pc_06 10 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 10, 1986
1:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 10 in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were read and approved.
III. Members Present:
IV. Members Absent:
John Schlereth
David Jones
Richard Massie
Jerilyn Nicholson
Bill Rector, Jr.
William Ketcher, Chairman
Dorothy Arnett
Fred Perkins
Ida Boles
Betty Sipes
Jim Summerlin
V. City Attorney: Mark Stodola
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVI`T'IES
JUNE 10, 1986
DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. First Assembly of God "CUP" (Z -4652)
B. Spring Addition
C. Longlea Manor - Revised Preliminary
D. Morris Moore "Long -Form PID" (Z- 4596 -A)
E. Taco Bell on Markham "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4654)
1. Holmes Addition
2. Leawood Cove
3. Tanphil Addition
4. Shephard's Addition Preliminary (Tracts A, B and C)
5. Shephard's Addition Preliminary /Final (Tract A)
6. Pine Shadows Addition Mobile Home Subdivision
6A. (Z -4667) Geyer Springs Road, north of Little Fourche
Creek ( "R -2" to "R -7" /Mobile Home Park)
7. McClellan Optimist Subdivision
r ""r � mr�
8. Geyer Springs Shopping Center Subdivision (Lot 5 -RA)
9. Caroline Row Replat
10. Houston Replat
11. West Markham Shopping Center "Short -Form PRD"
(Z- 4666)
12. Geyer Woods Addition "Short -Form PRD" (Z4668)
13. J and J Piano and Organ "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4669)
SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES - CONTINUED
JUNE 10, 1986
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
14. Highland Ridge Apartments
15. United Parcel Service Zoning Site Plan (Z- 4577 -A)
(`OXTT)TfPTOMAT. TlgP pRT?MTTC •
16. Best Tire Company CUP (Z- 1662 -A)
17. Hidden Valley Self Storage CUP (Z- 3727 -B)
17A. (Z- 3727 -C) Cantrell Road, East of Keightly
( "R -5" to "C -311)
18. Second Presbyterian Church CUP (Z -4670)
19. Trinity United Methodist Church (Z -4671)
RIGHT -OF -WAY CLOSURES:
20. Riffel Avenue Abandonment
21. Alley Abandonment in Block 10
(IrPUWD MArPMWDc .
22. 324 Executive Court - Sidewalk Waiver Request
23. Burnt Tree II - Sidewalk Waiver Request
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A
NAME:
First Assembly of God Church
Conditional Use Permit (Z -4652)
LOCATION: The north side of Hermitage
Road just east of Autumn Road
(11500 Hermitage Road)
OWNER /APPLICANT: First Assembly of God Church/
Charles J. Carlsen
PROPOSAL:
To operate a day -care and school in the present and future
facilities; to build a future Family Life Center of 28,000
square feet (two story); to construct a ball field and a
park; and to provide additional future parking spaces of
4.52 + acres of land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to Hermitage Road (future Financial Centre
Parkway).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This property is abutted by single family uses on the
south and east. Vacant property lies to the north and
west. The adjacent properties to the south and west
are zoned "C -3" while property that is located to the
east is zoned "0 -3." The only property that is zoned
single family is adjacent to the northeast. Financial
Centre Parkway will eventually be constructed adjacent
to this property to the south. The church use is
compatible with the surrounding area.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
3. On -Site Drives and Parki
The site currently contains 70 paved parking spaces and
1 paved engress and egress to Hermitage Road. The
proposal calls for an unspecified number of parking
spaces (future) to be constructed on the south and east
sides of the building.
4. Screeninq and Buffers
The property is situated in a heavy stand of woods, but
no landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the existing and the proposed use
is and will be compatible with the surrounding area.
There are, however, clarifications and issues to be
resolved. The applicant needs to submit a landscape
plan and clarify their proposal. The applicant also
needs to be specific about: the kind of school; its
proposed capacity; the number of future parking spaces;
and the proposed structural involvement in the
recreational area.
6. Citv Engineerinq Comments
The applicant needs to: (1) dedicate right -of -way on
Hermitage Road; (2) make street improvements to
Hermitage Road; (3) be advised the future access
restrictions as their property relates to the proposed
Financial Centre Parkway extension; (4) consider
closing the unnamed 30° street located adjacent to the
east; and (5) met stormwater detention requirements.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan and include landscaping areas and
the specifics of the parking and recreational area; (2)
clarify the school proposal; and (3) comply with City
Engineering Comments numbered 1 through 5.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. A - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and did not feel adequately
prepared to discuss the myriad of issues associated with
this proposal. He stated that he was thinking of amending
his proposal. The applicant was advised and, subsequently,
agreed to defer the application to the June 10, 1986,
Planning Commission meeting. The staff stated that the
Sewer Department had commented that sewer service was not
available to this property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 11
ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent to defer this application (as per
Subdivision Committee review) until the June 10, 1986,
Planning Commission meeting.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5- 30 -86)
The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The applicant was not present, but had submitted a letter
requesting a 30 -day deferral. The Commission voted 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent to approve the deferral of this item
until the July 8, 1986, Planning Commission meeting.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B
NAME:
Springer Addition
LOCATION: East Side of Edge Street
Approximately 150' South of the
Intersection of Dover and Edge
T DDT Tf'TTiT.
Joe White
Edward G. Smith & Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR
Phone: 374 -1666
A. Staff Report
This submittal is located in an area developed to
single family. The parcel consists of 2.4072 acres.
There is currently an existing one story frame
residence on the site. The applicant is proposing to
divide the tract into two lots and one tract. A one
story single family residence will be built on Lot 1.
Staff asked the applicant to provide information on
when the excluded portions of what was previously a
part of this ownership was sold. An existing carport
on the northernmost excluded parcel encroaches over the
lot line of Lot 1. The applicant is asked to provide
information on existing rights -of -way on both streets
and is advised that the 49' x 150' sliver of land that
is a part of Tract A cannot be sol off.
B. Staff Recommendation
Reserved until further information is received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
June 10, 1986
) SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. B - Continued
WATER - Contact LRWU.
SEWER - On -site fire protection is required for Tract "A."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
A motion for a deferral, as recommended by staff, was made
and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5- 29 -86)
The issue discussed involved the status of parcels of land
that were sold off by this owner. The usual policy is to
get the participation of all the owners on the final plat if
the lots were sold after 1957. The applicant stated that he
was trying to get the information from an abstract company.
The Committee did state that no right -of -way dedication or
street improvements were needed, so there would be nothing
gained by a plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
A motion for approval was made and passed, conditioned on no
further ownerships being sold without a plat.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C
NAME:
Longlea Manor - Revised
Preliminary
LOCATION: 500' Northeast of Pleasant
Forest Drive
T1F.NTF.T.(IAF.R - RMr-TNF.F.R -
Land Projects, Inc. Marlar Engineering Co., Inc.
1125 Arcade Drive 5318 JFK Boulevard
Suite "E" North Little Rock, AR 72116
Little Rock, AR 72112 Phone: 753 -1987
AREA: 40.7 NO. OF LOTS: 77 FEET NEW ST.: 5,060
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES: Sidewalks on Old Mill Lane
A. Staff Report
This proposal is located in an area currently developed
as single family. The request is to revise a
previously approved single family plat of 120 lots on
40.7 acres to 77 lots. The applicant is also asking
to: (1) continue the previous agreement to construct
Old Oak Drive as a 36 -foot wide collector on a 50 -foot
right -of -way without sidewalks; (2) use of
streetlights; and (3) waiver of sidewalk requirement
for Old Mill Lane due to the fact that topography will
make sidewalks difficult to construct, and the fact
that there are no sidewalks in the area.
Staff suggests continuance of previous agreement, but
construction of sidewalks on Old Mill should be
required. Old Mill Lane should be called Old Mill
Circle and the name Den Oak Circle should be changed.
The fire hydrant and water line system and building
line should be shown.
June 10, 1986
f SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. C - Continued
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The main issue discussed was a request by the applicant to
waive sidewalks. Also, that sidewalks be allowed on Old Oak
Drive in -lieu of Old Mill.
After the meeting, the applicant informed staff that it
would drop the issue of street lighting.
WATER - Water main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 noes.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5- 29 -86)
Staff reported that the applicant had requested withdrawal
of the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
t SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
Lindy Culvert
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
SURVEYOR:
Morris Moore "Long- Form" PID
(Z- 4596 -A)
9620 Baseline
Morris Moore
9620 Baseline
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone: 224 -1234
Troy Laha
Phone: 565 -7384
AREA: 2.31 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USES: Automotive Sales and Repair
A. Site History
This item was recently considered for rezoning. The
PUD approach was suggested as a means to accommodate an
existing situation.
B. Plan Objectives
1. To allow for development and use of the entire
property while protecting the neighbors from the
many varied uses allowed in "I -2" zoning.
2. To allow the uses established over the past 20
years.
3. To remove one existing building and add two new
structures.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
C. Proposal
1. The allowance of various industrial uses on a
tract that is 591.75' x 170.5'.
2. The use breakdown will consist of:
Sales - 30 percent
Design - 20 percent
Repair - 50 percent
3. A building breakdown is as follows:
Building
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Existing
D. Analysis
Type
Truck /automotive repair
Hydraulic design, sales
and repair
Single family residence
Size
50' x 100'
50' x 100'
50' x 100'
58.4' x 25.5'
Staff is not happy with the proposal submitted. It is
felt that it proposes more than what was envisioned at
the rezoning hearing. Furthermore, the plan is very
insufficient in relation to the submittal requirements.
Engineering suggests that a 50 -foot right -of -way be
dedicated from the centerline and that only one
driveway be allowed.
OCP staff is requesting extensive revision of the plan
to include: (1) the shifting of parking to the side of
the property adjacent to the State Highway Department;
(2) limiting the combined building areas on the south
half to 5,000 square feet; (3) provide buffer and
drainage detail; and (4) design the two metal buildings
parallel to each other with parking in between.
E. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. D - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant for a 1-month deferral to respond to staff's
design suggestions.
SEWER Available, extension required.
WATER On-site fire protection required.
FIRE On proposed structure, where automotive parts and
tire sales and welding and fabrication shop, a potential
fire hazard could be where they are in some building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-13-86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (5-29-86)
Since the applicant was not present, the item was not
reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-10-86)
Since staff had not heard from the applicant, a motion for
deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
June 10, 1985
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E
NAME:
Taco Bell - Markham Street
"Short- Form" PCD (Z -4654)
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
c/o Donna McCurty Arthur Thomas
Taco Bell Phone: 753 -4463
7606 Pebble Drive Taco Bell
Ft. worth, TX 76118 817 -5100
Phone: (405) 324 -5444 c/o Jerry Hunt
AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USES: Commercial - Restaurant
A. Plan Objectives
1. To improve the use at this location by developing
a new restaurant that will blend in with the earth
tone environment, instead of the existing unkempt,
small rental homes and an institution known as
Peck's, which is in dire need of repair.
B. Proposal
The construction of a tan stucco Taco Bell Restaurant
on a 92' x 250' corner lot. The building will consist
of 28' x 70' of space with 60 parking spaces.
Landscaping will consist of a 4 -foot wide strip around
the property and a 6 -foot fence on the east property
line to buffer the existing apartments. New curb and
gutter will be installed on the entire site. The
ingress and egress on Markham is a controlled single
driveway for improved traffic control.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
C. Analysis
A proposed commercial use at this location was rejected
previously due to its noncompliance with the
Heights /Hillcrest Plan. Staff opposes the project
based on the proposed use and design.
The site is not adequate to place the required lanes
and provide for stacking distance. The plan also
impacts the residential area to the north and does not
allow adequate buffer areas on the east. Engineering
reports that the Traffic Engineer's review is a must,
due to numerous design problems.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was asked to work with the City and Traffic
Engineers to resolve design issues before the public
hearing. The basic problem was identified as use, since the
proposal does not conform to the Heights - Hillcrest Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
A motion for a deferral, as requested by the applicant, was
made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
June 10, 1986
j SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. E - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
Item No. F - Z -4660
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
J.F. Holmes
Same
West 36th and Shackleford Road
Northwest Corner
Rezone from "R -2" to "C -4"
Office Warehouse
2.67 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Industrial, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
East - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. The rezoning request is to reclassify the property from
"R -2" to "C -4" for an office warehouse on the northern
one -half of the site. Plans for the southern one -half
are unknown at this time. The land use in the area is
still primarily residential with several large
undeveloped tracts to the east and south. Directly to
the north of this parcel, there is a nonconforming
warehouse and on Old Shackleford Road, there is a
nonconforming auto repair operation. The warehouse is
a fairly recent addition to the neighborhood with
construction being initiated prior to the area being
annexed to the City. In addition to those two uses,
there is an industrial facility south of Brodie Creek.
The area has not experienced any recent zoning changes.
The most significant rezoning in the vicinity occurred
approximately two years ago and involved lands east of
Shackleford Road. The rezonings were primarily for
"OS" Open Space and multifamily so it appears that the
area still has some residential appeal.
2. The site is vacant and wooded.
3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request.
June 10, 1986
Item No. F - Continued
4. There have been no adverse comments received from the
reviewing agencies as of this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. The property was annexed to the City in 1985 as part of
the referendum decision. Staff has received several
informational calls regarding the request.
7. Staff feels that the area is not a viable heavy
commercial /light industrial location and does not
support the rezoning to "C -4." The I -430 Plan
identifies the site for residential, and it should
remain that way. Because of some recent rezoning
requests on Shackleford south of Colonel Glenn Road,
the staff is in the process of expanding the industrial
area at Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Roads to
accommodate additional light industrial development,
such as warehousing. That general area is more
appropriate than the property in question for a number
of reasons, including better access to I -430. Should
this rezoning be granted, it is very conceivable that
an industrial strip along Shackleford from north of
West 36th to south of Colonel Glenn Road could be
established and that would be very undesirable for the
entire area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C -4" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 27 -86)
The applicant was represented by Roger Mears. There were no
objectors. Mr. Mears discussed the request and the area.
He said that West 36th and Shackleford Road were major
streets and that the intersection was appropriate for
commercial zoning. Mr. Mears then reviewed a court order
through an annexation suit that designated property to the
south as "C -3." There was a long discussion about the court
order and several other matters. Additional comments were
made by Mr. Mears and the staff. A motion was made to defer
the request to the June 10, 1986, meeting. The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. (The
Planning Commission requested the staff to research the
court orders.)
June 10, 1986
Item No. F - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The applicant was present and represented by Roger Mears.
There were no objectors in attendance. Staff modified its
position and recommended approval of the amended application
to "I -1." Mr. Mears then spoke and discussed the request.
He said that the owners were concerned that an industrial
rezoning was inappropriate for their use. There was a long
discussion about some of the issues and at that point
Mr. Mears described the proposed use for one of the lots as
a wholesale activity and said that the owners would be
agreeable to "C -3," "C -4" or "I -1." Mr. Mears made some
additional comments and explained that a plat for the
property would provide any additional right -of -way for both
West 36th and Shackleford Road. A motion was then offered
to amend the request to "I -1," defer it for 30 days to the
July 8, 1986, meeting, and to waive any additional filing
fees. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent. (The applicant was instructed to renotify the
necessary property owners prior to the July 8 hearing.)
June 18, 1986
1 SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Other Matters - Street Abandonment
NAME:
r.nr n m rnu .
OWNER /APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
Turtle Creek Drive
South of St. Charles Boulevard
1/2 block east of Napa Valley
Road
Agape Church, Inc.
To abandon the right-of-way
and combine with abutting
church holdings
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None, inasmuch as the Agape Church has acquired all
abuting lands to the south, east and west. These lands
have been incorporated into the church site. This
street is not needed as an access to the church
properties.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements.
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
None, inasmuch as the neighborhood streets have been
platted and constructed to City Master Street Plan
requirements.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
A standard residential street of 27' in width and 129'
in length. There is a minor grade rising from north to
south. The right -of -way is currently under fence.
5. Development Potential
This street was platted for purposes of access to later
phases of Turtle Creek Residential Subdivision. These
phases did not occur inasmuch as the Agape Church
acquired those lands from the developer; therefore,
this street serves only two platted lots now vacant.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The area to the east and north are built up as single
family. To the south lies a church and on the west a
vacant lot on Napa Valley Road. No adverse effect is
expected.
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed, none expected.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The only comment received of a negative nature was from
the Little Rock Fire Department. They have stated they
oppose this action.
9. Reversionary Rights
This right -of -way will revert to the church as the
single abutting owner. The church holds titles to lots
on both sides as well as to the south.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
(1) The abandonment of this unopened and unused
segment of street right -of -way will return to the
private sector a land area that will be productive
for the real estate tax base.
(2) The abandonment will eliminate the potential for
the extension of access to an area which could
prove hazardous and possible vehicle congestion at
a busy intersection.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends a denial of this abandonment
based on the objection of the Fire Department. In the event
that resolution of that problem can be gained by the date of
the Planning Commission meeting, we will support the
abandonment conditioned on the following items:
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. G - Continued
a. Retaining utility and drainage rights within the
ordinance.
b. The removal of all vestiges of the existing street
within what will become the right -of -way of
St. Charles Boulevard across the intersection.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5- 13 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors in
attendance. The Planning staff offered a modified
recommendation in light of the developing opposition from
the Turtle Creek neighborhood and the Fire Department's
objection to abandonment. The recommendation encouraged a
30 -day deferral or until June 10, 1986, in order to provide
sufficient time for the church and the various neighborhood
leaders to work out differences. The applicant agreed to
the deferral. A motion was then made to defer this matter
to the June 10, 1986, Planning Commisison meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The Planning staff reported to the Commission that the
petitioner had held meetings with the neighborhood for
purposes of resolving the conflicts. As a result of
discussion with the neighborhood and with staff, a formal
request was made in the proper time and fashion requesting a
deferral for 60 days or until the August 12 meeting. After
a brief discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to
recommend the deferral to the August subdivision agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. I
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Junius Holmes
214 Louisiana
Little Rock, AR
Holmes Addition
Northwest Corner of West 36th
and Shackleford
" WT,- YK7 r,' "n -
Orson Jewell
27 Vista
Little Rock, AR 72210
Phone: 225-8430
AREA: 2.8 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FEET NEW ST.: None
ZONING: "C-3v'
PROPOSED USE: Commercial
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existing Conditions
This site is flat, wooded and bounded on the west by
single family, on the north by warehouse, and by vacant
land on the east and south. At the time of writing,
the applicant has filed a request for rezoning from
"R-211 to "C-4. The 1-430 plan shows this area as
single family.
B. Development Proposal
This is a request to subdivide 2.8 acres into two lots
and 800 feet of new street for commercial use.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
C. Analysis
The applicant is asked to: (1) provide 50 foot
right -of -way dedication on 36th Street with boundary
improvements and sidewalks; (2) provide 50 foot
right -of -way from intersection 200 feet north, and
taper back to 40 foot right -of -way 350 feet from the
intersection; (3) coordinate design of intersection
with Traffic Engineer.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant agreed to comply with staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
)
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2
TO T TN V .
Properties Nest, Inc.
262 S. Shackleford
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 224 -3055
Leawood Cove
West End of Shea Drive
ENGINEER:
Edward G. Smith and Assoc.
401 Victory
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 374 -1666
AREA: 3.78 acres NO. OF LOTS: 11 FEET NEW ST.:
ZONING: 11R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family Homes
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
(1) 24' pavement width
(2) 15' setback on Lot 10
A. Existing Conditions
This proposal is located in an area developed primarily
as single family. The floodplain crosses the property.
B. Development Proposal
This is a request to plat 3.78 acres into 11 lots for
single family use. Two variances have been requested.
They include: (1) 24 foot pavement width and (2) 15
foot setback on Lot 10.
C. Analysis
The applicant is asked to justify his request for a 15
foot setback on Lot 10. If allowed, it would be a
variance, since staff's review indicates that the
June 10, 1986
1 SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
lot does not meet the 18% required by Ordinance.
Staff's measurements reveal that the lot has 10% to 110
grade. The applicant is reminded that all lots must be
60 feet at the building line. Floor elevation should
be indicated on the plat.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
It was determined that a variance was needed for the
15' building line on Lot 10. The applicant also agreed
to label the portion in the floodway as Tract A and
dedicate it to the City.
Water Works Comments - Water main extension is
required.
Sewer Comments - Additional sanitary sewer easements
required in Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The applicant was present. Mr. Joe White submitted a
revised plat that eliminated a 15' setback and dedicated the
floodway. He addressed the issue of an easement that
currently serves an existing house on the property. The
house on the property will be remodeled and there will be no
easement to Lot 7.
Mr. Darryl Rainey (Lot 1 -R, Cameron Heights Subdivision,
adjacent to Lot 1 of this proposal) voiced several concerns.
He said that Lots 10 and 11 are too small when compared with
neighboring lots; and also that a house on Lot 11 would take
up most of the lot and suggested Lots 10 and 11 be made one
lot. He also discussed drainage problems in the area,
noting that runoff goes along the eastern side of Lot 1.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 2 - Continued
He suggested storm sewers or other drainage improvements at
the end of Shea Drive. Concern was expressed over the
easement that extends southward to Rodney Parham and the
potential for future through traffic.
The applicant agreed to alleviate the problem by abandoning
the easement and conveying title to the property owner to
the south. Mr. White also explained that there would be no
worsening of the existing problem with flooding and that
some of the lots would be filled.
There was discussion on the applicant's failure to submit a
Bill of Assurance, an issue that was raised by Mr. Rainey.
The City Attorney advised that this was a requirement for
submission in the Ordinance and should be done during the
preliminary process, even though as a practical matter, the
Bill of Assurance is more closely reviewed during the final
plat process. Due to the fact that the Bill of Assurance
submission had been raised as an issue by a concerned
neighbor, the Commission decided to defer the item for 30
days. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER /ENGINEER:
Orson Jewell
27 Vista Drive
Little Rock, AR 72210
Phone: 225 -8430
Tanphil Addition
South Side of Highway 10,
East of Taylor Loop
AREA: 10.94 acres NO. OF LOTS: 30 FEET NEW ST.:
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Cul -De -Sac Length
A. Existing Conditions
1,300
This proposal is located south of Highway 10. The
general area consists of mixed uses, with a pet shop
and veterinary clinic abutting on the immediate north.
Taylor Loop Creek runs through the middle of the
property. It appears that approximately 90% of the
site is located in the floodway.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is proposing to plat 10.94 acres into 30
lots for single family use and 1300 feet of new
street. Access from Highway 10 is proposed through a
27 foot cul -de -sac, Tanphil Circle, that is
approximately 1200 feet in length. A 50 foot drainage
easement is proposed along the western and southern
boundaries.
June 10, 1986
1 SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 3 - Continued
C. Analysis
This proposal presents multiple problems. Foremost, is
advice from the City's Engineers that the plan cannot
be done as proposed. Before any of this is done, an
approved hydraulic study by Engineering and FEMA must
be obtained showing revisions to the floodway.
Secondly, the applicant can't rechannel the ditch as
proposed, without an agreement from abutting
property- owners who will possibly be impacted.
Additionally, (1) the floodway and floodplain should be
shown on the plat; (2) a cul -de -sac waiver is needed;
(3) an access easement with participation on the
abutting property- owners to the north should be
indicated, since Tanphil crosses their property and it
provides the only access to this site; (4) in -lieu
contributions are required for Highway 10; (5) Tanphil
Circle should be called Tanphil Court.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant, Mr. Orson Jewell, requested a 30 -day
deferral so that he could address the comments made by
staff.
Water Works Comments - Water main extension is
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes and I absent.
June 10, 1986
1 SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4
NAME: Shephard's Addition Preliminary
Plat - Tracts A, B and C
LOCATION: North Side of Colonel Glenn
Approximately 400' West of
Shackleford Road (Abuts
East Line of Super Saver
Property)
DEVELOPER /AGENT: ENGINEER:
W.P. Putnam Garver and Garver Engineers
1820 Union Nat'l Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR
Little Rock, AR Phone: 376 -3633
Phone: 376 -3616
AREA: 9.13 acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FEET NEW ST.:
ZONING: ' °I -1"
PROPOSED USE: Industrial
A. Staff Report
The property involved consists of flat, grass- covered
pasture land that is zoned for Light Industrial. The
proposal is to plat 9.13 acres into 3 lots for
industrial use.
Staff has no problem with the request. A 50 foot
right -of -way dedication is required on Colonel Glenn
Road.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 4 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission without
adverse comments.
Water Works Comments - On -site fire protection. Proposed
60' road along west property line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5
NAME:
Shephard's Addition
Tract A - Preliminary Final
LOCATION: North Side of Colonel Glenn
Approximately 400' West of
Shackleford Road (Abuts
East Line of Super Saver
Property)
DEVELOPER /AGENT: ENGINEER:
W.P. Putnam Garver and Garver Engineers
1820 Union Nat'l Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR
Little Rock, AR Phone: 376 -3633
Phone: 376 -3616
AREA: 2.539 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FEET NEW ST.: 220.34
ZONING: "I -1"
PROPOSED USE: Industrial (Plumbing, Heating, Air
Conditioning)
A. Staff Report
This is a proposed preliminary and final plat 2.539
acres into 1 lot and 220.34 of new street for
industrial use.
The applicant agrees to complete street improvements
along Tract A prior to receiving his Certificate of
Occupancy. A 50 foot right -of -way dedication is
required on Colonel Glenn Road. Southwestern Bell is
requiring additional easements.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 5 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission without
adverse comments.
Water Works Comments - On -site fire protection required.
Proposed 60' road along west property line.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to the
Engineering Department keeping track of street improvements.
The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
i
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6
NAME:
Pine Shadows Addition Mobile
Home Subdivision
LOCATION: North of Little Fourche Creek,
East Side of Geyer Springs
Road
DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT:
First Consortium, Inc. Eddie Branton
Suite 412 707 Wallace Building
Union Square Station Little Rock, AR 72201
Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372 -4930
Phone: 378 -7542
AREA: 8.72 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FEET NEW ST.: 156
ZONING: "R -2," Lots 1 -3 and "R -7," Lot 4
PROPOSED USE: Residential /Mobile Home Park
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existing Conditions
The land involved is located in an area that is
currently undeveloped. It is shown as "R -2" Single
Family.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is requesting to subdivide 8.72 acres
into four lots. Lot 4 is to be used as a mobile home
park with "final determination of the use of Lots 1 -3
to be decided after the City has completed the
development of Geyer Springs Road and gross has
indicated the highest and best use of the property."
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
C. Project Data (33 Mobile Home Lots)
1.
Symbol
Size
Quantity
1
14' x
45'
1
2
14' x
55'
4
3
14' x
60'
10
4
14' x
68'
15
5
14' x
68'
3
2. Parking: 66 spaces (2 per unit).
3. Park /recreational area is 19,000 square feet
(580 /unit).
4. Outside storage area is 1,250 square feet
(38 square feet per unit).
3 D. Analysis
Lots 1 and 2 should have a joint drive, and Lot 3
should not have an access drive to Geyer Springs. A
90 -foot right -of -way with boundary street improvements
is required. The detention area should be shown in the
recreation area and the floodway /floodplain of Fourche
Creek must be indicated on the plat.
The applicant does not seem to provide the 500 feet of
recreation space per mobile home, nor the 50 foot of
storage space per unit required. The Geyer Springs
Plan designates the area for single family use.
E. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to no endorsement of commercial on
Lots 1 -3.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 6 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, the item was not
reviewed.
Water Works Comments - An 8" water main extension was
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
Item No. 6A - Z -4667
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
First Consortium, Inc.
Same
Geyer Springs Road, North of
Little Fourche Creek
Rezone from "R -2" to "R -7"
Mobile Home Park
8.5 acres
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
South - Vacant, Unclassified
East - Vacant, Unclassified
West - Vacant, Zoned "R -2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the site to "R -7" for a mobile home
park. The plan proposes 33 spaces with a community area on
the east side and a drive coming off Geyer Springs providing
the access. The property is located in an area that is
primarily still undeveloped and zoned "R -2." (South of
Little Fourche Creek is outside the City limits.) Further
to the south on Geyer Springs, there are a few single family
residences on large lots and a building that has several
offices in it.
The site is part of the Geyer Springs East District Plan
which recommends single family residential use for the area.
Staff feels that a mobile home park is a viable single
family use and recommends approval of the "R -7" rezoning.
The City needs reasonable locations for mobile home park
developments that will not impact other single family
neighborhoods, and it appears that the land under
consideration is such a site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "R -7" request.
June 10, 1986
Item No. 6A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The applicant, Clint Cavin, was present. Paul Fenley,
representing a church in the area, requested that the item
be deferred so the church could have more time to study the
proposal. Mr. Fenley indicated that they were made aware of
the rezoning only the day before the hearing. Mr. Cavin
spoke briefly and made several comments. A motion was made
to defer the request for 30 days to the July 8, 1986,
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7
NAME: McClellan Optimist Club
Subdivision
LOCATION: South Side of I -30
Access Road, North of MOPAC
Railroad - South of Dean
Equipment Company
nV17L'r_nDL'D .
McClellan Optimist Club
V V('- TML'T'D .
Garver and Garver
P.O. Box C -50
Little Rock, AR 72203 -0050
Phone: 376 -3633
AREA: 13.16 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING:
PROPOSED USE: Clubhouse
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Existinq Conditions
This property is located south of the I -30 Frontage
Road, behind Dean Equipment Company. The general area
is composed mainly of industrial /commercial uses. The
floodway and floodplain cross the property.
B. Development Proposal
The applicant is asking to plat 13.16 acres into four
tracts. Tract 1 will be sold to a business that needs
a storage area for used railroad ties. A small office
building will be associated with the business. Access
to Tract 1 will be provided by a 50 foot easement
across property by Coy Dean and other tracts of the
Subdivision. The access road will be constructed and
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 7 - Continued
maintained by the purchaser of Tract 1. Tract 2 is the
site for the Optimist Club.
C. Analysis
Any buildings on Tract 1 must have a flood elevation of
at least 2 feet above the 100 year flood. All railroad
ties must be above the 100 year flood level.
Southwestern Bell requests additional easements.
D. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
$ The item was discussed. The applicant explained that the
purpose of this proposal was the platting of Tract 1 only;
also, that Tracts 3 and 4 are in the floodway, which will be
dedicated.
Water Works Comments - Water main extension required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
Commissioners expressed reluctance at approving the plat
with the majority of the lots in the floodway and with
private access. It was felt that the fact that no Bill of
Assurance was submitted was not an issue. A motion for a
30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0
noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8
NAME:
LOCATION:
AGENT:
Mr. Russ Rawn
c/o Suite 300
11300 Rodney Parham Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: 224 -6560
Geyer Springs Shopping Center
Subdivision (Lot 5R -A)
Northwest Corner of Baseline
and Elrod Road
VM('_TMV VD .
Finley Williams
210 Victory
.Little Rock, AR
Phone: 376 -3505
AREA: 10.91 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "C -3"
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
REQUEST:
(1) To eliminate 19' building line
(2) To relocate utility easement between S &T Shopping
Center and Geyer Springs Shopping Center
A. Staff Report
The location of this proposal is within a commercial
shopping center. The purpose of the replat is to allow
expansion of the Bonanza Steak House by removing the
existing building line and altering a utility easement
north of the building.
The building will be expanded 21 feet to provide more
dining area. The result will be a side yard of 4 feet.
A 12 foot wide utility easement is platted on the north
side of the site, with an additional 10 foot utility
easement on the adjacent property to the north.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 8 - Continued
The easements contain power, water, gas and stormsewer,
some or all of which may need to be altered, relocated
or abandoned. The applicant is working with the
utilities invovled to obtain a release on part of the
12 foot wide easement.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to utility comments.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant explained that this was not an encroachment,
but a request to eliminate a 19° building line altogether.
He was in the process of gaining approvals from the utility
companies.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
y June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9
NAME:
Caroline Row Replat
LOCATION: 215, 217, 219, 221 East 10th
and 1002 Cumberland
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Chris Barrier /Original Summerlin and Associates
City Developers 1609 Broadway
1000 Savers Federal Little Rock, AR
Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376 -1323
Phone: 376 -3151
AREA: .135 acre NO. OF LOTS: 3 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: HDR
PROPOSED USE: Residential
REQUEST:
To replat lot lines and increase two lots to three.
A. Staff Report
This project is located in the downtown area and
regulated by the CLR Ordinance. On -site, there is a
2 -story stucco building and two 2 -story brick
buildings. The applicant is submitting this as a
request for preliminary /final review to replat two lots
into three lots and re- orient the lot lines from north
to south, instead of from east to west, as is currently
platted. A 35 foot access easement is proposed in the
area designated as "asphalt parking lot." The use will
be residential. The replat will conform the lot
configuration to the actual building size.
Staff's concern is that the newly created lots do not
meet any of the bulk, area and open space requirements
in the CLR Ordinance. Past policy has prohibted
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 9 - Continued
favorable support for the creation of inadequate lots.
Thus, the general opinion of the staff is that the
proposal shouldn't be accomplished this way, even
though it is purely to accommodate an existing
situation. Perhaps, the PUD process is a possible
solution.
Southwestern Bell cautions that there is a buried
telephone cable in the area. The applicant is asked to
call 1- 800 - 482 -8998 before excavating. The Fire
Department requests a 20 foot wide street entering the
property.
Public Works requires: (1) handicapped ramps at the
alley and intersection of 10th and Cumberland; (2)
sidewalk across drive, so handicapped ramps won't be
needed; (3) a 20 foot radius at the intersection.
B. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
Water Works Comments - Water main extension is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
As requested by the staff, a motion for withdrawal was made
and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1
abstention. The applicant will refile it as a PUD.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 10
NAME: Houston Replat
LOCATION: North and West of #2 Longfellow
Circle
Gary and Janice Houston
1904 West 3rd
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375 -8330
Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson
201 South Izard
Little Rock, AR
Pnone; 375 -5331
AREA: .178 acre NO. OF LOTS: 2 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Single Family
The applicant has requested that the item be withdrawn.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11
NAME: West Markham Shopping Center
"Short -Form PRD" (Z -4666)
LOCATION: On the North Side of Markham
Approximately 2301 West of
Santa Fe Trail - Directly
Across from Markham St. Baptist
DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT:
Willis Smith Jim Moses
C/o Allison Moses Redden
225 E. Markham, Suite 40
Heritage East
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 375 -0378
AREA: 1.2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: °0 -3"
PROPOSED USE: Office /Commercial
A. Development Objectives
(1) To provide a combination of neighborhood
commercial establishments and quiet office uses.
(2) Use of the PUD approach to help achieve a balance
between low -scale quality buildings, adequate
parking and landscaping on a small site.
B. Development Proposal
(1) To provide a cluster of three one -story buildings
surrounded by extensive landscaping and
approximately 51 parking spaces. A single curb
cut on Markham is planned.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
(2) To provide a total square footage of 13,568 square
feet with 75 percent of the use devoted to retail
and 25 percent to office.
(3) Development of the project in one phase.
C. Analysis
The site is greatly affected by the location of a
50 -foot easement with an existing 39 inch water line
that diagonally bisects the site. Engineering reports
that the plan can't be done as proposed due to a
drainage structure problem. On -site detention is
required. Drainage ditch construction plans must be
submitted and approved.
Staff has a problem with the proposed retail use. It
is feared that a retail use on this site would lead to
strip commercial development and adversely effect the
residential area, especially to the east. There is
currently a good transition between institutional/
office uses and commercial.
An adequate buffer of the residential area to the north
is not provided. The applicant is reminded that a
40 -foot buffer and 6 -foot fence is required. Also, a
3 -lot plat is required with the participation of
abutting property owners, if this property was sold off
in tracts of less than five acres after 1957. Staff
understands that the entire piece was once owned by the
Church. Any division without a plat after the date
mentioned above would constitute an illegal
subdivision.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
Water Works Comments - On -site fire protection may be
required.
Sewer Comments - Site plan is incomplete. No location was
given. Contact LRWW.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. Approximately 18 concerned
residents were in attendance. A call in opposition was
received from Mr. J.D. Shelby and a letter from Mr. Marshall
Sharp. Mr. Raymond 0. Wilson of 106 Santa Fe also expressed
concerns. Other persons that spoke were Ms. Anne Cherrs,
#5 Lawrence; Mr. Charles Hadfield, #9 Lawrence Drive;
Mr. Joe Shelby, #21 Meadowbrook Drive; Dr. George Gilliam,
owner of an adjacent dentist office; and Mr. Leo Alexander.
Staff recommended that the applicant should provide 50
percent offices and 50 percent commercial uses, with the
offices located toward the residential area on the north and
any food service to be located in the southwestern corner.
Mr. Jim Moses represented the developer. He stated that the
church had enough parking without this lot, and the
developer preferred to have 75 percent retail /50 percent
office split; and he could currently build a high -rise
office building on this property. He also suggested that it
might be better to allocate uses among the buildings instead
of by percentages.
Ms. Cherrs explained that the neighborhood was composed of
two categories of persons: (1) retired persons on fixed
incomes; (2) young couples with their first homes and
limited income. She presented a petition with approximately
100 names. The major concerns expressed by all of the
spokespersons included a detrimental impact on the
neighborhood, fear of added traffic problesm and drainage
problems. Some neighbors were currently experiencing
drainage problems from a recently expanded shopping center
in the area. There was talk also of the present
difficulties encountered in getting in and out of the
Meadowbrook Subdivision on to Markham, which is worse with
the church cars parked along the street.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 11 - Continued
Dr. George Gilliam, an adjacent property owner to the east,
felt that this shopping center would be a duplicate of Green
Mountain Shopping Center, which was also done by this
applicant. He described it as being "appalling" and
presented photos which showed garbage barrels and night
lights in the back of the buildings. He felt that this
proposal would damage his property's value due to the
location of the rear of the buildings and interfere with
visibility to his office. He asked the Commission whether
or not they would support rezoning his property to
commercial, if they passed this application.
After being questioned by the Commission, members of the
neighborhood stated a preference for a high -rise office
building rather than retail uses. Henk Koornstra informed
the Commission that the traffic count on ,".Markham was 10,000
to 11,000 cars a day, and the capacity was for 15,000 to
18,000.
Finally, a motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed
by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Geyer Woods Development
Corporation
Suite 412, Union Sta. Sq.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 378 -7542
Geyer Woods Addition
"Short -Form PRD" (Z -4668)
East Side of Geyer Springs Road,
South of Palo Alto and North of
Rinke Road
ARCHITECT:
Eddie Branton
707 Wallace Building
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 372 -4730
AREA: 3.42 acres NO. OF LOTS: 30 FEET NEW ST.: 995
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: Townhouses
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
A. Development Objectives
(1) To develop a unique, narrowly- shaped and difficult
piece of property into a townhouse development.
B. Development Proposal
(1) The construction of 15 two story zero lot line
buildings, with two units per building on 30 lots
and 3.438 acres. Density equals nine units per
acre. Two parking spaces per unit are provided.
A typical unit will consist of 520 square feet of
ground floor area with 240 square feet of carport.
June 10, 1986
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
(2 ) Ratio of building to land 1 to 4.1.
(3) Development schedule - Work on the project will be
started within 60 days after final approval of the
project and be completed within 18 months.
(4) A standard 20 -foot street with a 40 -foot
right -of -way will be provided with a hammerhead
turnaround for the residence and service vehicles.
C. Analysis
The applicant has indicated in his submission that he
is attempting to develop property that has been passed
over and isolated and that also has development
constraints due to the need for extended utility
service lines and the narrow width of the property.
Thus, the only practical and economically feasible
means of development of the property was through the
PUD process with a townhouse style of residence.
Staff recognizes these facts; however, the project
still represents an unacceptable density. The PUD
guidelines specify a certain percentage of the property
to be devoted to landscaping, open space and
recreational areas. Staff recommends complete redesign
of the project to accommodate the stated guidelines. A
landscaping plan should be sumbitted also. Sidewalks
should be indicated. A 50 -foot right -of -way dedication
on Geyer Springs is requested. The proposed street is
inadequate. At least 27 feet is requested, with a
reduction to 24 feet if possible. Please specify the
height of buildings, submit stormwater detention and
calculation requirements.
Staff supports the use of the project, but feels that
redesign would create a more desirable living
environment. It may be possible to design the road to
go straight along the southern portion of the property
with clusters of units to the north. The applicant is
asked to get Lire Department approval.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 12 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of
the item.
Water Works Comments - On -site fire protection may be
required.
Sewer Comments - No plans submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 10 -86)
The applicant was present. A motion for a 30 -day deferral
was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1
absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13
NAME: J and J Piano and Organ
Company "Short -Form PCD"
(Z -4669)
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of University
and "H" Streets
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Olin J. Asbury McClelland Consulting Engrs.
2228 Cottondale Lane Mr. Steve Atherton
Little Rock, AR 72202 900 West Markham
Phone: 663 -7005 Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: 371 -0272
AREA: 1.732 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R -2"
PROPOSED USE: J and J Piano and Organ Company /Nichols
Furniture Company
A. Development Objectives
(1) To acquire the proposed site and build a structure
to accommodate a combination business /display of
pianos and furniture and warehouse space.
(2) To preserve the structural integrity of the
athletic field.
B. Development Proposal
(1) The construction of one building containing 20,000
square feet.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
(2) Use of space will be as follows:
a. Piano display ................... 4,000 S.F.
b. Nichols Furniture ............... 8,000 S.F.
(4,000 square feet on each of two levels)
C. Two -story ........ ..... • ....... 3,000 S.F.
d. Electronic organ display /
warehouse /expansion space ....... Northern
5,000 S.F.
(3) Twelve parking spaces are required.
C. Analysis
Staff is not supportive of this plan. The proposed
retail uses could lead to strip commercial development
along University, which is currently composed of mainly
office and multifamily uses. Staff has also had
preliminary discussions regarding a commercial use on
an abutting site. Thus, whatever is developed on this
site will be crucial to future uses along University
Avenue.
Access should be limited to the northernmost drive and
only if parking is redesigned to abut the street.
There should be 34 feet of street from the median to
curb. The handicapped ramps and access to the loading
dock must be approved by Traffic. The main drive
should be 24 feet at least. It is recommended that the
sidewalk be located at the property line away from
University to not at the curb.
D. Staff Recommendation
Denial as filed.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 13 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The main issue to be discussed was identified as land use.
A revised plan was submitted by the applicant.
Sewer Comments - Sewer available; however, may be somewhat
expensive.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant
requested a 2 -week deferral. A motion to this effect was
made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
i; June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14
NAME:
LOCATION:
DEVELOPER:
Prewitt Constr. Co., Inc.
9390 Research #200
Austin, TX 78759
Phone: 512 - 346 -1000
Highland Ridge Apartments
South Side of Mara Lynn Road -
Across from Napa Valley Apts.
ENGINEER:
Veron Vunagin
Duchscherer Oberst Design
9390 Research #210
Austin, TX 78759
Phone: 512 - 343 -1525
AREA: 18.217 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FEET NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "MF -12"
PROPOSED USE: Multifamily Apartments
PLANNING DISTRICT: Pleasant Valley #2
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05
VARIANCES REQUESTED: 13' height variance to be filed with
Board of Adjustment.
1. The construction of 220 apartment units on 18.217
acres.
2. Development Proposal
a. Average unit size .............737.27 square feet
b. Density ........................12 units per acre
t
1. June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
C. Impervious cover -
Apartments ...............62,698 square feet
Clubhouse .................3,508 square feet
Mailroom .................442 square feet
Maint. equipment storage..... 180 square feet
Pool maintenance storage...... 80 square feet
Total building ...........68,260 square feet
Parking .................160,862 square feet
Total coverage ..........242,562 square feet
Gross building area .....167,762 square feet
Actual parking - 338 cars
d. Unit tabulation
Unit Type Number
1 bedroom 132
2 bedroom 88
Total
3. Analysis
220
The proposed site has some extremely steep topography.
The floodway should be dedicated, and the old part of
Mara Lynn, just north of this property, closed. Staff
asks that Fire Department approval be obtained for the
eastern drive. Street grades should be shown. A
detailed cross section of the drive construction should
be submitted. Fire has requested turnaround space for
the driveway next to buildings Bl and Al.
4. Staff Recommendation
Approval, subject to comments made.
June 10, 1986
I
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 14 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The item was reviewed, and the applicant was asked to:
(1) get approval from the Traffic Engineer and Fire
Department; and (2) petition to close Mara Lynn.
Water Works Comments - On -site fire protection required.
Should revise fire hydrant layout submitted to developer.
Sewer Comments - Sewer available. Cap. cont. analysis
required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A
motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10
ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15
NAME: United Parcel Service
Site Plan Review (z- 4577 -A)
LOCATION: On Fourche Dam Pike just east
of Lindsey Road (5501 Fourche
Dam Pike)
OWNER /APPLICANT: United Parcel Service /Harwood K.
Smith and Partners, Mike Vela
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 211,000 square foot distribution warehouse
facility (31,000 square feet is office space) with 482
automobile parking spaces (includes 19 visitor parking
spaces in a separate area) and various staging, parking and
washing facilities for trucks and underground fuel storage
tanks on 43.8+ acres of land that is zoned "I- 1 " / "OS."
ANALYSIS:
This property is adjacent to the recently constructed
relocated Fourche Dam Pike and is surrounded on two sides by
vacant land and by some scattered single family uses located
to the north and east. The staff supports the proposal but
does, however, need a revised site plan that includes the
entirety of the property, and also includes a 25 feet
landscaped strip along the boundary streets (Fourche Dam
Pike Relocated), and a 6 feet screening fence along the
entire south property line as required by ordinance. The
revised site plan should include the 100 feet open space on
the north and east. The staff also recommends that the open
space remain undisturbed (Pecan Orchard) to act as a buffer
to the single family uses located to the north and the east.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
4. City Engineering Comments
The applicant needs to: (1) dedicate and construct
Fourche Dam Pike (north side) to collector street
standards for the length of the property; (2) dedicate
and construct Fourche Pam Relocated to industrial
collector street standards (total of 22 feet of
pavement on the east side adjacent to this property);
and (3) relocate the northernmost entrance on Fourche
Dam Pike Relocated approximately 50 feet to the south
(consult with the City Traffic Engineer).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a
revised site plan which includes the entirety of the
property showing the full 100 feet buffer area on the north
and east (undisturbed), a relocated northernmost drive, and
25 feet landscaped strip along Fource Dam Pike Relocated and
a 6 feet screening fence along the entire south property
line; and (2) comply with City Engineering comments numbered
1, 2 and 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present. The applicant agreed to submit a
revised site plan that would include the entire site and
that would also include a relocated access drive (the
northernmost on Fourche Dam Pike relocated) as well as the
100 foot buffer (OS) on the north and east property lines.
The applicant stated that the 25 feet landscape area was not
on their property (Airport Commission's) and that they would
hydramulch the area. The Committee stated that they did not
feel that the applicant should be required to provide the 25
feet landscape area. The applicant felt that they should
not be required to construct Fourche Dam Pike because they
would not have any access to it (the right -of -way has
already been dedicated at the time of the original
rezoning). The applicant also felt that they should not be
required to construct the additional pavement on Fourche Dam
Pike relocated since the Airport Commission owned the land.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 15 - Continued
The Committee asked the City Engineer to confer with the
Airport Commission to determine the status of Fourche Dam
Pike relocated and to ascertain the necessity of the
applicant being required to construct Fourche Dam Pike.
Finally, the applicant felt that they should not be required
to provide the screening fence on the south property line.
The Committee asked the Staff to check with the City
Attorney to determine if the fence was required. If the
City Attorney found that a screening fence was required, the
applicant was informed that they would be required to gain a
variance from the Board of Adjustment to relieve themselves
of the requirement to build the screening fence. The
applicant was also informed that a 12 inch water main
extension, on -site fire protection, and a possible capital
contribution (sewer) would be required. Finally, the
Committee requested that all adjacent property owners be
notified.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that they had received a revised site plan as
had been requested. The staff also stated that they needed
another revised site plan that includes a screening fence on
the south property line and the movement of the tunnel wash
building to a point 30 feet from the side yard property line
to meet the "I -1" requirements. The applicant was informed
that he would be required to file variance requests with the
Board of Adjustment to alleviate the 30 feet side yard and
the screening fence requirements. A lengthy discussion
ensued about possible ways to expedite the variance
procedures. Mr. Bill Putnam stated that the U.P.S. has been
granted a legal access easement to airport property. The
City Engineer stated that Fourche Dam Pike relocated would
be acceptable. Mr. Bill Putnam, agent for the Cherry
estate (adjacent property owner to the south of the U.P.S.
site), stated that they would give 15 feet of property to
U.P.S. which would allow the property to meet the required
30 feet side yard setback. The Commission then voted
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to approve the application as
amended by Mr. Putnam.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16
NAME:
LOCATION:
OWNER /APPLICANT:
Best Tire Company - Conditional
Use Permit (Z- 1662 -A)
Just northwest of the
intersection of West Markham
Street and Markham Park Drive
The Danny Thomas Company /Bill
McClard
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 5,182 square feet tire dealership
(northernmost building) with eight parking spaces and to
construct a future 4,400 square feet automobile muffler
installation shop on a .7+ acre of land that is zoned
"C-3. "
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to the proposed Markham Park Drive (collector
street standard).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
The entire area is vacant and is surrounded by "C -3"
zoning except for a strip of "R -2" zoning located in
the Rock Creek Floodway. The proposed uses are
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The proposal contains two 25 feet access drives on the
proposed Markham Park Drive and eight parking spaces.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
4. Screening and Buffers
The site plan contains a proposed landscape area.
5. Analysis
This staff foresees no adverse impact on surrounding
area due to this proposal. The staff does, however,
have a number of comments regarding the proposal. The
staff needs a revised site plan which should include
the floodplain and floodway information as it relates
to this site. The southernmost building should also be
25 feet from the rear property line. The proposed
parking is woefully inadequate. The Tire Company
Building (northernmost building) requires 17 paved
parking spaces while the southern building requires 15
paved parking spaces. The revised site plan should
include an additional 24 parking spaces. The
possibility exists that the site may be too small for
two buildings (especially considering the possible
floodway line). Finally, the staff would like to know
when the proposed right -of -way will be dedicated and
constructed so that the site will have access.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant needs to: (1) show the floodway and
floodplain line and the mininum floor elevation on the
site plan (as the future building may be in the
floodplain; and (2) reduce the access drives from two
to one.
7. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval provided the applicant:
(1) submits a revised site plan which includes the
required parking spaces, one access drive, the
floodway /floodplain, minimum floor elevations and rear
setback line of 25 feet; (2) provides information on
dedication and construction of Markham Park Drive; and
(3) agrees to comply with City Engineering comments
numbered 1 and 2.
June 10, 1986
1,
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 16 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and stated that the property was
not in either the floodplain or the floodway. The applicant
stated that he preferred two access drives. He was advised
to meet with the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant
stated that he would submit a revised site plan that
included the required parking but asked that the required
rear setback (25 feet) be reduced to 15 feet on the west
side of the lot due to the unusual configuration of the
lot. The Staff stated that the Commission could recommend
that the Board vary the rear setback line as part of this
Conditional Use Permit application. Additionally, the
applicant was unable to provide the dedication or
construction completion date of Markham Park Drive. A
lengthy discussion ensued about the appropriateness of
approving a Conditional Use Permit prior to the dedication
and construction of the adjacent street right -of -way. The
applicant stated that he would obtain the necessary
information about the construction of Markham Park Drive.
Finally, the Water Department stated that a 12 inch water
main extension would be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and
a letter from Mehlburger Engineers which stated that the
south 50 feet of the property was in the floodway, but that
F.E.M.A. had given them permission to fill the property so
that none of it would be in the floodway or floodplain. The
letter also stated that Markham Park Drive and the landfill
would be completed by the end of June 1986. The applicant
confirmed and affirmed the Mehlburger Engineers' letter.
The staff stated that the revised site plan did not meet all
earlier requirements. The applicant stated that he wished
to further revise the site plan to delete the future
building and to show one 20 feet access on the west property
line which would be joined by a 20 -feet access (common) on
the adjacent property. The City Traffic Engineer stated
that this access arrangement was acceptable. Finally, the
staff stated that the revised plan had adequate parking.
The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and
1 abstention (Jones) to approve the application as amended
by the applicant and agreed to by the staff.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17
NAME: Hidden Valley Self Storage
Conditional Use Permit
(Z- 3727 -B)
LOCATION: Just east of the intersection of
the northeast corner of Keightly
and Cantrell Road (225 Keightly
Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Property Partners Limited
Partnership /Ralph Bozeman
howT.Mst -sire
To rezone the property to "C -3" and to obtain a conditional
use permit which would allow the construction of a 2,448
square feet self storage building on .2353 acre of land that
is currently zoned "R -5."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an existing apartment complex.
2. Comvatibility with Neiqhborhood
This property is abutted by commercial uses on the
south and the east. A vacant area (deep wooded ravine)
is located to the north with multifamily located to the
west. One single family use lies some distance to the
northeast (below grade) and partly shielded by woods).
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parkin
The site is served a 17 feet access drive and an
adjacent parking area.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 17 - Continued
4. Screeninq and Buffers
No landscape plan has been submitted.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposal is compatible with
the surrounding area. The applicant does, however,
need to submit a landscape plan.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant needs to ensure that they have Fire
Department approval.
7. Staff Recommendation
'The staff recommends approval provided the applicant:
(1) submits a landscape plan, (2) receives Fire
Department approval, and (3) receives the necessary
"C -3" zoning.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was not present.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The item was not discussed.
The applicant was present. There was one objector present
(Paul Smith). Mr. Smith objected due to the infringement of
commercial activity to a residential neighborhood. The
applicant stated that there would be no outside lighting. A
lengthy discussed ensued. The Commission voted 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent to approve the application provided the
applicant placed a screening fence around the site.
June 10, 1986
Item No. 17A - Z- 3727 -C
Owner: Property Partners Ltd, Partnership
Applicant: Ralph Bozeman
Location: North of Cantrell Road and East
of Keightley
Request: Rezone from "R -5" to "C -3"
Purpose: Self Storage Warehouse
Size: 0.23 acre
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant, Zoned "R -2" and "R -5"
South - Commercial, Zoned "C -3"
East - Vacant and Commercial, Zoned "R -2" and "C -4"
West - Multifamily and Commercial, Zoned "R -5" and
"C -3"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request is to rezone the property to "C -3" for a
self- storage facility which also requires a conditional use
permit. (The conditional use permit proposal is on this
agenda, Item No. 17.) The site is located north of the
commercial strip along Cantrell Road between Kingsrow and
Keightly. It is a part of larger tract that has been
developed for a multifamily project which is located more to
the west. The closest single family residence is to the
northeast but is somewhat removed from the property because
of a wooded area.
Staff feels that the request is appropriate for the location
and supports the "C -3" reclassification. The rezoning
should not have an impact on the adjacent properties or the
single family residences to the north and northeast.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the "C -3" request as filed.
June 10, 1986
1
Item No. 17A - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Ralph Bozeman, was present. There was one
objector in attendance who spoke first. Paul Smith of
125 Winnwood addressed the Commission and described a
petition with 19 signatures opposed to the "C -3" rezoning
that had been submitted to the staff and Planning Commission
members prior to the hearing. He said that the area under
consideration was closer to the single family residences
than the apartments and there were no plans for a privacy
fence. Mr. Smith said that there could be potential noise
problems and another use could be placed there once it was
zoned "C -3." Mr. Bozeman then spoke. He said that the
property was originally rezoned from commercial to "R -5" and
the "C -3" rezoning was being requested to open up the self
storage facility to users other than the apartment
residents. Mr. Bozeman went on to describe the site, and
there was some discussion about access. At that point, both
Mr. Smith and Mr. Bozeman made additional comments. A
motion was then made to recommend approval of the "C -3"
rezoning as filed. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
June 10, 1986
} SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18
NAME: Second Presbyterian Church
Conditional Use Permit
(Z -4670)
LOCATION: The southeast corner of the
intersection of I -430 and
State Highway No. 10
(600 Pleasant Valley Drive)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Second Presbyterian Church/
H. Terry Rasco
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 30,000 square feet addition (two -story Sunday
School classroom, kitchen, stage, etc.) to an existing
sanctuary (600 capacity) and a net increase of about 150
parking spaces as well as the proposed median cut and
median realignment on Pleasant Valley Drive on 8.70+ acres
of land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an interstate on the west (I -430) and
arterial on the north (Cantrell Road) and a collector
street on the east (Pleasant Valley Drive).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is adjacent to an interstate and an arterial
street on the west and north respectively, and
multifamily on the south and east. The proposed use is
compatible with the surrounding area.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
} Two access drives to Pleasant Valley Drive currently
serve this site. The site also contains 236 parking
spaces. The proposal calls for the realignment of the
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
northernmost median cut as well as a new median cut on
the south. The proposal also provides for a total of
381 parking spaces.
4. Screening and Buffers
The proposal contains a 6 feet wood screening fence on
the south property line as well as leaving all areas
not constructed upon in their natural state.
5. Analysis
The staff feels that the proposed use will be
compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does,
however, need a revised site plan which would show the
existing access points on the east side of Pleasant
Valley Drive as well as on the church property.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant needs to; (1) meet stormwater detention
requirements; (2) submit a revised site plan which
realigns both sides of the existing median cut (north
and south); and (3) deletes the southernmost proposed
median cut.
7. Staff Recommendation
Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit
a revised site plan which includes all the access
points on the east side of Pleasant Valley Drive, as
well as the west side, realigns both sides of the
existing median cut (north and south), and deletes the
proposed southern median cut; and (2) complies with
City Engineering comments numbered 1, 2 and 3.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with
stormwater detention requirements but expressed surprise and
concern over the City Engineer's recommendations on the
proposed accesses. The Committee asked that the Staff and
the applicant meet to try and resolve the access issues.
The Water Works stated that an on -site fire protection
system may be required.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 18 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The
applicant stated that they were withdrawing the request for
a median cut and a median realignment. The Commission then
voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Jones) to
approve the application as recommended by the staff,
reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the
applicant.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19
NAME:
Trinity United Methodist
Church - Conditional Use
Permit (Z -4671)
LOCATION: The southeast corner of the
intersection of North
Mississippi Avenue and
Evergreen Street (1101 North
Mississippi)
OWNER /APPLICANT: Trinity United Methodist
Church/ 0. Wayne Long
PROPOSAL:
To construct a 3800+ square feet sanctuary (600 capacity), a
classroom addition, ancillary space (16,345 square feet of
total new construction), a new ingress and egress on
Mississippi Avenue and to expand an existing ingress /egress
on Evergreen Street on land that is zoned "R -2."
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Adjacent to an arterial on the west (Mississippi
Avenue) and a collector street on the north (Evergreen
Street).
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood
This site is abutted by single family on the north
(across Evergreen) and south (above grade), a church to
the west (across Mississippi Avenue) and a vacant tract
located to the east (woods). This use is compatible
with the surrounding area.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - Continued
3. On -Site Drives and Parking
The site currently is served by three access drives
from Evergreen Street and 187 paved parking spaces.
The proposal calls for opening an ingress /egress on
Mississippi Avenue and expanding the existing access
(the northwesterly access on Evergreen Street) to two
points (one ingress and one egress).
4. Screening and Buffers
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan.
5. Analysis
The staff foresees no adverse impact to the surrounding
area as a result of this proposal. The staff would
like, however, for the record to reflect that the
barricade at the end of Shamrock (on the extreme
southeast portion of this property) should remain in
place with no future access to be taken.
*The applicant is requesting a height variance of 15
feet on the proposed sanctuary building.
6. City Engineering Comments
The applicant will be required to meet stormwater
detention requirements.
7. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval subject: (1) to the
applicant agreeing to prohibit future access on
Shamrock; (2) to the Planning Commission approval of 15
feet height variance on the proposed sanctuary
building; and (3) to the applicant agreeing to comply
with stormwater detention requirements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was present and agreed to comply with Staff
recommendations.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 19 - C,ontinued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present. The Commission voted 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent to approve the application as
recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision
Committee and agreed to by the applicant.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Street Right -of -Way Abandonment
NAME:
Riffel Avenue
LOCATION: South off I -440, One Block West
of Bankhead Drive Overpass
OWNER /APPLICANT: Los Cuartos
REQUEST: To abandon this one -half block
segment of right -of -way for
development within the
Los Cuartos Motel project.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way
None as evidenced by its not having been opened or
improved.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no Master Street Plan issues attendant to
this abandonment.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
A subdivision plat has addressed this matter.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
The right -of -way is timber covered with very little
grade. Currently, this area is involved in preparation
for the construction of the Los Cuartos Motel.
5. Development Potential
None except as.a component of the redevelopment
underway adjacent. This request was triggered by a
design problem where a need arose to place fill in this
right -of -way area.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 20 - Continued
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Most of the abutting land is residential and outside
the City limits. The only uses lying in the immediate
vicinity other than the Holiday Inn are several
scattered residential structures.
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed at this writing.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
The retention of utility easement rights is required
within the ordinance.
9. Reversionary Rights
This right -of -way will revert to the abutting owners
equally.
} 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this unopened and unused street
right -of -way will return to the private sector the land
area that will be productive for the real estate tax
base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends approval of the abandonment
subject to the inclusion within the abandoning ordinance of
utility easement protection.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 6 -10 -86
The applicant was present. The Planning staff offered its
recommendation. There were no objectors in attendance.
After a brief discussion, the Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval to the City Board. The motion passed
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Street Right -of -Way Abandonment
NAME:
The alley in Block 10 of
Riffel and Holder's 2nd Addition
LOCATION: Lying South of West 30th Street
One -Half Block West of
Washington Street
OWNER /APPLICANT: Russell Clark
'DPOTIPQrP.
STAFF REVIEW:
To abandon and join with
abutting lots for
redevelopment.
1. Public Need for this Right -of -Wa
None expressed at this writing.
2. Master Street Plan
There are no requirements attendant to this issue.
3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets
None required inasmuch as the rezoning action provided
dedication.
4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain
Generally flat grade not now in use as an alley with no
appearance of ever being used as an alley.
5. Development Potential
None except redevelopment with the abutting lots.
6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
Mixed uses of commercial and industrial abut this block
on the south and east with some industrial on the
north. To the west lies a residential area across
Jennie Street. No adverse effect should occur.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 21 - Continued
7. Neighborhood Position
None expressed. However, owners along the east /west
leg of the alley may comment at the meeting.
8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Utility easement rights should be provided in the
abandonment ordinance.
9. Reversionary Rights
To abutting owners equally on the south 481+ all of the
balance of the alley will revert to the applicant,
Mr. Clark.
10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
The abandonment of this segment of alley will return to
the private sector a land area that will be productive
for the real estate tax base.
i
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning staff recommends approval subject to retention
of the rights of utilities within the abandonment ordinance
and the filing of a replat of the adjacent lots to combine
this right -of -way and the various lots into a single
industrial site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 6 -10 -86
The applicant was present. The Planning staff offered its
recommendation. There were no objectors in attendance.
After a brief discussion, the Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval to the City Board. The motion passed
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22
NAME:
Executive Court - Sidewalk
Waiver Request
LOCATION: 324 Executive Court
APPLICANT: Jerry Wooldridge
Bozeman, Wooldridge and Assoc.
320 Executive Court, Suite 301
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: 227 -9490
REQUEST: To waive the requirements to install a 4' wide
sidewalk along the north property line at 324 Executive
Court.
A. Staff Report
The applicant is requesting that he be allowed a waiver
of sidewalk requirements along the portion of Executive
Court where he currently has a landscaping strip. He
explains that they mistakenly omitted sidewalks.
B. Staff Recommendation
Denial, based on the fact that the ordinance requires
sidewalks.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW
There was no discussion of the item.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 22 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff modified its position in support of the waiver since
sidewalks were provided on the remainder of the plat and a
sidewalk on this small portion of just a cul -de -sac would
not serve any significant purpose. A motion for approval
was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4
absent.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23
NAME:
Burnt Tree II - Preliminary
Plat - Sidewalk Waiver Request
LOCATION: West of Windsor Drive
APPLICANT: Mr. Bob Richardson
1717 Rebsamen Park Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
Phone: 664 -0003
REQUEST: Waiver of the sidewalk requirements in the
subdivision.
A. Staff Report
The applicant, Mr. Bob Richardson, is requesting a
waiver of sidewalks in this subdivision. He states
that this phase services only 19 lots and the total
length of the street is only 800 feet, which is only 50
feet longer than the length of the cul -de -sac without a
waiver. He states that he "can see no reason to
classify this street all the way from Winborough and
Phase I as a minor residential street."
B. Staff Recommendation
Denial of the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
The applicant was informed that the item would be discussed
at the Planning Commissiom meeting.
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 23 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
A motion for denial of the request was made and passed by a
vote of 3 ayes, 5 noes and 3 absent.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V O T E R E C O R D
DATEL,
ITEM NUMBERS
ZONING SUBDIVISION
MEMBER
J. ' •ummerlin
J . S ch I e re t h
v
L'
L1
R. Massie
y
J
r,
B. Sipes
•�
v"
.f
-
�'
a,
�,=
"
v
J. Nicholson
®/
�/
✓
e/
�/
�'
lz
W. Rector
rd`
rte"
W. Retcher
D. Arnett
�✓
�'
/
�1
�'
�°,
�
,�
_O_
�`
D. J. Jones
s✓
r�
�'
,�
°�
✓
�(
/
I. Boles
✓
e✓"
�"
r�
�/
/
,�
F. Perkins
,✓
�'
�
,/
✓
��
�°
�/�
✓.
V AYE NAPE ArABSENT ABSTAIN
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
V 0 T E R E C 0 R D
DATI�
ITEM NUMBERS
VA YE NAYE ABSENT ABSTAIN
ZONING
3UBr)jVTRT0M
MEMBER
I
A
�
�;
;
"
J.
Summerlin _
r7V
J.
Schlereth
R.
Massie
e�
a,E
°��
✓
//
1
B.
Si es
0.
Nicholson
�+
P,/
6/
A
W.
Rector
W.
Retcher
�
kl
�
�
�
�
4v
D.
Arnett
D.
J. Jones
✓
d�
ti
t
I.
Bol es
'
F.
Perkins
✓
/�`
VA YE NAYE ABSENT ABSTAIN
June 10, 1986
SUBDIVISION
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.
Chairman
Date:
Secretary