable to get the
cooperation of abutting landowners for the closure of Farris
Street and he couldn't afford to build the street due to its
location down a drainage way. He requested a waiver of
street improvements. The Committee advised him to meet with
Engineering regarding the request.
The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan demonstrating
the redesign of the project without the land area from the
street closure.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 12 -85)
The applicant,was present. Due to the problem the applicant
was experiencing, a motion for a 60 -day deferral was made
and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (1 -3 -86)
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 14 -86)
A motion to withdraw this request was made and passed by a
vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
u
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
Mallard Building Line Waiver
LOCATION: East Palisades Drive
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Rod Mallard Olan D. Wilson
7423 W. 12th 210 S. Victory
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201
664 -2090 375 -7222
REQUEST:
Encroachment into an established building setback area.
A. Existing Conditions
This project is located in an area composed of single
family homes.
B. Development Proposal
This is a proposal for modification of an existing
building line to accommodate a proposed carport. The
eaves of the carport will set back 4 feet from the
property line and the columns will set back 8 feet.
C. Engineering Comments
None.
D. Analysis
Staff is unwilling to support the application as filed;
however, support will be given to a single wide carport
with no more than a 2 foot or 3 foot extension beyond
the building line. Also, staff recommends the paving
of a single lane only, instead of the whole front
yard.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the application as filed.
January 14, 1986
~` SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that the waiver was necessary due to
a dire need for off street parking, since persons in the
area did a lot of entertaining. He was asked to notify his
neighbors.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission decided that
the application should be deferred or withdrawn depending
upon what contact with the applicant revealed. The motion
was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (1 -3 -86)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested withdrawal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 14 -86)
Lr A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of:
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Street Right-of-Wav Abandonment
NAME:
Kingsrow Drive Partial Parallel
Closure
LOCATION: North of Cantrell Road
OWNER /APPLICANT: Lois R. Coulson
REQUEST: To abandon an 11 -foot parallel
strip along an 80 -foot existing
dedicated right -of -way in order
to join with an existing service
station site
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
The existing 80 -foot right -of -way was established in
the 1950s in order to provide for a sufficiently wide
entrance to a very large subdivision lying to the
north. This street is the only point of adequate
access to a large segment of the Pine Valley Kingwood
community. The 80 -foot right -of -way is in excess of
that normally required for a collector street except
that in this instance a designed intersection with left
and right turn lanes may be required in the future if
this intersection is signalized.
2. Master Street Plan
The Master Street Plan does not provide for a listing
of this street as other than a residential street.
However, it has existed as an unspecified street on the
City's plan for at least 25 years.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
The only deficient right -of -way abutting this
petitioner's property is Cantrell Road. It is our
understanding at this time that additional right -of -way
dedication has been requested by the Public Works
Department in their review of the building permit.
January 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
4. Characteristics of the Right -of -Way Terrain
The existing right -of -way and physical improvements are
of moderate to flat grade in the area of petitioner's
property. The street does, however, fall sharply to
the north and east immediately beyond this site.
5. Development Potential
If abandoned, this narrow strip of land would serve
only the use of the adjacent gasoline retailer. It
would possibly provide some additional on- street
parking or maneuver space for that use.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
At this time, no adverse effect is evident except that
the potential for pavement widening to accommodate
better traffic movement.
7. Neighborhood Position
There has been no response from the neighborhood at
this time.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The replies from our contact agencies indicate that
utility companies desire retention of this strip for
utility easement purposes. We are also advised that
some utility poles are located in the right -of -way in
such a fashion as they would have to be moved if this
segment of right -of -way became private property.
9. Reversionary Rights
Inasmuch as this is a parallel abandonment, the
abandoned portion would revert to the owner on the west
side which is this applicant.
January 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff in its review of this proposal and a
recently filed Board of Adjustment variance application have
determined that the development proposal as a package is
inappropriate. That includes this abandonment. We would
not encourage the loss of this right -of -way given the
circumstances of this access point to a large residential
area. This petition is one of very few of this type which
has been filed in recent years. Most of these kinds of
petitions deal with returning excess right -of -way in those
instances where the adjacent properties are physically
impacted by drainage utility easements or an excess taking
in the beginning. In those instances where staff has
supported the abandonment of a parallel segment, it has not
been on a collector or arterial street. In this instance,
we see no benefit to the public to trade off 11' of this
street to gain right -of -way on Cantrell Road. We view the
dedication on Cantrell Road as a conventional requirement of
development. The staff, therefore, recommends denial of
this petition.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The Planning staff offered its recommendation
and additional commentary on the proposal including
information concerning an allied Board of Adjustment
application. The applicant was present, Mr. Coulson, who
offered justification for his proposal. A lengthy
discussion of the issued followed. It was suggested by
Planning Commissioners that with the appearance of
redevelopment of this property, that perhaps it would be
appropriate to defer this petition until such time as a site
plan could be offered which would be justification for the
abandonment. A motion was then made to defer this item to
January 14, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 14 -86)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The Commission was advised that the applicant
apparently required additional time to complete his design
proposal. It was suggested that withdrawal would be
appropriate. The Commission by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent voted to withdraw this item from further
�.- consideration.
'I. --
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1
NAME:
Marlowe Manor - Phase 5
Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: South of Hinson Road and
East off Morrison Drive
nRVRT.nPRR - RWaTWRRR
Rector - Phillips- Morse, Inc. Edward G. Smith and Associates
P.O. Box 7300 401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 664 -7807 Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 6.1 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 280
ZONING: "R -2" Single Family District
PROPOSED USE:
Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
(1) Fifteen -foot building lines.
(2) Private street.
A. Existing Conditions
The area of this plat is wooded, steeply sloping
terrain. A prior preliminary plat authorized a layout
much like the plan proposed. However, that plan
contained fewer lots.,
B. Development Proposal
To restructure the previous preliminary platted lots so
as to provide for a new lot numbered 291 and to be
located at the north end of a private 20' street. This
private street would serve four lots and be less than
200' in length. All of the lots in this plat would
have 15' building setback lines in place of the
required 25'. This is due to the natural grades back
of the curb. The ordinance provides that on lots with
18 percent or greater natural grade that a 15' setback
is appropriate. Specific lots that meet this
requirement are not noted.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
No adverse comment.
D. Analysis
T
This proposal presents nothing new in development of
land within this subdivision. The,Marlowe Manor plat
currently contains pipe stem lots and private streets
that appear to function quite well. The only issue we
noted in our review consists of: (1) Extension of fire
hydrant and proper line sizes on the private street as
required. (2) Access to the water tank site to the
northwest should be clearly identified. (3) Lot
frontage on Lots 292 and 290 should be greater than the
apparent 121.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approved, subject to resolution of the three items
noted above.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant addressed the identified issues. He stated
that the existing easement to the water tank site would be
paved as the project developed, he would adhere to Water
Works comments and the private drive would be extended with
frontage to consist of 18 feet.
Water Works - Maximum floor elevation of any house is 695
t.' : Caution on Lots 291 -294. A pro -rata charge plus an
acreage charge will apply. Easement required as shown.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
In agenda session, which is held before the Public Hearing,
Mr. Bob Richardson reminded the Commission that they had
denied his plat in Hillsborough Subdivision due to a
restriction on development above 695 feet. He pointed out
that the Water Works Department had not identified this as
an issue in this submission. He was told to resubmit his
plat, since it appeared that the restriction had been
lifted.
The applicant was present at the Public Hearing. There were
no objectors. A motion for approval, subject to
specifications of maximum floor elevation to 695 feet in the
Bill of Assurance was made and passed by a vote of:
10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Commissioner
Rector abstained).
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
General Properties
Lakewood House
4801 North Hills Blvd.
NLR, AR
Phone: 753 -3455
Basil Shoptaw
Oxford Valley Addition
Preliminary Plat
South End of Appomattox Drive
(Shiloh Subdivision)
ENGTNEER:
Thomas Engineering
3810 Lookout Road
NLR, AR 72116
Phone: 753 -4463
AREA: 39.41 acres NO. OF LOTS: 152 FT. NEW ST.: 6,900 L.F.
ZONING: "R -2" Single Family District
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Existing Conditions
This site is wooded, gently rolling terrain surrounded
by single family uses on the north, east and west
sides. The plat is a continuation of the existing
subdivision lying to the east which runs to Chicot
Road.
B. Development Proposal
To place 152 single family lots in an area developed as
single family with conventional design of streets and
utility systems.
C. Engineering Comments
(1) Stormwater detention required preferably on the
reserved area and Lots 19 and 20.
(2) Change the following street names as shown:
Cockney Lane to Cockney Circle, Scotland Drive to
Scotland Circle, Claybrook Road to Claybrook
Circle.
January 14, 1986
�-' SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
D. Analysis
The staff review of this plat reveals only three issues
for resolution. These are that the radius on each of
the several circle streets appears short of the
ordinance requirement of 75' to the centerline. This
is the minor street standard. If it is not in
conformance, modification should be made. If
conformity is provided, it should so be noted. The
second item is the need to identify on the plat the
intended use of the reserved tract and provide a tract
number. Third, comment from the owner to the south
suggests that a stub street may be in order to avoid
landlocked parcels.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to resolution of the items in the
staff and engineering comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to address staff's comments. There was
also a discussion on a request for an additional stub street
by•a bordering property owner. The applicant was asked to
submit a written statement from the property owner stating
no desire for another stub out. The applicant explained
that the reserved tract would be a neighborhood park and
potential stormwater site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors;
however, Mr. Bob Richardson represented the property owner
to the south.
Staff recommended approval, subject to submission of: (1) a
revised plat reflecting the use of the reserve tract and
conformity to Ordinance requirements for radii; and
(2) resolution of any access issues among abutting property
owners and Public Works.
A motion for approval, subject to comments made was made and
passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
Signature Subdivision
LOCATION: NE Corner of West Markham Street
at Chester Street Running North
to La Harpe Boulevard
nEVEMPER: RWnTNFRR _
Signature Life Ins. Co. Allison Moses Redden
1130 Savers Federal Bldg. Heritage Center East
Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR
Phone: 372 -3355 Phone: 375 -0378
AREA: 0.7 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "I -2" Light Industrial District
PROPOSED USE: Office Building for Signature Life Insurance
and Others
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
Requested reduction of setbacks from the "I -2" standard to
the "0 -3" requirements which will generally eliminate 50'
building line requirements.
A. Existing Conditions
A gentle slope that has been cleared of structures and
natural foliage. The site is platted in residential
size lots with three lots fronting on West Markham
Street and three partial lots on La Harpe Boulevard.
An alley bisects the ownership and provides access to
businesses on the east end of the alley.
B. Development Proposal
(1) To abandon the alley and recombine it with the
adjacent lots for a single user.
(2) Recombine the lots as a single platted lot for
office usage for a single structure. Off - street
parking would be provided in the area of the
Markham Street frontage with the building
extending across the alley portion of the block.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
C. Engineering Comments
No adverse comment.
D. Analysis
The subject properties have been cleared of structures
for several years. Redevelopment has been hampered by
the shallow depth of the north parcel and the alley
which bisects the block. The alley becomes the
significant issue for resolution of this plat. A
petition for abandonment has not been filed at this
writing which would draw other owners into this
platting matter. This should be accomplished to avoid
the appearance of avoidance of the single most
important issue in this block. As to the request for
"0-3" setbacks as proposed, we have no concerns in this
area because most of the area buildings are offices and
provide little or no setbacks.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the replat as proposed, subject to
resolution of the alley issue. We also recommend
approval of the building line to "0 -3" standards.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant stated that a petition to close the noted
alley has been filed. Objectors are expected to be present
at the Public Hearing.
Water Works - A main extension is required in the easement
along the east side of the alley property before main in
alley can be abandoned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The only issue discussed
involved the alley closure (see minutes to item 15). A
motion for deferral for 30 days was made and passed by a
vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME:
LOCATION:
nFURT.NDPR Z nururmFrm.
520 Place - (Short Form)
Z -4589
Planned Residential District
520 East 21st Street
ENC,TNF.ER
Prosperity Investment T.G. Burriss
Realty for Thedford Collins 1617 Battery Street
1317 South Summit Street Little Rock, AR 72202
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 376 -9757
AREA: .30 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1.5 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -4" Two Family District - Proposed Change to
"PRD" Planned Residential District
PROPOSED USE: Multifamily
A. Development Objectives
To utilize an existing residence and a proposal to
place a total of four units on this site. This
proposal will provide a density of approximately 13
units per acre. This is little more than a duplex
density in which district is the neighborhood base
zone. A parking area consisting of seven stalls will
be constructed off the alley with access to either
Commerce or Park Lane. The units will consist of 800
to 950 square feet with exteriors of the building
compatible with the neighborhood, that is wood frame
with aluminum or vinyl siding.
B. Development Schedule
This project is proposed for a January 1986, start on
construction with 90 days projected to completion.
C. Engineering Comments
No adverse comment.
.1�
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
D. Analysis
This project is viewed by staff as good for the
neighborhood. The density is not a problem inasmuch as
most of East 21st Street is nonresidential in nature.
The area contains numerous duplexes and is generally
renter occupied. The several concerns we have are:
(1) Our records do not reflect a dedicated alley in
the block nor does the survey reflect such an
alley. Therefore, the owner must have an abstract
search performed to assure a dedication;
otherwise, the project will not work.
(2) The alley or easement however based must be paved
to an all weather surface to either Park Lane on
the east or Commerce Street on the west. This
pavement should be 20' in width.
(3) We feel that the existing residence should be
either modified or moved to the west in order to
accommodate a minimum of 10' of structural
separation.
(4) The new lot line on the east side of this project
should be in the center of that 10' separation.
(5) The west property setback should be at least 5' in
this redesign.
(6) Pave all parking spaces and comply with the
Landscape Ordinance.
(7) Property line fences should be a minimum of 6' in
height and opaque. The fences should stop at the
front line of the buildings.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval of the project subject to resolution of Items
1 -7 above.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The proposal was discussed. The applicant agreed to get an
abstract search on the status of the alley. The applicant
agreed to comply with the concerns expressed by staff.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Ms. Betty Turner, Agent, and Mr. Thedford Collins,
Developer, were in attendance. There were no objectors.
Staff stated its support for modification of the existing
building so that there is at least a 10 -foot separation.
The applicant requested to withdraw his agreement to modify
the building, be allowed to continue using an area
designated as an alley on a 1950 plat as such and that he
be allowed to have a zero -lot line /fire wall on the east
property line.
The Commission felt that fire was a concern with the
location of the buildings in such close proximity; however,
it was felt that the fire wall was a good trade -off.
A motion was made for approval, subject to:
(1) Information on use of the alley /easement recorded on
the plat;
(2) Maintenance easement between the two structures;
(3) Staff approval of parking;
(4) Fire wall meeting approval of code department.
The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
A Commercial Center - PCD
Short -Form
LOCATION: Hinson Loop Road at Hinson
Road - SE Corner
nRVRLOPRR: RNGTNERR
Hinson Loop Partnership Summerlin and Associates
by James F. Williams 1609 Broadway
#4 Shackleford Plaza Little Rock, AR 72202
Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: 376 -1323
Phone: 224 -1900
AREA: 2.0 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "0 -3" General Office District - Proposed Change to
"PCD" Planned Commercial District
PROPOSED USE: Retail Shops, Personal Services and Offices
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
None.
A. Development Objectives
To construct a 23,200 square foot business and retail
center with 87 parking spaces (64 is the base
requirement without the restaurant count which is
unknown at this time). The project is a joint effort
with the corner property owner, which lot is proposed
for a savings and loan site. There are cross easements
proposed which will permit efficient use of both the
sites. The developer has offered a use list which is
generally retail in nature but includes a mix of office
and personal service uses. The separate partnerships
are committed to this list and will execute documents
for recording to reflect their commitment. The
buildings proposed are one -story with 19 tenant lease
areas. Landscaping and signage to comply with
ordinance standards.
B. Development Schedule
A specific proposal has not been submitted.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
C. Eng,ineeripg Comments
(1) Boundary street improvements required on Hinson
Road and Hinson Loop Road per Master Street Plan.
(2) Hinson Loop Road is required to be three lanes
from Hinson Road south 100 feet then transition to
the current stfeet.
(3) Hinson Road is required at 48'; therefore, two
lanes south of the centerline are required.
(4) Check with the Traffic Engineer for redesign of
the entrance on to Hinson Road as more stacking
distance is required.
(5) Omit three parking spaces in the southeast corner.
These create a blind corner.
(6) Increased turning radius at the northeast corner
is required for the rear service drive.
D. Analysis
The review of this project revealed a good site plan,
aesthetically pleasing and well- suited to the site with
some modifications. However, the use mix is
incompatible with the adopted land use plan for this
area. That plan proposes that all properties along the
south side of Hinson Road be limited to office usage.
Therefore, the only option staff views available is to
develop the center as office use only.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the Planned Commercial District with the
usage as proposed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The major issue was identified as land use. Staff explained
that the City Board established a line limiting usage to
office along the south side of Hinson Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote
of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - File No. 527 -C
NAME: Security Storage Revised Site
Plan
LOCATION: I -30
APPLICANT: Chuck Ruskus
STAFF REPORT:
This is a request to revise an approved site plan by adding
two buildings: (1) a 50' x 1601, (2) a 40' x 120' for use
as warehouse /storage space, and (3) revising the location of
the parking area for the RV's.
Staff has no problems with the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not at the Subdivision Committee
meeting, the item was not reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for deferral of the revised plan was made and
passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan that showed a
10 -foot minimum separation between buildings and gain Fire
Chief approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 12 -85)
By request of the applicant, a motion for deferral was made
and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, the item was not
reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 17 -85)
Since the applicant was not present, a motion for withdrawal
was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
January 14, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
STAFF UPDATE
A revised plan has been presented which provides for the 10'
minimum building separation but does not provide a use
breakdown on the various structures and does not reflect the
parking provisions.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (1 -3 -86)
The applicant was present. He identified the use as office
warehouse for commercial businesses. He was asked to get
with staff and provide enough data so that parking
requirements could be determined.
PLANNING COMMISSIQJN ACTION:
A motion for withdrawal as requested by the applicant was
made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: Ati Day Yisroel Conditional
Use Permit (Z- 2840 -A)
LOCATION: West of the intersection of
Rodney Parham Road and
Rocky Valley Drive
(3700 N. Rodney Parham Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Ati Day Yisroel /Emily M. Lewis
To bring into conformance an existing church and a day -care
center which currently cares for 36 children, on land that
is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial on the east (Rodney Parham
Road), and two residential streets (Valley Club Circle
- South and Doral Drive - West).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The church and day -care center are existing uses. A
school is located to the north, with single family uses
adjacent on the remaining three sides. The proposal is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This property is served by two existing access drives
(Valley Club Circle and Rodney Parham Road) and
approximately 87 parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
This site is heavily wooded and well screened from the
surrounding area.
5. Analysis
The staff has no problem with this proposal. The site
plan should be revised to include an existing drive on
Valley Club Circle and to change Pine Crest Lane to
Valley Club Circle (as it is on the ground).
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
6. Engineering Comments
None.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval subject to the previous comments.
CTTQnT17TCT(lA7 1 nMMTTTL'F 1DLX7TFW.
The applicant was not present. The staff stated that the
applicant had requested that their item be deferred until
the February 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting due to a
problem with their notification procedures.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted
11 ayes, 0 noes to defer this application until the
February 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Bill Fitts Auto Sales
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 4538 -A)
The northwest corner of State
Highway #5 and Crystal Valley
Road (8424 Stagecoach Road)
William R. Fitts
To convert an existing 1,000 square feet building to an
automobile service shop, to construct a 1,000 square feet
office building, 54 paved parking spaces, and to obtain a
conditional use permit which would allow for an automobile
display, sales and service on 3 plus or minus acres of land
that is zoned "C -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to a minor arterial (Crystal Valley Road -
East) and a major arterial (Stagecoach Road - South).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The proposed use will be located on three acres out of
a total ownership of 10 acres. The site is adequate to
accommodate the proposed use. The site is surrounded
by vacant land on the north and south, a church on the
east, and a single family use on the west. The staff
feels that the proposed use is compatible due to: the
size of the parcel; the fact that the land is zoned
"C -2;" and the fact the parcel fronts on a major and a
minor arterial.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
There are two proposed access drives (State Highway 5
and Crystal Valley Road) and a paved area (54 spaces)
for parking.
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant is proposing a screening fence on the
west and north of the auto sales area.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
5. Analysis
The staff supports the proposed use on this site. The
staff does, however, need a revised site plan that
includes specific dimensions of buildings, driveways,
etc. The site plan also should be revised to show a 40
foot undisturbed buffer (no parking) from State Highway
5 as required by the "C -2" zoning district.
6. City Engineering Comments
1. Construction of three lanes on Crystal Valley is
required (1 1/2 lanes adjacent to the applicants
property).
2. State Highway 5 is required to be constructed to
four lanes (two lanes adjacent to the applicants
property).
3. Stormwater detention is required.
*NOTE - The applicant is advised that a single family
structure is a nonconforming use in a "C -2" zoning
district.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan that includes dimensions of
buildings, drives, parking, etc., and a 40 foot
undisturbed buffer on State Highway 5; and (2) comply
with City Engineering Comments numbers 1 -3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The staff stated that the
40 -foot area was a front yard setback (no parking allowed)
rather than an undisturbed buffer and that the City Engineer
required the applicant to construct one -half of four lanes
on Crystal Valley and one -half of five lanes on Stagecoach
Road. The staff also stated that no auto body work be
allowed on this site. The applicant stated that no auto
body work would occur. The Water Works required a main
extension and also stated that on -site fire protection may
be required. The applicant agreed to meet with officials of
the Water Works. The applicant also agreed to comply with
all staff recommendations but asked that improvements on
State Highway 5 be limited to the westerly extent of the
current proposed development.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
MEPA
Item No. 8 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The Commission reiterated its
position of not allowing an auto repair service as a part of
this approval. The applicant stated that he would only do
minor work on his own automobiles that would be for sale.
The Commission then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention
(Summerlin) to approve the application as recommended by
staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to
by the applicant.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Oxford Valley Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4592)
The northeast corner of
Claybrook Road and Courtfield
Drive ( #1 Courtfield Drive)
General Properties/
Douglas Holstrom
To construct a swimming pool, a bath house, and 11 paved
parking spaces on land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
This site is located adjacent to two residential
streets (Claybrook Road - South and Courtfield Drive -
West).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is surrounded by single family uses on
three sides and vacant land located to the north. This
neighborhood recreational facility, developed properly,
will be compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
This proposal contains one access drive ( Courtfield
Drive) and 11 paved parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff has no problem with the proposed use. The
applicant does, however, need to submit a landscape
plan illustrating the way this screening and
landscaping will be used to reduce the impact to the
adjacent single family structures. The staff feels
that all adjacent single family uses should be screened
with an opaque fence on this site.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
6. City Engineering Comments
Stormwater detention is required on either the parking
lot or in the swale area south of the parking lot.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) provide
an adequate screening and landscaping plan; and (2)
comply with City Engineering requirements as previously
stated.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff
recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 11
ayes, 0 noes to approve the application and noted that the
applicant would be required to pave all of Courtfield Drive
to the north property line in the next phase of development
of this subdivision.
January 14, 1986
Subdivision
Item No. 10
The applicant came before the Subdivision Committee on January 30, 1986
at which time it was decided that this item did not need to come before
the entire Planning Commission.
U
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Other Matters
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
All of the Alley in Block 81
of John Barrow Addition
Lying between West 28th and
West 29th Streets in the
block west of Zion Street
M.E. Bolding
By: W.W. Kelley
REQUEST: To abandon all of the alley and join with adjacent
lots for replatting.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None, inasmuch as this alley has never been in use as a
street or public way.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements.
3. Need for Right- of -Wav on Adiacent Streets
West 28th Street is a collector, 36' in pavement and
60' in right -of -way; therefore, 10' of additional
right -of -way may be required.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Moderate slope to the south and at grade with the
adjoining lots.
5. Development Potential
This right -of -way is useful only to the abutting owners
and the replatting of these lots.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The abutting properties are occupied by single family
in all directions for a distance of several blocks.
There remain in the general area several vacant lots.
This action should have little or no effect on the
neighborhood inasmuch as the alley has not been in use.
It will be better utilized as part of the replatting of
this block.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
None reported; however, the right -of -way will probably
be retained as a utility easement unless the owner or
applicant gains total release from the several
utilities.
9. Reversionary Rights
The alley once closed will revert to the abutting
owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this abandonment with a
cautionary note to the petitioner that recombining these
lots may cause dedication requirements along West 28th
Street. This would occur if it is determined that less than
60' in right -of -way exists. Additionally, street
improvements along 28th may be assessed if the matter
requires Planning Commission review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present and offered a discussion of his
proposal. The Planning staff added additional commentary.
A lengthy discussion followed involving issues attached to a
proposed preliminary plat which will be reviewed by the
Planning Commission in February. At the end of the
discussion, it was determined that it would be appropriate
to hear the abandonment issue in conjunction with the
proposed plat. A motion was made to defer this matter to
February 11. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
I---
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Other Matters - Buildinq Line Waiver
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
All Electric Supply
1301 Westpark Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 376 -3505
All Electric Building Line
Waiver
By: Doug Beard
1301 Westpark Drive
ENGINEER:
William F. Williams
210 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
REQUEST: To vary the platted building line to accommodate a
building addition with a proposed intrusion ranging from 10'
on the east to 24' on the west. This intrusion involves a
40' platted building line.
A. Existing Conditions
The lot contains a commercial building with some open
display and storage on the south side. The building is
a recent construction with the appropriate parking and
setbacks.
B. Development Proposal
To add a freestanding building of 75' x 80' for a
warehouse and storage usage. The need for a drive -thru
between the new and the existing building requires the
intrusion into the setback area.
C. Engineering Comments
The curve in the existing street alignment requires
that the 40' setback be maintained for proper site
distance.
D. Analysis
The proposed construction is not a significant problem;
however, it is obvious there is a severe restriction by
the imposition of a 40' building line parallel to the
half cul -de -sac. This building line could be modified
with no adverse effect on this block or adjacent
properties.
January 14, 1986
\--1 SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
E." Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of the building line
waiver in the area of the southeast corner of the
proposed building. However, we recommend that the
setback from Westpark Drive be maintained. This will
require an angular corner on the building.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant had a problem with staff's request to cut a
corner off the building due to the need for relocation of a
utility line,'which would cause financial hardship. He also
was not favorable to Traffic's suggestion that the truck
traffic be directed to the rear. The applicant felt that
this was not feasible.
It was decided that the encroachment into the building
setback could be minimized by shifting the building over 10
feet. This would encroach into the side yard, but the
abutting use was only a parking lot and would not be
�. adversely effective.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. A revised plan was approved by
the Commission. The vote was: 11 ayes, 0 noes and
0 absent.
ME
OEM
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Other Matters - Street Name Chance
NAME:
High Street
LOCATION: Between I -630 on the north
and West 36th Street on the
south
OWNER /APPLICANT: Muskie Harris
Committee Chairman for Petition
REQUEST:
To rename South High Street to Martin Luther King Drive in
this 2.3 mile segment.
ABUTTING USES AND OWNERSHIPS:
The existing High Street intersects four major traffic
arteries with commercial centers on each. At the present
time, there are 29 business activities, 53 single family
dwellings, 23 duplexes, 7 multifamily structures, 6 offices,
1 Little Rock public school and 1 college.
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT:
The only effect to be experienced from this change will be
the disruption of neighborhood mail and services until the
new name is recognized by all involved agencies. A
short -term effect will be the disruption of the yellow page
listings for those several businesses which utilize that
advertising. 0OL- Av- Co 5T5 o k 5 w67SS CO u() 13ff
WA v& ,v0 A-eAX 4& D F 79AT /S T 77-1/3- iln-sF,
NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION:
None has been expressed at this writing; however, the
publication of the legal ad and posting of notices will
undoubtedly introduce some objection especially from the
commercial sector.
EFFECT ON PUBLIC SERVICES:
No long -term effect expected.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the proposal with a recommendation to the
Planning Commission and City Board that the approval
resolution take effect a minimum of 30 days after passage.
This is required in order to provide sufficient lead time
for the Post Office, Public Works Department and the State
Highway Department to make the many changes required.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
\_`1
Item No. 13 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Committee received a report from staff on the financial
aspects of the proposed street name change. Henk Koornstra
of the Traffic Engineering Office provided the following
information relative to the signs and structures which will
require modification.
A. PROPOSED CHANGE - FULL NAME - MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE
City signs, 32 in number, at a cost of $1,190.
Additional signage, $390 for a total of $1,480. The
cost of installation by City crew, $475 for a subtotal
of $2,050.
Arkansas Highway Department signs, 11 in number, 2 of
which at $60,000, 2 at $3,600, 2 at $3,200, 5 guideway
signs at $800 for a subtotal of $67,600 and a grand
total for a fully spelled out name $70,000 even.
B. AN ABBREVIATED NAME STRUCTURE - M.L. KING,'JR. DRIVE
City signs, a total of 32 signs at $800. Fifteen side
street signs - $300 for a total of $1,100 in material.
Installation at $475 for a subtotal of $1,600.
Arkansas State Highway signs, a total of 9 signs, 2 at
$2,400, 2 at $2,200, 5 at $500 for a total of $5,100.
The grand total of signs in the abbreviated form would
be $6,700.
C. ALTERNATE STREET NAME PROPOSAL TO AVOID HIGH COST OF
SIGN REPLACEMENT
The City Engineering's staff and Highway Department
offer as an alternate to High Street, changing the name
of Battery Street approximately one -half mile to the
west which has significant length and also intersects
the interstate. The cost of change out on these signs
for a fully spelled out name on each sign would be
$2,100 for both City and State costs. An abbreviated
sign blank for both City and State would be a total of
$1,600.
The Committee received this information, discussed briefly
and made no comment for the record at this time.
January 14, 1986
�--'' SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning staff offered a brief overview of the issue at
hand offering additional information relative to objection
filed since the initial application was submitted.
Mr. Muskie Harris was present and made a request of the
Commission that this matter be deferred for 30 days or until
the February 11 meeting in order to allow the petition
signers to develop their case and decide on the street to be
chosen for change. After a brief discussion of the
proposal, the Commission voted on a motion for deferral.
The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Other Matters - Ordinance Amendment
REQUEST: Planning Commission review of a staff proposal to
amend the Subdivision Ordinance dealing with tri -party
agreements and enforcement.
PROPOSED TEXT: Attached is the first draft of the proposal
for your review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The staff offered an overview of this proposed ordinance
amendment identifying the basic changes involved. A brief
discussion of the proposal then followed. It was determined
by several members that they required sufficient review time
in order to digest the material as presented. It was
suggested a deferral to February 11 would be in line. A
motion for that deferral was made and passed by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
. � s
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 37 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, PROVIDING FOR
PROCEDURAL CHANGES; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That Chapter 37 of the Code of Ordinances
be amended as follows:
Subsection a. That Chapter 37., Article VI, Section
37.35 be amended to provide For the restructuring of the
second paragraph and read as follows:
One of the following methods will be utilized by
the developer to assure that improvements required
by these regulations can or will be installed in
accordance with approved plans and specifications.
The method to be used shall be identified by the
subdivider when filing the preliminary plat. The
Planning Commission will in every instance
determine the appropriateness of the method chosen
and may reject or modify the subdivider's
proposal.
Subsection b. That Chapter 37., Article VI, Section
37.35.d be amended to prove a tor the restructuring o item
D(2. and .) and to read as o ows:
(d) 2. The funds set aside will be disbursed only
for the requirements and such additional
costs as may be included in the triparty
agreement as penalty or administrative.
3. In the event that a subdivider's triparty
agreement becomes in default, the funds
committed shall be disbursed as directed by
the City of Little Rock policy administered
by the Public Works Department. This policy
is established by policy guideline #
Subsection c. That Chapter 37., Article VI, Section
37.35.d) be amended to provide tor inclusion of two new
subparagraphs titled (d.4. and 5.) and to read as follows:
4. Agreements shall be submitted for staff
review in conjunction with the final plat and
be accompanied by: (1) a report from the
Engineer of Record outlining the estimated
construction period and (2) estimates of all
cost factors such as: materials, labor,
administrative, penalties, engineering.
5. An agreement shall be limited to the time
estimate offered by the Engineer of Record
and agreed upon by the Public Works
Department. The time estimate will include a
proposal for periodic status reports to the
Public Works Department.
Subsection d. That Chapter 37., Article VI, Section
37. be amended to provide for insertion of a new section
titled "37.35.l." and to read as follows:
Section 37.35.1. -- Improvements Agreement Enforcement
(a) In those instances where it has been determined
that an agreement is in or near default, a staff
review committee shall review the circumstances
and determine the appropriate course of action.
This course may be: (1) Planning Commission
•,� review for time extension, (2) legal action, and
(3) initiation of the procedure guidelines
etablished by Planning Commission policy.
(b) In those instances where a subdivider has
exhibited a history of inability to perform as
permitted under the assurance provision of this
section, the Planning Commission may disallow all
but subparagraph a). In the event that the
Planning Commission restricts the assurance
options of a subdivider, a specific penalty period
shall be established but not to exceed two
calendar years.
L�
MEMORANDUM
`JCITY OF LITTLE ROCK
October 17, 1985
TO: All Interested Parties
FROM: Richard Wood, Chief of Current Planning
Mike Batie, Department of Public Works
SUBJECT: Discussion of Establishment of a
Procedure Guideline for City Assumption of
Responsibility for Completion of Street
Improvements
The following is a rough outline of the suggested procedure
as structured by various City staff members for purposes of
initial discussion. The 10 step outline offers the minimum
` levels of involvement upon which we can build a system if
such a system is determined appropriate.
Step 1
A City staff committee of Engineering and Planning personnel
would review a tri -party agreement in its last weeks of term
with a view to determining a need to call the instrument as
permitted. The staff options would be:
a. To request release of funds to the City.
b. Request legal action.
C. Submit the matter to the Planning Commission for a
possible extension of time if a hardship circumstance
is evident.
Step 2
The staff committee would determine if a call for all or
_partial funds would be appropriate. If partial, then the
engineer of record for the project would be required to
submit a detailed cost estimate of the remaining
improvements. The City engineer would have the option of
requiring an independent assessment by another engineer.
�.. That office would further have the option of making an
in -house assessment or both.
\--I
Step 3
After determining the cost of completion, the proper
communication would be forwarded to the depository for
purposes of transferring the required funds to a City
special account.
Step 4
The City would utilize one of several engineers which could
be placed on an annual contract to serve as contract
engineers on these types of issues as needed. These
engineers could be rotated as required to avoid conflicts
with client jobs.
Step 5
The contract engineer would prepare plans or obtain and
review those filed by the developer if such were filed for
record.
Step 6
The contract engineer would prepare documents for normal
bidding procedures /selection procedures.
Step 7
After selection of a contractor, work would begin. The
contract engineer would make inspections and perform such
supervision as identified in the contract. He would
coordinate this activity with the Public Works staff.
Step 8
The contract engineer would perform final inspections in
concert with the Public Works Department staff. The
appropriate bonding would be assured.
Step ep 9
A letter would be produced by the Public Works Department
staff certifying to the record owner that all of the work
had been accomplished and accepted by the City for -
maintenance.
Step 10
A letter would be produced by the Public Works Department
staff certifying to the Finance Department that the project
was complete and that payment should be made to the
appropriate parties. This letter would provide for proper
distribution of any fund balance whether to City accounts or
to the developer.
In addition to the outline development, the staff discussed
additional areas of concern.
1. The kinds of changes in the Subdivision Ordinance to
support the new procedure: The first change would be
in the area of improvements assurance whereby the
ordinance would be changed to allow the Planning
Commission to control which of the four assurances a
developer would use plus discretion as to whether to
grant this procedure. Currently, the developer may
choose either. The second would be a penalty provision
to specifically identify a time period for a loss of
certain procedural rights.
2. The kinds of add on cost factors when establishing a
cash or tri -party agreement.
a. The total contractor's bid price would be the
floor price for establishing the add on.
b. The first add on would be project administrative
costs of the City. This percentage would be fixed
at five percent on all agreements.
C. The second add on is the contract engineer fee
cost. This percentage would be fixed at 10
percent on all agreements.
d. The third add on is the contingency or cost
overrun from the base bid price. This could be
variable, but probably set at 10 percent minimum.
3. The disposition of monies remaining in the depository
or City account at conclusion of the project.
4. The establishment of a provision to set the time frame
for any agreement. The engineer of record for the
owner would include a time factor in his estimate and
relate that to weather and size of job. This engineer
would also be responsible for a quarterly report on the
progress of the project. The elimination of the
automatic one year allowable on tri- parties is a
necessity.
A final comment as to the desirability of this procedure is
offered jointly by Planning and Public Works staff. Our
feeling is that the cost to the City of Little Rock for
adopting this procedure cannot be measured in dollars alone.
We feel that although the policy is needed in rare
instances, there will be occasions when developers will take
advantage of the procedure to accomplish their goals with
little or no penalty. Therefore, we urge all participants
to closely scrutinize the associated proposed modifications
of procedure and ordinance.
RW:at5
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Other Matters
Election of officers for the calendar year 1986.
The Planning Commission by unanimous vote elected
Mr. William Ketcher as Chairman for the calendar year 1986
and by unanimous vote elected Mr. Jim Summerlin as
Vice - Chairman for the calendar year 1986.
}
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Other Matters - Allev Abandonment
NAME:
Alley in Block 277 of
Original City of Little Rock
LOCATION: West 150' of the east /west alley
lying between Izard and Chester
Streets, north of West Markham
Street
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Frank Whitbeck
By: Tom Buford
REQUEST: To abandon this portion of an open alley for
redevelopment with the west half of the block.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
There are certain owners /users in this block taking
access over the right -of -way to Chester Street. These
owners at present have only one physical access to a
dedicated right -of -way inasmuch as Izard Street north
of Markham and the east end of this alley have been
abandoned.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no Master Plan requirements attached to this
request.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None evidenced in our review.
4. Characteristics of the Right -of -Way Terrain
A gentle slope to the north and west and at grade with
the adjacent lots.
5. Development Potential
This right -of -way can only be utilized in conjunction
with properties lying immediately adjacent in the form
suggested by this developer.
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. Frank Whitbeck, was in attendance and was
represented by several parties including Mr. Moses and
Mr. Redden of the architectural firm. The applicant made a
lengthy presentation of the proposal involving not only the
alley closure in the block, but discussion of the item on
this agenda dealing with a resubdivision of the lots in the
west half of the block. Planning staff offered additional
commentary and recommendation relative to the abandonment
and the plat which indicated support for the proposals.
This support is conditioned upon removal of the objection of
adjacent property owners.
Mr. Ben Allen, an adjacent property owner, was present
representing his properties and several companies housed in
his building as well as McClelland Engineers lying south of
the alley. Mr. Allen made a lengthy presentation of the
problems perceived by him and his tenants associated with
the abandonment of the alley. There were letters of
objection submitted including a petition with 12 signatures
of tenants in buildings in this block. It was noted for the
record that there was also a letter in the file from
Mr. Allen as an objector. The Commission requested a report
from Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Koornstra
offered comments which generally supported the abandonment
of the alley. He discussed the existing intersection as a
potential traffic problem, also indicating that the access
to the proposed parking lot would be more acceptable.
A lengthy discussion of this matter then followed, both
sides presenting additional comments. The Commission
determined that it would be in the best interest of all of
the involved parties to defer this matter until February 11
and give the parties an opportunity to meet and discuss
resolution of their differences. It was noted by staff and
Commission that access to Markham Street along the east side
of the proposed development would be suitable resolution of
the problem. Both sides indicated that a meeting could be
held and discussions held toward resolution of the
differences. A motion was then made to defer this
application to February 11, 1986. The motion passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Richard
Massie).
� C
P L A N N I N G ' C O M M I S S I O N
DAT V 0 T E R E C O R D
• ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING St]BD2V7S7ON
AYE ® NAYE A ADSENT ABSTAIN
�BGE�����BOG���I��I������f
W. Rector
��OB8191�I�II���1�'
���G��
■
■��
OU��a�0��d0�f�10000���
Jones
t
00000�oe�o��000�o
■
■
■i
F. Perkins
a000e���aor���r�o�r��
■
■■
AYE ® NAYE A ADSENT ABSTAIN
January 14, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned
at 4 p.m.
Chairman
Se retar
Date ��